19950232 Ver 1_Complete File_19950306

X ^r -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, LT."?
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management A&14 70)A
James B. Hunt, Jr_ Governor p E H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E„ Director
July 31, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb?
Subject: FONSI for NC 21
Robeson County
State Project DOT No. 8.1461601, TIP # U-2415
EHNR # 95-0942, DEM WQ # 10991
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 of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project as proposed would impact up to 0.3 acres of wetlands.
Please be advised that this review of the FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
nc211.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
J. ! . •
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental'Aiia1:7.7,
Project Review Form ) /)GJGj
Project Number: County Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
?- `i?Z 1, -E? Ts' 1 -71 /
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: C 1 " I„ _ 1 U 3 .51'
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville 'Air ?coastalManagement ?WaterPlanning
ater El Water Resources El Environmental Health
? Mooresville '
Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh eLand Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? ijae? F) CoIY)
? Wilmington
? Others r;
rnvironmental Management
El Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart JUL ? Iyyc

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)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Ps 104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
r
NC 211 (Roberts Avenue)
From East of Rowland Avenue to East of King's Cross Road
Lumberton, Robeson County
Federal Aid Project No. M-7761(2)
State Project No. 8.1461601
T.I.P. No. U-2415
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date
r

R, Nlcn? s L. brat, F. L.
ivision Administrator, FHWA
.
NC 211 (Roberts Avenue)
From East of Rowland Avenue to East of King's Cross Road
Lumberton, Robeson County
Federal Aid Project No. M-7761(2)
State Project No. 8.1461601
T.I.P. No. U-2415
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
May, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
0001119110"00,
•`' CARP '••
S o
W. Ron Elmore, P. E. SEAL
Project Planning Engineer 1400a

Ju a A. Hun ins, P. E.
P ject Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. TYPE OF ACTION ........................................... 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ................................ 1
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................... 2
A. NC 211 Widening ................................... 2
B. Service Road Realignment ............................ 3
C. Structures .......................................... 3
1. Bridge No. 102 Over I-95 ....................... 3
2. Drainage Structures ............................ 4
D. Interchange Loops and Ramps ......................... 4
E. Cost Estimates ...................................... 5
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ................................ 5
A. Circulation of the Environmental
Assessment .... .... .... ............... 5
B. Comments Received on the Environmental
Assessment ..................................... 5
C. Public Hearing ....................................... 8
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................ 8
VI. WETLAND FINDING .......................................... 9
VII. FLOODPLAIN FINDING ....................................... 9
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............... 10
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
APPENDIX
Comments Received From Review Agencies
on the Environmental Assessment .......................... A-1
Public Hearing News Release ............................... A-11
Special Project Commitments
Impacts on wetlands will be minimized through the use of Best
Management Practices during project construction. Approximately 0.3 acre
of shrub-scrub, vegetated canals, and swamp forest wetland communities
will be impacted. It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be
performed under a Department of the Army Nationwide Permit for minor road
crossing fills in accordance with 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14). Under the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps of Engineers, compensatory mitigation is not required where
Nationwide permits are authorized. Final discretionary authority in these
matters lies with the Corps of Engineers.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will also be required prior to the
issue of a nationwide permit.
The City of Lumberton has requested a sidewalk on the bridge carrying
NC 211 over I-95. A five-foot sidewalk will be constructed along the
north side of the bridge.
w
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative
action, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant
impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental
Assessment, which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues
and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental
Assessment.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Impacts on wetlands will be minimized through the use of Best
Management Practices during project construction. Approximately 0.3 acre
of shrub-scrub, vegetated canals, and swamp forest wetland communities
will be impacted. It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be
performed under a Department of the Army Nationwide Permit for minor road
crossing fills in accordance with 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14). Under the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps of Engineers, compensatory mitigation is not required where
Nationwide permits are authorized. Final discretionary authority in these
matters lies with the Corps of Engineers.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will also be required prior to the
issue of a nationwide permit.
The City of Lumberton has requested a sidewalk on the bridge carrying
NC 211 over I-95. A five-foot sidewalk will be constructed along the
north side of the bridge.
2
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. NC 211 Widening
NC 211 (Roberts Avenue) will be widened to provide a six-lane
facility from approximately 800 feet east of Rowland Avenue to
approximately 500 feet east King's Cross Road, a distance of approximately
0.7 mile (see Figure 1). From the relocated Kahn Drive (SR 1792)/K-Mart
entrance intersection to the northbound I-95 interchange ramp terminals,
the existing 5-lane roadway will be widened to a 6-lane curb and gutter
roadway (76 feet face to face of curbs).
From the northbound I-95 ramp terminal to the southbound I-95 ramp
terminal, including the new structure over I-95, a 6-lane curb and gutter
roadway (90-feet face-to-face of curbs) will be constructed. This clear
roadway width is needed in order to provide sufficient clearance for
maintaining traffic on NC 211 during phase construction of the new bridge.
Two through lanes and a right turn lane (which will provide free flow
access to the loops) will be provided for each travel direction. The
middle 12 feet of this roadway will be a paint-striped median to prevent
left turns onto the northbound and southbound I-95 entrance ramps. A
5-foot sidewalk will be constructed along the north side of the new
bridge.
A six-lane cross section with 72 feet of pavement and 10-foot useable
shoulders (2 feet of which will be paved) will be constructed from the
southbound I-95 ramp terminal to just west of the relocated Dawn Drive (SR
1791)/Lackey Road (SR 1586) intersection. From west of the relocated Dawn
Drive/Lackey Road intersection to approximately 500 feet east of Kings
Cross Road, the 6-lane roadway will transition to tie into the existing
2-lane roadway.
From the relocated Kahn Drive/K-Mart entrance intersection to the
I-95 north bound ramp terminal, the widening along NC 211 will be along
the south side of the existing roadway. This south side widening will
eliminate the need for additional right of way, since the existing 150-
foot right of way is offset with 100 feet south and 50 feet north of the
existing roadway centerline.
Between the northbound and southbound I-95 ramp terminal, the
widening will be symmetrical.
From the southbound I-95 ramp terminal to east of King's Cross Road,
the widening will be along the south side of NC 211 to avoid impacts to
French Park, a city-owned recreational facility located on the north side
of NC 211. This south-side widening will eliminate the need for additional
right of way, since the existing 100-foot right of way in the vicinity of
French Park is offset with 70 feet south and 30 feet north of the existing
roadway centerline.
B. Service Road Realignment
Two-way ramps created by ramp/service road intersections currently
exist in the northeast, southeast, and northwest quadrants of the
I-95/NC 211 interchange. These service roads will be realigned to
intersect directly with NC 211, thereby eliminating the existing
connections with the interchange ramps. The realignments will convert the
ramps to standard one-way operation and lessen driver confusion and the
likelihood of accidents, thereby improving safety.
Kahn Drive (SR 1792 in the northeast quadrant) will be realigned
along the front of the K-Mart property to tie into NC 211 at the existing
traffic signal for the K-mart entrance. The relocated section of Kahn
Drive will basically be a 3-lane curb and gutter roadway (37 feet face to
face of curbs). This will provide for an 11-foot lane for each direction
of travel and an 11-foot center turn lane. The roadway will be widened to
five lanes with curb and gutter (64 feet face to face of curbs) at the NC
211 intersection. This five-lane roadway will provide for a separate right
turn lane and double left turn lanes onto NC 211. This will also allow
double left turns from eastbound NC 211 into relocated Kahn Drive.
Capuano Road (SR 1590 in the southeast quadrant) will be realigned to
tie into Rowland Avenue approximately 250 feet south of the NC 211/Rowland
Avenue intersection. The relocated section of Capuano Road will be a
2-lane curb and gutter roadway (28 feet of face to face of curbs).
Dawn Drive (SR 1791 in the northwest quadrant) will be realigned to
tie into NC 211 opposite Lackey Street. The relocated section of Dawn
Drive will be a 3-lane curb and gutter roadway (37 feet face to face of
curbs). This will provide an 11-foot lane in each travel direction and an
11-foot center turn lane.
No realignment of Lackey Street (SR 1586 in the southwest quadrant)
is proposed.
C. Structures
1. Bridge No. 102 Over I-95
The existing bridge (Bridge No. 102) carrying NC 211 over I-95
will be replaced because the widening and rehabilitation of the
existing bridge would result in insufficient vertical clearance over
I-95. A clear roadway width of 90 feet is to be provided on the new
bridge to allow sufficient clearance for maintaining traffic on
NC 211 during phase construction of the new bridge and to accommodate
the proposed six-lane cross section between the I-95 ramp terminals.
Two through lanes and a right turn lane (which will provide free flow
access to the loops) will be provided for each travel direction. The
middle 12 feet of this roadway will be a paint-striped median to
prevent left turns onto the northbound and southbound I-95 entrance
ramps. A 5-foot sidewalk will be constructed along the north side of
the new bridge. The new bridge is to provide a minimum vertical
clearance of 16 feet and 6 inches over I-95.
4
The new bridge will be approximately 292 feet in length to
accommodate the anticipated future widening of I-95 to six lanes.
The NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program does not include the
widening of I-95 at this time.
2. Drainage Structures
Three bridges on NC 211 just west of I-95 were replaced with
reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBC) in 1988 under TIP Project
No. B-1340. These culverts (Culvert No. 95 at Fivemile Branch and
Culvert Nos. 83 and 60 at Saddletree Swamp) were constructed so
future south side widening to a multilane facility could occur. Only
Culvert No. 95 (a triple-barrel, 14' x 9', RCBC) on Fivemile Branch,
is involved with this project, and no further extension of this
132-foot long culvert is required for the widening of NC 211, as
recommended in this report.
No improvements to Dawn Drive, I-95, or Kahn Drive are
recommended in the vicinity of where Fivemile Branch is crossed by
I-95 (approximately 0.3 mile north of the NC 211 bridge); therefore,
no extension of the double-barrel, 10' x 8', RCBC's carrying Fivemile
Branch under Dawn Drive (Culvert No. 449) and Kahn Drive (Culvert
No. 448 is required. However between Dawn Drive (Culvert No. 449)
and I-95 (Culvert No. 150) and between I-95 and Kahn Drive (Culvert
No. 448), there are two sections of open channel along Fivemile
Branch approximately 30 feet each in length . As a safety measure,
Culvert No. 150 will be extended to enclose these areas of open
channel.
A double-barrel, 8' x 6', RCBC approximately 280 feet long also
carries Meadow Branch under Dawn Drive, I-95, and Kahn Drive just
north of the beginning of the taper for the deceleration lane for the
southbound I-95 exit ramp. No extension of this culvert is proposed.
0. Interchange Loops and Ramps
Due to the large number of vehicles accessing I-95 from NC 211,
one-lane loops are proposed in the northwest and southeast quadrants of
the interchange. This will eliminate left turns from NC 211 onto I-95 and
will facilitate traffic movement in the area. Due to the addition of the
loops, the I-95 ramp terminals in these quadrants must be relocated. The
ramp terminals in the northwest quadrant will be relocated approximately
200 feet west of their existing location, and the exit ramp will be
widened to two lanes at the terminal to provide for a double left turn
onto NC 211. The ramp terminals in the southeast quadrant will be
relocated approximately 120 feet east of their existing location, and the
exit ramp will be widened to three lanes at the terminal to provide for
double right turns onto NC 211.
The deceleration lanes for the existing I-95 exit ramps in the
northwest and southeast quadrants of the interchange will be lengthened
to enhance the safety of motorists exiting I-95. Acceleration lanes for
the new loops will be added along I-95 under the bridge.
E. Cost Estimates
The 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for
widening the existing roadway to a multilane facility, revising the
I-95/NC 211 interchange, and replacing and widening the bridge carrying
NC 211 over I-95. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
federal fiscal year 1995, and construction is scheduled to begin in
federal fiscal year 1996. The estimated total cost of the project is
$5,180,000, including $1,230,000 for right of way and $3,950,000 for
construction. The TIP includes a total funding of $5,180,000 for the
project.
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the Division of Highways
and the FHWA on October 31, 1994. The approved Environmental Assessment
was circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for
review and comments. An asterisk (*) indicates a response was received
from that agency. Copies of the correspondence received are included in
the Appendix of this document.
U. S. Department of
Wilmingtoi
*U. S. Department of
Service
U. S. Environmental
*N. C. Department of
N. C. Department of
N. C. Department of
the Army, Corps of Engineers -
i District
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Protection Agency
Administration, State Clearinghouse
Agriculture
Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources
*Division of Environmental Management
*Division of Land Resources
*Fayetteville Regional Office
*Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Cape Fear Council of Governments
Robeson County Commissioners, Chairperson
Mayor of Lumberton
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from
five (5) agencies. The following are excerpts of the substantive comments
with responses, where appropriate:
6
1. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources NCDEHNR , Division of Environmental Management
Comment: "...The subject project may impact 0.3 acres of waters
including wetlands...DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA
would not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon
application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable..."
Response: Since the project basically involves the widening of
an existing facility and the replacement of an existing bridge,
realignment alternatives to completely avoid wetland involvement
are not practicable. The relocation of Dawn Road (SR 1791), in
particular, has been designed so the existing culvert carrying
Meadow Branch under I-95 will not need to be extended, thus
minimizing impacts to wetlands in this area. The impacts on
wetlands will also be minimized through the use of Best
Management Practices during the design and construction of the
project.
2. NCDEHNR, Division of Land Resources
Comment: ..This project will have no impact on geodetic survey
markers..."
Response: As a Special Project Commitment in the EA for this
project, NCDOT committed to contact the North Carolina Geodetic
Survey prior to construction regarding the relocation of survey
markers. Since no survey markers will impacted, the North
Carolina Geodetic survey will not be contacted.
Comment: "...The erosion and sedimentation 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..."
Response: The Division of Highways has developed an Erosion and
Sedimentation Program which has been approved by the North
Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
3. NCDEHNR, Fayetteville Regional Office
Comment: "...Notification of the proper regional office is
requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are
discovered during any excavation operation..."
Response: The proper officials will be notified if any
underground storage tanks are impacted by the project.
4.
5.
NCDEHNR, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "...The EA provided adequate information regarding
impacts to plant and animal communities along the proposed
project. The greatest jurisdictional wetland impact will occur
to a man-made canal, a total of 0.2 acres ...At this time we will
concur with the EA for this project. However, we request that
NCDOT continue efforts to minimize wetland impacts. Strict
enforcement of Best Management Practices will help minimize
wetland impacts and protect off-site resources..."
Response: See previous response to NCDEHNR, Division of
Environmental Management.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Comment: "...The EA...considers various alternatives to the
proposed plan ...The Service considers the discussion of
alternatives to be adequate..."
"...The EA states ...that estimated impacts to biotic communities
equals 9.8 acres, of which 9.5 acres are disturbed,
man-dominated areas. Approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands would
be impacted, of which 0.2 acres are drainage ditches along the
existing road. These ditches would be restored as part of the
proposed project. The other 0.1 acre of wetlands consists of
shrub-scrub and swamp forest communities along Five Mile Branch.
Impacts on these wetlands would be minimized by the use of best
management practices during construction ...The Service is
pleased with these measures to minimize adverse impacts to
wetlands in the project area..."
Response: No response necessary.
Comment: "...The EA... states that no stream rechannelization is
anticipated and that any such action, if required, would be
coordinated with the Service. The Service recommends that the
NCDOT employ all feasible design features and construction
techniques to avoid any stream alterations..."
Response: There is no stream rechannel ization anticipated as a
result of this project. The relocation of Dawn Road (SR 1791),
in particular, has been designed to avoid impacts to Meadow
Branch.
Comment: "...Two Federally-endangered species are known to occur
in Robeson County. These are the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The
EA states ...that there is no suitable habitat for either species
in the project area. The EA...states that the project would not
affect these species. Based on the information in the EA, we
concur that the project is not likely to adversely affect
8
Federally-listed endangered or threatened species under the
jurisdiction of the Service. Therefore, the requirements of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act...have been satisfied.."
Response: NCDOT will notify the Fish and Wildlife Service if
there is any change in the impacts to Federally-listed
endangered or threatened species as a result of this project.
C. Public Hearing
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an open-forum,
combined location and design public hearing was held in Lumberton on March
30, 1995 (see page A-11 in the Appendix for a copy of the public hearing
notice). All of the questions and comments of those in attendance were
adequately answered at the hearing. Three written comments were received
and answered in the official commenting period following the hearing.
Information on the public hearing is on file with the Division of
Highways.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A sixth lane will be constructed along the north side of NC 211
between the relocated Kahn Drive (SR 1792)/K-Mart entrance and the
northbound I-95 entrance ramp. This will remove the motorists wanting to
access the northbound I-95 entrance ramp and southbound I-95 entrance loop
from the through traffic on NC 211. A sixth lane will also be constructed
along the south side of NC 211, from west of the relocated Dawn Drive (SR
1791)/Lackey Drive (SR 1586) intersection to the I-95 southbound entrance
ramp. This will remove the motorists wanting to access the I-95
southbound entrance ramp and northbound entrance loop from the through
traffic on NC 211. These improvements to the design will be contained
within the existing right of way.
The intersection on NC 211 at relocated Dawn Drive/Lackey Drive will
be signalized. This signal, the three existing signals along the project
(I-95 southbound ramp terminals, I-95 northbound ramp terminals, and
relocated Kahn Drive/K-mart entrance), and the three existing signals
along NC 211 immediately east of the project (Elm Street, Walnut Street,
and Fayetteville Road) will be connected in a coordinated closed loop
signal system. This will allow for more efficient traffic flow along
NC 211. In addition, a second left turn lane will be provided from
eastbound NC 211 into the relocated Kahn Drive/K-mart entrance.
Fivemile Branch is carried under Dawn Drive, I-95, and Kahn Drive by
Culvert Nos. 449, 150, and 448, respectively, each consisting of a
double-barrel, 10' x 8', RCBC. Between Dawn Drive (Culvert No. 449) and
I-95 (Culvert No. 150) and between I-95 and Kahn Drive (Culvert No. 448),
there are two sections of open channel along Fivemile Branch approximately
30 feet each in length. As a safety measure, Culvert No. 150 will be
extended to connect with Culvert Nos. 448 and 449 in order to enclose
these areas of open channel.
9
As requested by the City of Lumberton, a five-foot sidewalk will be
constructed along the north side of the NC 211 bridge over I-95.
VI. WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," established a
national policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on
wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction
wherever there is a practicable alternative.
The project will impact approximately 0.3 acre of shrub- scrub,
vegetated canals, and swamp forest wetlands. Since the project basically
involves the widening of an existing facility and the replacement of an
existing bridge, realignment alternatives to completely avoid wetland
involvement is not practicable. The relocation of Dawn Road, in
particular, has been designed so the existing culvert carrying Meadow
Branch under I-95 will not need to be extended, thus minimizing impacts to
wetlands in this area. The impacts on wetlands will also be minimized
through the use of Best Management Practices during the design and
construction of the project. An effective erosion and sedimentation
control program will be required of the contractor.
It is determined there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed new construction in wetlands, and the proposed action includes
all practical measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from
such use.
VII. FLOODPLAIN FINDING
Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management," and DOT Order 5650.2,
"Floodplain Management and Protection," were established to avoid adverse
impacts due to the occupancy and alteration of the 100-year floodplain
unless that location is the only practical alternative. It is required
that every effort be made to minimize the potential risks to human safety
and property and to minimize negative effects on natural and beneficial
floodplain value. This project will be designed to comply with these
orders and with North Carolina Executive Order 123, "Uniform Floodplain
Management Policy."
The widening of NC 211 and the replacement of the existing bridge
will not require the extension of existing reinforced concrete box
culverts at Saddletree Swamp, Fivemile Branch (on NC 211), or Meadow
Branch. As previously discussed, Culvert No. 150, which carries Fivemile
Branch under I-95, will be extended to connect with Culvert Nos. 448 and
449 in order to enclose two 30-foot long segments of open channel.
A National Flood Insurance Program detailed floodway study for
Fivemile Branch was completed and has been in effect since 1989. Fivemile
Branch is a tributary of Saddletree Swamp, and Saddletree Swamp is a
tributary of the Lumber River. The detailed flood study has indicated the
culverts on NC 211 for carrying Fivemile Branch and Saddletree Swamp are
10
inundated with the backwater from the Lumber River during the 50-year
flood. The proposed widening and improvements will not have a significant
adverse effect on the floodplain. Therefore, in accordance with these
orders, the project will not create a significant floodplain encroachment.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as
documented in the Environmental Assessment, and upon comments from
federal, state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration the project will not have a significant impact upon the
quality of the human or natural environment. The project is not
controversial from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts on
natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. Adequate
replacement property will be available for the one business which will be
relocated. No significant impact on air or water quality or on ambient
noise levels is expected. The project is consistent with local plans and
will not divide or disrupt a community. The project will have no effect
on any historic properties listed in or eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. No known Section 4(f) properties will be impacted by
the project. The proposed improvements will have no effect on
federally-listed threatened or endangered species. In view of the above,
it has been determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable
for this project. An Environmental Impact Statement or further
environmental analysis will not be required.
RE/tp
Z

