20020228 Ver 1_Complete File_20020415

GO..-VA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMII\]T OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 30, 2001
Mr. Ronald E. Ferrell, Program Manager
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program
NCDENR-DWQ
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
WETLANDS GROUP
Dear Sir: WATER QUALITY SEC7r'i<
Subject: REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION for proposed work on SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)
from SR 1141 to I-95 Bus., Fayetteville, Cumberland County. State
Project 8.2443001, Federal Aid No. STP-1344(2), TIP U-3312
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to build
approximately 0.4 miles of new alignment in conjunction with widening SR 1344. The
purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP) provide confirmation that you are willing to accept payment for the
compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts to wetlands and streams associated
with the proposed project.
Following are the particulars of the impact area:
• Cumberland County
• Cape Fear River Basin, Coastal Plain Province
• Cataloguing Unit: 03030004
• 1.15 acres of jurisdictional non-riparian wetland impacts
• 0.21 acres of mechanized clearing in wetlands
• 331 linear feet of stream impacts (unnamed tributaries to Big Sandy Run)
We propose to mitigate for 1.36 acres of wetland impacts at a ratio of 2:1. Mitigation
required for wetlands is 2.72 acres. At a cost of $12,000 per acre, NCDOT is proposing to
provide payment in the amount of $32,640 to offset wetland impacts.
We propose to mitigate for 331 feet of stream impacts at a ratio of 2:1, for a total of 662
linear feet. At a cost of $125 per linear foot, NCDOT is proposing to provide payment in
the amount of $82,750 to offset stream impacts. The total payment for stream and
wetland impacts incurred for this project will be $115,390.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
If you are willing to accept responsibility for this mitigation, please send a letter of
confirmation to Mary Frazer at NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, FAX number 919-733-9794. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Mary Frazer at 919-733-1200.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. T. R. Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 27, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Mary Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Coordinator •-0 ?'
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping, DENR# 98-E-0580, DWQ# 12008
SR 1344 Widening, from SR 1141 to I-95 Bus.
Cumberland County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the EA document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Identify the number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
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
SR 1344 Scoping
April 27, 1998
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H . Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
1. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
J. The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
K. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA for this
project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is
the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land
uses that the EA should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of the EA
should discuss the known relationship between road widening and inducements for
urban development along the project right-of-way. The EA must further address the
long-term environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect
impacts of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment. To
address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor (and what
land use figures were used in this estimate)?
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to existing roads, such as turn lanes and
traffic signs and signals?
iii) Are any cross streets in the project area projected to see additional traffic
flows due to the proposed project? If so, how will land uses along these
secondary roads be influenced by the project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant parcels of land in
the road right-of-way?
vi) Will these once less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this widened road serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the.provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this widening
encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
V,
SR 1344 Scoping
April 27, 1998
viii) If inducement for urban development is predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the EA and should be
considered indirect impacts of the transportation project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to effectively manage development potential along the
road right-of-way to reduce the potential indirect land use changes and
environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from this additional development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The EA should discuss these impacts (and others that are applicable to the
individual project), and quantify them when possible. In addition to
reporting on the types and significance of each direct and indirect impact of
the project, the EA should define how DOT (with their authorities and
resources) and affected local governments (with land use control in the
project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or mitigate these impacts to a
level of insignificance. The SEPA rules and statutes require that prior to
issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts in an
EA be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, the EA should document how the indirect effects of urban
growth are not going to significantly impact water quality and all other
environmental concerns resulting from this proposed project, or a FONSI
should not be issued.
L. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT EA:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the road widening, if the
project will be providing new or improved access to future growth areas that are
currently undeveloped. One typical impact of increased development might include
increasing amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area. Land-
disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development may
also result in increased stream sedimentation. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in the creek, loss of aquatic
habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers, pesticides,
sediment and automobile byproducts) to the stream. These impacts could be of
special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and federally
endangered species or if the waters are high quality or nutrient sensitive.
SR 1344 Scoping
April 27, 1998
M. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
N . Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant call Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mek:\980580; SR 1344 Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
AA ?:

c' w 3 .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAWS h. HUNT JR. P.O. MA 25201, RALEIG11, N.C. 27611-5201
(A)VI RNOR
February 19, 1998
E. No itius TOLSO N
SHRIfIARY

MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road),
from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business, Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, F. A. Project No. STP-1344(2), State Project
No. 8.2443001, TIP No. U-3312
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the subject project
(See attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A Scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 1998 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Brian Yamamoto, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 215.
BFY/plr
Attachment
0
ATTENTION
For all those planning to attend the U-3312 scoping meeting, please note that the
Transportation building, along with the majority of the NCDOT buildings, have recently
installed card access security systems. Due to the new security systems, all visitors will
need to enter the building through the main entrance (Wilmington Street) where they will
register with the Security Guard and receive a Visitor's Badge. This badge will need to
be visibly worn at all times in the building. Upon leaving the building, all visitors will be
required to sign out with the Security Guard and return the badge.
Thank you for your cooperation. If there are any questions regarding the new
visitor's procedures, please contact the Security Section at [phone], or Brian
Yamamoto, Project Planning Engineer, at [phone], ext. 215.
'opt Air Force 16°r
24
FORT B ATxi
Nmn,tc.1 LLL222 J _
LAKE
?enoe
SOME
DOOM
,! i I / I? 1 I I i
\ I AOSE
o00N! \ C LANE
/ ,? \ wrovel (?
/ NNrvc.l L Cold \ ,u+MC.I J
?• LAKE iA ew pp
401
J - - urn - - - - - - - / cl?/ -
? D PCXr2l
301 ,
1 l % ^`// 020 ''.4e\? 6° i ' 1 \ ® ® rase
r a s GYEAVpE ^ v a; 1
1 LAKE ` I PKFP. ' h B'b
Q
24
- I I 1931
,
I bl I
'` J \? 1933
I:MIdKIP AIXKFISN sh" ? ~ \ \•` ` C'. / 2074
-FAYETTEVILLE
1 I_. ro n °3-80
I I I 1 \\ ---- I
i 1
?O \ \ ?y LAff _ • 3 1999 1006
I.)
bl eti - - \ l za -; I,Z
10
\ 1 \ /./ ` ( / ® i / lea
100°
B 'm
\ \ / \ ra/ ,20,20 r 1`/ ` l VANDEK . Vends,
NNINC.)/ ^ 2069 'v
rv
.. 301 I
V\ ? csw
'1? 1`? !` 0 IN \ \ ?? zom 2010 , 2013
/ r??J1 1 \2012 2231 1f
? I 2010
2014
FayNlwll6 _ v Q _ 2013
I CwnwlsM I Munidv°I /,? r Icy I - \ \ / / 1 2b11 A7?•
95 2011
J 1 J
I 1 l / / y'tj?a
l / rye \ 2063 2015
to .y 2010 .J.'
I \ ?. 1 r Fp
') I FOP. 9,737 3 / ® \ 0 N 20
UPChvHCFFES PplO\ , IT `! I tr\i\? .. 301 , e] cni ! T121 2721 2016
\ Jr I ?1. ) N Ceeek Ch.
C5} \ /.i `(. ? .. Yom' ? i_ 1 Cni
))
\ .2
2070
T -?
- - © I' rozi
J
\ 0 2224
95
a -2227
\ ' \ ® 222E
\ \ CFp? LW
` \ O
\ TOb 0,
Ness' h.
1; \ 301 \ ? ? ..
??+ Q INSET 4
SEE FIGURE 1B
,o?? \
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 10 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I CUMBERLAND COUNTY!
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
VICINITY MAP I
WIDEN SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD) j
FROM SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO
1-95 BUSINESS/US301 IN FAYETTEVILLE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
T.I.P NO. U-3312
0 KILOMETERS 3
Sly
9 -MILES F!GURE to
v LAAC
• T414
1 A 7Y. _
1 g _ c.4r N -
I _ ro / 1141
T-7? Lt ?' .? I,y<{? -?,?.i? 1111. •? , Mtaoe["
,WO
/ 007 yo
WOFI=H ,
64 IIS3
64 ?' v\h t0 ° ! 6?6
622]9
Frk 1k-l G 2263
7 ] 12Q3 T-4
1
y159 /1?oli??PROJ162 2M
3016n1159 1600 2355 67 ?
-
(? U
J 1161
?' .-. .._ 1159 .7 'a 301
1163 -1 167
1291
9 1149 .011 o72392
I1^. 100]
1141 / 2366 M 2321
1141 1 Z159
7273 ' I .33
O 246
}11x5 / ` ] 1169 1007
4 ,
n ° ? ?/ Pp. .? ^P 1op7
. a 1350
- z995 I i 03 1N200 2+
3]42
I a _ 7 I - 2 I PROJECT LIMIT
,m
I Q07
I 1141 1 n I1 1767 `/ 3354 3c60 301
2994 \
I
19 1206 1145 I 1 1 1154. 1003. ' ?^ i 333 1 / 2351 2357
1149 1202 j .47 F .-I3? 1 _
---
3029
1 .p6 3030 J •10 1150 I I 1 " 06
2306 ?i o6 236 z
1154
2912 1146 I 1390 3315 •/ I --._ I IW
y - - I
• - -?
'L-42 2926 r 3031 I . oa / X331 ?
IT I I o ' 3319
i55 249 7 / 1003 I \ 3716
1313 .10
J - 3216 1331 1330
2993 232]
---- .3740 y \ j zz
3730 " 344 1 132 _ _ 2329 2291 2326 {
373]
3739 n 2330
d 3002 .03 I /
Pa 1290 3387 1 3a4 Q I T -
u 3064 2951 . 1 2904 di 09 310 1311 2 -
'°°° '
003 3366 X93 .1 -'"
7656.
3066' • ? v 1"?
3003
1216 3301 29? ?? \ / /
36 1 7716 2196 0 I
7631
3366 3704 3717
\ \ / /
.21 33292. }]QI / /
/
3572 1311 2273
Z!? 1 132
30117 7 73
17 1 /
?
8 r,317
2366
2314 ? 1 O
w ? -..' \ 1 ? roMhnl
_ .25 mmldpc
Q Al rpod
2310 a 2Z
.02 ' ( 3OQ9 m /
fj\ I 1392 ? 3096 .01
• ? 3616 -?
3901 a - "U NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
??^ I 7267 u trF TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
3767 77-66 376 3389 pLANN 76 BRAN I G AND ENVIRONMENTAL
'
)PE ? o jig 2V3
TLS k 0 3700 ?6s VICINITY MAP
AKE 1_3R 3764 3D1 ? ? ? WIDEN SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)
---- --------- - ------- -------------- --- SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO
1-95 BUSINESS/US301 IN FAYETTEVILLE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
T
.I.P NO. U-3312
F A V1F T TT+ v/TT IT
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 11-13-97
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-3312
State Project # 8.2443001
F.A. Project # STP-1344(2)
Division 6
County Cumberland
Route(s) SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)
Functional Classification Urban Collector
Length 4.3 km (2.7 mi.)
Purpose of Project To improve the traffic carrying capacity and accident experience
of SR 1344, as requested by the Citv of Fayetteville.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major elements of work: To widen
SR 1344 to a 5-lane curb and gutter section from SR 1 141 (Cumberland Road) to 1-95
Business/US 301, partially on new location.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Environmental Assessment
Finding of No Significant Impact
Environmental Study Schedule: EA due February, 1999:
FONSI:Beain May. 1999 Complete October. 1999
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or (%)
How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: (Proposed) Full Partial _ X None
Number of Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0
Stream Crossings 0
Typical Section: Existing 3-lane facility
Proposed 5-lane curb and gutter facility
Traffic (ADT): Current (1996) 1 1,000 Design Yr (2020) 19, 600 % TTSTN/A % Duals NJ
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: Existing 81 km/h ( 50 mphl
Proposed 81 km/h ( 50 mph)
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies ...... $ 6,050,000
Right of Way (including relocation, utilities, and acquisition) ....... $
Force Account Items ........................................................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ...................................................................... $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE ...................................................... $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ........................................................................................ $ $5,100,000
Right of Way ........................................................................................ $ $1,500,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE ......................................................... $ $6,600,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED N COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
XSurface ............................................................................... $1..598 375
Base .................................................................................... $
Milling & Recycling ........................................................... $
Turnouts .............................................................................. $
Shoulders
Paved ................................................................................. $
Earthen ............................................................................... $
Earthwork ..................................................................................... $ 589 050
Subsurface Items ......................................................................... $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ........................................................ $951 Adn
-X--Drainage (list any special items) ............................................... $ 7nn nnn
Sub-Drainage ...................................................................:........... $
Structures
Bridge Rehab ..................................................................... $
New Bridge ........................................................................ $
Remove Bridge ................................................................. $
New Culvert ....................................................................... $
Culvert Extension ............................................................... $
Retaining Walls ..:............................:.................................... $
Noise Walls ......................................................................... $
Other Misc ......................................................................... $
_ X Concrete Curb & Gutter ........................................................... $-955 5An
Concrete Sidewalk ..................................................................... $
X_ Right Turn Lanes ................................................................................ $ 45 000
Fencing
W . W .................................................................................... $
C.L ...................................................................................... $
X Erosion Control ..................

