The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20110978 Ver 1_Complete File_20071130SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) WBS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c) ?pf plORiN ?\ 1P `7 h APPROVED: W ?? f o C%-mot - ?y 4.1- -T egory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager j.,ect Development and Environmental Date John FSullivan III, P. E., Division Adm 4'LFederal'Highway Administration is Branch, NCDOT ator IVO ? ? n F ??? 2007 t'?ETt.HiVD,,:?NU ??•TpR.N,N'a? ti? ?xr. n?•.;r?t . SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) WBS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT North Carolina Department of Transportation October, 2007 Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by: k01240-7 IM Date Matthew W. Potter Pr 'e t Plan10'? D to J?Oles R. Cox, FIE. P of ect Engineer ?'??sFSSin °•??9 I PROJECT COMMITMENTS SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford. Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) WBS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 I Financial Mana ement Section Roadway Des* Unit A municipal agreement will be implemented between NCDOT and the City Nolf?Fea ettte ille or the inclusion of sidewalks along all sections of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) Y d not 'currently exist. Based on NC-DOT's Pedestrian Policy, the City of Fayetteville will fund 50% of fi the cost of the sidewalks. II I Congestion Management Section Roadway Desim Unit A school operations study was completed for both Montclair Elementary from the o enda ions' J Academy: The Roadway Design Unit will incorporate the results an study into the final design. Roadway Design Unit , The project includes 13-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. I " I , I ; U-4422 Environmental Assessment Page of 1 October, 2007 l-1 1 ?.?.} 7 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. III-i A. TYPE OF ACTION ..............................................................................................................III-i B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... III-i C. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT .................................................................................. III-ii D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .......................................................................................... III-ii E. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... III-ii F. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................................................................... III-ii G. SPECIAL PERMITS REQUIRED .......................................................................................... III-iii H. COORDINATION .............................................................................................................. III-iv 1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ III-iv I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................... I II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................... 2 A. CONNECTIVITY .....................................................................................................................2 B. CAPACITY ............................................................................................................................ 2 C. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................................... 3 III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY ....................................................................... 4 A. LENGTH OF PROJECT ............................................................................................................ 4 B. ROUTE CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 4 C. EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION ................................................................................................. 4 D. PROJECT TERMINALS ........................................................................................................... 4 E. RIGHT OF WAY ........................................:........................................................................... 4 F. BRIDGE/DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ......................................................................................... 4 G. SPEED LIMIT ......................................................................................................................... 4 H. ACCESS CONTROL ................................................................................................................ 4 1. INTERSECTION AND TYPE OF CONTROL ................................................................................ 5 J. UTILITIES ............................................................................................................................. 5 K. SCHOOL BUSES .................................................................................................................... 5 L. RAILROAD CROSSINGS ......................................................................................................... 5 M. SIDEWALKS ..........................................................................................................................5 N. PARKING .............................................................................................................................. 5 0. BICYCLES .............................................................................................................................5 P. GREENWAYS ........................................................................................................................ 5 Q. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENTS ......................................................................... 6 R. SCHOOL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ............................................................................................ 6 S. OTHER TIP PROJECTS .......................................................................................................... S IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................ 9 A. "NO BUILD" ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 9 B. WIDENING/NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 9 C. CAPACITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 10 D. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................... 12 V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................................13 II-i A. DESIGN SPEED ................................................................................................................... 13 B. TYPICAL SECTION ..............:.............................................................................................. 13 C. RIGHT OF WAY .................................................................................................................. 13 D. ACCESS CONTROL .............................................................................................................. 13 E. STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 13 F. PARKING ............................................................................................................:............... 13 G. SIDEWALKS/PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ................................................................................ 13 H. BICYCLE PROVISIONS .......................................................................................................... 14 1. INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND TYPE OF CONTROL .......................................................... 14 J. SCHOOL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS .......................................................................................... 15 K. SCHEDULES & COSTS ......................................................................................................... 16 VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................. 17 A. COMMUNITY EFFECTS ........................................................................................................ 17 1. Community Characteristics ........................................................................................... 17 a. Study Area Descriptions ............................................................................................... 17 b. Community Characteristics ........................................................................................... 18 c. Population Characteristics ............................................................................................ 18 d. Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................ 19 e. Age ................................................................................................................................ 20 f. Income ........................................................................................................................... 20 g. Housing Characteristics ................................................................................................ 20 h. Business and Employment Characteristics ................................................................... 20 i. Community Resources - Facilities ............................................................................... 21 j. Community Resources - Infrastructure ..............:......................................................... 21 k. Emergency Services ...................................................................................................... 22 1. Plans and Regulations ................................................................................................... 23 2. Community Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 25 a. Community Impact Assessment Overview ................................................................... 25 b. Displacements/Relocation Impacts ............................................................................... 26 c. Land Use Patterns and Compatibility ........................................................................... 28 d. Economic Conditions .................................................................................................... 28 e. Transportation Access ................................................................................................... 28 f. Transportation Network ................................................................................................ 29 g. Farmland Impacts .......................................................................................................... 30 h. Enviromnental Justice and Title VI .............................................................................. 30 3. Indirect and Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................. 31 B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ........... ....................................................................................... 32 1. Compliance Guidelines ................................................................................................. 32 2. Historic Architecture ..................................................................................................... 32 3. Archaeology .................................................................................................................. 32 C. SECTION 4(F) ...................................................................................................................... 32 D. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 32 E. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS ............................................ 39 F. GEODETIC MARKERS .......................................................................... ........................... 41 II-ii G. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................................... 41 VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................... 44 A. PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 44 1. Soils .............................................................................................................................. 44 2. Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 45 a. Water Quality Classification ......................................................................................... 45 b. Water Quality Information ............................................................................................ 46 c. Impaired Waters ............................................................................................................ 46 d. Permitted Discharges .................................................................................................... 46 e. Water Resource Impacts ............................................................................................... 47 B. BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 48 1. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................................... 48 a. Plant Communities ........................................................................................................ 48 b. Fauna ............................................................................................................................. 49 c. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .......................................................... 49 2. Aquatic Communities ................................................................................................... 50 a. Aquatic Habitats ............................................................................................................ 50 b. Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Communities .............................................................. 50 C. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ..................................................................................................... 51 1. Waters of the United States .................... ................................................................... 51 a. Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 51 b. Jurisdictional Streams ................................................................................................... 51 c. Potential Wetland and Stream Impacts ......................................................................... 52 D. PERMITTING ....................................................................................................................... 52 1. Permits and Certifications Required ............................................................................. 52 a. Section 404 .................................................................................................................... 52 b. Section 401. ............. .:.......................................................................................52 2. Instream Structures ....................................................................................................... 53 E. PROTECTED SPECIES .......................................................................................................... 53 1. Federally Protected Species .......................................................................................... 53 2. Federal Species of Concern ........................................................................................... 58 3. State Protected Species ................................................................................................. 60 VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................... 61 A. COMMENTS SOLICITED ...................................................................................................... 61 B. NEPA/ 404 PROCESS COORDINATION ................................................................................ 61 C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................................... 61 II-iii TABLES TABLE S-1: TABLE 1: TABLE 2: TABLE 3: TABLE 4: TABLE 5: TABLE 6: TABLE 7: TABLE 8: TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................111-iii COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 10 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - 2005 AND 2030 ............................................. 11 SCHEDULES & COSTS ............................................................................................. 16 POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2000 ........................................................................ 18 POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2000 ............................................................... 19 KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES .............................. 43 ESTIMATED AREA OF IMPACT TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .............................. 50 SPECIES UNDER FEDERAL PROTECTION IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY ....................... 54 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY ................................... 59 II-iv APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 2005/2030 Traffic (AADT) Figure 3 TIP Projects in the Area of U-4422 Figure 4 Current Alternatives Figure 5 Proposed Typical Section Figure 6 Community Features Map Figure 7 Community Facilities Map Figure 8 School Traffic Operations Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies Appendix C Air Quality Reports/ Noise Reports Appendix D Relocation Report II-v SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffda)e Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) WBS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 SUMMARY A. Type of Action This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of this proposed transportation improvement project. From this evaluation, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) anticipate significant impacts to the environment will not occur due to this proposed project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation, likely a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document. B. General Description The NCDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, proposes widening and extension of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) in Fayetteville, Cumberland County (see Figure 1). The widening will convert the neighborhood street from its current configuration as a two-lane facility to a four-lane, median-divided facility. The project will include extending SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to Belford Road, and widening SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from Belford Road to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The proposed facility will have 11-foot inside lanes, 13-foot outside lanes, and a 16-foot raised grass median with curb and gutter. The project will also include sidewalks along both sides of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The total length of the project is 1.2 miles. This project is included in the approved 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The total cost in the TIP is $9,600,000, which includes $2,550,000 for right of way and $7,050,000 for construction. The current estimated cost is $10,922,270. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2008 and construction in FFY 2010. III-i C. Purpose and Need for Proiect The purpose of the proposed action is to: ¦ Improve local connectivity- by completing the needed direct link between NC 59 and the commercial district on the north side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). ¦ Improve capacity - by providing additional through lanes on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and redirecting traffic from heavily congested adjacent roadways. D. Alternatives Considered The alternatives considered for the project consists of the "no-build" alternative and two widening alternatives. Alternative 1 includes widening with signalized intersection control, while Alternative 2 utilizes roundabout intersection controls. E. Recommended Alternative Alternative 2 is the recommended alternative because it provides a sufficient level of service for the design year (2030) as well as traffic calming benefits. The roundabouts will help to reduce the speed of vehicles traveling along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and is suitable for the 35 mph speed limit. Alternative 2 will increase safety for pedestrian traffic along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) by reducing speeds at major intersections, improving pedestrian crossings, and extending sidewalks to US 401 Business (Raeford Road). F. Summary of Environmental Effects Adverse impacts to the human and natural environment were minimized through the development of best-fit alignments. No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a result of the project. The proposed project will not impact any properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. None of the alternatives will encroach upon any known archaeological sites on or eligible for listing in the National Register. A maximum of five business relocations could occur, no residential relocations are anticipated as a result of this proposed improvement. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to + 13 dBA; however, no noise abatement measures are recommended at this time. Seven federally protected species are listed for Cumberland County. The biological conclusion for six species was "No Effect". The seventh species requires no biological conclusion. Table S-1 gives a comparison of the alternatives. Figure 4 shows the alternatives. III-ii Table S-1: Comparison of Alternatives Resource Alternative 1 Mternative 2 Length 1.2 miles 1.2 miles Railroad Crossings 1 1 Schools 2 2 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 Churches 2 2 Cemeteries 0 0 Major Utility Crossings 0 0 National Register Eligible Properties 0 0 Archaeological Sites 0 0 Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 100-Year Floodplain Crossings 0 0 Acreage of Prime Farmland 0 0 Residential Relocations 0 0 Business Relocations 5 5 Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 Wetland Irn acts 0 acres 0 acres umber of Stream Crossings 1 1 Total Stream Impacts 0 0 Substantial Noise Impacts 0 0 Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 Section 4(f) Impacts (Historic) 0 0 Low Income Population Impacts 0 0 Minority Population Impacts 0 0 Construction Cost $5,950,000 $6,050,000 Right of Way Cost $4,345,000 $4,570,800 Utilities Cost $427,190 $301,470 Total Cost $10;722,190 $10,922,270 G. Special Permits Required There are no stream or wetland impacts anticipated. Therefore the need for stream or' wetland permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers or NC Division of Water Quality is not expected. However, if the culvert located just south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) is replaced or extended then it may be necessary to obtain a permit for the replacement. III-iii H. Coordination Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted with an asterisk (*) during the preparation of this assessment. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service * State Clearinghouse N.C. Department of Cultural Resources * N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resource * N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission N.C. Division of Water Quality N.C. Department of Public Instruction Cumberland-Fayetteville Schools * City of Fayetteville 1. Additional Information Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting either of the following: John F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 856-4346 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone (919) 733-3141 III-iv SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) WBS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes widening and extension of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) in Fayetteville, Cumberland County (see Figure 1). The widening will convert the neighborhood street from its current configuration as a two-lane facility to a four-lane, median- divided facility. The project will include extending SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to Belford Road, and widening SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from Belford Road to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The proposed facility will have 11-foot inside lanes, 13-foot outside lanes, and a 16-foot raised grass median with curb and gutter. The project will also include sidewalks along both sides of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The total length of the project is 1.2 miles. This project is included in the approved 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The total cost in the TIP is $9,600,000, which includes $2,550,000 for right of way and $7,050,000 for construction. The current estimated cost is $10,922,270. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2008 and construction in FFY 2010. II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT The need for the proposed transportation project results from two areas: 1) Connectivity and 2) Capacity. A. Connectivity In the 1990's, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) was extended north of this project from SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) to SR 1404 (Morganton Road), providing better access to the Cross Creek Mall and surrounding commercial district. South of the project; NC 59 (Hope Mills Road) was recently widened. A growing number of drivers are now avoiding the larger corridors of US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and are cutting through the Montclair subdivision by using a portion of SR 1596 (Glensford Road), Belford Road, and Brighton Road as an alternative route. The proposed connection and widening is identified on the Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) highway plan. The project will improve local and regional connectivity by completing the needed direct link between NC 59 and the commercial district on the north side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). This direct link will reduce the amount of circuitous travel through the Montclair subdivision and other major routes such as US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and US 401 Business (Raeford Road). Therefore, providing the needed increase in north-south connectivity for this section of Fayetteville. B. Ca aci , The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability. Levels of service range from LOS A to F. Level. of Service A represents unrestricted maneuverability and operating speeds. Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal operating speeds close to the speed limit. Level of,service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and unstable, low operating speeds. Level of service E represents . operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Breakdown conditions are characterized by stop and go travel; this occurs at level of service F. According to Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's (FAMPO's) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and US 401 Business (Raeford Road), are considered two the most congested roads in the area. The traffic is currently approximately 25,000 vehicles per day (VPD) on Skibo Road and 22,600 VPD on Raeford Road. The traffic is anticipated to increase to 42,500 and 32,800 by the year 2030. Figures 2a - 2d display current and projected average daily volumes along the corridor. As mentioned earlier, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is already being utilized as an alternative route to Skibo Road. The traffic on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) ranges from 6,500 to 3,200 VPD. Even with no improvements, the traffic on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is anticipated to increase to 9,400 and 4,700 VPD by the year 2030. 2 The existing two-lane SR 1596 (Glensford Road) will not provide adequate through and left-turn movement capacity to service the projected 2030 traffic volumes. All intersections are expected to function at the LOS F without improvements. If the proposed project is constructed, traffic on Skibo Road and Raeford Road will be reduce by approximately 4,000 VPD. C. Purpose of the Project The purpose of the proposed project is to: ¦ Improve local connectivity- by completing the needed direct link between NC 59 and the commercial district on the north side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). ¦ Improve capacity -by providing additional through lanes on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and redirecting traffic from heavily congested adjacent roadways. III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY A. Length of Proiect The total length of the proposed project is 1.2 miles. B. Route Classification SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is designated as a collector street on the North Carolina Statewide Functional Classification System. C. Existing Typical Section SR 1596 (Glensford Road) currently consists of two primary cross sections. Between its intersections with SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and Montclair Road, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) consists of one 12-foot lane in each direction, one 12-foot center turn lane, and grass shoulders with ditches on both sides. The section of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between Montclair Road and Belford Road consists of one 17-foot lane in each direction with modified asphalt shoulder berm gutters. At major intersections the facility widens to accommodate exclusive left-turn lanes. D. Proiect Terminals The southern project terminal is the intersection of US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and NC 59 (Hope Mills Road). The northern project terminal is at the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). E. Right of Way The existing right of way along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is 80 feet. F. Bridge/Drainage Structures There is one existing pipe culvert on SR 1596 (Glensford Road), located.near the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). G. Speed Limit The existing speed limit along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is 35 miles per hour. H. Access Control There is no control of access along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). 4 I. Intersection and Type of Control One signalized intersection currently exists along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The signal is located at the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). All other intersections along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are unsignalized. J. Utilities The following utilities are located within the project corridor: underground cable, sewer, electricity, water, gas, and telephone. K. School Buses Currently 17 buses use this section of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). L. Railroad Crossings There is one at-grade railroad crossing of the Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad line. The at-grade crossing is protected by mast mounted flashing lights and 2 gates. The crossing is located approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). M. Sidewalks SR 1596 (Glensford Road) currently has a sidewalk on the eastern side from Belford Road to Montclair Elementary school. Sidewalk also exists on the western side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from Belford Road to approximately 450 feet south of Chester Brook Drive. N. Parkin There is no designated on-street parking along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). 0. Bicycles SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is not designated as a bicycle route and it does not correspond to a current bicycle TIP request. P. Greenways No greenways exist along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). 5 Q. Horizontal and Vertical Alignments The existing horizontal and vertical alignments on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are suitable for the posted speed limit. Changes to the horizontal or vertical alignment are not necessary. R. School Traffic Operations Two schools are located within the project limits, Montclair Elementary and Berean Baptist Academy, NCDOT performed a field investigation at both schools to observe the student loading operations, school related vehicular conflicts, delays, and pedestrian activities. Montclair Elementary School Montclair Elementary School is a public school located along the east side of Glensford Drive approximately 1200 feet south of the Cliffdale Road intersection. It serves kindergarten through 5a' grade with a maximum population of 500 students, 90 staff members, and 4 buses. The school has two driveways, the northern driveway is for buses to enter and exit and the southern driveway is a one-way entrance leading to a staff/visitor parking lot, the student loading zone, and exits via the northern driveway. A school Crossing guard assists students across Glensford Drive at the Chambersburg Road intersection during the school admission and dismissal times. Crossing at this intersection were approximately 41 students in the morning and 60 students in the afternoon. At the student loading zone staff members were present to assist. Once vehicles entered the southern driveway they proceed to a parent loading zone where a double queue process was used (two lanes of traffic). The right lane was for daycare vans and the left lane for parent vehicles. Using this process the school driveway is only long enough to accommodate nine vehicles, or approximately 200 feet of queue length. This campus should have a minimum queue length of 850 feet for an average day based on actual vehicle counts. Due to this . inadequate queue length, a high number of school related vehicles circumvented the intended loading process. During the peak school traffic period, the right turning vehicles were observed blocking the northbound through lane. When this occurred, several through vehicles illegally passed in the center turn lane and merged back to the through lane at the school entrance in front of the entering left turn vehicles. This was considered a safety concern especially with parents letting students out along the roadside and students walking in this area. A high number of parent vehicles were illegally parked in the "No Parking" zone along the fence in front of the school. Of these, several were on and blocking the sidewalk. These vehicles caused pedestrians, some being small children, to have to walk next to the northbound through travel lane. This is considered a pedestrian safety concern. 6 Berean Baptist Academy Berean Baptist Academy is located along the west side of Glensford Drive approximately 750 feet south of the intersection of Cliffdale Road. Berean Baptist Church is located across the road from the academy, just north of and adjoining the Montclair Elementary campus. The school serves kindergarten through 12th grade with a population of 330 students. Officials indicated this school has an expected growth to 400 in the near future. The campus is considered very small with pedestrian facilities consisting of a combination of sidewalk, driveways, and parking lots. Students and staff cross between the Academy and Church throughout the day. The school has three driveways and a pedestrian crosswalk. North Driveway is a two-lane, one way entrance located approximately 775 feet south of Cliffdale Road. This driveway provides access to the North Parking Lot, parking along the front of the school building, and a one-way southbound East Side Loop Drive. It also provides access to one-way southbound West Side Loop Drive along the back of the school building. Students are loaded in the parking lot, at the Academy North Entrance, and the Academy Main Entrance along the northeast side of the building. Middle driveway is a two-lane (a left turn land and a right turn lane), one-way exit driveway located approximately 400 feet south of North Driveway. This driveway provides an exit for vehicles loading students at the Academy North Entrance, the Academy Main Entrance, and vehicles exiting North Parking Lot via East Side Loop Drive. South Driveway is a two-lane, two-way driveway located approximately 200 feet south of Middle Driveway. This driveway provides an access to the South Parking Lot and the exit for West Side Loop Drive. Students are loaded in the parking lot and at the Academy South Entrance (K-3 through 4th grade students). Vehicles using West Side Loop Drive are additional parents that are loading students at the Academy South Entrance or exiting North Parking Lot. A Hi-Visibility Pedestrian Crosswalk with posted school pedestrian crossing signs are provided approximately 125 feet south of North Driveway. This crosswalk leads from the schools main entrance and crosses into the Church's main driveway. Having pedestrians cross into a side street travel lane is not considered a safe design; however, the Church driveway is seldom used and has not presented any safety issues. The pedestrian origin and destination points were the Academy Main Entrance and the Church South Entrance. Throughout the day, pedestrians were observed crossing Glensford Drive. Nearly all students crossed at the crosswalk and were supervised by staff. As they crossed they utilized the church driveway as a crosswalk. Nearly all staff and adults crossed south of the crosswalk taking the shortest walking route between the academy and church buildings. 7 S. Other TIP Projects There are several TIP projects near the proposed project area, including: U-4414 (All American Freeway widening), U-4756 (Morganton Road widening), and U-3311 (Bingham Drive widening). Figure 3 shows the proximity of U-4414, U-4756, and U-3311 to TIP Project U-4422. 8 IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The alternatives considered for this project consist of "no-build" and the widening/new location alternatives. A. "No Build" Alternative The "no build" alternative consists of doing nothing to the existing facilities. If improvements are not made to SR 1596 (Glensford Road), the two-lane facility will be unable to accommodate the forecasted 2030 traffic. The increase in traffic without additional capacity will hamper traffic flow and may result in an increase in accident rate along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Delay at all intersections along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) will increase and result in the intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service. SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is already being utilized as an alternate route to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and will continue to be used in this capacity until delays associated with SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are equal to or greater than delays already found on US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been dropped from further consideration.. The "no-build" alternative does, however, provide a basis for comparison of other alternatives. B. Widening/New Location Alternatives Two alternatives are currently under consideration. Alternatives 1 and 2 both consist of a four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter, with 11-foot inside lanes and 13-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. The project also includes the construction of sidewalk along both sides of the widened SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The proposed typical section is shown in Figure 5. The two alternatives only differ in the type of intersection control along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Alternative 1- would use one signalized intersection, at SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and Montclair Road, while leaving all other intersections as stop sign controlled. Alternative 2- would utilize roundabouts at three possible sites for intersection control. The three sites are located at SR 1596 (Glensford Road) intersection with Belford Road, Montclair Road, and Chambersburg Drive. The two alternatives utilize a "best fit" alignment, primarily widening equally on both sides of the existing roadway. Both include the new location section from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to Belford Road. Comparison of Alternatives Table 1 gives a comparison of the alternatives. Figure 4 shows the alternatives. 9 Tabled: Comparison of Alternatives Resource Alternative) Alternative 2 Length 1.2 miles 1.2 miles Railroad Crossings 1 1 Schools 2 2 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 Churches 2 2 Cemeteries 0 0 Major Utility Crossings 0 0 National Register Eligible Properties 0 0 Archaeological Sites 0 0 Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 100-Year Flood lain Crossings 0 0 Prime Farmland 0 0 Residential Relocations 0 0 Business Relocations 5 5 Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 Wetland hn acts 0 acres 0 acres Stream Crossings 1 1 Stream Impacts 0 if 0 if Substantial Noise Impacts 0 0 Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 Section 4( hn acts (Historic) 0 0 Low Income Population hn acts 0 0 Minority Population Irn acts 0 0 Construction Cost $5,950,000 $6,050,000 Right of Way Cost $4,345,000 $4,570,800 Utilities Cost $427,190 $301,470 Total Cost $10,722,190 $10,922,270 C. Capacity Analysis Level of Service (LOS) analyses were performed for two years (2005 and 2030), two traffic scenarios (no-build and build), and two special conditions for 2030 Build (constrained and unconstrained). In addition, under the 2005 Build and 2030 Build Constrained scenarios, a signalized option and a roundabout option were analyzed for two of the projects intersections - SR 1596 (Glensford Road) at Montclair Road and SR 1596 (Glensford Road) at Belford Road. 10 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service - 2005 and 2030 2005 No-Build 2005 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build with 2030 Buildwith Constrained* Unconstrained* Improvements Improvements LOS AM (PM) LOS AM (PM) Roundabout Roundabout LOS LOS AM (PM) LOS AM (P1\I) LOS AM (PM) A A1 (PM) LOS AM (PM)_ - Glensford Drive Intersections Morganton Road D (D) E (D) F (F) F (F) F (F) Campground Road C (C) C (C) E (E) E (F) E (F) Glensford C A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) ommons Red Tip Road A (A) A (A) B (B) B (B) B (B) SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) F (F) E (E) F (F) F (F) D (D) hambersburg Road D (D) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) hesterbrook Road C (C) B (B) F (F) C (C) C (C) Montclair Road F (F) C (C) F (F) D (D) D (D) B(B C(C Belford Road D (C) C (C) F (F) C (C) C (C) A (B) B (B S 401 Bus. (Raeford Road) D (D) F (E) D (D) SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Intersections S 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) All American Frwy SB Ramps B (C) B (B) F (F) F (F) F (F) All American Frwy Ramps C (D) C (C) F (F) F (F) F (F) S 401 Bus. (Raeford Road) Intersections S 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) F (F) E (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) C 59 (Hope Mills Road) B (C) B (B) F (F) F (F) F (F) Brig ton Road C (E) B (B) F (F) D (E D (E) Belford Road Intersection Brighton Road F (F) B (C) F (F) D (D) D (D) "Constrained" improvement denotes no major widening to surrounding highways, where as "Unconstrained" assumes surrounding highways will be widened. 