O
U
Z
0
W
O
w
E. ll.l IL

A. ?
iN
kl .B! a: IIJ
.;> it () f, yr)
y,gVL? cn mcv
j fn III ?
..1 F A

a 1
nr
Q ? (11
w Z () Ci
"I F4 0 IL
0
CI d F J7 (1C 6
LL 7 fl:
I-- Q 0 I
FAQata4 C11L1 L Cl
I.I.I
(•? "? Ill LIl
rr <)

31
OI
APPENDIX
120
05-02-95 -
PROJECT MA AGEMENT
MAILED TO
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
CG' ( o n,5
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS 5 '
FROM R,
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
WHIT WEBB
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH
TRANSPORTATION BLDG-/INTER-OFF
MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
?CEIlje
Q`.. ` Q
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENV. ASSESS. - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 2111 FROM R MAY 0 8 1995
AVENUE TO WEST OF KINGvS CROSS ROAD IN LUMBERTON (TI #U-24 11
?--? 2 DIVISION OF
SAI NO 95E422007312 PROd(ikM TITLE - ENV. ASSESS. HIGHWAYS
ONNIE?
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 QUESTIONSy PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]•
C.C. REGION N
rF7
C Ni
MAY 41995 u
c
A.- 1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster ll, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE :
DATE:
e??
DEHNR
Chrys Baggett
Melba McGee [p?
95-0712 NC 211 Widening, Robeson County
April 26, 1995
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
A-2
r
t
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Ecucl Oppcrtunity Atfirmctive Action Ernp!cyer 50°6 recycled! 10 c ;:osr-consumer cccer
04121/95 16:37 $919 733 9959 NC DER WQ ENVSCI Q002
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
& IF!WA
14 roA
ED FE HNF=t
To: Melba McGee .
l
Through: John Domgt
?;'
Monica Swihartw
From: Eric Galambe
Subject: EA for NC 211 Widening
Robeson County
TIP #U-2415
1461601
8
te Project DOT No
St
,
.
.
a
EHNR # 95-0712, DEM WO # 10916
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 of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project may impact 0.3 acres of waters including wetlands.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
nc211 wid.ea
A-3
P.O. Box 29535. Rdelgh, North CQoilna 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employor 5M recycled/ 10%past-conaurner paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourc
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT REVIEW CON24ENTS
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: qs 6'7 ( L County: eQt?5 4?r5'?V/L-
AP
R 5 1995
_N ?arrlnAr
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].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
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].
?1a? C,CJ? A-4 Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 - Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 - Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunlty AlFrmatNe Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number. U Due Date:
C7,5_-,0 7/ 1/- eP/- • ?;E
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

Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, S sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
IPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 dayq 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 NPDES. Reply (N/A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.

Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
- pnor to the installation of a well. (15 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 & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
J facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.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.
190 da
s)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800. y
_ The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & 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
lays before be innin activity A fee of $30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan (30 davs)
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 (60 daysl
must be received before the permit can be issued.
J North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds a days (N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if 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 Refining Facilities A-5 NIA (N/A)
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 aoprov
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac.
company the application An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
Ccrinnuec on revere
PERMITS
?I Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
?I Geophysical Exploration Permit
?I Slate Lakes Construction Permit
401 Water ouality Certification
? CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
Normal Process
Time
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

File surety bond of 55,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. 10 days
(NIA)

Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application form. 10 da s
y
(NIA)

Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership
of riparian property. 15.20 days
(NIA)
60 days
NIA (130 days)
t
$250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)
? CAMA Permit for MINOR development 22 days
$50.00 fee must accompany application (25 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 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
( Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
u?? Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Slormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
• (N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

REG
Questions regarding these permits should be add
e
edA
Oh
s
to t
e Regional Office marked below

? Asheville Regional Office .

59 Woodfin Place Fayetteville Regional Office

Asheville, NC 28801 Suite 714 Wachovia Building

[phone] Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 ? Raleigh Re
ional Offi

North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115 g
ce
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
[phone] Raleigh, 27609
(919) 733.23 2314
? Washington Regional Office A-6
1424 C ? Wilmington Regional Offi

arolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889 ce
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
[phone] Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regtanat Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(919) 8967007
® 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 Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo ator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 17, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for NC 211, from east of Rowland Avenue to east of King's
Cross Road, Robeson County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-2415, SCH Project No.
95-0712.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission 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).
NCDOT proposes to widen NC 211 in Lumberton to a five- to six-lane facility in the area of
the I-95 interchange. The replacement of the bridge carrying NC 211 over I-95, adding loops
and realigning service roads are also elements of the proposed improvements. Total project
length is approximately 0.7 miles. Wetland impacts resulting from the proposed improvements
will be approximately 0.3 acres.
The EA provided adequate information regarding impacts to plant and animal communities
along the proposed project. The greatest jurisdictional wetland impact will occur to a man-made
canal, a total of 0.2 acres.
At this time we will concur with the EA for this project. However, we request that NCDOT
continue efforts to minimize wetland impacts. Strict enforcement of Best Management Practices
will help minimize wetland impacts and protect off-site resources.
A
Memorandum 2 April 17, 1995
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, NG/ES Program Manager
David Dell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-8
tae,
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 23, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
TAU? J
AMMEERKA?
Y A]
0000 ?t_ E
MAY 2 4 1995
2
DIVISICN OF
HIGHWAYS
?RONME??
This responds to your letter of July 28, 1994 requesting comments from the U.
S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Administrative Action and
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the NC 211 Project, Robeson County, North
Carolina, TIP No. U-2415. This report is provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
The EA states that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to widen the existing roadway to a multilane facility, modify the
existing I-95/NC 211 interchange, and replace and widen the bridge carrying NC
211 over I-95. The length of improvements to NC 211 would be approximately
0.7 miles. Approximately 4.5 acres of additional right-of-way would be
required for changes to the interchange. Some service roads near the
interchange would be realigned.
The EA (pp. 11-12) considers various alternatives to the proposed plan. Since
the project entails improvements to existing facilities, the range of possible
built alternatives is limited. The Service considers the discussion of
alternatives to be adequate.
The EA states (p. 16) that estimated impacts to biotic communities equals 9.8
acres, of which 9.5 acres are disturbed, man-dominated areas. Approximately
0.3 a, rod c f nal n.-7r "':".1'i t. cta_d _1
:'1t.?., .., :; i':i- - --as aic dralI:dge
ditches along they existing road. These ditches would be restored as part of
the proposed project. The other 0.1 acre of wetlands consists of shrub-scrub
and swamp forest communities along Five Mile Branch. Impacts on these wetlands
would be minimized by the use of best management practices during
construction. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan established by the
Division of Highways in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources would be followed during
construction. The Service is pleased with these measures to minimize adverse
impacts to wetlands in the project area.
The EA (p. 29) states that no stream rechannelization is anticipated and that
any such action, if required, would be coordinated with the Service. The
Service recommends that the NCDOT employ all feasible design features and
construction techniques to avoid any stream alterations.
Two Federally-endangered species are known to occur in Robeson County. These
are the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii). The EA states (p. 17) that there is no suitable habitat for
A-9
either species in the project area. The EA notes that there was an
"ecological survey" for the project, and states that the project would not
affect these species. Based on the information in the EA, we concur that the
project is not likely to adversely affect Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species under the jurisdiction of the Service. Therefore, the
requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (op. cit.) have been
satisfied. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not
considered in this biological assessment., or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely yours,
/?/
Tom Augsp er
Acting Supervisor
A-10
NOTICE OF AN OPEN HOUSE PUBLIC HEARING
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
TO THREE I-95 INTERCHANGES IN LUMBERTON:
US 301 - SR 1997
NC 211 (ROBERTS ROAD)
NC 72/NC 711 (COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE)
Project 8.1461401 I-2305B Robeson County
8.1461601 U-2415
8.1461701 U-2416
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold
the above open house public hearing on Thursday,
March 30, 1995 between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. in
the Gilbert Carroll Middle School Cafeteria located at
300 Bailey Road in Lumberton. Interested individuals may
attend this hearing at their convenience between the above
stated hours. Division of Highways personnel will be available
to provide information, answer questions, and take comments
regarding these projects.
The following I-95 interchange improvements are proposed:
US 301/SR 1997 - Widen Southbound Lumber River Bridge; Relocate
Service Road Connectors to US 301 Thereby
Eliminating Two-Way Ramps; Improve Northbound
and Southbound Ramps.
NC 211 - Widen NC 211 to a Multi-Lane Roadway from
McMillan Avenue to Lackey Street; Replace and
Widen Bridge Over I-95; Add Loops in NW and SE
Quadrants; Realign Service Roads.
NC 72/NC 711 - Widen NC 72/NC 711 to a Multi-Lane Roadway
from the NC 72/NC 711 Intersection to NC 72
(West 5th Street); Replace Lumber River
Bridge; Replace Bridge Over I-95; Realign
Service Roads.
Additional right of way and the relocation of two businesses -
one at NC 211 and one at NC 72/NC 711 - will be required for
these projects.
Maps setting forth the location and design and copies of
the Environmental Documents are available for public review in
the North Carolina Department of Transportation's District
Office located on NC 711 - approximately one mile from NC 72 -
in Lumberton.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services or additional project information,
please call Mr. L. L. Hendricks, P. 0. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC 27611 or telephone [phone].

A-11
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ?Y •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary E H N F11
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
April 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dor
r6yp
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galambp
Subject: EA for NC 211 Widening
Robeson County
State Project DOT No. 8.1461601, TIP #U-2415
EHNR # 95-0712, DEM WO # 10916
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 of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project may impact 0.3 acres of waters including wetlands.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
nc211 wid.ea
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

* I
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Irttergovernrn(• ttrt-A-n,?irs -? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number < Oun
Dale Date Response Due firm deadline):
-0)f -
This project is being reviewed as indicated below
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area
In-House Review
? Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
? Raleigh
? Washington
L] Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Response (check all applicable)
Date:
1 Marine Fisheries
Water Planning
*nvironmental Health
I-.-)Solid Waste Management
I !Radiation Protection
[J David Foster
I iOther (specify)
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
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)
C7 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
u Project Controversial (comments attached)
Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
U Consistency Statement not needed
Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
U Other (specify and attach comments)
Melba McGee
I I All R/O Areas
IvA i r
4lI Water
Groundwater
VI-and Quality Engineer
C_l Recreational Consultant
( i Coastal Management Consultant
I -!Others
PWS
ISoil and Water
]Coastal Management
I-_I Water Resources
Vwildlife
crest Resources
and Resources
,,_? arks and Recreation
thEnvironmental Management
- Monica Swihart
Ps 104 Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
-4 -W 1 .1 i
NC 211'(Roberts Avenue)
From East of Rowland Avenue to East of King's Cross Road
Lumberton, Robeson County
F. A. Project No. M-7761(2)
State Project No. 8.1461601
T.I.P. No. U-2415

Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
12?
Dater H. Franklin Vic F, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Da a Nic s L. ra
?G
F°K Divi on Administrator, FHWA
NC 211'(Roberts Avenue)
From East of Rowland Avenue to East of King's Cross Road
Lumberton, Robeson County
F. A. Project No. M-7161(2)
State Project No. 8.1461601
T.I.P. No. U-2415
Environmental Assessment
October, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
et/. aY(, ao,,? d10 .31
W. Ron Elmore, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
&Y-ov?
J Wil on Stroud
Pr t Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Em?Troi ? a-} Branch
•%".141.,#111,.,,.
L\H.?AROI/' •.
??.••EESSINp'••. 4
:QO
i SE AL
114058 r
%
?FR,R11E`?,p•,?
_ Summary
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental
Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
3. Summary of Special Project Commitments
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction regarding the relocation of survey markers along the project.
Impacts on wetlands will be minimized through the use of best
management practices during project construction.
The City of Lumberton has requested a sidewalk on the bridge carrying
NC 211 over I-95. The need for sidewalks along the project will be
considered during the final design of the project.
4. Actions Required bv Other Agencies
It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be performed under a
Department of the Army Nationwide Permit for minor road crossing fills in
accordance with 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (..
5. Description of Action
T? f. Transportation proposes to widen
on "v x`=n"''ilcility to improve traffp
fl.sOance; safety along NC 211 in the vicinity of the I-96
Replacing and widening the existing bridge carrying NC 211
over I-95, adding loops in the northwest and southeast quadrants of the
I-95/NC 211 interchange, and realigning service roads in three of the four
quadrants (to eliminate the existing interchange ramp/service road
intersections) are also included in the project. The project begins west
of the McMillan Avenue intersection and ends west of the Lackey Street
(SR 1586) intersection, a distance of approximately 0.7 mile.
6. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed highway improvements will result in more efficient
vehicle operation and reduced travel times, resulting in road user cost
savings. Traffic safety will be enhanced. Access to homes, businesses,
and public facilities in the project area will be improved.
Approximately 4.5 acres of additional right of way will be required.
One motel will be relocated as a result of the project. No farmland, as
defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, will be affected by the
project. A 444414` of wetlands will be filled as a result of
tllf 'act vities.
7. Alternatives Considered
a. Recommended improvement - Widen NC 211 to a five- to six-lane
facility, replace and widen the NC 211 bridge over I-95, and
upgrade the I-95/NC 211 interchange.
b. Postponement of proposed action.
C. "Do nothing" alternative.
d. Alternate modes of transportation.
8. Federal, State, and Local Agencies Contacted at the Beginning of this
StT - - - -
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps
of Engineers
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives
and History
N. C. Department of Human Resources - Division of Health Services
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources -Environmental Assessment Section
N. C. Department of Public Instruction - Division of School Planning
Lumber River Council of Governments
Robeson County Commissioners
Mayor of Lumberton
9. Basis for Environmental Assessment
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is concluded
this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality
of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant
changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial in
nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state, and local
agencies, and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the
project were voiced at the public meeting held in Lumberton. For these
reasons, it is concluded that an Environmental Assessment is applicable
for the project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................
A. General Description of Project ..................... 1
B. Project Status and Historical Resume ................ 1
_ C. Existing Conditions ................................. 1
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied .............. 1
2. Route Classification ........................... 1
3. Existing Cross Section ......................... 1
4. Existing Right of Way .......................... 2
5. Degree of Utility Conflict ..................... 2
6. Speed Limit ................................. 2
7. Access Control ................................. 2
8. Bridges . ................................. 2
9. Drainage Structures ............................ 2
10. Traffic Data ................................... 3
11. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature .............. 3
12. Intersection Treatment ......................... 3
13. Service Roads ... . ... ...................... 3
14. Degree of Roadside Interference ................ 3
15. Railroad Crossings ............................. 3
16. School Bus Data ................................ 4
17. Sidewalks ...................................... 4
D. Capacity Analysis ................................... 4
E. Accident Analysis ................................... 6
F. Project Terminals ................................... 6
G. Thoroughfare Plan .. ....... ... .......... 7
H. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community ........ 7
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ....................................
A. NC 211 Widening ..................................... 7
B. Service Road Realignment ............................ 7
C. Structures .......................................... 8
1. Bridge over I-95 ............................... 8
2. Drainage Structures ............................ 8
D. Interchange Loops and Ramps ......................... 9
E. Design Speed ....................................... 9
F. Access Control ...................................... 9
G. Right of Way ....................................... 9
H. Proposed Design Exceptions .......................... 10
I. Special Permits Required ............................ 10
J. Changes in the State Highway System ................. 10
K. Multiple Use of Space ............................... 10
L. Bikeways ............................................ 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
PAGE
III.
IV.
M. Sidewalk ............................................ 10
N. Airports .......................................... 10
0. Cost Estimates ...................................... 10
P. Other Proposed Highway Improvements ................. 11
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................... 11
A. Recommended Improvements ....................... 11
B. Postponement of Proposed Action ..................... 11
C. "Do Nothing" Alternative ....................... 12
D. Alternate Modes of Transportation ................... 12
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .............. 12
A. Social Effects ...................................... 12
1. Land Use ....................................... 12
a. Existing Land Use ......................... 12
b. Existing Zoning ........................... 13
C. Proposed Land Use ... . .. ........... 13
d. Project Compatibility with Local
Plans ..................................... 13
2. Neighborhood Characteristics ................... 13
3. Relocatees ................................ 13
4. Public Facilities ............................ 14
5. Historic and Cultural Resources ................ 14
a. Architectural/Historical Resources ........ 14
b. Archaeological Resources .................. 14
B. Economic Effects ............... ............. 14
C. Environmental Effects ............................... 15
1. Biological Resources ........................... 15
a. Plant Life ................................ 15
b. Wildlife ........... .................... 17
C. Federally-Listed Species .. ......... 17
d. Federal Candidate/State Protected
Species ................................... 18
2. Soils ..... ... .... ........................... 19
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................ 19
4. Permits ... . .... .......................... 20
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation ........................ 20
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
PAGE
V.
6 Water Quality .................... .................... 21
.
7. Farmland . .... . ..... ..... 21
8. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis .... 21
9. Air Quality Analysis ............. .................... 26
10. Stream Modification ............. .................... 29
11. Hazardous Materials ............. .................... 29
12. Geotechnical Impacts ............. .................... 30
13. Construction Impacts ............. .................... 30
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............. .................... 32
A. Comments Received ................ .................... 32
B. Public Meeting ................... ...................
32
32
C. Public Hearing ................... .................... 33
TABLES
Table 1 - Drainage Structures ................•••••• 2
4
Table 2a - Mainline Capacity Analysis .................... 5
Table 2b - Intersection Capacity Analysis .................
Table 3 - Accident Rates . .. .......................... 6
16
Table 4 - Biotic Community Impacts ....................... 19
Table 5 - Wetland Community Impacts ......................
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 3 - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 - Lumberton Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5 - Aerial Mo saic
Figure 6 - 100-Year Floodplain Limits
APPENDIX
Relocation Report .... .. ............................ A-1
Division of Highways Relocation Programs .................. A-2
Table N1 - Typical Noise Levels ....................... A-4
Table N2 - Noise Abatement Criteria . .................. A-5
Figure N1 - Ambient Noise Measurement Sites ............... A-6
Table N3 - Ambient Noise Levels .......................... A-7
Table N4 - Leq Traffic Noise Exposures ................... A-8
Table N5 - Noise Abatement Criteria Summary .............. A-9
Table N6 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary ......... A-10
Tables Al through A4 - Air Quality Analysis ............... A-11
Comments Received from Review Agencies ................... A-13
Public Meeting Information ............................... A-36
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
NC 211 (Roberts Avenue) to a five- to six-lane facility from west of
McMillan Avenue to west of Lackey Street (SR 1586) and to upgrade the I-95
interchange with NC 211 in Lumberton (see Figure 1). The project is
located in Robeson County.
B. Project Status and Historical Resume
The 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for widening the existing roadway to a multilane facility, revising the
I-95/NC 211 interchange, and replacing and widening the bridge carrying
NC 211 over I-95. Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled
to begin in fiscal years 1994 and 1996, respectively. The TIP includes a
total funding of $3,270,000 for the project, including $770,000 for right
of way and $2,500,000 for construction. The total cost of the recommended
improvements is $5,180,000 which includes $1,230,000 for right of way and
3,950,000 for construction. The estimated cost exceeds the TIP funding by
$1,910,000.
C. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of NC 211 is approximately
0.7 mile.
2. Route Classification
NC 211 is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial west of I-95 and
an Urban Major Arterial east of I-95.
3. Existing Cross Section
West of I-95, the existing pavement width along the studied
section of NC 211 varies from 22 to 36 feet with 8-foot grassed
shoulders along each side of the roadway. A five-lane, 64-foot face
to face of curbs with gutter section exists along NC 211 east of
I-95. Photos of existing conditions along the project are shown in
Figure 2.
2
4. Existing Right of Way
The right of way width along NC 211 in the study area varies
from 100 to 150 feet. From Kings Cross Road to Fivemile Branch, the
existing right of way width is 100 feet (offset 70 feet south of the
existing centerline and 30 feet north). From Fivemile Branch to
McMillan Avenue, the existing right of way width is 150 feet (offset
100 feet south of the existing centerline and 50 feet north).
5. Degree of Utility Conflict
The degree of utility conflict is high with water, gas, sewer,
electrical, telephone, and cable television lines located above and
below ground along the project.
6. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project is 45 mph.
7. Access Control
Access to NC 211 is fully controlled within the I-95 interchange
area. Outside the interchange area, there is no control of access
along NC 211.
Access along I-95 is fully controlled.
8. Bridges
Bridge No. 102 carries NC 211 over I-95. This bridge was
constructed in 1955 and has a sufficiency rating of 60.8 and an
estimated remaining life of 10 years. The bridge provides a
horizontal clearance of 28 feet (curb to curb) along NC 211 and a
vertical clearance of 17 feet, 3 inches over I-95. The bridge is 214
feet in length and provides a horizontal clearance of 45 feet for
both the northbound and southbound lanes of I-95.
9. Drainage Structures
Reinforced concrete box culverts along NC 211, I-95, and the
I-95 service roads in the vicinity of the project are described in
Table 1 on page 3.
Table 1
DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
Route Water Structure
Culvert No. Carried Course Description
60 NC 211 Saddletree Swamp 3 @ 13'x 7'
83 NC 211 Saddletree Swamp 2 @ 9'x 5'
95 NC 211 Fivemile Branch 3 @ 14'x 9'
150 I-95 Fivemile Branch 2 @ 10'x 8'
448 SR 1792 Fivemile Branch 2 @ 10'x 8'
449 SR 1791 Fivemile Branch 2 @ 10'x 8'
N/A I-95 Meadow Branch 2 @ 10'x 8'
4
3
10. Traffic Data
Projected traffic volumes along NC 211 for the year 1995 range
from 18,400 vehicles per day (vpd) west of Lackey Street to 37,500
vpd west of McMillan Avenue. Projected traffic volumes for the year
2015 at the same locations range from 28,600 vpd to 62,100 vpd.
Truck traffic will comprise approximately 7 percent of these volumes
(4 percent duals and 3 percent TTST).
The 1995 projected traffic volumes along I-95 range from 40,700
vpd north of NC 211 to 48,000 vpd south of NC 211. The 2015
projected traffic volumes range from 76,500 vpd to 89,400 vpd at the
same locations. Truck traffic will comprise approximately 21 percent
of these volumes (6 percent duals and 15 percent TTST).
Projected traffic volumes, major turning movements, truck data,
and design hour data are shown in Figure 3.
11. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The studied segment of NC 211 is tangent and flat.
12. Intersection Treatment
A diamond-type interchange exists at the I-95/NC 211 junction.
All other intersections are at-grade.
Traffic signals exist on NC 211 at both I-95 ramp terminals and
at the K-Mart entrance. All other intersections are stop sign- or
yield sign-controlled.
13. Service Roads
Service roads in the northwest [Dawn Drive (SR 1791)], northeast
[Kahn Drive (SR 1792)], and southeast [Capuano Road (SR 1590)]
quadrants of the I-95/NC 211 interchange intersect the I-95 on- and
off-ramps. Two-way traffic operation exists along a portion of each
of these ramps, resulting in driver confusion, possible conflicts
between service road and I-95 ramp traffic, and possible wrong-way
movements onto I-95.
The service road in the southwest quadrant of the interchange
[Lackey Street (SR 1586)] connects with NC 211 approximately 450 feet
west of the southbound I-95 ramp terminal.
14 14. Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside interference is moderate west of Fivemile Branch and
heavy along the remainder of the project.
15. Railroad Crossings
No railroad crossings exist along the project.
4
16. School Bus Data
Approximately sixteen school buses travel the studied section of
NC 211 two times a day.
17. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exists along NC 211 in the project study area or
along the adjacent sections of NC 211.
D. Capacity Analysis
The ability of a highway to accommodate daily and peak period traffic
flow is measured by comparing the traffic volumes (V) with the roadway
capacity (C) of a section of highway. This VAC comparison or ratio is
used to determine the level at which a highway is operating. This
measurement is referred to as "level-of-service".
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has defined levels-of-service
(LOS) in categories from A to F. LOS A represents ideal, free flow
conditions while LOS F represents forced or breakdown flow with stop and
go conditions. Generally, highways are designed to operate at LOS C during
peak traffic periods. Traffic flow at LOS C is stable but vehicle
operation is beginning to be significantly affected by other vehicles in
the traffic stream.
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for the existing two- to
three-lane highway and the proposed five- to six-lane improved facility.
The results of these analyses are listed in Table 2a below.
Table 2a
MAINLINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Section of NC 211
From relocated Kahn Drive
to northbound I-95
ramp terminal
Between I-95 ramp terminals
From southbound I-95 ramp
terminal to relocated
Dawn Drive/Lackey Street
From relocated Dawn Drive/
Lackey Street to Kings
Cross Road
Calculated Levels-of-Service
Existing Proposed
Facility
1995 2015 Facilft
1995 2015
F F D F
F F C E
E F B E
E F B C
16
5
Intersection capacity analyses were performed along NC 211 at the
southbound I-95 off-ramp intersection, the northbound I-95 off-ramp
intersection, and the relocated Kahn Drive (SR 1792)/K-mart entrance due
to the existing traffic signals at these locations and at the Lackey
Street (SR 1586)/relocated Dawn Drive (SR 1791) intersection which is not
signalized. Capacity analyses were performed for both the existing
intersection configurations and the recommended intersection improvements
for these intersections. The results of these analyses are shown in
Table 2b below.
Table 2b
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Calculated Levels-of-Service
Existing Proposed
Facility Facility
2015
Intersection 1995 2015 1
NC 211/relocated Kahn Drive C F C F
NC 211/northbound I-95 off-ramp F F C D
NC 211/southbound I-95 off-ramp F F C D
NC 211/Lackey Street/ N/A C E
relocated Dawn Drive
The capacity analysis described above is based upon the projected
traffic volumes shown in Figure 2. Those traffic volumes reflect the
number of vehicles which would travel NC 211 if there were no traffic
deficiencies on the highway network in the area.
NC 211 west of the project area is a two-lane facility. in a rural
setting. It appears this roadway could be widened to a multi-lane
facility to increase its capacity; however, improvements to this section
of NC 211 are not currently identified in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program. East of the project, NC 211 is a five-lane curb and
gutter facility which has recently been widened. Due to development along
this section of NC 211, further major widening is not anticipated.
NC 211 will not have sufficient traffic handling capability to carry
the amount of traffic projected in the year 2015 (59,300 vpd). As a
result, the volumes shown in Figure 2 are higher than the volumes that
will actually occur. Based on these considerations, constructing
sufficient through and turn lanes along NC 211 and intersecting roads so
as to provide a more desirable level of service in the design year is not
considered to be prudent or probable. The recommended improvements
provide capacity improvements and safety enhancements, while at the same
time minimizing environments} imWts.
6
The Lumberton Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 4) includes a proposed
Outer Loop from I-95/US 301 interchange north of Lumberton around the
eastern and southern segments of the city. When constructed, it is
anticipated the Outer Loop will divert traffic from NC 211.
E. Accident Analysis
A comparison of accident rates along NC 211 and the statewide rates
for urban two-lane "NC" routes is shown in Table 3 below. The rates shown
for NC 211 were obtained from studies conducted from January 1, 1989
through October 31, 1992. The statewide rates were obtained from studies
conducted from 1989 through 1991.
Table 3
ACCIDENT RATES
(per 100 mTTTi on vee c Te miles)
Average Statewide Rate
Accident Type Rate along NC 211 for all Urban "NC" Routes
All accidents 1074.1 277.1
Fatal 0 1.1
Non-fatal 453.3 108.5
Nighttime 194.7 55.0
Wet conditions 245.0 56.7
No fatalities occurred along the subject segment of NC 211 during the
accident study period thus the fatal accident rate is lower than the
statewide rate for all urban two-lane "NC" routes. The rates for all
other types of accidents were as much as three to four times higher than
the corresponding statewide average rates.
Thirty-seven (37) percent of the 171 accidents recorded along the
project involved rear-end collisions. Twenty-nine (29) percent involved
angle collisions, and twenty-one (21) percent involved vehicles making
left- or right-hand turns.
Approximately sixty-nine (69) percent of the recorded accidents
occurred east of I-95 near Rowland Avenue and the northbound I-95 ramp
terminal. Service roads intersect both the on- and off-ramps of I-95 on
the east side of NC 211.
Approximately fourteen (14) percent of the accidents occurred west of
I-95 near SR 1586 (Lackey Street) and the southbound I-95 ramp terminal.
A service road also intersects the I-95 off-ramp on the west side of
NC 211.
F. Project Terminals
East of McMillan Avenue, NC 211 consists of a five-lane, 64-foot
(face-to-face) curb and gutter section. West of Kings Cross Road, NC 211
consists of a two-lane facility with a 24-foot pavement and 10-foot
grassed shoulders.
7
G. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 211 is identified as a major thoroughfare on the Lumberton
Thoroughfare Plan. This plan was adopted by the City of Lumberton and the
North Carolina Board of Transportation in 1978. The Lumberton
Thoroughfare Plan is shown in Figure 4.
H. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient vehicle operation
and reduced travel times for motorists, resulting in road user cost
savings. Traffic safety will be improved by providing additional through
and turn lanes along NC 211, by adding loops to facilitate access to I-95,
and by eliminating the existing two-way ramp operation in three of
the four quadrants of the NC 211/I-95 interchange. Access to homes,
businesses, and public facilities near the project will be improved.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. NC 211 Widening
It is recommended NC 211 (Roberts Avenue) be widened to provide a
five- to six-lane facility from west of McMillan Avenue to west of Lackey
Road (SR 1586), a distance of approximately 0.7 mile (see Figure 5). From
the relocated Kahn Drive (SR 1792)/K-Mart entrance intersection to the
northbound I-95 interchange ramp terminal, the existing 5- lane, 64-foot
(face -to-face) curb and gutter roadway will be retained and resurfaced.
From the northbound I-95 ramp terminals to the southbound I-95 ramp
terminal, a 6-lane, 90-foot (face-to-face) curb and gutter section will be
constructed. This will provide for two through lanes and a right turn
lane (which will provide free flow access to the loops) in each direction.
The middle 12 feet of this roadway will be paint-striped to prevent left
hand turns onto the northbound and southbound I-95 entrance ramps. A
five-lane cross section with 60 feet of pavement and 10-foot shoulders
(2 feet of which will be paved) is recommended from the southbound I-95
ramp terminal to just west of the Lackey Road (SR 1586)/relocated Dawn
Drive (SR 1791) intersection. From west of the Lackey Road/ relocated
Dawn Drive intersection to approximately 500 feet east of Kings Cross
Road, the 5-lane roadway will transition to the existing 2-lane roadway.
South-side widening of NC 211 is to be performed from east of Kings
Cross Road to the southbound I-95 ramp terminal to avoid impacts to French
Park, a City owned recreational facility located on the north side of
NC 211. This south-side widening will also eliminate the need for
additional right of way, since the existing 100-foot right of way in the
vicinity of French Park is offset 70 feet south of the existing roadway
centerline and 30 feet north.
B. Service Road Realignment
As discussed in Section I. C. 12. Service Roads on page 3 of this
report, two-way ramps created by ramp/service a-cTintersections currently
exist in the northeast, southeast, and northwest quadrants of the I-95/
NC 211 interchange. These service roads will be realigned to intersect
8
directly with NC 211, thereby eliminating the existing connections with
the interchange ramps. The realignments will convert the ramps to
standard one-way operation and lessen driver confusion and the likelihood
of accidents, thereby improving safety. These proposed realignments are
shown on Figure 5.
Kahn Drive (SR 1792 - northeast quadrant) is to be realigned along
the front of the K-Mart property to tie into NC 211 at the existing signal
for the K-mart entrance. The relocated section of Kahn Drive will
basically be a 3-lane roadway, 37 feet face to face of curbs with gutter,
widening to a 5-lane, 64 feet face to face of curbs with gutter, at the
NC 211 intersection.
Capuano Road (SR 1590 -southeast quadrant) is to be realigned to tie
into Rowland Avenue just south of the NC 211/Rowland Avenue intersection.
The relocated section of Capuano Road will be a 2-lane roadway, 28 feet of
face to face of curbs with gutter.
Dawn Drive (SR 1791 -northwest quadrant) is to be realigned to tie
into NC 211 opposite Lackey Street. No realignment of Lackey Street
(SR 1586) is proposed. The relocated section of Dawn Drive will be a
3-lane roadway, 37 feet face to face of curbs with gutter.
C. Structures
1. Bridge over I-95
It is recommended the existing bridge carrying NC 211 over I-95
be replaced rather than rehabilitated and widened because widening
may result in insufficient vertical clearance over I-95. A clear
roadway width of 90 feet is to be provided on the new bridge to
accommodate the proposed six-lane cross section between the I-95 ramp
terminals and to allow sufficient clearance for the phased
construction (in order to maintain traffic on NC 211) of the new
bridge. The new bridge is to provide a minimum vertical clearance of
16 feet, 6 inches over I-95.
The new bridge will be approximately 292 feet in length to
accommodate for the future widening of I-95 to six lanes. The NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program does not include the widening of
I-95 at this time.
2. Drainage Structures
Three bridges on NC 211 just west of I-95 were replaced with
reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBC) in 1988 under TIP Project
B-1340. These culverts (culvert number 95 at Fivemile Branch and
culvert numbers 83 and 60 at Saddletree Swamp) were constructed so as
to allow for future widening of NC 211 along the south side to a
multilane facility. Only culvert number 95 over Fivemile Branch is
involved with this project, and no further extension of this 132-foot
long culvert is required for the widening of KC 211 as recommended in
this report.
No improvements to Dawn Drive, I-95, or Kahn Drive are
recommended in the vicinityy of where Fivemile Branch is crossed by
I-95; therefore, n?f+dh of the RCBC's carrying Fivemile Branch
under those facilities (culvert numbers 150, 449, and 448,
respectively) is required.
A 2-barrel, 10'x 8', RCBC M feet long also
carries Meadow Branch under Dawn Drive, I-95, and Kahn Drive just
north of the beginning of the taper for deceleration lane for the
southbound I-95 off-ramp. N w nMw of this culvert is
a"I?teld .
D. Interchange Loops and Ramps
Due to the large number of vehicles accessing I-95 from NC 211, one
lane loops are proposed in the northwest and southeast quadrants of the
interchange. This will eliminate left turns from NC 211 onto I-95 and
will facilitate traffic movement in the area. Due to the addition of the
loops, the I-95 off-ramp terminals in these quadrants must be relocated.
The off-ramp terminal in the northwest quadrant will be relocated
approximately 200 feet west of its existing location and will be widened
to 2 lanes to provide for a double left turn onto NC 211. The off-ramp
terminal in the southeast quadrant will be relocated approximately 120
feet east of its existing location and will be widened to 2 lanes to
provide for a double right turn onto NC 211.
The acceleration lanes for the existing I-95 on-ramps in the
northeast and southwest quadrants of the interchange will be lengthened to
enhance the safety of motorists merging onto I-95.
E. Design Speed
The recommended design speed along NC 211 is 50 mph.
F. Access Control
Additional access control will be acquired in the northwest,
northeast, and southeast quadrants of the interchange to provide full
control of access along NC 211 from west of the relocated I-95 northbound
off-ramp to the Lackey Street/relocated Dawn Drive intersection. No
control of access is proposed elsewhere along NC 211 due to the need to
provide access to residences, businesses, and public facilities in the
project vicinity.
Full control of access will be maintained along I-95 (mainline and
ramps).
G. Right of Nay
No additional right of way will be required to accommodate the
proposed widening of NC 211. Approximately 4.5 acres of additional right
of way will required to accommodate the loops and off-ramp relocations in
the northwest and southeast quadrants and the realignment of service roads
in the northeast, southeast, and northwest quadrants of the NC 211/I-95
interchange.
10
H. Proposed Design Exceptions
There are no design exceptions anticipated with this project.
I. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated the proposed improvements will be performed under
the Department of the Army Nationwide Permit for minor roadway fills in
accordance with 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (x;4. An individual Section 404 Permit
will not be required.
J. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are anticipated.
K. Multiple Use of Space
There are no plans to utilize the right of way for any other purposes
except public utilities, which will be allowed use of the right of way
within certain limitations..
L. Bikeways
The need for special accommodations for bicycles along the project
has not been identified.
M. Sidewalk
The City of Lumberton has requested a sidewalk be provided on the
bridge carrying NC 211 over I-95 to improve pedestrian access across the
interstate (see Appendix page A-34). The City cited substantial
pedestrian traffic between the motels and residential neighborhoods
located on the east side of I-95 and French Park, various businesses, and
a swimming pool located on the west side of I-95. City officials
indicated the need for sidewalk is most crucial along the north side of
the bridge. Based on information contained in the NCDOT Draft Guidelines
For Planning. Pedestrian Facilities, the City of Lumberton has been asked
to furnish additional data on the need for a sidewalk. The need for
sidewalks along the project will be considered during final design of the
project.
N. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located in the area of
potential effect of the project.
0. Cost Estimates
Right of Way ................................. $1,230,000
Roadway ..... ... .. . .............. $2,750,000
(Includes NC 211 Widening, Service Road
Realignments, and Interchange Improvements)
11
Structure $1,200,000
..................................
(Includes Removal of Existing I-95 Bridge)
TOTAL .................................... $5,180,000
P. Other Proposed Highway Improvements
The 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for upgrading I-95 from the south city limits of Lumberton to the I-95/
US 301 interchange north of Lumberton (10.0 miles) under TIP Project
I-2305B. This project includes resurfacing I-95, widening the bridge over
the Lumber River, right of way fence repair and replacement, drainage
improvements, guardrail improvements including installation of median
guardrail, and pavement rutting repair. Construction is scheduled to
begin in fiscal year 1995.
. Construction on a project (TIP Project U-1005) to widen NC 211
(Roberts Avenue) to a multilane curb and gutter facility from NC 72 to
SR 1991 (2.4 miles) in Lumberton has recently been completed.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
The recommended improvement consists of the following items:
1. Widen NC 211 to a five- to six-lane facility from west of
McMillan Avenue to west of Lackey Street.
2. Replace the existing bridge carrying NC 211 over I-95 (bridge
number 102) with a six-lane structure.
3. Add loops in the southeast and northwest quadrants of the
interchange.
4. Realign service roads in the northeast, southeast, and northwest
quadrants of the NC 211/I-95 interchange (Kahn Drive, Capuano
Road, and Dawn Drive, respectively) to eliminate two-way
operation of the interchange ramps.
B. Postponement of Proposed Action
The existing facility is already operating at an undesirable
level-of-service, especially during peak traffic periods. Postponement of
the project would result in a continuing deterioration of traffic
conditions in the future as traffic demand increases. Therefore, this
alternative is not recommended.
12
C. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse
environmental impacts that are anticipated to result from the project,
there would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity of the highway
or improvements in traffic safety. For these reasons, this alternative is
not recommended.
D. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the project area, and the project involves widening ar
existing highway.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The land immediately adjacent to the service roads in all
four quadrants of the NC 211/I-95 interchange has been developed
with highway- oriented businesses such as motels, outlet stores,
gas stations, and fast-food and other restaurants. Beyond the
lands immediately adjacent to the service roads, land use varies
from quadrant to quadrant, as described below:
Northwest uadrant - This area is wooded and generally
undeveloped except for a single-family residential development
(Mayfair Subdivision).
Southwest Quadrant - This area is dominated by farmland;
woodlan exist in the vicinity of Fivemile Branch.
Northeast and Southeast Quadrants - This area is dominated by
single-family residential development.
b. Existing Zoning
The project lies within the jurisdiction of the City of
Lumberton. The City enforces a Land Use Ordinance, which was
adopted in 1985 and last updated in 1990. The Ordinance serves
as both the zoning ordinance and the long-range planning tool
for the City.
Three of the four quadrants of the I-95/NC 211 interchange
(northeast, southeast, and northwest) are zoned B-5 Commercial
Business Districts. B-5 districts are established to
accommodate commercial activities that draw business from and/or
13
provide services to travelers on I-95. The B-5 district extends
along the south side of NC 211 throughout the project study
area. The southwest quadrant is zoned B-4 Commercial District.
This district is a general business district which accommodates
the widest range of commercial uses. The land beyond the
service road (SR 1792) in the northeast quadrant of the
interchange is also zoned B-4 District.
C. Proposed Land Use
As noted above under Item "b", the City's Land Use
Ordinance serves as the long-range planning tool.
d. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
The proposed improvements will result in the relocation of
one business and result in less severe impacts on several
others. Vacant land is available in the vicinity of the
interchange, making it possible for the owner of the affected
business to relocate in the same area, if so desired. The City
of Lumberton indicates commercial land uses are expected to
continue to dominate the interchange. The proposed improvements
will not affect the general land use in the vicinity of the
project.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
Development along NC 211 in the project area is primarily
commercial; however, a City-owned recreational facility (French Park)
is located on the north side of NC 211 between Fivemile Branch and
Kings Cross Road.
Development along the service roads in the four interchange
quadrants is commercial. The areas beyond the service roads in the
northeast and southeast quadrants of the interchange are primarily
residential. Lands beyond the service road in the southwest quadrant
is dominated by farmland, and woodlands exist in the vicinity of
Fivemile Branch. Lands beyond the service road in the northwest
quadrant is generally undeveloped, except for a residential
subdivision to the west. The project will not disrupt community or
neighborhood cohesion.
3. Relocatees
Due to the relocation of the southbound off-ramp and Dawn Drive
in the northwest quadrant of the interchange, the National 9 Inn will
be displaced. This 50+ room motel is a minority-owned business, and