..........................................................
-
$157,000
Landscaping ............................................................................... $
Lighting ........................................................................................ $,
Y Traffic Control ............................................................................. $ 12A. 000
Signing
New ...................................................................................
Upgraded .........................................................................
_X- Traffic Signals
New ................................................................................... $
-X Revised .............................................................................. $ 140-000
RR Signals
New ................................................................................... $
Revised .............................................................................
With/without Arms ........................................................... $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 31?
Drainage Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade .................................................. $
X_ Pavement Markings
Paint ................................................................................................. $
_ X Thermoplastic ...........:...................................................:................. $ Sn 40n
Raised Pavement Markers ............................................................ $
--Delineators ................................................................................................ $
X_ Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) .....................:................. $ 1 447,99-9-
CONTRACT COST Subtotal .............................................. $ S. 2A1. 000
Engineering & Contingencies ............................................................................ 1,99 non
PE Costs ............................................................................................................... $
Force Account .................................................................................................... $
Right-of-Way
Subtotal ............................................... $ A. 050. non
Will contain within existing R/W? Yes No
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated Cost .......................... $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated Cost .......................... $
Utilities ........................................................................................................
Right-of-Way Subtotal ..................................................................... $
Prepared by:
Total Estimated Cost .......................... $
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date
Date
Init. Date
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer- Precon-
Chief Engineer- Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry Prel. Est. Engr. -Al=j- 11 4 9
Ping & Environ.
Init.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities - --
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/ Municipality
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date
Division Engineer
Biciycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineering.)
Init. Date
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or Scoping, note your proposed
revisions or comments here:
O I., "
Favettev itle
SR 1 344 (Black and Decker Road)
From SR 1 141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business, US-301
Cumberland County
+ Federal Aid No. STP-1344(2)
State Project No. 3.2443001
TIP Project No. U-3312
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
APPROVED:
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
2? qq
15ate kiltiam D. Gilmore, P. E. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
r
Date ichc
147/4ivis
Z. Graf, P. E.
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Favetteville
SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)
From SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to 1-95 Business/US-301
Cumberland County
Federal Aid No. STP-1344(2)
State Project No. 8.2-443001
TIP Project No. U-3312
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
September, 1999
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
i?wm?
Karen Boshoff
Project Developme t Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Unit Head
r
R. B. Davis, P. E., CPM )
Assistant Branch Manager
CARp
SEAL
c
6944
°R?..,B
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville
SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)
From SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/US-301
• Cumberland County
Federal Aid No. STP-1344(2)
State Project No. 8.2443001
TIP Project No. U-3312
GeoEnvironmental Section
NCDOT will conduct a site inspection of underground storage facilities located within
the project area prior to right of way acquisition. If leaks or contamination have
occurred, NCDOT will notify the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Management (NCDENR) - Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT will provide bicycle accommodations in the form of 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside
travel lanes. Bicycle-safe grates will also be installed for safety.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland
County regarding the construction of sidewalks along the proposed project. The deadline
for requesting sidewalk construction as part of the proposed project is at the post hearing
meeting.
Environmental Assessment
September 27, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................1
A. General Description ..................................................................................1
B. Proposed Improvements ...........................................................................2
1. Length of Project ..........................................................................2
2. Cross Section ...............................................................................2
3. Right of Way ................................................................................2
4. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ................................3
5. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations ...........................................5
6. Access Control .............................................................................5
7. Design Speed and Proposed Posted Speed Limit ........................5
8. Drainage Structures ......................................................................6
9. Degree of Utility Conflicts ...........................................................6
10. Airports ........................................................................................6
11. Permits .........................................................................................6
12. Cost Estimates ..............................................................................6
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..........................................................6
A. Purpose of Project ....................................................................................6
B. Characteristics of Existing Facility ..........................................................7
1. Length .......................................................................................... 7
2. Cross Sections .............................................................................. 7
3. Right of Way ................................................................................ 8
4. Alignment .....:.............................................................................. 8
5. Access Control ............................................................................. 8
6. Structures ..................................................................................... 9
7. Speed Limits ................................................................................ 9
8. Intersections and Type of Control ................................................ 9
9. Utilities ......................................................................................... 10
10. Greenways, Sidewalks, and Bicycle Accommodations ............... 10
11. Geodetic Markers ......................................................................... 10
12. School Buses ................................................................................ 10
13. Airports ........................................................................................ 11
C. Thoroughfare Plan and System Linkage .................................................. 1 l
D. Independent Utility .................................................................................. 11
E. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis .................................................. 12
F. Accident Data and Analysis ..................................................................... 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .....................................................................14
A. Construction Alternatives ........................................................................14
B. Alternative Modes of Transportation ...................................................... .15
C. Transportation Systems Management ..................................................... .15
D. Postponement of Project ......................................................................... .16
E. "Do Nothing„ Alternative ....................................................................... .16
F. Recommended Alternative ...................................................................... .16
IV. SOC IAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................... . 16
A. Social Effects .......................................................................................... .16
1. Project Area Background ............................................................ .16
a. Geographic and Political Location .................................. .16
b. Race, Ethnicity and Age ................................................. .17
C. Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment ................... .18
d. Business Activity/Employment Centers ......................... .19
e. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions ...................... .19
f. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services ........................... .19
2. Existing and Future Land Uses and Present and Future
Zoning .................................................................................... 19
3. Relocation Impacts ....................................................................... 21
4. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion ..................... 22
a. Title VI and Environmental Justice ................................. 22
b. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ................................. 24
5. Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 24
a. Archaeological Resources ................................................ 25
b. Architectural Historic Resources ..................................... 25
6. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources ...................................... 25
B. Economic Effects ..................................................................................... 26
C. Environmental Effects ............................................................................. 27
' 1. Physical Resources
a. Soils ................................................................................. 27
b. Water Resources .............................................................. 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
i. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ...................30
ii. Best Usage Classification ....................................30
iii. Water Quality .......................................................31
iv. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................32
2. Biotic Resources ..........................................................................33
a. Biotic Communities .........................................................34
b. Aquatic Fauna ..................................................................36
C. Wildlife ............................................................................37
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................38
3. Jurisdictional Issues .....................................................................40
a. Waters of the United States ..............................................41
i. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................41
ii. Anticipated Permit Requirements ........................42
iii. Avoidance, Minimization, Compensatory
Mitigation .......................................................42
a. Rare and Protected Species ..............................................44
i. Federally Protected Species .................................44
ii. Federal Species of Concern .................................50
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Stream Modification ....................52
5. Farmland ......................................................................................52
6. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis .................52
7. Air Quality Analysis ....................................................................58
8. Hazardous Material and Geotechnical Impacts ...........................61
9. Construction Impacts ...................................................................63
V. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...........................................64
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..............................................................64
A. Comments Received ................................................................................64
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop ..........................................................64
C. Public Hearing .........................................................................................65
VII. LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................65
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURES
Figure IA Vicinity Map
Figure 1 B Vicinity Map - Inset
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3A Proposed Typical Section: Five-lane Facility with Curb and Gutter
Figure 313 Proposed Typical Section: Four-lane Curb and Gutter Section with
Median
Figures 4A-E Existing and Proposed Lane Configurations for Major Intersections
along Proposed Project
Figure 5A Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 513 Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan - Inset
Figure 6A Traffic Forecast for 1999/2025 Without Proposed Project
Figure 613 Traffic Forecast for 1999/2025 With Proposed Project in Place
Figure 7 Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan
Figure 8 Wetlands and Surface Waters Impacted by Proposed Project
TABLES PAGE
Table 1 Levels of Service for Major Intersections ................................................ 13
Table 2 Accident Rates (per 100 Million Vehicle Miles) ..................................... 14
Table 3 Population by Race and Hispanic Origin (Cumberland County) ............. 17
Table 4 Population by Age (Cumberland County) ............................................... 18
Table 5 Income Measures (Cumberland County) ................................................. 18
Table 6 Project Area Soil Phases and Characteristics ........................................... 28
Table 7 Potential Woodland Productivity of Project Area Soifs .......................... 29
Table 8 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ..................................... 39
Table 9 Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts ................................................................ 42
Table 10 Federally Protected Species Listed for Cumberland County ................... 44
Table 11 Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County .............................. 51
APPENDIX
Appendix A Comments Received from Federal, State and Local Agencies
Appendix B Relocation Report and Relocation Assistance Programs
Appendix C Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
Appendix D Air Quality Analysis
Appendix E Citizens' Informational Workshop Press Release and Handout
Fayetteville
SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)
From SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/US-301
Cumberland County
Federal Aid No. STP-1344(2)
State Project No. 8.2443001
TIP Project No. U-3312
SUMMARY
Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment (EA).
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways proposes to upgrade and extend SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) from
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to 1-95 Business/US-301 in Fayetteville, Cumberland
County. For the purposes of discussion in this document, the proposed project will be
described as a north-south route. SR 1344 has three common road names. At the
southern end of the project, SR 1344 is referred to as Black and Decker Road between
I-95 Business/US-301 and SR 1132 (Legion Road). Between SR 1132 (Legion Road)
and SR 1003 (Camden Road), SR 1344 is known as Mid Pine Road. The section between
SR 1003 (Camden Road) and SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) is known as Natal Street (see
Figures IA and 1B).
The proposed project will widen existing SR 1344 to a multi-lane facility from
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/US-301. From SR 1141 (Cumberland
Road) to SR 2998 (Peacock Street), a five-lane facility with curb and gutter is proposed.
A four-lane median divided facility is proposed on new alignment from SR 2998
(Peacock Street) to I-95 Business/US-301. At the southern terminus, the proposed
project will tie into I-95 Business/US-301 at the Airport Road (SR 2260) intersection,
approximately 0.25 miles north of the existing SR 1344 intersection. The total length of
the project is approximately 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) (see Figure 2).
The estimated cost in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
includes $1,591,000 for right of way acquisition and $5,740,000 for construction, totaling
$7,331,000. The total estimated cost for the proposed improvements is $7,845,500,
which include $2,045,500 for right of way acquisition and $5,800,000 for construction.
3. Alternatives Considered
A. Build Alternatives
Two construction alternatives for widening SR 1344 to a multi-lane
facility were studied. Both alternatives followed the same alignment:
symmetrical widening of existing SR 1344 from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to
SR 2998 (Peacock Street), then preceding on new alignment from SR 2998 and
tying into I-95 Business/US 301 at the SR 2260 (Airport Road) intersection.
Alternative 1 proposed a five-lane facility with curb and gutter for the entire
length of the project. Alternative 2 involved symmetrical widening of existing
SR 1344 to five-lanes with curb and gutter from SR 1141 to SR 2998 (same as
Alternative 1). For the new alignment segment between SR 2998 and 1-95
Business/US 301, Alternative 2 proposed a four-lane median divided facility with
curb and gutter. Both alternatives require 30 meters (100-feet) of right of way
with approximately 3 meters (10 feet) of temporary construction easements on
both sides of the road.
B. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative was considered but not recommended since the
proposed project is needed for providing a safer, more efficient route in
Cumberland County. However, the "no build" alternative is used as a base for
comparison to the build alternatives.
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation would be a practical alternative to the
recommended alternative. Alternatives to the automobile would not provide a
safer, more efficient route long SR 1344.
D. Transportation Systems Management
Possible TSM improvement options within this alternative includes traffic
signal optimization or improvements to existing roadways in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The purpose of this project is to meet future traffic demand
along SR 1344 and improve access to the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. The
TSM improvement option will not adequately meet the project's purpose and
need.
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are listed in
Section IV of this document. The new alignment portion of the proposed project will
have minor impacts to one wetland and an intermittent stream that empties into the pond.
The pond may also be impacted by project construction.
Improvements to existing SR 1344 will result in the relocation of 3 residences and
no businesses. No impacts are anticipated to architecturally or archaeologically
significant sites.
No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a
result of the project. An increase in the noise level for properties adjacent to the project is
anticipated. A total of 26 residences and businesses (23 residences, 3 businesses) will be
impacted by highway traffic noise, and one business will experience a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels.
Five facilities adjacent to the proposed project were found to have either had
underground storage tank (UST) systems in the past or currently have UST systems in
operation. If further design studies indicate right of way from these properties needs to
be acquired, preliminary site assessments for soil and groundwater contamination will be
performed prior to right of way purchase. If contaminants are located on the proposed
right of way, the current landowner or the NCDOT will take appropriate action to
decontaminate the area.
Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no design exceptions anticipated for this project.
6. Special Permits Required
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters as a result of this project are
inevitable. Whether impacts occur as part of widening the existing facility or as a result
of new alignment construction, a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) will be required
from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Although a-discreet site may
qualify under NWP authorizations, overall cumulative impacts from a single and
complete project may require authorization under an Individual Permit (IP).
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) - Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), is required for the proposed project since a federal permit is involved.
7. Coordination
The following federal. state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment:
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*U. S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Emergency Management Administration
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Region M Council of Governments
Fayetteville Metropolitan Planning Organization
*Cumberland County Commissioners
City of Fayetteville, Public Works Commission
*County of Cumberland - Office of County Engineer
Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*). Copies
of the comments received are included in Appendix A.
Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning the
proposal and assessment:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
iv
Fayetteville
SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)
From SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/US-301
Cumberland County
Federal Aid No. STP-1344(2)
State Project No. 8.2443001
TIP Project No. U-3312
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Descrintion
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways proposes to upgrade and extend SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) from
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/US-301 in Fayetteville, Cumberland
County. For the purposes of discussion in this document, the proposed project will be
described as a north-south route. SR 1344 has three common road names. At the
southern end of the project, SR 1344 is referred to as Black and Decker Road between
I-95 Business/US-301 and SR 1132 (Legion Road). Between SR 1132 (Legion Road)
and SR 1003 (Camden Road), SR 1344 is known as Mid Pine Road. The section between
SR 1003 (Camden Road) and SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) is known as Natal Street (see
Figures 1 A and 1 B).
The proposed project will widen existing SR 1344 to a multi-lane facility from
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/US-301. From SR 1141 (Cumberland
Road) to SR 2998 (Peacock Street), a five-lane facility with curb and gutter is proposed.
A four-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter is proposed on new alignment
from SR 2998 (Peacock Street) to I-95 Business/US-301. At the southern terminus, the
proposed project will tie into I-95 Business/US-301 across from SR 2260 (Airport Road),
approximately 0.4 kilometers (0.25 miles) north of the existing SR 1344 intersection.
The total length of the proposed project is approximately 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) (see
Figure 2).
Project U-3312 is included in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year (FY) 2000
and construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2002. The estimated cost in the 2000-2006
TIP includes $1,591,000 for right of way acquisition and $5,740,000 for construction,
totaling $7,331,000. The total estimated cost for the proposed improvements is
$7,845,500, including $2,045,500 for right of way acquisition and $5,800,000 for
construction.
B. Proposed Improvements
Length of Project
The total length for the proposed project from SR 1141 (Cumberland
Road) to I-95 Business/US-301 is approximately 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles). The
portion of existing SR 1344 that will be widened to a five-lane facility with curb
and gutter (from Cumberland Road to Peacock Street) is approximately
3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles) in length. The portion of the project that will be
constructed on new location between Peacock Street and 1-95 Business/US 301 is
approximately 0.6 kilometers (0.4 miles) in length (see Figure 2).
2. Cross Section
The project proposes to widen existing SR 1344 to a multi-lane facility
from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/US-301. A five-lane facility
with curb and gutter is proposed from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to SR 2998
(Peacock Street). A four-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter is
proposed on new alignment from SR 2998 (Peacock Street) to I-95
Business/US-301.
The anticipated face-to-face of curbs width for the proposed five-lane
section is 20.4 meters (68 feet). The roadway will have a 4.2-meter (14-foot)
outside travel lane in each direction of travel, a 3.6-meter (12-foot) inside travel
lane in each direction of travel, a 3.6 meter (12-foot) center turn lane, and a curb
width of 0.6 meters (2 feet) on both sides of the road (see Figure 3A).
The proposed four-lane median divided section will have a total roadway
width of 22.1 meters (73.5 feet) face-to-face of the outside curbs, including two
4.2-meter (14-foot) outside travel lanes, two 3.6-meter (12-foot) inside travel
lanes, a 4.8-meter (16-foot) raised median, and two 0.6-meter (2-foot) outside
curbs. The inside curbs (next to the median) will be have a standard width of
22.5 centimeters (9 inches) (see Figure 313).
Right of Way
The proposed right of way width for the project is approximately
30 meters (100 feet). Temporary construction easements on both sides of the
project may be required. Permanent drainage easements may be required in some
areas along the proposed project.
The proposed right of way widths for roadways intersecting the proposed
project are:
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road): 27 meters (90 feet) - same as existing
SR 1003 (Camden Road): 30 meters (100 feet)
SR 1132 (Legion Road): 30 meters (100 feet)
I-95 Business/US 301: 80 meters (260 feet) - same as existing
4. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections along the proposed project will remain at grade. Major
intersections along the proposed project will require minor lane configuration
improvements. Refer to Figures 4A through 4E for existing and proposed
intersection treatments. Lane treatments are proposed at the following
intersections:
SR 1344 (Natal Street)/SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) Intersection
The intersection of SR 1344 (Natal Street) and SR 1141 (Cumberland
Road) forms the northern terminus of the proposed project. Lane configurations
for Cumberland Road at this intersection will remain mostly unchanged (refer to
Figure 4A for existing intersection lane configurations). Two exclusive left turn
lanes will be provided on westbound Cumberland Road. Currently westbound
Cumberland Road has one exclusive left-turn lane. An additional left-turn lane
was constructed under TIP Project No. U--2304B but is currently paint striped.
This additional left-turn lane will not be in use until after the completion of TIP
Project No. U-3312. Northbound SR 1344 (Natal Street) will have two exclusive
left-turn lanes and two exclusive right-turn lanes. This intersection will remain
signalized. Proposed lane configurations for this intersection is shown in
Figure 4A.
SR 1344 (Natal Street/Mid Pine Drive)/SR 1003 (Camden Road) Intersection
SR 1003 (Camden Road) will not be improved as part of the proposed
project. Improvements of Camden Road will be done as part of TIP Project No.
U-2810. Southbound SR 1344 (Natal Street) will have an exclusive left-turn lane,
two exclusive through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane. Northbound
SR 1344 (Mid Pine Drive) will have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through
lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane. One of the proposed left-turn lanes on
northbound SR 1344 will be paint striped until improvements to Camden Road
have been completed. This intersection will remain signalized. Figure 4B shows
the proposed lane configurations for this intersection after the completion of TIP
Project No. U-3312.
SR 1344 (Mid Pine Drive/Black and Decker Road)/SR 1132 (Legion Road)
Intersection
Improvements to SR 1132 (Legion Road) will be done as part of TIP
Project No. U-2809B. Proposed improvements to northbound SR 1344 (Black
and Decker Road) include an exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and an
exclusive right-turn lane. Southbound SR 1344 (Mid Pine Drive) will have the
same lane configurations as proposed in the northbound direction. This
intersection will remain signalized. See Figure 4C for the proposed lane
configurations for this intersection after the completion of TIP Project
No. U-3312.
Existing SR 1344/Realigned SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) Intersection
Existing SR 1344 will be extended to form a T-intersection with the new
alignment section of the proposed project. A signal is proposed at this
intersection. See Figure 4D for the proposed lane configurations for this
intersection.
Existing SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)/SR 2998 (Peacock Street)
Intersection
Existing SR 2998 (Peacock Street) will be extended to form a T-
intersection with existing SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road). This intersection
will be stop sign controlled.
Realigned SR 1344/1-95 Business (US 301)/SR 2260 (Airport Road)
Intersection
The southern terminus of the proposed project is at the intersection of
SR 2260 (Airport Road), I-95 Business/US 301, and an existing service road west
of I-95 Business/US 301. The proposed lane configurations for Airport Road will
include an exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two Exclusive right-
turn lanes. Realigned SR 1344 will have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two
through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane. Southbound I-95 business/US
301 will have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and an exclusive
right-turn lane. The northbound direction will have two exclusive left-turn lanes,
two through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane. Figure 4E shows the
proposed lane configurations for this intersection. This intersection will remain
signalized.
The existing service road located west of I-95 Business/US 301 will not
have access to the realigned section of SR 1344. Cul de sacs will be constructed
on both sides of the proposed road. Access from the service road to 1-95
Business/US 301 will be through existing SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)
south of the proposed project and SR 2291 (Ivan Drive) north of the proposed
project (see Figure 2).
5. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations
The City of Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) have indicated the need for sidewalks along SR 1344;
however, a formal request addressing the criteria listed in the NCDOT Interim
Pedestrian Policy has not been received. NCDOT must receive a formal request
at or before the post hearing meeting following the public hearing in order to
include sidewalk construction in the project.
The funding participation, according to the NCDOT Interim Pedestrian
Policy, states that NCDOT will be responsible for 50 % of the construction cost of
sidewalks up to a maximum of 5 % of the total project construction cost. The
governing municipality will be responsible for the remaining 50 %.
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County just outside the
corporate limits of the City of Fayetteville. The NCDOT Interim Pedestrian
Policy currently states that sidewalk construction and cost sharing agreements
must be made with a local municipality. The local municipality must also agree
to maintain the pedestrian facility after completion. Counties are not currently
considered eligible partners in such arrangements. The policy is currently under
review. Should the policy change to include counties as eligible participants in
cost sharing or if Cumberland County and the City of Fayetteville can reach and
agreement regarding this matter, the sidewalks on this project will be reevaluated.
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with officials of Cumberland County and the
City of Fayetteville concerning the construction of sidewalks as part of this
project.
The Fayetteville Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is in the
process of developing a local area bike route system that will include SR 1344 as
a proposed bike route. The bike route system will serve to connect the downtown
area of Hope Mills with the surrounding areas. It will also connect the
surrounding residential areas to schools, churches, and commercial areas.
A 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside travel lane will be provided in both
directions of traffic to accommodate bicycle traffic for the entire length of the
project. Bicycle-safe grates will also be installed for safety.
6. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for this project
7. Design Speed and Proposed Posted Speed Limit
The proposed project will have a minimum design speed of 80 kilometers
per hour (km/hr) [50 miles per hour (mph)]. The anticipated posted speed limit is
70 km/hr (45 mph).
8. Drainage Structures
There are no major structures associated with the proposed project.
Improvements to the existing drainage patterns may be required.
9. Degree of Utility Conflicts
0 Utility conflicts along the proposed project are considered high.
10. Airports
The proposed project will have no adverse impact on the operations of the
Fayetteville Municipal Airport. This project has been coordinated with the
Federal Aviation Administration (see Appendix A, page A-22).
11. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters as a result of this
project are inevitable. Whether impacts occur as part of widening the existing
facility or as a result of new alignment construction, a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit (NWP) will be required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). Although a discreet site may gQalify under NWP authorizations,
overall cumulative impacts from a single and complete project may require
authorization under an Individual Permit (IP).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), is required for the proposed project since a federal permit
is involved.
12. Cost Estimates
The total estimated cost for the proposed improvements is $7,845,500,
including $2,045,500 for right of way acquisition and $5,800,000 for
construction.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve access to the Fayetteville
Municipal Airport, to improve the level of service and safety along the existing facility,
and to meet future travel demands in southeastern Fayetteville. By providing a
continuous multi-lane facility between several primary radial streets including I-95
Business/US 301, SR 1132 (Legion Road), SR 1003 (Camden Road), and SR 1141
(Cumberland Road), the proposed project will improve efficiency and safety on SR 1344
and meet future travel demands in the area.
B. Characteristics of Existing Facility
Length
Existing SR 1344 between SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95
Business/US-301 is approximately 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) in length.
2. Cross Sections
SR 1344 is currently a two-way, three-lane facility with grassed shoulders.
The pavement is mostly 10.7 meters (35 feet) wide and has 1.2 to 2.4 meters (4 to
8 feet) wide grassed shoulders on both sides of the road.
Existing SR 1344 forms a T-intersection with SR 1141 (Cumberland
Road) at the northern terminus of the project. At the intersection, Cumberland
Road consists of a five-lane facility with curb and gutter and has a clear roadway
width of 21.6 meters (72 feet) face-to-face of curbs.
At the proposed southern terminus of the project, SR 2260 (Airport Road)
currently forms a T-intersection with I-95 Business/US 301. Airport Road at this
intersection is a four-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter. The total
roadway width measures 20.4 meters (68 feet) face-to-face of curbs, which
include a 4.8-meter (16-foot) wide raised median and 3.6-meter (12-foot) inside
travel lanes and 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside travel lanes.
I-95 Business/US 301 is currently a four-lane median divided facility with
paved shoulders. Travel lanes are 4.2 meters (12 feet) wide and the median is
10-meters (30 feet) wide. Three-meter (10-foot) paved shoulders are located to
the left and right side of travel.
SR 1003 (Camden Road) consists of two lanes with grassed shoulders. The
pavement is 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide and 2.1-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulders
are located on both sides of the road.
SR 1132 (Legion Road), southeast of SR 1344, is a two-lane facility with
grassed shoulders. Northeast of SR 1344, Legion Road consists of a four-lane
facility with curb and gutter. The two-lane section has a pavement width of
3.6 meters (24 feet) and has 2.4-meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders on both sides of
the road. The four-lane facility has a pavement width of 14.4 meters (48 feet)
face-to-face of curbs.
SR 2998 (Peacock Street) is a two-lane facility with grassed shoulders.
The pavement is 6.9 meters (23 feet) wide.
There are several local streets than from T-intersections with SR 1344.
State maintained streets that intersect SR 1344 are listed below with their
respective cross sections:
SR 3702 (Chapman Street) - two-lane facility with grassed shoulders -
roadway is 6 meters (20 feet) wide.
SR 1150 (Veda Street) - two-lane facility with grassed shoulders -
roadway is 6 meters (20 feet) wide.
SR 1380 (Burbank Street) - two-lane facility with grassed shoulders -
roadway is 6 meters (20 feet) wide.
SR 1309 (Pelligrini Avenue) - two-lane facility with curb and gutter -
roadway is 9 meters (30 feet) wide face-to-face of curbs.
SR 1310 (Hennardland Place) - two-lane facility with curb and gutter -
roadway is 9 meters (30 feet) wide face-to-face of curbs.
SR 1311 (Vardaman Avenue) - two-lane facility with curb and gutter -
roadway is 8.4 meters (28 feet) wide.
Right of Way
The existing right of way widths for roadways along the project corridor
are as follows:
SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) -18 to 24 meters (60 to 80 feet)
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) - 27 meters (90 feet)
SR 1003 (Camden Road) - 18 meters (60 feet)
SR 1132 (Legion Road) - 30 meters (100 feet)
SR 2998 (Peacock Street) - 18 meters (60 feet)
I-95 Business/US 301 - 80 meters (260 feet)
SR 2260 (Airport Road) - 30 meters (100 feet)
SR 3702 (Chapman Street) - 15 meters (50 feet)
SR 1150 (Veda Street) - 15 meters (50 feet)
SR 1380 (Burbank Street) - 18 meters (60 feet)
SR 1309 (Pelligrini Avenue) - 18 meters (60 feet)
SR 1310 (Hennardland Place) - 18 meters (60 feet)
SR 1311 (Vardaman Avenue) - 18 meters (60 feet)
4. Alignment
The vertical and horizontal alignments of existing SR 1344 are good.
Access Control
There is currently no control of access along existing SR 1344.
6. Structures
There are currently no major drainage structures along existing SR 1344.
7. Speed Limits
The speed limit along SR 1344 is currently 70 km/hr (45 mph). The
posted speed limits on major roadways intersecting the project corridor are as
follows:
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) - 70 km/hr (45 mph)
SR 1003 (Camden Road) - 70 km/hr (45 mph)
SR 1132 (Legion Road) - 70 km/hr (45 mph)
I-95 Business/US 301 - 84 km/hr (55 mph)
8. Intersections and Type of Control
There are four major intersections along existing SR 1344. A description
of each intersection follows:
The intersection of SR 1344 (Natal Street) and SR 1141 (Cumberland
Road) forms the northern terminus of the proposed project. This is currently an
at-grade T-intersection controlled with a signal. Westbound Cumberland Road
consists of two through lanes and one exclusive left-turn lane. Eastbound
Cumberland Road consists of two through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane.
Northbound SR 1344 (Natal Street) consists of one exclusive left-turn lane and
one exclusive right-turn lane. Existing lane configurations for this intersection are
shown in Figure 4A.
The existing intersection between SR 1344 (Natal Street/Mid Pine Drive)
and SR 1003 (Camden Road) is at-grade and controlled by a signal. Westbound
Camden Road consists of an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through and
right-turn lane. Eastbound Camden Road has the same lane configurations as the
westbound direction. Northbound SR 1344 (Mid Pine Drive) has an exclusive
left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane. Southbound SR 1344
(Natal Street) has an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive through lane, and an
exclusive right turn lane. Figure 4B shows the existing lane configurations for
this intersection.
The existing intersection between SR 1344 (Mid Pine Drive/Black and
Decker Road) and SR 1132 (Legion Road) is at-grade and controlled by a signal.
Westbound Legion Road has an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive through
lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane. Eastbound Legion Road has an exclusive
left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane.. Northbound SR 1344
(Black and Decker Road) as an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive through lane,
and an exclusive right-turn lane. Southbound SR 1344 (Mid Pine Drive) has the
same lane configurations as the northbound direction. See Figure 4C for existing
lane configurations for this intersection.
At the southern terminus of the proposed project, SR 2260 (Airport Road)
and a service road currently intersect with I-95 Business/US 301. At this
intersection, Airport Road has an exclusive left-turn lane, a through lane, and an
exclusive right-turn lane. The service road has a share left-turn, through, and
right-turn lane. Southbound I-95 business/US 301 has an exclusive left-turn lane,
an exclusive through lane, and a shared through and right-turn lane. The
northbound direction has an exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and an
exclusive right-turn lane. Figure 4E shows the existing lane configurations for
this intersection.
9. Utilities
Utility involvement along SR 1344 is considered high. Underground
telephone cables are located on both sides of the road. A water main line
(l6-inch) and a sanitary sewer line (8-inch) are also located along SR 1344.
There is also an underground gas line (4-inch) located along SR 1344. Overhead
electrical distribution lines are located on both sides of the existing road.
10. Greenways, Sidewalks, and Bicycle Accommodations
There are no greenways or sidewalks located along existing SR 1344.
There are currently no special accommodations for bicycle traffic along the
proposed project.
11. Geodetic Markers
There are no known geodetic markers located within the project corridor.
12. School Buses
According to the Cumberland County Transportation Office,
approximately 25 to 30 school busses travel along SR 1344 or sections of the road
twice a day. The buses service the following schools:
Southview Middle and High Schools
Douglas Byrd Middle and High Schools
Cumberland Road Elementary School
Elizabeth M. Cashwell Elementary School
Legion Road Elementary School
10
13. Airport
s
The Fayetteville Municipal Airport is located approximately
1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) east of the proposed project's southern terminus (see
Figure 1 B).
C. Thoroughfare Plan and System Linkage
SR 1344 is designated as a major'thoroughfare in the Fayetteville Urban
Thoroughfare Plan (mutually adopted in 1991). The current Thoroughfare Plan of
Fayetteville is shown in Figure 5A. According to the North Carolina Statewide
Functional Classification System the route functions as an urban collector within the
study limits of the project. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes four
area projects that intersect SR 1344 and will, together with TIP Project No. U-3312,
improve access within the southeastern commercial district of Fayetteville when
implemented (see Figure 513). Projects located in the immediate vicinity of the project
are described below.
TIP Project No. U-2304 - recommends widening SR 1141 (Cumberland Road)
to a five-lane facility with curb and gutter from SR 1141 (Bingham Drive) to SR 1007
(Owen Drive). Current TIP schedules for Part A of this project, from NC 59 (Hope Mills
Drive) to SR 1344 (Natal Street), indicates right of way acquisition currently underway
and construction to begin in FY 2001. Part B of this project, from SR 1344 (Natal Street)
to SR 1007 (Owen Drive), has been completed.
TIP Project No. U-2810 - proposes widening SR 1003 (Camden Road) to a four-
lane facility with a 16-foot median from NC 59 (Hope Mills Road) to SR 1007 (Owen
Drive). Right of way acquisition is currently scheduled to begin in FY 2005 and
construction is scheduled to begin in post year.
TIP Project No. U-2809 - recommends widening SR 1132 (Legion Road) to a
five-lane facility from SR 1131 (Cameron Road) to SR 1007 (Owen Drive). Right of
way acquisition is currently scheduled to begin in FY 2000 and construction on Legion
Road is expected to begin in FY 2001.
TIP Project No. U-3606 - widens SR 2260 (Airport Road) to a four-lane facility
with curb and gutter and a raised median from I-95 Business/US 301 to Fayetteville
Municipal Airport. Construction has been completed.
D. Independent Utility
According to 23 CFR 771.111(f). "...in order to ensure meaningful evaluation of
alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are
fully evaluated, the action evaluated... shall:
(1) Connect a logical termini and be of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) Have an independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be
usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional
transportation improvements in the area are made; and,
(3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements."
The proposed project's northern terminus is located at the T-intersection of
SR 1344 (Natal Street) and SR 1141 (Cumberland Road), and the southern project
terminus is at the T-intersection of SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) and I-95
Business/US 301. The locations of the proposed project's termini have been coordinated
with other programmed TIP projects in the area (see above section on Thoroughfare Plan
and System Linkage). The locations of this project's termini do not preclude the
development and assessment of multiple alternates for other programmed TIP projects in
the area. In this regard, the proposed project demonstrates logical termini and
independent utility.
This project can stand alone as a functioning project and is designed to be
compatible with other TIP projects in the area. The environmental impacts of the other
projects will be fully evaluated in separate environmental documents. FHWA and
NCDOT have determined this project meets the criteria set forth in 23 CFR 771.111(f).
E. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Anal
Traffic volumes in the project area were generated for the base year (1999) and
the design year (2025). Traffic volumes were completed for the "No Build" and "Build"
scenarios. These volumes were used to analyze traffic patterns and operating levels of
services (LOS).
The current traffic volumes (base year 1999) along the mainline of existing
SR 1344 range from 1,800 vehicles per day (vpd) to 14,200 vpd. The highest traffic
volume (14,200 vpd) is found between SR 1003 (Camden Road) and SR 1141 (Legion
Road). At the southern end of the project near I-95 Business/JS 301, SR 1344 has a
current traffic volume of 10,800 vpd. At the northern end of the project near SR 1141
(Cumberland Road), SR 1344 has a current traffic volume of 13,000 vpd. These traffic
volumes reflect the current year (1999) without the proposed project in place (see
Figure 6A). The estimated truck percentage along SR 1344 is 13 % (10 % dual axle
vehicles [DT], and 3 % trucks, tractors, and semitrailors).
The projected traffic volumes (for the design year 2025) along the mainline of
SR 1344, without the project in place, range from 19,900 vpd to 25,100 vpd (see
Figure 6A). With the proposed project in place, the projected traffic volumes range from
16,900 vpd to 25,100 vpd (see Figure 613).
12
The ability of a highway to accommodate daily and peak period traffic flow is
measured by comparing the traffic volumes (V) with the capacity (C) of a section of the
highway. This V/C comparison or ratio is used to determine the level at which the
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 substantially affected by other vehicles in
the traffic stream.
For free-flowing sections of roadway, level of service is a measure of traffic
density and speed. For signalized intersections, level of service is defined in terms of
stopped delay. Generally, in suburban areas with traffic signals spaced less than
1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) apart, the traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is determined
by the ability of the signalized intersections to accommodate the traffic volumes.
Using the traffic data described above and shown in Figures 6A and 613, capacity
analyses for the years 1999 and 2025 were performed for SR 1344 with and without the
proposed improvements in place.
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for SR 1344. The level of service
(LOS) on this road for the year 1999 is E. If improvements are not made to the existing
road, SR 1344 will be functioning at a LOS F in the year 2025. With proposed
improvements SR 1344 will function at a LOS B in the year 2025.
Capacity analyses were performed for the major intersections along the project.
The results of these analyses are summarized in-Table 1. All the intersections listed are
currently signalized, except for the proposed intersection with existing and realigned
SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road).
Table 1: Levels of Service for Major Intersections
Intersecting Road Existing Conditions With Proposed
1999 2025 Improvements (2025)
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) B F C
SR 1003 (Camden Road) E F D*
SR 1132 (Legion Road) D F D**
Existing SR 1344/Realigned SR 1344 n/a n/a B
I-95 Business/US 301 B F D
Note: "The design year level of service will be LOS D with the completion of TIP Project Nos. U-3312
and U-2810.
"The design year level of service will be LOS D with the completion of TIP Project Nos. U-3312
and U-280913.
13
F. Accident Data and Analysis