11 The analysis indicates that the intersections internal to the project limits will operate at an acceptable LOS during peak periods under the 2030 Build Constrained condition. However, intersections at the termini of the project (Cliffdale Road/ Glensford Road and Raeford Road/ Glensford Road) operate at LOS F. This is mostly due to the heavy through volumes on Cliffdale Road and Raeford Road. The project redirects some traffic from the heavily congested Raeford Road, Skibo Road and Cliffdale Road. Figure 2 shows the difference in traffic volumes by turning movement between 2030 No-Build and 2030 Build. Even though some adjacent facilities will not experience enough improvement to move from LOS F, traffic forecast suggest a reduction in volume of approximately 6%, therefore reducing delay even if LOS remains at level F. This project alleviates congestion on the neighborhood streets of Belford Road and Brighton Road. This is evident in the improvement of the levels of service at the intersections of Belford Road at Brighton Road and Brighton Road at Raeford Road. D. Recommended Alternative Alternative 2 is the recommended alternative because it provides a sufficient level of service for the design year (2030) as well as traffic calming benefits. The roundabouts will help to reduce the speed of vehicles traveling along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and is suitable for the 35 mph speed limit. Alternative 2 will increase safety for pedestrian traffic along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) by reducing speeds at major intersections, improving pedestrian crossings, and extending sidewalks to US 401 Business (Raeford Road). 12 V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS A. Design Speed The proposed design speed for SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is 40 miles per hour. It will be posted 35 mph. B. Typical Section The proposed typical section for SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is a 4-lane, divided facility with curb and gutter, consisting of a 16-foot raised median, 11-foot inside lanes, 13-foot outside lanes, and a 10-foot berm (see Figure 5). C. Right of Way The proposed right of way width is 110 feet. Additional right of way may be required at major intersections to allow for additional turn lanes or the roundabouts. Easements will be utilized beyond the right of way. D. Access Control The widening project does not propose to purchase access control on SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The proposed inclusion of the raised median will reduce access by limiting full turn movements at intersecting streets. At signalized and some unsignalized intersections, median crossovers will be utilized to allow for full turning movements. E. Structure Improvements No structure improvements are anticipated. F. Parkin On-street parking will not be provided. G. Sidewalks/Pedestrian Crossings The City of Fayetteville, by letter to NCDOT, has requested sidewalks along both sides of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) for the entire length of the project. A municipal agreement will be implemented between NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville for the inclusion of sidewalks along all areas of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) where no sidewalk currently exists. Based on NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy, the City of Fayetteville will fund 50% of the cost of the sidewalk. Pedestrian crossings will be provided to allow for community connectivity and pedestrian safety. The location of pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of Montclair Elementary School and Berean Academy are noted in Section J. 13 H. Bicycle Provisions The project includes 13-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. 1. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control All side streets and driveways will intersect at grade. Dual lane roundabout controls are recommended at SR 1596 (Glensford Road) intersections with Montclair Road, Belford Road, and Chambersburg Road, due to their operational advantage over signalized intersections. The signal at SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and Raeford Road will be upgraded for the proposed 4-legged intersection. Dual lane roundabouts are uncommon in the state of North Carolina, however due to the proximity of this project to the Montclair subdivision, roundabouts are recommend for their traffic calming capabilities. Roundabouts are a type of circular intersection that can be used in place of traditional stop signs and traffic signals, to improve traffic flow and safety. Roundabouts are also commonly used as traffic calming devices. Traffic calming devices are typically used to "calm" traffic on residential streets to enhance neighborhood livability. Roundabouts help to calm traffic by requiring all traffic to slow down while maneuvering through an intersection. Single lane roundabouts are more common throughout North Carolina, however, due to the forecasted traffic volume along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) dual lane roundabouts will be required. Dual lane roundabouts are more complex and operate a little differently than a simple single lane roundabout. The major difference between the operation of a single lane roundabout and a dual lane roundabout is that possible turning movements are based on the lane you are traveling in. For example when traveling through a single lane roundabout the motorist is allowed to complete any turning movement desired. However, when traveling through a dual lane roundabout the motorists' options differ depending on which lane the motorist uses to enter the roundabout. When entering a dual lane roundabout using the right approach lane, the motorists options are to make a right hand turn at the intersection or to continue strait through the intersection. When entering a dual lane roundabout using the left hand lane the motorists' options are to continue strait through the intersection, make a left hand turn, or to complete a U-turn. LEFT LANE RIGHTWE Allowed turning movements for dual lane roundabout. 14 J. School Traffic Operations NCDOT coordinated with both Montclair Elementary School and Berean Baptist Academy regarding their operation needs. NCDOT completed a traffic operation review for each school. Montclair Elementary The queue length for Montclair Elementary is not sufficient to accommodate all parent vehicles generated by the school. The loading of students along the shoulder of the road and on the sidewalk is considered a safety concern and unacceptable for the proposed U-4422 widening project. The NCDOT study provided the following recommendations. (See Figure 8) ¦ Construct a fourth leg of the proposed Chambersburg Road roundabout, on the east side for a New School Driveway to be constructed. The New School driveway should be a two-way three-lane facility providing 2 ingress lanes, and one egress lane. ¦ Construct a Driveway Connector from the Parent Loading Zone to the existing staff parking lot. This driveway will create the egress lane of the new school driveway. ¦ Construct a Driveway Connector from North Driveway to Driveway Connector (mentioned above) to allow left-turning buses, onto Glensford Road, access to the roundabout at Chambersburg Road. ¦ Remove South Driveway. ¦ Define the Parent Loading Zone along the sidewalk near the school building's main entrance. ¦ Construct a 10-foot wide hi-visibility crosswalk across New School Driveway, where necessary, from the newly constructed sidewalk to the school's main entrance. ¦ Implement a double queue process with a single queue Parent Loading Zone, during the PM student loading periods and on AM high traffic demand days. ¦ Install a minimum 10-foot wide hi-visibility pedestrian crosswalk on the north leg of the roundabout for pedestrians wanting to access the school campus. Improvement to access on the school property would be part of the U-4422 project. Berean Baptist Academy The following improvements are recommended at Berean Baptist Academy (See Figure 8). Construct a Hi-Visibility Pedestrian Crosswalk a minimum of 12-feet wide with a Pedestrian Refuge Island near the Academy South Entrance. Install advance yield line pavement markings and "Yield Here To Pedestrian" signs. Restrict the access to each driveway to a right-in right-out movement. Eliminating the conflicting left turn movements will greatly reduce congestion and delays helping to improve internal traffic operations. 15 Improvements to access on the school property will be part of the U-4422 project. K. Schedules & Costs Schedules and costs are listed below: Table 3: Schedules & Costs Facility Begin WNNI Begin Construction Pd-lit of Way Construction Acquisition Cost Cost U-4422 FY 2008 FY 2010 $ 4,570,800 $ 6,050,000 16 VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. Community Effects 1. Community Characteristics a. Study Area Descriptions Two study areas were developed for assessment of the community impacts of the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) project: the Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) and the Demographic Area. Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) The Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) was delineated for the purpose of evaluating the direct impacts of the proposed project on the community (see Figure 6). The DCIA includes the entire project corridor, as well as parcels that are immediately adjacent to the corridor. The DCIA also includes several outlying parcels, which are included in the DCIA primarily because access to these parcels could be impacted by the widening and extension of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The DCIA is generally bounded to the north by SR 1404 (Morganton Road); to the east by the All American Freeway, Buckhead Creek, US 401 Business (Raeford Road), and parcels along Hope Mills Road; to the south by Birch Road; and to the west by subdivision boundaries and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). Demographic Area The Demographic Area is generally bounded to the north by Beaver Creek and Yadkin Road; to the east by McPherson Church Road and Buckhead Creek; to the south by Cumberland Road; and to the west by Beaver Creek and the US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). The Demographic Area also includes the entire DCIA, much of the Future Land Use Study Area and portions of the City of Fayetteville and Hope Mills. The following 2000 US Census Bureau Block Groups are included in the Demographic Area for The proposed project: • Census Tract 19.02, Block Group 1 • Census Tract 19.03, Block Groups 2-4 • Census Tract 20, Block Groups 1, 3, 5 and 6 17 b. Community Characteristics The majority of the project bisects the Montclair neighborhood which contains modest one story single family residences fronting SR 1596 (Glensford Road), as well as side streets intersecting with SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Much of this area has been built out for several decades and is a relatively established neighborhood. Several institutional facilities including the Manna Church, the. Berean Baptist Church and Academy, and Montclair Elementary School are located along the corridor. Most of the structures fronting SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are relatively set back from the roadway but will likely lose some property to right of way acquisitions. Several commercial corridors, including US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), US 401 Business (Raeford Road), SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road), and SR 1404 (Morganton Road) border the Montclair neighborhood. The Cross Creek Mall is a regional mall located just north of SR 1404 (Morganton Road) approximately 3/-mile north of the project. This Mall and associated commercial development has been expanding in recent years and contains typical strip commercial retail outlets, restaurants, and big box retailers. The mall area provides retail and dining opportunities for residents throughout Cumberland County and surrounding counties, as well as for military personnel at nearby Fort Bragg Military Reservation. According to local officials, it is likely that the expansion of commercial development will continue within this regional shopping node, particularly on undeveloped property along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between SR 1404 (Morganton Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). c. Population Characteristics The Demographic Area for the project lost 5.8% of its population between 1990 and 2000 (see Table 4). This is notably different than the population growth experienced in Fayetteville (59.9%) and Cumberland County (10.3%). According to local planners, Fayetteville's population has increased due to recent annexations. According to the North Carolina State Data Center, since 2000, Cumberland County has lost population through out- migration, but gained overall population through natural growth and births. The out-migration is likely related to the transient nature of military personnel temporarily stationed at Fort Bragg Military Reservation. Table 4: Population Growth, 1990-2000 Po iulation. GrOwth Area 1990 2000 # % Demographic Area 15,004 14,137 -867 -5.8% City of Fayetteville 75,695 121,015 45,320 59.9% Cumberland County 274,566 302,963 28,397 10.3% North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4% Source: US Census Bureau, Summary File 1, Table PI (1990 & 2000) 18 d. Ethnicity Table 5 provides a summary of the major racial and ethnic groups in the Demographic Area, the City of Fayetteville, and Cumberland County. According to Census data, the Demographic Area, the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland County all had higher percentages of minority groups than the State of North Carolina. However, the racial distribution of the Demographic Area and the County were more similar. Upon further examination of the Census data at the block group level, Census Tract 20, Block Group 3 contains an African American population of 46.8%, approximately 25% greater than the County average 34.4%. This Block Group generally includes the western half of the Montclair neighborhood, the Camelot Apartments, the Brittany Place Apartments, and a manufactured home subdivision southwest of the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) / SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) intersection. Local officials also identified an African-American community within the Chestnut Hill neighborhood just outside of the Block Group. According to local planners, the presence of a large percentage of minorities could likely be attributed to the proximity to Fort Bragg Military Reservation. Table 5: Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 1)cnnr?ra chic Aria' Cif, of l'aNc[tcoille Cumberland Coun" North Carollna io e .. / Race Po nilation Po pnlallon Pn n.1. 1, n Pn nilation Pn ?ulation Population Pu tulation Pu ulation White 7,914 56.0% 56,419 46.6% 159,304 52.6% 5,647,155 70.2% White Hispanic 437 3.1% 2,588 2.1% 7,789 2.6% 157,501 2.0% Black or African American 4,150 29.4% 50,656 41.9% 104,068 34.4% 1,723,301 21.4% Black Hispanic 74 0.5% 682 0.6% 11663 0.5% 14,244 0.2% American Indian / Alaska Native 184 1.3% 1,234 1.0% 4,371 1.4% 95,333 1.2% American Indian / Alaska Native Hispanic 11 0.1% 97 0.1% 320 0.1% 4,218 0.1% Asian 311 2.2% 2,606 2.2% 5,552 1.8% 112,416 1.4% Asian Hispanic 3 0.0% 47 0.0% 142 0.0% 1,273 0.0% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 32 0.2% 234 0.2% 839 0.3% 3,165 0.0% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander Hispanic 4 0.0% 30 0.0% 63 0.0% 818 0.0% Other Race 37 0.3% 334 0.3% 735 0.2% 9,015 0.1% Other Race Hi anic 496 3.5% 2,728 2.3% 8,742 2.9% 177,614 2.2% Two or More Races 380 2.7% 2,670 2.2% 7,175 2.4% 79,965 1.0% Two or More Races Hispanic 104 0.7% 690 0.61/o 2,200 0.7% 23,295 0.3% TpLgl 14.137 100.0% 121.115 100.011, 302,963 100,0% 8,049-113 1110.0 Total Hispanic 1,129 8.0% 6,862 5.7% 20,919 6.9% 378,963 4.7% Source: US Census Bureau, Summary File I. Table P8 (2000) 19 e. Age The 2000 Census data indicates that, in general, the populations in the Demographic Area, Fayetteville and Cumberland County were younger than in North Carolina as a whole. The median age in the Demographic Area (30.7) was only slightly higher than in Cumberland County (29.6), while the median age in North Carolina was 35.3. The distribution of ages in the Demographic Area and Cumberland County were very similar though, with approximately 31 % 19 years and under, and less than 10% over the age of 65. The low median ages within Cumberland County, Fayetteville, and the Demographic Area are likely due to the presence of military age personnel based at nearby Fort Bragg Military Reservation. Since the Demographic Area has a higher percentage of elderly than Cumberland County, it is probable that neighborhoods within the Demographic Area are more established and contain slightly more elderly and slightly less military aged individuals. L Income Between 1989 and 1999, the Demographic Area experienced a 12.2% decrease in the percentage of persons living below the poverty level. During this same time period, Cumberland County also experienced a decrease of 11.1 %; however, the actual percentage living below poverty in the Demographic Area in 1999 was almost five percentage points lower than in the County. g. Housing Characteristics The Demographic Area was the only area studied to experience a decrease in the number of households between 1990 and 2000. The household growth rates in Cumberland County (17.3%) were much higher than in the Demographic Area, but were lower than in the State of North Carolina (24.4%). It is possible that the number of households within the Demographic Area decreased due to the transient nature of militray personnel related to the Fort Bragg Military Reservation, or due to conversion of residential uses into higher intensity uses (such as commercial). Based on the 2000 Census data, the Demographic Area had a lower median home value and houses were typically older than in any other area studied. The median home value for the Demographic Area ($74,700) was almost $10,200 lower than the median home value in Cumberland County. The median year structure built in the Demographic Area was seven years older than in the County. h. Business and Employment Characteristics According to local planners, the Fort Bragg Military Reservation and government (local, county, and state) were the largest single employers. The Cumberland County Business Council website has data (from the 2000 Census) indicating that the vast majority of workers in Cumberland County reside in Cumberland 20 County. However, more than 12,000 employees travel from Harnett and Hoke Counties to work in Cumberland County. The Cross Creek Mall is a transit hub for Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST). Employment growth for Cumberland County between 1990 and 2004 increased by 30.7%. This increase resulted in a net gain of 29,959 jobs throughout most industry sectors. There were job losses in some industry sectors - agricultural, mining, manufacturing, and finance and insurance. However, Cumberland County has experienced somewhat higher employment growth than North Carolina as a whole. This could possibly be attributed to substantial growth (more than 100%) in several industry sectors - transportation and warehousing, professional and technical services, administrative and waste services, and health care and social assistance. The regional economy relies heavily on government services, with Fort Bragg Military Reservation located in Cumberland County. Almost 30% of all employees in Cumberland County work for local, state or federal government. From the 1990 and 2000 Census, the unemployment rate for the Demographic Area actually decreased from 7.7% to 6.4%, and was a couple percentage points lower than that for Cumberland County (8.6%). On the other hand, both the Demographic Area and the County had higher unemployment rates than North Carolina. i. Community Resources - Facilities Montclair Elementary School, the Berean Baptist Academy, and the Berean Baptist Church are located along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) near the intersection of Chambersburg Drive (Figure 7). Montclair Elementary School is a public school with approximately 489 students, while the Berean Baptist Academy is a privately operated school with approximately 330 students. The Berean Baptist Academy owns a ball field/playground complex on the west side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) north of Chambersburg Drive. The Manna Church is located at the southeast quadrant of the SR 1596 (Glensford Road)/SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) intersection. The Manna Church also has an overflow parking facility on the west side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) accessible via a crosswalk. Most of the structures fronting SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are relatively set back from the roadway but will nevertheless lose some of their property to right of way acquisitions. The City of Fayetteville provides police, fire, and EMS service for the city, including the entire DCIA. Fire Station 12 is the only emergency response facility within the DCIA and is located along Hope Mills Road south of US 401 Business (Raeford Road). Police and EMS facilities are centrally located downtown and at the hospitals respectively. Fire services also act as EMS first responders within their respective fire districts. j. Community Resources - Infrastructure Water and sewer service is provided by the City of Fayetteville and currently exists throughout most of the DCIA. A small portion of the DCIA along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and south of SR 1404 (Morganton Road) is currently not 21 serviced, but will likely be in the near future as development warrants. According to local officials, water and sewer treatment facilities are currently operating under capacity with room for expansion of the existing system. SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is currently a two (and three) lane roadway that extends through the Montclair neighborhood. "Cut-through" traffic currently utilizes neighborhood streets (including Belford Drive, Berwick Drive, along with SR 1596 (Glensford Road)) to access the Cross Creek Mall area from the south. There are two existing railroad corridors (owned by CSX) within the DCIA. One line runs east to west and crosses the northern portion of the project corridor. The other generally parallels US 401 Bypass in the northwestern portion of the DCIA. Sidewalks currently exist on both sides of the road for much of its length. Crosswalk facilities are present at most side streets, at the Berean Baptist Academy/Church, at the Montclair Elementary School, and the Manna Church overflow parking area. There are no airports or designated bike routes within the DCIA. Pedestrian activity is most common near the Berean Baptist Academy and nearby Montclair Elementary School. Local officials also indicated that there is some bicycle activity along the corridor and throughout the Montclair Subdivision, although there are no fixed bicycle routes within the DCIA. The Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) is the mass transit provider for the City of Fayetteville. FAST operates 10 fixed routes serving areas that lie within the municipal boundaries of the city. According to local officials, FAST operates the "Blue Route" along US 401 Business (Raeford Road), SR 1404 (Morganton Road), and the All American Freeway, while the "Black Route" follows the All American Freeway. Both of these routes utilize a "Super Stop" at the Cross Creek Mall. There is no scheduled service along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Nationally provided public transit systems within Cumberland County include Greyhound Bus Lines and Amtrak (train service), both of which have stations in Fayetteville. k. Emergency Services The City of Fayetteville provides police, fire, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) within the DCIA. There are no police or EMS facilities within the DCIA. Fayetteville Fire Station 12 is located within the DCIA along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) 2.5 blocks south of the intersection with US 401 Business (Raeford Road). Additionally, Fayetteville Fire Station 6 is located just outside of the DCIA along SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) east of the All American Freeway. Both of these facilities serve at least portions of the DCIA. 22 1. Plans and Regulations The DCIA includes portions of two governing entities, including Cumberland County and Fayetteville. These governing bodies have adopted zoning ordinances, a comprehensive plan, small area plans, subdivision regulations, and environmental controls (including floodplain ordinances and PHASE I stormwater controls) to regulate the intensity of development and protect the quality of the environment. Specific plans that apply to the DCIA of The proposed project are as follows: Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan This land use plan outlines long-term growth and development goals for Cumberland County and its municipalities. The plan includes existing conditions, recommendations for future planning efforts, and recommendations for implementation. The plan indicates that US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Hope Mills Road, and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) are designated strip commercial corridors with a central core node centered near Cross Creek Mall at the intersection of SR 1404 (Morganton Road) and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). The plan indicates that land within the DCIA either does or will have water and sewer service. It also indicates that US 401 Business (Raeford Road), SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road), SR 1404 (Morganton Road), and the All American Freeway are designated entrance corridors to the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland County. Floodplains associated with Buckhead Creek are shown as an environmental corridor protection and preservation area. Glensford Study Area Plan (2002) This small area plan focuses on the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) area north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and proposed new land uses updating the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. The Glensford study area includes land bounded by the All American Freeway, SR 1404 (Morganton Road), US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The plan also includes some residential areas south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan recommended heavy commercial and a central core located at the Cross Creek Mall in the northern half of the study area, high density residential in the northeast quadrant of the SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)/SR 1596 (Glensford Road) intersection, and light industrial in the northwest quadrant of the SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)/SR 1596 (Glensford Road) intersection. The 2010 plan also recommends medium density residential land uses south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) along the railroad tracks and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). The Glensford Study Area Plan recommended light commercial uses for the majority of the study area north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and a decrease in land devoted to heavy commercial uses. The Glensford Study Area Plan also recommended an office/institutional land use category for properties owned by the Berean Baptist Academy/Church, the Manna Church, and Montclair Elementary School that are currently depicted as low density residential land uses. This plan does not envision any increase in land use intensity along the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) corridor south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). 23 The plan mentions the proposed SR 1596 (Glensford Road) extension to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), and indicates that it will provide a direct connection between US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and Cross Creek Mall, shifting traffic from US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), McPherson Church Road and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) to SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Authors of the plan believed that although traffic would increase on SR 1596 (Glensford Road), the proposed improvements would support this additional traffic. FAMPO Highway Plan (2004) The FAMPO Highway Plan is a key component of FAMPO's 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan and is referenced within that document. This highway plan was developed by FAMPO in order to prioritize transportation projects and establish objectives and a framework for transportation planning. The plan considers the proposed project a "priority one" project, which means that it was included in the Fiscal Year 2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). The plan also indicates that SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is considered a major thoroughfare, meaning that it is a primary traffic artery through the urban area. FAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update (2004) This bicycle and pedestrian plan update provides direction for future pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the FAMPO planning area. The plan focuses on several key elements including existing conditions, design guidelines, user surveys, and implementation. The plan includes a recommendation for a future bicycle facility on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1404 (Morganton Road). The plan also mentions that bicyclists are permitted to utilize sidewalks where they exist within the City of Fayetteville. Hope Mills Road Corridor Land Use Plan (2005) This area plan was produced by the Fayetteville Planning Commission and Fayetteville planning staff. The plan recommends the expansion of heavy commercial and light commercial land uses west of Hope Mills Road (between Spruce Drive and US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and south of Birch Road) and the expansion of institutional land uses associated with the Lafayette Baptist Church east of Hope Mills Road. These areas have seen the intensification of land uses, and according to local officials, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) could experience a similar intensification of land use if the road is widened. City of Fayetteville Zoning Ordinance (2004) The City of Fayetteville has established a zoning ordinance that attempts to control the intensity and location of land uses within its jurisdiction. Zoning throughout the Future Land Use Study Area is a mixture of residential and commercial districts. Medium Density single family residential zoning is centered on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) in the central portion of the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA), east of Buckhead Creek, and south of US 401 Business (Raeford Road). Multi-family residential zoning exists west of US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) 24 and east of the railroad corridor. Smaller areas of high density residential zoning are scattered throughout the Future Land Use Study Area. Commercial zoning is concentrated along US 401 Business (Raeford Road), US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), SR 1404 (Morganton Road), Hope Mills Road, and SR 1596 (Glensford Road) (north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)). Commercial zoning is also centered on the Cross Creek Mall north of SR 1404 (Morganton Road). Other Proposed or Recently Completed Developments in the Area Commercial development is currently occurring within the DCIA, particularly along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) north of SR 1,400 (Cliffdale Road) in the vicinity of the Cross Creek Mall. Much of this recent development includes big box retailers, restaurants, and strip commercial outlets. This is the largest concentration of commercial development within the region. Local officials indicated that vacant land along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and SR 1404 (Morganton Road) will likely be built out with commercial development within five years. Local officials also indicated that a more limited amount of commercial development is proposed along US 401 Business (Raeford Road) near the intersection with Hope Mills Road (near the proposed southern terminus of The proposed project). This planned development includes a Wa1Mart, a CVS, and potential redevelopment of several other properties. Local officials also felt that commercial development (similar to that along Hope Mills Road) could occur along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between Belford Drive and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The only residential development under construction within the DCIA was a multi-family development (Glensford Commons) on the east side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), SR 1404 (Morganton Road), and the Cross Creek Mall area have recently been experiencing commercial development, with infill development expected to continue. Much of this development is similar to that within the DCIA and includes big box retailers, restaurants, professional offices, and strip commercial development. 2. Community Impact Analysis a. Community Impact Assessment Overview Overall, The proposed project should help alleviate traffic along other commercial corridors in the area and reduce "cut-through" traffic on neighborhood streets (other than SR 1596 (Glensford Road)) within the Montclair subdivision. Traffic on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) may increase somewhat, because the extension will complete the connection between US 401 Business (Raeford Road) / Hope Mills Road and the Cross Creek Mall. A widened roadway may present a greater physical barrier to pedestrians. The inclusion of a median should offer some protection, because only one direction of traffic must be observed at a time, and the median may provide some sort of haven (although not ideal). The inclusion of sidewalks and wide outside lanes in the design of this project could help promote pedestrian and bicycle safety along the project corridor. Vehicular safety may be improved by limiting left turns through the use of the median and roundabouts. Decreased emergency response times will 25 likely result from the improved system connectivity and extra lanes provided by the proposed project. b. Displacements/Relocation Impacts No residential displacements are anticipated however, five business displacements will result from project implementation (see the Relocation Report in Appendix D). NCDOT's policy regarding displacements involves providing assistance to those affected by transportation improvements per the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act. All alternatives under evaluation will result in the displacement of homes and/or businesses. Some residents in the DO Study Area appear to be low-income. If so, and if they are displaced, the Last Resort Housing Program established by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (PL 91-646) may be used. The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the effects of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs. It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: • Relocation Assistance • Relocation Moving Payments • Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staff to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify. The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose. 26 The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time prior to displacement for negotiations and possession of replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90- day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial . facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property. All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location. The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm. operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision. A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250. It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law. Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement 27 payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary. c. Land Use Patterns and Compatibility The DCIA includes a mix of residential, institutional, and commercial uses. Commercial uses are concentrated along several corridors and in the Cross Creek Mall area. Residential land uses, including multi-family residential, generally comprise the remainder of the DCIA. Widening and extending SR 1596 (Glensford Road) may create commercial development pressures along the corridor that may not be compatible with the existing residential and institutional fabric of the existing neighborhood. The Montclair subdivision consists of modest older single story and split level houses. Several multi-family and apartment developments, including the Camelot Apartments and Brittany Place Apartments, are located just west of the project corridor along Ashbrook Drive. The Berean Baptist Academy and Church (including ball fields), the Montclair Elementary School, and the Manna Church are institutional properties located along the corridor. Currently, no commercial development exists along the project corridor; however, according to local planners the majority of recent and future commercial development is and will continue to be concentrated along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) just north of the project corridor. Recent developments along that portion of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) include restaurants, outlets, and big box retailers, particularly near the Cross Creek Mall. Widening and extending SR 1596 (Glensford Road) may also create pressure for the development of commercial or office buildings along the project corridor, similar to that of the Hope Mills Road corridor south of US 401 Business (Raeford Road). According to local officials, a Wal-Mart, CVS, and other potential commercial redevelopment will likely occur near the southern terminus of the project corridor. d. Economic Conditions The proposed project may positively affect the economy by improving access to the Cross Creek Mall. Due to increased exposure to traffic and the connection provided to the Cross Creek Mall area, the proposed project may affect growth pressures along the corridor. According to local officials, residential uses may transition to commercial uses along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between Belford and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). e. Transportation Access Residents responding to the Citizens Informational Workshop expressed concerns about lost access due to the inclusion of a median in the design. Since the proposed project includes a widening alternative with a median, it is possible that direct access to houses along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) may be affected. Depending on the location of median breaks, some residents 28 may be limited to right turns out of driveways, and they may have to perform U-turns in order to enter driveways. Existing SR 1596 (Glensford Road) winds through a primarily residential neighborhood. Currently, there are no access controls along the corridor. An overflow parking area for the Manna Church is located on the west side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) just south of the rail line. This parking area could experience temporary access issues related to construction activities during the project. TIP Project U-4422 should improve access to the Cross Creek Mall. According to FAMPO's 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and US 401 Business (Raeford Road) are considered two of the most congested roads in the area. TIP Project U-4422 may help alleviate traffic along US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), potentially improving commercial access along those corridors. The current SR 1596 (Glensford Road) facility has sidewalks on both sides of the road for much of its length and at least a single sidewalk along the entire length. Crosswalk facilities are present at most side streets, at the Berean Baptist Academy/Church, at the Montclair Elementary School, and the Manna Church overflow parking area. Local officials indicated that pedestrians often frequent the corridor. Students from the Berean Baptist Academy and members of the Manna Church use crosswalks to access facilities on both sides of the road. The inclusion of a median should offer some protection to pedestrians because only one direction of traffic must be observed at a time, and the median may provide some sort of haven (although not ideal) for pedestrians. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update produced by FAMPO in 2004 indicated that SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is a proposed future bicycle facility from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1404 (Morganton Road). The inclusion of sidewalks and wide outside lanes in the design of the proposed project could help promote pedestrian and bicycle safety along the project corridor and meet the goals of the FAMPO bicycle and pedestrian plan update. It is not anticipated that this project will have any effect upon populations covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since there are no scheduled routes or designated pick-up areas along the project corridor, impacts to bus services should be limited to temporary impacts related to construction activities affecting the "Blue Route" near the intersection of US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and the proposed SR 1596 (Glensford Road) Extension. L Transportation Network It is anticipated that commuting patterns could change as a result of the proposed project. The SR 1596 (Glensford Road) extension and widening will provide a direct connection between Hope Mills Road and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). This connection will provide direct access to the Cross Creek Mall area for motorists traveling from the south. The proposed 29 project should help alleviate traffic along US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and reduce "cut- through" traffic that currently utilizes neighborhood streets (including Belford Drive and Berwick Drive) within the Montclair subdivision to access the Cross Creek Mall area from the south. The proposed project should increase traffic on SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Travel times along the corridor will improve with the widening of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Residents from southern Cumberland County attempting to access the Cross Creek Mall area should experience moderate travel time decreases due to the more direct system linkage provided by the proposed project. It is anticipated that travel times for local trips could increase slightly due to the fact that turns will be limited to right-in / right-out due to the proposed median. In the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) adopted by FAMPO, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is listed as a major thoroughfare. The FAMPO Highway Plan also recommended that SR 1596 (Glensford Road) be widened to major thoroughfare standards and considered the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) widening a "Priority One Project." g. Farmland Impacts Because of the existing urban environment along the entire length of the project, no prime farmland will be impacted by the proposed project. h. Environmental Justice and Title VI Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, provides that "each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." In many.ways, the executive order is an affirmation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which already requires there be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability, in all federally-assisted programs. The Demographic Area has a diverse racial composition. Whites make up 56% of the Demographic Area population. African Americans are the largest minority comprising 29.4% of the population, followed by Hispanics at 8.0% of the population. Upon further examination of the Census data at the block group level, Census Tract 20, Block Group 3 contained an African American population of 46.8%, approximately 25% greater than the County average of 34.4%. This area generally includes the Montclair subdivision west of SR 1596 (Glensford Road), the Camelot Apartments, the Brittany Place Apartments, and a manufactured home subdivision southwest of the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) intersection. Furthermore, local officials indicated an African-American enclave within the Chestnut Hill subdivision west of Census Tract 20, Block Group 3 (see Figure 6). This area should not 30 experience direct impacts due to its distance from the project corridor and the fact that access to this area is from US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). A relatively young population throughout the Demographic Area and all other studied groups, is likely due to the presence of Fort Bragg Military Reservation. No nursing homes or enclaves of elderly were observed during the site visit or indicated by local officials. In 1999, the Demographic Area had a median household income of $37,214, which is comparable to Cumberland County during the same time period. The poverty rate within the Demographic Area (7.9%) was much lower than the poverty rate in Cumberland County during that same time period. According to local officials, there are no impoverished or low income areas within the DCIA. Based on the demographic analysis and information from local officials, it does not appear that there will be disproportionate adverse impacts to minority, low-income, or other special populations. 