the owner has made relocation plans. A copy of the Relocation Report
is included in the Appendix on page A- 1. Also included in the
Appendix on pages A-2 and A-3 is a discussion on the Relocation
Programs offered by NCDOT to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation.
14
4. Public Facilities
French Park, a City-owned recreational facility located on the
north side of NC 211 west of I-95, is the only public facility
located immediately adjacent to the project. Tanglewood Elementary
School and Southeastern General Hospital are located south of the
project on Rowland Avenue. The proposed project will not interfere
with these public facilities.
5. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Architectural/Historical Resources
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was
contacted early in the project planning process for information
on potential historic/architectural resources in the project
area. The SHPO was not aware of any structures of historic or
architectural importance within the project area, but requested
the Division of Highways define and survey the area of potential
effect of the project (see memo on page A-20 in the Appendix).
NCDOT architectural /historic staff surveyed the area of
potential effect of the project. No properties over fifty years
old were found; therefore, no properties eligible for the
National Register will be affected by the project. The SHPO
will be notified by receipt of the Environmental Assessment
there are no properties in the APE over fifty years of age.
b. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was
contacted early in the project planning process for information
on potential archaeological resources in the project area. The
SHPO responded there are no known archaeological sites located
in the project area and indicated it is unlikely any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for the National
Register will be affected by the project. The SHPO recommended
no archaeological investigation be conducted (see memo on page
A-20 in the Appendix).
NCDOT archaeological staff performed a brief reconnaissance
survey of the project and confirmed the area of potential impact
of the project has little or no potential for significant
archaeological sites. No archaeological sites eligible for
listing in the National Register will be affected by the
project.
6. Economic Effects
The estimated labor force of Robeson County in June, 1990 was 47,490
persons. Out of that labor force, approximately 44,490 were employed,
resultirnq tir an unemployment rate of 6.3 percent.
15
The proposed improvements to NC 211 and the I-95/NC 211 interchange
will probably have a positive economic impact in that access to the
businesses in the vicinity of the interchange will be improved. It is
anticipated access to nearby residences will also be improved.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
The study area for this project was surveyed in 1990 and 1994 to
identify vegetative plant communities and wildlife species and
evaluate impacts to biotic communities, jurisdictional wetlands, and
protected species. In-house preparatory work was done prior to the
field surveys. The Robeson County Soil Survey, the hydric soils list
for Robeson County, and the USGS Northwest Lumberton quadrangle map
were studied to identify potential wetland sites. Vegetative
communities and wildlife were inventoried during the surveys and
characterized by ground truthing at specified points within each
community. Woo v'land communities were encountered, they were
.
identified usingq methods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Deli neat i fdI I
Commercial development, roads, and maintained roadside shoulders
and interchange areas dominate the study area. These areas have a
suppressed level of vegetative growth due to mowing, spraying,
clearing, and other man-initiated activities. Turf and landscaped
areas make up the dominant vegetative component, mostly as tall
fescue grass Festuca sp.).
a. Plant Life
Uplands - No natural upland plant communities are present in the
urban project setting. Undeveloped upland areas that exist in
the project area are the result of fill material being placed in
floodplain areas during the construction of NC 211. Little
vegetative growth is present in this coarse sandy substrate.
Approximately 9.5 acres of this man- dominated plant community
will be lost as a result of the project.
ib - rea witlaNrd plant communities-were identified in
sett am,: shrub-scrub, canals •(ditehes). and swamp
fit.
The shrub-scrub community exists along Fivemile Branch on
the south side of NC 211. Small saplings of tulip poplar
Liriodendron tuli ifera red maple Acer rubrum and black
willow Sa ix ni ra are intersperse wit a ric herbaceous
layer. Typica herbaceous species include Virginia chain-fern
Woodwardia aereolata wool-grass Scir us c erinus cattails
T a spp.), Ric ar is Richardia Brasi ensis cnotweeds
Po onum punctatum and P. ersicaria Lui g_ia alustris,
sedges C rus spp.), and-ragweed Artemesia artp!%Ts i o is .
A narrow strip of this community (approximately 0.09 acre wi
be lost due to project construction. Large tracts of swamp are
contiguous to this shrub-scrub community and are adjacent to the
16
project. Indirect impacts on these larger tracts may occur
during project construction, but will be minimized through the
use of best management practices and stringent erosion control
measures.
r h, aiiee. of NC 2111
b 110` tb?12 fett in width) a re
was constructed when
N We letrudted on a fill through the floodplai°n area
Two to three feet of standing water was observed in the canal
when this ecological survey was conducted. Herbaceous species
such as sedges, seedbox ludwi is spp.), knotweeds, soft rush
Juncus effusus and various grasses Poa spp. and Setaria
spp. were observed in the canal. ely 0.20 acre of
th?i4 c~;sty will be lost due to project construction.
Thw,?np forest community is located in the northwest
quorant of the interchange and is associated with Fivemile
Brno..:; Young red maple, tulip poplar, and sweet gum
Li uidambar sstt raciflua characterize the canopy and
un erstory. The invasive Chinese privit Li ustrum sinense is
scattered throughout. Vines such as poison ivy Toxico en ron
radicans and catbrier Smilax sp.) are prevalent. The
er aceous component is a sent ue to seasonality. Approximately
0`b1tlre e?f this community will be lost due to project
c WWtti'on.
Impacts - The widening of NC 211 will eliminate portions of
roadside shoulders which are comprised of fill material.
Impacts resulting from service road realignments and road
widening will involve filling vegetated canals (ditches).
Relocation of these canals will likely occur. Vegetation will
renew itself fairly quickly if not continually maintained. A
small portion of swamp may be filled due to the realignment of
Dawn Road (SR 1791) in the northwest quadrant of the
interchange. Loss of roadside shoulders comprises the greatest
loss of community type; however, this will be negated by the
creation of additional roadside shoulders.
Impacts to natural communities are reflective of the
relative abundance of each system present in the study area.
Table 4 below summarizes the potential losses which will result
from roadway widening and realignment of service roads.
Table 4
BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
COMMUNITY TYPE
Man-dominated
Shrub-Scrub
Vegetated Canals
Forest Swamp
ESTIMATED IMPACTS IN ACRES
9.5
0.09
0?2
0..01
TOTAL 9.8
17
b. Wildlife
Disturbed roadside communities and urban areas provide
shelter for opportunistic animal species such as the Norway rat
Rattus norve icus white-footed mouse Perom scus leucopus),
an ouse mouse Mus musculus . These ro ents are common prey
for red-tail haws Buteo amaicensis . Other bird species
typical in urban settings are the American robin Turdus
mi ratorius mockingbird Mimus of lottos roc dove
(Columba ivia and the European starling Sturnus vul aris .
The Carolina anole Anolis carolinensis eastern fence
lizard Sceloporus undulatus and squirre treefrog H la
s uirel a are common repo es and amphibians found in urban
areas an other disturbed communities.
Wet shrub thickets and canals in the project area provide
habitat for the southern cricket frog Acris r llus spring
peeper Hyla crucifer southern leopard frog Rana
sphenoce hala cottonmouth A kistrodon piscivorus an water
snakes Nero is erythrogaster an N. asciata .
Relocation of the roadside canals and other construction
activities will displace wildlife populations temporarily to
surrounding habitats.
C. Federally-Listed Species
Plants and animals with federal protection statuses of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Comments received from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
indicate the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis and
Michaux' poison- sumac Rhus michauxii both wit an En angered
status, occur in Robeson County, as o several Status Review
species. Files of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
indicate the American alligator (Alligator mississi iensis a.
Threatened due to Similarity in Appearance species, as been
sited within several miles of the project area.
Suitable habitat for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker consists
of pine or mixed pine/hardwood (at least 50 percent pine) stands
thirty years of age or older. Suitable habitat of this type
does not exist in the project area.
Michaux' Poison-Sumac occurs in rocky or sandy open woods.
This habitat does not exist in the project area.
The American alligator inhabits fresh water swamps,
marshes, abandoned rice fields, ponds, lakes, and backwaters of
large rivers. Saddletree Swamp and its tributary, Fivemile
Branch, provide suitable habitat for this species. Anticipated
impacts to these systems are likely to be negligible, since road
18
widening will occur primarily on previously placed fill
material. There were no sightings of the American alligator
during the ecological survey of the project.
d. Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
The following Candidate 2 (C2) species are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject
to any of its provisions until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are defined as
organisms for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
data are not sufficient to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this
time. Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E),. Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture.
The following species may potentially occur in the project
area. Organisms and their suitable habitat were not surveyed
for.
FEDERAL CANDIDATE/STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME CAT. STATE
TA US
MAMMALS
Rafi que's
big-eared bat Plecotus rafinesquii* 2 SC
BIRDS
BacFinan's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis 2 SC
AMPHIBIANS
CaroTir-na crawfish
frog Rana areolata capito 2 SC
PLANTS
Ge ro gia leadplant Amorpha ge?org-innaa eor ina* 2 E
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus mi?auxii* 2 -
Venus flytrap Dionaea mu?s uu?a- * 2
Wireleaf dropseed SS orobolus teretiflous 2 T
Bog spicebush Lin' dera subcoriacea 2 E
Carolina bogmint a1-c rrldea carol aiana 2 -
Awned meadow-beauty R e-Ti"i aristosa 2 T
19
2. Soils
The following native soil series are located within the project
area: Bibb soils, Meggett fine sandy loam, Wagram loamy sand,
Norfolk loamy sand, and Udorthents (loamy). These soils are
described on the next page.
Soil Series
Classification H dric
Inc on
Bibb Soils
Meggett fine sandy loam
Wagram loamy sand
Norfolk loamy sand
Udorthents (loamy)
Hydric -
Hydric -
Non-Hydric -
Non-Hydric -
Non-Hydric -
Bibb soil is the principal soil type found in the project area.
Bibb soil is found in floodplains of natural drainage ways and
occupies much of the Saddletree Swamp area.
Udorthents (loamy) soil underlies commercial areas and is the
second principal soil type in the project area. These soils have
variable characteristics and have been altered by man to the extent
the original relief and soil profile cannot be recognized.
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) takes jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill
material into theses wetlands as authorized by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the project area
(sig&.wethods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
. They were identified on the basis of low soil chroma values,
hydrophytic vegetation, and the presence of hydrology or hydrological
indicators. The following table summarizes the anticipated wetland
impacts.
Table 5
WETLAND COMMUNITY IMPACTS
WETLAND COMMUNITY SITE # ESTIMATED IMPACTS IN ACRES
soft * 1 0.09
f ** 2 0.01
*** 3 0.2
TOTAL 0.3
* Palustrine Forested Deciduous Semipermanently Flooded
** Palustrine Shrub-Scrub Deciduous Semipermanently Flooded
*** Pa'lastrine Emergent Persistent Permanently Flooded
20
Impacts on jurisdictional wetlands are expected to be minimal.
Much of the proposed highway widening will occur on fill material
previously placed in wetland areas.
Impacts on wetlands will be minimized through the use of best
management practices during project construction. The Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan established by the Division of Highways in
cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources will be followed during construction.
4. Permits
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE
for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States" It is anticipated the filling of shrub-scrub,
vegetated canals, and swamp forest will be authorized by Nationwide
Permit for minor roadway fills in accordance with 33 CFR 330.5 (a)
14). 101{0"t 14 allows for road crossing fills of non-tidal
'Waters of the United States", provided no more than a total of 200
linear feet of the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic
sites, including wetlands, and the fill placed in waters of the U. S.
is limited to a filled area of no more than 1/3 acre.
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide permits
or General permits are authorized, according to the 1989 Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the COE. Final discretionary authority in these matters lies
with the COE.
t"I ter Quality Certification administered through the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Robeson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program in which a detailed study for Fivemile Branch was completed
and has been in effect since 1989. Fivemile Branch is a tributary of
Saddletree Swamp, and Saddletree Swamp is a tributary of the Lumber
River. The detailed flood study has indicated the culverts on NC 211
for carrying Fivemile Branch and Saddletree Swamp are inundated with
the backwater from the Lumber River during the 50-year flood. See
Figure 6 for a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map which shows the
approximate limits of the 100- year floodway and floodplain for the
project area. The proposed widening and improvements will not have a
significant adverse effect on the floodplain. The floodplain in the
area of the NC 211 crossing is wooded with some commercial
development.
21
6. Water Quality
Wetree Swamp, a tributary ofthe Lumber River, and Ole
#Apqphg a tributary of Saddletree Swamp, are the only streams in the
project area. Both have a "best usage" classification otFh'.
Class "C" designates waters suitable for secondary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and
agriculture. "Sw" indicates swamp waters with characteristics
different from other water bodies, such as low velocity, low ph, low
dissolved oxygen, and a high organic matter content.
7. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires that all federal
agencies and their representatives consider the impact of
construction projects on farmland. The Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) of the U. S. Department of Agriculture was contacted to
determine whether Prime, Unique, and/or Important farmland soils will
be impacted by the proposed improvements. The SCS indicated no
farmland, as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, will be
affected (see page A-13 in the Appendix).
8. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
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 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 as a result of the proposed project. Traffic 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.
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically 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 form 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 (M). 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).
22
The A-weighted scale approximates the frequency response of the
human ear by placing most emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to
6,000 Hertz. Because the A-weighted scale closely describes the
response of the human ear to sound, it is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements. Sound levels measured using A-weighting
are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this discussion, 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 (see Appendix page A-4).
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 individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others, and some individuals become
riled if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise
also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise
is offensive. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours
are usually considered to be more repugnant than the same noises in
the daytime.
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 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 have become expected. Attempts have been
made to regulate many of these types of noises including that from
airplanes, factories, railroads, and highways. With respect to
highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed
rapidly over the past few years.
Sound pressure levels in this analysis are referred to as
Leq(h). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant
sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy
23
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.
Noise Abatement Criteria
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 (see Appendix
page A-5).
Ambient Noise Levels
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 is also used to establish
ambient noise levels for residences and other noise sensitive
receivers in the vicinity of the project.
The noise levels were recorded for a 20-minute period during
anticipated peak traffic noise periods. Traffic counts were taken at
each measurement site during the sampling periods. Differences in
the measured noise levels are attributed to variations in site
conditions and traffic volumes. the ambient measurement sites and
measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and
Table N3, respectively (see Appendix, pages A-6 and A-7).
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 2.1 to
4.5 dBA of the measured noise levels for all the locations for which
noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be
attributed to "bunching" of vehicles (platooning of large trucks on
I-95) and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly spaced"
vehicles and single vehicle speed.
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
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
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
24
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.
In this regard, it is to be noted only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed project
consists of widening NC 211 to a multilane facility, revising the
I-95/NC 211 interchange, and replacing the bridge over I-95. NC 211
is to be widened to five lanes (six lanes between the I-95/NC 211
interchange ramp terminals). Only those existing natural or man-made
barriers which could be modeled were included. The roadway sections
and proposed intersections (with the exception of the I- 95/NC 211
interchange) were assumed to be flat and at- grade. Thus, the
analysis represents the worst-case topographic conditions. The
noise predictions made in this analysis are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year 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 predicted in
this analysis.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to enable the
determination of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the
peak hour in the design year 2014, would be exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those
land uses predicted to receive a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select typical receptor locations at 25, 50,
1009 2009 4009 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic
lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The locations of
these typical modeled receptors were established by substantial
(greater than or equal to 10%) changes in projected traffic volumes
along the proposed project. The result of this procedure is a grid
of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4 (see Appendix page A-8). Information included 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.
The noise abatement criteria summary for the proposed project is
listed in Table N5 (see Appendix page A-9). The approximate number
of receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts, either by
approaching or exceeding their respective FHWA noise abatement
criteria or by substantial increase, are listed for each activity
category. No receptors are predicted to experience noise impacts
with the construction of this project.
25
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
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway in their respective local
jurisdiction and to prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses.
The traffic noise impacts of this project in terms of increased
exterior noise levels are predicted to range between +4 and +7 dBA.
Exterior noise level increases are indicated in Table N6 (see
Appendix page A-10). 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 Impact/Abatement Measure Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either a) approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC), with approach meaning within 1 dBA, or b) substantially exceed
existing noise levels, as defined in the lower portion of Table N2
(see Appendix page A-5). Noise abatement measures must be considered
when either of the two preceding conditions exist.
Since the project will result in no traffic noise impacts,
mitigation measures, including physical noise walls to abate
anticipated traffic noise levels, are not necessary and none are
recommended for this project.
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impact for the "Do Nothing", or "No Build",
alternative was also studied. If the traffic currently using the
network of roads in the project area should double within the next
twenty (20) years, the future traffic noise levels would only
increase approximately 2-3 dBA. This small increase to the present
noise level would be barely noticeable to the people working and
living in the area.
Construction Noise
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 equip-
ment during the grading operations. Overall, construction noise
impacts are expected to be minimal since construction noise is
relatively short in duration and is generally restricted to daytime
hours. Furthermore, the transmission loss characteristics of
surrounding man-made structures and natural features are believed to
be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
26
Summary
The projected increase in noise levels and associated noise
impacts are an unavoidable consequence of roadway widening projects.
However, based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise
abatement is necessary. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a
major project change develops, no additional reports are required for
this project.
9. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial activities and internal combustion engines are the most
prevalent sources. Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are
solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway
facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor
vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to
be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor closest to the highway project, two concentration components
must be used: local and background. The local concentration is
defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i. e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor
location. The background concentration is defined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) as "the concentration .of a pollutant at a point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the
concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer
modeling and the background concentration was obtained from the
NCDEHNR. Once the two concentration components were resolved, they
were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor in question and to compare -to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form
ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automobile emissions of HC and
NO are eapeeted• to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
27
cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the
improvements on automobile emissions.
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
the 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 in Los
Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulphur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than 2 percent of sulphur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulphur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulphur dioxide from cars
are very low, there is no reason to suspect traffic on the project
will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulphur
dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gas.
The burning of regular gas emits lead as a result of regular 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 US
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 us
unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make 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.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model For Predicting
Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
28
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological average daily traffic projections. The
traffic volume used for the CALINE3 model was the highest volume
within the project limits. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors
were calculated for the year 2000 and 2010 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 2.4 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
NCDEHNR, Division of Environmental Management, Air Quality Section
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 2.4 ppm is suitable for
most suburban areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be
receptor # 6 (R6), a business. The traffic on nearby I-95
contributes to predicted air quality conditions at R6, and
computations of each contribution were determined separately then
added together to produce this worst-case scenario. The "Do Nothing"
alternative was also considered for its effects on air quality in the
project area. The "Do Nothing" alternative has identical CO
concentrations when compared with the build alternative because the
CALINE3 inputs for traffic volume and roadway configuration are the
same. Predicted 2000 and 2010 one-hour average CO concentrations for
the proposed project and the "Do Nothing" alternative are presented
below.
ONE-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE
"WORST-CASE" CONCENTRATION (ppm)
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RECEPTOR 2000 2010
Widen to 5- to
6-lane facility R6 (BUS) 3.9 3.8
"Do Nothing" R6 (BUS) 3.9 3.8
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. See Tables Al through A4 on pages A-11 and A-12 in the
Appendix for input and output data. The CO concentrations displayed
in these tables were calculated assuming an initial, or ambient,
concentration of 0.0 ppm. The background concentration, in this case
2.4 ppm, was then added to the calculated values to obtain the
worst-case total CO concentration expected in the project area. By
amlyzing the worst case conditions, it was determined that inputs to
the CALINE3 model for the "Do Nothing" alternative were identical to
29
those for the build alternative. Therefore, although Tables Al
through A4 indicate a build condition, these inputs also apply to the
"Do Nothing" scenario.
The project is located with the jurisdiction of air quality of
the Fayetteville Regional Office of the NCDEHNR. The ambient air
quality for Robeson County has been determined to be in compliance
with the NAAQS. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by
the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such to create a hazard to the public. Burning will
only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional
reports are necessary.
10. Stream Modification
"Mont" -pal . ation .is, anticipated. If stream
rechanneln ation is requ red, it will be coordinated with appr6prs'fas
MMIMI resource agencies in compliance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC et seq.).
11. Hazardous Materials
A reconnaissance survey identified four active sites (gas
stations) within the project corridor with the potential for
underground storage tank (UST) involvement. A subsequent records
search of the Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater
Section was conducted to determine the status of these tanks. The
following information was obtained:
Site No. 1 (Exxon Station) - located in southeast quadrant of I-95/
NC 211 interchange. It has 4 currently operating USTs. The tanks
are constructed of steel (cathodic protection in place) and were
installed April, 1968. Approximately 0.1 acre will be acquired from
this property for right of way.
Site No. 2 (Amoco Station) - located at the intersection of Rowland
Avenue with NC 211. It has 4 currently operating USTs. The tanks
are constructed of steel and were installed May, 1978.
30
Site No. 3 (Sunoco Station) - located in northeast quadrant of the
interchange. It has 4 currently operating USTs. The tanks are
constructed of Steel and were installed May, 1974.
Site No. 4 (Texaco Station) - located at the intersection of Kings
Cross Road and NC 211. It is estimated to have 5 USTs.
All of the tanks at these sites are registered with the Division
of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section.
The files of the Division of Solid Waste Management were also
consulted to determine whether any unregulated dumps or other
potentially contaminated properties are within the project corridor.
Based on this investigation, no involvement with hazardous materials
(other than the underground tanks noted above) is anticipated.
12. Geotechnical Impacts
No significant adverse effects on the geological regime of the
project corridor is anticipated. The proposed project is located
within a floodplain of the Central Coastal Plain region. Elevations
within the project corridor vary between 115 and 125 feet above mean
sea level.
The project area consists of fossiliferous clay and fine-grained
sediments of the Pliocene Yorktown Formation and marl and shelly
sands of the Tertiary Duplin Formation. Soils within the project
corridor are classified as A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, and A-7 within the
AASHTO system. These soils are poorly drained to well- drained
within a variable shrink-swell potential. A seasonally high water
table of less than 5 feet below the land surface is anticipated for
some soils within the project area.
It is anticipated the project will be primarily a borrow
project, with adequate sources of borrow material located adjacent to
the existing corridor. A gas pipeline and several borrow pits are
located north of the project.
13. Construction Impacts
There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally
associated with the construction of highways that will be experienced
with the construction of this project. Measures will be taken to
mitigate these impacts to the extent possible.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project and that
any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
31
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the
Division of Highway's Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures. The contractor smell--5e required to observe an Ito
comply to all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees
regarding the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be
placed into any existing land disposal site which is in violation of
state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that are 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.
The contractor shall maintain the earth surfaces of all waste
areas, both during work and until completion of all seeding and
mulching, or other erosion control measures specified, in a manner
which will effectively control erosion and siltation.
Vegetation from land clearing and other demolition and
construction and land clearing materials will be disposed of in
accordance with applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division
of Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the
time of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to water
lines and interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the construction of
this project. For this reason, an erosion control schedule will be
devised by the contractor before work is started. The schedule will
show the time relationships between phases of work which must be
coordinated to reduce erosion and will describe construction
practices and temporary erosion control measures which will be used
to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the erosion control
schedule, the contractor will be required to follow provisions of the
plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and siltation.
Temporary erosion control measure such as the use of berms, dikes,
dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are
covered in article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures which is entitled 'Con T ofErosion, i tation and
PoTlutio TFe 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 for Roads and Structures.
32
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on
this project, the contractor will obtain a certification from the
State Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of
Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of
this certification will be furnished to the Engineer prior to
performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible
to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
An extensive rodent control program will be established where
structures are to be removed or demolished.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies. Comments were received from the following agencies:
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation
Officer
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
Planning and Assessment Division, Division of Environmental
Health, Division of Land Resources, Forest Resources
Division, Fayetteville Regional Office, Wildlife Resources
Commission
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Lumber River Council of Governments
Mayor of Lumberton
Lumberton Area Chamber of Commerce
Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix (see
pages A-13 through A-35).
B. Public Meeting
The Division of Highways held an informal, one-to-one public meeting
on the project (and on T.I.P. Project U-2416, proposed improvements to
NC 72-711 near I-95) November 15, 1990 at the Robeson County Public
Library in Lumberton. Representatives of the Fayetteville Division Office
and the Planning and Environmental Branch were present to explain the
project, receive comments, and answer questions. Approximately twenty-
33
five persons (other than
Copies of the news release
published before and after
pages A-36 through A-40).
NCDOT representatives) attended the meeting.
advertising the meeting and newspaper articles
the meeting are included in the Appendix (see
An aerial photograph showing the proposed improvements to NC 211 and
the NC 211/I-95 interchange was displayed at the meeting. A handout
containing general project information, a vicinity map, and a comment
sheet was made available to each participant. Each participant was given
the opportunity to review the aerial photograph and ask questions or
comment on the project.
The majority of those present at the meeting felt the proposed
improvements are needed and supported the project. Several persons who
travel NC 211 daily cited substantial traffic congestion and lengthy
delays in the vicinity of the NC 211/I-95 interchange. Several persons
also cited confusion, especially for tourists unfamiliar with the area,
created by the two-way operation of three of the four interchange ramps.
A representative of the City of Lumberton requested that sidewalk be
provided along the new bridge to be built over I-95. The owner of a
business near the I-95/NC 211 interchange requested that every effort be
made to avoid relocating his business as a result of the project.
C. Public Hearin
A public hearing will be held following circulation of this report to
provide more detailed information on the project to local citizens and to
receive additional comments on the project.
WRE/plr