An accident study for SR 1344 was conducted for the time period from
September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1997. A summary of the accident rates (in accidents
per 100 million vehicle miles) along with the statewide rates for urban three-lane
undivided secondary roads is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Accident Rates (per 100 million vehicle miles)
Accident Type Rates along SR 1344 Average Statewide Rates for Urban
Three-lane Secondary Roads
All Accidents 897.59 324.42
Fatal 0 0
Non-Fatal 474.5 137.15
Nighttime 245.16 52.53
Wet Conditions 221.43 54.54
Two hundred and twenty seven (227) accidents occurred along the SR 1344
during the above-mentioned three-year period. The overall accident rate during this
period was 897.59 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM). The overall
accident rate along SR 1344 is almost three times greater than the statewide average of
324.42 acc/100MVM for urban three-lane secondary roads during this period (see
Table 2).
No fatal accidents occurred during the studied years. Out of the two hundred and
twenty seven accidents that occurred, one hundred and twenty (120) accidents resulted
in non-fatal injuries. Sixty-six (66) of the total accidents (29.1 %) oecurred at an angle.
Sixty-four (64) of the total accidents (28.2 %) were rear-end collisions.
The proposed multi-lane cross section will reduce the potential for the majority
of accidents that are occurring on SR 1344. The additional through lanes will allow
drivers traveling in the outside lanes to reduce speed in preparation for right-turns
without slowing the entire through movement, as they presently do. The proposed
improvements will enhance the overall safety and convenience of SR 1344.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Construction Alternatives
Two construction alternatives for widening SR 1344 to a multi-lane facility were
studied. Both alternatives followed the same alignment: symmetrical widening of
existing SR 1344 from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to SR 2998 (Peacock Street), then
preceding on new alignment from SR 2998 and tying into I-95 Business/US 301 at the
SR 2260 (Airport Road) intersection. Alternative 1 proposed a five-lane facility with
14
curb and gutter for the entire length of the project. Alternative 2 involved symmetrical
widening of existing SR 1344 to five-lanes with curb and gutter from SR 1141 to
SR 2998 (same as Alternative 1). For the new alignment segment between SR 2998 and
I-95 Business/US 301, Alternative 2 proposed a four-lane median divided facility with
curb and gutter. Both alternatives require 30 meters (100-feet) of right of way with
approximately 3 meters (10 feet) of temporary construction easements on both sides of
the road.
Asymmetrical widening on both §ides of existing SR 1344 was considered. Due
to the relatively closeness of residences and businesses on both sides of the road, it was
determined that symmetrical widening will have less of an impact to these properties.
With symmetrical widening, right of way will be acquired equally on both sides of the
existing road (3 to 6 meters [10 to 20 meters] on both sides) and will eliminate the
potential relocation of many homes and businesses.
B. Alternative Modes of Transportation
During the metropolitan planning process, vanpooling, carpooling, and bus
services were studied as alternate modes of transportation. It was determined that no
alternate mode of transportation would be a practical alternative to the recommended
alternative. Fayetteville has a bus system and a vanpooling system in place; however,
neither mode has significantly reduced the single occupancy vehicle rate for the area.
Currently, the bus system mostly serves areas within the Fayetteville City Limits. Local
ridership numbers are low for mass transportation and suggest that the preferred mode of
transportation is the automobile. The purpose of this project is to meet future travel
demands, improve safety along SR 1344, and to improve access to the Fayetteville
Municipal Airport. Alternative modes of transportation does not meet the purpose and
need of this project.
C. Transportation Systems Management
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative includes those types
of limited construction activities designed to maximize the utilization and energy
efficiency of an existing roadway. Possible TSM improvement options within this
alternative includes traffic signal optimization or improvements to existing roadways in
the vicinity of the proposed project.
TIP Project No. U-3635 proposes the construction of a closed loop signal system
and the rehabilitation of the existing computerized signal system in the Fayetteville urban
area. The total number of signals involved is 180, 128 of which is part of the existing
signal system operated by the City of Fayetteville. Two of the existing four intersections
along SR 1344 will become part of the computerized signal system; the intersection
between SR 1344 (Natal Street) and SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) and the intersection at
the proposed southern terminus of the project (I-95 Business/US 301 and SR 2260). The
proposed signal at the intersection of SR 2998 (Peacock Street) and SR 1344 extension
will also become part of this computerized signal system.
15
The purpose of this project is to meet the future travel demands on SR 1344,
improve safety along the existing facility, improve the efficiency of transportation in
southeastern Fayetteville, and to improve access to the Fayetteville Municipal Airport.
The TSM improvement option will not adequately meet the project's purpose and need.
D. Postponement of Project
SR 1344 is currently operating near capacity during peak traffic hours. The
accident rate along SR 1344 is substantially higher than the statewide average for similar
routes. Based on traffic projections, SR 1344 will operate at a level of service (LOS) F in
the design year (2025). Postponement of the project would result in continuing traffic
service deterioration as traffic volumes increase. Therefore, this alternative is not
recommended.
E. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the adverse environmental impacts that are
anticipated as a result of this project, there would be no positive effect on the traffic
capacity and safety of this roadway. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
However, the "no build" alternative is used as a base for comparison to the build
alternatives.
F. Recommended Alternative
Alternative 2 is the recommended alternative for the proposed project. The
proposed improvements involve widening existing SR 1344 to a five-lane facility with
curb and gutter from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to SR 2998 (Peacock Street). The
proposed project will continue on new alignment from SR 2998 to I-95 Business/US 301
with a four-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter (see Figure 2). Bicycle
accommodations (4.2-meter [14-foot] outside lanes) will be provided for the entire length
of the project.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Project Area Background
a. Geographic and Political Location
Fayetteville is located in the southeastern part of the state and is
surrounded by Sampson County on the east, by Bladen County, and
Robeson County on the south, by Hoke County on the west, and by
Harnett County on the north. The county is a member of Region M Mid-
Carolinas Council of Government.
16
The project lies within the county's designated Urban Services
Area (USA) and just outside Fayetteville's city limits. The city, however,
does not anticipate any future annexation of the area in which the project
lies. Citizens in the area have aggressively opposed annexation in the
past. The city is also concerned that the additional taxes, as a result of
annexation, would cause the industries in the area to relocate.
b. Race, Ethnicity and Aae
The project area is characterized by residents with lower incomes
and a higher percentage of white residents than the county as a whole.
Cumberland County has a non-white population of 38%, but the non-white
population of the project area is 30%. ' According to the 1990 Census, the
population of Cumberland County was 274,566 (see Table 3). The Office
of State Planning (OSP) estimates that the 1997 population was 295,252.
Between 1990 and 1997 Cumberland County grew by approximately
7.5%.
Table 3: Population by Race and Hispanic Origins - 1990 Census
(Cumberland Co.)
Population Project Area - County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Total 5,378 100 274,566 100 6,628,637 100
Hispanic 68 1.26 12,402 4.84 69,020
White 3,762 69.95 170,278 62.02 5,011,248 75.6
Hispanic 30 .80 4,255 2.5 33,967
Black 1,154 21.46 87,483 31.85 1,455,340 21.9
Hispanic 8 0.69 1,290 1.48 5,962
American
Indian 409 7.61 4,577 1.67 82,606 1.3
Hispanic 17 4.16 91 1.99 1,083
Asian/Pacific
Islander 31 0.58 5,572 2.03 50,395 0.8
Hispanic 0 0 308 5.53 1,154
Other 22 0.41 6,686 2.44 29,048 0.4
Hispanic 13 59.09 6,458 96.59 26,854
OSP estimates for 1997 are that 182,592 (61.89%) Cumberland
County residents are white and 112,660 (38.16%) are non-white. OSP
also estimates the 1990 county Hispanic population at 12,402 or 4.84%,
slightly more than the statewide average of 1.16%. The 1990 median age
for residents living in Cumberland County was 36.7 years, in comparison
with the state average of 33.2 years. Table 4 indicates the number of
17
residents below and above age 64 living in the project area, Cumberland
County, and North Carolina (taken from the 1990 Census).
Table 4: Population by Age - 1990 Census (Cumberland County)
Population Project Area Count y North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Total 5,378 100 274,566 100 6,628,637 100
0 to 64 4,970 92.41 257,909 93.9 5,826,580 87.9
65 or above 408 7.59 16,657 6.1 802,057 12.1
Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment
Per capita income for the county is $11,100, while the per capita
income for the project area is $9,918. In addition, only 13% of the
county's population have incomes below the poverty level, while 20% of
the residents in the project area have incomes below that level.
The 1990 median household income for Cumberland County was
$25,462 while the average household income was $30,790. Per capita
income was $11,100 (see Table 5). Cumberland County had 36,495
persons (13.29%) living below the poverty level, of whom 15,326 (5.58%)
live at or below 50% of the poverty level.
Table 5: Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level
1990 Census (Cumberland County)
Project Area County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Persons below 454 8.6 15,326 5.58 332,966 5.0
50% of poverty
level - total
Median $24,370 100 $25,462 100 $26,647 100
Household
Income
Average $28,340 100 $30,790 100 $33,242 100
Household
Income
Per Capita $9,918 $11,100 $13,093 100
Income
Persons below 1,059 20.1 36,495 13.29 829,858 12.5
poverty level -
total
18
According to the Employment Security Commission, Cumberland
County's unemployment rate as of June 1998 was 4%. This rate is higher
than the state of North Carolina's 3.4% unemployment rate.
d. Business Activity/Employment Centers
Business activity along the project corridor consists of a mix of
large and small employers. The larger employers include some national
and international manufadturers. A Purolator plant, which manufactures
oil filters, is located near the intersection of SR 1344 (Natal Street) and
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) and employs 1,000 people. Black and
Decker, a manufacturer of electrical tools and motors, is located at the
intersection of SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) and I-95 Business
/US 301. This plant employs 1,300 people. Other large employers
include United Parcel Service (UPS) and Carolina Food Services. Smaller
businesses scattered along the project route include a bakery, materials
supply businesses, a small shopping center, fast food and convenience
stores, and truck and car rental businesses.
e. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions
The Elizabeth M. Cashwell Elementary School is located north of
the project corridor along SR 1132 (Legion Road). Local school officials
estimate that 560 students attend this school. Other schools are also
located east of the project area along Legion Road. Due to the schools
located in the area, school buses use the project corridor as a regular route.
School officials estimate that approximately 25-30 school bus crossings
are made each day at the Legion Road and SR 1344 intersection.
Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services
The Pearce's Mill Fire Department is located at the intersection of
SR 1344 and I-95 Business/US 301. The current project design proposes
realigning SR 1344 so that it enters I-95 Business/US 301 north of this
existing intersection. The realignment will miss the fire station and may
have a beneficial effect on it. By rerouting traffic north of the station, the
project may make exiting the station easier and allow the station's
response time to increase.
2. Existing and Future Land Uses and Present and Future Zoning
As noted earlier, the project lies within Fayetteville's Municipal Influence
Area. The city's zoning regulations, therefore, will govern development in the
area. However, agreements between the county and its surrounding
municipalities require that those regulations must be approved by Cumberland
County and incorporated into its Zoning Ordinance. Land use and development
19
in the county are guided by the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan (see
Figure 7). Land use and zoning along the project corridor is a mixture of
residential, commercial and industrial. For discussion purposes related to land
use and zoning, the project corridor has been divided into four segments
(Segments A, B, C, and D - see Figure 1B).
Segment A - SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to SR 1003 (Camden Road)
In this section, most of th6 land along the eastern side of the project
corridor is zoned Medium Density Residential. This designation allows 6 to 15
dwelling units per acre. A residential subdivision is located in this area. A small
portion of land on the eastern side of this segment is zoned Heavy Industrial. This
classification allows large scale manufacturing processes. Small supply
businesses and a moving and storage company are located in this vicinity. Along
the western side of the corridor in this segment, the land is also zoned Medium
Density Residential and Heavy Industrial. A small residential area is located in
this area along with the large Purolator plant.
Segment B - SR 1003 (Camden Road) to SR 1132 (Legion Road)
The land along both sides of the corridor in this segment is zoned Heavy
Industrial. The land is mostly wooded on the eastern side, while a variety of
supply, warehousing, and storage business occupy the western side.
Segment C - SR 1132 (Legion Road) to the Carolace Plant
In this segment, the land on the eastern side is zoned Heavy Commercial.
This designation caters to business uses that require large amounts of land. Heavy
Industrial zoning is found on the eastern side. A small shopping center and
shipping, truck rental, and a vending machine manufacturer are located in this
area. Behind these uses is a large wooded area around the local minor league
baseball stadium. This tract is also zoned Heavy Commercial. On the western
side of the corridor, the land is zoned Heavy Industrial and Medium Density
Residential. A residential area and some small businesses are located in this
vicinity.
Segment D - From the Carolace Plant to I-95 Business/US 301
As this segment progresses toward I-95 Business/US 301, most of the land
on either side of the corridor is zoned Heavy Industrial. The Black and Decker
plant and a variety of smaller commercial establishments are located in this area.
The land just northeast of existing SR 1344, near its existing intersection with
I-95 Business/US 301 is zoned Heavy Commercial and is currently vacant. This
tract features a small wetland area and is bisected by the proposed realignment
alternative.
20
The land along both sides of project corridor is already heavily developed.
There are, however, a few pockets of undeveloped land. In Segment A, a small
piece of land just southwest of the Purolator plant is zoned Low Density
Residential. A pocket of land zoned Heavy Commercial lies along the eastern
side of the corridor in Segment B and abuts the nearby elementary school. A
large tract zoned Heavy Commercial lies just behind the businesses along the
eastern side of the corridor. Abutting this tract on the northeast is a small tract of
wooded undeveloped land on the eastern side of Segment D. This land features a
small pond and is bisected by the'proposed realignment alternative. This area is
zoned Heavy Commercial and is abutted on the northeast by a manufactured
home subdivision or trailer park. The Cumberland County 2010 Land Use
Development Plan identifies this area as part of the Coliseum Area and designates
it as an area that requires detailed future planning.
City and county planners anticipate no future changes in zoning or land
use along the project corridor. The area is already heavily developed for
residential, heavy commercial and industrial use. Most of the undeveloped land
in the area is zoned for heavy commercial and industrial use. Any future
development is expected to be in areas zoned for these uses.
As noted earlier, development in Cumberland County is guided by the
Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Development Plan. The Cumberland County
Thoroughfare Plan also governs issues related to traffic flow and street design.
According to local planners, the project is consistent with the above plans.
Relocation Impacts
The proposed project involves three residential relocations. One impacted
residence is located on the southeastern corner of the intersection between
SR 1344 (Natal Street) and SR 1141 (Cumberland Road). The other two
impacted residences are located on the southwestern corner and the northwestern
corner of the intersection between SR 1344 (Mid Pine Drive) and SR 1132
(Legion Road). All three residential relocations involve members of the minority
population.
Two other businesses may be negatively impacted by the project. The
Texaco Quick Stop, located at the intersection of SR 1344 and I-95
Business/US 301, may be affected by the proposed realignment of SR 1344 as it
could divert cars away from this business. Although some travelers along the
newly aligned road may cease to pass this business, the large Black and Decker
parking lot is located directly across the street from this business and the business
fronts on 1-95 Business/US 301.
Paradise Housing, located along the existing service road that runs parallel
to I-95 Business/US 301, may be negatively impacted by the proposed project.
The project proposes creating cul-de-sacs on both sides of this road at the new
21
I-95 Business/US 301 intersection. Currently, customers and workers attempting
to reach this business via SR 1344 can do so by traveling a short distance north
along the service road. Once the cul-de-sacs are created, however, workers and
customers will not be able to reach this business via SR 1344 without traveling
north on 1-95 Business/US 301 and turning left onto Venice Court to access the
service road and then turning south toward the business.
Relocation reports for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (recommended) are
included in Appendix B. Also included in Appendix B is a discussion of the
Relocation Programs offered by NCDOT to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation.
4. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
The project should have a generally positive benefit on the stability of the
City of Fayetteville. By improving traffic flow along SR 1344, the project should
provide better access to their jobs and homes for people who work and live in the
area. The project should also provide quicker and safer access to the Fayetteville
Municipal Airport. A few residential areas are scattered along the project
corridor. These areas are already divided by the existing road and do not function
as cohesive neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed widening should have no
negative affect on the cohesion of these areas.
Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes,
require there be no discrimination in federally-assisted programs on the
basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Executive
Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," provides that "each
federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies,
and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." The
Executive Order makes clear that its provisions apply fully to American
Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental justice refers to the
equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with
respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations and policies.
As noted earlier, the project area has a lower non-white population
than the county as a whole. Cumberland County's non-white population is
38%, while the project area has a non-white population of 30%. The
project corridor abuts three residential areas characterized by non-white
populations that exceed the county's non-white population rate of 38%. A
residential block of Bolton Street, located on the northeastern side of the
22
corridor (Segment A) at the intersection of SR 1344 and SR 1141
(Cumberland Road), has a non-white population of 38%-76%. A public
housing community, located at the intersection of SR 1344 and SR 1003
(Camden Road), has a non-white population of 76%-100%. Much of the
residential area on the southwestern side of the project corridor
(Segment C) has a non-white population of 38%-76%. This concentration
of minority residents includes the Peacock Street/Wakefield Drive area,
the eastern side of Hennardland Place, Vardaman Avenue, and Palmerland
Drive. A residential area "located along Pelligrini Avenue and the western
side Hennardland Avenue has a minority population less than 38%.
Residents of these minority areas might consider themselves to be
impacted by the street widening proposed in the project, depending on
whether the widening is done symmetrically or asymmetrically. Residents
may have concerns about the loss of property and vegetation to the
proposed project. They may also be concerned about being located closer
to the widened road. As noted earlier, residential areas along the project
corridor are oriented in an east-west direction along cross streets. These
streets are directed away from the project corridor. This orientation
should help reduce any perceived impact of the project and reduce the
number of residents that might be directly affected by the widening. Only
fourteen residences actually abut the corridor. Of these fourteen, only
seven are located in the areas of minority concentration. The two homes
that might possibly be relocated are not located in a high minority block.
The public housing community, which has a high non-white population, is
also set back from the project corridor.
The proposed project involves widening symmetrically on both
sides of the existing road, therefore, its impact should be no greater on
minority residents than on white residents. If however, the project should
involve widening asymmetrically along sides of the road populated by
minority residents, these residents could perceive that they are subject to
adverse effects from the project at a disproportionately higher rate than
white residents living along the corridor. The following two design
options should relieve any potentially adverse or disproportionately high
effects perceived by minority residents. These options are as follows:
Employ a symmetrical widening along the entire length of the
project.
Employ an asymmetrical widening to the western side of the road
in Segment A and on the eastern side in Segments B and C.
Since the first option will be employed, this assessment finds no
evidence or indication of discrimination on the.basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, or disability. Furthermore, this assessment finds
23
no evidence or indication that this project will result in disproportionately
high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations.
The recommended alternative proposes symmetrical widening of
existing SR 1344 form SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to SR 2998 (Peacock
Street); therefore, the proposed project's impact should be no greater on
minority residents than on white residents in the area.
b. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
An unintended consequence of roadway improvements is the
encouragement of additional development and sprawl, depending upon
local land development regulations, development demand, water and
sewer availability, and other factors. Improvements to levels of service of
highways, better accommodation of merging and exiting traffic, and
reductions in travel times can have land development impacts outside of
the project area.
By providing a potential means of access to the large tract of land
south of the J. P. Riddle baseball stadium and north of its corridor, the
proposed project may, as a secondary effect, improve the development
potential of this parcel. As noted earlier, local civic leaders expect a
demand for commercial space to increase over the next decade. The
parcel is located close to I-95 Business/US 301 and could be served with
water an d sewer. It is not unreasonable to assume that developers might
be attracted to this site if its potential is improved by the proposed project.
There are several nearby roadway projects currently underway or
being planned by the NCDOT (see Section II.C for a list of proposed
improvements in the vicinity of the project). All of these projects are
designed to relieve congestion on some of Cumberland County's busiest
thoroughfares. When considered together, the most direct cumulative
impact these proposed projects could have is relieving congestion and
improving traffic flow in and out of Fayetteville and the southwestern part
of Cumberland County. By improving traffic flow and making it easier
for citizens to move around within the city, these projects may have a
cumulative secondary impact by encouraging more residential,
commercial, or industrial development along these project corridors, as
well as elsewhere in the southwestern part of the county.
5. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with 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 35 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted
24
project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given an
opportunity to comment.
Potential historic architectural and archaeological resources within the
proposed project corridor were assessed. Based on investigations, the proposed
project will not affect cultural resources. The project is in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
a. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed
project area. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that 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. Therefore, no archaeological investigation was
recommended in connection with this project (see Appendix A, page
A-10).
b. Architectural Historic Resources
SHPO has reviewed the historic architectural aspects of this project.
A search of their files did not find any structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area. Therefore, a
historic architectural survey was not recommended for this project (see
Appendix A, page A-10).
6. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
specifies that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, historic
site, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance may
be used for a federal-aid project only if-
0 There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and
• Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to Section 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
There are no Section 4 (f) properties along the proposed project corridor.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 states
that "no property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall,
without the approval of the Secretary [of the Department of the Interior], be
converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses.
25
The are no properties within the proposed project corridor which have
been acquired or developed with assistance of Section 6(f) funds.
B. Economic Effects
Local civic leaders expect the Cumberland County area to experience significant
residential, commercial, and industrial growth during the period 1990-2010. According
to the 2010 Land Use Plan, the county's population is expected to increase from the 1990
figure of 274,566 and the 1997 estimate of 295,252 to as much as 367,480 by 2010. This
population growth is in turn expected to stimulate a demand for an additional 15,000-
20,000 new housing units. Also anticipated are increases in demand for the following
uses between 2000 and 2010:
Acreage needed to accommodate demand for retail space from 3,762 acres to
5,441 acres.
Acreage needed to accommodate demand for shopping centers from 1,122 acres
to 1,628 acres.
Acreage needed to meet the demand for office space from 462 acres to 500 acres.
Acreage needed to meet the demand for industrial space from 2,531 acres to
2,687 acres.
As noted earlier, the land along the project corridor is already heavily developed
with heavy commercial and industrial uses. Some residential areas are also scattered
along the corridor. There are three pockets of undeveloped land along the corridor,
which might be made more attractive for development by the widening of SR 1344. The
open area just south of the Purolator plant, along the western side of the project corridor,
is zoned for low density residential use. According to county utility officials, this area
does not currently have water and sewer service and there are no current plans to extend
service into this area. The lack of water and sewer facilities and the proximity to the
Purolator plant probably decreases the development potential of this property. It is
unlikely, therefore, that the project will have any effect of the development of this
property.
Another pocket of wooded, undeveloped land lies along the eastern side of the
project corridor. This site features access from the existing road and could be served by
water and sewer lines. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the widening of the road
proposed by the project could eventually make this site desirable to small commercial
establishments.
The largest parcel of undeveloped land along the project corridor is the
approximately 90 acre site between the baseball stadium and the UPS, Ryder, and
Carolina Machines businesses adjacent to the project corridor. Development of this
parcel is currently hindered by the lack of direct water and sewer facilities and by the lack
of access from a major road artery. Local utility officials indicate that the site could be
served from water and sewer trunk lines along SR 1132 (Legion Road). The realignment
proposed in the project in this area might help in providing road access to this area and
26
might increase its development potential. This site is close to I-95 Business/US 301 and
is zoned for heavy commercial use. Its development could help satisfy the expected
demand for commercial space mentioned previously.
C. Environmental Effects
Physical Resources
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources
used in this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Fayetteville photorevised 1987, and Hope
Mills, 1986), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory
Maps (Fayetteville, and Hope Mills), Soil Conservation Service (SCS, now
known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service) Soil Survey of Cumberland
and Hoke Counties (1984), and NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project area
(1:2500). Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, and Natural Resources (DENR) and from the North
Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Cumberland County, 1995). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered
from the FWS list of protected species and federal species of concern, and the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment on
August 11, 1998. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified
and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks
and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed
below. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
a. Soils
The project lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province.
Topography in this portion of the coastal plain can be described as gently
undulating. The project area is relatively flat with elevations varying
between 64 meters (210 feet) to 67 meters (220 feet) above mean sea level
(amsl).
27
The geology of the area consists of several layers of
unconsolidated sediment underlain by bedrock composed of volcanic
slate. The overlying sediment varies in thickness between 61 to
122 meters (200 to 400 feet) (SCS, 1984).
Four distinct soil phases occur within project boundaries. For the
purposes of this report, these soil phases are grouped into three separate
categories: urban land, upland soils, and hydric soils. Table 6 presents
general information on project area soils.
Table 6: Project Area Soil Phases and Characteristics
Map Unit Specific Percent Drainage Hydric
Symbol Map Unit Slope Class Class*
LbB Lakeland 1-8 excessively non hydric
Urban Land
Pa Pactolus nearly level mod-well non hydric
Tr Torhunta and nearly level very poorly hydric
Lynn Haven
WaB Wagram 0-6 well non hydric
loamy sand
Note: * Information obtained from National and County lists of hydric soils.
denotes moderately well drained.
The urban land group consists of the Lakeland Urban Land
Complex. This soil phase comprises approximately 80 percent of the
project area. The remaining map units comprise 20 percent of the project
area. Urban land is described by the NRCS (1984) as soils that are:
"covered with streets, buildings, parking lots, railroad yards and airports.
The natural soils were greatly altered by cutting, filling, grading, and
shaping during the process of urbanization. The original landscape,
topography, and commonly the drainage pattern have been changed." Due
to the presence of impermeable surfaces, surface runoff is high and
erosion is a hazard with unprotected soils. Undisturbed Lakeland sand is
excessively drained and has rapid permeability. This soil is well suited to
most urban and recreational uses. Lakeland soils, in their urban complex
phase, have not been assigned woodland suitability groups. This soil is
not listed as hydric on county or national lists of hydric soils.
The upland soils group is represented by Pactolus loamy sand and
Wargram loamy sand. These soils are present in approximately 15 percent
of the project area, and are generally present on undisturbed sandy ridges
and side slopes. Wargram soils are suited to most locally grown crops,
while Pactolus loamy sand is generally suited to pasture or forage crops.
28
The hydric soil group contains Torhunta and Lynn Haven soils.
These soils are found within the drainageways of project area surface
waters and wetlands. This map unit is poorly suited to urban and
recreational uses due to wetness. This group occupies approximately
5 percent of the project area.
The physical and chemical properties of soils influence forest
productivity. Potential woodland productivity of project area soils is
presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Potential Woodland Productivity of Project Area Soils
Potential Productivity
Soil Series Ordination Symbol Trees Site Class
Loblolly pine 90
Torhunta 2w Longleaf pine 77
Sweetgum 90
Loblolly pine 75
Wagram 3s Longleaf pine 65
Lynn Haven Loblolly pine 84
Pactolus 3w Longleaf 70
Note: ' Productivity: 1=very high, 2=high, 3=moderately high, 4=moderate
Limitations: s=sand, w=wetness
z Site Class is the numerical designation of the relative potential productivity of
a tree specie. Site Class is based on Site Index which is defined as the average
height of a timber species in feet in an even aged stand at 50 years of age.
b. Water Resources
Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards
and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies
are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Water resources within the project area are located in the Cape Fear River
Basin, specifically, sub basin 03-06-15. The Cape Fear River drainage basin is
the largest river basin in North Carolina, occupying over 23,000 km` (9000 miz) in
the piedmont, slate belt, sandhills and coastal plain ecoregions of the state. It is
also one of four river basins that are entirely contained within state boundaries.
The Cape Fear River Drainage Basin extends approximately 320 km (200 mi) in a
northwesterly direction from Cape Fear to north of Greensboro and High Point.
Contained within the Cape Fear River Basin are 27 counties, 114
municipalities, 25 percent of the state's population, and one of the most
concentrated turkey and hog producing regions within the country (Division of
Water Quality [DWQ], 1995). The North Carolina Department of Environment
29
and Natural Resourses (NCDENR) - Division of Water Quality (DWQ), in their
"Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan" (1995). has
identified that sedimentation is the most widespread cause of water use
impairment within the basin, while other forms of pollution, of equal or greater
importance include; nutrients, toxic compounds and oxygen demanding wastes.
. i. - Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Two surface waters are present within the study area and
include one intermittent stream (SW 1) and one small pond (see
Figure 8). All waters in the project area eventually drain to Big
Sandy Run, which is located approximately 1,524 meter
(5,000 feet) southeast of the project alignment.
SWl is a small intermittent stream that empties into a small
pond. The channel width is approximately 1.8 to 2.1 meters (6.0 to
7.0 feet) wide and channel depth is 0.9 meter (3.0 feet). Water
from the pond backs up into the stream channel for a considerable
distance, which gives the impression of a consistent baseflow. No
outflow from the pond was observed during the survey. The
substrate of the intermittent stream is composed of sand and silt.
One small pond was observed within the project study area.
The pond is an impoundment of SW 1 and is located near the
eastern terminus of the project. The surface area of the pond was
determined to be approximately 0.36 hectare (0.90 acre).
Overflow water from the pond eventually drains to an unnamed
tributary of Big Sandy Run.
ii. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
(BUC) by the DWQ pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0100 and 15A
NCAC 2B .0200. Unnamed tributaries have the best usage
classification of the named collector stream.
All project area waters are unnamed tributaries to Big
Sandy Run and have the DWQ index no. 18-31-25 and carry a best
usage classification of C. Class C uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I: undeveloped watersheds, or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project's
30
study area. NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage may apply to all stream crossings within
the project area.
iii. Water Quality
Surface waters within the project area are considered
blackwaters, where dissolved inorganic and organic compounds
impart a brown-orange coloration to the water. Water quality
characteristics associated with blackwaters are pH levels below
neutral (less than 7.0), and hardness concentrations below 50 parts
per million (ppm). Blackwaters are usually considered to be less
biologically productive than water resources that have higher pH
values and hardness concentrations greater than 50 ppm.
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. To
accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical and
physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and
planning. All basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the
implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality
management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(managed by the DWQ) assessed water quality by sampling for
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites
throughout the state.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life
cycle that can last from six months to a year; therefore, the adverse
effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next
generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different
tolerances to pollution; thereby, long term changes in water quality
conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution
sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall,
the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are
reflections of long term water quality conditions.
"Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications
ranging from Poor to Excellent to each benthic sample based on
the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT)," (DWQ, 1993). A biotic index
is also developed for the macroinvertebrate samples by
summarizing tolerance data for all species in a given sample. A
bioclassification is derived from the data generated from the EPT
and biotic index metrics.
No biological monitoring stations are situated on project
area surface waters; however, two biological monitoring stations
31
are located within the project region on Little Rockfish Creek, at
NC 59, and Rockfish Creek at I-95. The Little Rockfish Creek
station is located approximately 5 kilometers Q miles) southwest
of the project area and received a bioclassi fi cation of Good in
1993. The Rockfish Creek station is located approximately
5 kilometers (3 miles) southeast of the project area and received a
bioclassification of Excellent in 1988 and 1990.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register
for a permit. There are no permitted dischargers within the project
vicinity.
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters
surface waters through stormwater or snowmelt (DWQ, 1995). In
urban areas, high concentrations of impervious surfaces greatly
increase runoff rates and volumes. Stormwater collection systems
then transport runoff waters quickly to receiving streams with little
or no filtering by vegetated surfaces (DWQ, 1995). Contaminants
originating from urban development include: lawn care products,
such as, pesticides and fertilizers; automobile-related pollutants
that include lubricants, abraded tire and brake linings; lawn and
household wastes; and fecal coliform bacteria from animals and
failing septic systems. The high velocity and volumes of runoff
can also cause increased erosion of stream channels through
physical scouring of the stream banks and flood plain.
iv. SummM of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will impact water
resources by one or more of the following processes: box culvert
and/or pipe construction, and box culvert and pipe extension.
Construction activities are likely to alter and/or interrupt stream
flows and water levels at each aquatic site. This disruption of the
stream reduces stream flow downstream of the project. Temporary
diversions of water flow will raise the water level upstream from
the project and lower the water level downstream of the project.
Estimated linear impacts are derived using the entire
maximum proposed right of way limit (including temporary
construction easements) of 36 meters (120 feet) and with the
presumption of perpendicular crossings. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire construction limit;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Impacts to
S W 1 are estimated at 36 meters (120 feet) regardless of the
32
alternative selected. The proposed alignment will not impact the
pond. However, if the alignment were to shift south of the
proposed alignment, it will likely necessitate draining the pond,
which will result in 0.36 hectare (0.90 acres) of surface water
impacts.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to
surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside
vegetation.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff
from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
runoff, construction, toxic spills, and increased vehicular
use.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval
will also be strictly enforced.
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section
describes those communities encountered in the study area, as well as, the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study
area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to
occur, in each community are described and discussed.
33
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally
follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980),
Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent
references to the same organism will include the common name only. Fauna
observed during the site visit is denoted with an asterisk (*). Published range
distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be
present within the project area.
a. Biotic Communities
Two major terrestrial communities dominate the project study area:
maintained/disturbed, and mixed pine hardwood forest. A small
pine/scrub oak sand ridge community is present in the eastern portion of
the project. Additionally, there are two wetland types located in the new
location portion of the project, headwater forest and emergent wetland.
Two surface waters are present in the eastern portion of the study area:
small pond and coastal plain intermittent stream. Community boundaries
within the study area are generally well defined without a significant
transition zone between them. Many faunal species likely to occur within
the study area may exploit all communities for shelter and foraging
opportunities or as movement corridors.
Maintained Disturbed
The maintained community consists of several habitats exhibiting
similar characteristics. Habitats included in this description are: road
shoulders, residential and business landscapes, and vacant lots (similar to
an old field community). Road shoulders, old field, and utility and
railway corridors are irregularly maintained receiving only periodic
mowing and herbicide applications. Residential and business landscapes
receive more frequent mowing and general maintenance.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and
surrounding communities by filtering stormwater runoff and reducing
runoff velocities. Vegetation occurring within frequently maintained
portions of the road shoulder include low growing species such as: fescue
(Festuca spp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), crab grass (Digitaria
sanguinalis), dandelion (Taraxacum ofcinale), clover (Trifolium spp.),
prickly pear cactus (Opuntia compressa), and buckhorn plantain (Plantago
lanceolata). Areas receiving less frequent maintenance, such as, utility
and railway corridors, are occupied by: broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), ragweed (Ambrosia spp.),
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and saplings of red maple (Acer rubrum),
34
sweet gum (Liquidambar styracijlua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
Vegetation associated with residential and business landscapes
include: flowering dogwood (Cornus,jlorida), longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), redbud (Cercis canadensis), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin),
southern red oak (Quercus falcata), azalea (Rhododendron spp.), wax leaf
ligustrum (Ligustrum japonicum), red tip (Photinia x fraseri) and various
ornamental hybrids of hollies (Ilex spp.), arbor vitae (Thuja spp.), and
juniper (Juniperus spp.). Lawn areas are dominated by fescue, Bermuda
grass, centipede grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides), plantain and crabgrass.
Vacant lots, which are somewhat similar to an old field
community, are present to a limited degree along the widening portion of
the project. Vegetation includes wire grass, bead grass (Paspalum spp.),
broomsedge, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), and saplings of persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), loblolly
pine, longleaf pine, and southern red oak.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The mixed pinelhardwood -forest community is the dominant
natural community within the study area. This community does, however,
display evidence of past disturbance such as timber harvesting in some
areas. The canopy consists of loblolly pine, longleaf pine and southern red
oak. The understory is generally very dense with the following vegetative
components: blue jack oak (Q. incana), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica),
cherry (Prunus serotina), black beery (Rubus spp.), hawthorn (Crataegus
spp.), and greenbrier.
Pine-Scrub Oak Sand Ridge
The pine/scrub oak sand ridge community is present within a small
section of the new location portion of the project. Vegetation is
dominated by scrub species that include turkey oak (Quercus laevis),
black jack oak, and blue jack oak along with scattered individuals of
sassafras (Sassafras albidum), American holly (Ilex opaca), flowering
dogwood, and persimmon. The understory is fairly open and includes
wire grass (Aristida stricta), broomsedge, and prickly pear cactus.
Headwater Forest Wetland
The headwater forest wetland (wetland 1) is present upstream of
the small pond and is associated with a small intermittent stream.
Vegetation includes red maple, sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia),
loblolly pine, yellow poplar, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), titi (Cyrilla
35
racemiflora), fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida), and giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea). Soils have a Munsell color notation of 10YR 3/1 and are
saturated to the surface.
Emergent Wetland
An emergent wetland (wetland 2) is located between the headwater
forest wetland and the small pond. Vegetation is largely represented by
herbaceous vegetation consisting of woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), switch
grass (Panicum virgatum), cattail (Typha latifolia), softstem rush (Juncus
effusus), and meadow beauty (Rhexia spp.). Scrub and vine species that
are interspersed throughout this wetland include tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), titi and bamboo vine (Smilax laurifolia). Soils have a Munsell
color notation of 10 YR 3/1 and are saturated to the surface.
Coastal Plain Intermittent Stream
One coastal plain intermittent stream is present within the project
area. Intermittent streams experience interrupted water flows during dry
intervals, which usually occur during the summer months. These streams
may retain water in the form of pools during these dry periods.
Climatological events greatly influence the faunal composition of these
streams and may cause the fauna to vary from year to year. Streambank
vegetation associated with this intermittent stream is the vegetation of the
headwater forest wetland.
Pond
One small pond is present within the project area. Vegetation
within the pond included a very dense stand of milfoil (Myriophyllum
heterophyllum), which occupied the entire surface area of the pond. Other
vegetation observed within the pond included water lily (Nymphaea
odorata), and filamentous algae.
b. Aquatic Fauna
Aquatic fauna present within the project area is dependent upon
physical characteristics of the water body and overall condition of the
water resource. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also
greatly influence aquatic communities. Fauna associated with the aquatic
communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
The study area pond may provide suitable habitat for bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), and largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides). The mosquitofish* (Gambusia aff nis) was
36
abundant in the pond. The intermittent stream may provide habitat and
protection for smaller individuals during periods of flow.
Project area surface waters provide habitat for variety reptiles.
Species that may thrive in these environments include snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), yellowbelly slider
(Chrysemys scripta), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorous) and banded
water snake (Nerodia fasciata). Turtle species are omnivores. The diet of
the cottonmouth includes,a variety of animals, while banded water snakes
forage chiefly on fish and amphibians.
The bullfrog* (Rana catesbeiana), as well as the green frog (Rana