3. Indirect and Cumulative Analysis A summary of the indirect and cumulative effects analysis indicates the following: A limited amount of vacant land is currently available for development and is concentrated along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and SR 1404 (Morganton Road). Any growth that occurs in this part of the Future Land Use Study Area is likely going to occur with or without the TIP Project, and local officials feel that the area between SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and SR 1404 (Morganton Road) will be built out in the next five years. ¦ Residential uses may transition to commercial uses along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between Belford and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road); however the Glensford Study Area Plan did not anticipate any intensity in land use along the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) corridor south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). Small-scale redevelopment opportunities exist at the new location portion of the proposed project, although land is somewhat limited. There are already plans for a Wal-Mart and CVS along US 401 Business (Raeford Road) near the proposed extension, which suggests that this type of development is already occurring. Because of the limited amount of developable land, any induced development has little potential to further degrade water quality or affect natural resources. Although there is potential for growth related to the proposed project, much of this development is currently under way or unrelated to this project. Therefore, it does not appear that further study of indirect and cumulative effects is warranted. 31 Local officials pointed out an African-American enclave within the Chestnut Hill subdivision west of Census Tract 20, Block Group 3. This area should not be affected due to its distance from the project corridor and the fact that access to this area is from US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). B. Cultural Resources 1. Compliance Guidelines This project is subject to compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. 2. Historic Architecture In a memorandum dated June 24, 2004 the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) determined that the project would not affect any historic structures. Accordingly, NCDOT architectural historians did not initiate a survey of the project area. A copy of this memorandum is included in Appendix B. 3. Archaeology The HPO, in a memo dated June 24, 2004, recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix B). The HPO stated that they are aware of no historic resources, which would be affected by the project. C. Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects the use of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historic properties. No Section 4(f) protected properties will be impacted by this project. D. Air Quality Analysis The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas. 32 The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the intersection of US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The predicted 1- hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2010, 2015, and 2030 are 4.70, 4.20 and 4.80 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Appendix C, Tables Al through A3, for input data and output. The project is located in Cumberland County was designated as a marginal nonattainment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Cumberland County is under an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the nonattainment designation has been deferred until April 15, 2008, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 is not applicable until April 15, 2009 (one year after the nonattainment designation becomes effective). In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on- highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph: 33 2020 U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000- Vfy1T (trillionslyear) 6 Benzene (-57%) DPWDEG (Z7%) 3 FrmatlelyeV x560 AX*t1A1e1We 52X; 1 6 ?tjdk be R9D; AZIDN-1k ({i39i; 0 Emissions (tonslyear) _... ? 200,000 V UT (io 4%) -f 100, 000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2- generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns. As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could adjust the full 21 and the primary 6 MSATs. Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information: Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final 34 determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project. Emissions The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis. These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations. Dispersion The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations. 35 Exposure Levels and Health Effects Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses. Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level. The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures. 36 Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen. The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure. Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals. 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure. Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies. There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years. Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems'. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project. Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment." 37 In this document, FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various alternatives, (or a qualitative assessment, as applicable) and has acknowledged that (some, all, or identify by alternative) the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated. As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at: www. fhwa.dot. gov/environment/airtoxi c/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm For each alternative in the EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase in VMT will lead to higher MSAT emissions for the preferred alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs, except for diesel particulate matter, decrease as speed increases. The extent to .which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models. Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives presented in the EA are nearly the same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA- projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be 38 higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along Glensford Road (SR 1592), from Raeford Road (US 401 Business) to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400). However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. E. Hiehway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category (see Appendix C). In accordance with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of this proposed highway project will be the approval date of the FONSI. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility. The number of receptors in each activity category for each section predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5 (see Appendix Q. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 37 residences and 1 business are predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area with the selection of the west side alignment, west side widening being worst case. The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level contour is <57.0 feet from the 39 center of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level contour is 73.3 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. Contour information in Table N5 shows this contour information by section. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway. Table N6 (see Appendix C) exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by roadway section. There were no substantial noise level impacts anticipated by this project by the selection of any of the widening options evaluated. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +13 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily noticeable. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. There are impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed project. Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement. The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access, meaning most commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersection will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50' from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400' long. An access opening of 40'(10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27). Hence, this type of control of access effective eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures. 40 In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold cost per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control. The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project, due to the amount of substantial amount of right-of-way necessary to make vegetative barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier should be approximately 100' wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of-way would be required. The cost of the additional right-of-way and plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the allowed abatement cost per benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project. The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise. Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects especially in areas where there are not traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project. F. Geodetic Markers This project will not impact any geodetic survey markers. G. Hazardous Materials Three possible underground storage tank (UST) facilities and a used automobile lot were identified within the proposed project corridor. The sites are described in Table 6. Low to negligible monetary and scheduling impacts resulting from these sites are anticipated. 41 NCDOT's GeoEnvironmental Section observed no additional contaminated properties during the field reconnaissance and regulatory agencies' records search. The GeoEnvironmental Section will provide soil and groundwater assessments on each of the above properties after identification of the selected alternative and before right of way acquisition. Please note that discovery of additional sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and nor reasonably discernable during the project reconnaissance may occur. No Hazardous Waste Sites were identified within the project limits. No apparent landfills were identified within the project limits. 42 Table 6: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites roperty Location P F ii Property Owner A UST Owner F 1 Facility ID # Short Stop 35 Lil Thrift Food Mart Lil Thrift Food Mart 5001 Raeford Rd. 1007 Arsenal Ave. 1007 Arsenal Ave. 0-211408 Fayetteville, NC 28304 Fayetteville, NC 28305 Fayetteville, NC 28305 This active Exxon gas station and convenience store is located on the southwest quadrant of US 401 Bus. (Raeford Road) and NC 59 (Hope Mills Road). Three USTs are located in the southwest corner of the property and are 125 feet from NC 59 centerline. There is no record of contamination on the NCDENR incident database. No other evidence of USTs or UST removal was observed. This site will have a low impact to this project. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Koretizing Dry Cleaning W.J. Fuqua 4924 Raeford Rd. 852 Buckland Drive N/A N/A Fayetteville, NC 28304 Fayetteville, NC 28312 This active dry cleaning facility is located across from the US 401 Bus and NC 59 intersection. The parking lot in front of the building has asphalt and concrete patching where gas stations pump island and tanks may have been. The building and patching are 86 feet and 52 feet respectively, from the US 401 Bus. Median. This property does not appear on the UST Section database. This site will have a low impact to this project Property Location Property Owner J E UST Owner Facility ID # The Car Exchange Paul Investments, LLC 5000 Raeford Rd. 3610 Johnson Mill Drive N/A N/A Fayetteville, NC 28304 Raeford, NC 28376 This active used car dealership is located across from the US 401 Bus and NC 59 intersection. The parking lot surrounding the office contains approximately 40 vehicles. This structure appears to be a former fast food drive through. However, gas station style vacuums and air hoses were located behind the building. The parking lot is fairly new, therefore no evidence of USTs or UST removal was observed. This property does not appear on the UST Section database. This site will have a low impact to this project. Property Location 1 Owner 1E UST Owner 11 Facility ID # Pantry 3481 DBA Kangaroo The Pantry The Pantry 5336 Cliffdale Rd. 1801 Douglas Drive 1801 Douglas Drive 0-036229 Fayetteville, NC 28314 Sanford, NC 27330 Sanford, NC 27330 This active gas station and convenience store is located on the northwest quadrant of the Cliffdale Rd and Glensford Dr. Four (4) USTs are located on the west side of the property and are 275 feet from the Glensford Dr. median. The canopied pump island is 117 feet from this road. There is no record of contamination on the NCDENR incident database. No other evidence of USTs or UST removal was observed. This site will have a negligible impact to this project. 43 VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. Physical Resources The project area lies in the southeastern portion of North Carolina within the Upper Coastal Plain physiographic province along the terraces of the Cape Fear River. The topography of the project vicinity is broad and nearly level to gently undulating ridges. The streams systems are not extensive and tributaries are limited. The project area drains into Beaver Creek, a tributary to the Cape Fear River. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 200 to 220 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929). The proposed project area is relatively developed throughout. It is located within the city limits of Fayetteville. Most of the project area lies within a residential neighborhood. Only a small forested portion at the southern end of the project is undeveloped. 1. Soils The soil association within the project area is Wagram-Faceville-Norfolk. This association consists of soils that have clayey or loamy subsoil. They are found on broad uplands typically more than a mile wide. These soils are suitable for most agriculture crops or urban development. They are strongly acid to moderately acid throughout unless the surface has been limed. The individual map units in the project area are Blaney loamy sand, Faceville loamy sand, Faceville-Urban land complex, Norfolk loamy sand, Urban land, and Wagram loamy sand. The following are descriptions of map units within the study area. The NRCS does not classify any of these soils as hydric, but list the Norfolk and Wagram map units as potentially having hydric inclusions (approximately 5 and 3 percent per map unit, respectively, is hydric). • Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes, is a well drained soil found on the side slopes of uplands paralleling streams. This soil has moderate permeability and low available water capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of greater than 6 feet, although a perched water table is present after heavy rains for brief periods. Soil erosion can be severe if the soil is exposed. • Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes, is a well drained soil found on convex ridges and smooth side slopes. This soil has moderate permeability and the available water capacity is medium. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of greater than 6 feet. The potential for erosion is moderate. • Faceville-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, contains areas of Faceville soil and urban land intermingled and cannot be mapped separately because of their small size. Urban land consists of areas that have been covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other impervious surfaces. The slopes are modified to fit the site. • Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a well drained upland soil found on broad smooth flats. This soil has moderate permeability and the available water capacity is medium. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 4 to 6 feet. 44 Urban land consists of areas that are more than 85 percent urban. The natural soils have been extensively altered and covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other impervious surfaces. Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is a well drained soil found on broad flats and side slopes of the uplands. This soil has moderate permeability and the available water capacity is low to medium. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of greater than 6 feet. 2. Water Resources a. Water Ouality Classification The project is located in the Upper Cape Fear basin (US Geologic Survey Hydrologic Unit Code 03030004). Most of the project area is located on an interstream divide. Although no named streams are located within the project area, the project crosses one headwater tributary to Beaver Creek. Topography is relatively level and the surface waters within the project area drain into a small unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek flows into Little Rockfish Creek, a tributary to the Cape Fear River. The small unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek located within the project area is a low- gradient, first-order stream. This feature has been heavily modified by channelization. Just upstream of the project area the channel transitions from an ephemeral feature to an intermittent stream. This intermittent channel flows within the project area entirely through a culvert [approximately 150 feet]. The bed material consists mostly of sand and clay. On the day of the site visit, the flow was only a trickle and water was slightly turbid with suspended sediment. Scouring of the channel was observed exposing some of the clay substrate. Small permanent to semi-permanent pools are present. The riparian community is a narrow band of herbaceous vegetation, with a clump of deciduous trees and shrubs present near the railroad. Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) that is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. If a stream is not classified it takes the classification of its receiving stream. The stream within the project drains into Beaver Creek, which drains into Little Rockfish Creek. Within the project study area Beaver Creek is classified as Class C (NCDENR 2005a). Class C waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities. No water resources classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are located within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. 45 b. Water Ouality Information Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ. The program has established monitoring stations for sampling selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are known to have varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality can be derived from the number of taxa present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent. There is one macroinvertebrate monitoring station on Little Rockfish Creek at NC 59, approximately 3.8 miles downstream of the project area. In both 1998 and 2003 it was given a bioclassification of Good. c. Impaired Waters North Carolina's §303(d) List (NCDENR 2002) is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that is damaged by pollutants, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria, or by pollution such as hydromodification and habitat degradation. The source of impairment might be from point sources, non-point sources, and atmospheric deposition. The standards violation might be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or an unknown cause of impairment. This list is compiled by the DWQ and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by April 1 of every even year. None of the water resources described in Section 2.2.1 are designated as biologically impaired water bodies regulated under the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) §303(d). d. Permitted Discharges Point source discharges in North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are no permits issued to discharge to the streams within and adjacent to the project area (NCDENR, 2005b). A visual observation of potential non-point source (NPS) discharges located within and near the project study area was conducted. Potential sources of NPS pollution near the project area were identified in the form of atmospheric deposition from passing vehicles; fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from nearby residential areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from nearby roadways, parking lots, and residential driveways were identified. Overall, the threat of non-point source discharge is above average because of the high density of development found within the project area. The channel located in the project area has only a minimal riparian buffer along the channel banks because of the adjacent development. 46 e. Water Resource Impacts Both temporary and permanent impacts to the water quality of the study area will occur from the project. Potential short-term impacts to water resources in the study area will include increased sedimentation and turbidity from construction-related erosion. To help mitigate potential temporary impacts, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sedimentation and erosion control will be implemented during construction activities. Project construction may result in the following temporary impacts to surface water resources: Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation removal, erosion, and/or construction. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction activities and construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment. Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to surface and groundwater flow from construction. Non-point source discharges from the highway surface can be partially mitigated by the construction of filter strips of vegetation adjacent to the highway. Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction may include: strict erosion and sediment control procedures; careful containment of oil, gasoline, and other hazardous materials; and reduced canopy removal within riparian fringes along the stream. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs but may also affect downstream communities. Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, during the construction phase of the project to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. Permanent impacts will include an increase of toxic substances such as lead, oil, and petroleum as non-point discharge from stormwater runoff leaves the road surface. Increased road surface runoff, reduced infiltration, and degradation of stream channel and aquatic habitat will occur. Increased non-point source pollution from highway runoff could cause overloading of the stream's assimilative capacity, and consequently a deterioration of the stream's water, quality rating. To help mitigate potential permanent impacts, BMPs for stormwater and water quality should be implemented at the end of construction activities. 47 B. Biotic Resources 1. Terrestrial Communities Only three terrestrial communities were identified within the project area; maintained/disturbed community, pine forest, and cutover. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed following the community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment but may not be mentioned separately for each community. a. Plant Communities The maintained/disturbed community includes two types of habitat that are currently impacted by human disturbance including commercial development and residential areas. These habitats are generally kept in a low-growing, early successional state by regular maintenance, but include individual landscape trees and shrubs. Within the project area the regularly maintained roadside shoulder is indistinguishable from the maintained residential and commercial landscapes. The commercial and residential area includes maintained lawns and waste places near outbuildings and parking areas. Most of these areas are maintained on a regular basis by mowing. Residential areas are dominated by various turf grasses, ornamental shrubs, and large shade trees including loblolly pine, red maple, river birch, and dogwood. The north end of the project area is mostly church properties. The pine forest community is dominated by mature loblolly pine with a prominent mixture of hardwood trees that are emerging into the canopy. These hardwoods also dominate the mid-canopy and include sweet gum, willow oak, water oak, and laurel oak. Understory species are scattered and include sassafras and Carolina laurelcherry. The vines include muscadine grape, Carolina jessamine, English ivy, and wisteria. This is a successional vegetation community composed of native species. The TNC equivalent is most likely a sweetgum - (water oak, willow oak) - loblolly pine / mayberry - wax-myrtle forest [Liquidambar styraciflua - Quercus (nigra, phellos) - Pinus taeda / Vaccinium elliottii - Morella cerifera) Forest Alliance (I.B.2.N.a.22)). The cutover community is a recently logged forest located at the south end of the project area and is adjacent to the pine forest. Prior to logging the community probably was most likely similar to the adjacent pine forest community. Vegetation is dense. It is mostly dominated by weedy species that includes wisteria, muscadine grape, multiflora rose, privet, dog fennel, and Chinese lespedeza. 48 b. Fauna Species that prefer open areas for feeding and nesting can be found in the disturbed urban communities. The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living and dead faunal components. Animal species observed are noted with an asterisk. The European starling, gray catbird, and American robin are common birds that use these habitats to find insects, seeds, or worms. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or prefer a mixture of habitat types. The eastern cottontail prefers a mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation or out in the roadside and residential areas. The black rat snake will come out of forested habitat to forage on rodents in open areas. Blue jays, brown thrasher, eastern towhee, song sparrows, white-throated sparrows, and bluebirds also utilize edge habitat. Mature, natural forested areas were not present in the corridor, and thus would limit the diversity of wildlife encountered in the study corridor. Wooded areas were primarily small patches of maturing planted loblolly pines. Birds expected to be encountered in disturbed areas such as this would include Carolina wren, pine warbler, and northern cardinal, in addition to previously mentioned species. Mammals such as gray squirrels, short-tailed shrews and deer mice are common inhabitants of small woodlots such as this. Reptiles and amphibians such as green anoles, ground skinks, southern toads, squirrel treefrogs, and box turtles commonly occur in these habitats. c. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts. Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by project construction from clearing and paving. Most of the area to be impacted is maintained/disturbed community such as residential lawns, not natural communities. Estimated impacts are based on the proposed slope stake lines. Table 7 describes the potential impacts to terrestrial communities by habitat type. 49 Table 7: Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities Community Type Acres Percent Project Area Maintained/Disturbed* 10.12 64% Pine Forest 0.28 2% Cutover 0.87 6% Total Impact 11.27 72% Existing Roadway 4.46 28% Project Area 15.73 *Does not include existing roadway Destruction of communities, both natural and maintained/disturbed along the project alignment will result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and less mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction. Most of the impacted area is maintained/disturbed areas and the plants and animals that are found in these urban communities are generally common throughout eastern North Carolina. 2. Aquatic Communities a. Aquatic Habitats No aquatic vegetation was observed in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. Scouring of the channel was observed exposing some of the clay substrate. A number of small permanent pools are present. Mosquitofish and various frogs such as southern cricket frog, green frog, and bullfrog may utilize the permanent pools in the stream from time to time. Only snails and unidentified frogs were observed. b. Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Communities The project area is urban and the stream has been influenced by this urbanization, including loss of portions of the riparian buffer, increased channel scouring, and loss of habitat. There will be no direct impacts to aquatic communities from the project as the intermittent stream is already within a culvert through the entire project area. Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased sedimentation. Sediments have the potential to affect. fish and other aquatic life in several ways including the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased sediment loading may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity. Due to the intermittent nature of the stream these impacts are likely to be 50 minimal. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. C. Jurisdictional Topics 1. Waters of the United States Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters of the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the USACE has major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "waters of the United States." Wetlands have been described as: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. [33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)] The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination. a. Wetlands The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) on-line Wetland Mapper does not show any wetlands within the project study area (based on topographic quadrangle of Fayetteville). A site evaluation verified that no jurisdictional wetlands are present within the project area. b. Jurisdictional Streams The site evaluation identified an intermittent channel. This intermittent stream flows through an existing culvert at the north end of the proposed project at the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The small unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek located within the project area is a low- gradient, first-order stream. This feature has been heavily modified by channelization. Just upstream of the project area the channel transitions from an ephemeral feature to an intermittent stream. This intermittent channel flows within the project area entirely through a culvert (approximately 150 feet). The bed material consists mostly of sand and clay. On the day of the site visit, the flow was only a trickle and water was slightly turbid with suspended sediment. Scouring of the channel was observed exposing some of the clay substrate. Small permanent to 51 semi-permanent pools are present. The riparian community is a narrow band of herbaceous vegetation, with a patch of deciduous trees and shrubs present near the railroad. c. Potential Wetland and Stream Impacts Project construction can be accomplished without infringing on the tributary. Impacts to this channel would only occur if the culvert is replaced or extended. The current design does not call for replacement or extension of the culvert. D. Permitting 1. Permits and Certifications Required No stream or wetland impacts are anticipated. Therefore, the need for stream or wetland permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is not expected. Because this project in not expected to have any impacts to Waters of the United States, no compensatory mitigation requirements are anticipated. a. Section 404 If the existing culvert is replaced or extended Section 404 permits may be necessary. Construction would likely be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 33, as promulgated under 72 FR 11092 - 11198, March 12, 2007. This permit is for temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, necessary for construction activities to access fills or dewatering of construction sites, provided that the associated primary activity is authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Coast Guard. Additionally a Section 404 General Permit (GP) No. 31 may be required. The GP 31 is a regional permit required to perform work in or affecting navigable water of the United States and waters of the United States, upon recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1988 (33 U.S.C. 403), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). b. Section 401 Additionally, if culvert changes are expected, then this project will require a 401 certification under General Certification No. 3634 for the NWP No. 33 and General Certification No. 3627 for the GP No. 31, from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) prior to issuance of the NWP No.33 and GP No. 31. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S. Final permit decision rests with the USACE. 52 2. Instream Structures No bridges are currently present on the project that would require demolition during construction. However, one culvert is present. While constructing new culverts or replacing the existing culverts, if needed, NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. All in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as follows: Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of ORW or threatened and/or endangered species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. The work is carefully coordinated with the responsible agency to protect the ORW or Threatened and Endangered species. Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. The unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek has a water quality classification of C. Stringent sediment and erosion control methods should be implemented at all times. Therefore, Case 3 applies to the proposed widening of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) over the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The streambed in the project area contains sand, silt, and clay. Therefore, conditions in the stream raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is recommended for any instream work required. ` E. Protected Species 1. Federally Protected Species Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS lists seven species (list updated January 29, 2007) under federal protection for Cumberland County. These species are listed in Table 8. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact. 53 Table 8: Species Under Federal Protection in Cumberland County Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status` Biological Conclusion Vertebrates American alligator Alligator mississi iensis T(S/A) NA Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect Invertebrates Saint Francis' satyr Neonym ha mitchelhi francisci E No Effect Vascular Plants American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E No Effect Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E No Effect Pondberry (=Southern s icebush) Lindera melissifolia E No Effect Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E No Effect Notes: E Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T(S/A) Similarity of Appearance-Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. American alligator The American alligator was nearly extirpated from their range as a result of market hunting and loss of habitat by the 1960's. It was listed as Endangered in 1967. Alligators responded well to management practices and were delisted in 1987. Although this species is secure, some related crocodiles and caimans are still in trouble, and the USFWS still regulates the trade of alligator skins or any products made from them. This listing is to protect those endangered animals whose skin has a similar appearance, but that are illegal on the commercial market. The American alligator is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. A Biological Conclusion is not required since Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance [T (S/A)] species are not afforded full protection under the ESA. Red-cockaded woodpecker The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird 7.4 to 8.5 long with a wingspan of 14 to 15 inches. The back and top of the head are black. The cheek is white. Numerous small white spots arranged in horizontal rows give a ladder-back appearance. The chest is dull white with small black spots on the side. Males and females look alike except males have a small red streak above the cheek. 54 Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those that are infected with a fungus producing red-heart disease. A clan nests and roosts in a group of cavity trees called a colony. The colony may have one or two cavity trees to more than 12, but it is used only by one clan. In most colonies, all the cavity trees are within a circle about 1,500 ft wide. Open stands of pines with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years provide suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines are the most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines or stands that have a dense hardwood under story are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. The woodpecker's diet consists mainly of insects that include ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, and caterpillars. Biological Conclusion: No Effect The mature pine stand in the project area consists of loblolly pines with a dense understory of hardwood trees. This type of habitat is typically avoided and would not serve as either nesting or foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. No occurrences of the red- cockaded woodpecker within the project vicinity were found in the NHP files. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species. Saint Francis' Satyr The Saint Francis' Satyr is a small, dark brown butterfly with conspicuous "eye spots" on the lower surfaces of both the fore and hind wings. The spots are usually round to oval in shape and have a dark maroon-brown center that contains lighter silvery spots within them. The border of these eyespots is straw yellow with an outermost band of dark brown. Two bright orange bands along the posterior wing margins and two slightly darker orange-brown bands across the center of each wing further accentuate the spots. This butterfly prefers areas of open wet meadows, interspersed with woody stems, and dominated by a high diversity of sedges and other wetland graminoids. Other wetland types may be suitable but specific habitat requirements for this species are poorly understood. It appears beaver and frequent fires may play an important role in habitat development and maintenance. This species has also been observed in pitcher plant swales, with cane, and with rare plants such as rough-leaved loosestrifes and pocosin lily. . The Saint Francis' Satyr is one of the most rare and least known American butterflies. It is currently known to exist only on Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County. This is a disjunct population over 400 miles south of the nearest historic locality of it's nominate species (N. m. mitchellii). Biological Conclusion: No Effect There are no wet areas within the project area that are dominated by a diversity of sedges or wetland graminoids. Therefore, there is no habitat for this butterfly. A search of the NHP 55 database showed no occurrences of this endangered species within the project area. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on the Saint Francis' satyr. American chaffseed American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems. The large, purplish-yellow tubular flowers are borne singly on short stalks in the axils of the uppermost, reduced leaves. The leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic, stalkless, and 0.78 to 1.9 inches long. The entire plant is densely but minutely hairy throughout, including the flowers. Flowering occurs from April to June, with the fruits maturing in early summer. American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire- maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and other open grass/sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependant upon factors such as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water tables to maintain the open to partly open conditions that it requires.. Historically, the species existed on savannas and pinelands throughout the coastal plain and on sandstone knobs and plains inland where frequent, naturally occurring fires maintained these sub-climax communities. The American chaffseed is hemiparasitic (partially dependant upon another plant as host). However, it is not host-specific, requiring a specialized host, and can use a variety of other plant species as a host. Biological Conclusion: No Effect No habitat for American chaffseed, fitting the above descriptions, exists within the project area. A search of the NHP database showed no occurrences of this endangered species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on the American chaffseed. Michaux's sumac Michaux's sumac or false poison sumac is a densely hairy colonial shrub with erect stems, which are 1 to 3 feet in height. The shrub's compound leaves are narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and veiny and slightly hairy on their bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on its edges. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white and are 4 to 5-parted. Each plant is unisexual. With a male plant the flowers and fruits are solitary, with a female plant all flowers are grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters. The plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a dull red drupe, is produced in October and November. Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. Most of the plant's remaining populations are on highway rights-of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. Other populations are in areas with periodic fires, or on sites undergoing natural succession. One population is situated in a natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay. 56 Biological Conclusion: No Effect No habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the project area. Road sides are regularly mowed and do not provide suitable habitat. A search of the NHP database shows no occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on Michaux's sumac. Pondberry Pondberry (also known as southern spicebush) is a deciduous shrub that grows to approximately 6 feet tall. It spreads vegetatively by stolons. Pale yellow flowers appear in the spring before the leaves emerge. The bright red fruits are oval shaped, 0.5 inch long, and appear in the fall. Pondberry is distinguished from the two other North American members of the genus (Lindera benzoin and Lindera subcoriacea) by its drooping, thin, membranaceous, and ovate to elliptically shaped leaves. The leaves of pondberry have a strong, sassafras-like odor when crushed. Vegetative reproduction is accomplished via stolons. The plants grow in clones of 2 to 3 years of age, but appear to live for only a few years. New stems that emerge from rootstock continually replace dead stems. The plants are dioecious and bloom around March. Mature fruits can be found in October. Pondberry is most frequently associated with wetland habitats such as bottomland hardwoods in inland areas, and the margins of sinks, ponds, and other depressions in coastal places. This species prefers shaded areas but can also grow in full sun. Biological Conclusion: No Effect No wetlands, ponds or other suitable habitat for pondberry is present in the project area. A search of the NHP database shows no occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on pondberry. Rough-leaved loosestrife The rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb, with erect stems 12 to 24 inches in height. Leaves are usually sessile, occurring in whorls of 3 or 4. They are broadest at the base (0.3 to 0.8 inches wide), entire, and have three prominent veins. The yellow, bisexual flowers are borne on a loose, terminal raceme. The inflorescence usually has five petals with ragged margins near the apex and with dots or streaks. Flowering occurs from late May to early June, and seeds are formed by August. Despite winter dormancy, the plant is easy to recognize in the fall because of the reddish color and distinctive leaf patterns. 57 The habitat for the rough-leaved loosestrife is generally the ecotone between longleaf pine or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where moist, sandy, or peaty soils occur and where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. Fire is the main factor for the suppression of taller vegetation. The rough-leaved loosestrife is associated with six natural community types: low pocosin, high pocosin, wet pine flatwoods, pine savannah, stream head pocosin, and sandhill seep. Biological Conclusion: No Effect No habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is present in the project area. A search of the NHP database shows no occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on rough-leaved loosestrife. 2. Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 9 includes FSC species listed for Cumberland County, presence of habitat within the project area, and their state classifications. 58 Table 9: Federal Species of Concern in Cumberland County Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat Present Vertebrates Bachman's sparrow Aimo hila aestivalis Sc No "Broadtail" madtom Noturus s p. 1 Sc No Carolina go her frog Rana ca ito ca ito T Yes Northern pine snake** Pituo his melanoleucus melanoleucus Sc Yes Sandhills chub Semotilus lumbee Sc No Southern hognose snake* Heterodon simus Sc Yes Invertebrates Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E No Yellow lam mussel Lam silis cariosa E No Vascular Plants Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa T No Bog oatgrass Danthonia e ilis SR-T No Bogs icebush Lindera subcoriacea T No Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii T No Carolina asphodel Tofieldia labra SR-P No Carolina goldenrod Solida o ulchra E No Carolina grass-of- amassus Parnassia caroliniana E No Conferva ondweed Potamo eton con ervoides SR-D No Georgia indigo-bush Amor ha georgiana var. georgiana E No Loose watermilfoil Myrio h llum laxum T No Long beach seedbox Ludwi is brevi es SR-T Yes Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma ickerin ii var. ickerin ii E Yes Ponds ice Litsea aestivalis SR-T No Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia SR-T No Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae E-SC No Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii T- Yes Sandhills pyxie-moss P xidanthera barbulata var. brevistyla E Yes Savanna cowbane Oxy olis ternata W1 No S iked medusa Ptero lossas is ecristata E Yes Spring-flowering goldenrod Solida o verna SR-L No Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula SR-L, SC No Notes * Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago. ** Obscure record-the date/location of observation is uncertain. E Endangered T Threatened SC Special Concern SR Significantly Rare D Species is disjunct to North Carolina. L Range of the species is limited to NC and adjacent states (endemic or near endemic) P The species is at the periphery of its range in NC T The species is rare throughout its range WI Rare, but relatively secure Sources: Franklin and Finnegan, ed., 2004; LeGrand, McRae, Hall, and Finnegan, 2004 NHP - list updated 9/05, USFWS - list updated 2/5/03 59 3. State Protected Species Organisms that are listed as State Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. No FSC species were observed during the site visit and none are recorded at NHP as occurring within 2 miles of the project area. 60 VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION A. Comments Solicited The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service * State Clearinghouse N.C. Department of Cultural Resources * N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources * N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission N.C. Division of Water Quality N.C. Department of Public Instruction Cumberland County Schools * City of Fayetteville These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed in this document. B. NEPA/404 Merger Process Coordination This project does not meet the criteria for the NEPA/404 Merger Process. C. Public Involvement On November 16, 2004 a Citizens' Informational Workshop was held by NCDOT representatives to present the proposed project to the public and obtain comments and suggestions about the improvements. The workshop was held at Montclair Elementary School. Approximately 63 people attended this workshop. A second workshop was held January 30, 2007 at the Montclair Elementary School. The focus of the 2nd workshop was to show specific designs that addressed traffic calming, i.e. roundabout option. Approximately 67 citizens attended. Their primary concern was property impacts to residents along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). They also showed concerns regarding access to driveways on SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Additional meetings were held prior to the Citizens' Informational Workshop on January 30, 2007 with representatives from Berean Baptist Church and Montclair Elementary School to discuss their concerns individually. 61 A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project. MWP/mp 62 APPENDIX A Figures FAYET ENO PROJECT LLE RD 0 US 401 ,4 A N f EGN PROJECT 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 _ Feet BY: J.TORTORELLA VICINITY MAP xoara ? County: CUMBERLAND 4904 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) Figure . OF TRANSPORTATION TO US 401 (RAEFORD ROAD) Div: 6 TIP# U-4422 Z DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FAYETTEVILLE 4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS: 35024.1.1 OF rltPxs?e4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 Date: MARCH 2007 00 0 O m n cn ° _ D ? o (D N N A m rn 0 ll (L Z) Wd 9S cn °' N N v0 A r O M w ' ? O o J OL (d O9 0 o (L'l) OL 09 ? o A N WO m N O W J W a, W a A WO W rn m m p 2 N 1 N I N ' ? ? (O l (D ? ?LL) N `' A N W O Z L Wd? 99 (D O W O A W A W A Q A ? (L'L) N O -? Q ZL Wd 09 A W O N _ W O W CJI J ? ? ? N 1 N T ? (D O A N O 3 n N (7 c A Q o l 09 O l N 11 d? 09 N N W? O W W N N V ' N O 0 m o 3. 7 C ?Q N m? W Q O O ° O < o C C C O Z< N " U O o p, m n n " GI o G .0 ? '.., C:, Z co # mz Z 2Q op r- ? rD- _ C n < c° C,)D 2 < ? o = a m 0 m < ? -a ( n O Do 0 2C cn K 09 rn o -0 cm X D ?o C vT < ii O? r ca Co O (P CD O O O (D o ? N A O O f ?- ? O h A 0 l) 99 N N Ad ° A A {? N? 3 v ? O O N J ? N (0 A Q W N ? J N ? J ZL(Ln4d ?o 0 1j N N O N N ? cNp ' 0o W co N W G) (D 7 cn 0 Q O_ c cn 0 W c cn v (D 0 Q N Q N W W N O N 'p O O W 0 O D O A 0 0L (L Z 09 ° Wd ? O O O I N m ? A p W 41 O 0L (W 99 co w 1? ? T oo? lW WT 0 J N O c cn A O W 0 O ;17 Q D o o o TRAFFIC MAP - L W ? 07 c 2005/2030 ESTIMATED AADT BUILD NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT °F ?A1ry?,° n N c o W? SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION ? N > ? z TO US 401 (RAEFORD ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS o ° D FAYETTEVILLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND o N Z ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ?Fy?pFTFlAKryc N o CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U 4422 - 0 X I 0 m r r D a rn N O m O 0 o J1? 1 T 3 0 N W W O Ql J N m A W / N A ? w A m ? N ? N O A O ? m A A A ll a vi 09 G) (D N 0 O Q N Q A W m ? C) J g W W w N J N W J A ? 4 o ? A?j O m O W I W 09 11 A? N N J J O CT Cn A A O 1 ? O N J J N O (.n (j1 O co A N O O P N O o O i m 0 V) 3. cn, (D O Q ° N) D `? N D Q D -n D CD 3 (D rn ? v m A N C, O] m W cn N N N ? ? N O N O O 7 ? A A A W J N ?l Z) ? \*Zl W?55 ?1WWI 1? J J 1L d 09 A A m t A W N N p 4-? too. w OD o O cl, w m N N c 07 .A O T> W T? 0,V^ 7 EY 6 OT N Q N W O D Ln D L N N W m A W ? A 1 N Cn O O 1 O 11 I l z) ol 09 l l I W 09 Wd _ Cn W O J ? N w J m N O ? N cD W N A - N O W Q U) -? w m O Zl p Q O W N try O 0o N v O J W O Cn W N A cn N W Q1 A N W O A cl N n ? O N O N 0 O (D A Q- N _ A Q 0 CWT A N W ? 3 O co ? O A ? 7 ? Q J A N ? co Q v, v+ ? ? Il'Z) Zl 55 L) v? N ? A A O m W J ? O W w W O o co O a a O co ? =3 M O) O A N O0 _ a rn Q- J CD U N J N W O W o A 11 Wz) 110. 55 nd 11 W -? 5 5 N ^ ? Wd N cn 0 ? (T O O - U1 M N ? n N v 0 (D ) W ° 00 TRAFFIC MAP _ w °' rn C? ~ 2005/2030 ESTIMATED AADT BUILD NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT °` N?ft ry ``ti N N rn SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (D c?+ r- z TO US 401 RAEFORD ROAD ( ) o -o r ' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND `. FAYETTEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH jG` ` ? z NTOFrnPH ' nn'i CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 c? 0 0 L7 z D C° a' a o D m N < SS ?,? N j A ? _ N ? _ m 1 N _ m 1 I N N A W O lm O p N N J N rn T ? N 0L (? Z) 09 w m ?Wd? °m W A ? j m ° V ? °' m R (L Z) 09 N (Wdl w W w o ? N 1N N N N N w J ? ZL (LW SS V W A O N I \7` p \V O ~ A O w _, N 0 Q N ZL? 09 a m j v w 0 ? 1 T N N N V? ? ? ? _ V 0 0 a o ?: o 70 Q (n O ? A ? ? A c cl) a 0 W c U) X m (D 0 Q Q m O w L Z) ? m 01IWd) 00. 09 ° m O N O N N O m N rn ? ? o N ? w m m O Z! 99 ° OL We-) ? I? N r i1 1? m I nl 0l (L L? 09 r3 m_ ^' w N ?° (Wd) m LLIL L) 09 N Wd N 0 ? A w w O O C) L m cn D ? c g N W a o 0 A N m I ,J O ? rn a m o N A O N OL(L'L) SS \ D 3 N cw m N C CD O Q- V A s N O ? N N ? ? ? O m O m o N ° l cD cn 1? o X1 ?? Z N 0 W A Q a N '?? u+ N cn ZL(L L) SS N [P J ? A p I m m D D m A N Vl (D 7 O Q. ;L7 a 0 O (T O c cn % O co -C W E Q O .I7 a W o o TRAFFIC MAP o wcn C 7 2005/2030 ESTIMATED AADT NO-BUILD NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT °1 -n N c o ?? SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION '- m IV - ISION OF HIGHWAYS ti z TO US 401 (RAEFORD ROAD) D o C? D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FAYETTEVILLE 9. ` ` v N o eTaF, p» CUMBERLAND COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH TIP PROJECT U-4422 0 0 m m r r D CO A A 0 N 00 A A LL (W * 09 N N J J 41 O CO AT N ? V V N o Cn O O A D m D CD 3 CD m ? v N O O U1 N O C) O -? m o D 3. Cn (Z ° N N z 0 60 c c_ 7 ? A N A A ` N ?? Z) 1 A z? 01 99 Wd ? N N N N v' 1 ? A C L7 0 cf) 0 a cn 0 Cp O D D (Jt N CT N ? O O N _ A N cn A N Q1 O ) 09 LL- ?09 Wd rn O N ? -? cn v cn n N ? D) N A W Q A co ? O N N W N J C` W CO J W O) N A cn A W A W ? ? A A I N N ? O CD Q w co co "d N A Q 0 v cl) O N 6) 3 O co _0 co O co O 7 co O Q ? N Q V m c co CT J ° J ° WZ) Zl ? 99 jv T ? w O w O Wd _ 03 67 co O O O 0 W W A N N 7 00 O 7 0 __? ? N No o 00 w A o O rn A o Q W co N O LL W S9 W Wd ' N CT ^' l6 ? ?J9 Wd 1 v 01 V1 ? c n o A cn D C O o Cn m cn ? n v cD N 77 0 L7 0 0 TRAFFIC MAP rn ? = 2005/2030 ESTIMATED AADT NO-BUILD .OR7 C. N °t 4 ,n C r N ?' o - 00 ORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION O US m 401 (RAEFORD ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS z T 00 v D FAYETTEVILLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND P Any-?-` SQ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH F Z ro>°F.,>,, N o CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 0 (D cn 0 Q a rn 0 A O N N to o T N O N O (O W N W O N / w O O W W ut O O N co O ? A ( LL w 09 o N W A J N 12 0 p J O W m N O P (P 0 ? W N o m Cn m _ J N N CO N W N p ? O (T 4,3) l 09 na m ' A 00 ? ? N I ? m N1 ? _ 1 I A (° m ? O N ? d A N ? m w 0 m ' ?< ? ? ` U-4422 & OTHER NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT n o W TRANSPORTATION OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS N ? 7 CD CC C:5 T r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND b_ e CUMBERLAND COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ` tir „,t° z CD ,na TIP PROJECT U-4422 AERIAL MAP = m D 0') c - ` co SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) N°NTNC NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 4q FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION ? -m+ = o ? O S 6 .; N m z R 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS T CD o o -' C-o 41. * r y PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FAYETTEVILLE O J -N N z o ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH `, 9Q° CUMBERLAND COUNTY OF TO' f TIP PROJECT U-4422 AERIAL MAP = -Tj y SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) 4q NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT NOftT" FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION rn -I ? o W DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS TO SR 1400 CLIFFDALE ROAD N ? ) ( N (DD O ° o CT ?*k r D FAYETTEVILLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND e 91 :. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH 4F °° ? v Nl „z °sTa" ti p CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 o o 0 ? AERIAL MAP N = m T m D W w o = SR 1596 GLENSFORD ROAD N°RTN? ( ) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) of TRANSPORTATION F: m w ? C DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) ? z o CD o ? > PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ,P FAYETTEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH SF` ? N p z FTaP CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 AERIAL MAP cn = m m o D? W coc o o no c§ - W ` SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) NOFT//TgN^ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION -I c r 0;?h N m TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P -+ CD p o o C- r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND < FAYETTEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH 9r?? cy\ ' Z ?T qp TAA?g N 0 CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 cn o o 0 AERIAL MAP 2 m m D(D ? w o c? Ez co SR 1596 GLENSFORD ROAD ?x°Arhgti N ( ) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION yP _ c n, ? TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS CD 0 CD o C? p r D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND / FAYETTEVILLE r -'' Fc 4 Z ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH aFT?PN= CD n p CUMBERLAND COUNTY ? TIP PROJECT U-4422 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• N o o 0 AERIAL MAP = 111 ? _ D 5 ?_ W o c 00 m NOflTH SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION CD N 41. c TO SR 1400 CLIFFDALE ROAD DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ( ) CD 0 ° 0 _ ? e PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FAYETTEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSI B eN ? ?A S RANCI TOFTAAN C1 r.> CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U 22 -44 J ? Z Z = aQ w w ? 0 O U' - O w w O 0 in LU W o F- T ? C7 06 m U L a O Z W ?Q cn o 0 LU I- 06 m o r- U in J Q J Z Z Z Z 0 O =0) E2 w BY: J.TORTORELLA w ° O NOT TO SCALE O O TYPICAL SECTION OF ,OHTll C49 SR 1596 GLENSFORD ROAD County: CUMBERLAND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ( ) OF TRANSPORTATION FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD Div: 6 TIP# U 4422 Figure DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ROAD) TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) C PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS: 35024.1 .1 J y?4 DFryT SQO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH FAYET VILLE OF TRpN CUMBERLAND COUNTY Date: JULY 2007 o n? W o ? 0 n NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT I m? COMMUNITY FEATURES MAP OF TRANSPORTATION = N z DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS C? r D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ?• Q CUMBERLAND COUNTY Z ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH F na=S`° N p TIP PROJECT U-4422 0 v ::E W 0 < 0 00 -n ? c: Cn co 0) C 7 T NOR'N ? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ' N m - COMMUNITY FACILITIES MAP OF TRANSPORTATION y N p 70 Z DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ? A CD o 0 C K =6 r- D ? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND CUMBERLAND COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ?F Qc A Z N'0t rNPN9 N p TIP PROJECT U-4422 0 APPENDIX B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies PCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael F. Easlev, Governor April 26, 2004 Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe N.C. Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Subject: Proposed Widening of Glensford Road from Raeford Road (US 401) to Cliffdale Road (SR] 400), Fayetteville; Cumberland County Federal Project No. STP-1592(2), State Project No. 8.2443901, TIP No. U-4422 Dear Dr. Thorpe: The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas at the sites nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas. You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at <www.iicsparks.net/nhl?/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information. Sincerely, -N I ^--? r L,6? -k, Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist Natural Heritage Program HEL/hel 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NOtt?1C11OI1r1S Phone: 919-733-4984 • FAX: 919-715-3060 • Internet: uvww.enr.state. nc.us aa?ut,?[[//? An Equal Opportunity • Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled • 10 % Post Consumer Paper Naturally E41 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Cox Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT FROM: Travis W. Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator r-- Habitat Conservation Program ?-_ DATE: May 6, 2004 SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed improvements to Glensford Road (SR 1592) from Raeford Road (US 401) to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-4422 This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-6674). We have no specific concerns regarding tilis project. Iio'r, ever, to help facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs are outlined below: 1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for protect construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with: The Natural Heritage Program N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation 1615 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615 (919) 733-7795 Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 ?ail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 Memo May 6, 2004 and, NCDA Plant Conservation Program P. O. Box 27647 Raleigh, N. C. 27611 (919) 733-3610 2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for channelizing .or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of such activities. 3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project. Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed. 4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included. 5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands). 6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses. 7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation. 8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access. 9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or private development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at (919) 528-9886. 09%21/2005 10:16 STATE ARCHAEOLOGY UEPi y?l?l?bl North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office. Michael F. Easley, Governor Division orhistorical Resources Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David L S. Brook Director leffrty L Crow, Deputy Secretary Office of Archives and History June 24, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways FROM: David Brook ft?-t-u s SUBJECT: Scoping for Gleasford Road (SR 1592) from Raeford Road (US 401) to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) in Fayetteville, U-4422, Cumberland County, ER04-fir I A I Thank you for your letter of April 13, 2004, concerning the above project We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed. The above comments are made puxsuaat to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. cc: Mary Pope Furr bo Southern/McBride .County wws.h po.d er.atate.oeus Loce"an Mailing Addren Telephoat/Faz ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St Raleigh. NC 4617 lr(atl Service Ceotrr, Raleigh, NC 27699.4617 (919) 733-4763 *7334613 RESTORATION 5IS N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mall Service Cenur, Raleigh, NC 276994617 (919) 733-6547-71 5-401 St1RVF,V & PLANNING 515 N. Blount S; Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Ralcigh, NC 276991617 (919) 7334763 .713-4601 September-'), 1999 Mr. Kim L. So, PE Feasibility Studies Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation P.O. Box 2520 Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1 Dear Mr. So: SEP 8 19c- Prc mar= Development drdz ;:1 I am writing in regards to the feasibility study for the extension of SR 1592 (Glensford Road) to US 401 (Raeford Road) and the widening of the facility to multi-lanes from Raeford Road to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) in Fayetteville. The City wishes to minimize the impact of the project as much as possible since the widening of the road is through a residential area. Elements of the project the City wishes DOT to review is as follows: 1. Four-lane road with a divided median with openings for left turns in appropriate locations. 2. The divided median includes landscaping with grass, bushes and trees. 3. Sidewalk on both sides of the road. 4. Locate the current overhead utilities underground. Thank you for considering these suggestions. If you have any questions, please call me at (910) 433-1996. Sincerely, Jimmy Teal Chief Planning Officer PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPENDIX C Air Quality / Noise Report (Tables) H N QI rd a N m m 4 h O N O H w 1-4 W Q 0 v 0 ra A to z E o ,..1 M a a m H a w U O m W z M a x M V U v a a W m r a ri 0 O 0 ri N N aT w D a Ug Q a a w m O O a m 0 m D 0 r•I N N a a m O I'D m w w a W Q 0 U a m a a co ra it f O n x x H E m W U F co O O w ri It O E N F Q m -? ?a u W a uU H O O 0 a ow F W f w E H M O V• n Q ?a U U 0 • O ri 11 11 > D W x amm rl W ? r mm mtDN wo > In In In b V' M 10 l0 !n to t0 !n 1 u m 0 0 N fn C4 N a M co m es > minln mMN mrto mrr 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to V• W N tD t0 V' tD N tD V V' V N V' V V' N V' I In N M .? In In N In "I In v N N H C C N N N ri a xE, i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 H i W E x a r c o o r r o 0 O r r o o O r r o 0 o r X 0 0 0 f+1 14 0 0 0. M 0 0 0 f?'1 PI 0 0 0 t+1 rI 0 00 ra 14 0 0 0 ri ri 000 ri r+ O H O ri He-IrI ??? ?H r., mMa In0 V'Nrmm rl rvNrl W t'1000 N O M V' a m r m N a M m W m m N m w o o a v Vr, m mM Me"I r 0 M M,-, aHMM r'1 In H D3 I aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa r., H . . . . . . . . ,-1 mHMm HmHMmH O.-I NOHmOHO. m w0 r co co M co In r ON r r r m r co m m r rd r-I ri M H M H N N N N N x OE , or1 per ootooaoormmootDtotDo O r/ ri r•I OOMmtD00 N ri m OON MriO a? 0r+ 1 00r4 00 HrI o0 Hi 4140 ri r 4 ri r1 r-4 I O V'MNOOrim V'OOmr N00 V' r400 HMMO tDmMOtDNMOmtDNMmm I r r r 0 V' N O M r1 M In r 1 M N M r"1 n7 t r-I 71 ri O ri ri ri I , I I I 01 I 1 r+ I E Or+toNOoIn rco ooIn wto oco rNo %D*c m V'mtnlno V• mrIOO tDIn wo m M V•N V'Hv0N mmr 0 OD ON r0 , I I ri H rl O 14 ri rl O W X I , ri r•I Q ? z I [Hp? i a O v? z a ri X z O H mla a?z 1 U 1 m H I W 'A I >:z z'a H I aI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 mNw V'co co V'Nm • O'w to tD O tD t0 tD 171 m M m ri H N V' H 0 1 1 1 O ra ?q I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V• tD Vto V' N CD* Vco O N N N O O O O N MIn MNH V'InV'Orrr Owww 1 1 1 1 1 0 1, 1 O r? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + t w $44 u m Z) mw a Ea a Fa D E. paF x E. v aE x E W pa F x F W w F aaC E W QaFaIn EaQa.7EWAQ«7Eao mmmco amwmmmmmmmIm z z z z z m m. m m m w W W w W .inir vvllormoo14m1-14`4 ,4r•Imir??tN I 1 M F 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M 1 I 1 1 w 1 Z 04 H E ? I 1 1 wQi.1000000000000 In In In In In In en m of to N an O W pI wwwwmmaromGo co maro I 1 1 OH E 1? ' Qp?pC 1000000000000 db a I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g> 1 ctD??tDtDtolc?to?tD 1 r1 rl 11 11 H r-I H ri ri -1 H H E 1 vai w 1 1 x ' U I O.]x rooomWWH V OO%o ic%6 l0n aao N-W rrrq MV -4 V0N 1 1 1 U H u 1 000000000000 a E.I O W I N N fV N N N N N N N N N U a 1 I wv I Ma a Inw w m m m wNN W Hm 1 rIr tDWm mmmmo+ aE-' m 1 .W7oz W 5 1 000000o0000O a I U W m 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N W I .71 W 1 rl I I rl rl r? r I r 1 r1 ri ri r/ ri E I U .1 W 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 , I z l H I a 1 z I ?7 I o I 7 ' H 1 E ' wla I p 1 H I oI l a 1 ?a 5 z q EaLEE7aC EEACFES E- .4 EtL'.3FaaEa4Ea H:Xz mmmmmmmm {H , H ? zzmmmwww A 1 I Nm wr CD 01 Nmar CD m I r1 r4 r1 4 ri r•1 N d 01 ro a v a O U a v A ro + + + N i F w W a M ? U x t + z 0 M U °a a W W a a F a w W a + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0000000000000000 m U1 m 111 o m o 111 o m N u1 m 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m y y m In y a m m y y In m y y m N H'-1 H N rl i H N ?'-1 N'-1 HH 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000w 00oDkD O O co b 0 OmID ey ri ri N H H r1 N H H e'-1 N rl ,-1 rl N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O,-1 Nm wIn%D r-1 N rn y to lD r W as r4 '1 rl '! H ri r1 UUUUUUUUUU UUC.:UUU W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa li NM* y Lll rClm Ol-1 N C4 wLnW rl 1-4 , 4 r4 rl H 1-4 1 F ? al ^? 1 1 W ? al WA 1 1 E 1 a.1 M O w i1 •.1 E E Z+ 7 Ci X A v 1.1 ro E o>.Eq oaiCEro v0rov w m D1 0 q [ ro U 0 41 U .,i -A •.i ro 3 a b1 1/ m •?1 roar-1'm v b1 •,1 v u q P y0roDi en W U x 0 1 O 1J ,4 o U -' O 44 (d $4 x 4J aroiEaiU a r. 0 x 1-i 41 M U w U 3 .•1 t U 1 W 1 al U 1 W 1 al u 1 W 1 a? !rl 1 U 1 W 1 a? N ? U w a 0 u w a w a U a r b W In W U W a y v a U Z a H [r . N EFwa °va pwa ;LCayyl? 3 4 G v w a 0 0 w A N ,-1 a a 0 r y M M 0 M ZF W z U F w M x W E Q d .fl m F m (L) rn ro a N H a h 0 N O H > a W 0 r- O y a W a Q w U a O 0 W F4 z H U x a u U a a w W .`7 U O a W ri 0 C D N N V. .ti. a P, I a W U 0 0 a ri 0 Cn 0 In N N C' a c0 h wx N N co > mm Inmr Nr C . 7 > I ; 4 p C N m m D r r? w m r a w a C m m .-I co r+1 0 0 v -w r W 1 > + r1 r/ f•1 r+1 N m ON m m 1D e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E-F o i o 0 0 0 . . kv, 3 W t p LD . V' N N lD a C'V N° "" C4 a N a Ln m U, N " r^. 1 1l7 V' r'1 H In 111 H In w N N rl c V' N N H V' I I _ N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . ` F C7 r,. , p . . . . . . . . [ I I HF +1 r1r rn ern en M mIn m m 1-4 i t11 OOIn tf10 O O In In O O O In In OOOU1 q ' w I l 0 0 r••1 H O O O rl .-1 O C O .4 O O O rl x ' p, 1 r W t , ' I rl O O O rl H O O O e-1 H o 0 0 '.4 r1 0 0 0 r1 ' m ?. I O rl rl r••1 r1 r-I H e-1 H H 1.4 H 1 H ? 0 rON ON fn mamaHUlmmm0NN'1 r W xa i .•?.•+Irlrlrlr+r+rlrlr+rl r+ a I 0 ,-Iw(z)mLn0mr Hw00 rrm00Ln ' N mm i a i 11 r d 1 ID OD N m . M N 0 H m m r r1 ` H F e 1 r rl rl 11 ? I I I a t7 c7(7C?[7c9C?C?C?OC7C?C7C?C?C?c7C?t7 aaQaaaaaaaQaaaaaaa r a ' wa i 000000000000 14 ?H.?Hr.r,H????r, a lO ? i l QW\ Hf E orl N OHmor . mm. m C70 rlr+lmr mrmmmr r rrrr1.rrrrrr r w in rmrrr a W l mmminm N N N I O W in 1 rHHfn HM rt N N O p '4 I W r i x ' E + E. N CO ; N p OE., . m W t0m 00'n rr 0 10 m1f1 C0 Oo o a, n O 0 00 V'ar1O 10 a!? , 000000000000 x 0000000 II X 4 r O Z W I o,o W 0r oo Ln u 0 o 4 H 00 rl rl a I rr m rt H .? rl r H H H rl W a 100000 M' A r?-1 A•1 . q r•1 .-1 rt r. ? rl .-I r? a I W x ? I H ' D] W I f I 1 +# i i 1r + t 4 f+# t+ i+++ 4+ t i+ x i i of mroor 1nr10o0mmo0rrimo Ua 1 W , W N171O d'O d'O Wr'1N mOOW NM* r, 1 O.-l .? I mmrrlr Haw r-N N r- rl r-w aO W I ID InIn0 %DU)H0mHrn VWr4M N 1 I 1 I I en ON en r'1 ONV VNa a » ? I MHr,o 1nHHO I I I C t I '+ rl rl t I ? a Q ? 1 f M ? 1 U f W W p. o mrlooar N0 OON0 0 0 0 r••Ir0 U? N + • ' F I o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 %D rl 1 O N N r C1 .r m o IA r1 1' rr1 e•'1 r 0 ?p V I r M V' a' 1n a U1 N (n m 00 o O m 0 N O U F W I N N N N N N N N N N N N W N, V I I I N N N O N N M H rt H y 11 II EW X i a 0 x Q U N H a 1 a o 000000000000000000 0 • _ Ln w r'1 m rn1D 00 1D 1n Ln U' 0000 mNm vmm aNm O I O 00 1C) W O1D l0 ?O rIHM Nr•i rl N V'rl 0 W U l p pp.EW ' NUt 111 r1 V'tpmmmm 01m l O UH l o1D 1 1 0 1 11 1 14 W M V1 I ri r rAE- Cl) >r 1 ri 1 z , . C1 U v H 1 x I r . o 000000000000000000 W F U en 14 0 m I. poop 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 • y.?1D?b?Nmd'm o N NN0000 a l Ury w I N N N NN N N N N N N N rl ri rlH rl r••I 1-4 ?' H 14H r-l 1-1 I N MNMNrIa lnaOrrr 0 1D "DID I l l l l o l l l o W I Ua F ri , .+ rt W I 1 n x 11 a 1 I l i 4 ? i 4 i 4 4 i t # i i t 4 # (] ,.a > U + # + # i # # + # # + i # # # # + f # t + # ' t I I 1 1 t ? , I ' I I z ' 1 j I 1 ' a 1 z ' Q w I H I H ; 7 1 (ti I (1, E W u\ W I H I U ? U ala Iro ? 0 H ° ? + C-) 0 PAS a s a a s a a s A]. a w p D 5 F E x F E, El i W . o + , a I q CiF7GF v p.F r F WaFxFWaFxF W L 1 a F a a a t Q aFaGlQaE- E-aLl I E- E- a.aa z A .4 gg.1 aF H O E r I p { ? p q{ ? > 1 z 1 CQtAR1R1 tAG11tIR1R1CQWCACQW3SS3 w w w ww ? pp I ?Rp1ppqq $3 zzzm m Vl W WW N I M I u II . Z?n?n?nwN zzzz X I H A l a I 'J zZ4 I ' • • • O •i N M a I11 . r 00 m N M C r m m N M C r r- I t l H rf r-I rl H > I> „] 1 t r H H H m m rt r l 4 4 N I r y W H L) L) H O O a a°c W W E w F ul .d a.? O v a A E IV a) tr1 ro a +.i # i+ i i+ i t## t# t i# t i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I11 U1 4l m I!1 an 111 Ln in to 111 n Ln In to 111 1 N I ,.I F w ' 1 0 $4 iooooo000000000o 0 4 4 y W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i o 0 o c 0 C) 1 x F v In ln v In In v In v In v V 1 tn v O i '1 'I b 41 III E a r I N rl rl 11 N IV ? ri N r4 14 .-1 N ' 1 1 E 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 ? a7 0 >. Q~ maEro 0 a N 0 (6 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 4) $4 41 U . 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V o u 1 0 0 0 0 0 0oc0wo0Go w0omto0omw a) {J ; b 1 rl H 4 N .-1 r4 H N ''I rl r'1 N rl H M N . x , o,u m-H W 0 ' 00 1 0 q U 1 d o ' ?qro ?o I W U v O r' 0 E u y 7 o ' E 1c+ ro A E 0 y N X ' d E d 0 ' W H I ' a ? 1 41 a 1 N I w a [?.. , O ei N I"1 v In t0 a I .-? N /+1 v In Ic r m rn ? ? .-I r+ •-1 •+ ,-1 W 1 a ' ,4 cwiluuuuuUUUUUUUUuuu wwwwwwwwWWWwwW w? . w wW a laaaaaaaaaaxaaaaa o 1 'i N Y'1 V' In b r m 01 O rl N f4 C' 111 lv 1 r.l rI ri rI rl r/ rl W O M Q U 0a O w w U W a U ? W ? a? 1 tn U ? W ? U ? W ? a? frl ? rl ? U ? W ? a N ? u? W ? al U ? PWG i . r1 I ? U ? U E rn ? O a l w I W m 1 W W i aU' a ? o I I In 1 1 E b i a w ? s a 1 a I a I In 1 0 U I N a v I U ? W . W a I H I 1 z ?, 1 0 U 1 M W I F z a ? aq 1 M I F F N I 7Wr I 1 wa ? o I U 1 I U a ? ? wa ? x ? zoz a ? awe 3 a - ? F N ri a? a h C N O r~n a w > m W 4 Q v ? ri A z ro o E I..i Co a w a 10 Q w U V. O w z H a U x Of L) U D, a ro a U a a w U O V' a y ri w 0 C%a N V' p a U a a w m ILI y o papqq H a ?d m > ri a 0 ? H m u x o O O N H N w a f a ? D W F O vi U) w w a u W Q 0 .I CG w a co ri m E O O 0 r-i to x x M W E 0 E H uE mo O w ri It D of N H F Q m -. ? A uV oa N v) qa > U w m ra ri r N C, to c o r o ri 5 V. m y lD c` 01 N O N- N .J, m ? m m N N ri m ri \ p)rn am 0100 mmN rNm > ,n?D ID r, U) r Hri0 0o r iV 4 ri r, 1-1 r•I ri ri F? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w v %D N iD a b N %D C w v N V' C C C N C In N m ri on to c,4 m ri to w c,4 N H v- C N N ri C ME-1000000000000000000 0 0 , , M ? , U x a > W a F , awe O G ? , x ? , zw, av + e i N r E - ELI W X Q zz a O U ri x z H a H X # + 0 H m?a E u o ?aiy • O M i W 1A ra , ,z i II 11 ??. ? H z a V) D H i i> a N G O O N N O O O N N O O O N N O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 ri O o o ri H o 0 o ri ri o 0 0 'i ri o 0 o ri ri ri H It r? r? rf ri H H ri '+ to ri r to a o r l* m m V* o r l, m N r 4 r r N N H O M W Om r C, tD m CO r m %D CO r r m N r-lm mHNONN 0WNNH wr NN 14w ry ri N ri H It aaaaaaaaaaaaaaQaaaa°a ri m ri m Ot H a, ri m m ri O ri N O H m O ri O r mm In m to rmr r- CI. mr m 0+Ch r ri ri It m .-I m ri N N N N N or+o00otor+ 00000a'0, 0, rtoo0 OH iD 0 0 lD N Ot O O m m o o a ri 0 0 Or ririOOmri OOrt0mOOrmtOO H H H H H ••i r•1 r•1 ri N ri + +.+ + # + t t + t # t t # t t # + + t o ri w a o o N? m o 0 0 o r o o tD o a o ri 0) M O C N tD O r m m m t0 m N V? m r 14110 N m to O m 1-1 ri m N N ri r ell N O m '4140 i , H , ? ri ri ri , O co O m O O iD m ri O O N ri N O O w .-1 tD O wN C'Nam a. vm w NO tn0 etn rnO mmm VwN V'tn.C a'N Ln ri wO Or LnO i, m r a? O %n m %D 0 ri N ri , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 0 00 0 m Ci 10 C m m d? N m p ?. t0 ?p O tD ID to ri ri m In .-1 H N C rt o i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i a} %OC %0 -0 N wv w 0 N N N 0000 N mto m cll wLo c c, ow wt0 , , o O , N , ,q S•i .G U ) U ro $4 (0 a a as a a W a a W a m Q rE77 Cx-w0 2.E ]F ix AQ«E7 E- E. w Q-4 p. E 4m CAW zzzzzmv?ivcQnvww w ww333zz riNmctnt0rmm OHNm' nt0rm010 . H e-i r-4 H 1-, r•1 H ri H ri N a M F ?W za or H E. v) ? , a w ,c" A F? E ? b1 ? z H E. pga?ax? E O ? y w x Q oax 04 K » a W W Ux E U 42 U W U WM?WIi a E -- y W W x -- Uzy u .a a + # # w M u V) W Q z H a M a w a z H E H ?a mmmmrnr.tmmmmmm ri H r4 ri H H H ri ra H ri ri tD lD t0 ?D t0 b t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 W OD mco co OD OD co co mmmm N to N v; L1 to to In to In U7 to \O LO \O \O tD lD %D t0 to t0 tD %D 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OvriNm0mmmr r OD W m ri H W m to iD O N N N C N" r O N to tD m%D W in N r•1 000000000000 N N N N N N N N N N N N D\r?ri ri m m to a a a mm O r r O tp t0 m 0% Ot M 0% m ri H ?ooooo0000000 N N N N N N N N N N N N H ri r4 H H H H H ri ri H r•1 4- 4- a a a asa E. EEME. E- 0 aEaaE aE+aaE+a zzzui°icp°naiwwwzz , i N m eN r m O; H H H H H -4 b q U a v A v F (V tr1 a U ' W ' a' L? U ' W ' a' ? I U ' W ' a' on I H 1 U' w' al N I ? I U I W I a? 14 1-1 0 H U w ' U I looooo0000000000o (i] . . 1n. 1n 1n u1 u1 Ln 1n 1n 1n u1 u1 Ln u1 1n 1n v1 a ' m ' U N ? W „ a w O $4 r 0000000000000000 414+EE U a W 0000000000000000 5 % a 1 uia c tlllnCavlulaalnlna au1 H .4 L ro E I N H H H N H H H N H H H N H H 1 I E t0 2 'y , I I I I I I I p> 0 U ~ ? I m g E ro a a ' m v U O O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` J C I O ?, v W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O 0 o o c o o U O u U •H 4"4 a 0aCO %DGOco loooco looogo lo I H H H N H H H N H H H N H H rl N N u 3 b rx I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 14 0" Aj 0) ?q m U a I d U O A a ro - eO s t + + + « + + t + + + + + + « + + + L U v q U p E u y o O a A Ew ro H UM4 O N x 4.) v E V N E- w a ' I W I-1 U H u E U `d 1 w U U ? ' 014 N P1 a 1n %D HNrna 1111Drm01H4 HHHHH y ? W I a i .. M . ] z 4 a t t t u uvuuuuUUUUUUUUUU wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww w aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a ? Q . a a a a I HNMC1nlprcoo) OHNr+1 r nkc r.1 H H 4 4 -1 H O H E. U O a F w w U a r U a °a W y w a t7 W a a w a O m a H O !H? W yF' U O U F W M x x F TABLE N1 HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY 140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff .. PAIN Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD 130 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Firecrackers 120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer Hockey crowd Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD 110 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Textile loom 100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor Power lawn mower, newspaper press Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD 90 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal C Average factory, vacuum cleaner I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD ----------------------------------- E Quiet typewriter L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner S Quiet automobile Normal conversation, average office QUIET 50 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household refrigerator Quiet office VERY QUIET 40 --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average home 30 Dripping faucet Whisper at 1.5m away 20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING Whisper JUST AUDIBLE -- 10 --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.) TABLE 2 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA) Activity Cate Qor Le (h) Descri tion of Activity Category A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance (Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds. active sports areas, (Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools. churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories (Exterior) A or B above. D -- Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, (Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA) Existing Noise Level in Le (h) Increase in dBA from Existing Noise Levels to Future Noise Levels <= 50 >= 15 51 >= 14 52 >= 13 53 >= 12 54 >= 11 >= 55 >= 10 Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy (09/02/04). .-. N S N a ? zW W W ? ? o z w? Q U U O U C R ;n N V C Q? s 0 c a? r C 'U a G 7?iD .b E w 0 RC G 3 .y 'o c C E C s W O Z N N d' ? 0. Q ~ O Z U U Q U Q ? w O zw Q ? 3 a' x? w p W p W o 0 0 C D ? p W o 0 0 o L v 0 W C U N Q Q U N U C,4 Q Z? Zr- a p „ a. p? C] o 0 0 0 ?pE,, o 0 o a _0 o 0 L L. p Q p U a F Q p a ¢c: U - o - ?U U - - 4t w¢C4 U - o - w c U- U r Q AU U Q?, - M M tL _ U c?.UF o aa.WE- Q o C o pa„W WF' a Q o ° ° ¢?, Q o 0 0 ¢? Q V) W N f i w Q ? N M a0Z ? ?O N OZ ? ? pZ `° .? ?] F Q .7 Q Q O `? FQ QOvFi ¢ 0 0 o F QOM 0 0 0 Q 4 Up 0 0 o O UA m it) tn V) UM v trn W in F N V V V F N V V V C14 V V V t+1 • Cr1 wl • m IAC; V On 7 M V•1 c+1 V•1 M ,6 V•1 M M ID o t? 1 ?/ ? l W N w N LQ > > a< Q o v v W c (4 o C 'o ?o N \6 vwico a - c ?? 0 10 ?o kD - v - v 0 Z Q o. VO NO V1 D ?O O O tC- O O O p O O - 0 ti `0 c O 00 y ?' O 00 7 ° y p L 3 o to .a G7 c V y to CO ? a o y b. E r. w °v e3 Q? E 7 u V U a c U N W WD r7 E ?i E n U f3 °' pZ E C u " ? C ? o o ? ° oa p .. 3 o w ? o to w? a o Z .. w w u o .1 ?. ° wa a o w c ? l Z w fir, u ° ? u, v ; , O ° o = A z, ° c ? ° ? o Q v o a ° c '- x? c° ocv 3 xrx C4. 0 3 rx?; oc? cxv c L O .13 O O 0 0 ° C , 0 L O `" O v ° L O U. ° O E (,? " - y y E t to V1 E r- (A C p to E c e? to c U C7? C? C7? n ? C7? C7 C7v? C/ 1 N - M cV M (? N M ee 3 0 c 0 _ N ? L a h 00 a "' c c w ?. d s ° E U O .yyC w E '= CA ° E N 1.. R CZ ? to E ? y to 0 Vl c ° U w N ? b w oa 0 h r .? fV Q V] T W ? p4 0 U U ?z rZ ?w W C? z? Q ? V w Q Q ? cn F'w_ N O O O U E- a U c .0 W a W W > ¢ z a -?w rn co) U ?oz w N C C a ^ W U N O O C O O W > w tA o 0 0 0 O o ? (6 O C W F- W O? v1 c-) N 00 w U o - v, w 11 O O N N O ? O O j 0 c a on F y a ° 0 W t' L /F E W ° U o o E E o E cx U c., 3 w ri o u ri Cc CZ Ca U a°' ° oG 3 a0 GU [.? ?O A w ?o O v W y? yE 10 ?... °' oC ? C7? C7 C7? fA - N r, w a -n E- W O C C o N U ? F Q O U F ? a W W Ea" w N O C N C/) Z O z W N O O C O C/) a ^ W Z Cr N O O O O O W LTJ w ?A o O O o O z Q O N O O N w W C% V1 r It ?O N cr, w IO I O O N N V 'O O w0/ a -j c c ? F m L L z o O c 0 cV U C Z E a U Z v? w w 0 ci 0 U. o - a? o ri R o p ? C* ° ,:; cz bc " ° t cc o 0.°. r? Q ' a 'U - ? F S ? o H E ?s e - ?oC W C7? C7U C7? ' 3 -- N tn w 0 _ Q F O r] N E - C C O O Um - U Q W W z Lt a a'?W_= r w o 0 0 0 v ic Z on ?z `?' o 0 0 0 a W _ U Z er N O O O O ? O W w o 0 0 0 O z O 'Y o . o 0 CL' F X W c vi 0 O M O w W - M N O .._, M v 0 O. N N O ? O O ? ? y ? ? F z ° L_ 0 H N E E O c 0 U o z o o o a U v? Z ci a ri o u ri A ca a b 3 ' a°' 0 a ? o°G U W c' o ? o 00 v? C7 C7 Us C7 ti W ? N M N z m Q E- `o E O O d CJ cn u ea V U C? y T c 0 T c Q N Z W 07 a F .C V s 0 c u Q ? N APPENDIX D Relocation Report EIS RELOCATION REPORT 1' North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN BS: 35024.1.1 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate D. NO.: U-4422 F.A. PROJECT N/A ESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR1546 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR1400 Cliffdale Road ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of is lacees esidential usinesse: Farms Non-Profd Yes No X X x x X X X X X X Ix Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS Explain all "YES" answers. 1. Will special relo-- services be necessary? 2. Will schools or churches be affected by displacement? 1 Will business services still be available after project? 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Source for available housing (list). 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families? 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available during relocation period? 13. Will there be a problem of housing within financial means? 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete RELOCATION? 9 0-15M 15-25M 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING nants Owners 0-20M 20-40M 40-70M Q 60 0 60 Q 00 [26 70-100M Q 4004M 100 uP Q Goo uP TOTAL 0 REMARKS 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP 0 0 DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE For S ale For R ent Q Q o-2oM 2040M 0 $ 0-160 Q 160-260 Q 40-70M 0 260400 Q TO-loom 0 400600 Q 100 tip 0 Goo UP 0 0 3. All business services will be available after project. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Five (5) small businesses will be displaced. 1. Cleaners, 2. 'Dominos" Pizza, 3. Clothing Store, 4. Vacuum Shop, & 5. Oriental Food Store. We estimate that there would be a total of Eighteen employees of which 10 would be minorities. 6. & 14. MLS, Local Realtors, Newspapers, etc. 8. As mandated by law. 11. Cumberland Co. 12. There is adequate SS housing available. Right of Way 4-25-07 ?,....a ,..,. Date Revised 09 02 original & 1 Copy. Relocation Coordinator 2 Copy Division Relocation File EIS RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN WBS: 35024.1.1 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate I.D. NO.: 0-4422 F.A. PROJECT N/A DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR1546 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SRI 400 (Cliffdale Road) I ESTIMATED DISPLACEES I INCOME LEVEL 46 Type of Displacees Residential Businesses Farms Non-Profd Yes No x X X X X X X X x_ Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS Explain all 'YES' answers. 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 2. Will schools or churches be affected by displacement? 3. Will business services still be available after project? 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Source for available housing (list). 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families? 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available during relocation period? 13. Will there be a problem of housing within financial means? 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete RELOCATION? F9- I 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP 0 1 - 0 0 0 1 . VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent 0-20M Q $ 0-160 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 20?40M 440-701A 70-ZOOM Q Q Q 160-260 260400 400400 Q Q 0 2040M 40-70M 70-ZOOM 0 0 0 160-260 260400 400.600 100 up Q 600 UP 0 100 UP 0 600 up TOTAL O 0 0 REMARK S (Respond by N umber) 3. All business services will be available after project. 4. Five (5) small businesses will be displaced. 1. Cleaners, 2. 'Dominos' Pizza, 3. Clothing Store, 4. Vacuum Shop, & 5. Oriental Food Store. We estimate that there would be a total of Eighteen employees of which 10 would be minorities. 