tlEr 301 6 ,
Age
?/ f 5 Rea
Shannon 5 Z ? To rM
m
Red Springs eye. O
Rennert
ax 100 72 IS lu r?
52 Ima I Buie 7
Iw R 6?0- 7 v.s.u IS E A O N
7 yoke
83 ] Rsemon 0 41
10 t ?c
/s t 74
501 ] ] Umbe( 00+1'
B e11r_
30 7 Purvi Raynha ] t Ilentori --
] / Csl'C
\ 514 c nab, 74 Iz 12 y 1
eIan `yi 10r/
?* 7 Fairmont 1
?.?u 1 3 roct9rvd Q• ppv9-?•/
Orru 2 ?
if
211 e
END PROJECT i
I ?
?IV?M1ti
?i
ROBESON COUNTY

1791 11792
O
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 211
FROM EAST OF ROWLAND AVENUE TO
EAST OF KING'S CROSS ROAD
LUMBERTON, ROBESON COUNTY
U-2415
0 mile 1 /4
2/91
FIG. 1
N
LO
r--1 I
N
of,
u W
Z ?
O
C7
Z w
O CD
J p
d H
IY
m
N
LLJ LL
3 O
c? F-
Z N
?-? W
Y 3
O
O I-
J N
7
Ln
? I
N
c) LLJ
O
W
'>C7
p
F m
LL..
O
N
LLJ
3