clamitans), and pickerel frog* (R. palustris), can be found near surface
waters in the project area. Salamanders likely found in these streams
include the two-lined (Eurycea bislineata), and many-lined salamander
(Stereochilus marginatus).
Invertebrates that may be present include: crayfish (Cambaridae),
nymphal and larval stages of dragonflies (Odonata), caddisflies
(Trichoptera), and horseflies (Tabanidae). Various annelid worms, such as
the leech (Hirudinea) and naids (Naididae) may be found abundantly
within the creek sediments and detritus.
C. Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or
exploit the entire range of biotic communities discussed. Generally,
community boundaries are abrupt, with little transitional area between
them. Forested tracts and drainageways provide habitat for species
requiring a forest community, and also provide shelter and movement
corridors for other species of wildlife within the project vicinity.
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the project
area include: the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), house mouse
(Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), least shrew (Cryptotis
parva) and eastern mole* (Scalopus aquaticus). The hispid cotton rat
thrives in dense vegetation associated with field edges. Eastern moles
excavate extensive tunnels and feed upon earthworms, insects and plant
material. The Virginia oppossum* (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon*
(Procyon lotor) are very adaptive mammals which frequent areas of
human settlement.
Birds found foraging within the project area include: common
crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), field sparrow* (Spizella pusilla), eastern
bluebird* (Sialia sialis), turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura), killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus), and downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens).
37
European starling* (Sturnus vulgaris), mourning dove*(Zenaida
macroura), common grackle*(Quiscalus quiscula), and American robin*
(Turdus migratorius) were observed in project area communities. The
red-tailed hawk* (Bueto jamaicen.sis) and American kestrel* (Falco
sparverius) are major predators in the region where they find ample prey.
The green heron (Butorides striatus) was observed foraging for small fish
in the study area pond.
Forests and forest edge habitats provide opportunities for foraging
and shelter for a variety of avian species, such as, rufus sided towhee
(Pipilo erythrophthalmus), solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius), and white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). The Carolina chickadee*
(Parus carolinensis) and blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata) are vocal
inhabitants of woodlands.
Reptiles that can be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities
within the project area include: eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), rough green snake (Opheodrys
aestivus), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), and eastern
fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus). The diets of the rat snake and
copperhead (Ankistrodon contortrix) consist primarily of rats and mice.
Worm snakes (Carphophis amoenus) and ringneck snakes (Diadophis
punctatus) occur in moist environments of project area forests.
Earthworms are a major prey item of these snakes.
The forest communities near wetlands or surface water provide
excellent habitat for amphibians such as eastern newt (Notophthalmu.s
viridescens), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), little grass frog
(Limnaoedus ocularis), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), barking tree frog*
(H. gratiosa), pinewoods treefrog (H. femoralis), and Brimley's chorus
frog (Pseudacris brimleyi). Newts prey on a variety of aquatic
invertebrates including insects and crustaceans. Brimley's chorus frog
occurs along streams flowing through hardwood forests, with females
depositing eggs on plant stems and other submerged objects.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
areas impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
38
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present within the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 8 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction.
Table 8: Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community Impacts [hectares (acres)]
Permanent Temporary Total
Maintained 4.14 (10.23) 1.13 (2.79) 5.27 (13.02)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood 2.01 (4.97) 0.57(l.41) 2.58 (6.38)
Sand Ridge 0.86 (2.13) 0.17 (0.42) 1.03 (2.55)
Total 7.01 (17.33) 1.87 (4.62) 8.88 (21.95)
Estimated impacts to terrestrial resources are derived using the
entire proposed right-of-way width of 36 meters (120 feet). The proposed
right of way width includes 30 meters (100 feet) of permanent right of
way and a 3-meter (10-foot) temporary construction easement on both
sides of the road. Potential impacts were measured from an NCDOT
functional design of the proposed project. Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less. Anticipated impacts to surface waters are presented in
Section IV.C.I .b.iv (page 32). Impacts to Jurisdictional wetlands are
presented in Section IV.C.3.a.i (page 41).
Plant communities found along the proposed project area serve as
nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife species. Project
construction will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing
faunal numbers. Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas
of refuge, thus causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease, predation and starvation.
Since a portion of the project is on new location, it will fragment
natural communities. Roadways act as barriers to faunal migrations and
will increase the number of roadkills within the region. Wildlife crossings
will become less frequent and more difficult especially for less mobile
fauna.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road
shoulders and early successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and
reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while
attracting other wildlife (refer to Section IV.C.2.c - page 37) by the
creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the
39
species. This temporary displacement of animals may result in an increase
of competition for the remaining resources.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their
environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation
and erosion from construction-related work affect water quality and
biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in
long term or irreversible effects.
Alterations in the aquatic communities will result from the
installation of bridges, box culverts and pipes as well as the extension of
culverts and/or pipe. Impacts often associated with in-stream construction
include increased channelization of water and scouring of stream channels.
Water movement through these structures becomes concentrated and
direct thereby, increasing the flow velocity. Scouring zones at pipe
outflows will likely result from channelization.
In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove
streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will
destroy aquatic vegetation and produce siltation, which clogs the gills
and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and
deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also
be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow
to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity reduces light penetration thus
decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill
material at the construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the
streambank enhances the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes.
Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These
processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the
site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of
vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight
penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many
species.
Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
pertinent to two important issues: Waters of the United States and rare and
protected species.
40
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," which include lakes, ponds, streams
(including intermittent streams), rivers, creeks springs, wetlands, territorial
seas, tidal waters and other bodies of open water as defined in Section 33
of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in
33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three
parameter approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be
considered a wetland.
Two jurisdictional wetlands and two jurisdictional surface waters
were observed within the project area (see Figure 8). Descriptions of the
two wetlands are presented in Section IV.C.2.a (pages 35 and 36).
Descriptions of the surface waters are presented in Section IV.C.1.b.i
(page 30).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts wetlands and surface waters are derived
using the proposed right of way widths as shown on the functional
design for the proposed project. Jurisdictional wetlands and
surface waters are only present in Segment D, the new location
portion of the project (see Figure 8). Usually, project construction
does not require the use of the entire right of way or study area
width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Table 9
summarizes the approximate impacts to jurisdictional wetlands as a
result of the proposed project.
41
Table 9: Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impacts [hectares(acres)]
Permanent Temporary Total
W-1 - Headwater Forest 0.04 (0.10) * 0.04 (0.10)
W-2 - Emergent Wetland none none none
Note: Temporary impacts were not separated from permanent impacts due to
the small area.
ii. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface
waters as a result of project construction is inevitable. Factors
which determine applicability of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit
(NWP) include: hydrology, juxtaposition with a major resource;
whether the impacts occur as part of the widening of an existing
facility, or as the result of new location construction. Although a
discreet site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall,
cumulative impacts form a single and complete project may
require authorization under an Individual Permit (IP).
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior
to the issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit.
iii. Avoidance, Minimization, Compensatory Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the
United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
42
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in
light of overall project purposes.
Due to the location of the proposed project's southern
terminus, it is not possible for the proposed alignment to totally
avoid the intermittent stream, the small pond, and the associated
wetland.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the
United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the
proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right of
way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other
practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United
States crossed by the proposed project include:
• strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the
project,
• reduction of clearing and grubbing activity,
• reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams,
• reduction of runoff velocity,
• re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious
pesticide and herbicide usage,
• minimization of "in-stream" activity,
• and litter/debris control.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may
not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the
United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent
to or contiguous to the discharge site.
43
Due to the minimal impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and
surface waters of the United States associated with this project, it is
likely that mitigation will not be required by the USACE.
However, final permit/mitigation decisions will be made by the
USACE.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations,of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of 13 May 1999, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Cumberland County (see Table 10).
A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat
follows.
Table 10. Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alligator American alligator Threatened S/A
mississippiensis
Picoides borealis red-cockaded Endangered
woodpecker
Neonympha mitchellii Saint Francis' satyr Endangered
francisci
Isotria medeoloides small-whorled Threatened
pogonia
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry Endangered
Lysimachia rough-leaved Endangered
asperulaefolia loosestrife
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered
Schwalbea americana American Endangered
chaffseed
44
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened
Animal Family: Crocodylidae due to Similarity
Date Listed: 04 June 1987 of Appearance
The American alligator is a large roughbacked reptile with a
broad rounded snout. Most adults range in size from 1.8 to
3.6 meters (6 to 12 feet). Habitat for the alligator includes river
systems, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal marshes. The
alligator will eat almost anything of suitable size including
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and crustaceans.
Species that have the federal classification of Threatened
due to Similarity of Appearance are not biologically endangered or
threatened and do not receive protection under Section 7.
However, due to its similarity of appearance to other protected
crocodilians, federal regulations, such as hide tagging
requirements, are maintained on the commercial trade to help
control illegal taking of the protected species. The N. C. Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
contains no record of American alligator within the study area.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10 October 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the
sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and
white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large
white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to
200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-
heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6 to
30.3 meters (12.0 to 100.0 feet) above the ground and average 9.1
to 15.7 meters (30.0 to 50.0 feet) high. They can be identified by a
large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW
45
lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately
38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of open old growth stands of
southern pines, does not exist within the project area. The project
area is dominated by highly urbanized areas and mixed
pine/hardwood forests with dense understories. A review of the
N. C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no known occurrences of the red-
cockaded woodpecker within 4.8 kilometers (3.0 miles) of the
project area. Therefore, project construction will not affect the
red-cockaded woodpecker.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) Endangered
Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: 31 July 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub that has a distinct
sassafras-like odor. Leaves in the pondberry are arranged
alternately, have rounded bases, and droop downward. It has small
pale yellow flowers that appear in early spring before the leaves.
The fruit is a bright red drupe and matures in August or September.
This plant grows in lowland habitats with hydric soils.
These sites are generally flooded at some time during the growing
season. It is associated with the margins of sinks, ponds, and other
like depressions. The soils present are sandy with a high peat
content in the subsurface. Areas inhabited by this species show
signs of past fire maintenance and now have shrubby conditions.
The plants generally grow in shady areas but may also be found in
areas that receive full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for pondberry exists within the headwater
forest community within the project area. The headwater forest
community was searched for the presence of pondberry on I 1
August 1998. No pondberry was observed during the survey. The
N. C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed, and revealed no listing of pondberry
within the project boundaries. Therefore, project construction will
not affect pondberry.
46
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
(rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 12 June 1987
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender
stems and whorled leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers
that usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits are present from July
through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain
and sandhills of North and South Carolina. This species occurs in
the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine
pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet,
peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands
and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been
found to occur on deep peat in the low shrub community of large
Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of
unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained.
Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in association with
hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Marginal habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife exists along
the edge of both wetland communities found on the new location
portion of the project. A plant by plant survey for rough-leaved
loosestrife was conducted in areas of potential habitat on 11
August 1998. No rough-leaved loosestrife was observed during
the survey. The N. C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats was reviewed, and revealed no listing
of rough-leaved loosestrife within the project boundaries.
Therefore, project construction will not affect rough-leaved
loosestrife.
Schwalbea americans (American chaffseed) Endangered
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
The American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems
branch only at the base (if at all). The entire plant is pubescent,
with upwardly curving hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate,
lance-shaped to elliptic and stalkless. The leaves are three veined
and become progressively smaller towards the top. It bears
47
solitary flowers in the axils of the upper most leaves. The
purplish-yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruit has a
long narrow capsule, enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
American chaffseed occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods,
fire maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peat wetlands
and open grass-sedge systems. Soils are generally sandy, acidic.
and seasonally moist to dry. Fire is important in the maintenance
of open habitat for.the American chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for American chaffseed, in the form of
open, moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained savannas, ecotonal
areas between peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems does
not exist within the project study area. Additionally, a review of
the N. C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no listing of American chaffseed within
the project area. Therefore, project construction will not affect
American chaffseed.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous
shrub. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are
simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are
greenish to white in color. Fruits develop from August to
September on female plants and are red densely short-pubescent
drupes.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods.
Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams.
Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can get full
sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other
species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often
associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
The pine/scrub oak community and successional portions
of the disturbed community offer habitat for Michaux's sumac. A
48
plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac was conducted on
11 August 1998. No Michaux's sumac was observed during the
survey. The N. C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats was reviewed and contained no listing
of Michaux's sumac within the project study area. Therefore,
project construction will not affect Michaux's sumac.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) Endangered
Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: 10 September 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long
hairy roots and a hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five
or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed. One
or two light green flowers are produced at the end of the stem.
Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth
deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous forests, with an open canopy,
open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic soils.
Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub
coverage or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia in the form of
"second growth deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous forests, with
an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer does not
exist within the project area. The dominant terrestrial community
is the mixed pine/hardwood forest with a very dense understory. A
review of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no listing of small-whorled
pogonia within the project area. Therefore project construction
will not affect small-whorled pogonia.
Neonympha mitchellii francisci
(Saint Francis' satyr) Endangered
Family: Nymphalidae
Federally Listed: Emergency listed 18 April 1994
The Saint Francis' satyr is a small, dark brown butterfly
with conspicuous eyespots on the lower wing surface of the fore
and hind legs. The eyespots are round to oval shaped with a dark
maroon brown center and a straw yellow border. These spots are
accentuated with two bright orange bands along the posterior
49
wings and by two darker brown bands along the central portion of
each wing.
The Saint Francis' satyr is known to inhabit wide, wet
meadows dominated by sedges and other wetland graminoids.
These wetlands are often relicts of beaver activity and are boggy
areas that are acidic and ephemeral. Succession of these sites often
leads to either a pocosin or swamp dominated forest. The larval
host of the Saint Francis' satyr is thought to be grasses, sedges and
rushes.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr, in the form of
wet meadows dominated by sedges and other wetland graminoids,
is not present within the project area. Additionally, a review of the
N. C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no listing of Saint Francis' satyr within
the project area. Therefore, project construction will not affect
Saint Francis' satyr.
ii. Federal Species of Concern
There are 27 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for
Cumberland County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded
federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern
are defined as those species that may or may not be listed in the
future. These species were formally candidate species, or species
under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient
information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms that
are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare
(SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of rare plant and animal species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 11 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed
species, the species state status and the existence of suitable habitat
for each species in the study area. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future. Surveys for these species were not
conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
50
database of the rare species and unique habitats revealed no
records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near
the project study area.
Table 11: Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Yes
Elliptio marsupiobesa Cape Fear spike T No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe mussel T No
Heterodon simus southern hognose snake SR Yes
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T No
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus northern pine snake SC Yes
Speyeria dana Diana fritillary butterfly SR No
Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana Georgia leadplant E No
Astragalus michauxii sandhills milkvetch C Yes
Doinaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC Yes
Eupatorium resinosum resinous boneset T-SC Yes
Kalmia cuneata white-wicky E-SC No
Lilum iridollae sandhills bog lily C/PT No
Lindera subcoriacea bog spicebush E Yes
Litsea aestivalis pondspice C No
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia C No
Myriophyllum laxum loose watermilfoil T Yes
Oxypol is ternata savanna cowbane W 1 Yes
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-
parnassus C/PT No
Pteroglossaspis ecristata spiked medusa E No
Pyxidanthera barbulata
var. brevistyla sandhills pixie-moss E Yes
Rhexia aristosa awned meadowbeauty T No
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidago verna spring-flowering
goldenrod E/PT Yes
Styli.sma p. var.
pickeringii Pickering's dawnflower E No
Tofieldia glabra smooth bog-asphodel C Yes
Xyris scabrifolia roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass C No
Note: ' Watch List
51
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Stream Modification
There are no major stream crossings involved with this project. The
terrain in the project vicinity is relatively flat and poorly drained; therefore, some
offsite drainage easements may be needed to direct runoff to adequate outfalls.
No jurisdictional streams will be affected by the project. The City of Fayetteville
and Cumberland County are currently participants in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program; however, this project will not affect any identified flood hazard
areas. The project is not located within a water supply watershed nor in a high
quality water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled
through the appropriate specification, installation and maintenance of standard
erosion and sedimentation control measures. Existing drainage patterns will be
maintained to the extent practicable.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order
Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all
state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects
on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). These soils are determined by the SCS based on criteria such as crop yield
and level of input of economic resources. Land that is planned or zoned for urban
development is not subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural,
agricultural areas.
The project area falls within Cumberland County's Urban Services Area
and within the City of Fayetteville's Municipal Influence Area. All land along the
project corridor, or adjacent to it, is zoned for and utilized in some form of urban
development. The project, therefore, will have no impact on prime and important
farmland.
6. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect on noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of the proposed improvements to SR 1344
(Black & Decker Road) from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/
US 301 in Cumberland County. This investigation includes an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise
levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be
expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic 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
52
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 from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since
the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate
sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB).
Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are
often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places more emphasis on the frequency range to which
the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured
using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise
pressure levels in dBA are listed in Appendix C, Table N1, page C-1.
Review of Table N 1 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.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more
than others and some individuals become upset 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 offensive 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.
53
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 time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are
expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives.
Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises including
airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation
to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly
over the past few years.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) 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
Appendix C, Table N2, page C-2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level
of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy
as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic
noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy
content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic
environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level
increases. The existing Leq noise level in the project area as measured at
15 meters (50 feet) from the nearest roadway range from 66 to 70 dBA. The
ambient measurement location and measured exterior Leq noise levels are
presented in Figure N1 and Table N3 in Appendix C, pages C-1 and C-3. A
background noise level of 45 dBA was used in areas where traffic noise was not
the predominant source.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate the existing noise level
for comparison with the noise level actually measured. The calculated existing
noise level was approximately 1 dBA higher than the measured noise level for the
location where the noise measurements was obtained. Hence, the computer
model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise levels. The differences in the
54
dBA level can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and
actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single
vehicular speed.
Procedure For Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables
which describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual
changing highway configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity
of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict
highway traffic noise. 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) 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 should be noted that only the preliminary roadway
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to
widen SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) to a multi-lane facility, partially on new
location, from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business/US 301. The cross-
section considered to provide the needed improvements to the existing 3-lane
roadway consist of a combination of a 5-lane curb and gutter section and a 4-lane
curb and gutter section divided by a 4.8-meter (16-foot) wide median. Only those
existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The
roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade.
Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The
noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the
traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed
posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be
no greater than those indicated in this report. The STAMINA 2.0 computer
model was utilized in order to determine the number of land uses (by type) which
would be impacted during the peak hour of the year 2025. A land use is
considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding
the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise
increase.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in
Appendix C, Table N4, pages C-4 and C-5. Information contained in these tables
include all receptors located in the vicinity of the project, their ambient and
predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
55
Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach"
meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value) or substantially exceed the existing
noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
portion of Table N2 in Appendix C, page C-2. Consideration for noise abatement
measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development which building permits are issued
within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public
Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed
highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, RODS, or the Design
Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this
public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise
compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5 of
Appendix C, page C-6. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts either by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR
Part 772, there are 23 impacted residential and 3 impacted commercial receptors
due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the 72
and 67 dBA noise level contours are 24.4 and 44.3 meters (80 and 145 feet),
respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This information should
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For
example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent
further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted
noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 in Appendix C (page C-7) indicates the exterior traffic noise level
increases for the identified receptors in each roadway section. There is one
receptor that is predicted to be impacted by a substantial increase in exterior noise
levels. The predicted noise level increases for this project range from +3 to +10
dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the
sound.
56
Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise
impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be
given to all impacted receptors.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts
and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes
must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is
primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise
sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for
noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures that limit vehicle type, speed, volume, and
time of operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project,
traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement
due to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be
applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass,
attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic
noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the
highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct
a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways,
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally
be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor
located 15 meters (50 feet) from the barrier would normally require a barrier
120 meters (394 feet) long. An access opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (Fundamental
And Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-
7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, pages 5-27).
57
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located
along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility.
Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement
measures in this case.
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative was
also considered. If the traffic currently using the network of roads in the project
area should double, the future traffic noise levels would only increase
approximately 2-3 dBa. This small increase to present noise levels 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 passers-by and those individuals living or
working near the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and
from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However,
considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be
substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and
man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and
unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be
submitted for this project.
7. Air Quality Anal
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions due to industry
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact
created by highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air quality. Highway 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 (S02), 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
58
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 at a receptor near a
highway, 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 [330 feet]) of the
receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) 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 component was obtained from NCDENR. Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine
the ambient CO concentration for the area 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 oxides emitted from cars are carried into the
atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
Automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to
the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements
maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of
the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require
several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur
10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets
and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type
of air pollution is the smog that forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven
percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide
emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the
result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are
very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the proposed project will
cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
59
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The
burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead that is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel.
Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall
average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately 0.53 gram per liter.
By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 gram per liter. In the
future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels
and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 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. "CAL3QHC
- A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near
Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive
receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic
volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters.
The traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily traffic projections.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year of 2005,
and the Design Year of 2025 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors", the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model for idle
emissions and for free flow conditions. -
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, NCDENR
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most
suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located
approximately 25 meters (82 feet) from the centerline of the roadway. The
predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of
2005 and 2025 are 2.5 and 2.6 ppm, respectively. The predicted 1-hour average
CO concentrations for the no-build alternative for the years of 2005 and 2025 are
2.8 and 3.9 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations
with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm;
8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since
the results of the worst-case l -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 in Appendix D (pages D-1 through D-4) for input data and output.
60
The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been determined
to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR
part 51 is not applicable. because the proposed project is located in an attainment
area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects 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 done
will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such
as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. 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.
8. Hazardous Material and Geotechnical Impacts
Based on the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) listing of registered
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) facilities and a field reconnaissance, five
facilities were found that either currently operate UST systems or may have
operated UST systems in the past. The five sites identified are as follows:
(1) QuickStop Food Mart #40
This site is currently operated as a convenience store with petroleum fuel
sales. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of SR 1344 (Natal Road) and
SR 1003 (Camden Road) approximately 53 meters (175 feet) from the centerline
of SR 1344. According to the DWQ registry and field reconnaissance, three
12,000-gallon gasoline USTs are operated at the site. The USTs are situated in a
common basin approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from the centerline of
SR 1344. Two multi-product gasoline dispensers were located in front of the
store approximately 33 meters (110 feet) from the centerline of SR 1344. No
groundwater monitoring wells were noted at the site. The site is not on the DWQ
incident list.
(2) Federal Express Corporation
This site is currently vacant. The site is located on the south side of
SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) approximately 1.0 kilometer (0.6 miles) west
of I-95 Business/US 301. The facility is located approximately 45 meters
61
(150 feet) from the centerline of SR 1344. According to the DWQ registry, one
10,000-gallon gasoline UST is in place at the site. The UST was not visible from
the front of the property. The site is not on the DWQ incident list.
(3) Frito-Inc. Lay
This site is an active distribution facility. The site is located on the south
side of SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) approximately 1.1 kilometers
(0.65 miles) west of I-95 Business/US 301. The facility is located approximately
45 meters (150 feet) from the centerline of SR 1344. According tot he DWQ
registry, one 10,000-gallon antifreeze UST is temporarily out of service at the
site. Personnel at the site stated that the UST had been removed. The former
location of the UST was approximately 99 meters (325 feet) from the centerline
of SR 1344. The site does not appear on the DWQ incident list.
(4) Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
This site is currently operated as a truck maintenance facility. The site is
located on the north side of SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) approximately
0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) from the centerline of SR 1344. According to the
DWQ registry and field reconnaissance, one 20,000-gallon diesel fuel UST is
operated at this site. The UST and dispenser are located approximately 76 meters
(250 feet) from the centerline of SR 1344. No ground water monitoring wells
were noted at the site. The DWQ registry indicates two 12,000-gallon diesel fuel,
one 12,000-gallon gasoline UST, one 6,000-gallon motor oil, and one
2,000-gallon used oil UST were removed from the site in 1992. The site appeared
on the DWQ incident list. An adjacent property, Carolace Inc., had been
impacted by the release at the Ryder facility.
(5) Carolace, Inc.
This site is currently operated as a textile manufacturing facility. It is
located on the north side of SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) approximately
0.7 kilometers (0.45 miles) west of I-95 Business/US 301. The facility is located
approximately 36 meters (120 feet) from the centerline of SR 1344. The site
appeared on the DWQ incident list. Groundwater at the Carolace, facility was
impacted by the release at the Ryder facility.
If further design studies indicate right of way needs to be acquired from
the above properties, preliminary site assessments for soil and groundwater
contamination will be performed prior to right of way purchase. If contaminants
are located on the proposed right of way, the current landowner or the NCDOT
will take appropriate action to decontaminate the area.
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. No regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites were found within
62
the project corridor. Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, no
other pollution sources are noted along the project corridor.
9. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the following
measures, along with those already mentioned, will be utilized during the
construction phase of this project.
• Solid wastes created as a result of highway construction will be disposed of
in accordance with Section 802 of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures.
• Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block
existing drainage ditches.
• An extensive rodent control program will be established where structures
are to be removed or demolished in order to prevent the migration of
rodents into surrounding areas.
• Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances, along with the regulations of the North Carolina Plan for
Implementing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Burning will be
done only on the right of way, under constant surveillance, with good
atmospheric conditions, and as remote from dwellings as possible.
• The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both
during the work and until the completion of all seeding and mulching or
other erosion control measures specified, in a manner which will effectively
control erosion and siltation.
• NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters shall
be followed during project construction to prevent siltation of nearby
streams.
• Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the North Carolina
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 shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
• NCDOT will avoid borrow and waste locations in wetland areas.
63
V. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it is
determined the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects to the human or
natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Assessment is applicable for this project.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies listed below. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an
asterisk (*). Appendix A contains copies of comments received.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*U. S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Emergency Management Administration
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Region M Council of Governments
Fayetteville Metropolitan Planning Organization
*Cumberland County Commissioners
City of Fayetteville, Public Works Commission
*County of Cumberland - Office of County Engineer
This Environmental Assessment will be provided to appropriate federal,
state, and local agencies for comment. NCDOT will coordinate with pertinent
agencies regarding substantive issues raised as a result of their review. Responses
to comments and project related commitments will be incorporated into subsequent
documentation for this project.
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop
A Citizens' Informational Workshop was held on June 18, 1998 at the Elizabeth
M. Cashwell Elementary School Cafeteria on SR 1132 (Legion Road) north of the
proposed project. Representatives of the Project Development and Environmental
64
Analysis Branch, the Roadway Design Unit, Division 6 Office, and the Right of Way
Branch of the NCDOT were available to explain the project, answer questions, and
receive comments. Approximately 16 people attended the meeting. Seven of the
attendees were NCDOT representatives, and five were local officials. Residents along
SR 1344 were mostly concerned about the impact the proposed project would have on
their properties. Detailed information regarding the impact to properties along the
proposed project was not available at the time of the workshop. Appendix E, pages E-1
through E-12 contains a copy of the news release advertising the workshop as well as the
workshop handout.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following approval of this document to provide
more detailed information to the public and to receive additional comments regarding the
proposed project. Comments received at the hearing will be reviewed by the NDCOT
and FHWA and will be incorporated into the project, as feasible and practicable.
VII. LIST OF PREPARERS
This document was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Personnel involved in studies for this document are shown below.
R. B. Davis, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
B. S. in Civil Engineering
28 years experience in transportation
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Clarence W. Coleman, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Karen Boshoff
Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
M. S. in City and Regional Planning
B. S. in Civil Engineering
26 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
7 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
B. S. in Environmental Engineering
3 years experience in transportation
65
Jimmy Goodnight, P. E.
Roadway Project Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Leon Oliver
Roadway Project Design Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Jim Morrison
Roadway Design Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
William Steinbrook
Transportation Technician III
Roadway Design Unit
Bruce O. Ellis, CLM, PWS
Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Thomas J. Padgett
Archaeology Supervisor
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Ray Manieri
Community Planner
Community Impact Assessment Section
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Bobby Dunn
Transportation Engineer
Air Quality and Noise Section
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
B. S. in Civil Engineering
16 years experience in transportation
A.A.S.
33 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
8 years experience in transportation
A. A. S
8 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Agricultural/Environmental
Sciences
23 years in aquatic resource management,
wetland delineation, NEPA investigations,
and Section 7 field investigations
B. A. in Anthropology
M. S. in Anthropology and Archaeology
28 years experience in archaeological
preservation
M. A. in Urban History
B. A. in History
12 years experience in Planning
B. S. in Mathematics
11 years experience in air quality and noise
impact analysis
66
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3312
FIGURES
P.p. Alf I.- Iew
?o I
Port MAOO ?( \ 7 ?I?r, i ?YtY
fvwcI m L2 k-_, r
NSIYA110e \ -17
LAKE
? i
\ I rose ? /
ooaw v u?f / ? (?
? NNP+cd ?F \ ./ J \A? -c°ro-
\
. IuNU+c.I J
'?j f roveur/? z.ey'T"
tAre . ? a._? g?.p _ ,?
- -----1- --1-? i--- --- ---
4wrz
otwo
.-.. ®\
ORD
\ \?
? ? ? , a 9 aewldr ? V c,.
uc[ R.W
71 < I ? ?? ? ? J I I I63i
8w. 12
C1M?4 NIX.YFI.Lr ??? \ r A'1Z
?FAYETiE\lUl-,?? c.r r.
1 I_. Imo? `am
75
1"5 1906
c - e
53 24 \ 1 / to
\, ( 1 1
aAz
bl 4
cs, / J^/?` V • i \ \
2008 P??J1 1 \ ^ ^ SID \ ?3
i?if .I I ?\ ? I\\\ ly/. \.? nlz ??012
2010 / '.rte
aY \ \ I 1 ' 1 L .. ?/` \? \\T /'l,? 201.
a23
-am
J W-1
11? '? \.? \ 53 I
to ,. 010
ur w.' _?l 1 :i:
' ' " r ? ?',\r, I \ ?? i442 ?
'? _ ?_i t c-^ - - - ------- to
1 I Por. r.nP
_ ??J ® o O tN il?
67
/'. Aµhr M
^? 1 Jr ? I ? .I o see ?
N E k n.
I../ ?. im c
g 2071.1 u?.
\ © , -
o
?c a?-5
_ _..,
v.
?a0o-
t -A- e vv ?? EE FIGURE 1B

CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
WIDEN SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)
FROM SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO
1-95 BUSINESS/US301 IN FAYETTEVILLE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
T.I.P NO. U-3312
o Nr.0mr mt 0
FIGURE 1A
LAKE '
- -> 46Egq`EN 7311
I lial
?/I IaO 1007 `?'?,ILy? ??I?•' an .nfoW aeJ
I I? ? vas" /
11? '
11 I ? 76 P 1? y" ?
?Ae gyp./ T 79
• 11.1 / \? / /
\ 1
\ PROJECT LIMIT ; liaz ' \
3016\
v 1176 ) / 1169 0 '_? ,23W
rl x1
05
.03 j
e
tAI `\ - .- 1163 J1167
11.9 / G5i .01 07 m
OD'
1141 ZX5
J ` / \
11-1 Z369
242,45 7 1169 1 73 0 3 -733
1200 1007
1007
42
1 I 1 \ 03 "' 1 1O1 105
3
PROJECT LIMIT
100, AM
7
1206 w • 7 / r? 1 ]D1
- I?
,. V .47 ?17 jW'7
J 1 1159
/ ?&7 II j ?I. .06
a4-9 15 .08 M
2w .333'
1201
ao
2e9 SEGMENT A SEGMENT B
?? n1e 1331
7740 , 1;44 2qp3 .. -.?
R \ j ?
/
_1132
M7 W-1
.M 1 1
.1739 \ \ /
JIM
1290
T.._
11111111//
1003
1 /
Jim
ffi i • 0 /
Jim
SEGMENT C \\ _/ //^
_°
.?, SEGMENT D
> \ 3i'4 III O ' I _ _-??
.. , ..? 1 tiM1?91.
?+nmoei
An?
.02 AL12
229
r ]M /
1392 JIM ,?4 > \ zo .01
MIA
3901 , .
.? 4e NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
\\ 'jZL' 7i94 7 3)69 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
3010R, PLANNING AND ENYDtONMENTAL
i BRANCH
in W-3
1 \ ® F VICINITY MAP
301
-----------
-- -------------- -- --_--__-- ? WIDEN SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)
FROM SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO
1-95 BUSINESS/US301 IN FAYETTEVILLE
FAYETTEVILLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY
T.I.P NO. U-3312
0.6 I Mu
FIGURE 1B
W
O
MCI
F
U
W
FBI
W
F
F
A
Z
V
z
1
W
1r?'
FBI
A
W
a
FBI
a
Ei =
M
N d'
E
o,
• N
M ?
00 C-4
° c CD
M ? N ?O M ? p U ..7
? N

