20001233 Ver 1_Complete File_20000925

?m
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • 0
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
p E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 14, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn F
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb24
Subject: FONSI for US 401 Bypass
Cumberland County
State Project DOT No. 8.1441602, TIP # U-2207
EHNR # 95-0929, DEM # 10987
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.30 acres of waters including wetland.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts (including
impacts to water quality) have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Wilmington COE?
us401 bp.fon
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernm ne tal A fairs
Project Review Form
..y .s
? Project located in 7th floor library
IDU1
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response D e (firm deadline):
015- Z_(
t---
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: ?? 'm ^
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Re iew
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning

?
Mooresville ?
Water
? Water Resources El Environmental Health
? Groundwater Wildlife El Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer []`Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster

? Wilmington El Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)

? Winston-S
l ? Others
vironmental Management RECEIVE[)
a
em PWS Monica Swihart
JUN 3 01995
ENVIRONATAfSCIENCES

Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date:, In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
[] Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
[]Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
nr_1unn 1V:
Melba McGee
M104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
4? . i M
f Fayetteville
US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-8-1(31)
State Project No. 8.1441602
i U-2207
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
9S ? -
ate rank in Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
v
Date Nic as L. Graf P. E
?a Div ion Administrator, FHWA
Fayetteville
US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-8-1(31)
State Project No. 8.1441602
U-2207
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
,••Di?ZH CAR01
? •? cFS3?ri:?. 9
SEAL
19818 s
GINt
Mark L. Re #15', P. E. ?'••,;?Rk "?''?t?C?;?
Project Planning Engineer ''?•?,?,??,???•`''
Linwood Stone
• Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
TABLE O'F CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ............................ 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS .................... 1
A. Permits Required.. ...................................... 1
B. Stream Rechannelization ..................................... 2
C. Sidewalk Provisions........... ............................ 2
D. Mitigation for Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources............ 2
E. Hazardous Materials Investigation ........................... 2
III. NEED FOR ACTION .................................................. 3
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .......................... 3
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................... 3
A. US Army Corps of Engineers .................................. 3
B. US Fish and Wildlife Service ................................ 4
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.... 5
A. Potential Property Impacts...... ......................... 5
B. Accessibility to Adjacent Properties ........................ 5
C. Future Light Rail Transit Corridor .......................... 6
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................ 6
A. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................... 6
B.
C. Cost Estimates ..............................................
Intersection Improvements ...................... ........ 7
7
D.
E.
F.
G.
H. Median Openings.... .......................................
Recommended Alignment .......................................
Relocation Impacts ..........................................
Wetland Findings .. ................................. ......
Hazardous Materials ......................................... 7
8
8
8
9
VIII.BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................... 10
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL ................. 11
Figures
Figures 1A-1B
Figure 2
Figure 3
Appendix
Vicinity Maps
Proposed Typical Section
Proposed Median Openings
Appendix A - Agency Comments
Fayetteville
US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF
State Project No. 8.1441602
U-2207
I. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 3.5 mile segment of US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville, Cumberland
County to a six-lane divided facility between US 401 Business (Raeford
Road) and NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) (refer to Figures 1A and 1B for project
location). The project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal year 1997. The
total cost estimated in the TIP is $10,700,000. This estimate includes
$6,300,000 for construction, $4,300,000 for right of way acquisition, and
$100,000 spent in previous years.
The proposed improvements will provide a 92-foot curb and gutter
cross section with 12-foot travel lanes and a 16-foot raised median (refer
to typical section in Figure 2). Left turn lanes are proposed at
designated signalized intersections within the median. The recommended
alignment (Alternative 3) consists of a combination of east and west side
widening. This alignment is described as follows:
Section Location Alignment Alternative
A-1 US 401 Business to SR 1534 East side
A-2 SR 1534 to SR 1400 East side
B-3 SR 1400 to SR 1404 East side
C-2 SR 1404 to SR 1415 East side
D-1 SR 1415 to NC 24 West side
II. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. Permits Required
It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be performed under
Department of the Army Nationwide Permits for discharges Above Headwaters
or for Road Crossing Fills in accordance with 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) and 33
CFR 330.5(a)(14) respectively. Final permit decisions are left to the
discretion of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), is
required for the project since a federal permit is involved.
2
B. Stream Rechannelization
The project will require approximately 150 feet of stream
rechannel ization near the southern project limit. Rechannelization will
be minimized and conducted in accordance with the "Stream Relocation /
Channelization Guidelines" developed by an interdisciplinary committee
from various state agencies. During the hydraulic design phase of the
project, NCDOT will coordinate with the appropriate natural resource
agencies in accordance with the Fish And Wildlife Coordination Act.
C. Sidewalk Provisions
A sidewalk is proposed along the east side of the facility to replace
an existing bikeway. Sidewalks were not requested for any other portions
of the project, so no additional sidewalks are recommended.
D. Mitigation for Impacts to Section 4(ff) Resources
The roadway is located between two Section 4(f) recreational
properties, the Lewis Chapel Junior High School and the Anne Chesnutt
Junior High School athletic fields, near SR 2628 (Richwood Court). The
recommended improvements will acquire approximately 0.6 acre of Section
4(f) land from only the Anne Chesnutt athletic field. All possible
planning has been included to minimize harm to this.recreational property
(refer to the attached Final Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation). The following
mitigation measures are proposed with the project:
1. The football field will be relocated east of its current
location, and the existing fences will be replaced.
2. A median opening will be provided at the bus entrances to the
Lewis Chapel and Anne Chesnutt properties.
3. A traffic signal will be installed at the Richwood Court
intersection to provide easier U-turn movements at the
intersection.
E. Hazardous Materials Investigation
Prior to right of way acquisition, NCDOT will conduct a site
investigation to determine if the project acquires right of way from
properties with petroleum contamination. If contamination exists within
the proposed right of way, NCDOT will request that the property owner
clean up the site in accordance with the federal regulations contained in
40 CFR 280 entitled "Technical Standards and Corrective Action
Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks
(UST's)." If the property owner does not clean the site, a settlement will
be reached between the owner, NCDOT, and the Division of Environmental
Management to remediate the contamination.
3
III. NEED FOR ACTION
US 401 Bypass is classified as an urban principal arterial and is
part of the Interim National Highway System.. This route is one of the
longer circumferential facilities in the Fayetteville Urban Area and is
vital to regional traffic flow northeast of the City of Fayetteville. The
proposed project will improve the traffic flow along US 401 Bypass as well
as increase safety. The additional travel lanes will help reduce travel
times and provide more efficient vehicle operation. The proposed median
along the roadway will reduce the potential for accidents at intersections
and commercial driveways by allowing left turns only at designated median
openings.
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment and Draft Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation
were circulated among the following federal, state, and local agencies:
* Army Corps of Engineers
US Army Military Traffic Management Command
* Department of.the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Administration
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Region M Planning Agency
* State Clearinghouse
* Department of Cultural Resources
* Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Department of Human Resources
Department of Public Instruction
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Fayetteville
Cumberland County Joint Planning Board
Cumberland County Schools
Written comments were received from the agencies denoted with an asterisk
(*). Copies of the letters received are included in Appendix A.
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. US Army Corps of Engineers
Comment:
The lower portion of the project at US 401 Business is located in the
100-year floodplain of Beaver Creek, a detailed study stream with a
defined floodway and 100-year flood elevations. The Corps of Engineers
agrees that the project will not adversely impact the floodplain provided
no fill is placed within the floodway. The Corps also recommends that
NCDOT consult with the county in regard to compliance with their
floodplain ordinance.
4
Response:
The project is located east of the Beaver Creek regulatory floodway,
and the proposed widening improvements will not place fill within the
floodway. The project will be designed to comply with Cumberland County's
floodplain ordinance.
B. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service suggests that the following
recommendations be incorporated as requirements of the construction
contract: (1) stream rechannelization is minimized, (2) nonpoint sediment
sources are identified and efforts are implemented to control sediment
runoff, (3) best management practices are enforced during the construction
phase of the project, and (4) sedimentation control guidelines are
implemented prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of
the project.
Response:
Stream rechannelization will be minimized during the hydraulic design
preparation. Best Management Practices and sedimentation control
guidelines will be incorporated into the erosion control plans and
specifications. As a standard provision in the construction contract, the
contractor will be required to follow stringent erosion and sedimentation
control guidelines.
Comment:
The EA states that the project area supports suitable habitat for the
Red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) species, however, no surveys were conducted
because suitable habitat was separated by non-contiguous habitat greater
than 330 feet. Since RCW's exist near the project and since suitable
foraging habitat exists in the project area, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service recommends that a survey for cavity trees be conducted along the
project.
Response:
On October 27, 1994, a survey for the RCW was conducted in all
suitable habitat zones within 1/2 mile of the project. The project will
impact three sites adjacent to the existing roadway that support pine
dominated forests.
Site 1 provides both suitable and non-suitable RCW foraging habitat.
Forested stands within 1/2 mile of the project were visited, but no
nesting size trees (60 years of age or older) were found. The second site
provides suitable foraging habitat, but it is adjacent to unsuitable
habitat and is separated from other suitable habitat by a distance greater
than 330 feet. This site also does not support nesting size trees. Site 3
provides suitable foraging habitat, but is small in size and separated by
unsuitable habitat. Adjacent to Site 3 are a hardwood dominated forest
5
and a housing development with less than the minimum required trees per
acre.
Based upon the results of the survey, the project does not provide
suitable habitat for the RCW, and no.impacts will occur as a result of the
proposed widening.
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING
Following the completion of the EA, an open forum public hearing was
held on 10/17/94 in the Belk Community Room at Cross Creek Mall.
Approximately 30 people attended the hearing including representatives
from the Cumberland County Joint Planning Board, the City of Fayetteville,
and the NCDOT. The Fayetteville Observer-Times provided media coverage of
the hearing. During andafter the hearing, comments were offered by the
public. Principal topics of concern and responses to these concerns are
discussed below:
A. Potential Property Impacts
Comment:
The proposed right of way will take much of the parking area for a
business located 900 feet north of Cliffdale Road on the west side of US
401 Bypass and would present a hardship for the business.
Response:
During the final design preparation, NCDOT will review this property
to determine if the proposed right of way impacts can be reduced. If the
impacts cannot be reduced, a settlement will be reached with the property
owner during the right of way negotiations to adequately compensate for
property losses.
B. Accessibility to Adjacent Properties
Comment:
The proposed median will hurt businesses along US 401 Bypass by
restricting access to the businesses and inconveniencing the drivers.
Response:
Between Raeford Road and Campground Road, a raised median replaces an
existing center turn lane. Because of the high estimated traffic volumes
and the urbanized development along the roadway, a median is needed to
reduce the occurrence of accidents at commercial driveways and
unsignalized intersections. Although this median will limit direct access
for left turning traffic into adjacent properties, designated median
openings will accommodate safer access to adjacent properties by
controlling turning movements and protecting U-turns at traffic signals
(refer to Sections II.D and III.A.1 in the Environmental Assessment for a
more detailed discussion of the need for a raised median).
6
Comment
Residents of Chesnutt
signal to be included at the
for their subdivision.
Response:
Hills requested a median opening and traffic
Richwood Court intersection to improve access
As discussed in Section II.C.2 of the Environmental Assessment, a
median opening and traffic signal will be provided at Richwood Court.
C. Future Light Rail Transit Corridor
Comment:
The Cumberland County Joint Planning Board plans to conduct a light
rail transit feasibility study to identify future rail corridors within
the metropolitan area. The Cape Fear Railroad line is currently reserved
for future rail transit use. However, the Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad
line that crosses south of Cliffdale Road may be identified in this
feasibility study. Further consideration should be given to providing a
railroad grade separation at the Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad crossing.
Response:
Although a grade separation is desirable at this crossing, the
surrounding topography and dense commercial development make a grade
separation very costly to construct. As discussed in Section II.I of the
Environmental Assessment, a grade separation requires reconstruct.i.ng
approximately 3000 feet of US 401 Bypass to elevate the roadway above the
railroad. In addition, it heavily impacts the adjacent commercial
development and relocates as many as seven businesses. According to
preliminary figures, a grade separation is estimated to cost $9,940,000,
including $3,600,000 for construction and $6,000,000 for right of way
acquisition. The cost for constructing a grade separation would exceed
the funding scope of the project. Further study of a grade separation at
this location could be addressed under a separate project.
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Anticipated Design Exceptions
. The Environmental Assessment stated that one design exception will be
required for the project. This exception was anticipated in conjunction
with the proposed bridge widening at the SR 1007 (All American Freeway)
interchange. However, more definitive design information indicates that
the proposed improvements will not extend along the interchange loops to
reduce the loop radii. Therefore, no design exception is needed for the
project.
7
B. Cost Estimates

The project is currently estimated to cost $5,750,000, including
$1,950,000 for right of way acquisition and $3,800,000 for construction.
C. Intersection Improvements
Westbound dual right turn lanes were recommended at the Raeford Road
intersection (refer to Raeford Road improvements in Section II.C.1 and
Figure 5a in the Environmental Assessment). According to current design
data, dual right turn lanes will relocate a business in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection. To avoid relocating this business, only one
westbound right turn lane is recommended with the subject project. The
second turn lane will be constructed in conjunction with a future NCDOT
Division Office project to accommodate a proposed development south of the
Raeford Road intersection.
Eleven-foot through lanes are proposed at the following intersections
where dual left turns are recommended:
1. US 401 Business (Raeford Road)
2. SR 1400 (Cliffdale.Road)
3. Campground Road
4. SR 1404 (Morganton Road)
5. Northern entrance to Cross Creek Mall
6. SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)
These 11-foot lanes will reduce the amount of right of way needed
from adjacent properties at the intersections.
D. Median Openings
Twenty median openings are proposed along the project at signalized
intersections, railroad crossings, and bus entrances for two school
properties. Median openings will be provided at the following locations
(refer to locations on Figure 3):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
US 401 Business (Raeford Road)
SR 1534 (Louise Street)
Bus entrance to Lewis Chapel Junior High School
Bus entrance to Anne Chesnutt Junior High School
SR 2628 (Richwood Court)
Chason Ridge Drive
Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)
Cape Fear Railroad
Red Tip Road
Southern entrance to Lowes and K-Mart Shopping Center
Campground Road
SR 1404 (Morganton Road)
Southern entrance to Cross Creek Mall
Northern entrance to Cross Creek Mall
Southern interchange ramps for SR 1007
Freeway)
(All American
8
17. Northern interchange ramps for SR 1007 (All American
Freeway)
18. SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)
19. Southern interchange ramps for NC 24 (Swain Street)
20. Northern interchange ramps for NC 24 (Swain Street)
E. Recommended Alignment
Based on more detailed design data, the recommended alignment has
been revised in three locations:
1. Section A - from Raeford Road to Louise Street
2. Section B - from Cliffdale Road to Morganton Road
3. Section D - from Yadkin Road to Bragg Boulevard
From Raeford Road to Louise Street, symmetric widening was originally
recommended. The alignment has been revised in this section to avoid
relocating a business in the northwest quadrant of the Raeford Road
intersection. With the current alignment, some widening is proposed along
the west side of the roadway, but the majority of the widening occurs
along the east side.
From Cliffdale Road to Morganton
originally recommended. Widening is
roadway to avoid relocating the Cape
roadway. The proposed widening will o
this section.
Road, west side widening was
needed along both sides of the
Fear Railroad line west of the
:cur mostly along the east side in
From Yadkin Road to Bragg Boulevard, symmetric widening was
originally recommended. The alignment in this section has been revised to
use more existing right of way along the west side of the roadway. With
the current alignment, some widening is proposed along the east side, but
the majority of the widening occurs along the west side.
F. Relocation Impacts
The Environmental Assessment stated that the project would relocate
two businesses. Based on more definitive design information, only the
Amoco service station, located north of Morganton Road, will be relocated
by the project. As discussed in Section IV.A.3 of the Environmental
Assessment, adequate commercial property is anticipated to be available
for this business at the time it must relocate.
G. Wetland Findings
Executive Order 11990 requires appropriate documentation to show that
there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction and that
the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to
jurisdictional wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR
328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions.
9
All practicable steps have been taken both to avoid and minimize
impacts to wetlands. Two wetland sites exist along the project. Site 1
is located in a ditch along the west side of the roadway, approximately
1000 feet south of Campground Road. Site 2 is located in the northeast
quadrant of the Raeford Road intersection, adjacent to the unnamed
tributary of Beaver Creek (refer to Figure 8 and Sections IV.D.1 and
IV.D:2 of the Environmental Assessment for wetland locations and
descriptions). Both wetlands are unavoidable.
To avoid the wetlands at Site 1, the roadway would need to be widened
entirely along the east side. Widening entirely on the east side in this
location would remove a substantial amount of parking from four commercial
properties and may relocate one or more of these businesses. Most of the
widening will occur along the east side in this location, but some
widening is proposed along the west side to contain the alignment between
the Cape Fear Railroad and the commercial properties. Although this
alignment impacts 0.1 acre of wetlands, it avoids relocating businesses
and minimizes damages to the commercial parking areas.
To avoid the wetlands at Site 2, the roadway would need to be widened
entirely along the west side. West side widening would take most of the
parking from two commercial properties and would relocate one of the
businesses. The recommended alignment consists of widening the roadway
mostly on the east side. Although this alignment impacts 0.2 acre of
wetlands, it avoids relocating the business and minimize impacts to the
commercial parking areas.
Impacts to wetlands have been minimized to the extent practicable by
widening the existing facility mostly within the existing right of way.
Since the anticipated wetland impacts are based on preliminary design
information, the actual impacts may be further reduced during the final
design preparation as 'more definitive data is available. During
construction, NCDOT will implement stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures along with Best Management Practices to control
sedimentation in adjacent wetlands and to insure that the amount of
impacted wetlands will be minimized.
Based on the above considerations, there is no practicable
alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands. The proposed action
includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may
result from such use.
H. Hazardous Materials
The Environmental Assessment stated that the recommended alignment
will impact four underground storage tanks (UST's) at the Cross Creek
Exxon facility in the northeast quadrant of the Yadkin Road intersection.
However, in May, 1994, all tanks, pumps, and delivery lines were removed
from this property, and the petroleum contamination was remediated. The
project will not impact any UST's.
Prior to right of way acquisition, NCDOT will conduct a site
investigation to determine if the project acquires right of way from any
10
properties with petroleum contamination. If contamination exists within
the proposed right of way, NCDOT will request that the property owner
clean up the site in accordance with the federal regulations contained in
40 CFR 280 entitled "Technical Standards and Corrective Action
Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks
(UST's)." If the property owner does not clean the site, a settlement will
be reached between the owner, NCDOT, and the Division of Environmental
Management to remediate the contamination.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state,
and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation that this project will not have a significant
adverse impact upon the human or natural environment. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement will not be required.
MLR/tp
11
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL FOR FEDERALLY-
AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMWr WITH PUBLIC PARKS,
RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project
State Project
T. I. P. No.
Descrivtion•
STPNHF-8-1(31)
8.1441602
U-2207
US 401 B-wass (Skibo Road), from US 401 Business (Raeford Road)
to NC 24 (Braim Boulevard). Fayetteville. Cumberland County
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve
the operational characteristics, safety, X
and/or physical condition of existing highway
facilities on essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned
public park, recreation land, or wildlife X
and waterfowl refuge located adjacent to the
existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land to
be used impair the use of the remaining X
Section 4(f) land, in whole or in part, for
its intended purpose (see chart below)?
Total size of section 4(f) site Maxi to be acquired
less than 10 acres .... .............10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution, El X
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land
impair the use of such land for its intended
purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the a
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the X
assessment of the impacts of the proposed
project on, and the proposed mitigation for,
the Section 4(f) lands?
12
7. Does the project use land from a site.
purchased or improved with funds under the
Land and Water Conservation Act (Section
6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration
Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or
similar laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest (e.g.,
former Federal surplus property)?
Yes No
X
8. If the project involves lands described in
Item 7 above, does the appropriate Federal ? X
Agency object to the land conversion or
transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? ? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
(b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or
impacts of extraordinary measure?
Yes No
X 11
? X
? X
X
X -0-
2. Imvrovement of the highway without using ?
the ad.iacent Public Park, recreational land. X
or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in ?
standards, use of retaining walls, etc., X
or traffic management measures been
evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community
impact
13
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or iii unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build ann improved facility on new location a
without using the blic park, recreational X
land, or wildlife and waterfowl re u e.
This would be a localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
S a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project
cost or engineering difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual'
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
14
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are
appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
O Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
O Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
Yes
X
No
15
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as
follows:
a. The roadway will be widened along the east side, acquiring
right of way only from the Anne Chesnutt Junior High School
property.
b. The Anne Chesnutt Junior High School football field will be
relocated east of its existing location and the existing
fences will be replaced.
C. Two median openings will be provided along Skibo Road to
access the school properties.
1. One opening will be located at the Anne Chesnutt bus
entrance. Buses and passenger cars will use separate
driveways. The median opening will allow direct bus
access to the property from either direction on Skibo
Road. Passenger cars will enter and exit the school
property only in the northbound direction on Skibo Road.
The median opening will allow southbound passenger car
traffic to make a U-turn in order to enter the school
property.
2. One median opening will also be provided at the entrance
to the Lewis Chapel property. Buses and passenger cars
will share the same driveway entrance but will exit at
different locations. The opening in the median will
allow buses to directly access the Lewis Chapel property
from either direction on Skibo Road. Passenger cars
will directly enter the property from both directions on
Skibo Road.
3. U-turns will be allowed at the SR 2628 (Richwood Court)
and SR 1534 (Louise Street) intersections.
Consideration will be given for a traffic signal at
Richwood Court to provide easier U-turn movements at the
intersection.
16
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over x
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies X
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridge requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible or prudent
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there
are assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated
in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:

Date Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Divi Administrator, FHWA
F
?•?.?
11w " E1 V_
(lumbrrlanb Taunty -r4nnls
P.M. lynx 2357
3Ta_Wttrui11r, Narth Tarnlina 28
X19-F7?-Z3QI1
MICHAEL C. BOOSE, CHA WAAN JOHN R. GRIFFIN, JR., SUPERINTENDENT
MILTON J. YARBORO, vicE CNA mm
MAUREEN H. CLARK
THOMAS COUNCIL
KAREN S. DAVENPORT July 29, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
AUG 0 2 1993
DIVISION OF
?
HIGHWAY&
'EMILY ROYAL
VANDERCLUTE
SUBJECT: US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to 401 Business
(Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, State Project
No. 81441601, Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30), TIP No. U-2207
My staff and I have reviewed and concur with the proposed improvements in widening
the existing facility on US 401 Bypass to provide an additional lane in each direction and
a raised median in the vicinity of our school properties at Lewis Chapel Junior High School
and Anne Chesnutt Junior High School.
We understand and concur that the project is not anticipated to significantly impair
the use of the athletic fields at the above mentioned schools. Both athletic fields are publicly
owned and are used by the Cumberland County Recreation and Parks Department. As a
result, the athletic fields are protected by Section 4(f) of the 1%6 D.O.T Act. Section 4(f)
protects the use and function of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl
refuges, and historic properties. A transportation plan can only use land from a 4(f)
resource when there are no other feasible or prudent alternatives and when the planning
minimizes all possible harm to the resource.
We concur with the proposed widening of the existing facility providing the project
is planned and designed to minimize harm to the recreational fields. We concur with the
project providing the following conditions are met:
1. The roadway will be widened along the east side, acquiring right of way only
from the Anne Chesnutt Junior High School property.
"EXCELLENCF. IN EDUCATION"
2. The Anne Chesnutt Junior High School football field will be relocated east of
its existing location and the existing fences will be replaced.
3. Two median openings will be provided along Skibo Road to access the school
properties.
a. One opening will be located at the Anne Chesnutt bus entrance. Buses
and passenger cars will use separate driveways. The median opening
will allow direct bus access to the property from either direction
on Skibo Road. Passenger cars will enter and exit the school property
only in the northbound direction on Skibo Road. The median opening
will allow southbound passenger car traffic to make a U-turn in order
to enter the school property.
b. One median opening will also be provided at the entrance to the Lewis
Chapel property. Buses and passenger cars will share the same
driveway entrance but will exit at different locations. The opening in
the median will allow buses to directly access the Lewis Chapel
property from either direction on Skibo Road. Passenger cars will
directly enter the property from both directions on Skibo Road.
C. U-turns will be allowed at the SR 2628 (Richwood Court) and SR 1534
(Louise Street) intersections. Consideration will be given for a traffic
signal at Richwood Court to provide easier U-turn movements at the
intersection.
Thank you for the cooperation and thoroughness as it relates to this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact our office.
yours,
R.
JRG\bhm
cc: Mr. Benny Pearce, Director of Construction Support
Mr. Michael W. Clover, Director of Transportation
RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT?E
2721 Elizabethtown Road • Fayetteville, N.C. 28306
Telephone [phone]
July 22, 1993
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager ,
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
I n 2Ak9.e, L ?'Oero*49#
JUL 2 6 1993
k&?r?'VGMWAYS top OF U
/
SUBJECT: US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401
Business (Raeford Road), Fayetteville,. Cumberland
County. State Project No. S.1441601. Federal Aid
Project No. F-8-1 (30). TIP No. U-2207
The proposed widening of US 401 Bypass involves two school
properties. Anne Chesnutt Junior High School and Lewis Chapel
Junior High School. Each school has an athletic field adjacent to
the existing roadway. These fields are important for the
recreational needs of the community. Both athletic fields are
publicly owned and are used extensively by the Cumberland County
Recreation Department for organized recreational purposes. We
concur that the proposed widening will not substantially impair the
use of the two recreational resources, provided the following
conditions are met:
1. The roadway will be widened along the east side,
acquiring right of way only from the Anne Chesnutt Junior
High School property.
2. The Anne Chesnutt football field will be relocated east
of its existing location, and the existing fences will be
replaced.
3. Two median openings will be provided along Skibo Road to
access the school properties.
a. One opening will be located at the Anne Chesnutt
bus entrance. Busses and passenger cars will use
separate driveways. The median opening will allow
direct bus access to the property from either
direction on Skibo Road. Passenger cars will enter
and exit the school property only in the northbound
direction on Skibo Road. The median opening will
allow southbound passenger car traffic to make a U-
turn in order to enter the school property.
b. One-median opening will also be provided at the
entrance to the Lewis Chapel property. Busses and
passenger cars will share the same driveway
entrance but will exit at different locations. The
opening in the median will allow busses to directly
access the Lewis Chapel property from either
direction of Skibo Road. Passenger cars will
directly enter the property from both directions
but will exit in the southbound direction on Skibo
Road.
c. U-turns will be allowed at the SR 2628 (Richwood
Court) and SR 1534 (Louise Street) intersections.
Consideration will be given for a traffic signal at
Richwood Court to provide easier U-turn movements
at the intersection.
Sincerely,.

Elmer Arnette
Director
cc: Mr. Wady C. Williams, Area Engineer, FHWA
Mr. G.T. Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer, NCDOT
FIGURES
arse
•; 36
?? ?; 1 > ° J 1007 PROJECT
.,5 ?¢- ?, • o?,? ;'' $20 P LIMITS
5k1W
3395
2V4.?
7633 363 79.7;
05
2 4 t ° B 1 '03 n
O 2424
3
oe •/? 73.3 3 v
b
A 7e,1p q9 431 37~e
° PROJECT
LIMITS

1? /]4L4
91NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 401 BYPASS
FROM NC 24 TO US 401 BUSINESS
FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U - 2207
1 1 mile 1,2 FIGURE 1A I
7
1404

R
;..Wm PROJECT LIMITS
a ? a" =I ?r• ti ? 1422 -
!! 14 2
/.
N1y ^^, i o R
.? 1418 197 `4 creNTANWLKWS
Y KN. ^ A/?".
•? ,t? / C?VT?` l`
v\
1413 / 'r•e ``?
08 14QZ . O•µ, ?.\\\
CROSS CREEK
PLAZA f?Pf 1406 •'
;!
®- t. M[fTRK* O^'
Y[R000 R 3196
4 rtowrr ER
°"e•OC er.
it ? 1613
DR.
4 CROW CREEK 1007
KALL
w a =g
WINDSOR MALL
{229 ? ? `?''•r"4
t3r228? 4 (`? Re ; .?
Odle R 141
it ~ 413'4
• °• CROSS POINTE 1
wcsT
?• ! CENTER
i I LOWES / O
K -MART
I
RED TIP ROAD i .
!Y(•RK s
u 14 %
pwrsws ?? -
SK180 •!.[? J e«. a RRr
'MILLC
:RANGE E.L.l. ' (t ? •?, J
awRCN R/ ABEADEE oa +a.+C•M ,, + uK
mommAm
R ayye r o4? ; Q ELemarm" `?r? ?Q r[a
4b ? ? ? RCN. ` [ a
?.
go't
3246
s 2629 ?•4+ 9 03247 [NrnawR[oR `t .
m ?t•Q 4 14 4•
`•+e! S' R? 2628 Arr ?? 2624a ?- E
?•o e, 2635
q! nR I534 ANNE CHUTNUT 2634
3a4 V •?
I •O' 90/' JR. N16NM. 4. 1466 ?4?? RD. 1460
1534 ANNE CHESNUTT Ilk
1539 LEWIS CHAPEL JUNIOR HIGH 3*4
= 92
5 ? •
1537.. JUNIOR HIGH ,,,«?t' . •` x a 1520
II6 ?? ?C
15 4 I I ' 1 JA .,w SINE. E ?f'`'• 271 r^ • I507
?04?.4 Imo. 1Ygi\tr 3164
tS34 0?. r
?_---- -X- 2630
aot Ise
PROJECT LIMITS E g?1510~
1507 '
Nips O«"R,ERArT. E E _ •<R!, 1320 •qro•<
4nl
i CMURcM ,
1256 \\ 2 - ?01
?Y
d^^ ?eroRo
(1390- 3327?r 3 119 11186 (•?? B40 US
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
t BRANCH
US 401 BYPASS
FROM NC 24 TO US 401 BUSINESS
FAYETTVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U - 2207
PROJECT AREA
l
FIGURE 1B
C? BD
T
Y
J
Q
W
N
N
T
N
T
N
T

N
N
T
N
T
N
Z
0
r
V
W
CO)
0
W
W
Z
44
J
cc
N
W
cc
LL.
r1 t v ?? .? 1470 -' [wa
PROJECT LIMITS -_ _ 14 a
1007 1499 4 2
Mmy
/ CROSS CREEK
PLAZA
ra
0
i
v ?r
??f f
CROSS CREEK
MALL 1007
tt,f R.
.4.w fr.
I 1 31180
r.wn a.
w 4-13
Y
Im- WINDSOR MALL
/d1 Q

.3291 taw 3228 [
t?
f t
V f. / - .O.
V_ M
?e[w.? 1

f
?,
t.? ?.
w1t
tt w 1413
K OL '81 413 7

I ?' 1 e

`
`
;.•w.. to. 1? NI } lu?
° ?• '°
CROSS POINTE ?.!