6.8 14. MLS, Local Reaftors, Newspapers, etc. 8. As mandated by law. 11. Cumberland Co. 12. There is adequate SS housing available. r ?r 4-25-07 ,LL Right of Way Agent Date Relocation Coord ator Date FRM15-E Revised 0902 original & 1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator . 2 Copy Division Relocation File SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) WBS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c) Or n APPROVED: 'W ? f o 1:- 144 'Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Pro' ct Development and Environmental Anal is Branch, NCDOT Date John F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Federal Highway Administration . SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) WBS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT North Carolina Department of Transportation October, 2007 Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by: ko/Wo? /Y/(??bt Date Matthew W. Potter JP Planning gir D to rles R. Cox, P. E. P oject Engineer .••op\ CAR04/" r e?e?.w?ae?o ? _.? cFSSlnp _ 9 PROJECT COMIVIITMENTS SR 1596 (Glensford Road) III From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP 1592(2) WBS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U4422 Financial Management Section, Roadway Design Unit A municipal agreement will be implemented between NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville for' the inclusion of sidewalks along all sections of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) where.they do not currently exist. Based onNCDOT's Pedestrian Policy, the City of Fayetteville will fund 50%of the cost of the sidewalks. Conp-estion Management Section, Roadway Design Unit ` A school operations study was completed for both Montclair Elementary and Berean Baptist I Academy. The Roadway Design Unit will incorporate the results and recommendations from the study into the final design. Roadway Design Unit The project includes 13-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. fi I ? U-4422 Environmental Assessment October, 2007 Page 1 of 1 If I I? Aill.?l f SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. III-i A. TYPE OF ACTION .............................................................................................................. III-i B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... III-i C. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ................................................................................. . III-ii D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................................................................... . III-ii E. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... . III-ii F. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................... . III-ii G. SPECIAL PERMITS REQUIRED .......................................................................................... III-iii H. COORDINATION .............................................................................................................. III-iv 1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ III-iv 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................1 II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................... 2 A. CoNNECTrvITY .....................................................................................................................2 B. CAPACITY ............................................................................................................................ 2 C. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................................... 3 III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY ....................................................................... 4 A. LENGTH OF PROJECT ............................................................................................................ 4 B. ROUTE CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 4 C. EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION ................................................................................................. 4 D. PROJECT TERMINALS ........................................................................................................... 4 E. RIGHT OF WAY ........................................:........................................................................... 4 F. BRIDGE/DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ......................................................................................... 4 G. SPEED LIMIT ......................................................................................................................... 4 H. ACCESS CONTROL ................................................................................................................ 4 I. INTERSECTION AND TYPE OF CONTROL ................................................................................ 5 J. UTILITIES ............................................................................................................................. 5 K. SCHOOL BUSES .................................................................................................................... 5 L. RAILROAD CROSSINGS ......................................................................................................... 5 M. SIDEWALKS .......................................................................................................................... 5 N. PARKING .............................................................................................................................. 5 0. BICYCLES .............................................................................................................................5 P. GREENWAYS ........................................................................................................................ 5 Q. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENTS ......................................................................... 6 R. SCHOOL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ............................................................................................ 6 S. OTHER TIP PROJECTS .......................................................................................................... 8 IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................ 9 A. "No BUILD" ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 9 B. WIDENING/NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 9 C. CAPACITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................:........................... 10 D. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................... 12 V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................................13 II-i A. DESIGN SPEED ................................................................................................................... 13 B. TYPICAL SECTION .............................................................................................................. 13 C. RIGHT OF WAY .................................................................................................................. 13 D. ACCESS CONTROL .............................................................................................................. 13 E. STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 13 F. PARKING ............................................................................................................................ 13 G. SIDEWALKS/PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ................................................................................ 13 H. BICYCLE PROVISIONS ......................................................................................................... 14 I. INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND TYPE OF CONTROL .......................................................... 14 J. SCHOOL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS .......................................................................................... 15 K. SCHEDULES & COSTS ......................................................................................................... 16 VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................................................17 A. CoMMuNITY EFFECTS ........................................................................................................ 17 1. Community Characteristics ........................................................................................... 17 a. Study Area Descriptions ............................................................................................... 17 b. Community Characteristics ........................................................................................... 18 c. Population Characteristics ............................................................................................ 18 d. Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................ 19 e. Age ................................................................................................................................ 20 f. Income ........................................................................................................................... 20 g. Housing Characteristics ................................................................................................ 20 h. Business and Employment Characteristics ................................................................... 20 i. Community Resources - Facilities ............................................................................... 21 j. Community Resources - Infrastructure ........................................................................ 21 k. Emergency Services ...................................................................................................... 22 1. Plans and Regulations ................................................................................................... 23 2. Community Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 25 a. Community Impact Assessment Overview ................................................................... 25 b. Displacements/Relocation Impacts ............................................................................... 26 c. Land Use Patterns and Compatibility ........................................................................... 28 d. Economic Conditions .................................................................................................... 28 e. Transportation Access ................................................................................................... 28 f. Transportation Network ................................................................................................ 29 g. Farmland Impacts .......................................................................................................... 30 h. Environmental Justice and Title VI .............................................................................. 30 3. Indirect and Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................. 31 B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 32 1. Compliance Guidelines .......................................... .............. 32 2. Historic Architecture ..................................................................................................... 32 3. Archaeology .................................................................................................................. 32 C. SECTION 4(F) ...................................................................................................................... 32 D. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 32 E. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS ............................................ 39 F. GEODETIC MARKERS ......................................................................................................... 41 II-ii G. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................................... 41 VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................... 44 A. PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 44 1. Soils .............................................................................................................................. 44 2. Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 45 a. Water Quality Classification ......................................................................................... 45 b. Water Quality Information ............................................................................................ 46 c. Impaired Waters ............................................................................................................ 46 d. Permitted Discharges .................................................................................................... 46 e. Water Resource Impacts ............................................................................................... 47 B. BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 48 1. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................................... 48 a. Plant Communities ........................................................................................................ 48 b. Fauna ............................................................................................................................. 49 c. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .......................................................... 49 2. Aquatic Communities ................................................................................................... 50 a. Aquatic Habitats ............................................................................................................ 50 b. Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Communities .............................................................. 50 C. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ..................................................................................................... 51 1. Waters of the United States ........................................................................................... 51 a. Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 51 b. Jurisdictional Streams ................................................................................................... 51 c. Potential Wetland and Stream Impacts ......................................................................... 52 D. PERMITTING ....................................................................................................................... 52 1. Permits and Certifications Required ............................................................................. 52 a. Section 404 .................................................................................................................... 52 b. Section 401 .................................................................................................................... 52 2. Instream Structures ....................................................................................................... 53 E. PROTECTED SPECIES .......................................................................................................... 53 1. Federally Protected Species .......................................................................................... 53 2. Federal Species of Concern ........................................................................................... 58 3. State Protected Species ................................................................................................. 60 VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................... 61 A. COMMENTS SOLICITED ...................................................................................................... 61 B. NEPA/ 404 PROCESS COORDINATION ........... ................................................................. 61 C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................................... 61 11-iii TABLES TABLE S-1 TABLE 1: TABLE 2: TABLE 3: TABLE 4: TABLE 5: TABLE 6: TABLE 7: TABLE 8: TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ III-iii COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 10 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - 2005 AND 2030 ............................................. 11 SCHEDULES & COSTS ............................................................................................. 16 POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2000 ........................................................................ 18 POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNIc=, 2000 ............................................................... 19 KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES .............................. 43 ESTIMATED AREA OF IMPACT TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .............................. 50 SPECIES UNDER FEDERAL PROTECTION IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY ....................... 54 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY ................................... 59 II-iv APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 2005/2030 Traffic (AADT) Figure 3 TIP Projects in the Area of U-4422 Figure 4 Current Alternatives Figure 5 Proposed Typical Section Figure 6 Community Features Map Figure 7 Community Facilities Map Figure 8 School Traffic Operations Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies Appendix C Air Quality Reports/ Noise Reports Appendix D Relocation Report II-v SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) VMS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 SUMMARY A. Tyne of Action This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of this proposed transportation improvement project. From this evaluation, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) anticipate significant impacts to the environment will not occur due to this proposed project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation, likely a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document. B. General Description The NCDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, proposes widening and extension of SR "1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) in Fayetteville, Cumberland County (see Figure 1). The widening will convert the neighborhood street from its current configuration as a two-lane facility to a four-lane, median-divided facility. The project will include extending SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to Belford Road, and widening SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from Belford Road to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The proposed facility will have 11-foot inside lanes, 13-foot outside lanes, and a 16-foot raised grass median with curb and gutter. The project will also include sidewalks along both sides of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The total length of the project is 1.2 miles. This project is included in the approved 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The total cost in the TIP is $9,600,000, which includes $2,550,000 for right of way and $7,050,000 for construction. The current estimated cost is $10,922,270. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2008 and construction in FFY 2010. III-i C. Purpose and Need for Prole ct The purpose of the proposed action is to: ¦ Improve local connectivity - by completing the needed direct link between NC 59 and the commercial district on the north side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). ¦ Improve capacity - by providing additional through lanes on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and redirecting traffic from heavily congested adjacent roadways. D. Alternatives Considered The alternatives considered for the project consists of the "no-build" alternative and two widening alternatives. Alternative 1 includes widening with signalized intersection control, while Alternative 2 utilizes roundabout intersection controls. E. Recommended Alternative Alternative 2 is the recommended alternative because it provides a sufficient level of service for the design year (2030) as well as traffic calming benefits. The roundabouts will help to reduce the speed of vehicles traveling along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and is suitable for the 35 mph speed limit. Alternative 2 will increase safety for pedestrian traffic along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) by reducing speeds at major intersections, improving pedestrian crossings, and extending sidewalks to US 401 Business (Raeford Road). F. Summary of Environmental Effects Adverse impacts to the human and natural environment were minimized through the development of best-fit alignments. No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a result of the project. The proposed project will not impact any properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. None of the alternatives will encroach upon any known archaeological sites on or eligible for fisting in the National Register. A maximum of five business relocations could occur, no residential relocations are anticipated as a result of this proposed improvement. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to + 13 dBA; however, no noise abatement measures are recommended at this time. Seven federally protected species are listed for Cumberland County. The biological conclusion for six species was "No Effect". The seventh species requires no biological conclusion. Table S-1 gives a comparison of the alternatives. Figure 4 shows the alternatives. III-ii Table S-1: Comparison of Alternatives Resource Alternative 1 Alternative2 Length 1.2 miles 1.2 miles Railroad Crossings 1 1 Schools 2 2 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 Churches 2 2 Cemeteries 0 0 Major Utility Crossings 0 0 National Register Eligible Properties 0 0 Archaeological Sites 0 0 Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 100-Year Flood lain Crossings 0 0 Acreage of Prime Farmland 0 0 Residential Relocations 0 0 Business Relocations 5 5 Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 Wetland Impacts 0 acres 0 acres umber of Stream Crossings 1 1 Total Stream hn acts 0 0 Substantial Noise hn acts 0 0 Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 Section 4 Impacts (Historic) 0 0 Low Income Population hn acts 0 0 Minority Population hn acts 0 0 Construction Cost $5,950,000 $6,050,000 Right of Way Cost $4,345,000 $4,570,800 Utilities Cost $427,190 $301,470 Total Cost $ 10,722,190 $10,922,270 " G. Special Permits Required There are no stream or wetland impacts anticipated. Therefore the need for stream or' wetland permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers or NC Division of Water Quality is not expected. However, if the culvert located just south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) is replaced or extended then it may be necessary to obtain a permit for the replacement. III-iii H. Coordination Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted with an asterisk (*) during the preparation of this assessment. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service * State Clearinghouse N.C. Department of Cultural Resources * N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resource * N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission N.C. Division of Water Quality N.C. Department of Public Instruction Cumberland-Fayetteville Schools * City of Fayetteville I. Additional Information Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting either of the following: John F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 8564346 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone (919) 733-3141 III-iv SR 1596 (Glensford Road) From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Cumberland County Federal Aid Project STP-1592(2) VMS No. 35024.1.1 T.I.P. No. U-4422 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes widening and extension of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) in Fayetteville, Cumberland County (see Figure 1). The widening will convert the neighborhood street from its current configuration as a two-lane facility to a four-lane, median- divided facility. The project will include extending SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to Belford Road, and widening SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from Belford Road to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The proposed facility will have 11-foot inside lanes, 13-foot outside lanes, and a 16-foot raised grass median with curb and gutter. The project will also include sidewalks along both sides of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The total length of the project is 1.2 miles. This project is included in the approved 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The total cost in the TIP is $9,600,000, which includes $2,550,000 for right of way and $7,050,000 for construction. The current estimated cost is $10,922,270. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2008 and construction in FFY 2010. II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT The need for the proposed transportation project results from two areas: 1) Connectivity and 2) Capacity. A. Connectivity In the 1990's, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) was extended north of this project from SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) to SR 1404 (Morganton Road), providing better access to the Cross Creek Mall and surrounding commercial district. South of the project, NC 59 (Hope Mills Road) was recently widened. A growing number of drivers are now avoiding the larger corridors of US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and are cutting through the Montclair subdivision by using a portion of SR 1596 (Glensford Road), Belford Road, and Brighton Road as an alternative route. The proposed connection and widening is identified on the Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) highway plan. The project will improve local and regional connectivity by completing the needed direct link between NC 59 and the commercial district on the north side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). This direct link will reduce the amount of circuitous travel through the Montclair subdivision and other major routes such as US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and US 401 Business (Raeford Road). Therefore, providing the needed increase in north-south connectivity for this section of Fayetteville. B. Ca aci The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability. Levels of service range from LOS A to F. Level. of Service A represents unrestricted maneuverability and operating speeds. Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal operating speeds close to the speed limit. Level of service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and unstable, low operating speeds. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Breakdown conditions are characterized by stop and go travel; this occurs at level of service F. According to Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's (FAMPO's) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and US 401 Business (Raeford Road), are considered two the most congested roads in the area. The traffic is currently approximately 25,000 vehicles per day (VPD) on Skibo Road and 22,600 VPD on Raeford Road. The traffic is anticipated to increase to 42,500 and 32,800 by the year 2030. Figures 2a - 2d display current and projected average daily volumes along the corridor. As mentioned earlier, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is already being utilized as an alternative route to Skibo Road. The traffic on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) ranges from 6,500 to 3,200 VPD. Even with no improvements, the traffic on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is anticipated to increase to 9,400 and 4,700 VPD by the year 2030. 2 The existing two-lane SR 1596 (Glensford Road) will not provide adequate through and left-turn movement capacity to service the projected 2030 traffic volumes. All intersections are expected to function at the LOS F without improvements. If the proposed project is constructed, traffic on Skibo Road and Raeford Road will be reduce by approximately 4,000 VPD. C. Purpose of the Proiect The purpose of the proposed project is to: ¦ Improve local connectivity - by completing the needed direct link between NC 59 and the commercial district on the north side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). ¦ Improve capacity - by providing additional through lanes on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and redirecting traffic from heavily congested adjacent roadways. III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY A. Length of Proiect The total length of the proposed project is 1.2 miles. B. Route Classification SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is designated as a collector street on the North Carolina Statewide Functional Classification System. C. Existing Typical Section SR 1596 (Glensford Road) currently consists of two primary cross sections. Between its intersections with SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and Montclair Road, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) consists of one 12-foot lane in each direction, one 12-foot center turn lane, and grass shoulders with ditches on both sides. The section of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between Montclair Road and Belford Road consists of one 17-foot lane in each direction with modified asphalt shoulder berm gutters. At major intersections the facility widens to accommodate exclusive left-turn lanes. D. Project Terminals The southern project terminal is the intersection of US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and NC 59 (Hope Mills Road). The northern project terminal is at the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). E. Right of Way The existing right of way along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is 80 feet. F. Bridge/Drainage Structures There is one existing pipe culvert on SR 1596 (Glensford Road), located near the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). G. Speed Limit The existing speed limit along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is 35 miles per hour. H. Access Control There is no control of access along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). 4 I. Intersection and Type of Control One signalized intersection currently exists along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The signal is located at the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). All other intersections along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are unsignalized. J. Utilities The following utilities are located within the project corridor: underground cable, sewer, electricity, water, gas, and telephone. K. School Buses Currently 17 buses use this section of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). L. Railroad Crossings There is one at-grade railroad crossing of the Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad line. The at-grade crossing is protected by mast mounted flashing lights and 2 gates. The crossing is located approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). M. Sidewalks SR 1596 (Glensford Road) currently has a sidewalk on the eastern side from Belford Road to Montclair Elementary school. Sidewalk also exists on the western side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from Belford Road to approximately 450 feet south of Chester Brook Drive. N. Parkin There is no designated on-street parking along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). 0. Bicycles SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is not designated as a bicycle route and it does not correspond to a current bicycle TIP request. P. Greenways No greenways exist along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). 5 Q. Horizontal and Vertical Alignments The existing horizontal and vertical alignments on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are suitable for the posted speed limit. Changes to the horizontal or vertical alignment are not necessary. R. School Traffic Operations Two schools are located within the project limits, Montclair Elementary and Berean Baptist Academy, NCDOT performed a field investigation at both schools to observe the student loading operations, school related vehicular conflicts, delays, and pedestrian activities. Montclair Elementary School Montclair Elementary School is a public school located along the east side of Glensford Drive approximately 1200 feet south of the Cliffdale Road intersection. It serves kindergarten through 5a' grade with a maximum population of 500 students, 90 staff members, and 4 buses. The school has two driveways, the northern driveway is for buses to enter and exit and the southern driveway is a one-way entrance leading to a staff/visitor parking lot, the student loading zone, and exits via the northern driveway. A school Crossing guard assists students across Glensford Drive at the Chambersburg Road intersection during the school admission and dismissal times. Crossing at this intersection were approximately 41 students in the morning and 60 students in the afternoon. At the student loading zone staff members were present to assist. Once vehicles entered the southern driveway they proceed to a parent loading zone where a double queue process was used (two lanes of traffic). The right lane was for daycare vans and the left lane for parent vehicles. Using this process the school driveway is only long enough to accommodate nine vehicles, or approximately 200 feet of queue length. This campus should have a minimum queue length of 850 feet for an average day based on actual vehicle counts. Due to this inadequate queue length, a high number of school related vehicles circumvented the intended loading process. During the peak school traffic period, the right turning vehicles were observed blocking the northbound through lane. When this occurred, several through vehicles illegally passed in the center turn lane and merged back to the through lane at the school entrance in front of the entering left turn vehicles. This was considered a safety concern especially with parents letting students out along the roadside and students walking in this area. A high number of parent vehicles were illegally parked in the "No Parking" zone along the fence in front of the school. Of these, several were on and blocking the sidewalk. These vehicles caused pedestrians, some being small children, to have to walk next to the northbound through travel lane. This is considered a pedestrian safety concern. 6 Berean Baptist Academy. Berean Baptist Academy is located along the west side of Glensford Drive approximately 750 feet south of the intersection of Cliffdale Road. Berean Baptist Church is located across the road from the academy, just north of and adjoining the Montclair Elementary campus. The school serves kindergarten through 12a' grade with a population of 330 students. Officials indicated this school has an expected growth to 400 in the near future. The campus is considered very small with pedestrian facilities consisting of a combination of sidewalk, driveways, and parking lots. Students and staff cross between the Academy and Church throughout the day. The school has three driveways and a pedestrian crosswalk. North Driveway is a two-lane, one way entrance located approximately 775 feet south of Cliffdale Road. This driveway provides access to the North Parking Lot, parking along the front of the school building, and a one-way southbound East Side Loop Drive. It also provides access to one-way southbound West Side Loop Drive along the back of the school building. Students are loaded in the parking lot, at the Academy North Entrance, and the Academy Main Entrance along the northeast side of the building. Middle driveway is a two-lane (a left turn land and a right turn lane), one-way exit driveway located approximately 400 feet south of North Driveway. This driveway provides an exit for vehicles loading students at the Academy North Entrance, the Academy Main Entrance, and vehicles exiting North Parking Lot via East Side Loop Drive. South Driveway is a two-lane, two-way driveway located approximately 200 feet south of Middle Driveway. This driveway provides an access to the South Parking Lot and the exit for West Side Loop Drive. Students are loaded in the parking lot and at the Academy South Entrance (K-3 through 4th grade students). Vehicles using West Side Loop Drive are additional parents that are loading students at the Academy South Entrance or exiting North Parking Lot. A Hi-Visibility Pedestrian Crosswalk with posted school pedestrian crossing signs are provided approximately 125 feet south of North Driveway. This crosswalk leads from the schools main entrance and crosses into the Church's main driveway. Having pedestrians cross into a side street travel lane is not considered a safe design; however, the Church driveway is seldom used and has not presented any safety issues. The pedestrian origin and destination points were the Academy Main Entrance and the Church South Entrance. Throughout the day, pedestrians were observed crossing Glensford Drive. Nearly all students crossed at the crosswalk and were supervised by staff. As they crossed they utilized the church driveway as a crosswalk. Nearly all staff and adults crossed south of the crosswalk taking the shortest walking route between the academy and church buildings. 7 S. Other TIP Proiects There are several TIP projects near the proposed project area, including: U-4414 (All American Freeway widening), U-4756 (Morganton Road widening), and U-3311 (Bingham Drive widening). Figure 3 shows the proximity of U-4414, U-4756, and U-3311 to TIP Project U-4422. 8 IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The alternatives considered for this project consist of "no-build" and the widening/new location alternatives. A. "No Build" Alternative The "no build" alternative consists of doing nothing to the existing facilities. If improvements are not made to SR 1596 (Glensford Road), the two-lane facility will be unable to accommodate the forecasted 2030 traffic. The increase in traffic without additional capacity will hamper traffic flow and may result in an increase in accident rate along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Delay at all intersections along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) will increase and result in the intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service. SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is already being utilized as an alternate route to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and will continue to be used in this capacity until delays associated with SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are equal to or greater than delays already found on US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been dropped from further consideration. The "no-build" alternative does, however, provide a basis for comparison of other alternatives. B. Widening/New Location Alternatives Two alternatives are currently under consideration. Alternatives 1 and 2 both consist of a four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter, with 11-foot inside lanes and 13-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. The project also includes the construction of sidewalk along both sides of the widened SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The proposed typical section is shown in Figure 5. The two alternatives only differ in the type of intersection control along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Alternative 1- would use one signalized intersection, at SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and Montclair Road, while leaving all other intersections as stop sign controlled. Alternative 2- would utilize roundabouts at three possible sites for intersection control. The three sites are located at SR 1596 (Glensford Road) intersection with Belford Road, Montclair Road, and Chambersburg Drive. The two alternatives utilize a "best fit" alignment, primarily widening equally on both sides of the existing roadway. Both include the new location section from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to Belford Road. Comparison of Alternatives Table 1 gives a comparison of the alternatives. Figure 4 shows the alternatives. 9 Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives Resource Alternative I Alternative Length 1.2 miles 1.2 miles Railroad Crossings 1 1 Schools 2 2 Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0 Churches 2 2 Cemeteries 0 0 Major Utility Crossings 0 0 National. Register Eligible Properties 0 0 Archaeological Sites 0 0 Federally Listed Species within Corridors 0 0 100-Year Flood lain Crossings 0 0 Prime Farmland 0 0 Residential Relocations 0 0 Business Relocations 5 5 Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 Wetland hn acts 0 acres 0 acres Stream Crossings 1 1 Stream hn acts 0 if 0 if Substantial Noise hn acts 0 0 Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas 0 0 Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 0 0 Section 4( Impacts (Historic) 0 0 Low Income Population hn acts 0 0 Minority Population hn acts 0 0 Construction Cost $5,950,000 $6,050,000 Right of Way Cost $4,345,000 $4,570,800 Utilities Cost $427,190 $301,470 Total Cost $10,722,190 $10,922,270 C. Capacity Analysis Level of Service (LOS) analyses were performed for two years (2005 and 2030), two traffic scenarios (no-build and build), and two special conditions for 2030 Build (constrained and unconstrained). In addition, under the 2005 Build and 2030 Build Constrained scenarios, a signalized option and a roundabout option were analyzed for two of the projects intersections - SR 1596 (Glensford Road) at Montclair Road and SR 1596 (Glensford Road) at Belford Road. 10 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service - 2005 and 2030 2005 No-.Build 2005 Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build with 2030 Build `with Constrained* Unconstrained* Improvements Improvements LOS AM (PM)' LOS AM (PM) Roundabout Roundabout LOS LOS AM (PM) LOS AM (PM) LOS AM (PM) AM (PM) LOS AM (PM) lensford Drive Intersections Morganton Road D (D) E (D) F (F) F (F) F (F) Campground Road C (C) C (C) E (E) E (F) E (F) lensford C A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) ommons Red Tip Road A A) A (A) B (B B (B B SR 1400 (Chffdale Road) F (F) E (E) F (F) F (F) D (D) hambersburg Road D (D) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) hesterbrook Road C (C) B (B) F (F) C (C) C (C) Montclair Road F (F) C (C) F (F) C (D) D (D) B Belford Road D (C) C (C) F (F) C (C) C (C) A B S 401 Bus. (Raeford Road) 3?r D (D) F (E) D (D) SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) Intersections S 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) All American Frwy SB Ramps B(C) B (B) F (F) F (F) F (F) All American Frwy Ramps C (D) C (C) F (F) F (F) F (F) S 401 Bus. (Raeford Road) Intersect ions S 401 Bypass- (Skibo Road) F (F) E (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) C 59 (Hope Mills Road) B (C) B (B) F (F) F (F) F (F) righton Road C E) B (B F (F D E D Belford Road Intersection Brighton Road F (F) B (C) F (F) D (D) D (D) "Constrained" improvement denotes no major widening to surrounding highways, where as "Unconstrained" assumes surrounding highways will be widened. 