t

r-4 LLJ
N ?
Z
u W
64
Z
d
C_7
z
O Z
J d
d J
3
F- O
N cr-
W
:3: L-
O
C.3
Z F-
?-+ N
Y d
O Lu
O
J
S
V
.-1 Z
.-i d
N cr-
00
., V
Z W
Z
O
J W
.. .. f ?..? LL.
N
LJ LL
3 O
C7 1-
Z N
?-, d
Y LLI
fJ
O F-
J N
Z
O
z F--
O L..)
O LLJ
m N
S OC
F- W
O 1--
O Z
D r1 ?-i
? Q1 N
d t?
3 v
O z
N
S \ O
O~Ga- Of
LA-
O d
Z tY
Z LL
Y
O LO
O 0)
J 1
I
O 1
Ln LL_ O
.-1 O ?--?
F-
cr- LO u
Na,LLJ
1 N
(} H p[
z W
OoF-
J Z Z
d ZD
O
= m O
F-SOl
w ?- Ln
O w r-1
Z O
z cr-
(D N
Z o \
?-+ OC IZ
Y d ?
O 3 C:t
O O Ix
W
S
L'J
LL
a a co
TT
: ?
m
(V O r
? U
c o
O Z
cn
O
r)
O
ir
W
N
L
V
r
T

U
co
a
I
L
T L
?

r U) i+7
04
r C
d
N Q

W r rn
?
o
N LO
Ll. L e
N N

E
N
W

0
?-n l I
? N
?w n N
b N
CD

i W) '}
to v ld v v ?
Nc
IN 1 ?0
r
i ? OJ
N
N 'YJ{

I 1
N ?^
n
i cv

nI ~
" b
rn ?o
n) m
N , i t N
?Q L
C
(7 I N- N
r I ? O
1 I ? ?N
?C,
N
?m
?? ?a I ,?CY
N
Q
"? 1 f
.{? c
rI
T
T
N 0?
U
z
1 CY
Q C)
LO
CV Q V J

N
L Id m
m
N Q
-IN ??

(fl
n
r
? o
m
N TI
U) P7 -4 N o1lmd U)

I
v
0\0 0\0 0\0
LO tD O
u-? n n u
m
Ea
H ? x
E4 AA
0\0 0\0 0\0
r? v? o
u u u
N`I
EA :D
E-6 Q Q
ch
W
a
H
W

/`? tiU 3, rTptl 15 ?- ?V
? ••••. ? /tip; ` ,; ?a : ? ?>
„"'?(('?l" 111111 J
all,
LOATT PD
-1 AND A,E
? • LU+ :. r\ e.. rt Y
1 J .
? : " t!s_ ?1' ?f ?^!? •' L ,a, i ° t °' h Ic ° rr s• ? p I / i ?? ?1G .+-, / ?\
?E:A4 ST
c-1,P11A 11
/ , tee." "? / / I ?, ? ? :-• / •.
X _
•• ?S Y - i ? Y • ?j ? I ?' fP IX10.!I Lp •••
6 1 ?•( ° sa iws ••• ' -?
kli
sq .'? ?••?• J
n "•' r
71

C =
Z D
z n
-0 O
c
-4 m
T
x ^ W A G)
2
n
o °
T
r : z N
° rn
Rl
n _I m
r

z D
z

,,."¦
,--l¦
"'.In
o
? n. o
o A D
ti
? >
5 p a
c • ? o < o +° o
n y ? a n t 1 1 p
}n=y? 0n? GII <••c.¦' >•U•..?.j ?l?lt$ISAU ?I.II IAA YIIt I I?OQ?A?I
%
3 0 ? I I ?Ni ? j f i i ` Y ? e , ? • { , ? 7 ? ? j 17 ? (
¦ ¦ n o
1 ¦ N
1 ¦ Y om
2k
fi
? w
W7.. N : ,T sis
wtn'
'oyn 1 ? b
"' 3 W T 'S Q?? ID 1ST ? ? r '?
a
V., h
o h ?y J? ? ., a ? ? S U
z
,
o E" '1 b1S` T"?

4e
' 0 AM
W
13
0

? 3
o
f ? A x
ce rL W

d WT

O
n1
Y?

Z' pfd .T
H' E 'T
yi
i
M I

YE
ZC
!ONE X

m
ZONE X
--? f
Approximate LiMits 100-Year
Z"'wrn
ZONE X
CQNE X
X
- r
BEGIN PROJECT >
.,
APPROXIMATE LIMITS 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN oR
i
?y
v
A:?
AQOQ?

/ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
>
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
_ NC 211
- FROM EAST OF ROWLAND AVENUE TO
FAST OF KING'S CROSS ROAD
LUMBERTON, ROBESON COUNTY
- U-2415

1 FIGURE 6

O
APPENDIX
R E L-O C A T ION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
E.I.S. CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1461601 COUNTY: Robeson Alternate _1 of 1Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2415 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC it from West of SR 1586 to East of Rowland Avenue. Lumberton
EST IMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
.15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Individuals
Families 0 0 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600
i
b

X serv
ces
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
600 UP
100 UP
600 UP

X affected by displacement
3. Will business services still
TOTAL

X be available after project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. Many other motels are located nearby.
t
l
i
iti
nor
es, e
c.
emp
oyees, m
X 5. Will relocation cause a 4. The National 9 Inn is a 50+ room motel. We have
h
h
t
i Only
uisition of it recently
be
un advance ac
ous
ng s
or
age .
q
g
X 6. Source for available hous- 7 employees (all family members).
(li
t)
i
ng
s
X 7. Will additional housing 14. Motel already has made relocation plans.
b
d
d
programs
e nee
e
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
b
id
d
ere
e cons
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
l
t
f
ili
ld
am
er
y, e
c.
es
e
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
NA 10. Will public housing be
t
d
d f
j 1
or pro
nee
e
ec
NA 11. Is public housing avail- t

NA able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DSS housing available
ri
d
l
ti
d
i
on pe
o
ng re
oca
ur
NA 1 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

C
-
tl
L
means - -
•
.
X 14. Are suitable business sites
il
ble (list source)
ava
a
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION 3
'-2 0
A _M_ Simpson A11'g1rnR-r _ 3-17-94, L% - f < . ( '.C s-/ <r-- /Y
Relocation Agent T Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 A-1 Original b 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: 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 Renr Supplement.
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
ur 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
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing
Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 t.0
owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation :assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-13). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
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 purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within 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
A-2
information concerning other state and 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 Expenses Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.
The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is 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
financial 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 for this project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
A-3
TABLE Ni
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130

Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneuzatic jackhammer
Hockey cr3wd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110

Textile loom
100 S?lbway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press

90 Hea•iy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuuu cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away HO"ERATE.Y LOUD
B TO

E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50

Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 I 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 TO Heinz.
A-4
Table N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h)
A 57
(Exterior)
B 61,
(Exterior)
C 72
(Exterior)
Description of Activity Category
Lands cn which serenity aid quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, aotels,
hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or 5 above.
D -- undeveloped landds
E 52 Residences, aotels, hotels, public aeeting reds, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriu.s.
Source: Title 2: Code cf Federal Regulations (CRF) Fart 772, S. Department c: Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA fro; Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: Worth Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A-5
LOOON - AdOo
FIGURE N2 - AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES -
NC-211, from Rowland Avenue to Kings
Cross Road in Lumberton, Robeson County,
State Project # 8.1461601, TIP # U-2415.
A-6
TABLE N3
ANBIEXT NOISE LEVELS
(Le4)
NC-211, ?ROM ROWLAND AVENUE TO KINGS CROSS ROAD IN LUMERTON,
ROBESON COMM, NSTATE PROJECT 1 8.1461601, TIP # U-2415
SITE
LOCATION
NOISE
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1 11C-211, 0.13 cilEs W of SR-1586 Grassy Area 65
1 NC-211, 0.06 miles E of Rowland Are Grassy Area 68
3 I-95, 0.13 wiles S of 11C-211 Grassy Area 74'
4 I-95, 0.08 eiles N cif NC-211 Grassy Area 73
?g => d5A levels were aeasured at 50 feet fro; the center of the
nearest lane of traffic.
A-7
1?1
TABLE 94
Leq TEAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC-211, FROM ROWLAND AVENUE TO RINGS CROSS ROAD
LUMBERTON, ROBESON COUNTY
STATE PROJECT 1 8.1461601, TIP 3 U-2415
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAY FRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCI LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
ROWLAND AVENUE to I-9:
1 Business C NC-2I1 1?5' L 60 i9 L 64.5 59.3 65 + 5
2 Business C 1214 ' R 61, 125' L 69.3 55.9 68 + 4
3 Business C " 100' R 65 100' R 10.0 59.4 70 + 5
4 Business C " 230' L 61 230' L 62.5 65.1 67 + 6
I-35 to KINGS CROSS EOAD
5 Business C NC-iil 360' L 52 360' L 55.3 56.8 59 + 7
6 Business C 90' R 63 90' P. 68.6 6515 7C + 7
Business " 140' R 59 140' R 64.9 58.3 65 + 6
8 Business C " 180' L 57 i90' L 62.5 54.5 63 + 6
9 Business C 115' R 6D 115' R 56.1 54.1 66 + 6
10 Business C " 121.' L 60 12.' L - - 66 + 6
11 Park B 150' R 59 150' R - - 64 + 6
12 Business C " 21.14' L 54 235' L - 60 + 6
NOTEg: Distances are from center of eistin or proposed rudxals.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
-L- _> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
-I- _> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
* s> T mffte moime impact (23 CFR Part 772).
A-8
TABLE N5
MA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC-211, FROM ROWLAND AVENUE TO PINGS CROSS ROAD
LUMBBRTON, ROBESON COUNTY
STATE PROJECT 1 8.1461601, TIP 1 U-2415
Maxim Predicted Contour Approxiaate Mbar of Iapacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Naxisua) :'itle 23 CPR Part 772
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