Y1[tT
J 14s3 '
'! [- 1340 -? CENTER ?? ??[•

a

fLt,Nt L. LOWES /
14ss i
j
K -MART

ef.11? 14es n. ? 1 / t..
RED TIP R
Ogp

1

+'•
1487
?_. R. =
7 I .u
i O
1514
'
t
at' M y K
.
? un ? ?
_
14 f ??__ «
_ 1400,?. q
eel
Er1 I
ET[Y1LL[
e..wee [wwsnlsTle
e11u11ew ? ?--a-.?
W
\elSj3•{
7 ; of 1334
40
8
..ors fr.
1534
153 LEWIS CHAPEL
1537.. JUNIOR HIGH
IS O I II O•ILEwµt Cw..EL..
i Ja w x.. _
' JII?-a
E 30.
1256
1390 3327
... wwsc. h ?. e,. 1468
ANNE CHESNUTT

JUNIOR HIGH a
?
.?
\cf
t..ylE E.
• .,
?
71 ? i
ti` ? Y
?
?\e.? 3174 ?' '? F
2630
;I
1415
9
Q
ON
LEGEND
YOI11Lt4M ? 4• IIL
[L[w[MT41n ? ? t
,, MEDIAN OPENING
mss, ?___ `• LOCATIONS 0
I? PROJECT LIMITS ? =U,SO 11, o
M13 CwtVEI 1520
c.mcXt11, lVi. E 5
f f' f 1511
? 11 6?? ? ? `2 [.ao o"
1' 5
1 T? _ ,?.?•
8
116
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
US 401 BYPASS
FROM NC 24 TO US 401 BUSINESS
FAYETTVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U - 2207
PROPOSED MEDIAN OPENINGS
FIGURE 3
APPENDIX
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 19, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201

OCT 2 4 199
z
%y DIVISION at=
¢HIGHWAYS ,;. 1\?
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of July 14, 1994, requesting our
comments on "Federal Environmental Assessment and Draft Programmatic 4(f)
Evaluation for Fayetteville, US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), from US 401
Business (Raeford Road) to NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard), Cumberland County,
Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30), State Project No. 8.1441601, U-2207"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 1994044321).
From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' perspective, our review focuses
on impacts to Corps' projects, flood plains, and other environmental aspects,
primarily waters and wetlands. The roadway extension would not involve any
Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project.
The proposed project area is sited in Cumberland County and a portion
of the jurisdiction of the city of Fayetteville, both of which participate
in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the February 1982
Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the lower portion of the
project at US 401 Business is located in the 100-year flood plain of Beaver
Creek, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and
a floodway defined. This flood plain involvement is mentioned on page 33 of
the Environmental Assessment (EA). It is further stated in the EA that the
proposed widening would not adversely impact the flood plain. We agree,
provided no fill was placed within the floodway. We would still recommend
that the county be consulted relative to compliance with their flood plain
ordinance.
Based on a review of the November 1982 Fayetteville FIRM, the portion of
roadway within the city's jurisdiction does not appear to be in an identified
flood-hazard area. This is confirmed by review of the pertinent United States
Geological Survey topo map of the area.
The Wilmington Field Office of our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your
proposal and offers the following comments. The EA for State project
No. 8.1441601 has indicated that this project will be processed as a "Finding
of No Significant Impact." While the EA indicates that there will be no
? i C E
4 j
-2-
significant impact, in that less than 0.3 acre will be impacted, this project
may be covered under one or more nationwide permits based on the data
provided.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed improvements,
including disposal of construction debris. On February 6, 1990, the
Department of the Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the type
and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) guidelines. Under this MOA, "first, impacts to waters and wetlands
should be avoided or minimized through the selection of the least damaging,
practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to
minimize impacts on waters and wetlands; and, finally compensating for any
remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical."
When final plans for North Carolina Department of Transportation Project
No. 8.1441601 are complete, including the extent and location of any work
within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would
appreciate the opportunity to review those plans for a project-specific
determination of Department of the Army permit requirements. Should you have
any questions regarding Department of the Army permits, please contact
Mr. Scott McLendon of our Regulatory Branch, Wilmington, North Carolina, at
[phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If-we can be
of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
fflv
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28307.5000
*MY TO
2 5 AUG 1994
ATTENTION OF.
Directorate of Public Works (ep,
and Environment Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
_ Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
C Ei
AVC 2 9 1994
01V1SjCN
HIGHWAI ,
Please provide a copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact
for the Federal Environmental Assessment and Draft Programmatic
4(f) Evaluation for Fayetteville, US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard), Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project
Number F-8-1(30.), State Project Number 8.1441601, U-2207. A self
addressed return envelope is enclosed.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. William H.
Kern, [phone]/3372.
Sincerely,
11.?tiU?
KJ' es ugCnon
Colonel, U. S. Army
Director of Public Works
and Environment
Enclosure
rP?M Nt OF ly?i
ya
9
?RCH.3
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY. -,?
Washington, D.C. 20240
Z
AUG 2 3 1994
ER 94/680
AUG 2 9 1994
DIVISION pF )
HIGHWAYS ??
?/l4 __ __ _relo'
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
.310 New Bern Avenue '
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Dear Mr. Graf:.
This is in regard to-the request for the Department of the'
Interior's comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment/
Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation concerning the Widening of US-401
Bypass (Skibo Road) from US-40 Business (Raeford Road) to SR-24
(Bragg Boulevard), Cumberland.County, North Carolina..
This is to inform you that the Department will have comments, but.
will be unable to reply within the allotted time as we have just
received your transmittal. Please consider this letter as a
request for an.extension of time in which to comment on the
statement.
Our comments should be available about early October 1994.
Sincerely,
Terence N. Martin, Chief
Transportation & Water Resources Division
Office of Environmen tal :policy & Compliance
cc: Mr. H.--Franklin Vick, P.E._, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

e?EHT OF l ?/?hL/MW.? •??, ?, V
United States Department of the Inter 00 2l
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY. 2?I OF ac
,.? . , WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 MHWAY'S c
ER-94/680
O CT 18 1994
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator .
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Graf.:
This, responds to the request for the Department.of the Interior's comments on the.
Draft Environmental Assessment/Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for widening
US-401 bypass (Skibo Road) from US-401'Business (Raeford Road) to SR-2k (Bragg
Boulevard), Cumberland County, North Carolina.
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION COMMENTS
We concur that there are no feasible -and prudent alternatives to avoid the
Section 4(f) involvement with Anne Chesnutt Junior High School. We also concur
that all means to minimize harm have been considered as indicated in Appendix D,
which includes correspondence from the Cumberland County Schools and Cumberland
County Recreation and Parks Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMENTS
All of the proposed action alternatives would impact .2 -..3 acres of designated
wetlands with 150 feet of stream rechannelization scheduled near the south
terminus. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concurs with the
recommendations. identified in the Environmental Assessment (EA) to reduce
potential impacts to water resources. The FWS suggests that these
recommendations be incorporated as requirements of the construction contract as
follows: (1) stream rechannelization is minimized; (2) nonpoint sediment sources
are identified and efforts-are implemented to control sediment runoff; (3) best
management practices are enforced during the construction phase of the project;
and, (4) sedimentation control guidelines are implemented .prior to construction
and maintained throughout the life of the project.
The FWS is concerned about the potential impacts to the federally endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW). The proposed highway project
occurs within one of the six counties included in the Sandhills RCW Recovery Area
where cumulative effects such as urban development, timber harvesting, and road
building are degrading suitable RCW habitat. The latest population figures
available for the Sandhills Region indicate the birds are below threshold limits
established for long-term viability. The potential cumulative impacts associated
with proposed highway widening should be addressed and incorporated into the
final EA.
? f4?
2
The•EA states that the project area supports suitable habitat (pine-dominated
stands at .least .30 years of age)- for this species,, however, no. surveys were
conducted because suitable habitat was separated by non-contiguous habitat
greater than 330 feet. -Since RCWs are known to exist in the vicinity of the
project corridor, may forage-in areas 1/2 mile -from -the cavity trees used for
nesting, and suitable foraging habitat exists in the project corridor, the FWS
recommends that a survey for RCW cavity trees be completed along a 1/2 mile
corridor along the.proposed highway expansion route. If RCWs are observed within
the project corridor or active cavity trees are found in.the corridor or the 1/2
mile foraging zone, the project has the potential to adversely affect the RCW and
the FWS-should be contacted for further information. In.addition, Cumberland
County has 24 Federal candidate species:under status review. The EA states that
50 percent of these species have suitable habitat within the project area, yet
no surveys were conducted, While these species do not receive the protection of
the Endangered Species Act, the FWS recommends that the project corridor be
surveyed for candidate species as well. Any of these species could become
formally listed prior to the start of or during construction, and data on their
occurrence and/or location would be required at that time. If candidate species
are located in the project corridor, the FWS should be contacted to discuss ways
to protect them.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
The Department of the Interior offers no objection to Section 4(f) approval of
this project by-the Department of Transportation.
To appropriately address project impacts on fish and wildlife resources, the EA
should address our recommendations. In this regard we would be happy to provide
technical assistance., For such assistance, please contact Ms. Linda K. (Mike)
Gantt, Field Supervisr,:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office,
Post Office Box 33726, Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726, telephone (919) 856-
4520.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
-Willis R. Taylor
Acting Director
Office of-Environmental Policy
and Compliance
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh,,North Carolina 27611
FM206
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
MAILED TO:
N-C•- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION
WHITMEL WEBB
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./TNTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FROM:
rn
I " ?luf
T AUG 2 S 1994 r
Z V
y DIVISION OF Q
MS- JEANETTE ?tHl EyWAYS
ADMINISTRATIV
STATE CLEARINGHOU c
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED FAYETTEVILLE US 401
BYPASS (SKIBO RD-) FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD RD-) TC NC
24 (BRAGG BLVD-) TIP #U-2207
TYPE - ENV- ASSESS-
THE N-C- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW- THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 95E42200103- PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES CR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE-
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 09/08/94o
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone]-
?.
:EI T
cn n .^?;NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTR
n 116 WEST JONES STREE J
RALEIGH NORTH CARO 9403V@?0
QJ .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT SEP 0 71994
? c
MAILED TO: FROM: DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS o?
N.C.-DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MS- JEANET I
WHITMEL WEBB ADMINISTRATIVE STANT
PROGRAM DEV- BRANCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED FAYETTEVILLE US 401
BYPASS (SKIBO RD-) FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD RD-) TO NC
24 (BRAGG BLVD) TIP #U-2207
TYPE - ENV- ASSESS.
THE N-C- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW- THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 95E42200103- PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE-
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 09/08/94*
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL (919) 733-72329
NUKiN LAKULINA JIAIt LLtAK1NbnUU4t
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27 - 003
09-13-94 C L
i
9
. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS Sfp '201
9
MAILED TO: FROM: 4
De??Si
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS- CHRY `p of
WHITMEL WEBB DIRECTOR ?iq YS e,?ti'`
PROGRAM DEV- BRANCH N C STATE CL
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED FAYETTEVILLE US 401
BYPASS (SKIBO RD-) FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD RD-) TO NC
24 (BRAGG BLVD-) TIP #U-2207
SAI NO 95E42200103 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV- ASSESS.
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS- AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS9 PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]•
C-C- REGION M
r r0.EECT t S? E
f L1us..FJ ???' fUkV r
Fj?E 1i•YI! ?'7 EST1i?l?: F ES
i
D ?
SEP 15
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ? ? --' N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary R
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee 0_
RE: 95-0103 EA 401 Bypass Widening
DATE: September 13, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are for
the applicant's consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

f
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North CarAlina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co i.nato
Habitat Conservation Program ??
DATE: August 23, 1994
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Environmental,Assessment (EA) and Draft
Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation for US 401 Bypass
(Skibo Road), from US 401 Business (Raeford Road)
to NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard), Cumberland County,
North Carolina, TIP No. U-2207, SCH Project No.
95-0103.
Biologists on the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) staff have reviewed the subject EA and are familiar
with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of
this review was to assess project impacts to fish and
wildlife resources. 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).
The proposed project involves widening US 401 Bypass in
Fayetteville from 5-lanes to a 6-lane curb and gutter
facility with a 16-foot raised median from US 401 Business
to NC 24. The roadway will be constructed on existing
alignment with a combination of symmetrical and asymmetrical
widening. The project length is approximately 3.5 miles.
Existing land use in the project area is heavy
commercial development with little remaining wildlife
habitat. Wildlife habitat losses include approximately 1.4
acres of forested lands and 0.3 acres of wetlands. Wetland
impacts occur to a drainage ditch.and to a tributary of
Memo Page 2 August 23, 1994
Beaver Creek. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses
will not be required since the impacts will probably be
covered under one or more Nationwide Permits.
NCWRC appreciates that NCDOT has significantly reduced
impacts to wildlife and fishery resources by the decision to
improve existing facilities rather than construction on a
new alignment: Improving existing roadways reduces wildlife
habitat fragmentation, lessens impacts from secondary
development and eliminates new stream or wetland crossings.
NCWRC will at this time concur with the findings of
this EA and anticipates concurrence with the subsequent
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). However, we ask
that NCDOT use state-of-the-art stream relocation guidelines
and strictly enforce Best Management Practices to help
mitigate impacts to aquatic habitats resulting from these
roadway improvements. Also stream channel modifications
should be coordinated with the NCWRC District 4 Fisheries
Biologist.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA.
If we can be of any further assistance please call me at
[phone].
CC: Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.

j'-??'?. _I.t_it\ i:?S.? I?\VI.I.:,?..?\\?ti?.h!'I':\l.. I.•11:;\t ;'t-1.
jnter-A0 Project Review Response
. ??:':. '. ?•: l.llili fit':
0/0
County rr
I ym be ^ ?•K
7?lKV.??? ?,om US 5LY ?..NC
fa-
i
' •pc of Projccr
l ro;e??t an. -
Nan- V-5
The applicant should be advised that plans and s-ecifications nor a,i Water system.
L--! improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to-the-award
of a contract or the initiation of construcc:on (as requ:-ed by 15A NCAC 19C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public \xlacer Supply Se_tion, [phone].
r-j This project will be classified as a non-community pucic water supply and must comply with
l_J state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (91°1? 73J'1-2321.
r--? If this project is constructed is proposed, we will reco.-mmend closure of feet. of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information -egarding the shellfish sanitation progra
M, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitat::?r- Branch at (919) 726-16827.
r.--? The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project rna croduce a mosquito breeding -problem.
U For information concerning appropriate mosquito =cntrol measures, the applicant 'shoulc.
contact the Public Health Pest Management. Section t [phone].
?---? The applicant should be advised that prior to .he removal or demolition of dilapidated
?-? structures, an extensive rodent control program ma. '.e necessary in order' to' prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent.areas. The : _rermatior_ concerning rodent- contre:
Section at (91c'
contact the local health aeparment or the Public He=::h Pest i`dlanager,•hert.
7 3 3-6407 .
?-, The applicant should be advised to contact the l':,cai health department regarding thei
L.-J requirements for septic tank installations (as require- under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 er_ seq.,
For information concerning septic tank and other on-size waste disposal methods, contact ,.r:
On-Site Wastewater Section at. (919) 733-287=.
?--? The applicant should be advised to contract the local department regarding the sari.
facilities required t`or ch:s project.
If existing water 'lines Rill be relocated duping ti" construction, plans for the water
' relocation must be submitted co the Division of En-.- :onmental Health, Public Water Sup;:
JCCL'1011, Plall IZevle?v Branch, 1.330 Sc. iY ary's Jtree-' :,.:2;e:hh, Norm C,arOllna, (91917)3-2"'=
1Cviewer Section/Branch a e
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and I
Division of Land Resources
.RFC
a oF??D.
N?
Vatur RAe?s?o4a
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW commmas , ?UAU H. Gardner
WWiam W. Cobey, Jr„ Secretary _ ''' -?C Tif irector
Project Number: County: C .? • J
Project Name: ,
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior*to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a'
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
f
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land"disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
/ increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
V The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
Reviewer Date

P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. U Due Date:
g5-el '3 J,: -cP9- 9
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process
Regional Office.
4
C
C
C

C
C
a
?
n
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
Ilmlt)
Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities. sewer system extensions. b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPOES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES. Reply (N/A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit-whichever is later.

Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit Complete
?eceived and permit issued
on of ab
sta 7 days
we
prior to the in
llati (t5 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct 8 operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities andfor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-0820. 90
(
days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
davs before be innino activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or dart must accompany the olan 130 da s)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond t60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -it more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Relining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 daysl
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon comoietion
'b 'i'. Continued on reverse
I Normal Process
tE
C
C
C
E
ts
C
"me
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall. upon (NIA)
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
1 Geophysical Exploration Permit
1 Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
J State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.

401 Water Ouality Certification
NIA 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
550.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
I Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687. Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification'of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington. NC 28405
[phone]
qoev v'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hmt, Jr.. cim mor Division of
DWY ftY MXM. semmy willism S. P
September 2, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
4
FROM: David Brook ?GJ
Deputy State Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Proposed Fayetteville US 40 Bypass from US 401
Business to NC 24, Cumberland County, U-2207,
8.1441601, F-8-1(3), 95-E-4220-0103
SEP 0 8.1994
U
DIVIStGN OF
IHiOMWAYS . ?Q
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the project and believe it
adequately addresses our comments regarding historic resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 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, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
1 ,
109 East Joss Street - Rabigh. North Carolina 27601-28M
f
?d M,u.nue
Nsi
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 14, 1994
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:

5

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment and Draft Programmatic 4(f)
Evaluation for Fayetteville, US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), from
US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard),
Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30), State Project
No. 8.1441601, U-2207
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment, Draft Programmatic
4(f) Evaluation, and the Natural Resources Technical Report for the subject
proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be
processed with a "Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments
received on the Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate
a need for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement you will be
contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

July 14, 1994
Page 2
Your comments should be received by
received by that date we will assume you
the "Finding of No Significant Impact,"
HFV/plr
August 29, 1994. If no comments are
have none. If you desire a copy of
please so indicate.
Sincerely, •?r
?. V ? 4TM
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
March 24, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Urban Planning Unit
Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unit
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the
proposed improvements to US 401 Bypass,
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, TIPT U-2207,
State Project Numbers 8.1441601, Federal Aid
Project Number F-8-1(30).
ATTENTION: Mark Reep, Project Engineer
Attached is the Natural Resources Technical Report for
the proposed improvements to US 401 Bypass in Cumberland
County. The project is a federally funded Environmental
Assessment (EA).
Surveys for the American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
are necessary during the flowering period from May through
June to determine if the plant is located in the study area.
Our staff would be interested in reviewing the draft EA
document.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
M. Randall Turner
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Improvements to US 401 Bypass
Cumberland County
TIP- U-2207
State Project Number 8.1441601
Federal Aid Project Number F-8-1(30)
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-GL0
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
Susan Corda, Biologist
March 1992
I r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 introduction 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Study Area 1
1.4 Methodology .................................1
2.0 Natural Resources . . .3
2.1 Biotic Resources . . ........'.3
2.1.1 Plant Communities ............... . . .. .. .. .........3
2.1.1.1 Uplands ...........................3
2.1.1.2 Wetlands ................. a
2.1.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .5
2.1.2 Wildlife Communities .5
2.1.2.1 Terrestrial Communities .... .6
2.1.2.2 Aquatic Communities .6
2.1.2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .6
2.2 Physical Resources .7
2.2.1 Soils .............................7
2.2.2 Water Resources ......................... . . " 8
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........8
3.0 Special Topics 9
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .9
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts . .9
3.1.2 Permits ............ii
3.1.3 Mitigation
3.2 Protected Species ........................11
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species ..... .. " 12
3.2:2 State Protected Species .....................12
4.0 References
Appendix A Project Comments .............................18
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map ......
Figure 2 Wetland Locations ......... . " " " 2
Table 1 Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts .... 5
Table 2 Soil Summary Cumberland County ....
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Acreage by Site 7
Table 4 Federally 11
__y protected species listed in
Cumberland County
Table 5 Federal Candidate species listed " ' 12
County ,..,,,,,,,,, in Cumberland
...................14
Table 6 State protected species listed in Cumberland
County .......
I
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The project is located in Cumberland County (Figure 1).
Proposed improvements call for upgrading an existing 3.5 mile
section of US 401 bypass from five-lanes to seven lanes.
East side, west side and symmetric widening is proposed. The
proposed project will be constructed within a 120' right-of-
way width. The width of the existing right-of-way varies
from 80' to 1001. The following alternates are proposed:
SECTION A: SR 1400 to US 401 business
Alternate A-1 Symmetric widening
SECTION B: SR 1404 to SR 1400
Alternate B-1 Symmetric widening
Alternate B-2 East side widening
SECTION C: SR 1415 to SR 1404
Alternative C-1 Symmetric widening
Alternative C-2 East side widening
Alternative C-3 West side widening
SECTION D: NC 24 to SR 1415
Alternative D-1 Symmetric widening
Alternative D-2 East side widening
An unnamed tributary of Beaver Creek crosses the study
area.
1.2 Purpose
This report describes the natural resources in the
project area and anticipated impacts to these resources.
This information is submitted for inclusion into an
Environmental Assessment (EA) Document.
1.3 Study Area
The project is located west of Fayetteville in
Cumberland County in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The study area is located in an urban setting. US
401 bypass is lined with businesses and scattered forested
areas. Topography in the area is gently sloping. Elevation
ranges from 150' to 240' above mean sea level (amsl).
1.4 Methodology
Aerial photographs (111= 2001), USGS quadrant map
(Fayetteville), National Wetland Inventory Map
(Fayetteville), Cumberland County Soil Survey (Soil
Conservation Service) and hydric soils list were utilized
during in-house research. Potential jurisdictional wetlands
were identified from the soil survey and hydric soils list.
3
A site visit was made on March 13, 1992 to inventory natural
resources and determine wetland locations and boundaries.
Information on the occurrence of federal and state
protected species was obtained from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the Us Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
2.0 Natural Resources
The Natural Resources section is divided into two major
parts: Biotic Resources and Physical Resources. Descriptions
of the plant and wildlife communities are included under
Biotic Resources. soil and water resource information is
discussed in the Physical Resources section.
2.1 Biotic Resources
A description of the plant and
the study area is provided below.
names are provided for each species
references to the same organism, on
given.
wildlife communities in
Common and scientific
listed; in subsequent
ly the common name is
2.1.1 Plant Communities
Four plant communities were identified in the study
area: Disturbed Shrub/Scrub, Mixed Hardwood/Pine, Pine-
Dominated Forest and Mixed Hardwood Wetland. A description
of each plant community in the study area follows. A summary
of anticipated impacts estimates total project impacts, by
community type.
2.1.1.1 Uplands
Disturbed Shrub/Scrub
This community is found throughout the project corridor
adjacent to development. A true plant canopy does not exist.
Cultivated plants such as Bradford pear (P rus callervana
'Bradfordi'), wax myrtle (Mvrica cerifera), juniper
(Juniperus spp.), yucca (Yucca filamentosa), red tip photinia
(Photinia x fraseri) predominate these areas. These sites
are highly maintained and located adjacent to development.
One roadside bank was dominated by yellow jassmine (Gelsemium
sempervirens). Typical ground cover species include wild
geranium (Geranium carolinianum), vetch (Vida sp.) and
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). other areas not
maintained, but disturbed, support silverling (Baccharis
halimifolia), blackberry (Rubus sp.), rose (Rosa sp.),
broomsedge (Andropogon virainicus) and Japanese honeysuckle
4
(Lonicera japonica). Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) and quince
(Chaenomeles Japonica) are located adjacent to abandoned
homesites.
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest
The Mixed Hardwood/Pine forest community is found in
several small locations scattered along the project corridor.
The canopy is well developed and contains a variety of
species including southern red oak (Ouercus falcata), white
oak (ouercus alba), scarlet oak (Ouercus goccinea), black oak
(Ouercus velutina), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple
(Aces rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and short-leaf
pine (Pinus echinata). Understory species include American
holly (Ilex opaca), red maple, flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida) and young oak saplings. Catbrier (Smilax sp.) and
jassmine are common. Ground cover species are seasonally
absent but sweetleaf (Svmplocos tinctoria), pipsissewa
(Chimaphila maculata) and oak seedlings were observed.
Pine Forest
The pine forest is also found in scattered locations
along the project corridor. The canopy is dominated by
loblolly pine, but black cherry (Prunus serotina), sweetgum
(Liguidambar stvraciflua) and red maple are minor
constituents. Jassmine and Japanese honeysuckle are common
but not dense. Catbrier (Smilax sp.) growth is rank in spots
but generally the shrub layer is free of vegetation. Typical
ground cover includes pipsissewa.
2.1.1.2 Wetlands
Two wetland plant communities are located in the study
area: Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Wetland and
the Disturbed Wetland. Each community is described below.
Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Wetland
This community is located adjacent to the unnamed stream
at the south project terminus. Previous development has
altered the extent of this community. Sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweetgum, red maple and black willow (Salix
ni ra) are the dominant canopy species. Privet (Ligustrum
sinense), cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and violet (Viola
papilionacea) are common shrub/ground cover species.
Disturbed Wetland
This community is found in ditch that parallels the
existing roadway. It is dominated by rush (Juncus effusus)
and seed box (Ludwigia sp.). Both sides of the ditch are
disturbed.
5
2.1.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction will impact five plant communities. Plant
community impacts are presented in Table 1. These estimates
are preliminary and may change with final design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community
DSS MHP PDF PFBDW DW
Alternate
A-1 6.9 0.6 - 0.2 -
B-1 5.3 - 0.4 - <0.1
B-2 4.8 - 0.8 - -
C-1 5.0 - - - -
C-2 5.0 - - - -
C-3 5.0 - - - -
D-1 3.5 0.1 0.3 - -
D-2 3.7 - 0.1 - -
TOTALS 39.2 0.7 1.6 0.2 <0.1
Plant Community abbreviations denote the following:
DSS - Disturbed Shrub/Scrub
MHP - Mixed Hardwood/Pine
PDF - Pine Dominated Forest
PFBDW - Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Wetland
DW - Disturbed Wetland
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on: 120' corridor width.
values shown are in acres.
Depending on the alternate chosen, varying impacts are
anticipated. The majority of the study area is disturbed in
nature. Proposed construction will reduce the amount of
forested acreage. Avoidance of wetland areas and forested
communities is recommended. Enforcement of stringent erosion
control measures is also recommended.
2.1.2 Wildlife Communities
Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted
by proposed construction. Limited descriptions of fauna,
which are likely to occur in each ecosystem, are presented.
Complete listings of terrestrial and aquatic organisms can be
found in specific references presented in section 4.0.
6
2.1.2.1 Terrestrial communities
Typical avian fauna in the study area include black
vulture (Coraaypes atratus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
iamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), great horned
owl (Bubo virainianus) and American robin (Thurdus
micratorius).
A variety of amphibian and reptilian species may be
found in the study area, these include lesser and greater
siren (Siren intermedia and S. lacertina), two-toed amphiu-ma
(Amphiuma means), three-lined salamander (Eurvicea
cruttolineata), redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), slimy
salamander (Plethodon cinereus), mud salamander
(Pseudotriton montanus), red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber),
eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki), southern toad
(Bufo terrestris), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans),
southern cricket frog (Acris arvllus), spring peeper (Hula
crucifer), southern chorus frog (Pseudacris nicrrita),
southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala); eastern mud
turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), southeastern five-lined skink
(EumeceS inexpectatus), ringneck snake (Diadophis tiunctatus),
rainbow snake (Heterodon platvrhinos), pine snake (Pituophis
melanoleucus) and eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
Mammals anticipated in the study area include eastern
mole (Scalopus acuaticus), eastern cottontail (Svlvilacus
floridanus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomvs humulis),
black rat (Rattus rattus) and house mouse (Mus musculus).
2.1.2.2 Aquatic Communities
The following species of fish may occur in the study
area: redfin pickerel (Esox niger), dusky shiner (Notropis
cumminasae), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), lined
topminnow (Fundulus lineolatus), eastern mosquito fish
(Gambusia holbrooki), blue spotted sunfish (Enneacanthus
chaetodon), red breasted sunfish (Lenomis•auritus), warmouth
(Lepomis gulosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus).
2.1.2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction may increase erosion and siltation to the
unnamed creek. Road widening will decrease the amount of
available wildlife habitat in the project vicinity.
These impacts may lead to changes in species diversity and
community dynamics. As a result, organisms may be displaced
and changes in biomass may occur.