11 The analysis indicates that the intersections internal to the project limits will operate at an acceptable LOS during peak periods under the 2030 Build Constrained condition. However, intersections at the termini of the project (Cliffdale Road/ Glensford Road and Raeford Road/ Glensford Road) operate at LOS F. This is mostly due to the heavy through volumes on Cliffdale Road and Raeford Road. The project redirects some traffic from the heavily congested Raeford Road, Skibo Road and Cliffdale Road. Figure 2 shows the difference in traffic volumes by turning movement between 2030 No-Build and 2030 Build. Even though some adjacent facilities will not experience enough improvement to move from LOS F, traffic forecast suggest a reduction in volume of approximately 6%, therefore reducing delay even if LOS remains at level F. This project alleviates congestion on the neighborhood streets of Belford Road and Brighton Road. This is evident in the improvement of the levels of service at the intersections of Belford Road at Brighton Road and Brighton Road at Raeford Road. A Recommended Alternative Alternative 2 is the recommended alternative because it provides a sufficient level of service for the design year (2030) as well as traffic calming benefits. The roundabouts will help to reduce the speed of vehicles traveling along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and is suitable for the 35 mph speed limit. Alternative 2 will increase safety for pedestrian traffic along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) by reducing speeds at major intersections, improving pedestrian crossings, and extending sidewalks to US 401 Business (Raeford Road). 12 . V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS A. Design Speed The proposed design speed for SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is 40 miles per hour. It will be posted 35 mph. B. Typical Section The proposed typical section for SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is a 4-lane, divided facility with curb and gutter, consisting of a 16-foot raised median, 11-foot inside lanes, 13-foot outside lanes, and a 10-foot berm (see Figure 5). C. Right of Way The proposed right of way width is 110 feet. Additional right of way may be required at major intersections to allow for additional turn lanes or the roundabouts. Easements will be utilized beyond the right of way. D. Access Control The widening project does not propose to purchase access control on SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The proposed inclusion of the raised median will reduce access by limiting full turn movements at intersecting streets. At signalized and some unsignalized intersections, median crossovers will be utilized to allow for full turning movements. E. Structure Improvements No structure improvements are anticipated. F. Parking On-street parking will not be provided. G. Sidewalks/Pedestrian Crossings The City of Fayetteville, by letter to NCDOT, has requested sidewalks along both sides of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) for the entire length of the project. A municipal agreement will be implemented between NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville for the inclusion of sidewalks along all areas of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) where no sidewalk currently exists. Based on NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy, the City of Fayetteville will fund 50% of the cost of the sidewalk. Pedestrian crossings will be provided to allow for community connectivity and pedestrian safety. The location of pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of Montclair Elementary School and Berean Academy are noted in Section J. 13 H. Bicycle Provisions The project includes 13-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. I. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control All side streets and driveways will intersect at grade. Dual lane roundabout controls are recommended at SR 1596 (Glensford Road) intersections with Montclair Road, Belford Road, and Chambersburg Road, due to their operational advantage over signalized intersections. The signal at SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and Raeford Road will be upgraded for the proposed 4-legged intersection. Dual lane roundabouts are uncommon in the state of North Carolina, however due to the proximity of this project to the Montclair subdivision, roundabouts are recommend for their traffic calming capabilities. Roundabouts are a type of circular intersection that can be used in place of traditional stop signs and traffic signals, to improve traffic flow and safety. Roundabouts are also commonly used as traffic calming devices. Traffic calming devices are typically used to "calm" traffic on residential streets to enhance neighborhood livability. Roundabouts help to calm traffic by requiring all traffic to slow down while maneuvering through an intersection. Single lane roundabouts are more common throughout North Carolina, however, due to the forecasted traffic volume along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) dual lane roundabouts will be required. Dual lane roundabouts are more complex and operate a little differently than a simple single lane roundabout. The major difference between the operation of a single lane roundabout and a dual lane roundabout is that possible turning movements are based on the lane you are traveling in. For example when traveling through a single lane roundabout the motorist is allowed to complete any turning movement desired. However, when traveling through a dual lane roundabout the motorists' options differ depending on which lane the motorist uses to enter the roundabout. When entering a dual lane roundabout using the right approach lane, the motorists options are to make a right hand turn at the intersection or to continue strait through the intersection. When entering a dual lane roundabout using the left hand lane the motorists' options are to continue strait through the intersection, make a left hand turn, or to complete a U-turn. Uff LAIC MGKU'dE Allowed turning movements for dual lane roundabout. 14 J. School Traffic Operations NCDOT coordinated with both Montclair Elementary School and Berean Baptist Academy regarding their operation needs. NCDOT completed a traffic operation review for each school. Montclair Elementary The queue length for Montclair Elementary is not sufficient to accommodate all parent vehicles generated by the school. The loading of students along the shoulder of the road and on the sidewalk is considered a safety concern and unacceptable for the proposed U-4422 widening project. The NCDOT study provided the following recommendations. (See Figure 8) ¦ Construct a fourth leg of the proposed Chambersburg Road roundabout, on the east side for a New School Driveway to be constructed. The New School driveway should be a two-way three-lane facility providing 2 ingress lanes, and one egress lane. ¦ Construct a Driveway Connector from the Parent Loading Zone to the existing staff parking lot. This driveway will create the egress lane of the new school driveway. ¦ Construct a Driveway Connector from North Driveway to Driveway Connector (mentioned above) to allow left-turning buses, onto Glensford Road, access to the roundabout at Chambersburg Road. ¦ Remove South Driveway. ¦ Define the Parent Loading Zone along the sidewalk near the school building's main entrance. ¦ Construct a 10-foot wide hi-visibility crosswalk across New School Driveway, where necessary, from the newly constructed sidewalk to the school's main entrance. ¦ Implement a double queue process with a single queue Parent Loading Zone, during the PM student loading periods and on AM high traffic demand days. ¦ Install a minimum 10-foot wide hi-visibility pedestrian crosswalk on the north leg of the roundabout for pedestrians wanting to access the school campus. Improvement to access on the school property would be part of the U-4422 project. Berean Baptist Academy The following improvements are recommended at Berean Baptist Academy (See Figure 8). Construct a Hi-Visibility Pedestrian Crosswalk a minimum of 12-feet wide with a Pedestrian Refuge Island near the Academy South Entrance. Install advance yield line pavement markings and "Yield Here To Pedestrian" signs. Restrict the access to each driveway to a right-in right-out movement. Eliminating the conflicting left turn movements will greatly reduce congestion and delays helping to improve internal traffic operations. 15 Improvements to access on the school property will be part of the U-4422 project. K. Schedules & Costs Schedules and costs are listed below: Table 3: Schedules & Costs Facility ? Begin R/W Begin Construction b Right of Way Construction Acquisition Cost Cost U-4422 FY 2008 FY 2010 $ 4,570,800 $ 6,050,000 16 VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. Community Effects 1. Community Characteristics a. Study Area Descriptions Two study areas were developed for assessment of the community impacts of the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) project: the Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) and the Demographic Area. Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) The Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) was delineated for the purpose of evaluating the direct impacts of the proposed project on the community (see Figure 6). The DCIA includes the entire project corridor, as well as parcels that are immediately adjacent to the corridor. The DCIA also includes several outlying parcels, which are included in the DCIA primarily because access to these parcels could be impacted by the widening and extension of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). The DCIA is generally bounded to the north by SR 1404 (Morganton Road); to the east by the All American Freeway, Buckhead Creek, US 401 Business (Raeford Road), and parcels along Hope Mills Road; to the south by Birch Road; and to the west by subdivision boundaries and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). Demographic Area The Demographic Area is generally bounded to the north by Beaver Creek and Yadkin Road; to the east by McPherson Church Road and Buckhead Creek; to the south by Cumberland Road; and to the west by Beaver Creek and the US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). The Demographic Area also includes the entire DCIA, much of the Future Land Use Study Area and portions of the City of Fayetteville and Hope Mills. The following 2000 US Census Bureau Block Groups are included in the Demographic Area for The proposed project: • Census Tract 19.02, Block Group 1 • Census Tract 19.03, Block Groups 2-4 • Census Tract 20, Block Groups 1, 3, 5 and 6 17 b. Community Characteristics The majority of the project bisects the Montclair neighborhood which contains modest one story single family residences fronting SR 1596 (Glensford Road), as well as side streets intersecting with SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Much of this area has been built out for several decades and is a relatively established neighborhood. Several institutional facilities including the Manna Church, the Berean Baptist Church and Academy, and Montclair Elementary School are located along the corridor. Most of the structures fronting SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are relatively set back from the roadway but will likely lose some property to right of way acquisitions. Several commercial corridors, including US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), US 401 Business (Raeford Road), SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road), and SR 1404 (Morganton Road) border the Montclair neighborhood. The Cross Creek Mall is a regional mall located just north of SR 1404 (Morganton Road) approximately 3/-mile north of the project. This Mall and associated commercial development has been expanding in recent years and contains typical strip commercial retail outlets, restaurants, and big box retailers. The mall area provides retail and dining opportunities for residents throughout Cumberland County and surrounding counties, as well as for military personnel at nearby Fort Bragg Military Reservation. According to local officials, it is likely that the expansion of commercial development will continue within this regional shopping node, particularly on undeveloped property along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between SR 1404 (Morganton Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). c. Population Characteristics The Demographic Area for the project lost 5.8% of its population between 1990 and 2000 (see Table 4). This is notably different than the population growth experienced in Fayetteville (59.9%) and Cumberland County (10.3%). According to local planners, Fayetteville's population has increased due to recent annexations. According to the North Carolina State Data Center, since 2000, Cumberland County has lost population through out- migration, but gained overall population through natural growth and births. The out-migration is likely related to the transient nature of military personnel temporarily stationed at Fort Bragg Military Reservation. Table 4: Population Growth, 1990-2000 Yo illation' Growth - rc 1990 1 2000x° # % Demographic Area 15,004 14,137 -867 -5.8% City of Fayetteville 75,695 121,015 45,320 59.9% Cumberland County 274,566 302,963 28,397 10.3% North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4% Source: US Census Bureau, Summary File 1, Table PI (1990 & 2000) 18 d. Ethnicity Table 5 provides a summary of the major racial and ethnic groups in the Demographic Area, the City of Fayetteville, and Cumberland County. According to Census data, the Demographic Area, the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland County all had higher percentages of minority groups than the State of North Carolina. However, the racial distribution of the Demographic Area and the County were more similar. Upon further examination of the Census data at the block group level, Census Tract 20, Block Group 3 contains an African American population of 46.8%, approximately 25% greater than the County average 34.4%. This Block Group generally includes the western half of the Montclair neighborhood, the Camelot Apartments, the Brittany Place Apartments, and a manufactured home subdivision southwest of the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) / SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) intersection. Local officials also identified an African-American community within the Chestnut Hill neighborhood just outside of the Block Group. According to local planners, the presence of a large percentage of minorities could likely be attributed to the proximity to Fort Bragg Military Reservation. Table 5: Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 Demo ra Chic Area Citn' of Patiette,ille Cumberland County North Carolina Race Pc ulation ,p Po iulation Population Po pulation Population Population Po Um P White 7,914 56.0% 56,419 46.6% 159,304 52.6% 5,647,155 70.2% White His anic 437 3.1% 2,588 2.1% 7,789 2.6% 157,501 2.0% Black or African American 4,150 29.4% 50,656 41.9% 104,068 34.4% 1,723,301 21.4% Black Hispanic 74 0.5% 682 0.6% 1,663 0.5% 14,244 0.2% American Indian / Alaska Native 184 1.3% 1,234 1.0% 4,371 1.4% 95,333 1.2% American Indian / Alaska Native Hispanic I1 0.1% 97 0.1% 320 0.1% 4,218 0.1% 311 2.2% 2,606 2.2% 5,552 1.8% 112,416 1.4% is anic 3 0.0% 47 0.0% 142 0.0% 1,273 0.0% Hawaiian F Islander 32 0.2% 234 0.2% 839 0.3% 3,165 0.0% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander Hispanic 4 0.0% 30 0.00/0 63 0.00/0 818 0.0% Other Race 37 0.3% 334 0.3% 735 0.2% 9,015 0.1% Other Race Hispanic 496 3.5% 2,728 2.3% 8,142 2.9% 177,614 2.2% Two or More Races 380 2.7% 2,670 2.2% 7,175 2.4% 79,965 1.0% Two or More Races His anic 104 0.7% 690 0.6% 2.200 0.7% 23,295 0.3% 1 Total 14.137 1110.11°-? 121,1115 100.0°, 302,963 100.0 % 8.049,313 100.0% Total Hispanic 1,129 8.0% 6,862 5.7% 20,919 6.9% 378,963 4.7% Source: US Census Bureau, Summary File I, Table P8 (2000) 19 e. Age The 2000 Census data indicates that, in general, the populations in the Demographic Area, Fayetteville and Cumberland County were younger than in North Carolina as a whole. The median age in the Demographic Area (30.7) was only slightly higher than in Cumberland County (29.6), while the median age in North Carolina was 35.3. The distribution of ages in the Demographic Area and Cumberland County were very similar though, with approximately 31 % 19 years and under, and less than 10% over the age of 65. The low median ages within Cumberland County, Fayetteville, and the Demographic Area are likely due to the presence of military age personnel based at nearby Fort Bragg Military Reservation. Since the Demographic Area has a higher percentage of elderly than Cumberland County, it is probable that neighborhoods within the Demographic Area are more established and contain slightly more elderly and slightly less military aged individuals. E Income Between 1989 and 1999, the Demographic Area experienced a 12.2% decrease in the percentage of persons living below the poverty level. During this same time period, Cumberland County also experienced a decrease of 11.1 %; however, the actual percentage living below poverty in the Demographic Area in 1999 was almost five percentage points lower than in the County. g. Housing Characteristics The Demographic Area was the only area studied to experience a decrease in the number of households between 1990 and 2000. The household growth rates in Cumberland County (17.3%) were much higher than in the Demographic Area, but were lower than in the State of North Carolina (24.4%). It is possible that the number of households within the Demographic Area decreased due to the transient nature of militray personnel related to the Fort Bragg Military Reservation, or due to conversion of residential uses into higher intensity uses (such as commercial). Based on the 2000 Census data, the Demographic Area had a lower median home value and houses were typically older than in any other area studied. The median home value for the Demographic Area ($74,700) was almost $10,200 lower than the median home value in Cumberland County. The median year structure built in the Demographic Area was seven years older than in the County. h. Business and Employment Characteristics According to local planners, the Fort Bragg Military Reservation and government (local, county, and state) were the largest single employers. The Cumberland County Business Council website has data (from the 2000 Census) indicating that the vast majority of workers in Cumberland County reside in Cumberland 20 County. However, more than 12,000 employees travel from Harnett and Hoke Counties to work in Cumberland County. The Cross Creek Mall is a transit hub for Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST). Employment growth for Cumberland County between 1990 and 2004 increased by 30.7%. This increase resulted in a net gain of 29,959 jobs throughout most industry sectors. There were job losses in some industry sectors - agricultural, mining, manufacturing, and finance and insurance. However, Cumberland County has experienced somewhat higher employment growth than North Carolina as a whole. This could possibly be attributed to substantial growth (more than 100%) in several industry sectors - transportation and warehousing, professional and technical services, administrative and waste services, and health care and social assistance. The regional economy relies heavily on government services, with Fort Bragg Military Reservation located in Cumberland County. Almost 30% of all employees in Cumberland County work for local, state or federal government. From the 1990 and 2000 Census, the unemployment rate for the Demographic Area actually decreased from 7.7% to 6.4%, and was a couple percentage points lower than that for Cumberland County (8.6%). On the other hand, both the Demographic Area and the County had higher unemployment rates than North Carolina. L Community Resources - Facilities Montclair Elementary School, the Berean Baptist Academy, and the Berean Baptist Church are located along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) near the intersection of Chambersburg Drive (Figure 7). Montclair Elementary School is a public school with approximately 489 students, while the Berean Baptist Academy is a privately operated school with approximately 330 students. The Berean Baptist Academy owns a ball field/playground complex on the west side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) north of Chambersburg Drive. The Manna Church is located at the southeast quadrant of the SR 1596 (Glensford Road)/SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) intersection. The Manna Church also has an overflow parking facility on the west side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) accessible via a crosswalk. Most of the structures fronting SR 1596 (Glensford Road) are relatively set back, from the roadway but will nevertheless lose some of their property to right of way acquisitions. The City of Fayetteville provides police, fire, and EMS service for the city, including the entire DCIA. Fire Station 12 is the only emergency response facility within the DCIA and is located along Hope Mills Road south of US 401 Business (Raeford Road). Police and EMS facilities are centrally located downtown and at the hospitals respectively. Fire services also act as EMS first responders within their respective fire districts. j. Community Resources - Infrastructure Water and sewer service is provided by the City of Fayetteville and currently exists throughout most of the DCIA. A small portion of the DCIA along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and south of SR 1404 (Morganton Road) is currently not 21 serviced, but will likely be in the near future as development warrants. According to local officials, water and sewer treatment facilities are currently operating under capacity with room for expansion of the existing system. SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is currently a two (and three) lane roadway that extends through the Montclair neighborhood. "Cut-through" traffic currently utilizes neighborhood streets (including Belford Drive, Berwick Drive, along with SR 1596 (Glensford Road)) to access the Cross Creek Mall area from the south. There are two existing railroad corridors (owned by CSX) within the DCIA. One line runs east to west and crosses the northern portion of the project corridor. The other generally parallels US 401 Bypass in the northwestern portion of the DCIA. Sidewalks currently exist on both sides of the road for much of its length. Crosswalk facilities are present at most side streets, at the Berean Baptist Academy/Church, at the Montclair Elementary School, and the Manna Church overflow parking area. There are no airports or designated bike routes within the DCIA. Pedestrian activity is most common near the Berean Baptist Academy and nearby Montclair Elementary School. Local officials also indicated that there is some bicycle activity along the corridor and throughout the Montclair Subdivision, although there are no fixed bicycle routes within the DCIA. The Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) is the mass transit provider for the City of Fayetteville. FAST operates 10 fixed routes serving areas that lie within the municipal boundaries of the city. According to local officials, FAST operates the "Blue Route" along US 401 Business (Raeford Road), SR 1404 (Morganton Road), and the All American Freeway, while the "Black Route" follows the All American Freeway. Both of these routes utilize a "Super Stop" at the Cross Creek Mall. There is no scheduled service along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Nationally provided public transit systems within Cumberland County include Greyhound Bus Lines and Amtrak (train service), both of which have stations in Fayetteville. k. Emergency Services The City of Fayetteville provides police, fire, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) within the DCIA. There are no police or EMS facilities within the DCIA. Fayetteville Fire Station 12 is located within the DCIA along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) 2.5 blocks south of the intersection with US 401 Business (Raeford Road). Additionally, Fayetteville Fire Station 6 is located just outside of the DCIA along SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) east of the All American Freeway. Both of these facilities serve at least portions of the DCIA. 22 1. Plans and Repaulations The DCIA includes portions of two governing entities, including Cumberland County and Fayetteville. These governing bodies have adopted zoning ordinances, a comprehensive plan, small area plans, subdivision regulations, and environmental controls (including floodplain ordinances and PHASE I stormwater controls) to regulate the intensity of development and protect the quality of the environment. Specific plans that apply to the DCIA of The proposed project are as follows: Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan This land use plan outlines long-term growth and development goals for Cumberland County and its municipalities. The plan includes existing conditions, recommendations for future planning efforts, and recommendations for implementation. The plan indicates that US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Hope Mills Road, and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) are designated strip commercial corridors with a central core node centered near Cross Creek Mall at the intersection of SR 1404 (Morganton Road) and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). The plan indicates that land within the DCIA either does or will have water and sewer service. It also indicates that US 401 Business (Raeford Road), SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road), SR 1404 (Morganton Road), and the All American Freeway are designated entrance corridors to the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland County. Floodplains associated with Buckhead Creek are shown as an environmental corridor protection and preservation area. Glensford Study Area Plan (2002) This small area plan focuses on the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) area north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and proposed new land uses updating the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. The Glensford study area includes land bounded by the All American Freeway, SR 1404 (Morganton Road), US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The plan also includes some residential areas south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan recommended heavy commercial and a central core located at the Cross Creek Mall in the northern half of the study area, high density residential in the northeast quadrant of the SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)/SR 1596 (Glensford Road) intersection, and light industrial in the northwest quadrant of the SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)/SR 1596 (Glensford Road) intersection. The 2010 plan also recommends medium density residential land uses south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) along the railroad tracks and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). The Glensford Study Area Plan recommended light commercial uses for the majority of the study area north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and a decrease in land devoted to heavy commercial uses. The Glensford Study Area Plan also recommended an office/institutional land use category for properties owned by the Berean Baptist Academy/Church, the Manna Church, and Montclair Elementary School that are currently depicted as low density residential land uses. This plan does not envision any increase in land use intensity along the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) corridor south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). 23 The plan mentions the proposed SR 1596 (Glensford Road) extension to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), and indicates that it will provide a direct connection between US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and Cross Creek Mall, shifting traffic from US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), McPherson Church Road and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) to SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Authors of the plan believed that although traffic would increase on SR 1596 (Glensford Road), the proposed improvements would support this additional traffic. FAMPO Highway Plan (2004) The FAMPO Highway Plan is a key component of FAMPO's 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan and is referenced within that document. This highway plan was developed by FAMPO in order to prioritize transportation projects and establish objectives and a framework for transportation planning. The plan considers the proposed project a "priority one" project, which means that it was included in the Fiscal Year 2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). The plan also indicates that SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is considered a major thoroughfare, meaning that it is a primary traffic artery through the urban area. FAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update (2004) This bicycle and pedestrian plan update provides direction for future pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the FAMPO planning area. The plan focuses on several key elements including existing conditions, design guidelines, user surveys, and implementation. The plan includes a recommendation for a future bicycle facility on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1404 (Morganton Road). The plan also mentions that bicyclists are permitted to utilize sidewalks where they exist within the City of Fayetteville. Hope Mills Road Corridor Land Use Plan (2005) This area plan was produced by the Fayetteville Planning Commission and Fayetteville planning staff. The plan recommends the expansion of heavy commercial and light commercial land uses west of Hope Mills Road (between Spruce Drive and US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and south of Birch Road) and the expansion of institutional land uses associated with the Lafayette Baptist Church east of Hope Mills Road. These areas have seen the intensification of land uses, and according to local officials, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) could experience a similar intensification of land use if the road is widened. City of Fayetteville Zoning Ordinance (2004) The City of Fayetteville has established a zoning ordinance that attempts to control the intensity and location of land uses within its jurisdiction. Zoning throughout the Future Land Use Study Area is a mixture of residential and commercial districts. Medium Density single family residential zoning is centered on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) in the central portion of the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA), east of Buckhead Creek, and south of US 401 Business (Raeford Road). Multi-family residential zoning exists west of US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) 24 and east of the railroad corridor. Smaller areas of high density residential zoning are scattered throughout the Future Land Use Study Area. Commercial zoning is concentrated along US 401 Business (Raeford Road), US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), SR 1404 (Morganton Road), Hope Mills Road, and SR 1596 (Glensford Road) (north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)). Commercial zoning is also centered on the Cross Creek Mall north of SR 1404 (Morganton Road). Other Proposed or Recently Completed Developments in the Area Commercial development is currently occurring within the DCIA, particularly along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) in the vicinity of the Cross Creek Mall. Much of this recent development includes big box retailers, restaurants, and strip commercial outlets. This is the largest concentration of commercial development within the region. Local officials indicated that vacant land along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and SR 1404 (Morganton Road) will likely be built out with commercial development within five years. Local officials also indicated that a more limited amount of commercial development is proposed along US 401 Business (Raeford Road) near the intersection with Hope Mills Road (near the proposed southern terminus of The proposed project). This planned development includes a WalMart, a CVS, and potential redevelopment of several other properties. Local officials also felt that commercial development (similar to that along Hope Mills Road) could occur along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between Belford Drive and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The only residential development under construction within the DCIA was a multi-family development (Glensford Commons) on the east side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) north of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), SR 1404 (Morganton Road), and the Cross Creek Mall area have recently been experiencing commercial development, with infill development expected to continue. Much of this development is similar to that within the DCIA and includes big box retailers, restaurants, professional offices, and strip commercial development. 2. Community Impact Analysis a. Community Impact Assessment Overview Overall, The proposed project should help alleviate traffic along other commercial corridors in the area and reduce "cut-through" traffic on neighborhood streets (other than SR 1596 (Glensford Road)) within the Montclair subdivision. Traffic on SR 1596 (Glensford Road) may increase somewhat, because the extension will complete the connection between US 401 Business (Raeford Road) / Hope Mills Road and the Cross Creek Mall. A widened roadway may present a greater physical barrier to pedestrians. The inclusion of a median should offer some protection, because only one direction of traffic must be observed at a time, and the median may provide some sort of haven (although not ideal). The inclusion of sidewalks and wide outside lanes in the design of this project could help promote pedestrian and bicycle safety along the project corridor. Vehicular safety may be improved by limiting left turns through the use of the median and roundabouts. Decreased emergency response times will 25 likely result from the improved system connectivity and extra lanes provided by the proposed project. b. Displacements/Relocation Impacts No residential displacements are anticipated however, five business displacements will result from project implementation (see the Relocation Report in Appendix D). NCDOT's policy regarding displacements involves providing assistance to those affected by transportation improvements per the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act. All alternatives under evaluation will result in the displacement of homes and/or businesses. Some residents in the DO Study Area appear to be low-income. If so, and if they are displaced, the Last Resort Housing Program established by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (PL 91-646) may be used. The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the effects of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs. It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: • Relocation Assistance • Relocation Moving Payments • Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staff to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify. The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose. 26 The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time prior to displacement for negotiations and possession of replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90- day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial . facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property. All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location. The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision. A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250. It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law. Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement 27 payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary. c. Land Use Patterns and Compatibility The DCIA includes a mix of residential, institutional, and commercial uses. Commercial uses are concentrated along several corridors and in the Cross Creek Mall area. Residential land uses, including multi-family residential, .generally comprise the remainder of the DCIA. Widening and extending SR 1596 (Glensford Road) may create commercial development pressures along the corridor that may not be compatible with the existing residential and institutional fabric of the existing neighborhood. The Montclair subdivision consists of modest older single story and split level houses. Several multi-family and apartment developments, including the Camelot Apartments and Brittany Place Apartments, are located just west of the project corridor along Ashbrook Drive. The Berean Baptist Academy and Church (including ball fields), the Montclair Elementary School, and the Manna Church are institutional properties located along the corridor. Currently, no commercial development exists along the project corridor; however, according to local planners the majority of recent and future commercial development is and will continue to be concentrated along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) just north of the project corridor. Recent developments along that portion of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) include restaurants, outlets, and big box retailers, particularly near the Cross Creek Mall. Widening and extending SR 1596 (Glensford Road) may also create pressure for the development of commercial or office buildings along the project corridor, similar to that of the Hope Mills Road corridor south of US 401 Business (Raeford Road). According to local officials, a Wal-Mart, CVS, and other potential commercial redevelopment will likely occur near the southern terminus of the project corridor. d. Economic Conditions The proposed project may positively affect the economy by improving access to the Cross Creek Mall. Due to increased exposure to traffic and the connection provided to the Cross Creek Mall area, the proposed project may affect growth pressures along the corridor. According to local officials, residential uses may transition to commercial uses along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between Belford and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). e. Transportation Access Residents responding to the Citizens Informational Workshop expressed concerns about lost access due to the inclusion of a median in the design. Since the proposed project includes a widening alternative with a median, it is possible that direct access to houses along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) may be affected. Depending on the location of median breaks, some residents 28 may be limited to right turns out of driveways, and they may have to perform U-turns in order to enter driveways. Existing SR 1596 (Glensford Road) winds through a primarily residential neighborhood. Currently, there are no access controls along the corridor. An overflow parking area for the Manna Church is located on the west side of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) just south of the rail line. This parking area could experience temporary access issues related to construction activities during the project. TIP Project U-4422 should improve access to the Cross Creek Mall. According to FAMPO's 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and US 401 Business (Raeford Road) are considered two of the most congested roads in the area. TIP Project U-4422 may help alleviate traffic along US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), potentially improving commercial access along those corridors. The current SR 1596 (Glensford Road) facility has sidewalks on both sides of the road for much of its length and at least a single sidewalk along the entire length. Crosswalk facilities are present at most side streets, at the Berean Baptist Academy/Church, at the Montclair Elementary School, and the Manna Church overflow parking area. Local officials indicated that pedestrians often frequent the corridor. Students from the Berean Baptist Academy and members of the Manna Church use crosswalks to access facilities on both sides of the road. The inclusion of a median should offer some protection to pedestrians because only one direction of traffic must be observed at a time, and the median may provide some sort of haven (although not ideal) for pedestrians. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update produced by FAMPO in 2004 indicated that SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is a proposed future bicycle facility from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR 1404 (Morganton Road). The inclusion of sidewalks and wide outside lanes in the design of the proposed project could help promote pedestrian and bicycle safety along the project corridor and meet the goals of the FAMPO bicycle and pedestrian plan update. It is not anticipated that this project will have any effect upon populations covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since there are no scheduled routes or designated pick-up areas along the project corridor, impacts to bus services should be limited to temporary impacts related to construction activities affecting the "Blue Route" near the intersection of US 401 Business (Raeford Road) and the proposed SR 1596 (Glensford Road) Extension. L Transportation Network It is anticipated that commuting patterns could change as a result of the proposed project. The SR 1596 (Glensford Road) extension and widening will provide a direct connection between Hope Mills Road and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). This connection will provide direct access to the Cross Creek Mall area for motorists traveling from the south. The proposed 29 project should help alleviate traffic along US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and reduce "cut- through" traffic that currently utilizes neighborhood streets (including Belford Drive and Berwick Drive) within the Montclair subdivision to access the Cross Creek Mall area from the south. The proposed project should increase traffic on SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Travel times along the corridor will improve with the widening of SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Residents from southern Cumberland County attempting to access the Cross Creek Mall area should experience moderate travel time decreases due to the more direct system linkage ' provided by-the proposed project. It is anticipated that travel times for local trips could increase slightly due to the fact that turns will be limited to right-in / right-out due to the proposed median. In the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) adopted by FAMPO, SR 1596 (Glensford Road) is listed as a major thoroughfare. The FAMPO Highway Plan also recommended that SR 1596 (Glensford Road) be widened to major thoroughfare standards and considered the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) widening a "Priority One Project." g. Farmland Imuacts Because of the existing urban environment along the entire length of the project, no prime farmland will be impacted by the proposed project. h. Environmental Justice and Title VI Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, provides that "each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." In many ways, the executive order is an affirmation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which already requires there be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability, in all federally-assisted programs. The Demographic Area has a diverse racial composition. Whites make up 56% of the Demographic Area population. African Americans are the largest minority comprising 29.4% of the population, followed by Hispanics at 8.0% of the population. Upon further examination of the Census data at the block group level, Census Tract 20, Block Group 3 contained an African American population of 46.8%, approximately 25% greater than the County average of 34.4%. This area generally includes the Montclair subdivision west of SR 1596 (Glensford Road), the Camelot Apartments, the Brittany Place Apartments, and a manufactured home subdivision southwest of the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) intersection. Furthermore, local officials indicated an African-American enclave within the Chestnut Hill subdivision west of Census Tract 20, Block Group 3 (see Figure 6). This area should not 30 experience direct impacts due to its distance from the project corridor and the fact that access to this area is from US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). A relatively young population throughout the Demographic Area and all other studied groups, is likely due to the presence of Fort Bragg Military Reservation. No nursing homes or enclaves of elderly were observed during the site visit or indicated by local officials. In 1999, the Demographic Area had a median household income of $37,214, which is comparable to Cumberland County during the same time period. The poverty rate within the Demographic Area (7.9%) was much lower than the poverty rate in Cumberland County during that same time period. According to local officials, there are no impoverished or low income areas within the DCIA. Based on the demographic analysis and information from local officials, it does not appear that there will be disproportionate adverse impacts to minority, low-income, or other special populations. 