ROWLAND AVENUE to 1-45 72 68 62 54' 119' 0 0 0 0 0
I-95 to PINGS CROSS ROAD 70 66 60 31' 36' 0 0 0 0
TOTAL => 0 0 0 0 0
MOTES => 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are aeasured frog center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are aeasured fros center of proposed roadva7.
A-9
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUNNARY
NC-211, FROM ROWLAND AVENUE TO RINGS CROSS ROAD, LUMBERTON, ROBESON COUNTY
STATE PROJECT 1 3.1461601, TIP if U-2415
RECEPTOR EIT9RI0R NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE LEVEL
S E C T I O N INCREASES
<1 1 2-3 1 4-5 1 5.7 1 8-9 110-11112-13114-15116-11'18.19120-21;22-23124-251 >25 1> 10 dBA
RO'WLAND XiE to 1-95 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0
i-95 to KINGS CROSS 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 i 0 0
ROAD
TO AL i0101319101010101010101010101 c
A-10
TABLZ Al
CAL:"E3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE C:SPERSICN KODZL - SEPTEHBZR, 1979 VERSION
JOB: NC-211 ROBESON CCUII71Y/U-2415 Rl"i": :000 MPH
I. SITE VARIABLES
U = 1 K/S CLAS : S (E)- VS = 0 C:{/S ATIX _ 60 MINUTES
BIG = 5 DEGREES ZO = i0 CH VD = 0 CM/S ANB = 0 F?H
KIIH : 400 K
TtHP = 29.1 1.
II. LINE VARIABLES
LINK DESCRI?TION * LINE COORDINATES (H) * LINE LENGTH LINK BIG TYPE yPH 3F H N
* I1 Y1 I2 ':4 (K) (DEJ) (G/HI) (K) (K)
......................... '................................ '.......................................................
A. NC-ili s (' .,0 00 C 1[30 * 2 00 ?ou A9, 36:0 8.3314 G 24.2
I::. RECEPTOR LOCAT:JNS AND MODEL RESULTS
R3CZ??OR : COORDINATES (H) CO
E Y ? ; (FFK)
......................... +........................ ------3.......
1. R6 BUS 9G' RIGHT X -27.4 0 1.8 e i.,
TABLE A2
CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION KODEL - SEFTEVEEP., 1979 VERSION
JOB: NC-:11 ROBESON COUNTY/U-2415 RUN: 2J10 BUILD/45 %PN
I. SITE VARIABLES
U = 1 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0 CK/S ATIX = 60 KINUTES H11H = 400 K
ERG = S DEGREES ZO = 10 CH VD = 0 CH/S AHB = C PPM TER? = 29.1 IF
II. LINE VARIABLES .
LINE DESCRIPTION ? LIVE COORDINATES (M) ' LINE LENGTH LINK ERG TYPE VPH E? H K
t 11 Y1 12 Y2 ' (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (K) (M)
......................... :................................ _.......................................................
A. NC-211 ' 0 -1000 0 1000 * 2000 36C AG 3650 7.848 0 24.3
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RISUL72
RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) ; CO
g y * (P?Y)
----------- - -----------1----------------------------....----
i. R6 BUS 90' RIGHT ! -27.4 0 1.8 t 1.1
A-11
w
TABLE All
CAL3E3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURC! DISPERSION NOEL - SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION
JOB: NC-211 ROBESON COUNTY/U-2415 RUIN; 2000 BUILD/55 MPH
I. SITE VARIABLES
U : 1 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) VS : 0 CH/S ATIM : 60 MINUTES KI%H : 400 K
ERG : 5 DEGREES ZI : 10 CH VD : 0 CM/S AMB : Co FPM TEMP : 29.1 OF
!I. LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINE COORDINATES (K) * LINK LENGTH LINE BRG TYPE VPH EF H W
* 11 Y1 %1 Y2 * (M) (-JEG) (G/MI) (11; (i{)
......................... :................................ *.......................................................
A. 1-55 * 0 -iCVJ 0 1000 * 2000 360 AG 7490 E.983 0 37.1
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RESULT3
RECEPTOR * CCORDINATES (M) * CO
7 * (PPM)
......................... *.............................. *.......
1. R6 BUS 375' RIGHT * -114.3 0 1.8 * 0.4
TABLE A4
CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURC3 DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION
JOB: KC-211 ROBESON COUNTY/U-2415 RUN: 2010 BUILD/55 MPH
1. SITE VARIABLES
U : 1 K/S CLAS : 5 (E) VS : 0 CH/S ATIK : 60 MINUTES KITH : 400 N
BRG : 5 DEGREES ZO : 10 CM VD = 0 CM/S AMB = 0 FPM TEMP : 29.1 IF
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (K) * LINK LENGTH LINK BRG TYPE VPH BF H N
! tl Y1 12 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M)
------------------ ..................... *.......................................................
A. I-95 * 0 -1000 0 1000 * 2000 360 AG 7490 6.535 0 37.1
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RIMTS
RECEPTOR ! COORDINATES (M) * CO
* % Y * (PPM)
----......?.._ -?s...--------»----------------*..-----
1. R6 BUS 375' RIGB'f * -114.3 0 1.1 * 0.3
A-12
United States soil
DepaMnent of Conservation
Agriculture Service
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
May 22, 1990
P- i~ r .
444
r r2
tS
?SFARCH B?.
Re: Proposed Improvement of NC 211, from Rowland Avenue to west of
Cross Road, Lumberton, Robeson County, Federal Aid Project No.
M-7761(2), State Project No. 8.1461601, T.I.P. No. U-2415
Proposed Improvement of NC 72-711, from west of SR 1539 to SR 2501,
Lumberton, Robeson County, Federal Aid Project No. M-7763(1), State
Project No. 8.1461701, T.I.P. No. U-2416
Extension of Project Limits, NC 14 from US 29 Business in Reidsville
to NC 700/770 in Eden; Rockingham County; State Project No. 6.511014;
T.I.P. No. R-2401
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your request for Important Farmland Information for
the above projects. The first two projects-U-2415 and U-2416 will not
affect any farmland as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The third project R-2401 was addressed in our March 6, 1990, response to
you. Please let us know if you did not receive this information. If not,
we will try again to provide the data.
Sincerel ,
*Statons J e
ionist
cc: Edward L. Holland
David R. Hopkins
A-13

O The Sob cono~iw Semi"
`J b_.O..h,da»
Oepwbn" or AWNRA .

IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 12, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
M , ? rr
y?R???H
We have reviewed your letter of May 2, 1990, requesting
information for the "Proposed Improvement of NC 211, from Rowland
Avenue to west of Rings Cross Road, Lumberton, Robeson County,
Federal Aid Project No. M-7761 (2), State Project No. 8.1461601,
T.I.P. No. U-2415" and offer the following comments.
The proposed project crosses a defined flood plain; therefore,
any adverse effects on flood stages should be evaluated and
mitigated during project design.
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 the proposed action, including borrow areas and
disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements
will depend on design of the project, extent of fill work within
streams and wetland areas (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.),
construction methods, and other factors. Under our mitigation
policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or minimized.
We will then consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable
impacts. When final plans are completed, including the extent
and location of development within waters of the United States and
wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity
to review these plans for a project-specific determination of
Department of the Army permit requirements. Should you have any
questions, please contact Mr. Hugh Heine, Regulatory Branch, at
[phone].
A-14
-2-
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.
oerely,
0 Lawreno W. unders
Chief, a ng Division
A-15

W r: -. _ y
o ?
N O
i-
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
NOW Am?
= M
May 24, 1990 ?1 t M • ,
yy???77y??? j
:•'? Sir ? ?
K?.
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Scoping Comments for the Proposed Improvement of NC 211, from
Rowland Avenue to West of Kings Cross Road in Robeson
County; TIP No. U-2415.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your letter of May 2, 1990, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts the proposed action may have on endangered/threatened and
on stream andwetland resources in the project impact area. The project
should be designed to avoid impacts to these resources.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of
age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, all pine stems greater than or equal
to 60 years of age occurring within a 1/2 mile radius surveys of project
related clearing should be surveyed for active red-cockaded woodpecker
cavities. 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.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife
and required additional right-of-way and
areas, which may be affected directly or
improvements.
resources within existing
any areas, such as borrow
indirectly by the proposed
A-16
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours,
k
Lt-'
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Attachments
A-17
REVISED SEPTEMBER 11, 1989
Robeson County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Michaux' poison-sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the
Service. "Status Review" (SR) 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 status review 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.
Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier) - SR
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifoli us) - SR
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - SR
Torrey's muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyanna) - SR
Awned meadow-beauty (Rhexia aristosa) - SR
A-18
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM2 08 05/25/90 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 2 L,-
?47
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS FS?N 4 1990 v
FROM r? t, JA?S Q?
MAILED TO r.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BA ?T,nEPPG
L.J. WARD DIRECTOR
PLANNING 6 RESEARCH BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING FOR COMMENTS ON IMPACT OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO
NC 2119 FROM ROWLAND AVENUE TO WEST OF KING CROSS ROAD
IN L UMBERTON (T.I.P. U-2415)
SAI NO 90E42200889 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 ( 1 NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION N
A-19
4
wnn- . ?r\
20j
990
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources'{
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 15, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FRAM:
SUBJECT:
-?C is R N
Division of Archives an4-° *tqZ
William S. Price, Jr., Director
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation%~--
David Brook, Deputy State n
Historic Preservation Office
NC 211 from Rowland Avenue to west of Kings
Cross Road, U-2415, 8.1461601, M-7761(2),
Lumberton, Robeson County, CH 90-E-4220-0889
&,64
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures
of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area. However, since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory
of Robeson County has never been conducted, there may be structures of
which we are unaware located within the planning area.
Therefore, we recommend that the Department of Transportation staff
architectural historian define and survey the area of potential effect
of this project. We will comment on this project when we have reviewed
the report of this survey.
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.
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 a00.
A-20
109 Fast Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Caalina 27601-2807

Page Two
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State clearinghouse
Barbara Church
Wilson Stroud
11
A-21
•.,.R
A it."
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
1990 Douglas G. Lewis
mac- 9
Director
Planning and Assessment
f
G :.y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee'V"
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 90-0889 - Improvement of NC 211
in Lumberton, Robeson County
DATE: June 1, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. Comments from our divisions
have been attached.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: bb
Attachments
A-22
N.O. {Pius 27687. Ralewh. North Camlina 27611-7687 Telephtwne 919.733-6376
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, County
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
1'v e'""'?""a
Project Name 21 s k ?•fs Type of Project
Several water lines are located in the path of and adjacent to the
proposed project. Due to a possible rupture during construction, the
contractor should contact the appropriate water system officials to
specify a work schedule.
he proposed project will be constructed near water resources which
-_/'!l
are used for drinking. Precautions should be taken to prevent
contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful
substances. Additional information is available by contacting the
Public Water Supply Branch at [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure
of feet of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For
informationregarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant
should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a
mosquito breeding problem. ^ For information concerning appropriate
F-v-f mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact the Public
Health: Pest Management Sec*___. ` " ' -" -5407.
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demo-
lition of dilapidated structures, an extensive rodent control program
may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodents to
adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact
the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management
Section, [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health depart-
ment regarding their requirements for septic tank installations (as
? required under 10 NCAC 10A .1900 et. seq.). For information con-
cerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact
the On-Site Sewage Branch at [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the
? County Health Department regarding the sanitary facilities required
for this project.
:P -
Reviewer Branch Unit at
A-23
Project Number
Rd- 088
I
opes?--
DEHHR 3198 (Revl:.ed 2/90)
Division of Environmental Health
:%eVlew L/ :.
u,.SAIZo
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 14, 1990
To: Melba McGee
From: Randy Cotten*
Thru: Gary Thompson
Stephen G. Conrad
Director
Subject: Robeson County, Lumberton, N.C., Proposed
Improvement of NC 211, from Rowland Ave. to
West of Kings Cross Road, Federal Aid Project
No. M-7761 r"') . .^:t-te Pro,- a .?.,(5 01
TIP No. U-2415
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 4-geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, (919) 733-21836 prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
A-24
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
May 15, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins /??
Staff Forester VP)6l
SUBJECT: EA of the Proposed Improvement of NC 211 in Lumberton, Robeson
County, North Carolina
PROJECT 090-0889
DUE DATE 5-29-90
To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry in the area of the
proposed project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following
information concerning the possible right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.
A-25
Melba McGee
PROJECT 090-0889
Page 2
5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
DHR: la
cc: Fred White
File
A-26
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
4
Project Number:
/)n_• n nc>n,
Due Date:
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 reaardina 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. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

? Permit to construct 3 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•applicatlon
systems not discharging Into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - 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 faclllty-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
?
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(NIA)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit NIA
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit 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 b operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities andlor Emission Sources N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
i
t b
li
i
h 15 NCAC
0520
0
n comp
mus
e
ance w
t
2
.
.
See comments reference asbestos 60 days
? on back of form. NIA
(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 d sedimentaticn control plan
ti
it
fil
i
l
P
f
,
n ac
v
y.
wi
lan
l be required if one or more acres to be disturbed.
ed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at least 30 days be
ore _
eg
? 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 permited.
? AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 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 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 "if more 1 day
? counties In coastal N.C. with organic sorts than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn Is planned."

?
Oil Refinin
Facilities 90.120 days
NIA (NIA)
g
If permit required, .,jplicalion 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
? Dam Safety Permit A-27 inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (N/A)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
Normal Process
Time
(s tatutory ti-re
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surely 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.
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
f
ti
li 10 days
(NIA)
orm.
on
ca
Application by letter. No standard app
Stale Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include 15.20 days
? descriptions &.drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
? 401 Water Ouality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
? CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
? CAMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (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.
reviewer signature r agency dale
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Moorseville 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, IVC 27611.7687
?-I [phone]
u Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
A-28 Wilmington, NC 28403
(919) 2564161
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
{lQ.

E'Zj' North Carolina Wildlife Resources
-
- t-f r
i
,'
J
y
'fn

S'>

?i,

512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: W. Don Baker, Program Manager
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
DATE: May 15, 1990
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact of the Proposed Improvement
of NC 211, From Rowland Avenue to west of Kings
Cross Road, Lumberton, Robeson County. (90-0889)
These comments are provided in response to your request
of May 2, 1990, for information for input relating to fish
and wildlife concerns for the uronosed subject oro-iect.
Wildlife Resources Commission review of the environmental
document would be greatly facilitated if it contained:
1. A description of fishery and wildlife resources,
including habitats, existing within, or impacted
by the project.
2. The quantity of wetlands, streams, lakes, ponds
and other fish or wildlife habitats to be graded,
filled or otherwise disturbed.
3. Stream relocations, crossings or other proposed
construction activity that may impact them.
4. Acreage of upland habitat impacted by cover type.
5. Mitigation measures proposed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for fish and wildlife
habitat losses.
Thank you for the opportunity for input during the
pre-planning stage for this project. We will be happy to
assist in any manner feasible during all phases of the
project.
WDB/lp
A-29
.' STA pa
.d • j u1 a/yyyy
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
116 West Edenton Street • Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27603-1712
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Bob Etheridge
Superintendent
May 30, 1990
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways
Highway Building /
FROM: Charles H. Weav
Assistant Sta rintendent for Auxiliary Services
NC Department Public Instruction
217 W. Jones ., Ed. Annex I
RE: Proposed Improvement of NC 211, from Rowland Avenue to West of Kings
Cross Road, Lumberton, Robeson County, Federal Aid Project No.
M-7761(2), State Project No. 8.1461601, T.I.P. No. U-2415
Please find attached communication from William R. Johnson, Superintendent of
Public Schools of Robeson County, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment
A-30
an equal opportunity/affirmative action empla)w
Public Schools of Robeson County
Donald A. Bonner Post Office Drawer 2909
Associate Lumberton, North Carolina 28359
Superintendent [phone]
Personnel Services
William R. Johnson, Superintendent
J. C. Humphrey
Associate
Superintendent
Business And
Administrative
Services
May 25 , 1990
Mr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
116 West Edenton Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1712
John C. Ray
Associate
Superintendent
Program Services
Ruth D. Woods
Associate
Superintendent
Compensatory
Education Services
RE CE -V
h4AY 29 1990
:)'Yi5J0N OF
SCHOOL PLANNItYo
Re: Proposed Improvement of NC 211, from Rowland Avenue to
West of Kings Cross Road, Lumberton, Robeson County,
Federal Aid Project No. M-7761(2), State Project
No. 8.1461601, T.I.P. No. U-2415
Dear Mr. Weaver:
This is a very worthwhile project which should greatly reduce congestion
in this area. We have several buses using this route each morning and
afternoon and completion of this project will allow a more timely flow of traffic.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William R. Johnson
Superintendent
WRJ: rgb
A-31
In Quest of Excellence
?•? :'o. `:ate 3v ? ?,7 iSrr $•i?
J,?s N Aiy
c,? fP J
L WLRCOG ?
l.RC 0GZ OFF coV
I'?.1 2?? J Lumber River Council of Governments
-3721 Fayetteville Road
,? `?pY1999 CP Post Office Drawer 1529
Lumberton. North Carolina 28358
R?'L?V?gFFIC? o [phone]
'`? SECRE.?ppQA ?.
C? ?? N.C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
REVIEW AND COMMENT FORM
TO: Ray Griffin, Lumberton City Manager
James Martin, Robeson County Manager
FROM: James Perry, Chief Administrator
DATE: May 11, 1990
This office has received the attached information about a proposal which could
affect your jurisdiction. If you need more information, please contact the
applicant directly. Other questions may be directed to our agency at 738-8104.
If you wish to comment on this proposed action, complete this form with
comments and return to this office by June 4, 1990.
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed that you have
no comments regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier #
Commenter's Name: /
A. Ray Griffin, Jr. /
Representing:
90E-
City Manager
The City of Lumberton
Address:
P.O. Box 1388, Lumberton, NC 28359
Telephone: Date:
[phone] 5/24/90
A-32
The Lumberton City Council has endorsed this project as.
one ci its major priorities for highway improvements within
the Lumberton area. It is requested that the Lumber River
Council of Governments approve this project and forward
same to -the State at its earliest convenience.
OWN A10
m
\ a
?1oJS NO
LRCOG
Lumber River Council of Governments
111 West 5th Street
Post Office Drawer 1529
Lumberton, North Carolina 28358
[phone]
May 5, 1990
L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-5201
RE: Proposed Improvement of NC 211, Lumberton
Dear Mr. Ward:
rfA ?9
S ?
R?SFARCH e?
The Lumber River Council of Governments has no information we believe to
be pertinent to the above project. However, the COG endorses the need for
the improvments outlined for NC 211 and will be glad to assist your efforts
in any way.
Sincerely,
James Perry
Chief Administrator
c Ray Griffin, Manager
City of Lumberton
gcl