Recommendations:
- Minimize disturbance to the unnamed creek located at the
south project terminus.
- Culverts (and culvert extensions) should be placed at
least 12" below the stream bottom (for fish movement). A
low flow notch should be cut into one cell of a multi-
celled concrete box culvert. Deflectors should direct
water into this cell during low flows.
- Stringent erosion control measures and Best Management
Practices should be enforced.
2.2 Physical Resources
soil and water resource information in the study area is
described below.
2.2.1 Soils
Soils information was obtained from the Cumberland
County Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1984). Nine
soil mapping units are located in the study area (Table 2).
Table 2 Soils Summary, Cumberland County
Name Slope Classification
Blaney loamy sand 8-15 Non-hydric
Faceville-Urban land complex 0 -6 Non-hydric
Faceville loamy sand 2 -6 Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand 2 -6 Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand 0 -2 Non-hydric
Pactolus loamy sand < 2 Non-hydric
Rains sandy loam < 2 Hydric
Urban land - Non-hydric
Wagram-Urban land complex 0 -8 Non-hydric
The most common mapping unit located in upland areas are
the Faceville Series, Norfolk Series and Urban land. Rains
sandy loam is mapped in wetland sites.
The Faceville series consists of well-drained soils that
formed in clayed sediments. This soil is found on smooth
upland side slopes. Permeability is moderate and available
water capacity is medium. The Faceville-Urban complex is
composed of undisturbed Faceville soil and urban land.
The Norfolk series consists of well-drained soils
located in smooth side slopes, flats or convex ridges of
uplands. Norfolk soils formed in loamy sediments.
Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is
medium
a
The Urban land mapping unit consists of areas that are
covered by developmental uses such as buildings, houses,
streets and parking lots. The native soils have been altered
and the original topography and landscape have changed.
Runoff potential during rain events is high.
The Pains Series mapping unit is poorly drained and
located on broad, smooth flats and in shallow depressions.
The Rains Series formed in loamy sediment. Permeability is
moderate.
2.2.2 Water Resources
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. An
unnamed tributary of Beaver Creek crosses the study area
twice. It is a small stream approximately 4' wide and 3" to
6 " deep at the widest point in the study area. It has a
moderate flow and the bottom is composed of sand and small
cobbles. Approximately 150' of stream rechannelization is
proposed near the south terminus. It will be necessary for
the NCDOT to consult with the appropriate natural resource
agencies in accordance with the Fish And Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661-667d).
The best usage classification of unnamed streams is the
same as the stream to which it is a tributary. Best usage
classification of Beaver Creek is C (DEM). Best usage
recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or
waters classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study
area, or 1 mile downstream. National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) point-source dischargers are not
located within the study area. No water supply intakes are
listed in the area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program.
This network is intended to address long term trends in eater
r_,uality by measuring the taxa richness and presence of
intolerable organisms. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. No BMAN surveys were
conducted in the study area or near the project vicinity.
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may have a number of impacts to water
resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
- Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
- Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
runoff, construction and toxic spills.
Recommendations:
Minimize stream rechannelizations.
Non-point sediment sources should be identified and
efforts made to control sediment runoff.
Strict adherence to BMP's should be advocated during the
construction phase of the project.
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be implemented
prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of
the project.
3.0 Special Topics
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are
those areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions.
Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Any action that proposes
to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Provisions of the
Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations of
vegetation, soils and hydrology. The vegetation is
hydrophytic and the soil is hydric due to low chroma.
Wetland hydrological characteristics include standing water
and evidence of drainage. Table 3 summarizes wetland impacts
and Figure 2 indicates location. These estimates are
preliminary and may change with project design.
" / _ -' ? - . o • • `'o • ?? ?E Smith -'? ' ?'.
/, - .... •.,•.. ,,. •?\• • \\ : -High Sfh? ,- h.
n 't ? ?• Fie • ?e?
'y ; is ?: o? ? •' .. -?=fa';/_ q;; t? ? .
. \\ \ 216
Q _: - ? ?5 . t:.. . • • ?
. ,. -? . a a??. \ r . -_ X
+ Mount (it ad` •? ;??_ ?i? >t, '??, ;? - ? y :
t ? .yti. +. .p ° _ t Pp?' fyt ?>f'3.. `?QR y Y 1
./y,?° , ? ?: iy,. x, _ c` I ?- ?a. a urn.` :?, •P_ ? i . u Off'':. ?/ ?? ti':
h NosPit I _ .,,
`'r ?.?t ? ?h.k `_? k t ? r ? .. - - 00'8: ? •'F
•
u. '
NORTH CAROLINA DEPART(\ll:NC Ot.
11 :_ - TRANSPORTATION
;..
-dt
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
•rr t? ' d. )00 ¦ PLANNING AND I NVIRONMFNTAL
End Project BRANCH
US 401 BYPASS
'•' -;' j ' R, FROM NC 24 TO US 401 BUSINESS
FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Figure 2 Wetland. Locationd
• _ - -?? _ e • ?• .'a /i1/%/i1/l\\\ 1 I \Ilf 7/.1Tc.. ??%/'?:dl\\ - - - -
11
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Acreage by Site
SITE#? WETLAND TYPE IMPACT FLOW
1 Ditch <0.1 AHW
2 Unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek 0.2 AHW
Total <0.3
AHW - Above Headwaters
Note: Impact Values reported are in acres
3.1.2 Permits
Waters of the US, a broad category which includes
navigable waters, their tributaries and associated wetlands,
will be impacted by proposed construction. The project is
not located within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA). Nationwide Permits, 33 CFR 330.5 (a)
(14) and 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) are likely to be applicable at
site 1 and 2 respectively. Approximately 150' of the unnamed
tributary at site 2 will be rechannelized.
Nationwide Permit (14) is authorized under the following
conditions: 1) the width of the fill is limited to the
minimum necessary for the actual crossing. 2) The filled
placed in waters of the US is limited to a filled area of no
more than 1/3 acre. 3) No more than a total of 200 linear
feet of the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic
sites, including wetlands.
Nationwide Permit (26) authorizes the discharge of
dredged or filled material into headwaters and isolated
waters provided: 1) the discharge does not cause the loss of
more than 10 acres of waters of the US, 2) the permittee
notifies the district engineer if the discharge would cause a
loss of waters of the US greater than one acre in accordance
with the "Notification" general condition and 3) the
discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary
and permanent is part of a single and complete project.
The final permit decision rests with the Corps of
Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification is likely to be
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required. State permits are
administered through the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
3.1.3 Mitigation
The project is likely to be authorized under one or more
Nationwide Permits. Generally; no mitigation is required
according to the MOA between the Corps of Engineers and the
12
Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final decision
rests with the Corps of Engineers.
3.2 Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
locate records of protected species in the study area.
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Five federally protected species are listed by the USFWS
in Cumberland County as of March 15, 1992. These species are
listed in Table 4. A discussion of each species follows.
Table 4 Federally protected species listed in
Cumberland County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E'-
American alligator Alliuator mississippiensis T S/Az
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lvsimachia asperulaefolia E
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana PE3
E1 - Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all its range.
T1 - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
PE3 - Proposed Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nests in living pine
trees that are greater than 60 years of age. The RCW forages
in pine or pine-dominated stands and at least 30 years of
age. Contiguous foraging habitat is utilized by the RCW
within 0.5 mile of the colony site. The study area supports
suitable habitat (pine-dominated stands at least 30 years of
age) for the RCW. These sites are small and separated by
non-contiguous habitat greater than 330' wide. No impacts to
the red-cockaded woodpecker will occur.
American alligator
The alligator is a large reptile with a broad snout with
the fourth tooth not visible when the jaws are closed. In
contrast, the crocodile's fourth tooth is exposed when the
jaws are closed. The alligator occurs in varying wetland
habitats and is a very mobile organism. The T(S/A) status is
due to the similarity of appearance of the alligator to the
federally protected crocodile. Because the crocodile does
not occur in North Carolina, the alligator is not protected
13
in North Carolina. Protection is afforded the alligator only
in Florida where it coexists with the American Crocodile.
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Rough-leaved loosestrife is an erect, rarely branched
herbaceous plant with leaves in whorls of 3 to 4. The plant
is 3 dm to 6 dm tall. Flowering occurs from mid-May through
June. The yellow flowers encircle the stem above the whorled
leaves. Rough-leaved loosestrife is currently known from
nine populations in North Carolina and extirpated from South
Carolina. The plant occurs in ecotones between longleaf pine
forests and pond pine pocosins. These are areas of dense
shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained
soil, on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow
organic soils overlying sand. The plant also occurs on deep
peat of large Carolina bays. These areas are usually
maintained by fire. The study area does not support suitable
habitat for this plant. No impacts to the plant will occur.
Pondberry
This deciduous shrub is approximately 2 meters tall.
The plant flowers in early spring before the leaves expand
and the bright red fruit matures in autumn. A general
habitat description for the plant includes bottomland
hardwood forests, poorly drained depressions and margins of
limestone sinks. Populations located in North Carolina occur
in different habitats. Pondberry is found in shrubby areas
dominated by fetterbush (Leonia lucida) and high bush
blueberry (Vaccinium corvmbosum) with scattered pond pine
(Pinus serotina) and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). The
study area does not support suitable habitat for this plant.
No impacts to the plant will occur.
American chaffseed
American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb of the
figwort family. The stem is unbranched or branched only at
the base. The plant grows to a height of 3 to 8 dm and is
densely pubescent. The flowers appear in May or June and are
large, purplish-yellow in color. Suitable habitat for this
plant includes sandy, acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils.
Areas such as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained
savannahs, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands, xeric sandy
soils and other open grass-sedge systems support this plant.
The study area supports suitable habitat for this plant.
Surveys for the plant are necessary during the flowering
period from May through June to determine if the plant is
located in the study area.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Cumberland County (Table 511. These species are
not afforded federal protection at this time, but their
14
status may be upgraded in the future. The habitat column
indicates the potential for occurrence (based on suitable
habitat) of these species in the study area.
Table 5 Federal Candidate species listed in
Cumberland County
COMMON NAME
Bachman's sparrow
Cape Fear spike
Atlantic Pigtoe
Mitchell satyr
butterfly
Diana fritillary
butterfly
Georgia leadplant
Sandhills milkvetch
Pine barrens boneset
White-wicky
Bog spicebush
Boykin's lobelia
Nestronia
Savanna cowbane
Wavyleaf wild quinine
False coco
Awned meadowbeauty
Spring-flowering
goldenrod
Pickering's morning
glory
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT
Aimophila aestivalis C2 No
Elliptio marsupoibesa C2 No
Fusconaia masoni* C2 Yes
Neonvmpha mitchelli
francisci C2 No
Speveria diana C2 Yes
Amorpha aeoraiana var.
georaiana * C2 Yes
Astracralus michauxii C2 Yes
Eupatorium resinosum * C2 No
Kalmia cuneata C2 No
Lindera subcoriacea C2 No
Lobelia boykinii C2 No
Nestronia umbellula C2 Yes
oxvpolis ternata C2 Yes
Parthenium radfordii C2 Yes
Pteroglossaspis
ecristata * C2 Yes
Rhexia aristosa * C2 No
Solidaao verna C2 Yes
Stvlisma p. var
pickerinaii C2 Yes
C2: Candidate 2. A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to
support listing as endangered or threatened at this time.
3.2.2 State Protected Species
No records of state protected species are located in the
study area according to the NCNHP files. Federal candidate
species that are state protected and may occur in the study
area are presented in Table 6.
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special
Concern are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern
(1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. Though all or some of these
species may be present in the study area, no surveys were
15
conducted.
Table 6 State protected species listed in
Cumberland County
COMMON NAME
Bachman' s sparrow
Cape Fear spike
Atlantic Pigtoe
Pine barrens boneset
White-wicky
Bog spicebush
False coco
Awned meadowbeauty
Spring-flowering
goldenrod
Pickering's morning
glory
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT
Aimophila aestivalis SC'- No
Elliptio marsupoibesa TZ No
Fusconaia masoni* TZ Yes
Eupatorium resinosum * E3 No
Kalmia cuneata E-SC4 No
Lindera subcoriacea E3 No
Pteroglossaspis
ecristata * E3 Yes
Rhexia aristosa * T`' No
Solidago verna E3 Yes
Stvlisma P. var
pickeringii E3 Yes
Fauna Definitions
SCI- - Special Concern: Any species of wild animal native or
once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the
NCWRC to require monitoring. Tz - Threatened: Any native or
once-native species of wild animal which is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
Flora Definitions
E3 - Endangered: Any species of plant whose continued
existence as a viable component of the state's flora is in
jeopardy. E-SC4 Endangered-Special Concern: Any species of
plant which requires population monitoring, but which may be
collected and sold under specific regulations. Special
Concern species which are also listed as Endangered or
Threatened may be collected from the wild and sold under
specific regulations. Propagated material only of Special
Concern species which are also listed as Endangered or
Threatened may be traded or sold under specific regulations.
T5- Threatened: Any species of plant likely to become an
endangered species in the foreseeable future.
16
4.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M. et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of The United States. US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Division of Coastal Management. 1988. "A Guide to
Protecting Coastal Resources Through the CAMA Permit
Program". North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development.
Division of Environmental Management. 1991. "Classifica-
tions and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters
of the Cape Fear River Basin". North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in
North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Lee, D.S. et al. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater
Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., Clark, M.K. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh,
N.C. North Carolina Biological Survey and North Carolina
State Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. 1991- "Natural Heritage Program List Of
The Rare Animal Species Of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program; Division of Parks and
Recreation; NC Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1975. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. Press of the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, North Carolina. 177 pp.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. The Delmar Company, Charlotte, North Carolina.
227 pp.
17
Menhenick, E.F., T.M. Burton and J.R. Bailey. 1974. An
annotated checklist of freshwater fishes of North
Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 90(1):24-50.
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
States. Second Edition. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
(contains insect information)
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
States. Third Edition. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
Potter, E.F., Parnell, J.F. and Teulings, R.P. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities Of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
USDA-SCS. 1984. Soil Survey: Cumberland County.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weakley, A.S. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List Of The
Rare Plant Species Of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program; Division of Parks and
Recreation; Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
?ME,NT OF Ty
?Pa , , , Fyn TAIL ?
MDE IN
A United States Department of the Interior AMEWCA xmmr
a
? a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?'4a?H ; Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, Managegh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
INSTANT REPLY
Please excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply to a
formal letter. This form serves to provide U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
recommendations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). -
Re: US 401 Bypass, Fayetteville Cumberland County TIP U-2207
Project Name
November 6. 1991
Date of Incoming Letter
Based on our records. there are no Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species which may occur within the project impact area.
XXXXX The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project impact area.
XXXXX If the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat. surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to adversely
affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this
office for further information.
Concur - Is not likely to adversely affect Federally-listed
endangered or threateded species.
XXXXX Staffing limitations prevent us from conducting a field inspection
of the project site. Therefore, we are unable to provide you
with site specific recommendations at this time.
Questions regarding this form letter may be directed to the biologist who is
handling this project. , -Ay A o it hr ? /Z 2 9/
Biologis't bate
CONCUR: 1 lZ Z
Endangered Species D to
Coordinator
i
REVISED OCTOBER 10, 1991
Cumberland County,
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - E
Pondberry (Lindera.melissifolia) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lvsimachia asperulaefolia) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - T S/A+
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as..threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them..
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
False coco (Pteroglossaspis ecristata) -2
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2 -
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna) - C2
Sandhills chub (Semotilus lumbee) - C2
Cape Fear spike (Elliptio marsupiobesa) - C2
Mitchell satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchelli) - C2
Georgia leadplant (Amorpha georaiana aeorgiana) - C2*
Sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii) - C2*
Pine barrens boneset (Eupatorium resinosum) - C2
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - C2
Boykin's lobelia (Lobelia bovkinii) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
+Threatened/Similarity of Appearance
1 '
1111 • tc„
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director.
MEMORANDUM
;IN ? fi] 11 Ill
~! .?„``•?? I' , ? 91 91 /mss
ems,. ... ., '
ssor
3391
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR
Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Dennis Stewart,. Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 21, 1991
SUBJECT: -Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation regarding fish and wildlife concerns for
a project to widen US 401 Bypass from NC 24 to US 401
Business, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No. F-8-1(30), State Project No. 8.1441601, TIP
No. U-2207
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J.
Ward, P. E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the widening of US 401 Bypass from NC 24 to US 401
Business, Fayetteville, Cumberland County.
While this project will follow the existing roadway the
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is concerned over possible
direct and indirect adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries, and
wetland resources within and adjacent to the construction
corridor.
Due to limited information in Mr. L. J. Wards' memorandum of
November 6, 1991 we can express our concerns and requests for
information only in general terms. Our ability to evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing project environmental documents will be enhanced by
inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the study
corridors. Potential borrow areas to be used for
0
Page 2
November 21, 1991
project construction should be included in the
inventories.
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including State and
Federal species of special concern, within, adjacent
to, or utilizing study corridors.
3. Cover type.maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
projected related areas that may, undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The,.extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
...wetlands and impacts associated with fragmentation.
6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of
streams crossed and the extent of such activities.
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
8. -A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
Be advised that the Wildlife Resources Commission is not
likely to provide a favorable review-for any alternative which
does not clearly avoid, minimize, and mitigate destruction or
degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please call on us.
DLS/lp
O Ra 57ATp o
_ D
gyn., n
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
March 3, 1992
V
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branc
G/
FROM: A. L. Hankins, Jr., P.E.%%/L?•
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Aspect of the Environmental Impact of
the Proposed Widening of US 401 Bypass from NC 24
(Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford
Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, State
Project No. 8.1441601 Federal Aid Project No.
F-8-1(30), U-2207
The proposed highway improvement is to widen US 401 Bypass
from its existing five-lane to a seven-lane curb and gutter
section. From NC 24 to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road), three
alternatives are studied. They are symmetric and east side
widening as well as widening on the west side at the All American
Freeway interchange. From SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) to US 401
Business (Raeford Road), it is anticipated to widen the roadway
symmetrically. The total length of the project is 3.5 miles.
There are no major drainage structures involved on this
project. However, there is an existing Channel that runs along
and parallel to the east side of the existing roadway at the south
end of the project. It then leads to the dual 90-inch corrugated
metal pipes under US 401 Business (Raeford Road). The Channel is
approximately 1?0 f,eet distant, from the edge of roadway and is
trapezoidal in shape with average top and bottom widths of 20 and
8 feet, respectively. A symmetric widening on this segment of
roadway, as proposed by the Planning Department, will require
relocation;_of the existing_.Channe.l. The terrain in the vicinity
of 'the ? project site is- relatively flat. Groundwater and the
existing drainage patterns will not be significantly affected by
the project construction. The existing road does not cross any
wetlands, therefore it is not anticipated that any environmental
permits for the proposed widening will be required.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Cumberland County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Attached is a copy of the Cumberland
County Flood Insurance Rate Map on which is shown that US 401
Bypass at the south end of the project is in the designated
100-year and 500-year flood areas of Beaver Creek. The proposed
widening will not have any adverse impact on the flood plains of
Beaver Creek. Siltation of the adjacent areas due to project
construction will be kept at a minimum by the use and maintenance
of the standard erosion control measures and devices.
ALHjr/AMR/af
Attachment
cc: Mr. Paul Macon
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
:mmrrrmm
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
?IIIII III CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
NORTH AROLIA
(UNINCORPORATED
PANEL 1.55 EE MAP INDEX O FOR P NELS NOT PRINTED)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (S

M
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER I j
370076 0155 B
!
i
I

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 115 OF 295
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370076 0115 B
MAN EFFECTIYE DATE:
V
EFFECTIVE DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1982
M
S FEBRUARY 17, 1982
!L l 0 O
•yo o ?f
Federal Emergency Management Agency
j Federal Emergency Management Agency

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
CUMBERLAND
.`I I I I I I I NORTH CAROLIA
D AREAS)
Y'

M
i
PANEL 155 OF 295
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
t 0? MA H\
1 ?
i 4
J ?
• 1 ??d o o/
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370076 0155 B
EFFECTIVE DATE:
FEBRUARY 17, 1982
f
(
r
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
I
' FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 115 OF 295
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370076 0115 B
M^N EFFECTIVE DATE:
FEBRUARY 17, 1982
z
? -a
o 0

IIIIIIIIIfiTfilr I IIIIIAIIIIIIIIII Federal Emergency Management Agency
16
C) C
¦....• ?• o 01-38 W8+
p? l? ?a?a? •''•..• 8 3NOZ
o
r
.0 0
• ¦ ¦ -qj
8INANOiS
c8o???9
I lti
Jib -,1
9
)1 c • • • •' • • ??
?y ? o ? .• •. - J ? 1
c • •• • • f
*to
m •• •• • I
••• f lot
• II . •
• • 8 3NOZ-
\ _ i
../// 3NOZ
o •
03cimDN1 lON V38V ??/ / ??•
J
?!- 8 3NOZ--
o .
' 81-38 W!?
I l .W 8 ovoa .•? ,,? -
oqj
pllo llo • 1 1 : I; OZ 38 W?J•
c i
SItrI ? a I
no.z
' a3on-13Nl ioN d38v „ O
alilna??a?C?_q Jo ? j . ,
•.,00 8'3NOA
0
I?
.I -
I it
L
pVOH
•
?l
p
• 3dOWb0 • ?
SLClZ o
?a Nnr b. ?r?
h
1?? 1Y•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON September 17, 1991
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Participants
FROM: Mark L. Reep
Project Planning Engineer
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Scoping meeting for US 401 Bypass, from NC 24 (Bragg
Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project
No. F-8-1(30), State Project No. 8.1441601, TIP No.
U-2207
The following persons attended the scoping meeting held on September
4, 1991 for the subject project:
Robin Stancil
David Foster
Wady Williams
Don Idol
Ray Goff
Doug Howey
Abdul Rahmani
Joe Franklin
Don Wilson
Dee Cuthrell
Frank Vick
Linwood Stone
Cliff Braam
Mark Reep
Brian Yamamoto
Danny Rogers
Paul Worley
Ernie Ransdell
Don Sellers
John Taylor
Walter Garrett
Paul Atkinson
DCR-SHPO
DEHNR-Highway Environmental Evaluation
FHWA
Bridge Maintenance
Division 6 Office
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Location and Surveys
Location and Surveys
Photogrammetry
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Program Development
Public Transportation and Rail
Right of Way
Right of Way
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Signals and Geometrics
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
September 17, 1991
Page 2
Paul Atlas
Ray Moore
Charles Mullen
Signals and Geometrics
Structure Design
Traffic Control
The 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement Program calls for adding two
lanes to the existing five-lane curb and gutter facility to provide a
seven-lane roadway. The present schedule for the project is as follows:
Complete EA 7/92
Complete FONSI 3/93
Begin right of way acquisition 7/95
Begin construction 12/97
The first major items of discussion were the two railroad crossings on
the project north and south of Cliffdale Road. The northernmost crossing,
the Cape Fear Railroad, is currently inactive. The Aberdeen and Rockfish
Railroad line, just south of Cliffdale Road, averages two trains per day.
Paul Worley, from Public Transportation and Rail, commented that a railroad
grade separation is warranted due to existing traffic volumes of 31,000
vehicles per day on the facility. The exposure index (ADT x trains/day)
for the Aberdeen and Rockfish line crossing is 62,000. The Division of
Highways Railroad Grade Separation Policy is a guideline which recommends a
grade separation for a railroad crossing in an urban area with an exposure
index greater than 30,000. It was concluded that due to the topography,
dense development, and excessive right of way and construction costs, a
railroad grade separation would be infeasible.
The status concerning future use of the inactive Cape Fear Railroad
line from NC 24 to Cliffdale Road was another important topic of
discussion. Prior to the scoping meeting, John Corbett, the State Railroad
Agent, informed me that the Cape Fear Railroad Company plans to keep the
tracks in place. According to Mr. Corbett, the railroad line serves Fort
Bragg as one of two rail entrances required by federal law for military
bases. At the scoping meeting, Ray Goff, the Division 6 Traffic Engineer,
commented the Fort Bragg Base Commander said the base had no use for the
line. If the railroad was abandoned, widening could occur on the west
side, involving fewer construction impacts and requiring less right of way
from businesses along the project.
According to comments made prior to the scoping meeting by Dan Thomas
from Statewide Planning, the Cumberland County Joint Planning Board has
adopted this section of railroad in its future light rail plan. No
conclusions concerning the abandonment of the Cape Fear Railroad were
reached during the meeting. Project Planning will coordinate with Fort
Bragg and the railroad company to resolve the abandonment issue. Pending
upon the railroad abandonment issue being resolved, more clearly defined
alternatives will be established.
Proposed alternatives discussed were: (1) symmetric widening through
the entire length of the project, (2) east side widening from NC 24 to
Cliffdale Road, and (3) west side widening from NC 24 to Cliffdale Road.
The 1987 Feasibility Study describes each of these alternatives. Symmetric
widening is feasible south of Cliffdale Road, and will be considered from
north of Cliffdale Road to NC 24 for cost comparison purposes. Eastward
September 17, 1991
Page 3
widening will likely be proposed if the Cape Fear Railroad retains the
tracks. Widening on the east side of the existing facility would
necessitate widening the bridge over the All American Freeway and
redesigning the interchange loops. In addition, right of way would be
required from the Cross Creek Mall parking area as well as other businesses
along the east side of US 401 Bypass. According to Ray Goff, planning is
underway for a shopping center that would contain K-Mart and Lowes to be
developed south of Cross Point Center on the east side of the roadway.
This proposed shopping center would be impacted by eastward widening. The
final proposed alternative consists of widening to the west side of the
existing facility. This alternative is contingent upon the military's
future use of the Cape Fear Railroad line. If the railroad is to be
abandoned, the bridge over the All American Freeway would be widened on the
west side and the railroad bridge would be removed. John Taylor, from
Roadway Design, indicated that he could complete the preliminary design and
develop construction costs for the symmetric and east side widening
alternatives by April 1992.
The next major topic discussed involved possible coordination with
section 4(f) of the 1966 D.O.T. Act. Section 4(f) protects the use and
function of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, refuges, and historic
properties. School playgrounds may be classified as 4(f) resources when
the playground is open to the public and serves organized or walk-on
recreation activity. The officials with jurisdiction over the facility
determine the significance of the activity for the facility. Three schools
are located on the project: (1) Alger B. Wilkins Elementary, (2) Anne
Chestnut Junior High, and (3) Lewis Chapel Junior High. According to Wady
Williams, from FHWA, a Programmatic 4(f) may be applicable for a minor
right of way taking from a 4(f) resource. Further coordination with the
Cumberland County School System and FHWA will validate a 4(f)
determination.
Doug Howey, from the Geotechnical Unit, commented on hazardous wastes
in the project area. He stated that underground fuel storage tanks are
located throughout the length of the existing facility. In addition he
noted that the Cliffdale Road intersection is currently under investigation
for petroleum contamination. David Foster, from DEHNR, commented that
Project Planning should coordinate with the Regional Water Quality
Supervisor from the DEHNR Division of Water Resources concerning a
groundwater problem at the Cliffdale Road intersection.
Robin Stancil from the State Historic Preservation Office commented on
the cultural resources in the project area. She stated that neither
archaeological nor historic sites were identified in her department's
cultural resource files, but the potential for locating archaeological
resources exists in the project area. She added that while no
archaeological survey is currently recommended, the Planning and
Environmental Branch should continue consulting with the Department of
Cultural Resources. Robin Stancil also commented about a house located in
the northwestern quadrant of the Yadkin Road intersection. She said the
house, as shown in the project area photographs, looks as if it may
potentially be eligible for the historic register. Planning and
Environmental will coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office
for a final determination of the structure's historic eligibility.
September 17, 1991
Page 4
The meeting discussion included the potential design modifications to
the two bridge structures at NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) (#86) and over the All
American Freeway (#53). Don Idol, from Bridge Maintenance, recommended
that the NC 24 bridge (#86) be maintained due to its good condition and its
adequate clearance for the future pavement width. He added that the
clearance between piers, 102 feet 9 inches, is adequate for providing the
proposed pavement width; however, the slopes would need to be modified to
provide clearance for the entire cross section. The proposed widening
under the bridge can be.provided on the west side, according to Don Idol.
Bridge Maintenance submitted written scoping input concerning the bridge
(#53) over the All American Freeway. This bridge is in good condition,
with a high sufficiency rating of 95.2 out of 100.0, and can be retained
and widened, making repairs to the bridge during project construction.
Prior to the scoping meeting, J. L. Smith of Structure Design submitted
written comments introducing a proposal to widen bridge #53 on the west
side, pending upon abandonment of the Cape Fear Railroad line. According
to Mr. Smith, preliminary field measurements and elevations indicate that
bridge #53 and the railroad bridge parallel to it may be connected to
create one bridge. He stated that the railroad bridge, or portions of it,
may be combined with the existing structure #53 as a measure to reduce
project construction costs. Yet this alternative proposal depends upon the
previously mentioned settlement of the railroad abandonment issue.
Two additional comments which were addressed during the scoping
meeting concerned an existing bikeway route and the right of way schedule.
John Taylor pointed out that a bikeway path had been included in the
previous project which widened the bypass to provide five lanes. During a
field investigation of the project site, a sidewalk was identified on the
roadway's east side, from NC 24 south to US 401 Business, and has now been
concluded to be a bikeway. Project Planning will coordinate with the NCDCT
Bicycle Program to determine how to incorporate the bicycle path into the
project. Concerning the right of way schedule, Don Sellers from the Right
of Way Branch commented that, according to a new policy, approximately 90
weeks (21 months) are needed from the_date the right of way plans are
authorized to the letting date. The current project schedule, allowing 14
months from authorization to the letting date, may need to be revised.
MLR/sdt
SEATE4
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ATTENTION:
REFERENCE:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
May 28, 1992
Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Urban Planning Unit
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unit
Protected species surveys for the proposed
improvements to US 401 Bypass, Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, TIP# U-2207, State Project
Number# 8.1441601, Federal Aid Project Number
F-8-1(30).
Mark Reep, Project Engineer
Natural Resources Technical Report dated
March 24, 1992.
As stated in the referenced Natural Resources Technical
Report, surveys for the American chaffseed (Schwalbea
americana) are necessary to determine if the plant is located
in the study area. A site visit was made on May 26, 1992 and
plant-by-plant surveys were conducted in four sites that
supported suitable habitat for the plant: 1 and 2) Section A
-upland mixed hardwood/pine stand located south of Aberdeen
and Rockfish railroad on both sides of the roadway, 3)
Section B - upland pine dominated forest located east of the
existing roadway) and 4) Section D - small upland pine
dominated forest located west of the existing roadway.
No American chaffseed plants were observed. No impacts to
the species will occur from proposed construction.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Janet Shipley, Environmental Biologist
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Sxm HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 25, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Urban Planning Unit
FROM: Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resource evaluations of the proposed
athletic field shifts due to the US 401
Bypass widening, Fayetteville, Cumberland
County, TIP## U-2207, State Project Number r
8.1441601, Federal Aid Project Number F-8-
1(30).
ATTENTION: Mark Reep, Project Engineer
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report by
S. Corda dated March 24, 1992.
US 401 is proposed to be widened to provide an
additional travel lane in each direction. The referenced
Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared
for the subject project with impacts based on a 120' right-
of-way limit. Additional right-of-way is needed in 2 areas
located on school property now utilized for athletic fields.
A baseball field will be shifted on the Lewis Chapel Jr. High
(LC) school property located west of US 401. A football
field will be shifted and an access road will be constructed
on the Anne Chestnut Jr. High (AC) property located east of
US 401. The athletic field shifts impact additional property
not surveyed in the original investigation. Natural resource
investigations for these 2 properties are discussed below.
Discussions are based on in-house research and a site visit
conducted March 19, 1993.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Both sites support Pine Forest and the Disturbed
Shrub/Scrub communities discussed in the NRTR. The proposed
baseball field shift on the LC property and the proposed.
access road on the AC property will impact a maintained lawn
dominated primarily by bermuda grass (Cvnodon dactylon),
other grasses and herbaceous species.
7pr
Anticipated fauna is listed in the referenced NRTR. Of
the species mentioned in the NRTR, the following terrestrial
species are likely to be found in the Disturbed community:
eastern mole (Scalopus aauaticus) eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus) and house mouse (Mus musculus).
Typical avian fauna that may occur in the Disturbed community
includes red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura) and American robin (Thurdus miaratorius).
One reptile, the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus)
is likely to be found in this community.
The athletic fields are delineated by a fence line.
Pine dominated forests are located in the impact areas beyond
the fence line. The LC property supports a steeply sloping
area, dominated by a young loblolly pine stand (Pinus taeda)
less than 10" diameter at breast height (DBH). Several
larger loblolly pines are present farther away from the fence
line, out of the impact area. Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
is scattered among the pines. Rank growth of blackberry
(Rubus sp.), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and kudzu
(Pueraria lobata) vines are present along the fence-line and
within this community.
The AC property supports a loblolly pine dominated stand
with level topography. Scattered occurrences of longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), southern red oak (Ouercus falcata)
and water oak (Ouercus niara) also occur as canopy species in
this community. The canopy is dense and supports pine trees
greater than 10" DBH. Sparse distribution of black cherry
and dogwood (Cornus florida) comprise the understory. Poison
ivy vines (Toxicodendron radicans) are present on the ground
and tree trunks. Observed herbaceous species include
pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata) and crane-fly orchid
(Tipularia discolor). These two species are widely
scattered.
Fauna associated with the Pine Forest community, in
addition to the species mentioned above, include the black
rat (Rattus rattus) and avian species such as the black
vulture (Coraaypes atratus) and great horned owl (Bubo
virginianus). Amphibian and reptilian species that may be
found in the Pine Forest community include slimy salamander
(Plethodon cinereus), red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber),
southern toad (Bufo terrestris), southern leopard frog (Rana
sphenocephala); southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus) and the
pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus).
Table 1 states plant community impacts associated with
proposed construction. Plant community impacts stated in
Table 1 supplement the NRTR.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
PLANT COMMUNITY LC* AC*
Disturbed 0.3 0.7
Pine Forest 0.5 0.6
TOTALS 0.8 1.3
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on variable construction
widths delineated on aerial photography. Values shown are in
acres.
LC - Lewis Chapel Jr. High School
AC - Anne Chestnut Jr. High School
SOILS
The area impacted on the AC property is underlain by the
Faceville loamy sand (2 to 6 % slopes) map unit. The
Faceville series is described in the NRTR. Blaney loamy sand
(8 to 15 % slopes) is mapped for the LC property. The Blaney
series consists of well drained soils that formed from sandy
and loamy sediments. It is typically found on side slopes in
uplands.
WATER RESOURCES/WETLANDS
No water resources or jurisdictional wetlands will be
impacted by proposed construction.
PERMITS
No additional permits will be necessary for construction
on the two school properties.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Protected species information is based on a USFWS list
dated March 4, 1993. The federally protected species
reported for Cumberland County have remained the same since
the referenced technical report except that the American
alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) has been dropped.
Federally protected species are listed in Table 2. Each
species and its relationship to the project is discussed
below.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for
Cumberland County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
E - Enaangered
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick,
Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven,
Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax,
Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Johnston,
Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender,
Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland,
Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New
Jersey to southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred
inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri.
Now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland
in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina
moderate populations are found in the sandhills and in the
southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont
and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former
populations.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except
for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The
back is black and white with horizontal stripes and the breast and
underside is white with streaked flanks. There is a large white
cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
RCW's use open, old growth stands of southern pines, .
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands
considered ideal habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are equal to or greater than 60 years
old and are contiguous with pine-dominated stands at least 30
years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is 0.5 mile and must
be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100
ft above the ground and average 30-50 ft high. They can be
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
the tree. This is, arguably, used as a defense against possible
predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one
breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The eggs are
laid in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size
is from 3 - 5 eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the
young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may
feed on seasonal wild fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Both school properties support pine dominated forests.
The LC pine forest property supports a young stand that is
unsuitable for the woodpecker. No impacts to the red-
cockaded woodpecker will occur from proposed construction.
The AC property also supports a pine dominated forest.
This stand is isolated from other suitable habitat. Two
developed properties, a housing development and the AC school
grounds, are located adjacent to this stand. Pine dominated
stands in the study area and the project vicinity are too
small to support the RCW. No impacts to the red-cockaded
woodpecker will occur from proposed construction.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) E
Plant Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
Distribution in N.C.: Bladen, Cumberland.
The pondberry is currently known from 19 populations in the
southeastern United States. North Carolina is home to only one
known population; this population occurs on private land in Bladen
County.
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub that has a distinct
sassafras-like odor. It grows approximately 2 meters tall and
spreads through stolons. Leaves in the pondberry are six to
sixteen centimeters long and two to six centimeters wide, arranged
alternately, have rounded bases, and droop downward. It has small
pale yellow flowers that appear in early spring before the leaves.
The fruit which matures in August or September is a bright red
drupe.
This plant grows in lowland habitats with hydric soils.
These sites are generally flooded at some time during the growing
season. It is associated with the margins of sinks, ponds, and
other like depressions. The soils present are sandy with a high
peat content in the subsurface. Areas inhabited by this species
show signs of past fire maintenance and now have shrubby
conditions. The plants generally grow in shady areas but may also
be found in areas that receive full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
The study area does not support suitable habitat for
pondberry. There are no periodically flooded sites in the
proposed study area. No impacts to Pondberry will occur from the
proposed project.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bladen, Brunswick, Carteret,
Columbus, Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Onslow, Pamlico,
Pender, Richmond, Scotland.
This plant which is endemic to the coastal plain and
sandhills of North and South Carolina and is currently found in
nine locations in North Carolina and is believed to be extirpated
from South Carolina.
This perennial herb has slender stems that grow to a height
of three to six dm from a rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle
the stem at intervals below the showy yellow flowers, and usually
occur in threes or fours. Flowers are borne in terminal racemes
and have five petals. Fruits are present from July through
October.
This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf
pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine
growth usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil), on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying
sand. It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low
shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical,
poorly drained depressions of unknown origins). The areas it
occurs in are fire maintained. It is rarely associated with
hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
The study area does not support suitable habitat for
rough-leaved loosestrife. Neither forested stand contains
the appropriate vegetation or hydrology to support the rough-
leaved loosestrife. No impacts to rough-leaved loosestrife
will occur.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) E
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May - early June
Distribution in N.C.: Bladen, Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Pender,
Scotland.
This species is known historically from Alabama, Connecticut,
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee,
and Virginia in which it has been extirpated. The only confirmed
North Carolina population is on Fort Bragg military base in Hoke
County.
The American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch
only at the base (if at all) and grow to a height of 3-8 dm. The
entire plant is pubescent, with upwardly curving hairs. The
narrow leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic, stalkless,
and 2 to 5 centimeters long. The leaves are three veined and
become progressively smaller towards the top. It bears solitary
flowers in the axils of the upper most leaves. The purplish-
yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a long
narrow capsule, enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
This species occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire
maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and
open grass-sedge systems. Soils are generally sandy, acidic, and
seasonally moist to dry. Fire is important in the maintenance of
open habitat for the American chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Pine dominated stands, in the project area, do not
support suitable habitat for the American chaffseed. The
pine forest located on the LC property supports a closed
canopy and rank growth of several vines. The pine dominated
forest located on the AC property also supports a closed
canopy. This stand does not show evidence of being fire
maintained. No impacts to the American chaffseed will occur
from proposed construction.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Janet Shipley, Environmental Biologist
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 23, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
D. Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
Susan Thebert, Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Federally Protected species update for the
proposed improvements to US 401 bypass,
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, TIP = U-
2207, State Project # 8.1441601, F.A.
F-8-1(30).
ATTENTION: Mark Reep, P.E., Project Manager
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report dated
March 24, 1992.
Since the referenced report was completed, the Saint
Francis' satyr has been added to the list of federally
protected species for Cumberland County. Date of the most
current list is May 12, 1994. A species description and a
Biological conclusion are provided below.
Neonympha mitchellii francisci (Saint Francis' satyr) E
Animal Family: Nymphalidae
Federally Listed: Emergency listed April 18, 1994
Distribution in NC: Cumberland
The Saint Francis' satyr is a small, dark brown
butterfly with conspicuous eyespots on the lower wing surface
of the fore and hind legs. The eyespots are round to oval
shaped with a dark maroon brown center and a straw yellow
border. These spots are accentuated with two bright orange
bands along the posterior wings and by two darker brown bands
along the central portion of each wing.
The Saint Francis' satyr is known to inhabit wide, wet
meadows dominated by sedges and other wetland graminoids.
These wetlands are often relicts of beaver activity and are
boggy areas that are acidic and ephemeral. Succession of
these sites often leads to either a pocosin or swamp
dominated forest. The larval host of the Saint Francis'
satyr is thought to be grasses, sedges and rushes.
0
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for the
Saint Francis' satyr. The two wetlands located within the
study area are a disturbed ditch parallel to the existing
roadway and a Palustrine Broad-leaved deciduous wetland. No
impacts to the Saint Francis' satyr will occur from proposed
construction.
cc: V. Charles Bruton
Janet Shipley
M. Randall Turner
Fayetteville
US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30)
State Project No. 8.1441601
U-2207
V,