3. Indirect and Cumulative Analysis A summary of the indirect and cumulative effects analysis indicates the following: A limited amount of vacant land is currently available for development and is concentrated along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and SR 1404 (Morganton Road). Any growth that occurs in this part of the Future Land Use-Study Area is likely going to occur with or without the TIP Project, and local officials feel that the area between SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) and SR 1404 (Morganton Road) will be built out in the next five years. ¦ Residential uses may transition to commercial uses along SR 1596 (Glensford Road) between Belford and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road); however the Glensford Study Area Plan did not anticipate any intensity in land use along the SR 1596 (Glensford Road) corridor south of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). ¦ Small-scale redevelopment opportunities exist at the new location portion of the proposed project, although land is somewhat limited. There are already plans for a Wal-Mart and CVS along US 401 Business (Raeford Road) near the proposed extension, which suggests that this type of development is already occurring. Because of the limited amount of developable land, any induced development has little potential to further degrade water quality or affect natural resources. Although there is potential for growth related to the proposed project, much of this development is currently under way or unrelated to this project: Therefore, it does not appear that further study of indirect and cumulative effects is warranted. 31 Local officials pointed out an African-American enclave within the Chestnut Hill subdivision west of Census Tract 20, Block Group 3. This area should not be affected due to its distance from the project corridor and the fact that access to this area is from US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). B. Cultural Resources 1. Compliance Guidelines This project is subject to compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. 2. Historic Architecture In a memorandum dated June 24, 2004 the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) determined that the project would not affect any historic structures. Accordingly, NCDOT architectural historians did not initiate a survey of the project area. A copy of this memorandum is included in Appendix B. 3. Archaeology The HPO, in a memo dated June 24, 2004, recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix B). The HPO stated that they are aware of no historic resources, which would be affected by the project. C. Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects the use of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historic properties. No Section 4(f) protected properties will be impacted by this project. D. Air Ouality Analysis The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts'per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas. 32 The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the intersection of US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The predicted 1- hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2010, 2015, and 2030 are 4.70, 4.20 and 4.80 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Appendix C, Tables Al through A3, for input data and output. The project is located in Cumberland County was designated as a marginal nonattainment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Cumberland County is under an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the nonattainment designation has been deferred until April 15, 2008, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 is not applicable until April 15, 2009 (one year after the nonattainment designation becomes effective). In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule -on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on- highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph: 33 2020 U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000- VW (trillions/year) 6 Benzene (57%) DPM+D63G (-87%) 3 T?"'? FomaUe"+ (65%) ACetittiNde CWT) 1;Mdadleie ( } WAWAW? ACIDb It (63%) 0 Emissions (tons/year) 200,000 100,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2- generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and S04 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns. As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could adjust the full 21 and the primary 6 MSATs. Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information: Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final v atr(46tx) 34 determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project. Emissions The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis. These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations. Dispersion The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations. 35 Exposure Levels and Health Effects Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses. Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level. The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures. 36 Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen. The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure. Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals. 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure. Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies. There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years. Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems'. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project. Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment." 37 In this document, FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various alternatives, (or a qualitative assessment, as applicable) and has acknowledged that (some, all, or identify by alternative) the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated. As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in pat from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at: www.f iwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm For each alternative in the EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly, higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase in VMT will lead to higher MSAT emissions for the preferred alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs, except for diesel particulate matter, decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models. Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives presented in the EA are nearly the same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA- projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be 38 higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along Glensford Road (SR 1592), from Raeford Road (US 401 Business) to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400). However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. E. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category (see Appendix C). In accordance with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of this proposed highway project will be the approval date of the FONSI. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility. The number of receptors in each activity category for each section predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5 (see Appendix Q. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 37 residences and 1 business are predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area with the selection of the west side alignment, west side widening being worst case. The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level contour is <57.0 feet from the 39 center of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level contour is 73.3 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. Contour information in Table N5 shows this contour information by section. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway. Table N6 (see Appendix C) exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by roadway section. There were no substantial noise level impacts anticipated by this project by the selection of any of the widening options evaluated. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +13 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily noticeable. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. There are impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed project. Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement. The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access, meaning most commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersection will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50' from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400' long. An access opening of 40'(10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27). Hence, this type of control of access effective eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures. 40 In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold cost per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control. The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project, due to the amount of substantial amount of right-of-way necessary to make vegetative barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier should be approximately 100' wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of-way would be required. The cost of the additional right-of-way and plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the allowed abatement cost per benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project. The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise. Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects especially in areas where there are not traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project. F. Geodetic Markers This project will not impact any geodetic survey markers. G. Hazardous Materials Three possible underground storage tank (UST) facilities and a used automobile lot were identified within the proposed project corridor. The sites are described in Table 6. Low to negligible monetary and scheduling impacts resulting from these sites are anticipated. 41 NCDOT's GeoEnvironmental Section observed no additional contaminated properties during the field reconnaissance and regulatory agencies' records search. The GeoEnvironmental Section will provide soil and groundwater assessments on each of the above properties after identification of the selected alternative and before right of way acquisition. Please note that discovery of additional sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and nor reasonably discernable during the project reconnaissance may occur. No Hazardous Waste Sites were identified within the project limits. No apparent landfills were identified within the project limits. 42 Table 6: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites Property Location F Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID Short Stop 35 Lil Thrift Food Mart Lil Thrift Food Mart 5001 Raeford Rd. 1007 Arsenal Ave. 1007 Arsenal Ave. 0-211408 Fayetteville, NC 28304 Fayetteville, NC 28305 Fayetteville, NC 28305 This active Exxon gas station and convenience store is located on the southwest quadrant of US 401 Bus. (Raeford Road) and NC 59 (Hope Mills Road). Three USTs are located in the southwest corner of the property and are 125 feet from NC 59 centerline. There is no record of contamination on the NCDENR incident database. No other evidence of USTs or UST removal was observed. This site will have a low impact to this project. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility M # Koretizing Dry Cleaning W.J. Fuqua 4924 Raeford Rd. 852 Buckland Drive N/A N/A Fayetteville, NC 28304 Fayetteville, NC 28312 This active dry cleaning facility is located across from the US 401 Bus and NC 59 intersection. The parking lot in front of the building has asphalt and concrete patching where gas stations pump island and tanks may have been. The building and patching are 86 feet and 52 feet respectively, from the US 401 Bus. Median. This property does not appear on the UST Section database. This site will have a low impact to this project Property Location Property Owner -I UST Owner Facility ID # F The Car Exchange Paul Investments, LLC 5000 Raeford Rd. 3610 Johnson Mill Drive N/A N/A Fayetteville, NC 28304 Raeford, NC 28376 This active used car dealership is located across from the US 401 Bus and NC 59 intersection. The parking lot surrounding the office contains approximately 40 vehicles. This structure appears to be a former fast food drive through. However, gas station style vacuums and air hoses were located behind the building. The parking lot is fairly new, therefore no evidence of USTs or UST removal was observed. This property does not appear on the UST Section database. This site will have a low impact to this project. Property Location Property Owner - -----] IF UST Owner Facility ID # Pantry 3481 DBA Kangaroo The Pantry The Pantry 5336 Cliffdale Rd. 1801 Douglas Drive 1801 Douglas Drive 0-036229 Fayetteville, NC 28314 Sanford, NC 27330 Sanford, NC 27330 This active gas station and convenience store is located on the northwest quadrant of the Cliffdale Rd and Glensford Dr. Four (4) USTs are located on the west side of the property and are 275 feet from the Glensford Dr. median. The canopied pump island is 117 feet from this road. There is no record of contamination on the NCDENR incident database. No other evidence of USTs or UST removal was observed. This site will have a negligible impact to this ro-ect. 43 VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. Physical Resources The project area lies in the southeastern portion of North Carolina within the Upper Coastal Plain physiographic province along the terraces of the Cape Fear River. The topography of the project vicinity is broad and nearly level to gently undulating ridges. The streams systems are not extensive and tributaries are limited. The project area drains into Beaver Creek, a tributary to the Cape Fear River. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 200 to 220 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929). The proposed project area is relatively developed throughout. It is located within the city limits of Fayetteville. Most of the project area lies within a residential neighborhood. Only a small forested portion at the southern end of the project is undeveloped. 1. Soils The soil association within the project area is Wagram-Faceville-Norfolk. This association consists of soils that have clayey or loamy subsoil. They are found on broad uplands typically more than a mile wide. These soils are suitable for most agriculture crops or urban development. They are.strongly acid to moderately acid throughout unless the surface has been limed. The individual map units in the project area are Blaney loamy sand, Faceville loamy sand, Faceville-Urban land complex, Norfolk loamy sand, Urban land, and Wagram loamy sand. The following are descriptions of map units within the study area. The NRCS does not classify any of these soils as hydric, but list the Norfolk and Wagram map units as potentially having hydric inclusions (approximately 5 and 3 percent per map unit, respectively, is hydric). • Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes, is a well drained soil found on the side slopes of uplands paralleling streams. This soil has moderate permeability and low available water capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of greater than 6 feet, although a perched water table is present after heavy rains for brief periods. Soil erosion can be severe if the soil is exposed. • Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes, is a well drained soil found on convex ridges and smooth side slopes. This soil has moderate permeability and the available water capacity is medium. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of greater than 6 feet. The potential for erosion is moderate. • Faceville-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, contains areas of Faceville soil and urban land intermingled and cannot be mapped separately because of their small size. Urban land consists of areas that have been covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other impervious surfaces. The slopes are modified to fit the site. • Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a well drained upland soil found on broad smooth flats. This soil has moderate permeability and the available water capacity is medium. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 4 to 6 feet. 44 Urban land consists of areas that are more than 85 percent urban. The natural soils have been extensively altered and covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other impervious surfaces. • Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is a well drained soil found on broad flats and side slopes of the uplands. This soil has moderate permeability and the available water capacity is low to medium. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of greater than 6 feet. 2. Water Resources a. Water Ouality Classification The project is located in the Upper Cape Fear basin (US Geologic Survey Hydrologic Unit Code 03030004). Most of the project area is located on an interstream divide. Although no named streams are located within the project area, the project crosses one headwater tributary to Beaver Creek. Topography is relatively level and the surface waters within the project area drain into a small unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek flows into Little Rockfish Creek, a tributary to the Cape Fear River. The small unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek located within the project area is a low- gradient, first-order stream. This feature has been heavily modified by channelization. Just upstream of the project area the channel transitions from an ephemeral feature to an intermittent stream. This intermittent channel flows within the project area entirely through a culvert [approximately 150 feet]. The bed material consists mostly of sand and clay. On the day of the site visit, the flow was only a trickle and water was slightly turbid with suspended sediment. Scouring of the channel was observed exposing some of the clay substrate. Small permanent to semi-permanent pools are present. The riparian community is a narrow band of herbaceous vegetation, with a clump of deciduous trees and shrubs present near the railroad. Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) that is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. If a stream is not classified it takes the classification of its receiving stream. The stream within the project drains into Beaver Creek, which drains into Little Rockfish Creek. Within the project study area Beaver Creek is classified as Class C (NCDENR 2005a). Class C waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities. No water resources classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are located within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. 45 b. Water quality Information Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ. The program has established monitoring stations for sampling selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are known to have varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality can be derived from the number of taxa present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent. There is one macroinvertebrate monitoring station on Little Rockfish Creek at NC 59, approximately 3.8 miles downstream of the project area. In both 1998 and 2003 it was given a bioclassification of Good. c. Impaired Waters North Carolina's §303(d) List (NCDENR 2002) is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that is damaged by pollutants, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria, or by pollution such as hydromodification and habitat degradation. The source of impairment might be from point sources, non-point sources, and atmospheric deposition. The standards violation might be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or an unknown cause of impairment. This list is compiled by the DWQ and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by April 1 of every even year. None of the water resources described in Section 2.2.1 are designated as biologically impaired water bodies regulated under the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) §303(d). d. Permitted Discharges Point source discharges in North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are no permits issued to discharge to the streams within and adjacent to the project area (NCDENR, 2005b). A visual observation of potential non-point source (NPS) discharges located within and near the project study area was conducted. Potential sources of NPS pollution near the project area were identified in the form of. atmospheric deposition from passing vehicles; fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from nearby residential areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from nearby roadways, parking lots, and residential driveways were identified. Overall, the threat of non-point source discharge is above average because of the high density of development found within the project area. The channel located in the project area has only a minimal riparian buffer along the channel banks because of the adjacent development. 46 I e. Water Resource Impacts Both temporary and permanent impacts to the water quality of the study area will occur from the project. Potential short-term impacts to water resources in the study area will include increased sedimentation and turbidity from construction-related erosion. To help mitigate potential temporary impacts, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sedimentation and erosion control will be implemented during construction activities. Project construction may result in the following temporary impacts to surface water resources: Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation removal, erosion, and/or construction. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction activities and construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment. Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to surface and groundwater flow from construction. Non-point source discharges from the highway surface can be partially mitigated by the construction of filter strips of vegetation adjacent to the highway. Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction may include: strict erosion and sediment control procedures; careful containment of oil, gasoline, and other hazardous materials; and reduced canopy removal within riparian fringes along the stream. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs but may also affect downstream communities. Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, during the construction phase of the project to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. Permanent impacts will include an increase of toxic substances such as lead, oil, and petroleum as non-point discharge from stormwater runoff leaves the road surface. Increased road surface runoff, reduced infiltration, and degradation of stream channel and aquatic habitat will occur. Increased non-point source pollution from highway runoff could cause overloading of the stream's assimilative capacity, and consequently a deterioration of the stream's water quality rating. To help mitigate potential permanent impacts, BMPs for stormwater and water quality should be implemented at the end of construction activities. 47 B. Biotic Resources 1. Terrestrial Communities Only three terrestrial communities were identified within the project area; maintained/disturbed community, pine forest, and cutover. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed following the community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment but may not be mentioned separately for each community. a. Plant Communities The maintained/disturbed community includes two types of habitat that are currently impacted by human disturbance including commercial development and residential areas. These habitats are generally kept in a low-growing, early successional state by regular maintenance, but include individual landscape trees and shrubs. Within the project area the regularly maintained roadside shoulder is indistinguishable from the maintained residential and commercial landscapes. The commercial and residential area includes maintained lawns and waste places near outbuildings and parking areas. Most of these areas are maintained on a regular basis by mowing. Residential areas are dominated by various turf grasses, ornamental shrubs, and large shade trees including loblolly pine, red maple, river birch, and dogwood. The north end of the project area is mostly church properties. The pine forest community is dominated by mature loblolly pine with a prominent mixture of hardwood trees that are emerging into the canopy. These hardwoods also dominate the mid-canopy and include sweet gum, willow oak, water oak, and laurel oak. Understory species are scattered and include sassafras and Carolina laurelcherry. The vines include muscadine grape, Carolina jessamine, English ivy, and wisteria. This is a successional vegetation community composed of native species. The TNC equivalent is most likely a sweetgum - (water oak, willow oak) - loblolly pine / mayberry - wax-myrtle forest [Liquidambar styraciflua - Quercus (nigra, phellos) - Pinus taeda / Vaccinium elliottii - Morella cerifera) Forest Alliance (I.B.2.N.a.22)]. The cutover community is a recently logged forest located at the south end of the project area and is adjacent to the pine forest. Prior to logging the community probably was most likely similar to the adjacent pine forest community. Vegetation is dense. It is mostly dominated by weedy species that includes wisteria, muscadine grape, multiflora rose, privet, dog fennel, and Chinese lespedeza. 48 b. Fauna Species that prefer open areas for feeding and nesting can be found in the disturbed urban communities. The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living and dead faunal components. Animal species observed are noted with an asterisk. The European starling, gray catbird, and American robin are common birds that use these habitats to find insects, seeds, or worms. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or prefer a mixture of habitat types. The eastern cottontail prefers a mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation or out in the roadside and residential areas. The black rat snake will come out of forested habitat to forage on rodents in open areas. Blue jays, brown thrasher, eastern towhee, song sparrows, white-throated sparrows, and bluebirds also utilize edge habitat. Mature, natural forested areas were not present in the corridor, and thus would limit the diversity of wildlife encountered in the study corridor. Wooded areas were primarily small patches of maturing planted loblolly pines. Birds expected to be encountered in disturbed areas such as this would include Carolina wren, pine warbler, and northern cardinal, in addition to previously mentioned species. Mammals such as gray squirrels, short-tailed shrews and deer mice are common inhabitants of small woodlots such as this. Reptiles and amphibians such as green anoles, ground skinks, southern toads, squirrel treefrogs, and box turtles commonly occur in these habitats. c. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts. Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by project construction from clearing and paving. Most of the area to be impacted is maintained/disturbed community such as residential lawns, not natural communities. Estimated impacts are based on the proposed slope stake lines. Table 7 describes the potential impacts to terrestrial communities by habitat type. 49 Table 7: Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities Community Type Acres Percent Project Area Maintained/Disturbed* 10.12 64% Pine Forest 0.28 2% Cutover 0.87 6% Total Impact 11.27 72% Existing Roadway 4.46 28% Project Area 15.73 *Does not include existing roadway Destruction of communities, both natural and maintained/disturbed along the project alignment will result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and less mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction. Most of the impacted area is maintained/disturbed areas and the plants and animals that are found in these urban communities are generally common throughout eastern North Carolina. 2. Aquatic Communities a. Aquatic Habitats No aquatic vegetation was observed in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. Scouring of the channel was observed exposing some of the clay substrate. A number of small permanent pools are present. Mosquitofish and various frogs such as southern cricket frog, green frog, and bullfrog may utilize the permanent pools in the stream from time to time. Only snails and unidentified frogs were observed. b. Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Communities The project area is urban and the stream has been influenced by this urbanization, including loss of portions of the riparian buffer, increased channel scouring, and loss of habitat. There will be no direct impacts to aquatic communities from the project as the intermittent stream is already within a culvert through the entire project area. Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased sedimentation. Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways including the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased sediment loading may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity. Due to the intermittent nature of the stream these impacts are likely to be 50 minimal. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. C. Jurisdictional Tonics 1. Waters of the United States Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters of the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the USACE has major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "waters of the United States." Wetlands have been described as: . Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. [33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)] The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination. a. Wetlands The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) on-line Wetland Mapper does not show any wetlands within the project study area (based on topographic quadrangle of Fayetteville). A site evaluation verified that no jurisdictional wetlands are present within the project area. b. Jurisdictional Streams The site evaluation identified an intermittent channel. This intermittent stream flows through an existing culvert at the north end of the proposed project at the intersection of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) and SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road). The small unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek located within the project area is a low- gradient, first-order stream. This feature has been heavily modified by channelization. Just upstream of the project area the channel transitions from an ephemeral feature to an intermittent stream. This intermittent channel flows within the project area entirely through a culvert (approximately 150 feet). The bed material consists mostly of sand and clay. On the day of the site visit, the flow was only a trickle and water was slightly turbid with suspended sediment. Scouring of the channel was observed exposing some of the clay substrate. Small permanent to 51 semi-permanent pools are present. The riparian community is a narrow band of herbaceous vegetation, with a patch of deciduous trees and shrubs present near the railroad. c. Potential Wetland and Stream Impacts Project construction can be accomplished without infringing on the tributary. Impacts to this channel would only occur if the culvert is replaced or extended. The current design does not call for replacement or extension of the culvert. D. Permitting 1. Permits and Certifications Required No stream or wetland impacts are anticipated. Therefore, the need for stream or wetland permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is not expected. Because this project in not expected to have any impacts to Waters of the United States, no compensatory mitigation requirements are anticipated. a. Section 404 If the existing culvert is replaced or extended Section 404 permits may be necessary. Construction would likely be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 33, as promulgated under 72 FR 11092 - 11198, March 12, 2007. This permit is for temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, necessary for construction activities to access fills or dewatering of construction sites, provided that the associated primary activity is authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Coast Guard. Additionally a Section 404 General Permit (GP) No. 31 may be required. The GP 31 is a regional permit required to perform work in or, affecting navigable water of the United States and waters of the United States, upon recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1988 (33 U.S.C. 403), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). b. Section 401 Additionally, if culvert changes are expected, then this project will require a 401 certification under General Certification No. 3634 for the NWP No. 33 and General Certification No. 3627 for the GP No. 31, from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) prior to issuance of the NWP No.33 and GP No. 31. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S. Final permit decision rests with the USACE. 52 2. Instream Structures No bridges are currently present on the project that would require demolition during construction. However, one culvert is present. While constructing new culverts or replacing the existing culverts, if needed, NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. All in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as follows: Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of ORW or threatened. and/or endangered species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. The work is carefully coordinated with the responsible agency to protect the ORW or Threatened and Endangered species. Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. The unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek has a water quality classification of C. Stringent sediment and erosion control methods should be implemented at all times. Therefore, Case 3 applies to the proposed widening of SR 1596 (Glensford Road) over the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The streambed in the project area contains sand, silt, and clay. Therefore, conditions in the stream raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is recommended for any instream work required. ` E. Protected Species 1. Federally Protected Species Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS lists seven species (list updated January 29, 2007) under federal protection for Cumberland County. These species are listed in Table 8. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact. 53 Table 8: Species Under Federal Protection in Cumberland County Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion Vertebrates American alligator Alligator mississi iensis T(S/A NA Red-cockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis E No Effect Invertebrates Saint Francis' satyr Neon m ha mitchellii rancisci E No Effect Vascular Plants American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E No Effect Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E No Effect Pondberry =Southern s icebush Lindera melissi olia E No Effect Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E No Effect Notes: E Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T(S/A) Similarity of Appearance-Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. American alligator The American alligator was nearly extirpated from their range as a result of market hunting and loss of habitat by the 1960's. It was listed as Endangered in 1967. Alligators responded well to management practices and were delisted in 1987. Although this species is secure, some related crocodiles and caimans are still in trouble, and the USFWS still regulates the trade of alligator skins or any products made from them. This listing is to protect those endangered animals whose skin has a similar appearance, but that are illegal on the commercial market. The American alligator is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. - A Biological Conclusion is not required since Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance [T (S/A)] species are not afforded full protection under the ESA. Red-cockaded woodpecker The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird 7.4 to 8.5 long with a wingspan of 14 to 15 inches. The back and top of the head are black. The cheek is white. Numerous small white spots arranged in horizontal rows give a ladder-back appearance. The chest is dull white with small black spots on the side. Males and females look alike except males have a small red streak above the cheek. 54 Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those that are infected with a fungus producing red-heart disease. A clan nests and roosts in a group of cavity trees called a colony. The colony may have one or two cavity trees to more than 12, but it is used only by one clan. In most colonies, all the cavity trees are within a circle about 1,500 ft wide. Open stands of pines with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years provide suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines are the most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines or stands that have a dense hardwood under story are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. The woodpecker's diet consists mainly of insects that include ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, and caterpillars. Biological Conclusion: No Effect The mature pine stand in the project area consists of loblolly pines with a dense understory of hardwood trees. This type of habitat is typically avoided and would not serve as either nesting or foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. No occurrences of the red- cockaded woodpecker within the project vicinity were found in the NHP files. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species. Saint Francis' Satyr The Saint Francis' Satyr is a small, dark brown butterfly with conspicuous "eye spots" on the lower surfaces of both the fore and hind wings. The spots are usually round to oval in shape and have a dark maroon-brown center that contains lighter silvery spots within them. The border of these eyespots is straw yellow with an outermost band of dark brown. Two bright orange bands along the posterior wing margins and two slightly darker orange-brown bands across the center of each wing further accentuate the spots. This butterfly prefers areas of open wet meadows, interspersed with woody stems, and dominated by a high diversity of sedges and other wetland graminoids. Other wetland types may be suitable but specific habitat requirements for this species are poorly understood. It appears beaver and frequent fires may play an important role in habitat development and maintenance. This species has also been observed in pitcher plant swales, with cane, and with rare plants such as rough-leaved loosestrifes and pocosin lily. . The Saint Francis' Satyr is one of the most rare and least known American butterflies. It is currently known to exist only on Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Cumberland County. This is a disjunct population over 400 miles south of the nearest historic locality of it's nominate species (N. m. mitchellii). Biological Conclusion: No Effect There are no wet areas within the project area that are dominated by a diversity of sedges or wetland graminoids. Therefore, there is no habitat for this butterfly. A search of the NHP 55 database showed no occurrences of this endangered species within the project area. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on the Saint Francis' satyr. American chaffseed American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems. The large, purplish-yellow tubular flowers are borne singly on short stalks in the axils of the uppermost, reduced leaves. The leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic, stalkless, and 0.78 to 1.9 inches long. The entire plant is densely but minutely hairy throughout, including the flowers. Flowering occurs from April to June, with the fruits maturing in early summer. American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire- maintained savannas, ecotonal. areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and other open grass/sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependant upon factors such as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water tables to maintain the open to partly open conditions that it requires. Historically, the species existed on savannas and pinelands throughout the coastal plain and on sandstone knobs and plains inland where frequent, naturally occurring fires maintained these sub-climax communities. The American chaffseed is hemiparasitic (partially dependant upon another plant as host). However, it is not host-specific, requiring a specialized host, and can use a variety of other plant species as a host. Biological Conclusion: No Effect No habitat for American chaffseed, fitting the above descriptions, exists within, the project area. A search of the NHP database showed no occurrences of this endangered species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on the American chaffseed. Michaux's sumac Michaux's sumac or false poison sumac is a densely hairy colonial shrub with erect stems, which are 1 to 3 feet in height. The shrub's compound leaves are narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and veiny and slightly hairy on their bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on its edges. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white and are 4 to 5-parted. Each plant is unisexual. With a male plant the flowers and fruits are solitary, with a female plant all flowers are grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters. The plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a dull red drupe, is produced in October and November. Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. Most of the plant's remaining populations are on highway rights-of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. Other populations are in areas with periodic fires, or on sites undergoing natural succession. One population is situated in a natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay. 56 Biological Conclusion: No Effect No habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the project area. Road sides are regularly mowed and do not provide suitable habitat. A search of the NHP database shows no occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on Michaux's sumac. Pondberrv Pondberry (also known as southern spicebush) is a deciduous shrub that grows to approximately 6 feet tall. It spreads vegetatively by stolons. Pale yellow flowers appear in the spring before the leaves emerge. The bright red fruits are oval shaped, 0.5 inch long, and appear in the fall. Pondberry is distinguished from the two other North American members of the genus (Lindera benzoin and Lindera subcoriacea) by its drooping, thin, membranaceous, and ovate to elliptically shaped leaves. The leaves of pondberry have a strong, sassafras-like odor when crushed. Vegetative reproduction is accomplished via stolons. The plants grow in clones of 2 to 3 years of age, but appear to live for only a few years. New stems that emerge from rootstock continually replace dead stems. The plants are dioecious and bloom around March. Mature fruits can be found in October. Pondberry is most frequently associated with wetland habitats such as bottomland hardwoods in inland areas, and the margins of sinks, ponds, and other depressions in coastal places. This species prefers shaded areas but can also grow in full sun. Biological Conclusion: No Effect No wetlands, ponds or other suitable habitat for pondberry is present in the project area. A search of the NHP database shows no occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on pondberry. Rough-leaved loosestrife The.rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb, with erect stems 12 to 24 inches in height. Leaves are usually sessile, occurring in whorls of 3 or 4. They are broadest at the base (0.3 to 0.8 inches wide), entire, and have three prominent veins. The yellow, bisexual flowers are borne on a loose, terminal raceme. The inflorescence usually has five petals with ragged margins near the apex and with dots or streaks. Flowering occurs from late May to early June, and seeds are formed by August. Despite winter dormancy, the plant is easy to recognize in the fall because of the reddish color and distinctive leaf patterns. 57 The habitat for the rough-leaved loosestrife is generally the ecotone between longleaf pine or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where moist, sandy, or peaty soils occur and where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. Fire is the main factor for the suppression of taller vegetation. The rough-leaved loosestrife is associated with six natural community types: low pocosin, high pocosin, wet pine flatwoods, pine savannah, stream head pocosin, and sandhill seep. Biological Conclusion: No Effect No habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is present in the project area. A search of the NHP database shows no occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on rough-leaved loosestrife. 2. Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 9 includes FSC species listed for Cumberland County, presence of habitat within the project area, and their state classifications. 58 Table 9: Federal Species of Concern in Cumberland County Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat Present Vertebrates Bachman's sparrow Aimo hila aestivalis SC No "Broadtail" madtom Noturus s p. 1 SC No Carolina gopher frog Rana ca ito ca ito T Yes Northern pine snake** Pituo his melanoleucus melanoleucus SC Yes Sandhills chub Semotilus lumbee SC No Southern ho ose snake* Heterodon simus SC Yes Invertebrates Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masom E No Yellow lam mussel Lam sills cariosa E No Vascular Plants Awned meadowbeau Rhexia aristosa T No Bo oat ass Danthonia a ills SR-T No Bo s icebush Lindera subcoriacea T No Bo kin's lobelia Lobelia bo kinii T No Carolina asphodel Tofieldia labra SR-P No Carolina goldenrod Solids o ulchra E No Carolina ass-of- arnassus Parnassia caroliniana E No Conferva ondweed Potamo eton con ervoides SR-D No Georgia indigo-bush Amor ha eor iana var. eor Tana E No Loose watermilfoil M rio h llum laxum T No Lon beach seedbox Ludwi is brevi es SR-T Yes Pickerin 's dawnflower Stylisma ickerin ii var. ickerin ii E Yes Ponds ice Litsea aestivalis SR-T No Rou hleaf yellow-eyed ass X ris scabri olia . SR-T No Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae E-SC No Sandhills milkvetch Astra alus michauxii T Yes Sandhills pyxie-moss P xidanthera barbulata var. brevis la E Yes Savanna cowbane Oxy olis ternata W 1 No Spiked medusa Ptero lossas is ecristata E Yes S rin -flowerin goldenrod Solids o verna SR-L No Venus flytrap Dionaea musci ula SR-L, SC No Notes * Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago. ** Obscure record-the date/location of observation is uncertain. E Endangered T Threatened SC Special Concern SR Significantly Rare D Species is disjunct to North Carolina. L Range of the species is limited to NC and adjacent states (endemic or near endemic) P The species is at the periphery of its range in NC T The species is rare throughout its range W1 Rare, but relatively secure Sources: Franklin and Finnegan, ed., 2004; LeGrand, McRae, Hall, and Finnegan, 2004 NHP - list updated 9/05, USFWS - list updated 2/5/03 59 3. State Protected Species Organisms that are listed as State Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. No FSC species were observed during the site visit and none are recorded at NHP as occurring within 2 miles of the project area. 60 VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION A. Comments Solicited The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service * State Clearinghouse N.C. Department of Cultural Resources * N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources * N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission N.C. Division of Water Quality N.C. Department of Public Instruction Cumberland County Schools * City of Fayetteville These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed in this document. B. NEPA/404 Merger Process Coordination This project does not meet the criteria for the NEPA/404 Merger Process. C. Public Involvement On November 16, 2004 a Citizens' Informational Workshop was held by NCDOT representatives to present the proposed project to the public and obtain comments and suggestions about the improvements. The workshop was held at Montclair Elementary School. Approximately 63 people attended this workshop. A second workshop was held January 30, 2007 at the Montclair Elementary School. The focus of the 2nd workshop was to show specific designs that addressed traffic calming, i.e. roundabout option. Approximately 67 citizens attended. Their primary concern was property impacts to residents along SR 1596 (Glensford Road). They also showed concerns regarding access to driveways on SR 1596 (Glensford Road). Additional meetings were held prior to the Citizens' Informational Workshop on January 30, 2007 with representatives from Berean Baptist Church and Montclair Elementary School to discuss their concerns individually. 61 A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project. MWP/mp 62 APPENDIX A Figures FA I f END PROJECT 4 r RD } Q4 III N US 401 BUS tom' ^ i r 0 aE N j PROJECT A 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 = Feet: BY: J.TORTORELLA VICINITY MAP xonrn County:CUMBERLAND 4904 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION TO US 401 (RAEFORD ROAD) Div: 6 TIP# U 4422 Figure Z DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FAYETTEVILLE 1 4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS: 35024.1.1 ?P~e ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH CUMBERLAND COUNTY OFraa TIP PROJECT U-4422 Date: MARCH 2007 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 O cn ?z m r D `° - ? co 1 a o -0 (D 8 N ? A o LL (L Z) ? 99 Wd ? n T? 1 m (DT v ? O ° ' w ' V N ? o O M w r.? W rn o A m N O L( a 09 m W N O WO O ° N m O L yy? 09 J W a, W rn A N WO O O ^?? 1 N N ? o Ill) 99 Z l N d N f W W D J O O W O A N pJ \ W A N Q A J 7* W O 10 ZL Wd 09 j W W o S7 N W O V f? ? ? f ? ? ? ? I N L ? c 0 N 1 N N T ? 0 (D O A ? N N O ? O n (U W A Q W A L ? N • 09 L a? lL?? 0 l- Q j W? N O N W d W N N N O O N O D W 0 O m S O 3. 7 N C p L? N D N D 0 T? W S_ 0- T C ? Ta. O Z T > N ? ?j U S2 ? r mn n "G) o < pZ (nom mz z =0 om C -i r r r = c : cn < C D n C,5 Cl) Cl) ;o G) N rn CD c T r a r 2< O = m T 7 q fi1G Or IZ 0 ?O r rn >? o v = (n Om m o mm o O < ii O T. rw Ca 1 O ? O O (D? J v Cn (D ? N A ? m O N A OL?I'L) 99 _ W l N co N O _N v 3 N cn J s N ? W ? O_ T A ? W N ? V N Cli ? J ZLWd?99 0 0 TK? N N O N v ? O W- ? co A N CD 0 (D 0 n ZJ Q C U) 0 C v (D 0 a N Q. N N W N O W A O m co 0L L4 Z 09 0 Wd m O L O O N N O m ? A W °p W A O Ol 99 0 ,13 O m ? 1? ?T N N W W 0 0 .? Vt (P N D 1O O O D J D N O C CD_ W cf) O Z7 Q o o TRAFFIC MAP w? o C 2005/2030 ESTIMATED AADT BUILD NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT -n c ? o N SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGH AY o C ? X > W S Z TO US 401 (RAEFORD ROAD) ,r o O - Zxt r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FAYETTEVILLE ? J z ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ?Froror.en N CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U 4422 - ?W 0 0 r,r,-, 1-1 A m N) N O m 0 N N W V W N1 o o ? 0 N a Wo w ? w N m A W O A ? ? ? ? ?. X-7?4 ? ? N O m` m m A V A 11 (Wd)? 09 8 G) (D (n O CL Q W f W N W O w N ? ? N ? V O U p _ m p W 09 ? a N N o l J A ? J A N J J N ? v p cn O A N O O N O D W O O m o 3. (D O Q N T? W Q D D O D ( m g ?. 7 W A N cyl W W p7 O ? N N N ? ? N ? N O O O IV A N A co J_ N ?l Z) *Zl nd 99 ?1WWI ? J J ll "d 09 A A O A A W m m W N N p N m V ?I W co O o (n O ? \ N Cn j A (n c L7 O W L7 6 O x n v N O D cn ? y N ? N O N ? O ll (l?)*09 11 ?Wd X09 wd _ ? W N W J O W N O N) N ? J ? W N A N W W Q co T Q N m W co 0 Q O W N N O ? N J co J W O W N A N N W Q? A O N W O A O N ? N N ? O (D A Q N w ? A Q n N CJ W co 3 _0 O ? O y ? w A Q 7 ` Q. ) m O A N ?' J ? co cn ? ? t ?l'Z) 99 Z1 ? A A I W Cr) d wd I J O W '' W J O W O °' A O cn 0) t? y o g , Q1 C3) O A 00 N O0 A O Q J Co (T N V N W O W W o N A - (l Z) LL l 55 Ad cn N . 9 l l (l 9 ? N ? 1J wd In 0 A cn O Z-- n Q O m ? n 1 (D (D n O 0 o TRAFFIC MAP w(n 0) C 2005/2030 ESTIMATED AADT BUILD NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT NORTM4q? N cQ o N W m / OF TRANSPORTATION SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) DIVISI N F HI HW Y Cr O O G A S z > TO US 401 (RAEFORD ROAD) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND - e O N Z FAYETTEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH OF THAN n? CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 O X O s ;o ° z n r D U1 CO _ Q O CD U N O N N J W f l? cl'Z 1? 0l ) ? 99 ? . ? r3 1 co ti?? m co T ( d) I ?N w o N 1 ? W m N L'Z ) 09 * o w V N o Iuo I o (Wd) W A N c m OL ?I Z) 09 N V w W O o m ; 3 1N N N1 W Zl ??WL) S5 N N ? U A (D A I O O W Q A N 0 Q Zl ( ? ? 09 N ? W \ N V W a ° N N 1 ? a v to 3 N N N O 7 O O ? I`A` ? ? O_ 7 O_ A LU O Q N OL(L l? 09 ° w Q o (Wd) o 09 N Wd N O (7 m ? A N w N cp (U ? ? I N Q a Q O N N m O -i m o A c OL 99 ? J 3 N cWd) N J C CD Q N a a N N T ? N N J N o l? ? a ? A Q Q ° -- N N ?j j N (LPL) ZL W?SS U N i V -? ? co A t\T A 1 o W A N Cn W n N 7 O Q Q c A O co c cf) X v m 0 Q. Q ? O o W W6 0 -? 09 ° 77) CT 4 W O N O N N W U N O U m rn ? o m a N O W m 6? p ?, (L'z) ss ° OL Wdl ? I? N 1?1?T cn cn N N U U O O? ? N N N U U O D y 0 O (T O 07 A O m 7 L7 6 O Z7 Q o o TRAFFIC MAP c CD W c o c: ? 200512030 ESTIMATED AADT NO-BUILD NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ^?°"" p M`4y z N o SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION c m Z TO US 401 RAEFORD ROAD DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 1 D FAYETTEVILLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND _01 Z ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH „ F1nA„ CUMBERLAND COUNTY N p TIP PROJECT U-4422 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 O I00 N m r r D G) N w O a a LL ?w-? 09 A A A rn ? 0 N (o w 00 m W w d m m w ' N , O W (r A W (Ii A V CD ?o 4- N m m w 0 _? A W a N n N W 0 _ ? N r o N °m m N N N J p A A m A ? O j cn ? ? w c, 09 Ll ° w 09 LL m m w 0 co co ? W Ul cn C7) 0) 1 C`1 Q ? A ? A v I N ? N O CO ? ? N rn 0 A 0 rn 0 o 0 t T IV 3 O N ? O O O J N m 0 J N1 c, 0 10) v, ?O ? 11 N ? wJ ?I ? N N N ? J V O Lr, A A ? ?- A _ - N J ? A N 3 A \ o cn 2 OD 0 N 0 A C 07 O co m L7 E cr 0 a 0 0 w 0 D y Ul N N cn O cn O N ? A A I O " X09 ?? ? LL 09 Wd _ Wd N N UI J n J N N O O N A W Q Cn C T w O O _ 6 a N co N W - O J W A (r n W N 1 v lA N N O (D Q .01 o 00 W ? N A CL ?6 Z) I A A Zl ? 55 - D ? 1 N N N N W m D CD CD 3 m `G ? ? N n SU W m a5 3 O co (D O ` co c: 7 7 Q ? N Q V m . O O cn CUl N o, o o ? Wz) z 55 O N? T w W O O W O m o co A o co N) o O O C r-h W W co A CT N co N O O (? Cf) ' a) X ? p ? N Q N) O rn ? 00 a o Q N D rn W f o 0 N W O O O I 60 (6 Z) CJ JC Wd N ? L Z.) LL lop 55 _ N W 1J V - al L 0 A c77 cn O m N ? n N 0 CD TRAFFIC MAP R. no 2005/2030 ESTIMATED AADT NO-BUILD y0"TH NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT °? ``. = N ?w o a, ?, 9 SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS TO US 401 RAEFORD ROAD 4?hl --q ? z ( ) f o° C? P FAYETTEVILLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH F ,°~ N Z Hr,Fr.„ N CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 rn c c U-4422 & OTHER e. R N,n NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT N` 'rl = o W? TRANSPORTATION ' 9 OF TRANSPORTATION y 7 OJECTS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS N .N PR Z o -j C- T r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND 9t C, TY D HCNT tf CUMBERLAND COUN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH OF ?RP N p TIP PROJECT U-4422 o AERIAL MAP = m D cWn 0) n W SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) NpgTM 6f NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 'A FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION y. m = CD ? TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS CCD r CD -' T N D FAYETTEVILLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH p ,°F CUMBERLAND COUNTY TRr N TIP PROJECT U-4422 i AERIAL MAP = m 21 D ;a n ? c c SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) NORTN C4R NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) of TRANSPORTATION m ° P co DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS CLIFFDALE ROAD TO SR 1400 N m ) ( , o N CCD ° D FAYETTEVILLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND 9r ? O ° N p y?NT Hs4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH CUMBERLAND COUNTY oFTa" j TIP PROJECT U-4422 _o W o no AERIAL MAP N = m „• D`D ?,?' o rn C SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 44? °AT `'9?i ROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION y = N TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS O lD °o D JECT DEVELO PMENT 9? C FAYETTEVILLE O N / J fN EN R ONMENTA ANA YS S RANCH OF rpKSp CD N p E j CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 - o o a AERIAL MAP cn = m m DR x W ? w cc: - cow SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) N°Ar„ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT °` ".?. FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION y c 4 N TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 406 cC O °o C- r D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ;•,,__,.. FAYETTEVILLE 9> P ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ? Z N p CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 o o 0 AERIAL MAP = m -n Dp W co Cp N o, ` c = W ` A I SR 1596 GLENSFORD ROAD NoaTH q V ( ) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION y° N x TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ` ? 't 0 o o C? r z PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND P AYETTEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH y? `? h N F p TaFTnAHS CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-4422 ........................................... 4 4 1 4 « - a" ., CD O D ;u (Q =7 m ? 3:. CD 0 o -h (D 0 -h N aw) . + , t. Q 3 (D y o W ° o AERIAL MAP = 111 -n m p D`° cl) , cr o co SR 1596 (GLENSFORD ROAD) Of apTM 4q NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD ROAD) OF TRANSPORTATION h - h c N ? x TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS z ° o -' 4, r Z PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FAYETTEVILLE c - h f ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCI FNr os .aaNg v) N o CUMBERLAND COUNTY TIP PROJECT U 4422 - J Q Z Irw Z? OCR -0 ww O0 ? w o F- T W) C9 m U Q = r W WQ 0 Lu CL 0 F- m iA 0 U iA J Q J Z Z Z Z 3 O BY: J.TORTORELLA °0 o 0 NOT TO SCALE O O TYPICAL SECTION Of ±aO?iH ?q9 SR 1596 GLENSFORD ROAD County: CUMBERLAND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ( ) FI UC@ OF TRANSPORTATION FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD Div: 6 TIP# U-4422 9 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ROAD) TO SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ??' " care ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH FAYETTEVILLE VVBS: 35024.1.1 ??T OF TRM1N' CUMBERLAND COUNTY Date: JULY 2007 o v W o < 0 00 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT CD m COMMUNITY FEATURES MAP OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAY ? N z S C PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND -, - 9f ° - D CUMBERLAND COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH yFN> sQV °F'ry"a N p TIP PROJECT U-4422 o v W o C) no ?? n C. ? , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT °Hoa M `4R, " o m ' COMMUNITY FACILITIES MAP OF TRANSPORTATION 7 DIV S O = N > I ION F HIGHWAYS Z ° C PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Q 9 ." \ ° v A > z s CUMBERLAND COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH `Fti,QFTaa„s`` N p TIP PROJECT U-4422 • APPENDIX B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies A7ij;A' NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael F. Easley, Governor April 26, 2004 Dr. Gregory J. -Thorpe ._ N.C. Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Subject: Proposed Widening of Glensford Road from Raeford Road (US 401) to Cliffdale Road (SRI 400), Fayetteville; Cumberland County Federal Project No. STP-1592(2), State Project No. 8.244390 1, TIP No. U-4422 Dear Dr. Thorpe: The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas at the sites nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas. You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at <www.ncsparks.net/nhp/s irch.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information. Sincerely, Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist Natural Heritage Program HEL/hel 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,.North Carolina 27699-1601 NOnirthCatOllria Phone: 919-733-4984 • FAX: 919-715-3060 • Internet: wwvy.enr.state.nc:us Natura!ll,? An Eaual OoDortunity • Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled • to % Post Consumer Paper E-! North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Ezi Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Cox Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT FROM: Travis W. Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ?-- Habitat Conservation Program .?-?- DATE: May 6, 2004 SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed improvements to Glensford Road (SR 1592) from Raeford Road (US 401) to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-4422 This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Vv'c have no specific concernis regarding uiis project. 1710wcver, to help facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs are outlined below: 1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with: The Natural Heritage Program N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation 1615 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615 (919) 733-7795 M-3;1;„o Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mill Service Center 9 Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 Memo 2 May 6, 2004 and, NCDA Plant Conservation Program P. O. Box 27647 Raleigh, N. C. 27611 (919) 733-3610 2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of such activities. 3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project. Wetland.acreages.shouldinclude.all.project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed. 4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included. 5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands). 6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses. 7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation. 8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access. 9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or private development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at (919) 528-9886. 09%21/2005 10:16 STATE ARCHAEOLOGY DEP = 97151z)ei Ar+TA$o y North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Mstorical Resources David L. S. 8mok Din:ctor Lisbeth C. Evens, Secretary Jeffrey 1. Crow, Deputy Secretary Office of Archives and History June 24, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways Ua-k%a' FROM: David Brook ftu6r SUBJECT: Scoping for Glensford Road (SR 1592) from Raeford Road (US 401) to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) in Fayetteville, U-4422, Cumberland County, ER04-ter t a t Thank you for your letter of April 13, 2004, concerning the above project We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are Ware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced traclamg number. cc: Mary Pope Fun bc: Southern/McBride .County www.h pc.der.etate.oe.ot LoeeNon Manisa Addras Telepboae/Fou ADMINISTRATION Sol N. Blount St Raleigh. NC 46171dat1 Service Cents, R41 i0 NC 27699-4617 (919) 7334763.7334653 RESTORATION S l5 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mall Service Center. Raleigh, NC 276990617 (919) 733-6547.715-1401 SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount S,. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Cenw, Raleigh. NC 27699-1617 (919) 733-4763 .715-4601 September 3, 1999 Mr. Kim L. So, PE Feasibility Studies Engineer North Carolina Department of I ransportation P.O. Box 2520: Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Dear Mr.. So: SEP 8ly-y Prc,rcm Development 1 am writing in regards to the feasibility study for the extension of SR 1592.(Glensford Z of Road) to US 401 (Raeford Road) and the widena ettevt'Ilefacility to multi-lanes from Raeford Road to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) in F y The City wishes to minimize the impact of the project as much as possible since the widening of the road is through a residential area. Elements of the project the City wishes DOT to review is as follows: 1. Four-lane road with a divided median with openings for left turns in appropriate locations. 2. The divided median includes landscaping with grass, bushes and trees. -i gidewnik on both sides of the road. 4. Locate the current overhead utilities underground. Thank you for considering these suggestions. If you have any questions, please call me at (910) 433-1996. Sincerely, Jimmy Teal Chief Planning Officer PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPENDIX C Air Quality / Noise Report (Tables) H N O ro a Cl) rn a1 H h O N O H a H W a q v o H ? t z to O E H w a a w a w U O m z H a U ad Qi u U 4 a a w Wg U O 0 a H O 0 N N V' e' a U a w w U O O W to 0 'J 0 H .TI N N a h W x W> w Ol a u m > C; F 3 k• I. xw a ?- a a ?i It fL O O x x H 'L M W U £ m O O w H 11 ?? O E N H a \ Q ?v O V' to 1 W al NH7 1 W ' i O W. W I- 14 E ?a W F y u x Q pia U aI U 0 •o H x It > M H W c? x a r mm mwN V HO sPa a in U7N w V'M wwU1 wwU1 OD 0 0 N r w in V' I"1 G -W co -1 r- r m<nU1 mMN mrw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in N M H m Ill N M H M V N N H V1 V N N H a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o 0 o r r o°° ?` r°°° r r o 0 o r i M 0 0 0 t' 1 I' I O O O M I+f 0 0 0 N 1 M O 0 o t? 1 i H000HHe0.1 e°-1 r01HH?r°-1 e0.1HHO.,0 OHH H H H . . . . . . . 1 UfM N IIIo .0 C', r, '0 NHwM000 ryoMC raormcv V1Mmwm'nrymwmo i a V'vHm?Me+fHr 0 I'I Ir1H V' ?Men HO 1 H W C7 C9 C? C7 C7 C9 C9 C7 C7 C9 C9 C9 C9 C? L7 C? C7 C7 C9 C9 al laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 0? i H01HMa1H a1HM01HO H N OH 0%O HO rCO CO inOD in c- mrrrrnraoalalr ?] [ H H H M H M H N N N N N x . . . . . . . 0E, 01?MMOOw0 V10 or0 000 w w w0 •j, W i O H H H O O M M W O O N H M O O N M H O W- i 0 4 H1100H a0HH co HHHO a H ', H H H ?l 14 14 OaTMNOOHm V'OOmr NOO V'H Oo 1 HMMO w a1MO w N M O m 'D of M Mm rrro a1aNOMHMInHM ryMH H 1 1 i 1 1 ry i H H H H H E. oHwtVO . . . . . . . . . .oo r . Lv. 1 wN -w co V'm in U)o v mHOO w1A w0 i M M V'NCHain N alalr 0 co r-0 C1I N, I 1 I 1 H H H O H H H 0 1 E x H a z H 1 q i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ' 0000 0000 m/Vw V1 mm V (4 co a , 0 1 ow ww owww HHMU1 HH N V'H U H I O I I I O 1 1 1 1 ' H H z ' '? 00000000000000000000 V' w V'ID vNCD V'm ONNN 0000 ry MUiMNH V'N V10rrr Owww H, 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 K i H 1 i i z ' H ? w 1 H U 11 ro aIa ro L) $4 0 M a s ¢o a as a as a s p? , q p.FF WExF W aFxF W aF7CEW Q 1 aaFx0:IM47 S 904 7EP Q4 E-k%0 >? z m W W W W W W W W W W W W 94 ,H 17..7..77Z 7-.VJ V1fAfAV]WWWWWW3 M99z z a H7 m140 H N in 4?14??N I 1 H (W., 1 M M M M M M M M M M t+l M Q I a 1 I 1 1 w za I HHr1HHHHHH''?'1 H 1 1 1 a (y, .(? I UI U1 111 N Ill 111 N U1 111 U1 UI U1 1 rQ, g E r r r I r, r r r r r r W 01 1 1 CD CD CD maomOD m w aommm i 1 H F ' E ' ?ry?y x 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D3; i b b 0. t.a 10D 1oO lOO OW OW OW OW OW a p I H H H H H H H H H H H H a 1 w W ' I x 1 U ' a ' 0.7x i VlooomwwHd'oow w» ? I°+,m cmgwv?.?+em+,v?-i e°. 1°ncN?1 p, w 1 a ww Uyyyy M ' E•1 .-. i 000000000000 1 a N i N N N N N N N N N N N N 0o 1 U.7v 1 i 1 1 W v I M V' V' U1 w 1D a+ M M m N N iE? ,o1r r-o wwa+ola a, a1 a+ in x 04 x-' 1 w, W7 p$ W 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -,H 4 l4H I ,IiH 4 W i ?W W ?eNi rNi.N N E l u a v' i 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 b4 1 z' 1 1 a1o 1 1 H 1 I i W ' OE 1 t H 1 I U ? D D O D W E7aCFF7aCE"E7aCFE z i q 1 1.7E P'i.7F Gi?7Ea'r E7 SF W E.Ix w WWmWWW?z E .:z ZzZNNVIW W W 1 I NM V1rm a+NM -v co a1 H H H r1 H H N d ro a b c u a d A E O U a O w a looooocooooo00000 I 1!1 X11 N U1 L1 U1 U1 Ln, U1 In U1. U) U1 U1 U7 U1 I N I 1 F ? W 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U] ? W 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a I virvui?nrwuiinera?ininver?n N N . . rl N 'i rl r1 N H ri '-I N 'i e-1 rl I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 q r I W ? U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 o o m w o o m w o o m w o o m w I 'i I-1 ri N r'1 ri e•1 N ri rl ''I N ri f'1 ri N x, ,,,, 1 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 I I 1 of E., ? o?NO+wlnw wI UluuuuuuuUUU?ucuuu wlwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww alaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 1 1-4C m Ll %ormC oC; mvu+to H? 41-11-4 H w I e-I I U W ? al ? I I a I ? I U ? ? a M 1 ri I U ? I a N W rl I a• o. ? I U i a o? w a m U a y m O H E y I+ 7 E r W C v •.1 X a .,t. x ro b?J roE '° a a [ E v 0 Iola u v u 0 a -4 .14 vu3ro -1 to 0 trf H m •.? to ? a um W U C. O 9; fo %D 41 m U 01 U w r. O w O AJ o O a y O F CO A.) $4 X w E W E v N C 9 W a 01 ••1 U v F u ro U 'i x a i M u .. w a ? a w W + + + a a? as o W A E I a 3 3 w r4 W a °a w W a Q Ut N ri a 0 r w w M O HH W EZ v U F w M x x F N a A E M v ro a H 4 h 0 N O H a w a W O E O H m W a m 1-4 w U a U O W z U a U a a W a4 U O 0 a m H O to a N a c D a Q z a a w ao E U O 0 a H a H 0 m 5 an H N N C a O w h w w a W ? O n a LA a m ?i 1 C1 a E O 0 0 H x H f m W E- Z UE fp o O w H 11 it O S N EH+ Q Uv O V' ryj 1 W ? a? p? i n H ; II ? ad' a > I U I U i H i L7 ? O? 11 a E m O?U? W I F I o W 1 o , H tb I 1 w I n n 1 H 1 m `..? m1> W 5 mm ,nwr N,.•a NNm . . . . . C7 > . ,D w N co co ID w d m r G m m H m M o 0 M a r > #?? M M N ON m m m m M # a a E. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N w w V w N w v" 0- V .0 N a w • w I I!1 v m r, N m N H in V N N H V V N N H C N E' I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 >w H E. I f+1 f"1 f+t !+1 P1 f+1 fv1 fn e+1 l'1 M M 1 O111 I to Oo In In o O O m N O O O M tnOO (Qx . H . w S I . CD 1 000HHOOOHH00OH , . [:]?.I H • 00 (J I H O O O..H H H. O'D' O"'Y•f'e-NOS o?. .?-1- Q4 14 r1.---. 4 1.4 H H H , -? 1 O H H H H H H H H 1 ? a W ' ' O rtT0?fn 0%vmv,e tom MmONNHH r •1 .a . zw 1 H HHHHHHHH (?1, 1 OHwmMU1NMrHco mr m00N cli O H M M H d1 M M H <' H F ' w co N m N M N H H H 1 H M I m ' pw, , U C7 C9L?C9C?c7C7C7C?c9C7C7C7t7C?C7C9C9 aaaaaaQaaaaaaaaaaa 1 wa , 000000000000 c 1 H?4 e4 '•I?-1.-iri'•le-1,••1.-I r•I aw ?, 1 ac? E Q . Mf E 1 H HHHHHHHHH H M m q m H M m H O H N O H m O H O w r r r r r r r r r r r r U, H , mmmtnmIn rmrrrmrmON mr N N W V r H H M H M H N N N ? ? , -+ I H z ' r4 , S . . . mONN O tpw0ou ? 0 H F E'' , 000000000000 0 ? ) , 0 mo E•, , M zw ormmoino a w n4oOa -wen 0 OoHHH 00000000000 p w wawa WW w w 4r4 (?? I Or 00111 H M H H H H H H H H I H A H 4 a? 1 H H H H H H H H .i H a 1 1 a 1 mw ' 1 1 i of co r00rtoH000mC! 4m-O . . 4 _ mmMr wNOmNH H f"1 O •tnmmO d V'OwMNmmwNMrm I O M H M <' H M N H w to as ' p, , y. ,.{ r1 H O m r N r r m m M M O N eM -0 N C V M r I w I!1 to O N I M H H O to H H O 1,, 1 1 p, >> , r1 W, H H H H 1 1 ' ,a 1 I 1 ' Ww O m H 0 0 a r N 0 0 0 N O O O O H r 0 E 1 U H , O . w , N r10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O E I w CmCmOu1Hw MHr0 NN 1 M r M <' N tT U1 v' In N M M O O O O m 0 u I N N N N N N N N N N N N D4 E. I, 1 1 I N N N O N N M O 1 1 H H H m, W X a Q , E U a , I a I O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O O O O o _, wU , owwMmmwwwtn In u1 m p? 1 O 0 •00 0000 mNw V'mm V Nm tow Nil H Ow H4 MNHH Q , N to 111H C d mmmm 01 H H ww O OO Gs7 Hm , 04 E- 1 I H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 • ' ' W U' m , aC?W 10000000000 0 0 H N N N 0000 1 at'Ow V'wCNmCmONNN •I r l ' ?' Uzzm l ,N4 4 m H ' '1 r4 14 H H W >'W" I N MInMNHalnao r err owww E. 1 U '7 ' H I I , I , 1 o I I 1 0 H ' 1 x , ' 1 I , I I I ' + t # # s t # « t s s # + # # # # t # + + s w , 1 ? H I I 1 a o z q (sl I H ' E. H E1 I L/ ' A m 1 w, H I U ? U co q• ' W. rd 4.1 to pa a ro? D s a a s a w ILI w a a a a i a FxEW(yE ZFW(LF LEW a x N ~ I W p a ' G1 1 E7CFExFEE- F z 7 FiY.]EPGa Ha 7FPL Q i E F ? aaFa?aaFaIM aFa?aaFO+? . . O , Gl CQ WGQR1WP7RIG1QIW W G1 W > R1 3 11 zH rnn Da W m F ZZZycg 3 , z 5333 Izzzzzmmmmmwwwww im .......• z a • • • ; 1Vr1ar comNMar CD D+ H I I • HNM'r m w r CO m Or••1 N M V 111 w r mm0 , H.H r-4 r-' r1H a, 1 H H H H H H 4 H H H N b L U C4 IV r? A E v a? a, ro a W O M a U 3 a F a w U W a u? w• a? ri 1 U 1 a? 1 v ,4 I U' w• a' f+l 1 r? l U 1 W ? a' N 1 ri 1 U ? (a7 1 a' rl l U ? W ? a? O U ? w w i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 a 1 Irl vl ui Ifl l!1 N N Ul N Ul lfl 111 to Ill Ill O ' ' N 1 m U W 41 E- 0w 4J U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 E W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C d • + K a F Q' M V v 0 in v V W M V V M 0 V v lfl 1 N ri rl r1 N r? rti ri N rl rl ri N 1••I rl r1 r1 C K 0 41 41 E 1' I I I I 1 1 1 °> m U 9 m-44) ro a 1 ° m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Ill U o O g A b U 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O U + ? W a 1 oOmwoowwoowwoom?o •?•? + W AJ 3 b 1 r? H r•i N ri ri r•1 N 1••f r? rI N ri It ri N 1 1 1 I 1 1 ?( , 1 dl 14 m +1 V? 93 aJ ro : a d d+ + ' 93 1 A koo + + + s s + + + + + + + + + s + + s + M i w 0 w 0 E u •.? 7 4J 0 Z O a W H ° f. V y w k a v E aia4i 0 as 1 , w GO r? U t7l r. i F a H u b v z v 0 ' a, a v a E. o ri N ?+ v U1 ?o 'i c-4 m v Ill w r m m'i 1-4 1-4 H'i 1-1 ri w W I a ' 771 ? C7 + • • ; vIUUUUUUUuuUUuUUUU wlwwwwwwwwwWwwwwww a w • 4 ? Ii ? a?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa o ? ? Q 1 'i N en vLn tor. co rn O ri N to v Ul to H v U W a O a W W a W a N r•1 0 N v M z 0 z9 W z U F w x 0 H x 5w F N r-1 h O N O H W a W M a a W O r1 ? z F 0 H a E4 a H Q W U a m O U2 W z N a v a a U a? a m a ww r W W > J W I C4 a u W > q UQ7-? a a W [C u U 0 O V, a W O VI O CN N N a a a U a w m 0 0 r a 0 0 M N N O 1'] O D] W ?d Q U 0 0 0a 0 w W E w E. N z Q+ a a- n m O O 0 II X 1.4 E M W E. D H vE m 0 O tD H it It O N H E Q tQ U O V, it Ila p>a u N ?W 0 • U ri 11 11 3 W 0 r-I r-1 (l- N C? ID C O r o c-I V m x ?D r 0 N O N %D N co M M N N rI M cy, ra ma, a, 0) 00 OM LO rINM In ID ID rN r .-I riO OO N ,.? r? rl rt H rt rl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C! I!) N M 14 In U7 N M ri U) v N N rt v w N N +-I c S E I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N I 'o O O N N O o O N N O 0 o N N O 0 0 N w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W I. O.. O O 0 0 0 0 0 00,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U I rl O 0. ' Q fI _4.0 Cy a I H Cr O.. 1.4 14 S 10 H V U1 V, O r m M CO V O I' CO M N I? V' I` r a N N rI O M ADO r Q, ko en co r M rD CO I' r MN > I rl m M r-1 N O N N O 'D N N rl tD N N r•i ID N H N H rl >• Iaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa E . . . . . . . . . . . C7U H0.iM0rl0HM 0H O H NO H co 0% cD cc In co In W G I rl rl rl M rf M rt O N N N O N m 0 D? N V, o Or N00 [:. I OH 00001n m, ID OOO co 'j,, (tl 1 O r/ ID '1 O oIO N 0 0 0 m M 0 0 0 VI H O O p (- r-1 rl O O co rl a O V. tD M O O V, M ID O. H r-{ H 'i H ri H H rl N H I orl%D V,oocvlDM000W r, oolDOao . . r%Dr+mm%omNCm I - molo c NDO. rl r O N CO U7 O M ri N M H M N N r-I N I N N N O 0 H H 0 I I i I I I 1 E,, I p co p 0 p p %p 0 ri O O N rl N O O IO rl \D O W I I ID N V' In v m 0 a 0 V' N O In O 1D Uf 0 0 I M M M V, N V' In w V' N Ln rl w O O r- In O y N I I I I I 1 m a o In m N o 14 x1 E. I a z H 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 m N W V CO m aT 04 (o O I O w ID %D O ID ,D ID rl rI M In H rl N V, rl u r^I I O I 1 1 O I 1 I 1 I >+ I rl H I H 1 a I O O O O O O O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I V, ID 'M %D V, NCO cGO O NNN •0000 N N,InMN +vlnao?rr oID?D?D 1 I I I I p I I I . x I '4 I ' I I 1 z o I W i N U U j o ?' a P4$ a aw a a RA ow i A p F 5 F Da a s a F S F W a F S H W a E x F W a I¢ I rj 7Ea Z(L) EaG1a.7EaOQpp.7gpEq pagpGq ? i H i zzzzzaicWi?aiaicSn W W W W W 33333 . . . . . H I I ,,,] I I rl N M dUI 1D t, co 0 e-I rl ri rl H H ri rl H H N 1 1 1 I H M M M M M M M M M M M M 1 W I z a I H r4 ?, H 1+ H H H m 1+ '1 '+ H E 1 O E W ' I 1 1 W IQ ?+ 1 ID ID ? ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID a awl l mDDaDmmmoDmmmmm A g E I ui In ui Ill Ill In ui ui In In In un W bl 1 tD t0 ?D ?O ?D tD ?D IO lD ID lD ?O z 0 F I F 1 x 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 a l 00 H H lD blO lp lDb?IO ID ID S> 1 H rl H '-I rl rl H H H r? Q a I wD tq U. ' 1 1 x 1 U I 1 O a x 1 O V .I N m o M M m r o p 0a I mN.0rl O mw w0 N NN aN I? N l0 1D M ID b U1 W > 'J t V' H 1.4 Q 1 r4 ra U F. H E+U i 00000000000 . E. W I N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 U a ' 1 1 1 WU , rn??l IMMInaa cMln Ch WHtto 1 ro-Irr ,°.IID?Drnma?mm iL' E " 1 x -, CAA E. W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I U Vf I NNNNNNNNNNNN v I r•'1 r-i H H ti ri ri ei 1'i H H rl [w-+ 1 U 4 1 1 1 I + i + i • • • + i • + + + i i + a1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 H 1 1 a I O 1 I wIH 1 Er I 1 a I aIa I L) ' ?' a a a0 z i q F x E F x t- E X F F S F 1 I aE»aaE+aaE+aaFa E ? z CO 00 Pq PO W PG as ?Q11 p(Qp p(?q H 1 H zzZcnmcn W W W $3 3 O ' a . . . . . . i NM V't`m Ot NMCrm ON H It r-4 H H 14 b JJ 0 U Q v ri A ro F ko N rn ro a V) O a 0 a a F a w U W , , 0000000000000000 , N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N , N ? F ? w 0 q0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ew+ , 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C O , NaC NNCCNN V'arNNCaN N H ri ri N ri rl ri N ri r•1 r? N rl r•I ri H ; S U 0000000000000000 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o oom?ooom?ooom?coooo?o , ri r? H N ?••I ri ri N ,-J r-1 ri N rl ri r•1 N i f i+ t i i i++ f+ f i i f i i + f i i a ' o r•1 N M VN W H N M V N t0 f'J70 M ri ri ,-1 ei ri r? ri cwi u v u u u u v u U C.) U U U U U U w?wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww a?aaaaxaaaaaaaaaaa HNMCNisrmrnoHNmaLn?r r•1 .-I ri r, H rd H %D i U' W ? a? N i U ? W ? a' w u? w• a? , w a• N H i U W ? a' H, U ? W ? a? 0, a H , a a? m ? O U ? a W , w a? w co a JJ a i A O M 9 EE L r , ? w 7 E U , E a ?alr +k ' A X o u to E E a to U ? a i m g E a do to , w m v N , o O R A Id r-) i co 0 o u u , d J•J 3 r J o 01W M J.J 4) m U y a H N U? O ' z JAJ 0 ? o U 4 w 0 1 W O E; J.J • ri O O a ; ? W a i F U •A 0 $4 U aroiENOoi FF aa ? Z y v O U W CC CO H aJ ro v a W V '?' o W' F W U a w W 4 x a , way H x w w? ?0 w 3 zz Q 3 H x a a ' TABLE N1 HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY 140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD 130 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Firecrackers 120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer Hockey crowd Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD 110 --- ------------------------'=------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Textile loom 100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor Power lawn mower, newspaper press Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD 90 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal C Average factory, vacuum cleaner I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD ----------------------------------- ----------------------- E Quiet typewriter L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner S Quiet automobile QUIET Normal conversation, average office 50 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household refrigerator Quiet office VERY QUIET 40 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average home 30 Dripping faucet Whisper at 1.5m away 20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING Whisper JUST AUDIBLE 10 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia America, Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.) TABLE 2 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA) Activity Cateaor Le (h) Description of Activity Category A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance (Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds. active sports areas, (Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools. churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories (Exterior) A or B above. D -- Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, (Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA) Existing Noise Level in Le (h) Increase in dBA from Existing Noise Levels to Future Noise Levels <= 50 >= 15 51 >= 14 52 >= 13 53 >= 12 54 >= 11 >= 55 >= 10 Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy (09/02/04). Lu -j -11 O Owe NO ?o z v "'ll z .-r a ? T r u U a u W M z , w ? Fr w w ? ?? o H ?° c Ln W 0 -4 -? E z Q U O r 7 L L ? U Q ? 0 MM (W 3 ti a ? w o y Vl C y C V Ew.., ... N 41i iz- LJ a? 2 Q? C ca 0 cn U 4:. w v O U C C3 rn U U C N L 0 c c y a a bio E 0 w 0 1.2 b 7 E 3 y .O r. G .?C G E-1 w Er 0 z N :45 ?D Q ~ E-? `U U Z .? ?w ¢>? r E UU Q cz W ?0 C' w zcn Q c 3 " x ? W ? W c O 0 v O F F az? ?C??p Q o LY. N O O Q U p ¢?U - c ¢ U XO ?p c. '_ r a ? F- Q "-., ¢ c c o O p L] O C W ? F E.. ¢ U N a z ? o? p F p o 0 0 [j,. ccYYO cY. O U U p: ul U ¢ ' ?: 0 N r 00 ,r F W ? ,a.. M IF a .J F -- Qa.W a E--¢ CL 134 c 0 p I7? C C WO U F a 7Ua o ? p ? p O O U a .. W ¢ U Q c LL ¢ U O.N rr„ W co .r v v F U ? c Q a ul ¢ Q o C ¢ N . M ?xw - r o o z F ¢ O ? ¢ ¢ ? U 0 ? 0 r 0 0 r ? V v v N Q O M l/? Cl! cn tr) 10 1 Vl V W p CIO) ?o O V1 ° 0 Vl bo O z MM? a W y Lyn W H ? 7 vUi W O U wQ E Eo E? paw w°w °' C.S ;S ? y ? W vaa w ? y E y ? C7?C7UC?v?i Cn •-^ N ? ¢ N N1 a W ? r '? .NO ? ao ? z ? .] F¢ F F Q ¢ O i Ov U Q 0 0 0 r F N r v v v ? vi ID W _ ¢ co H O 8 ID H = O ? O a 30 M y V F W •-- ? E c R V a U `00 p Z o 0 0 0 O co c S. c w w ?•yb ?•o.. G o o-0 g yo v c c c ? c .-• W O?C?UC7v? N M 3 A w M N / OU v? P F o Q O U p o o O F N V V V r M M M h in t N N O " t O' %o N O t z = ? / W l 4 L CUn C7 U 0 w z E E v E p? w w ° rso a ? CC 9 y ? W 3 aa ? J 0U w ?•y -o ? ?" W W F = c 0 u r U ? ? C7 v? C7? v v? W - ct r+ d y d ? `i. V O iA W O C = W ? y ? U O ? W ? y W ? V N y ?N h y C :g o o° Q vii n fV >, N Q i ? a c Q y W ? U ? U Z YMJ W ? F W E W U W OO zx U 'd O ?Iy V: w o . ¢ ? . F., ? _ o c o 0 N U ? L c¢ ? U . ¢ W .w Z w ¢ ¢ w- O O O O V) C) O ? Z ::D Z v? L?T.7 v? t? p O p p ¢ w U Z v N O O O O ? O W J T ? o 0 0 0 W 0 z 'IT W p o - o 0 ry w F X u O` i O O M v - W 7 - M N o w v p p N N O ? O O ¢ oo F cl r_ 0 a Z o ? O a ? U c ? Q: Z CC Q?+ O c G ,D nr Z N O` O LL id LL GL Q cd b 3 as a? c?? ?0 ° o `- _ ? oG o ? d Q ? ? C7 U v ?n W -- N M N z m F 0 E O O d N C/1 H Z ?w V C; m F ? C .?+ cd ? y O N y c? U T t -E 16 O ? as ? N APPENDIX D Relocation Report EIS RELOCATION REPORT J? North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATIoN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN BS: 35024.1.1 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate PEESCRIPTION . NO.: U-4422 F.A. PROJECT N/A OF PROJECT: SR1546 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR1400 Cliffdale Road ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Dis Ip acees Residential Businesses Farms Non-Profit Yes No x X I x X X X X X X X Owners Tenants no 0 0 0 5 0 0 p 0 0 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS cWaln all 'YES' answers. Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 0 0 0 2 VALUE OF DWELLING 0 owners Tenants 0 0-20M Q $ 0.150 20-40M 0 160-260 40-70M 0 260400 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M Q 400800 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 600 displacement? TOTAL O 3. Will business services still be available after project? 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Source for available housing (list). 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families? 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available during relocation period? 13. Will there be a problem of housing within financial means? 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete MOCATXM? 9 REMARKS 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP 0 0 0 DSS DWELUNG AVAILABLE For S ale For R ent Q 0 0-2oM 20-OM Q $ 0-160 Q 160.250 0 0 0 0 40-70M 70-100M Q 260AN 0 400400 O 0 0 100 w 1 UP 0 600 0 Q Q 0 esoond bV Number) 3. All business services will be available after project. 4. Five (5) small businesses will be displaced. 1. Cleaners, 2. 'Dominos" Pizza, 3. Clothing Store, 4. Vacuum Shop, 8 5. Oriental Food Store. We estimate that there would be a total of Eighteen employees of which 10 would be minorities. 6. 814. MLS, Local Realtors, Newspapers, etc. 8. As mandated by law. 11. Cumberland Co. 12. There is adequate SS housing available. Right of Way Agent Revised 4-25-07 - Date Relocation Coordinator Date original a 1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator 2 Copy Division Relocation File EIS RELOCATION REPORT m e t e n r..01nno n nFSIGN ...?... V •------ to -- ----- - 40-70M 0 250400 Q 40-70m 0 260400 70-100M Q 400400 0 70-100M 0 400400 100 uP Q s00 UP Q 100 UP 0 600 up TOTAL 0 0 0 WBS: 35024.1.1 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate I.D. NO.: U-4422 F.A. PROJECT NIA DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR1546 (Glensford Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to SR1400 Cliffdale Road ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Dis acees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Businesses 0 5 5 2 VALUE of DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-M 0 so-ISO 0 0-20M 0 $0-1501 IM X X X X X X X X X X ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS Explain all "YES" answers. 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 2. Will schools or churches be affected by displacement? 3. Will business services still be available after project? 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Source for available housing (list). 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families? 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 12. Is A felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available during relocation period? 13. Will there be a problem of housing within financial means? 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete RELOCATION? 9 -? North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REMARKS 3. All business services will be available after project. 4. Five (5) small businesses will be displaced. 1. Cleaners, 2. "Dominos" Pizza, 3. Clothing Store, 4. Vacuum Shop, & 5. Oriental Food Store. We estimate that there would be a total of Eighteen employees of which 10 would be minorities. 6.8 14. MI-S, Local Realtors, Newspapers, etc. 8. As mandated by law. 11. Cumberiand Co. 12. There is adequate SS housing available. 4-25-07 Right of Way Agent Date Relocation Coord ator Date FRM15-E Revised OM original & 1 Copy: Relacadon Coordinator 2 Copy Division Relocation File