O? ? E I ..
N
U
b?
cd
U
N
? O
O
b
b
O ?
N
cq
'C
O
O
U
UN
O
N
U
C
U U
bw
cq
O
U ?
? U
3 :a
FIGURE 3A

FBI
W
z A
?W
V
W
O
? V
O ?
A
W
0
O
a

o
o kr)
15 O O N M
. M

N ?
E
G+ E ^
?p N kn .C
?b
?'
frl .N-+ N ?

b
U bA
? O
cv? ?
O
r y
b ?
N U O O
Cz .0
0
0
U
CIS
O
O
U U
cfs
O N
N ?
.b U
FIGURE 3B
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
SR 1344 (NATAL STREET)/SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD)
Existing Intersection
Configuration
SR 1141
(Cumberland Road)
---------- ----------
----------
r
------- ----------
l
SR 1344
(Natal Street)
Improvements Proposed
with Project U-3312
SR 1141
(Cumberland Road)
411111111111111111 411111111111111111 -
---------- --- ------
40!=
------- ----------
I
SR 1344
(Natal Street)
FIGURE 4A
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
SR 1344 (NATAL STREET/MID PINE DRIVE)/
SR 1003 (CAMDEN ROAD)
Existing Intersection Configuration
SR 1344
(Natal Street)
SR 1003 ----- -' SR 1003
(Camden Road) (Camden Road)
i
SR 1344
(Mid Pine Drive)
Improvements Proposed with Project U-3312
SR 1344
(Natal Street) 4111111111111111
________
SR 1003 OFF- r SR 1003
(Camden Road) (Camden Road)
SR 1344
(Mid Pine Drive) FIGURE 4B
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
SR 1344 (MID PINE DRIVE/BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)/
SR 1132 (LEGION ROAD)
Existing Intersection Configuration
SR 1132
(Legion Road)
SR 1344
(Mid Pine Drive)
SR 1344
(Black and Decker Road)
4?110'
SR 1132
(Legion Road)
Improvements Proposed with Project U-3312
SR 1344
(Mid Pine Drive)
i
i
z
«?'l '?? ' ____
SR 1132 W, SR 1132
(Legion Road) S (Legion Road)
hit qtr'
„
SR 1344
(Black and Decker Road)
FIGURE 4C
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)/REALIGNED SR 1344
Improvements Proposed with Project U-3312
Realigned
SR 1344
¦i¦
Existing SR 1132 h 1 t
(Black and Decker Road) 1 '
Realigned
SR 1344
FIGURE 4D
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
REALIGNED SR 1344/1-95 BUSINESS(US-301)/
SR 2260 (AIRPORT ROAD)
Service Road
Existing Intersection
Configuration 1W
1-95 Business/ - - - - - - 1-95 Business/
US-301 US-301
-------- ----------
1'
Service Road SR 2260 Service Road
-? (Airport Road)
Service Road Realigned SR 1344 Service Road
Note: A cul de sac will be
Improvements Proposed t constructed along the
with Project U-3312 ¦ service road on both sides
i of the proposed road
i
1-95 Business/
US-301 _ 1-95 Business/
----? US-301
I If
Service Road Service Road
SR 2260
(Airport Road) FIGURE 4E
IMell W..• w lLY• wu ?Ielene eMYI
ell
1, i? I '. // i? • I..Mrw ?uruu.wu r iuMw?
1 ? .1'rl.wr.ru a
13SN1 OBE ?S- I'• 1 ?f ``'1
- rrp •l('j3i - m, ? u •Yr. .o,.ra.. r.-.....•a ...r.....r.. _v
_ .u?r vw)p•r7 M1.Oq LL
V3NV NYBun
----- 31llA31-L3AV-A
M4 MM/Y•ai..
•Ir
-1 A- '4b
fti U)
?i - \ - _ r.' - ' _ ./ "TS. _ \? ?-.? a _.r.;•r ,
011 7M _ \• `? , ?? } i- - ?i? - ?? ,N1 ? ._ - -? -
..
...;tit , r
`I.? ? ' ? ?• X71 ? ?????} ? ?' =p ' '' ? ?, /• ..r--
YY Al
--Kr Vmle
?• -y, I l•- 1 7•=? :e7"; .-7 - 1' 1 .11" .,\ w ?CrSr' t• 'S'?•r.
O -__. - ,_. .,i I ?,?? J ?i ?? f. 'w.r? ,T'-1` 4?? ??? ?r ?-? ? ?? /i".'. `• ; `1• ?r • `?. hJ ?'1? / _
17
? ? ' _ . 1 r `VAI ,•? r; r.. • ? 1 "? •!1 M ,Y1pbw ~?'-_ '1 / _/
vio
4e. • ran ,, -ai *r i 0 \ - -
W
J h ' \ .••`••' _ 11 / y? _ , ? =:'?r \ ? ? `• -_??- ?: l-4 l?t 3 ? V -`?.? .?
^' ` ? ?' ?..,. ?I,7, ?'• ``" . J ?n? --?' ??.?-_ ;,tea. , -4. - ??/
t. ,? lc S?iM'

r

`. __? , -. ? . ?.? ? f I ? ``' '_ -- l J ?• ._ 'ice
l
1. ? ?_.-t---?? • ,? ? / : _ -. ..._ ?
, _.r? ?•- •-

1

Lij
?O • 1
V) 00 00 (D
i
I I r ? ? ILL
00000
Z Z Z Z Z
44 4?
?.{ 0 ? d d G1 N
i
a. cL 0. (L CL
' `` 1, •`O !' ' A
cr IN
d S (R , t? t. PvEN Rp a QO r (?
4f ?? ENE N ?? ? A\ O/? r'f ` •
0x
?pi??`:? ,.?' 1, , ?\ r :pOC. •'(3'?1? ETT R,
fll
_ c
• gip' ',• ? - ? ` ?-,. a-` '1 • ? ''• a •r ?
l \ O'
Air
\?:K flit L O.
Q,%A.a 3 1 i11111i1 U Q r
Olb
J 9 \ i A` 5 T )r r)
W 9J?= ' 1 Q i `' r ?y ` l? a O I
IUL
i4? '4
J J 9^
pt 0 lII? ?.? "? ? ? {?! ?fir 1 i r?! •;?.r 3dO114
"
JA-
',fir <,,. A ? .? :,M, {`t ?1l_?.....'`? .i1• ?{ '- ?'?+r++ / ? Ir r,?,?1. I\j;??j`, i`
_?
oil
1311. ?f/ ` ? • L' \ .-,, , - _ •.? OY:_:
40
>i ? ?: ?? -..... I•? •?, _ __ _??4? ? gyp' _. r ..?i R
Ovi
C 000. 40
N Irk r 00
tot-0 ttto, f 1f, I ?1 - 3?bR r
3? `•, 00
N
Ln
OD
N
0
0 l £ 0 10 99
wd
ON
006
0L V 1 09
wd
000'OZ
008'9£
0 l £ 0 99
wd ?
ON
OOti
31VOS Ol lON
lav pa;eualm 6661
9ZOZ
AlNnoo aNV1M3awno
lO3rolid
a3SOdOHd 1nOHlIM
avom a3)1330 aNV MOVIS
umn
(sMonjl)
(AHO)
(O)
£'4
09 01
wd
(1S11 'lenO) sMonil (0'0)
Need wd jo we= wd/we
O JO UOII,OaIIQ= ?-
W mold leuopaan0= O
lOV to (%) se awnlon (linoy lsay6iy 410£= 001
0£)I le (%) awnlOA AjjnOH u61sea= oeJ Ma
(PdA) lOV= 0000
o z zs
,
wd
009,01
00£' 8 6
O l Z'9 Z9
wd
000'8
009'L 6
a
w
ix
LL
- (peOtl aalniaS)
ON
OOti
Lo£ snisseulsn8 96-1
OOL'6 6
006'9£
(peOM 031MOS)
008
OOV 6
00£ O L 0' t OP. 99
?-?
T
UU wd
(4884S )I003e0d)
0 0
0
0 ? 8662 MS
008
0
0 009
w OOL OOZ' 6
000' 6 6
00£'OZ