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
DatE! Franklin Vick P.
E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Nic as L. Graf, P. E.
i ivi ion Administrator, FHWA
Fayetteville
US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30)
State Project No. 8.1441601
U-2207

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
Documentation Prepared in Planning and,Environmental Branch by:
2LL?
Mark L. Ree
Project Planning Engineer

Richard-B. Davis, P. E., Assistant
Planning and Environmental Branch
•o??tt CARS
• ??OFESSloy9,9 :_
SEAL
6944 =
tiq ••. . ' P
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY ........................................................ i
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... 1
A. General Description 1
B. Cross Section Description 1
C. Right of Way ............................................. 1
D. Access Control 1
E. Design Speed .............................................. 2
F. Structures .... 2
G. Sidewalks ......................................... 2
H. Bicycle Provisions ...........
I. Railroad Crossings ......... 2
J. Cost Estimate ...................... 2
............................................ 3
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................... 3
A. Existing Roadway Conditions ............................... 3
1. Cross Section 3
2. Right of Way .................................. 4
3. Roadside Development .................. 4
4. Access Control 4
5. Structures .................................... 4
6. Intersecting Roads 5
7. Sidewalks ...................................... 5
8. Bikeways ................. 5
9. Speed Limits ......................................... 5
10. Railroads Crossings 5
11. Utilities ............................................ 6
12. Geodetic Markers 5
13. School Buses ......................................... 6
B. Route Function and Thoroughfare Plan 6
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .............................. 6
1. Signalized Intersections 7
2. Unsignalized Intersections ............................ 10
D. Accident History .......................................... 10
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 11
A. Highway Construction Alternatives ......................... 11
1. Cross Section Alternatives 11
2. Alignment Alternatives ............................... 11
a. Alternative 1

b.
Alternative
2 ......... ....... 12
.................

C.
Alternative
3 12
(Recommended
) ..................... 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
d. Alternative 4 ..................... 15
e. Alternative 5
.................................. . 15
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
.

C. .
............... 16
Alternative Modes of Transportation ...
16
1. Transportation System Management ............... 16
2. .......
Improvement Options Using IVHS Technology ............. 17
a. Variable Message Signing ........ . .
... 17
b. Video Surveillance
.........

C. Computerized Traffic Signal Systems ............. 18
18
3. Public Transportation .......
....... 19
.
..................
IV. ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACTS
.......................................... 20
A. Soci al Environment
........................................ 20
1. Neighborhood Characteristics ................ 20

2. .....
Public and Private Facilities ••••
3. ........... " " " '•••
Relocation Impacts 20
4. ..............
Cultural Resources " " " '..••••••• 2
1
a. Architectural Resources ......... 21
b. Archaeological Resources . 2
....................... 1
5. Section 4(f) Resources ................. 21
..............
B. Econ omic Environment

C.
Land .................
Use 22
.................................................. 22
1. Scope and Status of Planning ........... . . .
. 22
2. ..........
Existing Zoning ....

3. ...................
Existing Land Use
....? 22

4. ................. . • . . . . ....
....
Future Land Use 23

5.
Compatibility of Project With Local Plans
......... ... 23
24
6. Farmland .............................................. 24
D. Natural Environment ..................... 24
..................
1. Wetlands

2. .............................
Biological Resources 24
..................
a. Plant Communities ............... 25
b. Wildlife Communities
.................
C. Protected Species 27
............................... 28
3. Physical Resources ..................... 31
..............
a. Geological Resources ............. 31
b. Water Resources
.................................. 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation . . . . . 33
5. Air Quality ......... . . . 33
6. Traffic Noise ..................................... 36
7. Hazardous Materials 41
8. Construction Impacts 41
9. Permits .............................................. 43
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...................................... 43
A. Comments Received 43
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ........ 43
C. Public Hearing ............................................ 44
FIGURES
Figure la - Vicinity Map
Figure lb - Project Area
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic - Alternative 3 (Recommended)
Figure 3 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 4 - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 - Proposed Intersection Improvements
Figure 6a - Roadway Typical Section
Figure fib - Proposed Bridge Typical Section
Figure 7 - Conceptual Light Rail Corridor
Figure 8 - Wetland Locations
Figure 9 - 100-Year Flood Zones
TABLES
Table 1 - Bridge Data
Table 2 - Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections
("Do Nothing" Alternative)
Table 3 - Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections
(Proposed Widening Alternative)
Table 4 - Comparison of Highway Construction Alternatives
Table 5 - Potential Peak Hour Design Year (2017) Traffic Accommodated
by TSM Alternatives
Table 6 - Summary of Wetland Impacts
Table 7 - Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Table 8 - Federally Protected Species Listed in Cumberland County
Table 9 - Federal Candidate Species Listed in Cumberland County
Table 10 - State Protected Species Listed in Cumberland County
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Relocation Assistance Report and Relocation Programs
Appendix B - Agency Comments
Appendix C - Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data
Appendix D - Draft Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval
Fayetteville
US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30)
State Project No. 8.1441601
U-2207
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment and a Draft Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) in Fayetteville between US 401 Business
(Raeford Road) and NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard). The project calls for
upgrading the existing five-lane roadway to a six-lane divided facility, a
length of approximately 3.5 miles (see Figures la & lb for project
location). The proposed improvements will provide a 92-foot curb and
gutter section with a 16-foot raised median.
The project is included in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way acquisition and
construction in fiscal years 1995 and 1997 respectively. The project cost
estimated in the TIP is $ 10,700,000. This cost includes $ 4,300,000 for
right of way, $ 6,300,000 for construction, and $ 100,000 spent in
previous years.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will improve the traffic flow along US 401
Bypass as well as increase safety. The additional travel lanes will help
reduce travel times and provide more efficient vehicle operation. The
proposed median along the roadway will reduce the potential for accidents
at intersections and commercial driveways by allowing left turns only at
designated median openings.
Approximately five acres of additional right of way will be acquired.
This right of way total includes approximately 0.3 acre of wetlands and
0.6 acre of Section 4(f) recreation land. Two businesses will be
relocated by the project, and four underground storage tanks will be
impacted. Noise levels at 29 residences and 51 businesses will exceed the
FHWA noise abatement criteria, but no physical abatement measures are
considered feasible for the project.
4. Alternatives Considered.
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the
project:
a. Highway Construction Alternatives
1) Alternative 1 consists of symmetric widening throughout the
1 entire length of the project.
2) Alternative 2 consists of east side widening throughout the
entire length of the project.
3) Alternative 3 (Recommended) consists of symmetric, east
side, and west side widening. Symmetric widening is
proposed from US 401 Business to SR 1534 and from SR 1415
to NC 24. East side widening is proposed from SR 1534 to
SR 1400 and from SR 1404 to SR 1415. West side widening is
proposed from SR 1400 to SR 1404.
4) Alternative 4 consists of symmetric widening except from
SR 1404 to SR 1415, where west side widening is proposed.
5) Alternative 5 consists of east side widening except from
SR 1404 to SR 1415, where west side widening is proposed.
b. "Do Nothing" Alternative
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation
5. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted
during the preparation of this environmental assessment:
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Region M Planning Agency
State Clearinghouse
Department of Cultural Resources
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Department of Human Resources
Department of Public Instruction
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Fayetteville
Cumberland County Joint Planning Board
Cumberland County Schools
ii
6.. Summary of Special Project Commitments
a. Permits Required
It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be performed
under Department of the Army Nationwide Permits for discharges Above
Headwaters or for Road Crossing Fills in accordance with 33 CFR
330.5(a)(26) and 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) respectively. Final permit
decisions are left to the discretion of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), will
be required for the project since a federal permit is involved.
b. Stream Rechannelization
Approximately 150 feet of stream rechannelization is proposed
near the southern project limit. During the hydraulic design phase
of the project, NCDOT will coordinate with the appropriate natural
resource agencies in accordance with the Fish And Wildlife
Coordination Act.
C. Geodetic Survey Markers
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction regarding the relocation of survey markers.
d. Sidewalk Provisions
A sidewalk is proposed along the east side of the facility to
replace an existing bikeway (refer to Section I.H for further
discussion).

7. Anticipated Design Exceptions
One design exception may be required for the project. This exception
may be needed for the proposed bridge widening at the SR 1007 (All
American Freeway) interchange (refer to Section I.F. for further
discussion).
8. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting the following individuals:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
M
Mr. H. Franklin Vick., P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
iv
Fayetteville
US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30)
State Project No. 8.1441601
U-2207
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 3.5 mile segment of US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville, Cumberland
County from five lanes to a six-lane divided facility between US 401
Business and NC 24 (refer to Figure 2 for the recommended improvements).
The proposed improvements will provide a 92-foot curb and gutter cross
section with a 16-foot raised median: The project is included in the
1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is
scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year 1995 and
construction in fiscal year 1997. The total cost, estimated in the TIP,
is $10,700,000. This estimate includes $6,300,000 for construction,
$4,300,000 for right of way acquisition, and $100,000 spent in previous
years.
Construction was recently completed for a highway project along
US 401 Bypass within the study area. Project W-2901 provided safety
improvements from the Cape Fear Railroad crossing just north of SR 1400 to
SR 1415. This project upgraded the existing four-lane roadway to a
six-lane divided facility.
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The NCDOT recommends that US 401 Bypass be widened between US 401
Business (Raeford Road) and NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to provide an
additional lane in each direction.
B. Cross Section Description
A six-lane divided, 92-foot curb and gutter cross section is proposed
for US 401 Bypass (refer to Figure 6a). The cross section will provide
12-foot travel lanes and a 16-foot raised median. An 8-foot berm will be
constructed on each side of the facility.
C. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width along the project is generally
108 feet. Construction easements are necessary along the entire project.
D. Access Control
No control of access is recommended for the proposed project.
2
E. Design Speed
The design speed is 50 mph along the project. The roadway will have
a 45 mph posted speed limit except for a 35 mph limit in school zones.
F. Structures
One bridge will be widened with the proposed action. The US 401
Bypass bridge over SR 1007 (All American Freeway) will be widened 27 feet
on the east side, toward the interchange, to provide a bridge width of 117
feet (refer to Figure 6b for proposed bridge typical section). The exist-
ing radius on both interchange loops is approximately 160 feet and exceeds
the minimum 150-foot standard radius for a 25 mph design speed established
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). However, widening toward the interchange may reduce these loop
radii below the minimum standards. Additional studies will be conducted
during the preparation of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to
determine if the interchange can be designed to meet the current AASHTO
standards. If it cannot be so designed without a substantial redesign of
the interchange, a design exception will be required.
No major drainage structures will be required for the project.
G. Sidewalks
A sidewalk is proposed along the east side of the facility to replace
the existing bikeway. An 8-foot berm will be constructed behind the curb
on the west side of the roadway to allow for future sidewalk construction.
The proposed bridge over SR 1007 will provide a walkway on each side of
the structure to accommodate pedestrian traffic throughout the entire
project (refer to Figure 6b for bridge walkways).
H. Bicycle Provisions
The existing bikeway was constructed in conjunction with widening the
roadway to its five-lane cross section. The bikeway was created as a
demonstration project for promoting bicycle transportation in the area.
Since the bikeway was constructed, the NCDOT Bicycle Program has periodi-
cally monitored the use of the facility and has concluded that few
bicyclists use the path. The NCDOT Bicycle Program was unable to obtain
adequate information regarding the public's desire to use the bikeway and
recommended that local officials decide the appropriate bicycle
accommodations needed along the project.
According to the Cumberland County Joint Planning Board, the bikeway
has been under used for bicycle transportation. The Transportation
Advisory Committee at its June 3, 1992 meeting voted to redesignate the
bikeway within the project area as a sidewalk. As part of their
redesignation, the TAC stipulated that a sidewalk be constructed within
the scope of project U-2207. No special accommodations for bicycles are
recommended at this time.
I. Railroad Crossings
The Cape Fear Railroad line crosses the project just north of
SR 1400. This railroad line is inactive but cannot be abandoned. This
railroad line provides rail access to the Fort Bragg Military Base and can
be, used by the military during emergency situations. The railroad also
serves as a major link in the future Fayetteville area light rail corridor
loop (refer to Section III.C.3 for discussion of light rail system). The
project will require adjusting the existing cantilevered flashing lights
at this crossing, but no additional signalization is recommended at this
location.
The Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad crosses the project just south of
SR 1400. Current traffic along the railroad is two trains per day
operating at a speed of 25 miles per hour. The exposure index for the
existing crossing is 70,000, which exceeds the maximum 30,000 index
suggested for at grade railroad crossings in an urban area. Because of
the exposure index warrants, a preliminary design was developed for a
grade separation at the railroad crossing.
Provision of a grade separation would require reconstructing
approximately 3000 feet of the US 401 Bypass to elevate the roadway above
the railroad. Preliminary figures indicate a grade separation would cost
$3,600,000 for construction alone. The amount of right of way needed to
contain the grade separation would heavily impact the commercial
development and would require relocating as many as seven businesses. The
right of way cost for this alternative is $6,000,000. Estimated
construction cost for the entire project is $3,940,000. Based on these
cost estimates, providing a grade separation would exceed the funding
scope of the current project. Further study of a grade separation at this
location could be addressed under a separate project. The provision of
cantilevered lights and gates is currently recommended at this crossing as
a part of the subject project.
J. Cost Estimate
(Recommended)
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Construction $5,200,000 $3,940,000 $3,940,000 $5,200,000 $5,200,000
Right of Way $22350,000 $1,875,000 $12950,000 $22700,000 $2,175,000
Total Cost $7,550,000 $5,815,000 $5,890,000 $7,900,000 $7,375,000
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway Conditions
1. Cross Section
From US 401 Business (Raeford Road) to the Cape Fear Railroad,
the roadway exists as a five-lane, 68-foot curb and gutter section
with a continuous center turn lane. From the Cape Fear Railroad to
SR 1415 (Yadkin Road), the cross section exists as a 78-foot,
six-lane divided curb and gutter section with a raised median. This
portion of the roadway was recently widened with Project W-2901.
From SR 1415 to NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard), the roadway exists as a
four-lane divided, 68-foot curb and gutter section with a raised
4
median. Eight-foot berms..exist on each side of the roadway. The existing
roadway is wider at intersections to provide turning lanes. Photographs
of the existing roadway are shown in Figure 3.
2. Right of way
The right of way width along US 401 Bypass is generally 100
feet.
3. Roadside Development
The facility is characterized by dense commercial development.
Types of development along Skibo Road include a regional shopping
mall, community shopping centers, automobile dealerships, numerous
retail businesses, restaurants, and service stations. The area is
considered a major regional retail center for eastern North Carolina.
4. Access Control
There is no control of access along US 401 Bypass except at the
SR 1007 (All American Freeway) interchange.
5. Structures
Three bridges exist along the studied portion of Skibo Road and
are described in the following table.
Table 1
BRIDGE DATA
Clear Suffi- Estimated
Bridge Date Vertical Roadway Bridge ciency Remaining
Number Location Built Clearance Width Length Rating Life
feet feet feet ears
53 SR 1007 (All 1976 17.4 80 248 85.9 25
American
Freeway)
86 NC 24 (Bragg 1980 15.8 98 171 78.0 35
Boulevard)
230 Cape Fear 1978 17.4 -- 256 -- 30
Railroad Bridge
over SR 1007
(All American
Freeway)
Only one major drainage structure is located along the project.
A channel along the east side of Skibo Road near the US 401 Business
(Raeford Road) intersection leads to dual 90-inch corrugated metal
pipes. These pipes exist under Raeford Road.

4
5
6. Intersecting Roads
The following ten roadways intersect US 401 Bypass:

1. US 401 Business (Raeford Road)
2. SR 1534 (Louise Street)
3. SR 2628 (Richwood Court)
4. SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)
5. Campgro und Road
6. SR 1404 (Morganton Road)
7. SR 1007 (All American Freeway)
8. SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)/ McPherson Church Road
9. SR 3466 (Legend Avenue)
10. NC 24 Ramps (Swain Street)
All but two of these roadways intersect Skibo Road at grade.
Grade separations exist at SR 1007 (All American Freeway) and NC 24
(Bragg Boulevard). Most of the intersections along the project are
signalized. All of the signalized intersections are controlled by
Fayetteville's computerized signal system. Only SR 2628 (Richwood
Court) and SR 3466 (Legend Avenue) are unsignalized and stop sign
controlled.
7. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist along the project.
8. Bikeways
A bikeway exists along the east side of US 401 Bypass through
the project area. This bicycle facility is a paved off-road path
which is contained within the existing right of way.
9. Speed Limits
The speed limit along Skibo Road varies from 45 to 50 miles per
hour (mph). Between SR 1534 (Louise Street) and SR 1404 (Morganton
Road), the posted speed is 50 mph. The remainder of US 401 Bypass is
posted at 45 mph, except in school zones where the speed limit is
35 mph during school hours.
10. Railroad Crossinqs
Two railroads cross the US 401 Bypass in the project area. The
Cape Fear Railroad crosses Skibo Road just north of SR 1400
(Cliffdale Road) and extends along the west side of US 401 Bypass to
NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard). The Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad crosses
Skibo Road just south of Cliffdale Road. Both railroad crossings are
at grade and protected with cantilevered flashing lights.
6
11. Utilities
Telephone, cable television, gas, water, and sewer lines exist
underground along the project. Overhead power lines also exist along
the project. The project will require utilities to be relocated, and
the severity of utility conflicts is considered to be high.
12. Geodetic Markers
Ten geodetic survey markers are located within the project area.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction
regarding the location of survey markers. Intentional destruction of
a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
13. School Buses
Sixty-six buses use US 401 Bypass to serve the three schools in
the project area, resulting in 132 trips per day.
B. Route Function and Thoroughfare Plan
In 1967, NC 59 was redesignated as the US 401 Bypass. This facility
existed as a two-lane, 24-foot wide roadway until 1979 when the Bypass.was
widened to its current five-lane cross section. In conjunction with the
widening, a bikeway was constructed along the east side of the facility.
US 401 Bypass is currently designated as a major thoroughfare on the
mutually adopted Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and is
classified as an urban principal arterial. The route is part of the
Interim National Highway System. US 401 Bypass is one of the longer
circumferential facilities in the Fayetteville Urban Area. It is vital to
regional traffic flow northeast of the City of Fayetteville.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The present (1993) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes range from
30,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 45,000 vpd, while the projected design
year (2017) volumes range from 59,000 vpd to 90,000 vpd. These volumes
represent an increase in average daily traffic of as much as 100 percent
during the design period (see Figure 4). These estimates of the average
daily traffic include three percent truck tractor semi-trailers (TTST) and
five percent dual tired (DT) vehicles.
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic
carrying ability. Levels of service range from LOS A to LOS F. Level of
service A represents unrestricted maneuvering and operating speeds close
to the speed limit. A level of service of D represents severely
restricted maneuverability, and unstable and low operating speeds. This
condition is considered acceptable in densely developed urban areas.
Breakdown conditions which are characterized by stop and go travel occur
with level of service F.
7
1. Signalized Intersections
The majority of the intersections along the project are
signalized. These intersections control the traffic capacity for
US 401 Bypass. A capacity analysis was performed for the existing
and projected traffic volumes at each of the signalized
intersections. The analysis was performed for the "do nothing"
alternative and the proposed widening alternative to provide a basis
of comparison between the two alternatives. The results of the
analysis are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, the existing
facility is currently operating at or near capacity at all of the
major intersections along the project. The proposed widening
improvements are needed to increase the roadway's capacity.
Additional lane improvements are proposed at the signalized
intersections. These treatments are illustrated in Figures 5a - 5d
and are described below.
At the southern project limit, US 401 Business, an additional
travel lane is proposed along the eastbound intersection approach.
An additional right turn lane is also needed on the westbound
approach of the intersection to provide dual right turn lanes on
US 401 Business.
Dual left turn lanes are proposed on Skibo Road at the SR 1400
(Cliffdale Road) intersection. Cliffdale Road was recently widened
to a multilane facility under Project U-2103. The improved Cliffdale
Road provides dual left turn lanes, two travel lanes, and an
exclusive right turn lane in both directions at the intersection.
Dual left turn lanes are proposed along the northbound and
southbound approaches at Campground Road. A northbound exclusive
right turn lane is also proposed at this intersection.
Dual left turn lanes are proposed on Skibo Road at SR 1404
(Morganton Road) and the Cross Creek Mall North Entrance. At
Morganton Road, dual left turn lanes are proposed on the southern leg
of the intersection and an exclusive right turn lane is proposed on
the eastern leg. No other lane improvements are proposed at the
northern mall entrance.
At the southern interchange ramps for SR 1007 (All American
Freeway), an additional right turn lane is proposed along the eastern
leg at the intersection to provide dual right turn lanes. At the
northern interchange ramps for SR 1007, another left turn lane is
proposed on the eastern leg of the intersection to provide dual left
turn lanes.
8
Table 2
LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