I
A-33
City Of -fun29FTt0n
NICI
POST OFFICE BOX 1388 r+
V
_fUln9zdon, OWottA eaaolina I
18359.1988
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
MAY 2 9 1990
May 25, 1990 D!1/1S,uN0F
. nr';"' VAYi'40011*11
. BUILDING
STN STREET
RE: Proposed Improvement of NC211, from Rowland Avenue to west
of Kings Cross Road, Lumberton, Robeson County, Federal Aid
Project No. M-7761(2), State Project No. 8.1461601, T.I.P.
No. U-2415
Dear Mr. Ward:
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to the aforereferenced
project. The Lumberton City Council has unanimously endorsed this
project as one of its major priorities for highway improvements in
the Lumberton area. The City of Lumberton agrees with the need for
this project, and respectfully requests that your agency proceed with
all dispatch to implement the project at your earliest convenience.
As a noted concern, when the bridge is replaced, it is respectfully
requested that sidewalks be provided on at least one side in order
to facilitate pedestrian traffic across the interstate. The Kings
Cross Road area is adjacent to a swimming pool that receives frequent
use by children from the eastside of I-95. Children and pedestrians
visiting the motels are continuously walking across the bridge, and
the provision of a sidewalk would ensure the safe pedestrian usage
within the area.
Thank you again for your assistance in this matter.
/js
cc: Lumberton City Council
Sincerely,
David F. einstein
Mayor
A-34
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
LUMBERTON AREA
I% ON
9 \49c
1 Q.
OF C?
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
November 15, 1990
Mr. D. R. Dupree
Acting Division Engineer
N. C. Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Dupree:
On behalf of the Lumberton Area Chamber of Commerce, I want
to thank the North Carolina Department of Transportation for
holding a public meeting to receive input from concerned
citizens of Robeson County on the Proposed Upgrading of NC 211
and NC 72-711, project numbers 8.1461601 and 8.1461701.
The Lumberton Area Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests
that DOT remain on a timely completion of these projects.
Sincerely, f
? I
John C. Nicholson
President
is
cc: Mr. L. Jack Ward
Manager/Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
A-35
• 800 N. Chestnut Street R O. Box 1008. Lumberton, North Carolina 28359-1008 Telephone [phone]
ZJames G. Martin, Governor
g.'
North Carolina
Thomas J. Harrelson, Secretary

Department of Transportation
Release: Immediate Date: October 29, 1990
Contact: Bill Jones, [phone] Distribution: 78
Release No: 423
PUBLIC MEETING SET FOR PROPOSED UPGRADING OF NC-211 and NC 72-711
RALEIGH -- The N.C. Department of Transportation will hold a
public meeting Thursday, November 15 on a proposal to upgrade NC-211
and NC-72-711 in the vicinity of I-95 at Lumberton in Robeson County.
The meeting will be open from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Thursday,
November 15 at the Osterneck Auditorium of the Robeson County Public
Library, located at 101 N. Chestnut Street in Lumberton.
The proposed improvements to NC-211 (Roberts Avenue) consist of
widening that facility to a five- to six-lane curb and gutter section
from Kings Cross Road across I-95 to link with the existing five-lane
section east of I-95. Replacement of the bridge carrying NC-211 over
I-95 and improvements to the NC-211/I-95 interchange are also included
in the project.
The proposed improvements to NC-72-711 (Country Club Drive)
consist of widening that facility to a five- to six-lane curb and
gutter section from the NC-72/NC-711 intersection west of I-95 to SR
2501 (Starlite Drive) east of I-95. It is anticipated NC-72-711 will
be realigned to the south of the existing highway from just west of
the NC-72-711/I-95 interchange to SR 2501 to conform with the
Lumberton Thoroughfare Plan. Replacement of the bridge carrying
NC-72-711 over I-95 and rehabilitation of the bridge over the Lumber
River are also included in the project.
The projects are scheduled in the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), NCDOTIs planning document for highway projects. Right
of way acquisition and construction for both projects are scheduled
for Fiscal Years 1993 and 1995, respectively.
The public is invited to attend the informal meeting, ask
questions, make comments or recommendations, and submit material about
the proposed projects., NCDOT officials are asking interested citizens
to meet with them on a one-to-one basis. This will give the
department a better opportunity to understand citizens' attitudes
about the proposed projects.
Other written material may be submitted to L. Jack Ward, Manager
of Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh,
NC 27611.
**DOT**
A-36
Public Affairs Division NC DOTLINE Joanne V. Latham
P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N. C. 27611 1-800-526-2368 Director of Public Affairs
[phone] Media Information Updates
FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmuive Action Employer
H? Q
?z
L
a?
cz
O
L^
MEN
Tn
V '
me i?
V ,o
•
L n
A-37

?. S r+ •G 00 a. 9d ?+ 3 r{py
?C C7 ? l0C •U ?j 67 • 6J ?" ??'' 'O GL V1
d ayF.r •' 6?!
N mQ O? ? la" y
° h ep ? 'O O .?j •p G ^' ? ?' C? ..t7. ? • S
41
?....1 Q A •Ir l0 M '?D .? ) ° at y 0
Q O H C" 'fl 01 a a N 7 Q d y!
Coll -2-
ca°??3v?yeo
C
it Q E=_ .» .,..
it tv J2 cc "Ci
in a 4) a Ad
cc 13 1. t
N
can
t Cj d " D J3 Z? 'lg to" C3 C3
40 61'
14
Uz 16.
:1. 1: 'A -a 2 8 *8
W N ? .S M y yr.?
s C,
Ja*
aq= °a?"0 °ZwacoEyN ev?GL4
.20 E. 4
,3 C2
cis C6
Hearing From Page 1B
that using service roads at the
interchange.
Mr. Smith said he crosses Rob-
erts Avenue in the affected area
five times a day. He said he uses the
N.C. 72-711 exit area three to four
times a week.
"And they're both disasters," he
said. "Traffic will back up to
Shoney's in the afternoon when
everybody is going home."
Mr. Evely also welcomed news
of improvements to the N.C. 211
exit. Dairy Queen sits in a corner
near the exit ramp and the
highway. Mr. Evely owns the busi-
ness but leases the building, where
the state has proposed building an
access road to Lackey Street.
all thought that was a good idea
from the beginning ... I thought it
would help business," he said.
Although Mr. Evely said he was
"shocked," he appeared calm.
"I've got a couple of years to
look around and see what I want to
do," he said. "If that's how it is,
that's how it is. I'll ju;t have to look
around ... I don't want to take Dairy
Queen out of Lumberton."
Under the plan, the state is
scheduled to begin buying
right-of-way in 1993 and construc-
tion is scheduled to begin in 1995.
Lubin Prevatt, head of rural project
planning for the department, said
construction sbould take about two
years.
At the N.C. 72-711 exit, the state
has proposed a $6.3 million project
that includes widening the highway
from five- to six-lanes from the
N.C. 72-711 intersection west of I-95
to Starlite Drive east of the in-
terstate.
The state plans to realign N.C.
72-711 south of the existing highway
from the west ramp of the current
interchange to Starlite Drive. The
proposed realignment would con-
form with the city's thoroughfare
plan, which eventually calls for an
outer loop around Lumberton.
The bridge carrying N.C. 72.711
across the interstate would be
replaced, and the state plans to
upgrade a separate bridge over the
Lumber River. The state also plans
to separate interstate traffic from
the service road traffic in the area.
"Our main concern is getting
ramp traffic and service road
traffic away from each other," Eric
Midkiff, a highway planning
engineer, said.
The changes wo ld improve
traffic and reduce the number of
accidents, he said. Between
January 1986 and April 1990, the
N.C. 211 area had almost four times
more accidents than the state
average for urban state roads,
according to state officials. The
N.C. 72-711 area had almost twice
as many as the state average,
according to officials.
The department said the pro-
posals are not concrete and could
change depending on recommenda-
tions or other factors.
A-38
&Jim A z_ Qb a
US C,
A
sass an d ?
Qqs ., aLi :9 y
>? A V peV N•P.
eoa9A a dV a°,
?1 ?yy p?? os odz° z:
C! tr {r N -T
• A?ac", ?y us "'.9
O 3Ay?v 2?a°'?
G d w?E. o
A
91
4, go qu
.-y a ?i
a, > 9 Z.2 . OuA
r'I d Cs i°
F O. to 0 i,7. u a Z n
maa;, Q
n d. 0-410
TA U= 1+3J- a
.4 o V
O
?g ?•? O w °
$4 d
3 .+ ;
46 46 8.° a9
it 'a ul
V ° 1°i L. a °
O 0. a a, a m E-?
Z C pd
w CN n
'•' N O p y 'O 'O^^9
a t0-•
(p y _ bA?hA? 0 0. ?cei V, UT
° Q. u a fy Q° `? a? o
L L N .7 ', N a ^-- gamg w d°
CL a 12°A°EQaQ° $
I .? N ;,, 4v d ° C'a bQ
a 4D.ra.di?2N. t. V m A?
•ri .?jQ'?R?'349W.?a7
o .??aas?.?$?dde.
bas. a O
I 1, .3 1 S can .0 1.
n -." _.?.
a)
:7w ?i >? ar 7 d a
,_ d C y? 0.N N
F- ?v= Qa asp
$aa„'' d 6V am a ?
O a °,aQL?:S?z a u >
?'J• 7F. N.d ?. is
a?
?w $a O?•G. G
.+°aedad ..
?. AdN"?a? ?3?oa•?
> a
?boE+ a< $?y
a a b0 9
.>. w i.
q$A ?s??U dV a P:
G y C t0. b0 .y i A .?, 4
flaa.?NO°od"w6
a o gdd;jad
A V m V V n O Q a
_ia ^ ? i
Q 3??`°, ?a r7y??sr
0.C
pz C ??< d Si•dE w ?.?_
vviN ya 5 @ ..°n.9
a °.l Q•?'?N «tp... o°+ww sr'w •oaos ..a.?
cis
lz W,
r. in W - a' ?'z OW
Cc) 4, as 1 Ob004 v 4 ? 0?0?,?gV
El 44
qd aa~ua?? tiw0. 3aa° ??- ?'ad?weo
.-cis 961; 4) .0
14.1 U. %1=0
A° a a and bso° o as a mC
aPG Idi .y
g+,p y'0 a yJ.? W P+ a ?`? N aF pp.
a ?s
u? ?? g N V s
': IN bo v
Sa$w"° Q be
V, VA
p ~ N •Q '?• 6
O V d a d W .:o•• p N ?s j0 z
•0?.+ aao°N'?' d N"a Nmd •?. w d i.+ d Q O N V..
0. G) S. W Ad
CL Va ;4 1 N•N aucoo •O is •d A61 cr w tiW
0
E
c
c
tg
ed
O
99
s q .°?d s us s A b b W s" A'
ed 00
.9 Q N +Ni ?•• N gpui, 'Q O ?. N pN,•E 0 u a? V O+ q Q
O d
f.. a> y " y ?r O .a
N> 7 d 1i OO a7 4 Q a
M O) bD ••q v a a
M a Q d < a N
d N •ly N Q 25-12 g O d h nar O ?•i .d N +N. O a
Z! 0,
a Q
° .40Ucb.?.0O p ?pnal W
a ='93
3. W N
A?>p'ziz`.?.5.+?y?- ?tiv + QaNva ?Q og
v0 a V R E O N'A= p O.O.s?? V aCis8 N ? ?. <fs
O Ir N F YI O w rl ' 2. A N W u Q
a+'ua usN
as u a...?- Ns1 cactt C., { x•°04 a,b ? w+
0. Owl
a a .+
??••'°Q wF3•gi•?ozaiad8oa''s •a''.`°7°pw.°•; Ada
.?.1 VA A .7 . q ? d A Q F w? ..?. .a.1 s 1. a? y y O ? W
a N d O N .C N ?? N d .ti a
a>i O1 a+ A °.! d ° Q to a a+ 16• E ? .d 0 a+ 06. U' > ° cs
F. a .fie uE•? °o?? v"?i`aA Cay?????? pQG?i WP. ya
..? .O+ .'9 •O .0 -. .'7 rX A V .1.. ? A w OaD•?: 1i f± V u A
A-39
Stall Road i
w. Y. .r..
h`e;nN
-ajj;;u-c7rearing4,Thur,sd!afy,. WT.?.?1JVi/ ,u}uvaM AJ ---%. t2 * v ;
2ll/I.95 in °'
pon, two apokeaperon The N .C
proposals -to upgrade roads and a' tercti' a are'alao included the
?. t. x
bridges in p r o j e i F. e
,- Lumberton: ,., _? ?r,•?rt :.;; , _ ??=
The meeting will be open from 47 Griffin said' the Roberts Avenue
p.m. in the Osteineck Auditorium of . project"'ia` expected -"tdl- cost`?an "
the Robeson County Library?Ip,-,.. ' estimated t<3.2 million: Construction -:
F,; Lumberton City: Manager;, Ray on the project is expected to begin in.
Giitfin Jr, said, DOT officials are U.,, log., r.. J ?2
seeking public input on the proposed ;, .The: -proposed project.: for... N,C:"
improvements to Roberts. Avenue 72/711.1$ expected to widen the.road
and N.C. 72-711 in the vicinity of In'.-* to a_ five-to-nix lane curb and gutter,
testate section., from, the • N.C.•.. 72.7111 An-
- The:. proposed lmprovements-, to i' tersection _west; of J-95. to- Starlight
Roberts Avenue call for the road to,,
rf^• '`Ly ' ?" ` t': ?? ; "`?
be widened to s five-to-six lane curb l,rt PNsie aN DOT, pag!.7A
....... ... .. .. r..?,.. u:...?:d.i::r tic -. ?... -. p•.?}.tl...,..,...?P:T. fYP z.:.?.. .... ar.:::c::.
Y. ' Continued from page 1A
DOT
Drive. Jones said it is anticipated if -people' and businesses stayed Chamber "members and members
that the road will be realigned to the away and did not get themselves on : of the Lumberton City Council have
t south of the existing highway, just record." - .:_ - -_. requested that DOT keep. the.. pro.
west of the N.C:42/711 overpass to 'Accord jects on schedule.
ing to Jones; the public
State Road 2501 to conform to may ask questions, make comments Both projects have been repeated.
Lumberton 's Thoroughfare Plan. and submit material about the pro. - ; b pushed fb funding- during the;1980's
' problems. or
DOT is also expected to replace posed projects. Other written mate- other projects taking precedence.
the overpass and rehabilitate the rial' may be submitted to L. Jack "We're just asking that they stay
Lumber River Bridge. The project, Ward. Manager of Planning and , _
these pro.
expected to begin in 1995, will cost Enviromental Branch, NCDOT, ", timely. onshe saidI completing
feel Lumberton
?•an estimated $6.3 million:-,; P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N.C. 271111:.".....:
-'b+'According:to Griffin; the project =.''Betty: West; associate"eiecutiv-,w."should be?treated „fairly. and get, its
allows resident to talk "one-on-one" director of the Lumberton Chamber c fair aliare of help from the Depart-
with DOT officials. of Commerce; said :% the local' ; ment of, Transportation: Alk we're
"The meeting will explain to the business community has pushed for:. asking is to be treated fairly,'.:J,,,
public just what the project consists the projects for several years.: ;.? , ...? Councilman Wyatt Johnson said '
of;"._ Griffin said. "It will let .. `. ciq+' officials are - optimistic, about •.'
residents near the proposed project "We've been very interested in the ' the projects "staying on track:" .. `:
improvements,". Ms..", West said. "I think the DOT is going to stay
know what will happen and how it "Those Toads are extremely confus- i on schedule," Johnson said..'This is
will affect them." fig,: expedally to tourists. They get: the farthest they gone. We're now on
_; .
-il Griffin called. the exsisting roads in there and they are unsure where the TIP (Transportation Improve.:;
to go. I don't know what the accident ` meat Project) plan and we weren't
insufficient for the amount of traffic:'
utihztsg the roads.... :•rate is, but it must behigh. = before. So it looks good.", i:.: .
'There are serious deficiences on. ....She said the chamber held a lun=.•:= . The TIP is the_departmeni's plan '
_both.roads'that need to be address,:: cheon with DOT.officials in October- ring document. for highwayR pro-
ed"he.said. "It would be a mistaketo'discusstheproject.:':': jects. •
-_..?a'•i... .....e ... ... ?_?.. .. ..- .. ^:._. ... .. ..a.w..... w. .a.:w:...eVtl'tY:..?.. .._r:'•. ??+.- .. -. if.r.?:r.J.1...di?it ..wa b'.
A-40