0
W 3

A 0011 0'L

0t - d ? 99 (anb ueuaepaeA)
0 ?
_ VIA `-? 6M as
° ° 0 OOZ' 6

' 06
001 1 009' 6
009
6
000' 6 Z
006'Z6
006'6 Z oos' 1 001' 1
oo£'£
' %000'Z -
L
OOL 1)
(peob uo16a
009-c1 ZM as
ooo 0'17
t 008'26
'
009' 1 oo
0'L 009
ZZ
(0 rn
OOZ'b6
to -0)
I0
0
°
00 6'92 o
°
00£'Z 000'£ w 3
OOL'£ *
' 009'9
9 -
OOZ (peon uapuaeO)
OOL' Z 1

00 ?
°U9'£ ?oo? as
oos' 6 6
001' 1 i
OOL'L 006'9Z
000,U 6
OOL't7Z 00 ?,
o to 0)

000'£ 6 0 3
'
000
bZ 000,9 000'9
TOOT ,f 000'6 (peotl puelaagwno)
Z'9
OL Z9
wd
009' 8 6 4 10
000'9£ 009'01
000'0Z
(peon :podald)
o9zz as
009'L
OOL'86 0I 0

001 O
0 ° ON
004
0
J 00£
L ON
? ?
? ON
0 4-- 4 0
00? 1
to 00£ 00 001
009 -
0017 OOL 009 ON
0017'L ON
006'8 6 OOL
006'E 00V C 001 001
000'01
J
' * OOL'8

L

J
00
t
00£OOZ'17l

:
91 4-
000 .? ?
- --?
009'92 OOL'17Z
?
00 009'6 6 ;ns;
00179
oo
OOZ ON 009't C 009'6 001'01
°
o l°°
OOL'06

g

lg
ON
009 006'6 6
ool 00£
OOl 002 OR * * 009
L
OOZ * * 0017 00 L
- ?
?J 4 0
0Z 4
OO
00 l 00£ i
; 0017
ON Oz 009 z OOL
o

OI
?
O
008'0 6
00 ['OZ
I.VI,P bS
009,9L
000'6Z
(peon :podjld)
U1
Ln 09ZZ US
000'8
0 3 009'6
C.)
OOL ° OoZ
o Oob ?? ? 00£
O L E O L ? 55 0 ?-J L?
0
wd
ON
006
0L £_6 09
wd
OM
OOZ
(peoa aalAaaS)
ON
OOt7
m
to
w
LL
00? ? ( OOE 4oz ? L

005
oob OOL 005 OL
ooz
006'L 00£
?'
008'6 6
OOL
-8 tD
006'C 000' 6 00 L 00 L
000'01 * * OOb'£ OR * * 00£
006,2E 009'91 ?J L?
0051OZ 00L'9Z to.
009'6 6
009`5£
t
009'Z
0o L'S
ON o415
00£ 00 L 0o L' L
N
V
O O
31VOS Ol ION
laV Poietua93 6661
Szoz
AlNnoo aNVIMMmno
33Vld NI 133f okid
a3SOdOUd HIM
avom I M33a aNV MOMS
umn
(slonj1)
(O)
(AH0)
OF
09 0L
wd
(1S11 'len0) smonil (0'0)
lead wd jo we= wd/we
(];o uopoa,iQ= 4-
(%) Mold leuopoajl0= O
lOV jo (%) se ownJon Alinoy js9y61q 4106= 0£H
O6H le (%) awnjoA RjmoH u61s80= oed AHO
(PdA)10t/= 0000
O L Z Z9
wd
009,01
00£'s 6
OL Z 0 Z9
wd
000,9
Z'S
0L po. Z9
wd

008'8
006'9 6
006'0 6
ooVoz
009' 6 6
006'96
000'£ 00
o-0 00£'6Z oov,
009'
006'Z
006'2 -to
SIS
005'£
OM 00£
oo? *
05 ?--? * 005
?
00 L
005'Z / 00£'Z
000, 00 6'tb
OOZ oo j?
005
001, 00£
00 000 005
OOL
00£2
m Sn/ssoulsn8 96-1
005' 8 6
006' 6 £
(peoa aolAuas)
006
OOL' 6
0 L 0 59
wd
(3aa.4S 430380d)
866Z US
008
OOZ' 6
0
w 3 008'0Z 00£
*
0( OL 0 59
wd 10
(aAd u8wep.18A)

j I
N A N ;
L ?
M US
0
°
° 0
°
i
OOZ' 6
06
,
006 L 009' 6
006 Z6
009' 6 Z
006'Z6
006'6 Z oo9' 6 00 6' 6
o0£'£
' 000'Z
-
OOL
L ( peoa uo1Ba
J)
oo5'£ L 4- -t* Z£ 6 US
k000 4 ? r 00'v 008 Z 6
'
005' 6 000'L 009
ZZ

OOZ'y6 No t o
006'92 00
00£'2 000'£ w 3
OOL'£ *
'
J * 005'5
ooz
S ?
? ( p8oa uapweO)
00L' U L 4__
00 ,r o9'£ oos' 6 6
coo? as
OOL'L OOL'L O
000,E 6 00 ?;, 0)
OOL`VZ I °
o
000'£ 6 0 3
00017Z
, ' w
000
9 000
5
o00'SLA A 000'6 (peoa puelaegwno)
1--
?M as
? ? 009'
9 6
005'0 L
' 000`62
000 OZ
CD
CD
oc m
CD Co to
m m
d m < oc m oc
C m o m m m
Z Q 0 m co L ~
_j 13C cc
-j Ul C3 C) C) U-
J vs 2! < < -A U3
f°' d+ © uJ p J J Z W 4 p Z z
© 1JJ cc " t O .1 cc h d Z S C)
UJ P'1 ti d y F- ...1 c t? Z CL Z
Q) a.- w LU W an d o"'c g .°-? d w CC cc c
w z w o ,_ I- y i- z o u.I
X ?- ua o z (A ea ? Z uj o _j cm I- a. d CL
U? °< m n m? o z z a o a? as f1 o z o
-J Cc C3
m A x ? z 2 s? w zen :m CC uj
"' °? c; w C) w
C= LW ce= O W m w CS O uu. m w 0 OW. z- CO) o C.3 w Q cc
r° G:y LL co p g :3 x d o o r s M Q¢ LL a oc cc a
cm -j i t?.i 100 rEN¦Pi LI

v}
1 w?? lie ?`
t '{l
YA
._1
•
0 .?
•
• k{
w r
-, t ?rF

r

a? IJ^ r ,U? '.? ?

d
1
.
r
?

l j
,
y CC
kr ..
w
y .1 W

?i
z
r ..I
k /
tc?uf,?°''r?'rf
- 1
Nwy
l
h 1
1 Y IL .\ ? X00 O ''??

ti
w
,D^
v
LL

Tower
..
.
AI t . e . .H III •?
- : Field' ) y6'
.? 5?
r
BEGIN '
PROJECT
n. • 'ti. .J ':gyp,:%.???''? o _ _ ? .,,\ 11 i.•• '•:r • •?: 1
:????:?:•'\\ . 3? :?,:•: ??• , ?. ate r5 u ,
,11 , • "`eeU •i I olice ? 11
?. •:Z"„ it - . C : u i It
.; • ? /'_- ,?• :•
SEGMENT A
SEGMENT B
_-J • •?© 2 I - •/?._-- - _ - - ? O 111 F
?- ?aa 6,J i IeI VV ? ?-
o u END
IS-1 ;;1•1?11`• PROJECT
v lei
• • • ••• •' f • r . WS-1 Nay
FAYETTEVILLE QUAD'?
jy ?? I x al(!tt un
• T .' v s tell
' e w _ •n
- Yf •'2
HOPE MILLS QUAD " _ • POND ?? //'? /? i'
/ SEGMENT C - Ci a F /? v' f 1?,?
SEGMENT D ? ark I Munidpal Airport
nnis Feld-
Its
? r • ,/+? ?'_"?• 1l •? • Cool / r ' 1 9? ' ?, _ `.-., I -? [ r y ,? ?' v ?--
\\c / \\, I ?' ?I _ / ?' i /,' ? e ~ rer? / 1 Gate
WS-1: Wetland 1
o Headwater Forest C 1 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
i --'vl . I'• •l' ` TRANSPORTATION
WS-2: Wetland 2 \ uM ?? ?I DIVISION OFHIGMVAI'S
/Eme (Emergent Wetland PLANNING AND ENV'IRONNIENTAL
l ?• \i ?- -?i BRANCH
IS-1: Coastal Plain
°?- Intermittent Stream SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)
FROM SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO
SCALE 1:24000 1-95 BUSINESS/US-301 IN FAYETTEVILLE
} 0 1 MILE CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Iaoo o taco aooo 3000 4= eaoo 6000 moo FEET TIP PROJECT NO. U-3312
1 3 0 1 KILOMETER FIGURE 0
/I
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3312
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL,
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
i
QPP??ENT OF Tye' United States Department of the Interior
O? ym
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
OCH 7 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 22, 1998
Dr. David C. Robinson
Acting Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Improvements to SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road), TIP No. U-3312, Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
Dear Dr. Robinson:
This responds to the letter of March 17, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also
serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1344 to a
multi-lane facility from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to Interstate 95 Business. The proposed
widening would be on existing alignment from SR 1141 to near SR 2998 (Peacock Street) and on
a new location from SR 2998 to I-95.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are
unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time. However, the following
recommendations should help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Regarding avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
A-1
natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife
passage should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through
wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate
erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas
should occur outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird nesting.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time of public notice
issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in the planning process to resolve land
use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental impacts): .
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action and an analysis of the alternatives for the proposed
project that were considered, including the upgrading of existing roads, if applicable, and a
"no action" alternative;
A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action area of the proposed
project which may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact acreages should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corns
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
A-2
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in Cumberland County. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed species
in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable
habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species should be
performed. Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In
addition to this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species. The level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat which
includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative effects area;
The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably
certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and depend
on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions (those that
have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration); and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or associated
habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct mortality,
A-3
injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all ways in
which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measurement of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the
ESA, federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed critical
habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore, it
would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
of the progress made in the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts
of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney, our DOT Coordinator, at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Howard F. Hall
Acting Field Supervisor
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:5/22/98: WP:A:wau3441.598
A-4
Federally-Listed, Candidate and Federal Species of Concern
(revised May 1, 1997)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COMMON NAME
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow
American alligator
Southern hognose snake
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Northern pine snake
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe
Yellow lampmussel
Saint Francis' satyr
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush (=Georgia
leadplant)
Sandhills milkvetch
Venus flytrap
Resinous boneset
Small-whorled pogonia
White wicky
Sandhills bog lily
Pondberry (=Southern spicebush)
Bog spicebush
Pondspice
Boykin's lobelia
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Loose watermilfoil
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Heterodon simus FSC*
Picoides borealis Endangered
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC**
Fusconaia masoni FSC
Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC
Astragalus michauxii FSC
Dionea muscipula FSC
Eupatorium resinosum FSC
Isotria medeoloides Threatened*
Kalmia cuneata FSC
Lilium iridollae FSC
Lindera melissifolia Endangered
Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Litsea aestivalis FSC
Lobelia boykinii FSC
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Myriophyllum laxum FSC
A-5
Federally-Listed, Candidate and Federal Species of Concern
(revised May 1, 1997)
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana FSC
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii FSC
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides FSC
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata FSC
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevistyla FSC
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC
KEY:
Ssauts Definitinn
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
" Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specis observation is uncertain.
*** IncidentalImigrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
**** Historic, obsure and incidental record. A-6
O
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
WAMNTMOF September 17, 1998
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
REC
stP v
! fox499
,
?rO s P?
yV/I,r?.A?gF
This is in response to a letter from your office dated March 17, 1998, requesting
our comments on "SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) from SR 1141 (Cumberland
Road) to 1-95 Business, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, F.A. Project No. STP-
1344(2), State Project No. 8.2443001, TIP No. U-3312" (Regulatory Division Action I.D.
No. 199801948).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,

C. Alex Morrison
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
A-7
September 17, 1998
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to 1-95
Business, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, F.A. Project No. STP-1344(2), State
Project No. 8.2443001, TIP No. U-3312" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No.
199801948)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
The proposed project is located in Cumberiand County, which participates in the Nationai
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Based on a review of Panels 160 and 195 of the February
1982 Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the proposed roadway improvements do
not appear to be in an identified flood hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of the
pertinent United States Geological Survey topographic map of the area ("Fayetteville, N.C.").
The proposed new location section of roadway appears to cross a small tributary, but the
stream does not have sufficient drainage area at this point to produce significant flooding.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Dave Timpy, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Division, at [phone]
Based on information provided in the North Carolina Department of Transportation letter
dated March 17, 1998, the project may impact wetlands. A review of the soil survey for
Cumberland County by the Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates potential Section
404 wetlands in a portion of the proposed widening south of SR 1132. More information is
needed on the extent, location, and community type of all the impacted wetlands before an
environmental assessment can be made. Upgrading an existing facility generally results in less
impact than new location highways and is thus encouraged.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge nf excavated or fill materiel
in waters of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with this project,
including disposal of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands
should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any
work in wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
If you have any questions related to permits, they should be addressed to Mr. Timpy.
A-8

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
North Carolina
Department of Administration
March 18, 1998
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C.Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmenmtal Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
r.
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Improvements to SR 1344 (Black and Decker Rd.) from SR 1141
(Cumberland Rd.) to I-95 Business, Fayetteville, NC; TIP #U-3312
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 98-E-4220-0580. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 04/18/1998 . Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
Ms. Jeanette Furney
Administrative Assistant
A-9
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
2
-
? r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray Mpr 1In!?e9r t$rx,
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improve SR 1344 (Black & Decker Road) from
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to 1-95 business,
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, U-3312,
Federal Aid Project STP-1344(2), State Project
8.2443001, 98-E-4220-0580
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area. Therefore, we recommend that
no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
State Clearinghouse
A-10
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES ,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH L
Count ,
Inter-Agency Project Review Response ;
Project Name Type of Project
The applicant should be advised, that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a .contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfisanitation progra
m, 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 conce: ping appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 er. sea.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, Parker Lincoln Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-
2460.
Reviewer

Section/Branch
Date
A-11
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Restiewmg Office
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number
D Due Date: y I O
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR 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.
AU applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
i
l
i
(statutory t
me
im
t)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters. (90 days)
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection Pre-application 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain pemtit to construct wastewater
discharging into state surface waters. treatment fatility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit
O Permit to construct & operate.4ir Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820. (90 days)
O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
3P.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to he disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days
Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and S2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater 30 days
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit can be issued.
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A (60 days)
minimum fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
A-12
Continued on reverse
Normal Process Time
it)
t
ti
li
me
m
ory
(statu
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of 55,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that 10 days
any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged (N/A)
according to ENR rules and regulations.
O Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
O State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions & 15-20 days
drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
O 401 Water Quality Certification N/A 60 days
(130 days)
D CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)
O CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
O 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, NC 27611
O Abandonment ofany wells, ifrequired must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
O Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
O Compliance with I SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
O Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfrn Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
O Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
O Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
919) 946-6481
O Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
O Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
O Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown St
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone]
A-13
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
©MMA
??-
NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT MEMORANDUM
SECRETARY
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee VV
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 98-0580 Scoping-Improvements to Black and Decker
Road to I-95 Business, Fayetteville, Cumberland
County
DATE: April 27, 1998
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be
provided during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional
information is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify
our respective divisions.
attachments
APR 3 0 1998
A-14 ?'•C. STATE CLCA,Ri'dGHOLjo
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 27611 -7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.EHNR.STATE.NC.US/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 27, 1998
MEMORANDUM
NCDENR
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Mary Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Coordinator A4'
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping, DENR# 98-E-0580, DWQ# 12008
SR 1344 Widening, from SR 1141 to I-95 Bus.
Cumberland County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the EA document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Identify the number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G . Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
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
A-15
SR 1344 Scoping
April 27, 1998
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H . Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation, is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-land mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
J . The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
K. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA for this
project evaluate all direct, indirect and cdmulative impacts on the environment. It is
the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land
uses that the EA should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of the EA
should discuss the known relationship between road widening and inducements for
urban development along the project right-of-way. The EA must further address the
long-term environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect
impacts of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment. To
address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor (and what
land use figures were used in this estimate)?
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to existing roads, such as turn lanes and
traffic signs and signals?
iii) Are any cross streets in the project area projected to see additional traffic
flows due to the proposed project? If so, how will land uses along these
secondary roads be influenced by the project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant parcels of land in
the road right-of-way?
vi) Will these once less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this widened road serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this widening
encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
A-16
SR 1344 Scoping
April 27, 1998
viii) If inducement for urban development is predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the EA and should be
considered indirect impacts of the transportation project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to effectively manage development potential along the
road right-of-way to reduce the potential indirect land use changes and
environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from this additional development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The EA should discuss these impacts (and others that are applicable to the
individual project), and quantify them when possible. In addition to
reporting on the types and significance of each direct and indirect impact of
the project, the EA should define how DOT (with their authorities and
resources) and affected local governments (with land use control in the
project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or mitigate these impacts to a
level of insignificance. The SEPA rules and statutes require that prior to
issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts in an
EA be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, the EA should document how the indirect effects of urban
growth are not going to significantly impact water quality and all other
environmental concerns resulting from this proposed project, or a FONSI
should not be issued.
L. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT EA:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the road widening, if the
project will be providing new or improved access to future growth areas that are
currently undeveloped. One typical impact of increased development might include
increasing amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area. Land-
disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development may
also result in increased stream sedimentation. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in the creek, loss of aquatic
habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers, pesticides,
sediment and automobile byproducts) to the stream. These impacts could be of
special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and federally
endangered species or if the waters are high quality or nutrient sensitive.
A-17
SR 1344 Scoping
April 27, 1998
M. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
N . Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant call Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mek:\980580; SR 1344 Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
A-18
7 7-
u1F'C , HCF , FHLLS LAI E TEL 9 1'a-5 :-9 + HF,r 14 t P1 F , t=i-
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission q _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.1188, 919-733-3391
MEMORANDUM Charles R. if ullwood, Executive Director
TO- Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 14, 1998 •C
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1344 (Black and
Decker Road), from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to 1-95 Business in
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-3312, SCH
Project No. 98-E-0580.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with 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. &C. 661-667d).
At this time the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including
a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated plant species
can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks apd Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
A49
IIIFC , HCP , FALL': LAKE TEL : 919-5'?0" -9:_ ^Hp r 14 16 : 74 PJo .1-11-1 T F' . C-1 4
Memo 2 April 14, 1998
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizin$ or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project. Wetland
acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. 'Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S, Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6, Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensatin* for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
cfTects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should be
identified.
't'hank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc; Howard I lall, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-20

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
May 4, 1998
Mr. Richard Davis
N.C.Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmenmtal Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Davis:
71; 11th l.' ?. .?..
r
? V O
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 98-E-4220-0580; Scoping Proposed Improvements to SR 1344 (Black and Decker
Rd.) from SR 1141 (Cumberland Rd.) to I-95 Business, Fayetteville, NC; TIP #U-3312
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
_Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region M
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affinnative Action Employer
A-21
?, M SU17F v?
?' OwM1?•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GovERNOR
August 16, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Karen Boshoff
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Mark Esposito, P.E
Aviation Division
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: TIP Project No.U-3312 - Widen S.R. 1344 (Black & Decker Rd.) from
S.R. 1144 (Cumberland Rd.) to I-95 Business/US 301, Fayetteville
We have reviewed the proposal for the above project as requested in the memorandum of
April 16, 1999 from your office. Under provisions of a Block Grant between the State of
North Carolina and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Division of Aviation is
responsible for providing comments on roadway projects affecting public use airports in
North Carolina.
As presented, the above listed project will have no adverse impact on the operations of the
Fayetteville Municipal Airport. There is, however, a requirement to notify the FAA of any
proposed construction within 20,000 ft. (6,096 meters) extending outward and upward at
a slope of 100:1 from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public use airport.
FAA form 7460-1 is the notification form.
While the project itself will not present a penetration of this imaginary surface, there may
be temporary penetrations of construction cranes in the case of bridge replacements. If
this is the case, the successful bidder would be required to submit a completed 7460-1
form to our office as early as possible subsequent to the acceptance of the successful bid.
A blank 7460-1 form is enclosed for your use.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please let us know.
Enclosure
A-22
:M C.
ROBERT N. STANGER COUNTY of CUMBERLAND
COUNTY ENGINEER
Office of the County Engineer
March l9, 1998
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.,Manager
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
RE: Black and Decker Road (SR 1344)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1344(2)
State Project No. 8.2443001
TIP Project No. U-3312
Dear Mr. Vick:
TIMOTHY S. SIMPSON
ASSISTANT COUNTY ENGINEER

MAR 2 0 1996'
DIVISION OF Q
HIGHWA';,,S Qie
/RON9
In reference to your letter requesting information pertaining to any required permits and approvals
for the above referenced project, I have reviewed this area and determined that no permits would
be required through our office.
Wetlands protection is a federal regulation administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The
Wilmington District has jurisdiction over Cumberland County. I suggest you contact Mr. Alan
Davis at (910) 2514466 for review of this project area.
Should you require additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,