No Build Alternative
Existing Construction Year Design Year
Traffic Traffic Traffic
(1993) (1997) (2017)
Avg. Delay LOS Av
Intersection (sec/veh) g. Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Avg. Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Capacity
Y
(
ear)
US 401 Business 22.8 C 28.7 D * F 2000
(Raeford Road)
SR 1534 7.0 B 8.6 B * F 2003
(Louise Street)
SR 1400 36.5 D 29.4 D * F 2004
(Cliffdale Road)
Campground Road 26.6 D 21.2 C * F 2007
SR 1404 44.6 E * F * F 1993
(Morganton Road)
Cross Creek Mall 16.4 C 18.8 C * F 2009
(South Entrance)
Cross Creek Mall 19.2 C 18.3 C * F 2010
(North Entrance)
SR 1007 (All 13.2 B 12.6 B * F 2012
American Freeway, South Ramps)
SR 1007 (All 2.9 A 5.3 B 33.9 D
American Freeway, North Ramps) -
SR 1415 (Yadkin 42.2 E 44.4 E * F 1996
Road/McPherson Church Road)
NC 24 South Ramps 17.2 C 20.1 C * F 2003
(Swain Street)
NC 24 North Ramps 5.0 B 5.3 B 18.5 C
(Swain Street) -
NOTE: * Denotes an average intersection delay greater than 60 seconds
per vehicle
9
Table 3
t
LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Proposed Widening Alternative
Construction Year Design Year
Traffic Traffic
(1997) (2017)
Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Capacity
Intersection (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (Year)
US 401 Business 28.3 D * F 2000
(Raeford Road)
SR 1534
_ 6.7 B * F 2014
(Louise Street)
SR 1400 27.1 D * F 2011
(Cliffdale Road)
Campground Road 21.0 C * F 2007
SR 1404 39.2 D * F 2002
(Morganton Road)
Cross Creek Mall 18.5 C F 2010
(South Entrance)
Cross Creek Mall 16.6 C 58.2 E 2015
(North Entrance)
SR 1007 (All American 12.1 B * F 2013
Freeway, South Ramps)
SR 1007 (All American 4.3 A 11.1 B
Freeway, North Ramps) -
SR 1415 (Yadkin Road/ 31.6 D F 2004
McPherson Church Road)
NC 24 South Ramps 15.0 B * F 2011
(Swain Street)
NC 24 North Ramps 5.3 B 18.5 C
(Swain Street) -
NOTE: * Denotes an average intersection delay greater than 60 seconds
per vehicle
10
Dual left turn-.lanes are proposed on Skibo Road at SR 1415
(Yadkin Road). Dual left turn lanes are also needed in each
direction along SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) at the intersection.
At the NC 24 southern interchange ramps, a right turn lane is
proposed along the western leg of the intersection. This lane
addition will provide dual right turn lanes.
With the proposed intersection treatments, the US 401 Business
(Raeford Road) and SR 1404 (Morganton Road) intersections will reach
LOS E in the years 2000 and 2002 respectively. Heavy traffic volumes
on each of these intersecting roads restrict the traffic movements at
the intersections. The dense urban development precludes further
lane improvements along these intersecting roadways. To increase the
traffic capacity of the subject road and provide adequate traffic
service by the design year, alternative transportation measures will
be needed in conjunction with the proposed lane improvements (refer
to discussion in Sections III.C.2 and III.C.3).
2. Unsignalized Intersections
The SR 2628 (Richwood Court) intersection was evaluated to
determine if a traffic signal is warranted. Citizens from the
Chesnutt Heights neighborhood along Richwood Court have requested a
traffic study at this intersection. .In addition, representatives
from Cumberland County Schools have asked that consideration be
given for a signal at this location to provide easier U-turn
movements for traffic accessing the Lewis Chapel and Anne Chesnutt
school properties once the project is completed. The intersection
meets traffic signal warrants, and a signal will be installed at this
intersection as a part of the project. This traffic signal will be
included in the City's computerized signal system.
Based on the capacity analysis for the Legend Avenue
intersection, no traffic signals are warranted at that crossing.
D. Accident History
During the period between January 1987 and May 1991, 1,133 reported
accidents occurred along the studied portion of US 401 Bypass. One
fatality resulted from these accidents. Six hundred and seventy four
(674) accidents involved rear end collisions, 141 were angle accidents,
and 123 involved vehicles making left turns. These three accident patterns
accounted for 83 percent of all accidents occurring along the facility.
The total accident rate for the US 401 Bypass is 647.2 accidents per
100 million vehicle miles (ACC/100 MVM). The statewide average for
similar facilities during the same period was 332.6 ACC/100 MVM. "Due to
traffic congestion and dense commercial development along the roadway, the
accident rate is almost two times the statewide average.
Rear end collisions are the predominant accidents identified along
the corridor, involving 60 percent of the total accidents. During periods
of substantial congestion, traffic flow along the facility is
11
characterized by stop and.go movement. The abrupt changes in traffic flow
lead to rear end collisions. The proposed improvements will reduce these
by providing an additional lane in each direction to increase the quality
of traffic flow.
Left turn and angle accident types account for 23 percent of the
accidents on Skibo Road. These occur primarily at intersections and
commercial driveways. The proposed improvements can reduce accidents at
intersections by providing additional turn lanes and adjusting the signal
timings. The proposed median will reduce the occurrence of accidents at
commercial driveways by allowing left turns only at designated median
openings.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A
Highway Construction Alternatives
1. Cross Section Alternatives
Two cross sections were considered for each of the alternative
alignments: (1) a seven-lane section with a continuous center turn
lane and (2) a six-lane, raised median section. The seven-lane cross
section would require 104 feet of right of way. The six-lane divided
section can be contained within 108 feet of right of way.
AASHTO guidance and recent research on the safety aspects of
seven-lane facilities in developed urban areas indicate that these
facilities present safety hazards for left turning traffic at
driveways and unsignalized intersections for high volume facilities.
For this reason, the six-lane divided section is preferred to the
seven-lane section. The raised median will relieve potential hazards
for left turning traffic. Left turn lanes are proposed in the median
at designated signalized intersections.
2. Alignment Alternatives
The project was divided into four sections for study purposes
(refer to Figure 2). These sections are described below:
Section A, from US 401 Business to SR 1400
Section B, from SR 1400 to SR 1404
Section C, from SR 1404 to SR 1415
Section D, from SR 1415 to NC 24.
Several alignment alternatives were evaluated along the project.
These alignment alternatives include widening the existing roadway
symmetrically (Sections A-1, B-1, C-1, and D-1), on the east side
(Sections A-2, B-2, C-2, D-2), and on the west side of the existing
alignment (Sections B-3 and C-3). Symmetric and east side widening
were addressed along the entire length of the project. West side
widening was evaluated for Section B and for Section C in the
vicinity of the All American Freeway interchange. A comparison of
alignment alternatives is provided in Table 4.
12
a. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 consists of symmetric widening throughout the
entire project length and is described by Sections A-1, B-1,
C-1, and D-1. This alternative is estimated to cost $7,550,000
including $2,350,000 for right of way acquisition and $5,200,000
for construction. Symmetric widening will relocate
approximately 5,000 feet of the Cape Fear Railroad along the
west side of the existing roadway from SR 1404 (Morganton Road)
to north of SR 1415 (Yadkin Road). These railroad tracks will
be shifted to the west of the existing roadway, requiring
additional railroad right of way from the adjacent properties.
Two businesses will be relocated by Alternative 1. Land from
two Section 4(f) recreation areas near the southern project
limit will be required. Alternative 1 impacts 0.3 acre of
wetlands and involves 150 feet of channel relocation. Near the
southern project limit, the alignment for each alternative is
located within the 100-year floodplain. Traffic noise levels at
29 residences and 51 businesses will exceed the FHWA noise
abatement criteria. Alternative 1 will impact four underground
storage tanks (UST's).
Alternative 1 was not selected since it relocates
approximately 5,000 feet of the Cape Fear Railroad line
resulting in a high construction cost and impacts two Section
4(f) recreational resources.
b. Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of east side widening throughout the
entire project length and is described by Sections A-2, B-2,
C-2, and D-2. This alternative is estimated to cost $5,815,000
including $1,875,000 for right of way acquisition and $3,940,000
for construction. Alternative 2 will not relocate the Cape Fear
Railroad, but east side widening may require the removal of
parking spaces along the western perimeter of the Cross Creek
Mall property. Two businesses will be relocated with this
alternative. Land from one Section 4(f) recreational resource
will be taken. Alternative 2 impacts 0.2 acre of wetlands and
involves 150 feet of channel relocation. Traffic noise levels
at 29 residences and 50 businesses will exceed the FHWA noise
abatement criteria. In addition, substantial noise level
increases (those which increase more than 10 dBA) will occur at
two businesses. Alternative 2 will impact four UST's.
Although Alternative 2 has the lowest cost, minimizes
impacts to the Section 4(f) recreation areas, and impacts fewer
wetlands, this alternative was not selected because it does not
minimize the damage to adjacent properties between SR 1400 and
SR 1404 and between SR 1415 and NC 24.
13
Table 4
COMPARISON OF HIGHWAY
CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
(Recommended)
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Sections A-1,B-1 A-2,B-2 A-2,B-3 A-1,B-1 A-2,B-2
C-1,D-1 C-2,D-2 C-2,D-1 C-3,D-1 C-3,0-2
Total Length 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
(miles)
Design Speed 50 50 50 50 50
(mph)
Cost:
Construction $5,200,000 $3,940,000 $3,940,000 $5,200,000 $5,200,000
Right of Way 2,350,000 12875,000 1,950,000 2,700,000 22175,000
Total $7,550,000 $5,815,000 $5,890,000 $7,900,000 $7,375,000
Railroad Relocation 5,000 --- --- 5,000 5,000
Length (feet)
Relocatees:
Residents 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 2 2 2 1 1
Total 2 2 2 1 1
Section 4(f) 2 1 1 2 1
Resources
Impacted Wetlands 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2
(acres)
Channel Relocation 150 150 150 150 150
(feet)
Floodplain 700 700 700 700 700
Encroachment (feet)
Noise Impacts:
Residences 29 29 29 29 29
Businesses 51 50 51 53 52
Total 80 79 80 82 81
Underground Storage 4 4 4 4 4
Tank Impacts
14
C. Alternative 3 (Recommended)
The recommended alternative for the project (Alternative 3)
consists of a combination of symmetric, east side, and west side
widening. This alternative, shown in Figure 2, is described
below.
Section Location Alignment Alternative
A-1 US 401 Business to SR 1534 Symmetric
A-2 SR 1534 to SR 1400 East side
B-3 SR 1400 to SR 1404 West side
C-2 SR 1404 to SR 1415 East side
D-1 SR 1415 to NC 24 Symmetric
Alternative 3 is estimated to cost $5,890,000 including
$1,950,000 for right of way acquisition and $3,940,000 for
construction. Alternative 3 will not relocate the Cape Fear
Railroad, but east side widening between Morganton Road and
Yadkin Road may require the removal of parking spaces from the
Cross Creek Mall property. Alternative 3 will relocate two
businesses. Land from one Section 4(f) resource will be taken
with this alternative. This alternative impacts 0.3 acre of
wetlands and involves 150 feet of channel relocation. Traffic
noise levels at 29 residences and 51 businesses will exceed the
FHWA noise abatement criteria. Alternative 3 will impact four
UST's.
Between US 401 Business and SR 1534, symmetric widening is
the most desirable alternative because it minimizes property
damages and impacts to wetland areas. Symmetric widening will
impact approximately 0.2 acre of wetlands by relocating a
channel approximately 150 feet along the east side of Skibo
Road. This rechannel ization is proposed to improve existing
drainage problems at the intersection with Raeford Road.
East side widening is recommended from SR 1534 to SR 1400.
Just north of SR 1534, the existing roadway is located between
two Section 4(f) resources, athletic fields at Anne Chesnutt
Junior High School and Lewis Chapel Junior High School.
Widening along the east side minimizes impacts to the school
recreation properties.
Between SR 1400 and SR 1404, west side widening is f
recommended. In this section of dense commercial development,
west side widening is the least disruptive alternative to
adjacent properties. Just north of SR 1400, the Cape Fear
Railroad line crosses the project and runs northward, parallel
to US 401 Bypass. Sufficient clearance exists between the
railroad and the roadway to widen Skibo Road on the west side.
From SR 1404 to SR 1415, widening along the east side is
recommended. This alignment has the least impact on adjacent
properties. Widening on the east side may remove parking spaces
15
along the perimeter of the Cross Creek Mall property. However,
compared to potential property damages incurred by relocating
the railroad in this section, east side widening is the less
disruptive alternative.
Symmetric Widening is proposed from north of SR 1415 to the
NC 24 (Swain Street) South Ramps. Symmetric widening minimizes
the impact to adjacent properties. North of the NC 24 South
Ramps to the project limits, the alignment transitions to the
west to use the existing NC 24 bridge.
Alternative 3 was selected because it has a low cost,
minimizes impacts to the Section 4(f) recreational areas, and is
least disruptive to adjacent properties, particularly between
SR 1400 and SR 1404 and between SR 1415 and NC 24.
d. Alternative 4
Alternative 4 consists of symmetric widening except at
Section C, where west side widening is proposed. Alternative 4
is described by Sections A-1, B-1, C-3, and D-1. This
alternative is estimated to cost $7,900,000 including
$2,700,000 for right of way acquisition and $5,200,000 for
construction. Alternative 4 will relocate approximately 5,000
feet of the Cape Fear Railroad line. This alternative will also
relocate one business. Land from two Section 4(f) recreational
resources will be taken. Alternative 4 will impact 0.3 acre of
wetlands and involve 150 feet of channel relocation. Traffic
noise levels at 29 residences and 53 businesses will exceed the
FHWA noise abatement criteria. Alternative 4 will impact four
UST's.
Although Alternative 4 involves fewer relocatees, it was
not chosen because it relocates 5,000 feet of the Cape Fear
Railroad resulting in the highest total cost and impacts two
Section 4(f) recreation areas.
e. Alternative 5
Alternative 5 includes widening along the east side of the
existing roadway except at Section C, where west side widening
is proposed. Alternative 5 is described by Sections A-2, B-2,
C-3, and D-2. This alternative is estimated to cost $7,375,000
including $2,175,000 for right of way acquisition and $5,200,000
for construction. Alternative 5 will relocate approximately
5,000 feet of the Cape Fear Railroad line. This alternative
will also relocate one business. Land from one Section 4(f)
recreational resource will be taken. Alternative 5 impacts 0.2
acre of wetlands and involves 150 feet of channel relocation.
Traffic noise levels at 29 residences and 52 businesses will
exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria. In addition,
substantial noise level increases (those which increase more
than 10 dBA) will occur at two businesses. Alternative 5 will
impact four UST's.
16
Although Alternative 5 involves fewer relocatees, impacts
fewer wetlands, and minimizes impacts to the Section 4(f)
recreation areas, this alternative was not selected because it
relocates 5,000 feet of the Cape Fear Railroad line resulting in
a high construction cost.
B. "Do Nothinq" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will accommodate the projected traffic volumes at
an improved level of service. Currently, US 401 Bypass is operating at an
undesirable level of service and needs additional capacity. The proposed
.improvements increase the level of service, but alternative transportation
measures are needed in conjunction with the project to provide adequate
traffic service by the design year.
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation
1. Transportation System Management
The NCDOT has established a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Committee to develop a program for managing and enhancing
traffic operations in congested metropolitan areas. This TDM program
includes comprehensive Transportation System Management (TSM)
planning alternatives. TSM alternatives are relatively low-cost
alternatives to highway construction improvements. Example TSM
measures are car pooling, public transportation systems, and traffic
engineering improvements. These TSM alternatives can improve the
operational efficiency along congested corridors and reduce the need
for additional costly construction improvements.
The highway capacity analysis for the subject project indicates
that even with the proposed lane improvements, the facility will have
a level of service deficiency prior to the design year (2017). The
TSM analysis introduces alternatives which can be coordinated with
the construction improvements to extend the capacity through the
design year. TSM measures which were considered in the analysis
include: (1) car pooling, (2) van pooling, (3) staggered work hours,
and (4) public transit systems.
In the analysis, the maximum traffic volume was identified which
achieves an acceptable level of service (LOS D), assuming the lane
improvements were constructed. Each year that traffic volumes
increased beyond this acceptable volume, the excess traffic demand
was assigned to the TSM options. Traffic was increased until it
reached the design year volume to determine the potential usage of
each TSM alternative. The following chart shows these results.
17
Table 5
POTENTIAL PEAK HOUR DESIGN YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC
ACCOMMODATED BY TSM ALTERNATIVES
Percentage of Potential
Traffic to be TSM Option
TSM Option Accommodated Assignments
(0
Car Pooling- 18 400 vehicles with 1 passenger
400 vehicles with 2 passengers
200 vehicles with 3 passengers
Van Pooling 5 21 vans with 15 passengers
Staggered Work 5 260 vehicles diverted from the
Hours peak hour through flexible work
hours
Public Transit 14 12 buses with 40 passengers
Systems
Total
42
The results from the analysis show that over 40 percent of the design
year traffic should be accommodated by TSM alternatives to maintain
an acceptable level of service.
Some of these measures are currently in operation, but at a
small scale. To effectively implement all of these alternative
transportation solutions, each TSM element would need adequate
funding and local support. Programs are needed for promoting these
TSM alternatives among the general public and local businesses.
Providing attractive incentives for the general public and gaining
cooperation from local business leaders would increase support and
utilization of these transportation alternatives.
2. Improvement 0 tions Using IVHS Technology
Several options have been identified in applying intelligent
Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) computer technology to enhance the
traffic operations along the existing transportation network. These
IVHS options were evaluated in the Fayetteville IVHS Draft
Feasibility Study prepared by the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch.
Possible improvements include Variable Message Signing (VMS), video
surveillance, and computerized traffic signal systems. Each option
is described below.
a. Variable Message Signing
Certain areas of the transportation system may experience
congestion. Variable message signs would be beneficial in
informing motorists of traffic problems and directing traffic
18,
away from heavily congested areas using alternative routes.
Since these signs have variable message capabilities, uses of
the signs may include informing motorists about traffic
accidents, weather conditions, speed restrictions, anticipated
traffic disruptions, and other traffic conditions.
b. Video Surveillance
Until recent years, traffic engineering decisions relied
upon predictions based on the existing traffic network. Video
surveillance technology can supplement these predictions with
actual traffic conditions. Conventional loop detectors are
limited to performing traffic measurements at specific points.
Video surveillance, on the other hand, allows live monitoring of
traffic conditions throughout the network. With the use of
closed-circuit television, video cameras can detect traffic
incidents or congestion problems and monitor traffic flow. This
video technology can become a useful congestion management tool.
C. Computerized Traffic Signal Systems
A computerized signal system exists in the Fayetteville
Urban Area. This Urban Traffic Control System (UTCS) monitors
and controls the traffic signals within the project area. This
computerized system uses predetermined timing plans to provide
for the optimum traffic flow. A timing plan can be selected in
the following ways: (1) based on the time of day, (2) by a
manual operator, or (3) by matching a stored plan with recently
measured traffic flows. This system is not very adaptive to
rapidly changing traffic conditions. The computer system
requires extensive data collection to prepare timing plans that
will accommodate the various traffic patterns that may arise in
the network.
SCATS (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Control System) is a
traffic responsive system that allows the signal timing
parameters to change continuously in response to traffic
conditions. The central computer uses data obtained from the
previous cycle to calculate new timings for the next cycle.
Since SCATS is completely responsive to changing traffic
conditions, it overcomes the problems associated with improperly r
maintained timing plans. Unlike the UTCS system which operates
on predetermined traffic patterns, the SCATS system enables a
signal to be controlled by the actual traffic demand. This
advanced traffic control system eliminates the need for
continuous monitoring by an operator to make manual timing
adjustments during unpredictable fluctuations in traffic
conditions.
An effective IVHS system coordinated with the proposed
highway construction improvements offers a solution that will
improve traffic flow and help manage congestion along US 401
Bypass. A complete IVHS system includes variable message signs,
19
video surveillance cameras, and a computerized adaptive traffic
control system. This IVHS system can be maintained and operated
by NCDOT Division 6 personnel. The estimated cost for
installing this system for the subject project is $4,050,000.
Based upon this cost estimate, installation of IVHS technology
exceeds the funding scope of the current project but merits
further consideration under a separate study as a possible
solution to reducing traffic congestion along the subject
corridor.
3. Public Transportation
The City of Fayetteville operates one mode of public
transportation in the vicinity of the project. The Fayetteville Area
System of Transit (FAST) provides bus transportation to the downtown
area, major shopping centers, and the military bases. One bus route
operates within the project area, servicing Cross Creek Mall.
Light rail is being considered as a mode for future public
transportation in the Fayetteville area. The trolley-type, light
rail proposal would link downtown with Fort Bragg (refer to Figure 7
for conceptual trolley route). Fayetteville is the only metropolitan
area in North Carolina with existing rail lines that loop within the
heart of the urban area. Many important public and commercial
facilities needed for operating a public transportation system are
located along the existing rail loop. Such attractions include the
downtown Amtrak station and Central Business District, military base
facilities, and many retail and commercial business centers along
Bragg Boulevard and Skibo Road.
The Cumberland County Joint Planning Board has adopted a light
rail master plan for a future public rail transit system. This
master plan will require the preservation of the existing railroad
lines within the proposed rail corridor. The existing Cape Fear
Railroad line which parallels Skibo Road provides an important link
in forming the light rail loop.
This light rail transit alternative is in the conceptual stage
and is a long range alternative to future transportation needs.
Planning is underway for increasing the public transportation
service to the Fayetteville area. However, transit and paratransit
alternatives to the proposed improvements will not fulfill the need
for the project and are beyond the funding scope of this project.
20
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Cumberland County is located in the southeastern section of the
state and is bounded by Sampson, Bladen, Robeson, Hoke, Harnett, and
Johnston Counties. Cumberland County is home to the Fort Bragg
Military Base and Pope Air Force Base. Based on the 1990 Census
Report, Cumberland County has a total population of 274,566.
Fayetteville is the largest civilian urbanized area in the county,
with a population of 75,850.
The immediate neighborhood of the proposed project can be
characterized as commercial and institutional (the names of the
businesses and institutions along the project are shown in Figure 2).
The proposed action is not expected to disrupt social cohesion nor
will it interfere with the operation of existing facilities and
services.
2. Public and Private Facilities
The proposed action will have a positive impact on public and
private facilities by improving the efficiency of travel. This
project will improve the accessibility to shopping centers and other
retail and commercial properties along US 401 Bypass. Travel through
the area to residences will be easier with less interference from
turning traffic.
Several public schools are located along the proposed project.
Lewis Chapel Junior High School and Anne Chesnutt Junior High School
are located along Section A of the project. Alger B. Wilkins
Elementary School is located along Section D. The project will
require the taking of a minor amount of land from the Anne Chesnutt
athletic field, a Section 4(f) recreational resource, adjacent to the
existing roadway. However, mitigation measures are proposed so the
project will not substantially impair the use of the recreation area
(refer to discussion in IV.A.5). None of the school facilities will
be adversely impacted by the proposed action.
3. Relocation Impacts
Based on preliminary studies, two relocations will result from "
the proposed project (see Table 4 for a summary of relocatees). The
recommended alternative. will require the relocation of two
businesses. Both businesses are service stations. A relocation
report describing these relocatees is included in Appendix A.
Adequate replacement housing is anticipated to be available for all
relocatees at the time the businesses must relocate.
21
The NCDOT Relocation Program offers assistance to those families
or businesses relocated by the project. This program provides
replacement housing payments, rent and/or down payment supplements,
and increased interest payments to prevent hardship for the
displacees. Additional information regarding the Division of
Highways relocation program is included in Appendix A.
4. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must be
given an opportunity to comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of
potential effect (APE) were provided by NCDOT and reviewed with
the State Historic Preservation. Office (SHPO). The SHPO
concurred with NCDOT and FHWA that there are no properties
eligible for the National Register within the APE. (See SHPO
concurrence letter in Appendix B). Since there are no
properties either listed in or eligible for the National
Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is
required.
b. Archaeological Resources
The SHPO has reported that there are no known
archaeological sites within the project area. It is unlikely
that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be
affected by the project construction. The SHPO has recommended
that no archaeological investigation be conducted for this
project (refer to Appendix B for SHPO comments).
5. Section 4(f) Resources
Near the southern end of the project, the roadway is located
between two school athletic fields. These are the Anne Chesnutt
Junior High School football field and the Lewis Chapel Junior High
School baseball field. Additional right of way is needed from school
property in this area. Both athletic fields are publicly owned and
are used by Cumberland County Recreation and Parks for organized
recreational purposes. As a result, the fields are protected by
Section 4(f) of the D.O.T. Act of 1966. Section 4(f) protects the
use and function of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife/
waterfowl refuges, and historic properties. A transportation project
22
can only use land from a 4(f) resource when there are no other
feasible or prudent alternatives and when the project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the resource.
Because the roadway is located between the athletic fields,
there is no feasible alternative that will avoid both recreation
areas. However, the project is being planned and designed to
minimize harm to the recreational fields (refer to Draft Programmatic
4(f) Evaluation and Approval in Appendix D). Both the Cumberland
County Schools and Cumberland County Recreation and Parks concur that
the proposed project with the planned mitigation will not
substantially impair the use of the Section 4(f) resources.
B. Economic Environment
As of September 1992, The North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor
Force Estimates indicated that Cumberland County had a labor force of
103,700. Of this number, 97,190 persons were employed and 6,510 (6.3
percent) were unemployed. Major employment centers in Cumberland County
include the Fort Bragg Military Reservation, Kelly Springfield Tire
Company, Cumberland County School System, Cape Fear Medical Center and
Cumberland County Government.
The proposed improvement to the US 401 Bypass will enhance the
movement of traffic along the busy commercial district. Businesses along
the proposed project route will be enhanced by an increase in visibility
and accessibility. In addition, the proposed widening will eliminate some
of the traffic impediments caused by traffic congestion, thereby saving on
energy fuel costs.
C. Land Use
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The project is located in the planning jurisdiction of the joint
Fayetteville and Cumberland County Planning Board. Each jurisdiction
enforces its own zoning ordinance. The US 401 Bypass lies in the
zoning jurisdictions of both the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland
County. The County's most recent land use plan was completed in 1974
and updated in 1978. The Planning Board is in the process of
completing a comprehensive plan for the entire county. Adoption of
the plan is expected by the end of 1993.
2. Existinq Zoning
Zoning within the project area is controlled by two
jurisdictions, Cumberland County and the City of Fayetteville. The
County zoning Districts include Planned Commercial Districts at the
intersection of US 401 Bypass and Raeford Road, on the west side of
the Bypass at its intersection with Cliffdale Road, and on the west
side near Yadkin Road. The remaining land south of Cliffdale Road
and north of Yadkin Road is zoned RSA, Residential District.
23
Roughly half of the project area is within the City of
Fayetteville. Virtually all of the land within the city limits is
zoned C1P, Shopping Center District. This district includes the
Cross Creek Mall and other shopping centers between Cliffdale Road
and McPherson Church Road. Two M2, Manufacturing Districts are
located on each side of Campground Road, although commercial uses
occupy those districts.
3. Existing Land Use
The area of the proposed improvement is characterized by strip
commercial development with numerous driveway connections to the
roadway, particularly between McPherson Church Road and Cliffdale
Road. Land uses include a regional shopping center, Cross Creek
Mall, and several smaller strip shopping centers, including the Cross
Creek Plaza which contains a Wal-Mart and Cross Pointe Center.
Numerous fast food restaurants, service stations, automobile
dealerships, furniture stores, and other retail businesses are
located in the area.
The area between Bragg Boulevard and McPherson Church Road still
contains some undeveloped parcels. Other less intensive commercial
uses are located in the area. An abandoned railroad track is located
on the west side of the roadway.
South of Cliffdale Road, development is less intense, with a few
undeveloped areas remaining. Two schools, the Lewis Chapel Junior
High School and the Anne Chesnutt Junior High School are located on
US 401 Bypass south of Cliffdale Road. A football field associated
with the Anne Chesnutt school and a baseball field associated with
the Lewis Chapel school are located adjacent to the roadway.
4. Future Land Use
The 1978 Future Land Use map indicates that most of the project
area was expected to develop with medium density residential land
uses. The land on the east side of US 401 Bypass between Raeford
Road and Cliffdale Road, and the land on the west side between
Cliffdale Road and Morganton Road were designated for low density
residential development. A small area of high density residential
was identified between Bragg Boulevard and Yadkin Road.
Commercial land uses were planned for the intersections of
US 401 Bypass with Bragg Boulevard and Raeford Road. Locations
appropriate for the development of community shopping centers were
identified at Cliffdale Road and Morganton Road.
Commercial development is continuing in the project area.
K-Mart and Lowe's retail stores have recently been constructed behind
the Cross Pointe Center shopping center.
24
5. Compatibility o-f Project With Local Plans
Due to the intensive commercial development and the lack of
driveway controls on US 401 Bypass, the capacity of the existing
roadway is inadequate. Additional capacity, in the form of added
travel lanes will assist to some degree in alleviating the congestion
in the project area. Driveway controls which limit the number and
location of driveways on each parcel would also be beneficial.
6. Farmland
The project area is comprised entirely of land which is either
already developed or zoned for non-agricultural uses. Therefore,
consideration of impacts to prime and important farmland, according
to the North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, is not required.
D. Natural Environment
1. Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are those
areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Criteria for wetland
determinations are described in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Provisions of the Clean
Water Act (33 USC 1344).
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations of
vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The vegetation is hydrophytic and
the soil is hydric due to low chroma. Wetland hydrological
characteristics include standing water and evidence of drainage.
Table 6 summarizes wetland impacts and Figure 8 indicates wetland
locations. These estimates are preliminary and may change with the
project design.
Table 6
SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACTS
Site# Wetland Type Impact Flow
(acre)
1 Ditch <0.1 AHW
2 Unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek 0.2 AHW
Total <0.3
AHD! - Above Headwaters
25
The project will be authorized under one or more Nationwide
Permits since less than 0.3 acre will be impacted. Generally, no
mitigation is required according to the MOA between the Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final
decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
2. Biological Resources
a. Plant Communities
Four plant communities were identified in the study area:
Disturbed Shrub/Scrub, Mixed Hardwood/Pine, Pine-Dominated
Forest, and Mixed Hardwood Wetland. A description of each plant
community in the study area follows.
The Disturbed Shrub/Scrub community is found throughout the
project corridor adjacent to development. A true plant canopy
does not exist. Cultivated plants such as Bradford pear (Pyrus
calleryana 'Bradfordi'), wax myrtle (M rica cerifera), juniper
(Juniperus spp.), yucca (Yucca filamentosa), and red tip
photinia (Photinia x fraseri) predominate these areas. These
sites are highly maintained and located adjacent to development.
One roadside bank was dominated by yellow jassmine (Gelsemium
sempervirens). Typical ground cover species include wild
geranium (Geranium carolinianum), vetch (Vicia sp.), and
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Other areas not maintained,
but disturbed, support silverling (Baccharis halimifolia),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), rose (Rosa sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) and quince (Chaenomeles japonica)
are located adjacent to abandoned homesites.
The Mixed Hardwood/Pine forest community is found in
several small locations scattered along the project corridor.
The canopy is well developed and contains a variety of species
including southern red oak ( uercus falcata), white oak ( uercus
alba), scarlet oak ( uercus coccinea), black oak ( uercus
velutina), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer
rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and short-leaf pine (Pinus
echinata). Understory species include American holly (Ilex
o aca), red maple, flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), and young
oak saplings. Catbrier (Smilax sp.) and jassmine are common.
Ground cover species are seasonally absent but sweetleaf
(Symplocos tinctoria), pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), and oak
seedlings were observed.
The Pine Forest community is also found in scattered
locations along the project corridor. The canopy is dominated
by loblolly pine, but black cherry (Prunus serotina), sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple are minor constituents.
Jassmine and Japanese honeysuckle are common but not dense.
Catbrier (Smilax sp.) growth is rank in spots, but the shrub
layer is generally free of vegetation. Typical ground cover
includes pipsissewa.
26
Two Wetland plant communities are located in the study
area: Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Wetland and the
Disturbed Wetland. Each community is described below.
The Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Wetland
community is located adjacent to the unnamed stream at the south
project terminus. Previous development has altered the extent of
this community. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum, red
maple, and black willow (Salix ni ra) are the dominant canopy +
species. Privet (Ligustrum sinense), cane (Arundinaria
i antea), and violet (Viola papilionacea) are common
shrub ground cover species. '
The Disturbed Wetland community is found in a ditch that
parallels the existing roadway. It is dominated by rush (Juncus
effusus) and seed box (Ludwigia sp.). Both sides of the ditch
are disturbed.
Construction will impact five plant communities. Plant
community impacts are presented in the following table. These
estimates are preliminary and may change with the final design.
Table 7
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Plant Community Impacts
(acres)
Alternative DSS MHP PDF PFBDW DW
1 20.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 <0.1
2 20.4 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.0
3 (Recommended) 20.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 <0.1
4 20.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 <0.1
5 20.4 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.0
Plant Community abbreviations denote the following:
DSS - Disturbed Shrub/Scrub
MHP - Mixed Hardwood/Pine
PDF - Pine Dominated Forest
PFBDW - Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Wetland
DW - Disturbed Wetland
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on a 120-foot corridor width.
27
Depending-on the alternative chosen, varying impacts are
anticipated. The majority of the study area is disturbed in
nature. Proposed construction will reduce the amount of
forested acreage.
b. Wildlife Communities
Typical avian fauna in the study area include black vulture
(Coragypes atratus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).,
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), great horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), and American robin (Thurdus migratorius).
A variety of amphibian and reptilian species may be found
in the study area. These include lesser and greater siren
(Siren intermedia and S. lacertina), two-toed amphiuma (Am hiuma
means), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), redback
salamander (Plethodon cinereus), slimy salamander (Plethodon
cinereus), mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), red
salamander (Pseudotriton rube r), eastern spadefoot toad
(Scaphiopus holbrooki), southern toad (Bufo terrestris),
northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), southern cricket frog
(Acris r llus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), southern chorus
frog (Pseudacris ni rita), southern leopard frog (Rana
sphenocephala), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum),
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), southeastern
five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), rainbow snake (Heterodon platyrhinos),
pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and eastern ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus).
Mammals anticipated in the study area include eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis),
black rat (Rattus rattus), and house mouse (Mus musculus).
The following species of fish may occur in the study area:
redfin pickerel (Esox ni er), dusky shiner (Notropis
cummingsae), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), lined
topminnow (Fundulus lineolatus), eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia
holbrooki), blue spotted sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon), red
breasted sunfish (Le omis auritus), warmouth (Le omis ulosus),
bluegill (Le omis macrochirus), and pumpkinseed (Le omis
gibbosus).
Construction may increase erosion and siltation to the
unnamed creek. Road widening will decrease the amount of
available wildlife habitat in the project vicinity, but the loss
of habitat will not adversely affect the wildlife species. The
following measures will minimize potential impacts to these
wildlife communities:
Disturbances to the unnamed creek. located at the southern
project limit are minimized.
28
Stringent erosion control measures and Best Management
Practices (BMP's) are enforced.
C. Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
locate records of protected species in the study area.
Five federally protected species are listed by the USFWS in
Cumberland County as of May 12, 1994 (refer to Table 8). None
of these species will be impacted by the subject project. A
discussion of each species follows.
Table 8
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES LISTED IN
CUMBERLAND COUNTY -
Common Name
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Pondberry
American chaffseed
Saint Francis' satyr
Scientific Name Status
Picoides borealis E1
Lysimachia asQerulaefolia E
Lindera melissifolia E
Schwalbea americana E3
Neonympha mitcelelIii E
francisci
E - Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all its range.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nests in living pine
trees that are greater than 60 years of age. The RCW forages in
pine or pine-dominated stands and at least 30 years of age.
Contiguous foraging habitat is utilized by the RCW within 0.5
mile of the colony site. The study area supports suitable
habitat (pine-dominated stands at least 30 years of age) for the
RCW. These sites are small and separated by non-contiguous
habitat greater than 330 feet wide. No impacts to the
red-cockaded woodpecker will occur.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is an erect, rarely branched
herbaceous plant with leaves in whorls of 3 to 4. The plant is
3 decimeters to 6 decimeters tall. Flowering occurs from
mid-May through June. The yellow flowers encircle the stem
above the whorled leaves. Rough-leaved loosestrife is currently
known from nine populations in North Carolina and extirpated
from South Carolina. The plant occurs in ecotones between
longleaf pine forests and pond pine pocosins. These are areas
of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peaty, poorly
drained soil, on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on
shallow organic soils overlying sand. The plant also occurs on
29
deep peat of large Carolina bays. These areas are usually
maintained by fire. The study area does not support suitable
habitat for this plant. No impacts to the plant will occur.
Pondberry is a deciduous shrub approximately 2 meters tall.
This plant flowers in early spring before the leaves expand and
the bright red fruit matures in autumn. A general habitat
description for the plant includes bottomland hardwood forests,
• poorly drained depressions and margins of limestone sinks.
Populations located in North Carolina occur in different
habitats. Pondberry is found in shrubby areas dominated by
fetterbush (L onia lucida) and high bush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum) with scattered pond pine (Pinus serotina) and
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). The study area does not support
suitable habitat for this plant. No impacts to the plant will
occur.
American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb of the
figwort family. The stem is unbranched or branched only at the
base. The plant grows to a height of 3 to 8 decimeters and 'is
densely pubescent. The flowers appear in May or June and are
large, purplish-yellow in color. Suitable habitat for this
plant includes sandy, acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils.
Areas such as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained
savannahs, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands, xeric sandy
soils and other open grass-sedge systems support this plant.
The study area supports suitable habitat for this plant. A
field survey was conducted on May 26, 1993 to determine if the
plant occurs the study area. No American chaffseed plants were
located; therefore, no impacts to this species will occur.
The Saint Francis' satyr is a small, dark brown butterfly
with conspicuous eyespots on the lower wing surface of the fore
and hing legs. The eyespots are round to oval shaped with a
dark maroon brown center and a straw yellow border. These spots
are accentuated with two bright orange bands along the posterior
wings and by two darker brown bands along the central portion of
each wing. The Saint Francis' satyr is known to inhabit wide,
wet meadows dominated by sedges and other wetland graminoids.
These wetlands are often relicts of beaver activity and are
r boggy areas that are acidic and ephemeral. Succession of these
sites often leads to either a pocosin or swamp dominated forest.
The larval host of the Saint Francis' satyr is thought to be
grasses, sedges, and rushes. The study area does not support
suitable habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr. The two wetlands
located within the study area are a disturbed ditch parallel to
the existing roadway and a Palustrine Broad-leaved deciduous
wetland. No impacts to the Saint Francis' satyr will occur.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Cumberland County (Table 9). These species are not
afforded federal protection at this time, but their status may
be upgraded in the future. The habitat column indicates the
potential for occurrence (based on suitable habitat) of these
species in the study area.
30
No records of state protected species are located in the
study area according to the NCNHP files. Federal candidate
species that are state protected and may occur in the study area
are presented in Table 10.
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special
Concern are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern (1987) and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979. Though all or some of these species may be present in the
study area, no surveys were conducted.
Table 9
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES LISTED IN
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis C2 No
Cape Fear spike Elliptio marsupoibesa C2 No
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni C2 Yes
Mitchell satyr Neonympha mitchelli C2 No
butterfly francisci -
Diana fritillary S e eria liana C2 Yes
butterfly
Georgia leadplant Amorpha georgiana C2 Yes
georgiana
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii C2 Yes
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula C2 Yes
Pine barrens boneset Eupatorium resinosum C2 No
White-wicky Kalmia cuneata C2 No
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea C2 No
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C2 No
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii C2 No
Nestronia Nestronia umbellula C2 Yes
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata C2 Yes
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii C2 Yes
False Coco Pteroglossaspis C2 Yes
ecristata
Well's sandhill pixie Eyxidanthera barbulata C2 Yes
moss var. brevifolia
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa C2 No
Spring-flowering Soli dago verna C2 Yes
goldenrod
Pickering's morning Stylisma p var. C2 Yes
glory pickeringii
Smooth bog-asphodel Tof.ieldia labra C2 No
Loose watermilfoil ? Yriophyllum laxum C2 -
Conferva pondweed Pontamogeton
confervoides C2 -
C2: Candidate 2. A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to
support listing as endangered or threatened at this time.
31
Table 10
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES LISTED IN
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Common Name
Bachman's sparrow
Cape Fear spike
Atlantic Pigtoe
Pine barrens boneset
White-wicky
Bog spicebush
False coco
Awned meadowbeauty
Spring-flowering
goldenrod
Pickering's morning
glory
Scientific Name Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis S?1 No
Elliptio marsupoibesa T2 No
Fusconaia masoni Yes
Eupatorium resinosum
Kalmia
t E 4 No
cunea
a E3SC No
Lindera subcoriacea E No
Pteroglossaspis E3 Yes
ecristata
Rhexia aristosa T No
Solidago verna 3
E3 Yes
St lisma p var. E3 Yes
pickeringii
Fauna Definitions
SC1 - Special Concern: Any species of wild animal native or once-native I
North Carolina which is determined by the NCWRC to require monitoring. T
-Threatened: Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
Flora Definitions
E3 - Endangered: Any species of plant whose continued existence4 as a
viable component of the state's flora is in jeopardy. E-SC
Endangered-Special Concern: Any species of plant which requires population
monitoring, but which may be collected and sold under specific
regulations. Special Concern species which are also listed as Endangered
or Threatened may be collected from the wild and sold under specific
regulations. Propagated material only of Special Concern species which
are also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be traded or sold under
sapecific regulations.
T - Threatened: Any species of plant likely to become an endangered
species in the foreseeable future.
3. Physical Resources
a. Geological Resources
The project is located in the Upper Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. This region is generally characterized
by very gentle rolling terrain with steep banks dissected by
narrow and moderately wide floodplains. The topography
32
generally slopes to the south and east with broad, sandy ridges
and long, less sandy side slopes. The average elevation is 260
feet above sea level, and the elevation change averages 25 feet
per mile. Because many streams have cut deeply into the
sediment, uplands tend to drain rapidly, even during extended
wet periods.
The corridor is underlain by the Cretaceous-age Cape Fear
Rock Formation. This formation is composed of alternating beds
of sandstone and mudstone and is overlain by the Middendorf and
Black Creek formations. The Cape Fear Formation is exposed due
to the cutting of the Cape Fear River, Rockfish Creek, Little
Rockfish Creek, and other tributaries.
Groundwater in the project
depths ranging from four to ten
springs are common along slopes
roadcuts in this region. Some
encountered during construction,
area is typically shallow with
feet. Groundwater seepage and
associated with streams and
e subsurface water may be
especially in cut sections.
b. Water Resources
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. An
unnamed tributary of Beaver Creek crosses the study area twice.
It is a small stream approximately four feet wide and three to
six inches deep at the widest point in the study area. It has a
moderate flow and the bottom is composed of sand and small
cobbles. Approximately 150 feet of stream rechannelization is
proposed near the south terminus. During the hydraulic design
phase of the project, NCDOT will coordinate with the appropriate
natural resource agencies in accordance with the Fish And
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661-6674).
The best usage classification of an unnamed stream is the
same as the stream to which it is a tributary. The Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) best usage classification of
Beaver Creek is C. Best usage recommendations for Class C
waters include aquatic propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or
waters classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area,
or 1 mile downstream. National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) point- source dischargers are not located within
the study area. No water supply intakes are listed in the area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program.
This network is intended to address long term trends in water
quality by measuring the taxa richness and presence of
intolerable organisms. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. No BMAN surveys were conducted
in the study area or near the project vicinity.
33
Project construction will not adversely impact water
resources provided the following measures are taken:
- Stream rechannelizations are minimized.
- Non-point sediment sources are identified and efforts are
made to control sediment runoff.
- Best Management Practices (BMP's) are enforced during the
construction phase of the project.
- Sedimentation Control guidelines are implemented prior to
construction and maintained throughout the life of the
project.
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cumberland County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The southern end of the project near
US 401 Business is located within the designated 100-year flood zone
of Beaver Creek (refer to Figure 9). The proposed widening, however,
will not have any adverse impact on the flood plains of Beaver Creek.
5. Air ualit
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other sources of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal, forest fires, and burning in general. The impact
resulting from the construction of a new highway or the improvement
of an existing highway can range from aggravating existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. Motor
vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead
(Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon
monoxide. Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in
the project area. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented
is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor
near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background component is
due to CO emissions from cars operating on streets further from the
receptor location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line
source computer modeling, and the background component was determined
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were
34
determined separately, then added together to determine the ambient
CO concentration for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from
cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight
to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions
of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices
on new cars, and thus help lower ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide
levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars
are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the
project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane
rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the
reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall
average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By
1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more
cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced. "The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 makes the sale,
supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful
after December 31, 1995." Because of these reasons, it is not
expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.

35
A microscale a-ir quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consist of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and "worst
case" meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on
the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the design year 2017 and
for ten years prior (2007) using the EPA publication "Mobile Source
Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer
model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for
most suburban areas.
The "worst case" air quality receptor resulting from the
widening project was determined to be a business (receptor #80). The
receptor is located 60 feet west of US 401 Bypass and approximately
2200 feet north of US 401 Business. The "build" and "no build" one
hour CO concentrations for years 2007 and 2017 for this receptor are
as follows:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
"Build" "No Build" Receptor
2007 2017 2007 2017
R-80 6.3 6.3 8.7 8.7
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 is less than
9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. The results also show that the building of the project
will not adversely effect air quality conditions in the area. Refer
to Appendix C for input data.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Fayetteville Regional Office of the NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Cumberland County has
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effect on the air quality of the region of this attainment
area.
36
6. Traffic Noise ...
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed project on noise levels in the immediate project area. This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land
uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes. a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic r
noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing
as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If
traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the
noise impacts must be considered.
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many
sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is
usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and
tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA:
Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which means
an A-weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1 of Appendix C.
Review of.Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: 1)
the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship
between the background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type
of activity occurring where the noise is heard. •
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
aroused to anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a
noise is objectionable. For example, noises occurring during sleeping
hours are usually considered to be much more objectionable than the
same noises in the daytime.
37
With regard to.-the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise
from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at
night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would
generally be much more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn
in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted to the same degree.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives, particularly if noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise,
factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In
relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
reference (Title 23 CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement
criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with
the same energy content.
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information is to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The field data was also used to establish
ambient noise levels for residences, businesses, and other noise
sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the project.
Existing roadway and traffic conditions along US 401 Bypass were
incorporated in the most current traffic noise prediction model to
compute existing Leq noise levels. These computed values were
compared with existing Leq noise levels which were measured at three
locations along the proposed project. The computed existing Leq
noise levels were within 3 dBA of the measured noise levels for all
three measurement sites. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed
to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle
speeds versus the computer's "even-speed" vehicles and single
vehicular speed. The ambient noise measurement sites and the
corresponding existing Leq noise levels are presented in Table N3.
38
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continually changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
is the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA y
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the
number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the
physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
This noise analysis is based on preliminary roadway alignments.
The proposed roadway cross-section consists of six 12-foot travel
lanes and a 16-foot turn lane. The proposed project was modeled
assuming no special noise abatement measures would be incorporated.
Only those existing natural or man-made barriers which could be
modeled were included. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents "worst-case" topographic conditions. The noise
predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions
for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level of service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in
this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was used to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the design year
2017, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the
FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to expect
a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to select
receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet
from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of
the roadway). The location of these receptors were determined by the
change in projected traffic volumes along the proposed project. The
result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the
project. Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for each
identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures for each design alternative are
listed in Tables N4A, N4B and N4C. Information in this table
'consists of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the
project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated
noise level increase for each.
39
The total number of impacted receptors, whether by approaching
or exceeding the noise abatement criteria or by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels, for each design alternative are
given in Table N5. Where applicable, each roadway section was
subdivided into three design alternatives with the appropriate number
of impacted receptors.
Other information included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of
the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information should
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway in local
jurisdiction and to prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses.
The traffic noise impacts in terms of increased exterior noise
levels are predicted to range from +2 to +11 dBA. These are
indicated in Table Nb. When real-life noises are heard, level changes
of 2-3 dBA are barely perceptible. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable, and a 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a
doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: 1) approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or 2) substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is also shown in Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success using solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and
reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable
measures may include earthen berms or artificial abatement walls.
However, these mitigating measures may not be feasible or reasonable
in all cases, particularly for receptors with frontage along primary
or secondary roads which cross the proposed project. Reduction of
traffic noise from the proposed roadway may not necessarily lower the
noise levels at these receptors to within the recommended noise
abatement criteria and/or below a substantial noise level increase.
The project will maintain uncontrolled access with driveway
connections permitted for each adjacent property. All intersecting
roadways 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.
40
.Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
would normally be eight (8) times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access
opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (Fundamentals and Abatement of
Highway Traffic Noise, USDOT, chapter 5). - -
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.
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors generally
require noise barriers which are too costly because of the length and
height required for a reasonable noise level reduction. For this
reason, no isolated receptors were analyzed in detail for this
report. Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures
are feasible and none are recommended for this project.
An abatement measure such as alteration of the proposed
alignment is normally a reasonable abatement measure along areas of
relocation. 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
locating the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. In regard to this project, the horizontal alignment has been
adjusted to minimize environmental impacts and construction costs.
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures are
not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on
the capacity and level of service on the proposed roadway.
The traffic noise impact for the "Do Nothing" alternative was
also considered. The total number of impacted receptors approaching
or exceeding FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) are 29 residences
and 51 businesses. No receptors will be impacted by substantial
increases in exterior noise levels, since these increases ranged from
+1 to +8 dBA.
The projected increase in noise levels and'associated noise
impacts for a proposed widening project of this nature are expected.
The horizontal alignment has been located to minimize impacts and
costs. However, based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise
abatement is reasonable or feasible along this project, due to the
uncontrolled access along the facility. No traffic noise abatement
41
measures are propose-d for this project. This evaluation completes
the highway traffic noise requirements, and no additional reports are
required for this project.
7. Hazardous Materials
The recommended alternative will impact underground storage
tanks (UST's) at one facility along the project, involving four
UST's. These tanks are located at Cross Creek Exxon, in the
northeast quadrant of the SR 1415 intersection. Groundwater
remediation is currently underway at this facility, and this site is
ti expected to be remediated this year.
The Cross Creek Amoco station will be relocated by the project.
However, the UST's at this site are located outside of the proposed
right of way and will not be affected by the project. Monitoring
wells are currently located at the Skibo Exxon and the Quick Stop
Food Mart properties at the SR 1400 intersection to monitor the
properties for possible groundwater contamination.

If the project acquires land from a contaminated property, NCDOT
will request that the property owner clean up the .-site in accordance
with the federal regulations contained in 40 CFR 280 entitled
"Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners
and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks (UST's)." If the property
owner does not clean the site, a settlement will be reached between
the owner, NCDOT, and the Division of Environmental Management to
remediate the contamination.
According to the files of the Division of Solid Waste
Management, no other hazardous waste sites or contaminated properties
exist within the project area.
8. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with
the construction of highways. These are generally of short term
duration, and measures will be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other
operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise
disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will be in
accordance with applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations of
the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (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 practicable from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a
hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents.
42
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 passersby
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. Overall, construction
noise impacts are expected to be minimal, since the construction
noise is relatively short in duration and is generally restricted to
daytime hours. Furthermore, the transmission loss characteristics of
surrounding manmade structures and natural features are believed to
be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise. t
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are
covered in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures which is entitled-"Control of Erosion, Siltation,
and Pollution The N.C. Division of Highways has also developed an
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which has been approved by
the N. C. Sedimentation Control. Commission. This program consists of
the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and sedimentation
contained in the Standard Specifications together with the policies
of the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated
erosion and sedimentation on work performed by State Forces.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the
right of way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise
required by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within
the right of way is permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and
debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted
without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in
excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not
to block existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any
serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the
area. Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding
the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project
area. A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will
be responsible for this will be made at that time. In all cases, the
contractor is required to notify the owner of the utility in advance
as to when this work will occur. In addition, the contractor is
responsible for any damages to water lines incurred during the
construction processes. This procedure will insure that water lines,
as well as other utilities, are relocated with minimal disruption in
service to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be
made to insure the transportation needs of the public are met both
during and after construction.

A
43
-9. Permits
Waters of the United States, a broad category which includes
navigable waters, their tributaries, and associated wetlands, will be
impacted by proposed construction. Nationwide Permits, 33 CFR 330.5
(a) (14) and 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) are applicable at sites 1 and 2.
Approximately 150 feet of the unnamed tributary at site 2 will be
rechannelized.
A 401 Water Quality Certification is likely to be required for
any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal
permit is required. State permits are administered through the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
Comments on the proposed improvements to US 401 Bypass were requested
from the following federal, state, and local agencies. An asterisk
indicates that a written response was received (refer to Appendix B for
agency comments).
Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Region M Planning Agency
*State Clearinghouse
*Department of Cultural Resources
*Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Department of Human Resources
Department of Public Instruction
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Fayetteville
*Cumberland County Joint Planning Board
*Cumberland County Schools
Comments were also received from the Fort Bragg Military Base and the
Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad concerning the future plans for the
railroads crossing the project (refer also to Appendix B).
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
s
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on February 4, 1992 at
Anne Chesnutt Junior High School in Fayetteville to discuss the proposed
improvements. The NCDOT Office of Public Affairs advertised the workshop
in the major local media prior to its being held, and the workshop was
covered by the Fayetteville Observer-Times. Approximately 35 people
attended the informational workshop, including representatives from the
NCDOT, the City of Fayetteville, and the Cumberland County Planning
Department.
44
In general, the subject project is supported by the public. A total
of nine (9) written comments were received at the meeting. The majority
of these comments focused on the proposed treatment of the Richwood Court
(SR 2628) intersection. Other comments and items of discussion included:
- School bus traffic along the roadway.
- Consideration for minimizing utility involvement.
- Consideration for additional left turn lanes at the major
intersections from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to Campground Road.
- Drainage problems at the US 401 Business (Raeford Road)
intersection.
- Plans for future rail transit utilizing the Cape Fear Railroad
line.
- Maintaining access to properties located along the roadway.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held concerning this project 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.
MLR/plr
A
FIGURES
s
PROJECT
LIMITS
I
3139
.59

• .y..1 Skibo "..16
" -........
.
.•

. 1392
.3]95
9
A 1
2]6.1 I' 32d7

? 06
(? c 75665
00 'dJ p9 .P .07 3165
24
'
6
2
.I
262
O
"
^
32634 2d ?
o
.7/ d 2675 242! 2627 1370
531 ?267B o 5634 03 5•
o Og Id6e
.07 .06 .lu
53. '• a .1z 2-628 5.
0 0
I

1
•JZ 2673 6 -
.7 ?
o ./? 2672
' ISf
716a
1 SJd
51
i?
7629 `O9 631
210//
.29 153+ o
PROJECT ?
o
LIMITS ?? x'06
.36
bI .
1716. FEU ?• - _., td
inde1?
12 ?•? Godw n?
Marc ester 2 401
G + I, T
S r Uake • 21, i A wade
I A I•I?
'A77 N + 4
Faye 2 d ` us
i d 5 3
1Ot 3 \
?0p 6S 2 Cedar
I
* 15 Lena
\ 87

G

9 __m
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 401 BYPASS
FROM NC 24 TO US 401 BUSINESS
FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U - 2207
0 mile 1 /2
1 1 I FIG. la
TRINITY
a
1404
+o?w
1:3291 e,o, 3'
3279
$<?U 2 2651 2650 '2649 > -
1464 *.
1478 ow<
PROJECT LIMITS 1422 8APTIST.
2687 ' - - - $ _
°q 1007 1499+` 1422
2686
I55a ?
2687 1422
? soh 1501
L Y`" ?' o??po.
2685 ? 14 ?C o "
°RIh ? R0. \ ?, ? ,? :
° J 3197 ALGER B. wILNINS
141' / \ELENENTARY SC . /S!
4
1415 3466
1007
CROSS CREEK \
PLAZA 1405
6P
3140
3160 1405
C? 3196
1513 4z 3180 \\ ??
>,V?R NceRm \ yr
1513 ° 1513
f
.:?3 CROSS CREEK
Isle ??? MALL' 1007 ???111rrr???
3°2610
1455 s.. r \?' /n \
WINDSOR MALL
I. ? 3229 '`Q`?+ ? \
3228 'L • ? 1
`CEw??
CAMP GROUND o,ou.o 1413 Ro. ??-
wETCH y 41,3
?y1 I 1
1413 R0 . ° ° fnT{ _ _.. 1 '' • `. ]?
X82 0 1540 ° 1539 J CROSS POINTE ?? w<'T" ,N0°ZE;,TER
,°°°°.L,p r- CENTER
°q r4 I l ? \
° 1467 I
114 ® ® f
g . -
1514 ? i
9
O
0 as". ' q 1400
8 3193 S V ••w.c _ a_
c
?VR
;t a = <k• SK180 oyoH?C. °,
? 2600
YET TEVILLE Yp. ` `"Nk f/??:????-1- I592 C' c. o
\ d G
ERANCE EVANGELISTIC £(I t?„ '? . tk r sr.
[NUecN ABEROf - r t,p 6APT. e? D c
Loo,A` or` tR "' eAPr. cN. ? \ o° ?. V?oas
y _? e4 oo;
Gp 4p,T'?' ? LT t woNraA1R ? F' g .
?Oyev a y+ey?,y<.'A" 2764 ELE4ENTARr ?\?°N??
1- SCN. < 4 r C
3295 2 3248
3216 3166 t: 1 "c To.c E
3165 ? ? \ [?
26293246 w<.s 3247
c-c o. 1470
m 2636 d? b \
2628b ?L?-?.'? S 2764
1 ho1535 ..°y.. x2635 2624- 2623 1520 106
°oo cs ??c°'o
4r 1534 sR.NE CNESTNUi 2634
Lp?+
123 p 401 J NIGN SCN.
` 1468
t 1534 Brv y 1.- 2628 46 RD' 1468 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Or
-.P
15--l38 2629 .. ° 368 1508 TRANSPORTATION
2633 n 1592 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1520 < PLANNING AND ENVIRONNIENTAL
2
263
y1. X534 3 Ew„s C"AREL.# (,{,?" twR. °, O'0p° s ?BRANCH
%
R 'c sc".' .i \ao 2631 p2623 x 507
3164 ??
538 °
?- os
2630 US 401 BYPASS
FROM NC 24 TO US 401 BUSINESS
v ° e 1510
(401 PROJECT LIMITS
w15 CHAPEL 15o FAYETTVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
r
Iszo 1507
° U - 2207
'°' R0?ARV R°°`' II?,Q I ; PROJECT AREA
< , r T ^ 1511
?, '?^11 1 ? 1196 ? ?? . eroR
..j?1390w 33271 ?? ???_ _ ,'/ •: 1186 r8 5 FIG. 1b
L'?::.
??`
r ?.
?? .
E ? ;.
>;.; .?.
?,:
?_

mmm
-i r
00
g0
D ?
O C)
?z
?o O
o?
.rte _
D
r
O
z
0
m
v
m
O
L
m
0
-i r-
00
*O
D?
vZ
0
?Z
=o
m?
m 2
c D
00
zz
0
M -+
M =
nm
2 v
Dm
z0
C) C-
M M
0
-q
?O
m0
QZ
L
m z
00
r=
O
D 5?..
D
zv
N
A

a

r?

a

s a

;j o
m0
0X
oZ
L L7
m cn
00
-? c
r ?
?_
_?
-a O
D
D
c m
N 0
t?
0
co
c
(z
m
N
N
-? r
20
m0
UX
OZ
C-
m cn
00
Z -?
M=
D D
?r
00
D Z
K 0
0
O
c
z
0
m
O
D
0
r-
0
O
A
z
0
cn
O
c
--I
O
D
O
O
PROJECT U-2207
US 401 BYPASS
FROM US 401 BUSINESS (RAEFORD RD.) TO NC 24 (BRAGG BLVD.)
ESTIMATED.1997/2017 ADT IN HUNDREDS

TTST = 3%
DUAL = 5% US 401 BYPASS 28 24
` - --- US 401 49 52 MALL ENTRANCE
369 174 245 512 RAEFORD RD. 57 23 8 42
794 312 445 927 103 43 12 75
TTST = 3% 419 TTST = 2%
DUAL = 5% 757 470
-
- DUAL = 4%
25 6
49
46 ? ?
SR 1534 SR 1007170 77
14
2 39 LOUISE ST. S
B
RAMPS 51
6 72
TTST = 1 % .
.
TTST = 2%
93
408 =
DUAL 3% DUAL = 2% 478
737 865
22 9 SR 1007 58
SR 2628 39 15 N. B. RAMPS 106
RICHWOOD CT. 13 TTST = 2% 104 46
TTST = 1 % 24 DUAL= 2% 190 as
DUAL = 3% 412 466
746 843
10
- 2
- McPHERSON 73 93 SR 1415
T6 4 CHURCH RD. 131 169 YADKIN RD.
LEISURE LAN E 8 314 88 65 311
TTST = 1 % 12 567 160 116 561
DUAL = 3%
418
754
SR 3466
453
TTST = 1%

186
50
22
203
SYCAMORE
33 819 DUAL = 3%
SR 1400 335 90 41 366 DAIRY RD. 60
CLIFFDALE 51 96 TTST = 1% 39 6
TTST = 1 % 92 172 DUAL = 3% 71 11
DUAL = 3% 493 426
770
887 TTST = 4%
32 20 39 69 NC 24 28 55 DUAL = 4%
60 37 69 122 SWAIN ST. SOUTH 52 ss
• CAMPGROUND RD. 6 23 37

TTST = 1 %
11
41
70 g
15 g
15 64
117
DUAL = 3% 463 359
833 649
SR 1404 112 38 49 34 22 30
MORGANTON RD. 210 69 89 so 41 56
277 36 49 216 NC 24 16 8 TTST = 4%
497 64 91 393 SWAIN ST. NORTH 2s 15

TTST = 1 %
495 DUAL = 4%
DUAL = 3% 895 326
-
-
- --- -- - TTST=3% 5
92
A A DUAL= 5% US 401 BYPASS
F IGURE 4
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Intersection Improvement I
Intersection Configuration Description
US 401 Bypass
- Construct an additional
thru lane on the northern
I leg along US 401 Bypass
E E
4 - Provide another thru lane
US 401 Business on the western approach of
(Raeford Road) US 401 Business
- Provide an additional right
turn lane on the eastern leg
of the intersection
US 401 Bypass
- Construct an additional thru
lane in each direction along
US 401 Bypass
SR 1534 4
(Louise Street) -?
US 401 Bypass
- Construct an additional thru
Jill lane and left turn lane in
each direction along US 401
Bypass
SR 1400 ?-
(Cliffdale Road) lk?
FIGURE 5 a
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Intersection Improvement I
[Intersection Configuration Description
US 401 Bypass
Campground Road
?lil?l?ffll?
US 401 Bypass
SR 1404
(Morganton Road)

US 401 Bypass
Cross Creek Mall
(South Entrance)
?lll?llll?
- Construct an additional left
turn lane in each direction
along US 401 Bypass
- Provide another right turn
lane along the southern
approach of the intersection
- Construct an additional left
turn lane along the southern
approach of the intersection
- Provide another right turn
lane on the eastern approach
of the intersection
- No additional improvements
are proposed at this
intersection
FIGURE 5 b
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Intersection Improvement
Intersection Configuration Description
US 401 Bypass
Cross Creek Mall
(North Entrance)
?lll??itt?
US 401 Bypass
SR 1007 (All American
Freeway, South Ramps)
L
Uiili?ll??=
US 401 Bypass
SR 1007 (All American
Freeway, North Ramps)

- Construct an additional left
turn lane in each direction
along US 401 Bypass
- Provide an additional right
turn lane along the eastern
leg of the intersection
- Provide an additional left
turn lane along the eastern
leg of the intersection
FIGURE 5 c
Proposed Intersection Improvements
I Intersection Improvement I
Intersection Configuration Description
US 401 Bypass
SR 1415
(Yadkin Road)
?pulllm?-
- Construct an additional left
turn lane in each direction
along US 401 Bypass and along
SR 1415
US 401 Bypass
NC 24 South Ramps
(Swain Street)

- Construct an additional thru
lane in each direction along
US 401 Bypass
- Provide another right turn
lane on the western leg of
the NC 24 Ramp
US 401 Bypass
NC 24 North Ramps
(Swain Street)

:J? ILI I ? I
- No additional improvements
are proposed at this
intersection
FIGURE 5 d
Y
J
>Q
W
U)

CV CV
N
N

(}
l O ?
O
--
N
CV
N

CV
z
O
/H
V
Lli
U)
n
LLI
n
0
w
z
Q
j
to
W
V
CO
w
X
U
Li
col
z
_O^
F-
LU w
U) w
J Cr
Q Li
Uz
aQ
f-- -
wu
? J
mJ
?Q
w
U) o
O c)
CL r-
cc
0 ''^
cc: V
a
k
Pope Air ?olce,?ease %//7J
mom
FORT BRAGG - ?^
(UNINC.) \ fAU i
POP. 37,834 1 24 - fA ?i 11
8- - __ - / - _ MATCH _ _ ??' '`'?' yiMS< ! `•
- - --
'dl
d0Y y
SM/TN `:.. .. .
o , LA..
RESERVATION
°"i? !/iii. ". •:ii:::: n
DOV E. ;;'?:.'i ` G 01 : ?'i:• _ r
'/iii///l/mil/?? :;LA1C?t"?::;:?` - S:;?b?'???1 ?`?•??••`.. sn
CONCEPTUAL RAIL CORRIDOR
,:.::-:,.:. ,:•:x•:14 L•I.CE
. _ r
1417 OP. ?:+•' 1
7 MIA , Cr. `?.
POND `t
1401 l i,:?1•. `' 7 c
1415 .B
PROJECT U - 2207 :i ' • <:;:;_;; c ?+
401 BYPASS
w K
171a
GLEAVILL'
S ?o l r.
J. r LAA:S
?' .?•.\. .1.•:::` J 1404 FA (j Fqp •? - t *Q. 95
c 1`'.• ` t
i,31 C 149Q
Cli f L 400.F^ tOC CfiSr FAU it is ` a
F
a 1• - FAYET"LLE '
4- -'Ski j 1 s
59 7 140
•: r' B,? 14ia 210 F* lE_34
;
yG sk'OSO:Y 7 F ' 1a39 \
1403 r, LAXE F1U_ , 1v .g .] .: '' 1.3 fA? t
.9.' FAU 0 Awi' H
f? 11 7. 4. 0 87
1 S9 ??• ??? 'tea
6.7 F?
?' Yc ? t? vA
R? 1>=t ?+ 11,1 ? - - ? rU
• , MAX UNE
e f , 1 t '
Y ? r c t..
1141 1001 112
_. r
U FAU 1344 '`?.>
?l Cumberlood NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF
I `? Y TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OPHIGHWAYS
> ?' ; 5¢ '? J PI,ANNING AND ENVIRONiMENTAI,
?? Ko HOPE MILLS BRANCH
Q¢S V? Pine Knell ,. Cr POP, 5,412
;Y US 401 BYPASS
?- F^u ';?'' FROM NC 24 TO US 401 BUSINESS
FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U - 2207
1117 i
..... CONCEPTUAL LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR
003 I '' - /
'RCHF
?( j? POND
/Arduw. FIG. 7
.. .5i1 C :i<- ::
?r%?? LIMIT
'1 ti? V iI t `? \ 1 \ J ?l X00
\ J
I
am . Ground
;ir
M"\ SITE 1
71
Moun£ Gilead '.. 'Skibo ( - ?ce
- i.41 D.
! `? .,? ?1\ \: '-`?? ? ? I 1 --?,L? ?r ik;? Par. 1. i•?'/ -- _. o:
I!: \. ?:\ =° : ' w\c
ZTo SITE 2
?. ?\•\•_ ?? -. / :-'- \' DSO ?_ ,??V€?; ? / _--- - ?'?t ? n' ?it
444...))) j?.+----
??1 _ ??\? l:I °?'? _ ?? ' ?• °pi 2rJ' `'`?-•?•\`,, _ i ;;7
L 1 _?-? ° \ ?/ : \ ; , _ , ? q ? ? q .. • { ,':e !I \ \ erg 4' (( -?
IA?
rr- -7
. _., . ?..:.,,.....: _ ,-? - tom,'- - I ??.:\ • .!,?'
l -j: ;`?,' •>,:' \?\ :?\ PROJECT; NORTH CAROLINA I)I:PARTMENT OI.
tal LIMIT TRANSPORTATION
I• t:'• µ \ : r..... ?? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AN'D ENVIRONMENTAL
P BRANCH
US 401 BYPASS
FROM NC 24 TO US 401 BUSINESS
A FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U-2207
WETLAND LOCATIONS
\ ?T-?. ?C C!` ????• ?/ r' N
.4 0
_'.. ?',.: _ r.?). - • ?/ ! ` FIG. 8
I "> 1
I 4t7 '???
? , • `\?. ems- , . _ ? ?--__ _' ! ';?,::;'::•.,. I
Y• ?.tl.. ??.=__` \ \ ...sue.. ?'- :if
Mount Gi` ad's:
?6 N
P. J ?': ' t' !((\I••.' \-Lr'/- _ ._\-.
i• ° \??? = 1 _? PROJECT
LIMIT.
- ? `?? • .): -?, _- ` I ? - , • oil 1 ? • '? v?Ia , 1 ) ? . \ II
210
?'? _ ??•`/ \-'- :?? ,. \ •"`i'ce\. .vv ?,. n ;.c
59 ICI 1:?)/ -If
r Al.
f 11';,1 ('' ?I irlas
>_.;=il..
. \ . -- / It /. -_' ?: ? r // '•?D?rr ?. 1. '
\ ? i I J 1.•J SCI .,
7'.:;,.>. PROJECTS J:fir ?? ,L f
LIMIT atlDark
?no
-?noo 70
ZIA,
14
f
u
•F
1 ? r
M.,
t• ti r
.z?
,
/
-_ _ J V a G ourid J s,` ,?tl,l? _
'PZ>, NORTH CAROLINA DIPPARTMENTOF
TRANSPORTATION
1i? DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
` PLANNING AND ENVIRONIMENTAI,
BRANCH
US 401 BYPASS
FROM NC 24 TO US 421 BUSINESS
FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U - 2207
100 - YEAR FLOOD ZONES
FIG. 9
APPENDIX
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. __._ CORRIDOR __.- DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1441601 COUNTY: Cumberl,arnl Section C-1 (Symmectric Widening)
I . D . NO.: 11-^^0 7 F . A . PROJECT: F-8-1 f 30 )
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 401 Rvn,ass from rte 24 to US= 401 Business (Raeford Rd 1

- ES TIMATED DISPLACEES ? I--- INCOME LEVEL
T
f
ype o Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25N 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Businesses 0 1_ 1 _ 0 - r VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Far ms Owners Tenants For Sale F
R
t
_ or
en
)n -Pr ofit 0-'QOM $ 0-150 0-30M $ 0-150

L ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ^0-40M 150-350 20-40M 150-250

YES ?NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70N '250-400 40-70N f 350-400
--
X I. Will special relocation 70-100 400-500 70-100 400-b00
services be necessary
X 2. Wi.1.1 schools or churches be 100 UP 600 UP 100 UP 600 Up
affected by displacement
x 3. Will business services still
b TOTAL
e available after project -
X 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. Plenty of similar businesses are located in the
- - employees, minorities, etc. immediate concentrate-.d commercial area along
X 5. Will relocation cause a Bypass US 401.
-- housing shortage
X 6. Source for available hous- 4. (A) Amoco - Gas station, employing about 5
- - i ng (list) persons.
X 7. Will additional housing
--- programs be needed
X 9. Should Last Resort Housing
-- - be considered
9
. Are there large,
disabled,

`,=;`•
elderly, ?.
etc. families
A
S .,,:T ?1
N
WER TH SF ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
--- needed for project
It. is public housing avail-

1<'. Is it felt, there will be ad-
IY.C. OE?

---
- equate DDS dousing available
during relocation period
?
1.3. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
lt. Are suitable business sites -
avai Iable. ( list sourCe 0 ?
i

1
15. Number months est; .i meat c:cl to J
-----.._. -1I- -- complete RFLOCA-ric)N
1y ?lrr.a,
Relocation Aqeni.
Form 1-5.4 Revised 5/90
?-3 L(
Datc3
ripprov(-?d
Original. & 1 Copy
Co1)y
L)dti:
State Relocation Agent;
^,rr:a Rel.oral;.ion f to
N? 1?
PE:p_ R/w C*J?
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
E.I.S. - CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1441601. COUNTY: Cumberland Section C-2 (East Side Widening)
I . D . NO.: 1.1-2?07 F . A . PROJECT: F-8-100)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: - 1S 401 Rvp,a,-; from NC 24 to I1; 401 Busineas (Paeforcl Rci 1
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities
Individuals
Families 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 1 1 0
Farms
Non-Profit
INCOME LEVEL
0-15M I 15-25M I 25-35M
L---2- 1 0 1_
VALUE OF DWELLING
Owners Tenants
0-2OM $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40N 150-250-
ES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70N 250-400
I I. Will special relocation. 70-100 400-600
X
X
- services be necessary
X '12 . Will schools or churches be 100 UP 500 UP
affected by displacement
3. Will business services still TOTAL
be available after project
35-50M 1 50 UP
0 0 I 0
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
0-"o" $ 0-150
20-' 150-250
0M 250-400
70-100 400-600
i00 UP 600 UP
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
X
X
;C
placed. If so, indicate size
type'-, estimated number of 3. Plenty of similar businesses are located in the
employees, minorities, etc. immediate concentrated commercial area along
5. Will relocation cause a Bypass US 401.
housing shortage
6. Source for available hour- 4. (A) Amoco - Gas station, employ.in(g about 5
ing (list) persons.
X
7. Will additional housing
programs be needed
Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
to. Will public hous.i ns7 be
needed for project
It Is public housing ava.i.l-
able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
1.4. Arc, s?-ii.i;ab.le bllSlil('7S Sites
available (list source)
15. Number months est.imat,e cl to
complete RELOCATION
- ?Tv
V
Ej X97 ?

I
R
e
ocai;i.on Age+,t Da tc' Appro?f:
l Date
Farm 15.4 Revised 5/90
Revls ? Original. .
& 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
1% Copy: Area Relocation File
'PER r,/V/ C+MtO ES
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. __._ CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1441.601 COUNTY: Cumberland Section D-1 (Symmectric Widening)
I . D . NO.: l 1-^;?07 F . A . PROJECT: F-3-1( 30 )
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ll> 401 Rw)as-_ from NC 24 to 11S 401. Business (Raeford Pd )

?__--- ESTIMATED DISPLACEES_ ?I INCOME LEVEL
Type of - Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 1 1 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
(Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-2 ON $ 0-t50 0-'12OM $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-35() 0-40M 150-350
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70N X50-400
X 1. Will special relocation 70-I00 400-500 70-100 400-500
services be necessary
X Will schools or churches he 100 l1P 600 UP 100 Up 500 UP
affected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL
be available after project
X 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. Plenty of similar businesses are located in the
employees, minorities, etc. immediate concentrated commercial area along
X 5. Will relocation cause a Bypass US 401.
housing shortage
X 6. Source for available hour- 4. (A) Exxon - Gas & convenience snore, employing
ing (list) perhaps 5-10 persons.
X 7. Will additional housing
-- - programs be needed
X 8. Shoulr_1 Last Resort Housing
- be considered C, v
X 9. Are there large, disabled, 4
?- elderly, etc. families
10. Will public housing be
needed for project
il. :[s ptihlic housing avail-
able
t:2. Is .it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
during relorar,ion period
1.3. Will there be a Problem of
housing within financial
means
14. .^-re sc).ii;ahle: fus[ness sii-,es
available (list source)
15. Number months esl: imated to
complete RELOCATION
0 8 _
" ?.1??ir-iCi, i
Ke orat Ion A(_en, Date Appro ?r'c) Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 C) Original & 1 Cory: State Relocation rlgent:
Copy: Area Relocation Fi1c:
PER- R/ w Cf ,NOES
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of-Transportation
_X E.I.S_ ____ CORRIDOR - DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1441601. COUNTY: Cumber Iand Section D-2 (East Side Widening)
I. D. NO.: t 1-^?07 F. A. PROJECT: F-R- t( :?,Q 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 401 Bv{Ddss from NC 24 to U, 401 Business (Raeford Rd )
ES TIMATED DISPLACEES _ INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities i-- - -
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 l 1 0 ( VALUE OF DWELLING -?? DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE)
Farms Orfiners Tenants I For Sale ? For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M I$ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M - 150-250

YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS - 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 1 250-400
X 1. Wilt sfjecial relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600
services be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be
f 100 UP 600 tip 100 UP 600 UP
a
fected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL
be available after project
X 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size

- type, estimated number of 3. Plenty of similar businesses are located in the
employees, minorities, etc. immediate concentrated commercial area along
X 5. Will relocation cause a Bypass US 401.
h
ousing shortage

- X 6. Source for available hous- 4. (A) Exxon - Gas and convenience snore, employing
ing (list) perhaps 5-10 persons.
X 7. Will additional housing
- ( programs be needed
I X 8. Should Last: Resort Housing
b
id
d
?

X? e cons
ere
9. Are there .large, disabled, i
elderly, etc. families

-- ANSWER TH S Ai Sn FOR ST GN
10. Will public housing be 8 .1994
needed for project Q
i
JUN
It. Is public housing avail-

- able ;
12. Is it felt: 1 ,here w i l l be ad-
equate DDS housing available
---- dur i.ng re-Incas: ion period
13. Will there be a problem of r
housing within financial
-- means
14. Are s?.lit:ab.lc business sires
- available (1 ist source)
I.S. Number months esr.imatc---d r.o
complete RELOCATION
74y?i M
Relocation Ag r Dare At;prov,:=c:1 Dare
Firm 15.4 Revised 5/?o Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation AgE:nt:
I`?15? ? ?
IZjw cRftNGEs '2 Copy: Area I?c?locat ion File.
P?
RELOCATION REPORT
_X_ E.I.S. , CORRIDOR
PROJECT= 8.1441601
I.D. NO.: U-^207
North Carolina Department of ransportation
_ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY: Cumberland Alternate of Alternate
F.A. PROJECT: F-8-1(20) (Railroad Grade Separation)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: LIS 401 Bypass from NC 24 t ; 401 Business (Ra f rd Rd )

- ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL 1
Type of Minor- - --
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M SO UP
Individuals
f=amil.ies
nesses 3 4 7 1 VALUE OF DWELLING 1 E DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
s
V Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
N,on
Profit 0-2 0M $ 0-150 0-- M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTI ONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-25U

YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M -400 40-70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation
I. 70-100 400-6 70-100 "0_600
services be necessary
X 2. W411 schools or churches be
ff 100 UP 600 UP 100 UP 600
a
ected by displacement

X
3. Will business services still
TOTAL _
be available after project
x 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
Placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. Plenty of similar businesses are located in the
- employees, minorities, etc. immediate concentrated commercial area along
X 5. Will relocation cause a bypass US 401.
-- h
ousing shortage
X 6. Source for available hous- 4. (A) Telephone Outlet - small office/store
-- ing (list) employing perhaps 3-5 persons.
X 7. Will additional housing
- - - programs be needed (B) Westside Motors - small auto sales lot em-
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing Ploying perhaps 3-5 persons.
- - be considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled, (C) BP/Pantry - gas & convenience store, employing
---- --- elderly, etc. families
ANSWER TH SF ALSO FOR DESIGN 5-10 part-time persons.
10. Will public housing be (D) Texaco/Quik Mart - gas and convenience store

--
-
needed for project ,
employing 5-10 part-time persons.
11. Is public housing avail-
-- -- able (E) Raynor's Tire - tire & auto repair, employing
1:'.. Is it felt there will be ad- 5-10 persons.
equate DDS housing available
--- - -- during relocation period (F) Car Wash - 12 bays, coin operated, managed by
13. Will there be a problem of one person part-time.
housing within financial
---- - means (G) State Farm Insurance - one or two person
14. Are suitable business sites insurance agent's office.
-- - available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
Relocation Agelit
I ;rm 15.4 Revised 5/90
12-31-92
Date
Original & 1 Copy
2 Copy
W49 /
Dare
State Relocation Anent:
Area Relocation File
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 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, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
10
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available 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, in
general, 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 arrange-
ment (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/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting 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.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance 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 which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases 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 the 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 dis-
placee 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, includ-
ing 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 $5250.
It is a 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 prior to 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 finan-
cial means, and the replacement 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. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
A
SENT OF T
a tiF TAKE
,a PRlDEIN???
United States Department of the Interior AMBKAwnmm?
o
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
4gCH ? ?g°
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager }1' North Carolina 27636-3726
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
INSTANT REPLY
At
Please excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply to a
formal letter. This form serves to provide U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
recommendations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Re: US 401 Bypass Fayetteville Cumberland County TIP U-2207
Project Name
November 6. 1991
Date of Incoming Letter
Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species which may occur within the project impact area.
XXXXX The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project impact area.
XXM If the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat. surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to adversely
affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this
office for further information.
Concur - Is not likely to adversely affect Federally-listed
endangered or threateded species.
XXXXX Staffing limitations prevent us from conducting a field inspection
of the project site. Therefore, we are unable to provide you
with site specific recommendations at this time.
A
Questions regarding this form letter may be directed to the biologist who is
handling this project. ,
-;?f A o V f 19-r ? ? / Z AZ /9 /
Biologist ate
CONCUR: I -
2 /
Endangered Species D to
Coordinator
REVISED OCTOBER 10, 1991
Cumberland County,
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Pico_ides borealis) - E
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - E
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asnerulaefolia) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - T S/A+
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
False coco (Pteroglossaspis ecristata) -2
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2
Nestronia (Nestronia umb_ ellula) - C2
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Sol_ idago verna) - C2
Sandhills chub (Semotilus lumbee) - C2
Cape Fear spike (Elliptio marsupiobesa) - C2
Mitchell satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitc_ helli) _ C2
Georgia leadplant (Amorpha georgiana georgiana) - C2*
Sandhills milkvetch (_Astraoalus michauxii) - C2*
Pine barrens boneset (Eupa_ torium resinosum) _ C2
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - C2
Boykin's lobelia (Lobelia boykinii) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
+Threatened/Similarity of Appearance
r
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
F4206 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611
Hii;
o c,
I?GKNDWLEDGEMENT OF RE PT ° `?
c?
MAILED TOQMf
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION S'. .JEAN?TTEtg? CZAK
L J i?tARD C R?NGH STAFF
PLANNING E ENV BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG/INTER-OFFICE
PRDJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPI NG FOR COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
US 401 BYPASS FROM NC 24 (BRAGG BLVD.) TO US 401 BUS. (RAEFORD
RD. ) IN FAYETTEVILLE (T[ P U-2207)
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 92E42200339. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT S-IOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 02/25/92.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].

FM2D8
02-26=92
t? ?G?`?{?? 99c?
B ?
,yet; &?
MAILED TO
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
L J WARD
PLANNING & ENV BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG/INTER-OFFICE
NORTH CAROLINA-STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIBN
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 2T611?? 1 ??
? Q
ERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS FEB 281992
FROM"`GntNAYS
:,
MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT ?4RESE
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING FOR-COMMENT S FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
US 401 BYPASS FROM NC*24 (BRAGG BLVD.)-TO US 401 BUS. (RAEFORD
RD.) IN FAYETTEVILLE (TIP U-2207)
SAI-NO 92E42200339'PROGRAM TITLE -'SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW.PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF--'THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS-SUBMITTED I- ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X J COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY.QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C_ REGION M
1`

o+STNEo ? C E I
5 tQ JAN 31 1992
T
0,'q OF v
?vA vs
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc°?AN
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director

January 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State /
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, U-2207, 8.1441601, F-8-1(30),
CH 92-E-4220-0339
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our survey site files which do not identify
any structures of historical or architectural importance within the
general area of the project. However, at an.early scoping meeting for
this project we discovered one structure over fifty years of age located
in the northwest quadrant of the Yadkin Road intersection.

We recommend that the architectural historian for the Department of
Transportation examine this structure and report her findings to us.
Please submit photographs of the structure, keyed to a map, along with a
location description. Also include a brief statement about the structure's
history and explain which National Register criteria it does or does not
meet. Without this information, we are unable to determine if the
structure is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
January 28, 1992, page Two
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 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, please contact Renee Gledhill=Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
CC: State Clearinghouse
B. Church

r,
?+";?.-SLiTf o
iS T ?` y S _:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 15, 1992

Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: US 401 Bypass, Fayetteville, Cumberland
County, U-2207, 8.1441601, ER 92-8432
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 1, 1992, forwarding additional information
concerning the above project. .
We have reviewed the photographs of the one potential historic property located
in the area of potential effect. We concur with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's determination that the house is not eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places since the house has undergone numerous
alterations and has little historical significance.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 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, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
n
c
/DLD-Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ". J. Ward
K. Houston
109 EastJones Srreet 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
STAr,o
?u y
I., A
a
. • Y4.•r.• N y?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 10, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Improve US 401 Bypass from NC 24 to US 401
Business, U-2207, Cumberland County, ER 93-
8872
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director

JUN 14 199.3
DIVISI
CP H/GHVV v 0 o`
Thank You for your letter of May 17, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the archaeological study report of areas around the athletic
fields at Ann Chestnutt and Lewis Chapel schools located along the above
referenced project. The report concludes that one archaeological site (31 CD311)
was found near the Lewis Chapel School. Based upon the documentation in the
survey report, site 31 CD31 1 is not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
It is our opinion that expansion of the athletic fields due to the widening at either
school will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 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, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:s?lw?
cc: uL. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
?0,
r
r%
3y ATVZ.
3S { ?- ?? Sr
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Macon, Governor
• William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
I
rM4oRANDUM
r"991 eJ . r, r
TO: Chrys Baggett dam, `?'
State Clearinghouse
FROM:*. Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
RE: 92-0339 Scoping - Improvements to US 401 Bypass
From NC 24 to US 401, Fayetteville
DATE: December 5, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If additional
information is needed during the preparation of the environmental
document, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
MM: bb
Attachments

P.O. Box 27687, l:alei;;h. North Carolina 27611.7687 Tclcphonc 919-733-6376
OA> ^
iC
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natur?-1<<Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 t
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary _ David W. Sides
November 26, 19 91 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:. Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison :?14111/
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to US 401 Bypass from NC 24
to US 401 Business in Cumberland County. Project
No. 92-0339
The proposal is to widen an existing road in an urban setting.
Impacts on unique, prime, or important farmlands will be minimal.
Soils information should be available through the Cumberland Soil
and Water Conservation District. A wetlands evaluation should be
included in the environmental assessment. Actions that minimize
impacts are desired.
DH/tl
t

P.O. Box 27687, R11601, Norch Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An (-r:ual Opp
ora:n:z ,arrirma;ive Azciun Fmpl' •., r

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office: y?
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: 0 rDue Date:
9a D??9 /? ? 9l
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be -addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process
It
"It
PERMITS
I Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
? tacilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging Into state surface waters.
?I water Use Permit
?I Well Construction Permit
?I Dredge and Fill Permit
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
1100 must be In compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
?I See comments reference asbestos
on back of form.
Time
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
construction contracts On-site Inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual 490 days)

Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever Is later.
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)

N/A 7 days
(15 days)

Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
r '.
NIA 60 days
(90 days)

_
N/A ?ry 60 days
(90 days;
? Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.:,:
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required If one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be perrnited.
?
Mining Permit AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Less than 5 acres
3 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5 000
North Caroli
B
i
? na
urn
ng permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 d

exceeds 4.days ay
(NIA)
Special Ground Cl
? earance Burning Permit • 22
counties In coastal N.C. with organic soils On-site Inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
than five acres of ground.clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn Is planned."

? Oil Refining Facilities 90.120 days
NIA (N/A)

If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction

?
Dam Safely Permit .
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans,
i
30 days
nspect construction, certify construction Is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under
it
mosqu
o control program. An a
404 permit from Corps of Engineers. (NIA)

v s.os
--
- ----- -
Continued on rev
erse
hurrna; Process
/
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

?
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of 55,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall
on
u 10 days
,
p
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. (N/A)
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
? State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include 15-20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (N/A)
of riparian property.
?
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A 60 days r
(130 days)
?
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(180 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
310.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(60 days)
? Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
/ Renovations of structures containing asbestos material and demolitions of both
non-asbestos containing .structures and asbestos containing structures must be
in accordance with NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notifications and removal prior to
demolition.
X/ Notification of the Fayetteville Regional Office Groundwater Section is reques ted
if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTs) are discovered during any excavat ion..
operation.
reviewer signature agency date
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Mooreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106

DEC 1991
C "IVFD
c'. SECa;U,VY3 ofFfCE
000 Sta
Department of Enviro
RECEIVED
r --
r?V 4 1991
f North Carolina .LAN-p QUALITY SECTIOIN
ent, Health, and Natural Resources
on of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW commENTs Charles Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secreta? Director
Project Number: County: r?
USL4 s ow, ?ucra4 1 qS 4--I ?d
Project Name: ?-?c{,.1Q;d ?cv;PC? r?t?,F-?- I 3c? ?-?-'?caectl?o ?' I??l(n01?1P la aaU7
Geodetic Survey
This.project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacte prior to construction at P.O. Box 27587,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction c' a
geodetic monument is a (violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have ho impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached).
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewe Date
Erosion and Sedimentation-Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sediments won
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be_disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmen `l
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as nart
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
A
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality :later
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Man- ement,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control wi?_ apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this p---)ject
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments =attached)
For e information contact the Land Quality Section at
, (919) 733-574.
CJ/
Re?7ewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Ra],eigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Ernployer
A\ V' r
oz ?? ..
T• \ t''i

0
n I
to
L:r
N?yp? p ® .v Y.; r?_cD
rri
7 C)
1
Sill-
rn n <.
3 0, 3 r zn
p r-
?f d ? ?' D
N
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources
C?mmisslon
• 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919 3-3391 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
' . MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR
Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Dennis Stewart,. Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 21, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation regarding fish and wildlife concerns for
a project to widen US 401 Bypass from NC 24 to US 401
Business, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No. F-8-1(30), State Project No. 8.1441601, TIP
No. U-2207
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J.
Ward, P_ E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the widening of US 401 Bypass from NC 24 to US 401
Business, Fayetteville, Cumberland County.
While this project will follow the existing roadway the
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is concerned over possible
direct and indirect adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries, and
wetland resources within and adjacent to the construction
corridor.
5
Due-to limited information in Mr. L. J. Wards' memorandum of
November 6, 1991 we can express our concerns and requests for
information only in general terms. Our ability to evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing project environmental documents will be enhanced by
inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the study
corridors. Potential borrow areas to be used for
Memo Page 2 November 21, 1991
project construction should be included in the
inventories.
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including State and
Federal species of special concern, within, adjacent
to, or utilizing study corridors.
.3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
projected related areas that may, undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or R
filling for project construction.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The,.extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
..wetlands and impacts associated with fragmentation.
6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of
streams crossed and the extent of such activities.
7. Mitigation for avoiding; minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
8. -A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
Be advised that the Wildlife Resources commission is not
likely to provide a favorable review-for any alternative which
does not clearly avoid, minimize, and mitigate destruction or
degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please call on us.
DLS/lp
t
Post Office Box 1829
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fayetteville, 28
Telephone [phone]
7600
CUMBERLAND COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD

John Britt
CHAIRMAN
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E. Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT, Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
June 9, 1992
George Vaughan
PLANNING DIRECTOR
Dear Mr. Ward:
e<6 EIU?
Q. O
,U% 11 1992
2
DIVISION OF 2U
i, HIGHWAYS
?QQ
'4 RESEN
The Bikeway along side the US 401 Bypass was originally a part of
our Transportation Plan. Since its construction in 1980, it is greatly
under utilized as a bikeway.
The Transportation Advisory Committee at its meeting on June 3,
1992 voted unanimously to redesignate that portion of the Bikeway from
NC 24 (Bragg Blvd.) to US 401 South (Raeford Road) a sidewalk. As part
of their redesignation the TAC stipulates the sidewalk be constructed
within the scope of construction of Project 2207.
Sincerely,
George E. Vaughan, III
Planning Director

CUMBERLAND - Falcon - Fayetteville - Godwin - Hope Mills - Linden - Spring Lcke - Stedman - Wade - COUNTY
t?Sumbrrl?n? Lnun#? Srllnnls
o ? ?.(?. ?II? X357'
000
o
o Ott e #>'vtll>e, Tnr Tarnlinu 293112
h
A 1 A-fi7A-z3AA
DAVID C. DALTO!S, CNAINMAN LARRY G. ROWEDD£R. SUPERINTENDE.NT srJ''?'
THOMAS COUNCIL, WCE CHAIRMAN 6';
MICHAEL C. BOOSE
MARTA C. BULLARD
MAUREEN H. CLARK December 5, 1991
'a t
O
0
Dr. Charles Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent, Auxiliary Serve
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
S
116 West Edenton Street, Education Building $RAt
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1712
SUBJECT: U.S. 401 Bypass from
to U.S. 401 Business
Cumberland County.
State Project No. 8.
Dear Dr. Weaver:
Y S. DAVENPORT
kSHALL FAIRCLOTH
VANDERCLUTE
)N J. YARBORO

N.C. 24 (Bragg Boulevard)
(Raeford Road), Fayetteville,
Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30),
1441601, T.I.P. No. U-2207.
The above mentioned project would have an impact on the
three schools located along the US 401 Bypass. The Lewis Chapel
and Anne Chesnutt schools are to become middle schools in the
1994-95 school year. When this take place, both schools- may be
utilized by some of the same students. An overhead pedestrian
bridge may need to be considered for the safety of students. .
The athletic facilities at both Lewis Chapel and Anne
Chesnutt will be drastically affected by the road expansion. Both
facilities are heavily used by the Cumberland County Recreation
Department for their youth programs. The Recreation Department
has budgeted money to light the baseball field at Lewis Chapel
this year for their Dixie Youth Program. Consideration should be
given to this plan. The right field fence is already too short
for regulation play.
The football field at Anne Chesnutt is utilized not only by
the school athletic department but also by the Cumberland County
Recreation Department. They play up to five (5) football games
each Saturday during the football season. Road expansion may
cause the field to be closed. It cannot be shifted or expanded
away from the road due to property restraints and the goal post
at one end is already excessively close to the present 401
Bypass.
"EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION"
Expansion of athletic facilities at Lewis Chapel would be
limited on the western side due to possible wetland habitat and
on the north and south side due to property restraints.
Consideration should be given at Alger B. Wilkins for the
service road in front of the school. If the 401 Bypass is
expanded, this service road will probably be closed. A driveway
into the south side of the school campus would need to be
considered.
Please find the enclosed copies of school plot plans. I
would appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ted Chappell
Director of Transportation
Enclosures
TC/kIe
CC- L.J. Ward, P.E_ Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
Jerry C. Wood, Associate Superintendent, Operations
Tommy Bell, Supervisor, Buildings and Grounds

I ?\ r
o?•ba N\
r

Of t d N A •! O_

T ? ? `
i
r. P r
a e. P

c
N O do r00 ?
Q O J O N<O (
•
?` ` P P P P P P P J

g ? a s s a °

/3 • l
>L
I / J
?I
v '-T
I
I
i
31
O
9
r
L.
r N
I??O
07
'? L b
0

0
J
?

T
m
?I
v
a
2
e of
u 2?
H ?(
o g?
v
j3 m?

r
.

i^ •
? I 1
3
f

V
a
//AI
O ?
/ ' cur r
p ?
c -.
?
r
a?
d ?
r ?
?m

V1
W U
(S
; (

? r
!' N

> y
F
- U

(\l
0
v

r
I?
U I
t -
a
d
O 4

3
- r
r
a
? S
0 3
2 U
.3
p:
N
1d
r
u
N
0?
i
i
s-
n.
_ .1•-.c s
• M,LG •.b4-K - •?-•--y
I ?
` R r
,r
' I
.00'OOL .
m1Q-.er-N i
4 v
j
. I
L- _ -J 1
?i
N ?
? I
L
6
J
7- .' I
L'1 L b
? i
T ? G y, i
c
I
v
r
I r
? s
M U
`I
3 ^
JI o
r
h ?
Y ? ? I u
5
Q
W
J\
Y
TRANSMITTED FROM
09.19.91 06:23 P.02
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGGGG v;
t FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28307.5000 7
s YTO September 18, 1991
ATTENTION Of:
Directorate of Engineering
and Housing
Mr. Paul Worley
State Rail Corridor Majiager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Public Transportation and Rail Development
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27511
Dear Mr. Worley:
Fort Bragg has been a partner with local governments for
several decades now ensuring that we as a region develop quality,
well-planned and coordinated transportation plans both now and in
the future. -We recently assisted the Cumberland County Joint
Planning Board in updating the Transportation Element of
Cumberland County's Comprehensive Plan.
In the process, the transportation committee discovered an
opportunity for a light rail public transportation system with
enormous potential benefits for Fort Bragg and the surrounding
communities. Fayetteville is the only metropolitan area in the
state of North Carolina with existing rail lines that loop the
heart of the urban area. All of the important public and
commercial facilities needed to make a public transportation
system work already are located along the existing rail loop as
shown on the enclosed map. on Fort Bragg, the facilities include
a $250 million medical center which will start construction in
1993, family housing, a recently constructed $7.5 million post
exchange, the main commissary, and barracks and family housing on
Pope Air Force Base. Off post, facilities include numerous
housing areas and businesses along Murchison Road, the Amtrak
station in downtown Fayetteville, Cross Creek Mall, Cross Point
Mall, Windsor Mall, and numerous housing areas and businesses
along the 401 By-Pass and Bragg Boulevard.
As a region, it may not be practical to construct such a
public transportation system within the next 10 to 20 years.
However, we support preserving the right-of-way of this existing
loop for such a system in the future. Once the right-of-way is
gone, constructing such a system would no Ion er b
g e practical.
TRANSMITTED PROM
09.19.91 06:23 P.03 -
-2-
The Fort Bragg/Fayetteville urban area is the fifth largest
urban area in North Carolina. Traffic congestion and population
densities are becoming increasing problems. Ever increasing air
pollution standards may.force the region into such a light rail
system in the not-so-distant future.
Sincerely,
K. W. Crissman
Colonel, U.S. Army
Director of Engineering
and Housing
Enclosure
ABERDEEN AND ROCKFISH RAILROAD COMPANY
. POST OFFICE SOX 917
ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA 28315
EDWARD A. LEWIS
PRESIDENT December 23, 1991
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE, Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Re: US 401 Bypass, State Project No. 8.1441601
.In the above captioned matter, we have reviewed the
material sent us and wish to advise that in the interest of
safety and future development in the area, we feel that the
crossing between A&RRR and Rt. US 401 (Bypass) should be
grade separated.
There is presently a substantial traffic flow on US 401
which will grow even greater in the next several years.
Coupled to a widening of the road which will accelerate
vehicle speed and local growth which will also increase
vehicle count, it will become difficult for trains to cross
this highway safely.
9191944.2341
We presently operate one round trip per day at a time-
table speed of 25 m.p.h. There is a possibility that rail
traffic could increase to four to six crossings per day due
to potential F't.Bragg and other traffic. There is also a
potential for future light rail/commuter service on this line
which would be adversely affected by an at grade grade cross-
ing. We are currently moving L.P.G., Alcohol and other
hazardous materials over the crossing.
We feel that the topography will support a highway over
the rail crossing and that safety requires it. We urge you
to give this option your full consideration.
Very trul yours,
/Edward A. Lewis,
President
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC. :,INE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2207 / US 401 BYPASS CUMBERLAND COUNTY RUN: US 401 BYPASS (YR 2001 NO BUILD)
DATE: 06/2/1992 TIME: 08:5::21.86
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CH/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = (E)
• LINK VARIABLES
--------------
v0 = 10. CH
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MI%H = 400. H An = 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (H) * LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H N V/C QUEUE
* %1 Y1 %2 Y2 * (H) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *---------
1. NB LINK 304.8 6.1 -304.8 6.1 = 610. 270. AG 4475. 17.6 .0 13.4
2. SB LINK * -304.8 -6.1 304.8 -6.1 * 610. 90. AG 4475. 17.6 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (H)
RECEPTOR * y Y Z :
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. REC 80 (NORTH SIDS) * .0 -18.3 1.8
TABLE A2
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2207 / US 401 BYPASS CUMBERLAND COUNT? RUN: US 401 BYPASS (YR 2017 NO BUILD)
DATE: 06/25/1992 TIME: 08:55:30.80
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/5 VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM Al
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MI%H = 400. M AqB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* %i 71 E2 Y2
------------------------ *----------------------------------------*
1. NB LINK * 304.8 6.1 -304.8 6.1
2. SB LINK * -304.8 -6.1 304.8 -6.1
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * % Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. REC BO (NORTH SIDE) * .0 -18.3 1.8
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H K V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------------------------------------
610. 270. AG 4475. 17.5 .0 13.4
610. 90. AG 4475. 17.5 A 13.4

,

TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2201 / US 401 BYPASS CUMBERLAND COUNTY RUN: US 401 BYPASS (YR 2007 BUILD)
DATE: 05/25/1992 TIME: 08:56:30.67
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CH/S VD = .0 CMIS ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 H/S CLAS = 5 (3) ATIH = 60. MINUTES HIIH = 400. H AHB = 1.9 PPM
• LINE VARIABLES
--------------
LINE DESCRIPTION t LINE COORDINATES (M) t LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H B V/C QUEUE
* I1 71 12 Y2 t (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (H) (H) (VEH)
------------------------t----------------------------------------t----------------------------------------------------------
1. NB LINE t 304.8 1.9 -304.8 1.9 * 610. 210. AG 4415, 9.3 .0 11.1
2. SB LINE t -304.9 -1.9 304.8 -1.9 t 610. 90. AG 4415. 9.5 ,0 17.1
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M) :
RECEPTOR * I Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------t
1. REC BO (NORTH SIDE) * .0 -18.3 1.8
x
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2207 / US 401 BYPASS CUMBERLAND COUNTY RUN: US 401 BYPASS (YR 2017 BUILD)
DATE: 06/25/1992 TINE: 08:57:29.72
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CH/S VD = .0 CH/S ZO : 10. CH
U = 1.0 HIS CLAS : 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH : 400. M AHB = 1.9 PPH
LINE VARIABLES
--------------
LINE DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) ;
t %1 Y1 X2 Y2 =
------------------------ '----------------------------------------:.
1. NB LINK 3 304.8 7.9 -304.8 7.9
2. SB LINK * -304.8 -7.9 304.8 -7.9 :
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
r COORDINATES (H) T
RECEPTOR : % Y Z :
---------------------------------------------------------------*
1. REC 80 (NORTH SIDE) _ .0 -18.3 1.8 i
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH E? H K V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (GIMI) (M) (M) (VEH)
---------------------------------------- ----
610. 270. AG 4475. 9.5 .0 17.1
610. 90. AG 4475. 9.5 .0 17.1

r
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

140 I Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130

Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
110 Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90

D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LAUD
B 70

E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile

50 Normal conversation, average office QUIET

Household refrigerator

40 Quiet office VERY QUIET

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet 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 Americana, "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 N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties,-or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10

Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.

TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US
401 Business (Raeford Road), Cumberland County,
State Project TM 8.1441601, Federal Aid
n F-8-1(30), T.I.P. # U-2207
NOISE

SITE
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION LEVEL
(dBA)
1 US 401 Bypass, 450 feet North of Grassy Area 68
McPherson Church Road
2 US 401 Bypass, 1500 feet North of Grassy Area 71
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)
3 US 401 Bypass, 1800 feet North of Grassy Area 74
US 401 Business (Raeford Road)
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the center
of the nearest lane of traffic.
TABLE N4A
Leg TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 401 Bypass frog HC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cumberland
C ounty, Stat e Project 1 8.1441601, Federal Aid # F-8-1(30) , T.I.P. # U- 2207
Symaetrical Widening
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX PRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE

NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to Swain Street
1 Residence B US 401 Bypass 60' R 69 60' R - - * 18 + 9
2 Residence B ° 130' R 63 130' R - - * 71 + 8
3 Business C " 190' L 59 190' L - - 67 + 8
4 Residence B ° 170' R 60 170' R - - * 69 + 9
5 Residence B " 170' R 60 170' R - - * 69 + 9
6 Residence B ° 170' R 60 170' R - - * 69 + 9
7 Residence B 80' R 67 80' R - - * 76 + 9
B Business C 110` L 64 110' L - - ; 73 + 9
9 Residence B ° 170' R 60 170' R - - * 69 + 9
Swain Street to Yadkin Road
10 Business C US 401 Bypass 120' R 64 120' R - - * 72 + 8
11 School 3 " 180' L 60/35 180' L - - 69/44 + 9/9
12 Business C " 100' L 65 100' L - - * 74 + 9
13 Business C ° 180' L 60 180' L - - 69 + 9
14 Business C 80' L 67 80' L - - * 76 + 9
Yadkin Road to Morganton Road
15 Business C US 401 Bypass 50' L 74 50' L ----------- --- R/W------- ------
16 Business C ° 160' L 65 160' L - - 70 + 5
17 Business C ° 90' R 70 90' R - - * 75 + 5
18 Business C " 110' R 68 110' R - - * 73 + 5
19 Business C 170' R 64 170' R - - 69 + 5
20 Business C 140' R 66 140' R - - * 71 + 5
21 Business C " 110' L 68 110' L - - * 73 + 5
22 Business C " 80' L 71 80' L - - * 76 + 5
23 Business C ° 160' R 65 160' R - - 70 + 5
24 Business C " 190' L 63 190' L - - 68 + 5
25 Business C " 40' L 76 40' L --------------g
26 Business C " 100' R 69 100' R - - * 74 + 5
1/4
i
•
NO1ES: Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- _> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- _> Prooosed roadway's noise level -ontIibutioa.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). 1 _> Traffic noise impact (23 CFR Fart 112).
TABLE N4A
Lea TRAFFIC NOISE HPOSURES
US 401 Bypass frog NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cuaberland
County, State Project $ 8.1441601, Federal Aid # F-8-1(30), T.I.P. # U-2207
Syametrical Widening
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX PRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
Morganton Road to Cliffdale Road

27 Business C US 401 Bypass 120' R 67 120' R - - * 74 + 7
28 Business C " 90' L 70 90' L - - * 76 + 6
29 Business C " 250' L 60 250' L - - 61 + 7
30 Business C " 80' L 71 80' L - - * 77 + 6
31 Business C " 100' R 69 100' R - - * 75 + 6
32 Business C " 90' L 70 90' L - - * 76 + 6
33 Business C 110' R 68 110' R - - * 74 + 6
34 Business C 230' R 61 230' R - - 67 + 6
35 Business C ' 210' R 62 210' R - - 68 + 6
36 Business C ' 110' R 68 110' R - - * 74 + 6
31. Business C " 110' R 68 110' R - - * 74 + 6
38 Storage C " 240' L 61 240' L -------------- N/A----- --------
39 Business C " 130' R 67 130' R - - * 73 + 6
40 Business C " 130' R 67 130' R - - * 73 + 6
41 Business C " 110' R 68 110' R - - * 74 + 6
42 Business C " 160' R 65 160' R - - * 71 + 6
4.3 Business C " 110` L 68 110` L - - * 74 + 6
44 Business C " 100' R 69 100' R - - * 75 + 6
45 Business C ° 100' R 69 100' R - - * 15 + 6
46 Business C " 90' R 70 90' R - - * 76 + 6
47 Business C " 90' L 70 90' L - - * 76 + 6
48 Business C 80, L 71 80' L - - * 77 + 6
49 Business C " 80' L 71 80' L - - * 77 + 6
50 Business C " 70''R 71 70' R - - * 78 + 7
51 Business C " BO' R 11 80' R - - * 11 + 6
Cliffdale Road to Louise Street
52 Business C US 401 Bypass 120' L 70 120' L - - * 73 + 3
53 Business C 100' R 71 100' R - - * 75 + 4
54 Business C " 100' L 71 100' L - - * 15 + 4
55 Business C " 80' L 73 80' L - - = 71 + 4
56 Business C " 70' L 74 70' L - - : 78 + 4
57 Business C 130' R 69 1301 R - - * 73 + 4
2/1
NOTES: Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- => Noise level frog other contrihuting roadways.
All noise 1?VeIS are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- => Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48), r => Traffic noise impact (23 CFR Part 112).
TABLE N4A
Lea TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cumberland
County, State Project # 8.1441601, federal Aid # F-8-1(30), T.I.P. # U-2207
Symmetrical widening
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX ?RED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
Cliffdale Road to Louise street (continued)
58 Business C US 401 Bypass 190' R 66 190' R - - 69 + 3
59 Residence B " 150' L 68 150' L - - * 71 + 3
60 Residence B " 190' L 66 190' L - - * 69 + 3
61 Residence B ." 230' L 64 230' L - - * 67 + 3
62 Residence B " 240' L 64 240' L - - * 67 + 3
63 Residence B " 150' L 68 150' L - - * 71 + 3
64 Residence B " 140' L 69 140' L - - * 72 + 3
65 Residence B " 150' L 68 150' L - - 2 71 + 3
66 Residence B " 180' L 66 180' L - - = 70 + 4
67 Residence B 120' L 64 220' L - - * 68 + 4
68 Residence B " 230' L 64 230' L - - * 67 + 3
69 Residence B " 250' L 63 250' L - - * 66 + 3
70 Residence B " 150' L 68 150' L - - * 71 + 3
71 Business C 70' R 74 70' R - - * 78 + 4
72 Business C " 90' R 72 90' R - - * 76 + 4
73 Business C " 100' R 71 100' R - - * 75 + 4
74 Business C " 110' L 71 110' L - - * 14 + 3
75 Business C " 90' L 72 90' L - - * 76 + 4
76 Business C " 120' R 70 120' R - - * 73 + 3
77 Residence B " 90' L 72 90' L - - * 76 + 4
78 Residence B " 140' L 69 140' L - - * 72 + 3
79 Residence B " 190' L 65 190' L - - * 69 + 4
80 Business C 60' R 75 60' R - - * 79 + 4
81 Business C " 90' R 72 90' P. - - ' 76 + 4
82 School . E " 130' L 69/44 130' L - - 73/48 + 4/4
83 School E " 120' R 70/45 120' R - - 73/48 + 3/3
84 Business C " 190` L 66 190' L - - 69 + 3
85 Church E " 110' L 71/46 110' L - - 74/49 + 3/3
86 Business C " 60' L 75 60' L - - * 79 + 4
Louise Street to US 401 Business
87 Residence B US 401 Bypass 60' L 75 60' L - - * 78 + 3
88 Residence B " 110' L 71 110' L - - * 73 + 2
3/4
It
NOTES: Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- => Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- => Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4A
Let TRAFFIC NOISE 3XPOSURES
US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cuaberland
County, State Project # 8.1441601, Federal Aid I F-8-1(30), T.I.P. f U-2207
Syaaetrical Widening
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX PR3D NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOIS3 LEVEL
# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
Louise Street to US 401 Business (continued)
89 Business C US 401 Bypass 70' L 74 70' L - - = 77 + 3
90 Residence B ° 110' R 71 110' R - - * 73 + 2
91 Residence B " 60' R 75 60' R - - = 78 + 3
92 Residence B " 70' R 74 70' R - - ; 77 + 3
93 Residence B 60' R 75 60' R - - = 78 + 3
94 Residence B 100' R 71 100' R - - = 74 + 3
95 Business C " 100' L 71 100' L - - * 74 + 3
90, Business C 80' L 73 80' L - - ; 76 + 3
97 Business C " 60' R 15 60' R - - = 78 + 3
98 Business C 90' R 72 90' R - - = 75 + 3
99 Business C 180' L 66 130' L - - 68 + 2

4/4
NOTES: Distances are frog center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- _> Noise level frog other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- _> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
category 9 noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise iapact (23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4B
Lea TRAHIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cumberland
County, State Project # 8.1441601, Federal Aid # F-8-1(30), T.I.P. # U-2207
East Side Widenin g
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX ?RED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE

NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to Swain Street,
1 Residence B US 401 Bypass 60' R 69 72' R - - * 76 + 7
2
- Residence B " 130' R 63 142' R - - * 70 + 7
3 Business C " 190' L 59 178' L - - 68 + 9
4 Residence B " 170' R 60 182' R - - * 68 + 8
5 Residence B " 170' R 60 182' R - - * 68 + 8
6 Residence B " 170' R 60 182' R - - * 68 + 8
7 Residence B " 80' R 67 92' R - - * 74 + 7
B Business C " 110' L 64 98' L - - * 74 * + 10
9 Residence B " 170' R 60 182' R - - * 68 + 8
Swain Street to Yadkin Road
10 Business C US 401 Bypass 120' R 64 132' R - - * 72 + 8
11 School 3 " 180' L 60/35 168' L - - 69/44 + 9/9
12 Business C " 100' L 65 88' L - - * 76 * + 11
13 Business C 180' L 60 168' L - - 69 + 9
14 Business C ° 80' L 67 68' L - - * 11 + 8
Yadkin Road to Moreanton Road
15 Business C US 401 Bypass 50' L 74 38' L -------------- R/W-------------
16 Business C " 160' L 65 148' L - - * 71 + 6
17 Business C " 90' R 70 102' R - - * 74 + 4
18 Business C " 110' P, 68 122' R - - Y 73 + 5
19 Business C " 170' R 64 182' R - - 69 + 5
20 Business C " 140' R 66 152' R - - 70 + 4
21 Business C " 110' L 68 98' L - - * 75 + 7
22 Business C 80' L 71 68' L - - * 73 + 7
23 Business C " 160' R 65 172' R - - 69 + 4
24 Business C " 190' L 63 178' L - - 69 + 6
25 Business C " 40' L 76 28' L --------------R/W------- ------
26 Business C " 100' R 69 112' R - - * 73 + 4
NOTES: Distances are from center of exis ting or proposed roadways, -Y- => Noise level from other contributing roadways

All noise
levels are hourly A-wei
ghted noise levels..
-L-
=> Proposed ro .
adway's noise level contribution

Category E
noise levels shown as
exterior/interior (58/48). _
=> Traffic noi .
se impact (23 CPR Part 772).
1/2

TABLE N4B
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE E%POsURES
US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cumberland
County, State Project $ 8.1441601, Federal Aid $ F-8-1(30), T.I.P. # U-2201
East Side Widening
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY
$ LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE
ANBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX PRED NOISE
NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
Morganton Road to Cliffdale Road
27 Business C US 401 Bypass 120' R 67 132' R - - * 73 + 6
28 Business C " 90' L 70 78' L - - * 77 + 7
29 Business C " 250' L 60 238' L - - 67 + 7
30 Business C " 80' L 71 68' L - - * 79 + 8
31 Business C " 100' R 69 112' R - - * 74 + 5
32 Business C " 90' L 70 78' L - - * 11 + 7
33 Business C " 110' R 68 122' R - - * 74 + 6
34 Business C " 230' R 61 242' R - - 67 + 6
35 Business C " 210' R 62 222' R - - 68 + 6
36 Business C " 110' R 68 122' R - - * 74 + 6
37 Business C " 110' R 68 122' R - - * 74 + 6
38 Storage C " 240' L 61 228' L -------------- N/A----- --------
39 Business C " 130' R 67 142' R - - * 72 + 5
40 Business C 130' R 67 142' R - - : 72 + 5
41 Business C " 110' R 68 122' R - - * 74 + 6
42 Business C " 160' R 65 112' R - - 70 + 5
43 Business C 110' L 68 98' L - - * 76 + 8
44 Business C " 100' R 69 112' R - - * 74 + 5
45 Business C 100' R 69 112' R - - * 74 + 5
46 Business C " 90' R 70 1D2' R - - * 75 t 5
47 Business C " 90' L 70 78' L - - * 77 + 7
48 Business C " 80' L 71 68' L - - = 19 + 8
49 Business C " 80' L 71 68' L - - * 19 + 8
50 Business C " 10' R 71 82' R - - * 77 + 6
51 Business C " 80' R 71 92' R - - * 76 + 5
2/2
NOTES: Distances arc from center Of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- => Noise level -iroa Other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- => Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (23 CFR Part 172).
TABLE N4C
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cumberland
County, State Project 1 8.1441601, Federal Aid 1 F-8-1(30), T.I.P. # U-2207
Vest Side Widening
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX PRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
Yadkin Road to Morganton Road
15 Business C US 401 Bypass 50' L 74 62' L - - = 78 + 4
16 Business C w 160' L 65 172' L - - 69 + 4
17 Business C " 90' R 70 78' R - - * 76 + 6
18 Business C 110' R 68 98' R - - : 75 + 7
19 Business C 170' R 64 158' R - - 70 + 6
20 Business C 140' R 66 128' R - - * 72 + 6
21 Business C 110' L 68 122' L - - * 73 + 5
22 Business C BO' L 71 92' L - - Y 75 + 4
23 Business C ° 160' R 65 148' R - - = 71 + 6
24 Business C 190' L 63 202' L - - 68 + 5
25 Business C 40' L 76 52' L --------------R/W-------- -----
26 Business C " 100' R 69 88' R - - Y 76 . + 7
1/1
NOTES: Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- _> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- _> ProDosed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). f => Traffic noise impact (23 CFR Part 772).
f

TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITE RIA SUMMARY
US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cumberland
County, State Project 1 8 .1441601, Federal Aid # F-8-1(30), T.I. P. f U-2201
MAXI MUM PREDICTED CONTOUR APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS DISTANCES RECEPTOR S ACCORDING TO
(dBA)1 (P?3IMUM)2 TITLE 23 CPR PART 772
DESCRIPTION 501 100' 2001 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

1. NC 24 to Swain Street
Syaaetrical Widening 75 71 66 125' 209' 0 7 1 0 0
East Side Widening 75 71 66 125' 209' 0 7 1 0 0
2. Swain Street to Yadkin Road
Syaaetrical Widening 76 71 66 134' 221' 0 0 3 0 0
East Side Widening 76 71 66 134' 221' 0 0 3 0 0
3. Yadkin Road to Morganton Road
Syaaetrical Widening 76 72 66 138' 225' 0 0 6 0 0
East side widening 76 72 66 138' 225' 0 0 6 0 0
West Side Widening 16 72 66 138' 225' 0 0 8 0 0
4. Morganton Road to Cliffdale Road
Syaaetrical_ Widening 77 73 68 152' 250' 0 0 21 0 0
East Side Widening 77 73 68 152' 250' 0 0 20 0 0
5. Cliffdale Road to Louise Street
Syaaetrical Widening 77 73 67 149' 244' 0 15 15 0 0
6. Louise Street to US 401 Business
Syaaetrical Widening 76 72 66 1331 218' 0 7 5 0 0
1501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
'72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road), Cumberland County, State
Project # 8.1441601, Federal Aid # F-8-1(30), T.I.P. # U-2207 '
RECEPTOR EITERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL
SECTION <=0 1-1 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >= 25 INCREASES'
NC 24 to Swain Street
Symmetrical Widening 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Side Widening 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Swain Street to Yadkin Road
Symmetrical Widening 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Side Widening 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Yadkin Road to Morganton Road
Symmetrical Widening 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Side Widening 0 0, 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Side Widening 0 0 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Morganton Road to Cliffdale Road
Symmetrical Widening 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Side Widening 0 0 0 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cliffdale Road to Louise Street
Symmetrical widening 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Louise Street to US 401 Business
Symmetrical Widening 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'As defined in. Table H2.
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL, FOR FEDERALLY-
AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT WITH PUBLIC PARKS,
RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE.AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project F-8-1(30)
91
State Project 8.1441601
z T. I. P. No. U-2207
Description:
US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) from US 401 Business (Raeford Road)
to NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) Fayetteville Cumberland County
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve
the operational characteristics, safety, X
and/or physical condition of existing highway
facilities on essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? _a X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned
public park, recreation land, or wildlife X
and waterfowl refuge located adjacent to the
existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land to
be used impair the use of the remaining X
Section 4(f) land, in whole or in part, for
its intended purpose (see chart below)?
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ................ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project El (e.g., noise, air and water pollution, X
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land
impair the use of such land for its intended
purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the X -J?--+'-
assessment of the impacts of the proposed
project on, and the proposed mitigation for,
the Section 4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site Yes No
purchased or improved with funds under the -1 X
Land and Water Conservation Act (Section
6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration
Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or
similar laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest (e.g.,
former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described in
Item 7 above, does the appropriate Federal X
Agency object to the land conversion or
transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
(b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or
impacts of extraordinary measure?
Yes No
X
X
X
X
X El
2. Improvement of the highway without using
the adjacent Public -park, recreational land, X
or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in
standards, use of retaining walls, etc., X
or traffic management measures been
evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)

M substantial adverse community
impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
f
i
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility _% new location
without using the public ark recreational X
land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge.
This would be a localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project
cost or engineering difficulties
and iv such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude

Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm. g
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are
appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
O Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
O Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife on waterfowl refuge.

3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as
follows (refer to attached map):
a. The roadway will be widened along the east side, acquiring
right of way only from the Anne Chesnutt Junior High School
property.

b. The Anne Chesnutt Junior High School football field will be
relocated east of its existing location and the existing
fences will be replaced.
C. Two median openings will be provided along Skibo Road to
access the school properties.
1. One opening will be located at the Anne Chesnutt bus
entrance. Buses and passenger cars will use separate
driveways. The median opening will allow direct bus
access to the property from either direction on Skibo
Road. Passenger cars will enter and exit the school
property only in the northbound direction on Skibo Road.
The median opening will allow southbound passenger car
traffic to make a U-turn in order to enter the school
property.
2. One median opening will also be provided at the entrance
to the Lewis Chapel property. Buses and passenger cars
will share the same driveway entrance but will exit at
different locations. The opening in the median will
allow buses to directly access the Lewis Chapel property
from either direction on Skibo Road. Passenger cars
will directly enter the property from both directions on
Skibo Road.
3. U-turns will be allowed at the SR 2528 (Richwood Court)
and SR 1534 (Louise Street) intersections.
Consideration will be given for a traffic signal at
Richwood Court to provide easier U-turn movements at the
intersection.

COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over x
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridge requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible or prudent
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there
are assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated
in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
Date m
Planning & Environmental Branch NCDOT

4
Date
i
on Administrator, FHWA
?P?
n. ?
3 ??

&mbprlanh TountIj Sr4vvb
VA Nnx 2357
gabOtritittr, NvO4 TurDlina 283
919-6711-231111
MICHAEL C. GOOSE, CHAIRMAN
MILTON J. Y:ARBORO, VICE CHAIRMAN
MAUREEN H. CLARK
THOMAS COUNCIL
KAREN S. DAVENPORT
JOHN R. GRIFFIN, JR., SUPERINTENDENT
July 29, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
GE?VF
AUG 0 2 1993
DIVISION OF
?HI^HIAAlc&
"EMILY ROYAL
VANDERCLLTE
SUBJECT: US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to 401 Business
(Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, State Project
No. 8.1441601, Federal Aid Project No. F-8-1(30), TIP No. U-2207
My staff and I have reviewed and concur with the proposed improvements in widening
the existing facility on US 401 Bypass to provide an additional lane in each direction and
a raised median in the vicinity of our school properties at Lewis Chapel Junior High School
and Anne Chesnutt Junior High School.

We understand and concur that the project is not anticipated to significantly impair
the use of the athletic fields at the above mentioned schools. Both athletic fields are publicly
owned and are used by the Cumberland County Recreation and Parks Department. As a
result, the athletic fields are protected by Section 4(f) of the 1966 D.O.T Act. Section 4(f)
protects the use and function of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl
refuges, and historic properties. A transportation plan can only use land from a 4(f)
resource when there are no other feasible or prudent alternatives and when the planning
minimizes all possible harm to the resource.
We concur with the proposed widening of the existing facility providing the project
is planned and designed to minimize harm to the recreational fields. We concur with the
project providing the following conditions are met:
1. The roadway will be widened along the east side, acquiring right of way only
from the Anne Chesnutt Junior High School property.
"EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION"
2. The Anne Chesnutt Junior High School football field will be relocated east of
its existing location and the existing fences will be replaced.
3. Two median openings will be provided along Skibo Road to access the school
properties.
a. One opening will be located at the Anne Chesnutt bus entrance. Buses
and passenger cars will use separate driveways. The median opening
will allow direct bus access to the property from either direction
on Skibo Road. Passenger cars will enter and exit the school property
only in the northbound direction on Skibo Road. The median opening '
will allow southbound passenger car traffic to make a U-turn in order
to enter the school property.
b. One median opening will also be provided at the entrance to the Lewis
Chapel property. Buses and passenger cars will share the same
driveway entrance but will exit at different locations. The opening in
the median will allow buses to directly access the Lewis Chapel
property from either direction on Skibo Road. Passenger cars will
directly enter the property from both directions on Skibo Road.
C. U-turns will be allowed at the SR 2628 (Richwood Court) and SR 1534
(Louise Street) intersections. Consideration will be given for a traffic
signal at Richwood Court to provide easier U-turn movements at the
intersection.
Thank you for the cooperation and thoroughness as it relates to this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely yours,
te R. Gri t j
Superintendent =
JRG\bhm
cc: Mr. Benny Pearce, Director of Construction Support
Mr. Michael W. Clover, Director of Transportation
.
A
RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT
2721 Elizabethtown Road • Fayetteville, N.C. 28306
Telephone [phone]
July 22, 1993
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
C E 1 4w
?,R1
JUL 2 b 1993
X
2 DI •JISIC,q OF Q?U
G? HIGHVI/gyS
7RONI?IE.
SUBJECT: US 401 Bypass from NC 24 (Bragg Boulevard) to US 401
Business (Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland
County. State Project No. S.1441601. Federal Aid
Project No. F-8-1 (30). TIP No. U-2207
The proposed widening of US 401 Bypass involves two school
properties. Anne Chesnutt Junior High School and Lewis Chapel
Junior High School. Each school has an athletic field adjacent to
the existing roadway. These fields are important for the
recreational needs of the community. Both athletic fields are
publicly owned and are used extensively by the Cumberland County
Recreation Department for organized recreational purposes. We
concur that the proposed widening will not substantially impair the
use of the two recreational resources, provided the following
conditions are met:
1. The roadway will be widened along the east side,
acquiring right of way only from the Anne Chesnutt Junior
High School property.
2. The Anne Chesnutt football field will be relocated east
of its existing location, and the existing fences will be
replaced.
I
3. Two median openings will be provided along Skibo Road to
access the school properties.
a. One opening will be located at the Anne Chesnutt
bus entrance. Busses and passenger cars will use
separate driveways. The median opening will allow
direct bus access to the property from either
direction on Skibo Road. Passenger cars will enter
and exit the school property only in the northbound
direction on Skibo Road. The median opening will
allow southbound passenger car traffic to make a U-
turn in order to enter the school property.
b. One median opening will also be provided at the
entrance to the Lewis Chapel property. Busses and
passenger cars will share the same driveway
entrance but will exit at different locations. The
opening in the median will allow busses to directly
access the Lewis Chapel property from either
direction of Skibo Road. Passenger cars will
directly enter the property from both directions '
but will exit in the southbound direction on Skibo
Road.
C. U-turns will be allowed at the SR 2528 (Richwood
Court) and SR 1534 (Louise Street) intersections.
Consideration will be given for a traffic signal at
Richwood Court to provide easier U-turn movements
at the intersection.
Sincerely,

Elmer Arnette
Director
cc: Mr. Wady C. Williams, Area Engineer, FHWA
Mr. G.T. Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer, NCDOT