Robert N. Stanger, P.E.
County Engineer
A-23
P. O. Box 1829 - Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302-1829 - [phone] - Fax [phone]
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3312
APPENDIX B
RELOCATION REPORT
AND
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
RELOCATION REPORT
I E.I.S. 1:3 CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2443001 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-3312 F.A. PROJECT STP-1344 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Fayetteville SR 1344 Black & Decker Road from SR 1141 Cumberland Road to 1-95
Business / US-301
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 2 1 3 3 0 0 3 0 0
BUSIneS8e3 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Is For R ent
Non-Profs 0-20M $0-150 0-20M so-ISO 0
ANSVM ALL QUESTIONS 204W 150-250 20.40M 150-250 2
Yes No Explain sit "YES' answers. 40-70M 2 250.4M 40-70M 640 250400 g
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-M 1 70-100M 4004600 4
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 500 UP 100 up 800 up 0
displacement? TOTAL 2 1 540 12
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
per? 3. No Charge
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 6. MLS,newspapers, property managers
indicate size, type, estimated number of 11. Limited amount in Fayetteville, but public housing not
employees, minorities, etc. likely to be chosen
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 14. MLS, newspapers, local realtors, etc....
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
T
l
X 12. is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing i?C
9(j
h
i 11
V
ous
ng "t" during relocation period? .
41,
X 13. Will there be a problem o f housing within G E I V 4140
financial means?
X 14 Are suitable b
in
it
il
bl
li
t
. us
ess s
es ava
a
e (
s
source).
y r
,
15. Number months estimated to complete A 11r Igoq
Y'
?fl
RELOCATION? 12-16 Months O t, q?OA'
'
S
Revised Au gust 4, 1999 O II ';?
?N JF
L
rilpKVrAYS

E L'
L

? ? 7w
D
/>?j ?1.r.1 ? lJw :? 081041" - 5- /c
Division Rig ht of W Agent, L. P. Hodges Date ADDi by Date
Form 15.1 Revised 02195 t
(YELLOW)
Onginal & 1 Copy State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
B-1
DIVISION OF N= , RcLCCATION PF.OOEa":
It is tae policy- of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable re_iacemect
housing will be available .prior to construction of state a.^..= fed _.l _
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
Relocation Assistance
Reloc_tion Huving Payments and
Relor_tion Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With tae Relocation Assistance Program, e,:perienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as a%--'labili -" and
price:: of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing program=--.` The Relocaticn yfovirg Pavmen?_= ?::o.--,ram, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where di piaceme-_ will force an owner qr tenaant t.; r;._'cha_ -
or rent property of hi_her c^ =_t or t: 1. f?."c: able fin:-cin
_-1 g-?!r.en-.- cases of ot,nership), t:_e :.-'_-c.--ur. 'in Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to S22,500 to
--- --- v and u: S',230 to
eligible any =usllfy.
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 Caroli:_ Reloc_lti,.:i ri__?__ta.ace ...:t 5-1» t.._cug1, 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. A
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will d_termine tae 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
wort: to allow ample time, pri;r t.; dsp_?ce lent. fir I-tc'Jt_%_tiCn
posse=ssion of replacement huusino which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. Th•s displacees are given at least a 90-day written Notice
after P;CDJT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced person wi__
be offered in areas not genie--.-.1-1v les- de rabl. in r?,-rd to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property';;ill be within the financial wEaaZz of tl,c fau i1i ?_l:l
individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their rnlaces
of employment. The relocation officer will also assist of:ners of
displaced dull-profit organizati.nis, and farm operations in
searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and ow-ter residential occupants who may be displaced hill
receive an e::planation regarding all available options, suc;. :IS ( !
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement dousing,
either private or public, nt- (') moving e,,isting owne_r-uc::u-.2!1_ ho-s![lo
to anot!le_ site (if p•.:ssible). fhe relocation officer will a1se; supple
B-2
infor a--ion c.: lcernino other state and iederai
assistance to displaced persons and e;ill preside Other ad. is ry^se vices
as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons 4.11
adjusting to a new location.
The iIovin; Expenses Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displaces 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, hCDOT 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 oc,ner-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 dui;: payment,
including_ incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacem_._t dwelling.
The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5.250. t
is .. policy of the state tha_ n, person will displaced bv the
\CDOT's state ::Ir federally-assisted construction projects unless and
for
until comparable replacement touring has by°_n offerers or provided A.
each displaces within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement.
No rel',catior_ paymenz. 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 an,. person 'Lou
assistance under the Social Security Act ur aLi% ucher fedcLai ld.;.
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 imp lementation-by the state so chat decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt unac this
program will be necessary for this project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
B-3
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3312
APPENDIX C
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
- ----------------------------------------------
130 ------
--
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110 -
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
-------------
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 -- ----_-----------------__-__----_-__------- -________-_-______---------------
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 ----------------- ------------ ------------------ ----_------------------ ---------
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Hanford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
C-1
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS dBA

Category
F (h) Descri tion of Activi Cate o
A 57
ch serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
Lands on whi
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
F ise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
50 >= 15
50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
C-2
N
M
M
Jam'
.G
M W
a ? U
O c
?z0
U
a?
Q
b
U
c?
M
Q ? ? o
za?
O
U
Q C7 C7
M
8
00
O?
O?
N
o
3 ?
8

a ? M
o

? W g
M o

C-3
W
°z
H
ar
O+
m
a
Z W
CIO
O
? U
F-1
N
M
M
i
0
b
U
Al
U
N
cc
qe
'Tr
en
rl

Q o0 0o h oo h h h h o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o h h oo h ?O v1 v,
a
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
z

N
h
h M
h M
h M
h 00
?O 00
?D C,
?a 00
?O M
h C7,
?D O+
?O
h
?D
h
h 00
?D
h
h h
?D
?D
?O 00
?O a,
?o 0?
?
cn
?j I
N
N
N
•
IF
?F
M
1F
•
iF
iF
N
M
N
it
I
it
iF
iF
?F
S
a
I
c

z ?, a
A

A
a
a x a x a a a rx x .a a a a a a a a x a' a a a a a4 x x
E., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
r3 M
N t- 00 O
N 00
-+ .D
M V1
M
M
M 't
M ?
M W)
N M r- a? M wi N h M M M as
N O
N
A

a a
U
E.,
`n A
R _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .4 9 = a
, = _ _ _
a z
'' N et 'eh
p ?o ..
G ..
?o N V1
'o ?
Zo .?
G M O? V1 •-? h .
.? ? M
z a c"
a a
0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
En Ln
o. b

? p'
x
?? a
? m oa aa aa aa oa oa U U aa aa U U aa aa aa U U ? oa ca aa '? U C.? aa aa aa
? U
?' a 0
o 0
w w w
0 ? Q ?i P3 ? P3 Y3 ? ?

o .o b ;v b
'? b b b b ,a ,a b
? ?
'? a
' s a s o b b b .o a a
a v :o ?o
a
a a i a a a ai o x a
a a x x x x x x aa aa x x aa aa o a

W N M et %n -a h 00 a, O .? N M "t Q h 'o h 00 Ol O
N
N N
N M
N I
N

00
? o
? a
0 c
O
? O
8
b o
a
?' L1a
C O
«f ?
a
C N
?a
? M
N
?+ y
i?
?t
A L1
? s
? s
G4
N
w
On
fro
a
z
w
H-1
H°z
U

N
M
M
0
b
a
cl
U
b
.?i
M_
L n
w
a Q Wn ?D ?D ?D ?O ?D W/'? v1 ? ?D ?O h ? ?D WA O
~ v1 v1 v1 ? M ? O O Wn ?
w
cn

w
a

o

? x x x x a a x x x a a a x a a a rx x x x x a x a a a
?
Q `? O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.3
?-a
i v'i
N
N 00
--? --?
N ri
N 00
N N
? en
? O
W/1 C
W/'y
M
N
?
N
N
?
??
vl
vl
h
M
V'1 'n
?D pp
O? ri
Vl eV
O
Q
d
F,
a

w
H
Z
a pq
b
?-
o
V
,?
(? h
WD h
WD t-
WD ?p
?D V1
?D --t
?D •?
WD
?O 0%
W/} Oll
W/) M
?D V1
?D pQ
?D It
WD Wry
?O m
?D pQ
?D (71
Vl 01
W/1 pQ
WD W)
WD t`
WD N
WD 'ti oo
W/1 N
?D o0
Vl
Z
$
a O

o

QQ O
f? ? 00 Oq ? Ca U U U U U U U U U U U p] G] ? CG ? f? W ? U U U

U 0
o
w
w

?v ?o ;v_ :c ?o c ? .c ,a g g c a a ;d ;o ;v b b b b
? ? a ? a a ? a ? ? ? ? ? a ? ? o a a a a a a a ? ? ? ?
? a o
a a a
o o
a a a
a a o
o

N M 'Wf Y1 %D r 00 O, Q 0 - N M ?t W)
-- Q t`

t 00
'e
U 8 N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M !h et t e
t
W
o
i a
O G
d
o ?
5 °
H
'b O
Cr
C O
tmd ?
O
a
H M
N
a?
W s
a=
C-5
tn
W
N
M
M
O
U
b
C?
Ir
U
co
a
U
N
A
U
Cm?T
G
tt
M
w o 0 0 0 0

O

F
A
o
0
0
0
0

w

O,
0 U U
N
o
-+
o
cn
W d

N (? oNi N O? O N

ccc^^^ d o 0 0 0 0
?
er eF ? M V]
? F
F
~
d oo
N ?r
N N
N oo
0
0 ?
F
U A 0
N
A rn ? M N ? cn

W
0
d o 00 0 r

z
?o
h 0o
eq C?
O
V

0
U b ,°? o
W

A

a:
o
v

°

a
.b v
a v]

O?

w w w w
Q ai u A
C-6
a
o
"
.r
a?
o
a
U
d
o
M
1C N
?--? N
I?o
z
H
N
M
M
0
U
b
a?
U
cq*
9
U
.?i
U
cmd
G
M
C
A d

d
?U
p
„

? a o o -•? o
W CIO
°
z
N O O O O O
rn
? n
,
W
P4 ?
c O o 0 0 0
N
O?
a -A O O O O O
w
rA
°
z
0

w h N
O

W ? O O N ? rn

p
II
V
O
O
N
?+
r+1
n

z b En a ?~
O

W ? '°? u o
b b cn
cd ?" o O

0 0 0

w w w w
a U o
c-7
z
W
.1
O
5
O
v N
?z
W
a
e?
t? U
0
V b
z N
r s
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3312
APPENDIX D
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3312, SR 1344, CUMBERLAND CO.
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
V8 - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: SR 1344, BUILD YR 2005
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 " 1610. 360. AG 865. 11.7 .0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 " 1610. 180. AG 865. 11.7 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
" COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- "-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 17.0 m From CL * -11.6 .0 1.8 "
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.5
DEGR. * 12
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.50 PPM AT 12 DEGREES FROM RECI
D-1
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3312, SR 1344, CUMBERLAND CO.
RUN: SR 1344, BUILD YR 2025
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH m 1000. M AMB m 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
------------------------"------------------------------•
1. Far Lane Link " 10.8 -805.0 10.8
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0
* LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H w V/C QUEUE
Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
--------- *----------------------------------------------------------
805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1255. 10.6 .0 13.2
-805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1255. 10.6 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- "-------------------------------------"
1. R/W, 17.0 m From CL * -11.6 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.6
DEGR. * 3
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.60 PPM AT 3 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
D-2
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3312, SR 1364, CUMBERLAND CO.
RUN: SR 1503 , NO-BUILD YR 2005
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
V8 - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* XI Y1 X2 Y2 "
------------------------ *----------------------------------------"
1. Far Lane Link * 7.2 -805.0 7.2 805.0 "
2. Near Lane Link " .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 "
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR " X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W 12.20 m from CL * -8.6 .0 1.6
MODEL RESULTS
-------------

REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
------"------
MAX * 2.8
DEGR. * 5
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------------------------------------
1610. 360. AG 865. 15.8 .0 9.6
1610. 160. AG 865. 15.8 .0 9.6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
D-3
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3312, SR 1344, CUMBERLAND CO.
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
V8 - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: SR 1503 , NO-BUILD YR 2025
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH . 1000. M AMB = 1.6 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 " (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ "---------------------------------------- "----------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link " 7.2 -805.0 7.2 805.0 " 1610. 360. AG 1255. 22.4 .0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link " .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1255. 22.4 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
" COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- "------------------------------------_"
1. R/W 12.20 m from CL * -8.6 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.9
DEGR. " 9
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.90 PPM AT 9 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
*
D-4
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3312
APPENDIX E
CITIZENS' INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
PRESS RELEASE AND HANDOUT
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS
OF BLACK AND DECKER ROAD
FROM CUMBERLAND ROAD TO 1-95 BUSINESS/US 301
Project 8.2443001 U-3312 Cumberland County
A citizens informational workshop will be held on Thursday, June 18, 1998 in the
Elizabeth M. Cashwell Elementary School Cafeteria located at 2876 Legion Road in
Fayetteville. This will be an informal open-house workshop conducted between the
hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those wishing to attend may do so at their
convenience during these hours.
The purpose of this informational workshop is to present information, answer
questions, and receive comments during the planning and early design stages of the
proposed widening/improving of Black and Decker Road (SR 1344) from Cumberland
Road (SR 1141) to 1-95 Business/US 301. The project proposes to widen the roadway
to a multi-lane facility and relocate a portion of the roadway to intersect 1-95 Business
opposite Airport Road. Information presented at this workshop will be general in nature
because no detailed designs have yet been developed. Public comments will help
determine the best design for the project.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will be available to discuss
the proposed project with those attending. Anyone desiring additional information
about the workshop may contact Mr. Brian Yamamoto, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch, P. 0. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at [phone] - Extension 215.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the workshop. To receive special services, please call Mr. Yamamoto at
the above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the workshop.
E-1
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH UNIT HEAD
TRANSPORTATION BLDG.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR May 20, 1998 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Norris Tolson
FROM: L. L. Hendricks '?- • 1
Public Hearing Officer 2 1995;
J t`??Q? Z q OF
Citizens Participation Unit,
RE: Notice of a Citizens Informational Workshop for the Proposed ?, 1;;•,A
Widening/improvements of Black and Decker Road from
Cumberland Road to I-95 Business/ US 301
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-3312 The project proposes to widen the roadway to a multi-lane facility and
relocate a portion of the roadway to intersect I-95 Business opposite
Airport Road.
LLH:dnh
Attachment
cc: Mr. W. Lyndo Tippett, Board of Transportation Member
Mr. Len Sanderson, P. E. _
Mr. J. D. Goins, P. E.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P. E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr., P. E.
Planning & Environmental Branch Unit Head
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P. E.
Mr. W. R. Brown, P, E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P. E.
Mr. C. H. Casey, P. E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers
Ms. Rosy Goode
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Ron Poole, P. E.
Mr. Pate Hodges, Right of Way Agent
FHWA
G
9
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)
FROM SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO I-95 BUSINESS
FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STP-1344(2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2443001
TIP No. U-3312

PURPOSE OF THE CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
The purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop is to involve the public in the
project planning process. This workshop will outline the alternatives being considered for
widening SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95 Business
(see Figures 1A and 1B for maps showing the project location). The length of the proposed
project is approximately 3.3 kilometers (2.0 miles). If you have comments or suggestions about
the proposed improvements described in this handout, please inform a representative of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). We have provided a comment sheet upon
which you may write your questions or concerns. We will keep a record of your comments, both
oral and written, and we will fully consider your ideas, comments, and suggestions concerning
the proposed Black and Decker Road widening during the project study.
NCDOT realizes individuals living close to a proposed project want to be informed of the
possible effects of the project on their homes and businesses. However, exact information is not
available at this stage of the planning process. Additional design work is necessary before the
actual right of way limits can be established. More detailed information will be available at a
later date. The purpose of this workshop is to gather your input before final design decisions are
made.
Written comments on this project may be left with NCDOT representatives at the
Citizens Informational Workshop or submitted through the mail. If additional information is
needed or you would like to submit comments after the Workshop, please address your requests
and comments to:
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
A summary regarding NCDOT's public involvement and project planning process is
attached for your information.
E-2
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 1998-2004 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) proposes to widen SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road) from a three-
lane roadway to a multilane curb and gutter facility from SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to I-95
Business in Fayetteville. Widening will be on the existing alignment from Cumberland Road to
near SR 2998 (Peacock Street) and on new location from Peacock Street to I-95 Business. The
relocated portion of Black and Decker Road will intersect I-95 Business/US 301 opposite SR
2260 (Airport Road).
Black and Decker Road currently carries several thousand vehicles per day (vpd), ranging
from a low of 11,000 vpd south of SR 1311 (Vardaman Avenue) to a high of 14,200 vpd between
SR 1003 (Camden Road) and SR 1132 (Legion Road). The estimated average daily traffic for
the year 2025 is expected to range from a low of 20,300 vpd south of Vardaman Avenue to a
high of 25,100 vpd between Camden Road and Legion Road.
The proposed improvements will improve access to Fayetteville Municipal Airport and
offer a continuous multilane facility between several primary radial streets including I-95
Business, Legion Road, Camden Road, and Cumberland Road. The proposed project will also
increase traffic capacity and improve safety along Black and Decker Road.
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST
The schedule for right of way acquisition and construction of this project, as well as
preliminary cost estimates, are summarized below:
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST
PROJECT STAGE TIP SCHEDULE CURRENT COST
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION *FFY 2000 $ 1,500,000
CONSTRUCTION FFY 2002 $ 5,100,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 6,600,000
rr x aesignaies reaeral riscal Year
Note: These estimates of schedule and cost are preliminary, and subject to change as
further planning and design studies are completed.

E-3
CROSS SECTION CONSIDERATIONS AND WIDENING OPTIONS
Two cross sections are currently being considered for widening Black and Decker Road.
The cross sections presented at this workshop are those that increase traffic carving capability
while minimizing right of way requirements. One cross section will provide a five-lane. 19.2-
meter (64-foot) curb and gutter facility. See Figure 2 for a sketch of this cross section. This
roadway will contain a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane, two 3.6-meter (12-foot) inside travel
lanes, and two 4.2 meter (14-foot) outside travel lanes. Each of the outside travel lanes provides
an additional 0.6 meter (2 feet) of pavement so bicycles can "share the road" with motorists.
The second cross section will provide a four-lane, median divided curb and gutter facility..
See Figure 3 for a sketch of this cross section. This roadway will be approximately 21.6 meters
(72 feet) wide and contain a 4.8-meter (16-foot) median, two 3.6-meter (12-foot) inside travel
lanes, and two 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside travel lanes. Each outside travel lane provides an
additional 0.6 meter (2 feet) of pavement so bicycles can "share the road" with motorists.
The Department of Transportation may provide either of these cross sections or a
combination of both.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will study several ways to implement
the road widening including symmetric widening and an option that transitions between
asymmetric and symmetric widening. Asymmetric widening will be used as needed to minimize
impacts to the social and natural environment.
CURRENT STATUS
Currently, planning and environmental studies for the proposed improvements are in
progress. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is scheduled to be completed in February, 1999.
The EA will address impacts the proposed roadway widening may have on the human and natural
environment and will include a recommendation for the project. Input received from the public
will be included in the decision making process for a recommendation.

E-4
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
PROJECT PLANNING
Planning and environmental studies for this highway project will comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The type of document prepared for this project will
be an Environmental Assessment (EA). This document will fully discuss the purpose and need
for the proposed improvements, evaluate alternatives, and analyze the project's impacts on both
the human and natural environment. Additional topics the document will address include:
- Efficiency and safety of travel
- Neighborhoods and communities
- Relocation of homes and businesses
- Economy of project area
- Historic properties and sites
- Wetlands
- Endangered species
- Wildlife and plant communities
- Water quality
- Floodplains
- Farmland and land use plans of project area
- Hazardous materials involvement
- Traffic noise and air quality
If no significant impacts to the human or natural environment are expected after field
studies have been completed, the EA will be followed by a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). The current schedule calls for the EA to be completed in February, 1999 and the
FONSI to be completed in October, 1999.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN PROJECT PLANNING
Public involvement is an integral part of NCDOT's project planning process. The
concerns of citizens and interest groups are always considered during project planning studies.
Often, additional project alternatives are studied, or recommended alternatives are changed,
based on comments received from the public.

E-5
OPPORTUNITIEs FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
NCDOT provides a number of opportunities for citizen and interest group participation
during project planning. Some of these opportunities are listed below:
SCOPING LETTER Published in N.C. Environmental Bulletin. This letter notifies
agencies and groups on the State Clearinghouse mailing list that a
project study has been initiated and solicits comments from them.
CITIZENS Informal meeting with the public. NCDOT staff conduct these
INFORMATIONAL workshops to speak one-on-one with citizens about projects.
WORKSHOP Comment sheets are provided for citizens to write down their
questions, comments, and concerns. The number of workshops
scheduled for a project depends on the scope and anticipated
impact of the project.
DOCUMENT Copies of environmental documents are submitted to the State
DISTRIBUTION Clearinghouse for distribution and a notice is published in the N.C.
Environmental Bulletin. Upon request, NCDOT will provide
copies of the document to the public. Copies are available for
public viewing at NCDOT Raleigh and Division offices; the State
Clearinghouse office; local government offices, including the local
council of government office; and local public libraries.
PUBLIC HEARING One or more formal public hearings for the public record are held.
Format typically involves a short presentation followed by an
opportunity for citizens to comment.
CITIZEN LETTER Citizens are encouraged to write NCDOT and provide information
and express concerns regarding proposed improvements.
Correspondence from citizens and interest groups is considered
during the course of the planning study and is included in the
project file,

E-6
511fr1 `J /. I / ^?
LAKE \ 1 _ \ I I ,
ADM
`DOOM \ I C LAKE
r V ' \ J
66
s» ?- S \J' ' r
LAKE i `1
bit . 1
LACE
t JO, ~/ Q ?r
°a[Krrsrr - ti / - . .I\? FAYETTEVIIIF?? J01 ! 1 p+!I / J `r '
53 ^? tll \ \: I?1 MM?._ / O?l \ 2
X110 AL2
\ I ?I AIL ?? - I\ ? / r ,
I? 1 l / /? \ •? g
53
210 AW
10
..? Kr•K (I ;.G I )"A v AM •J
21
CK)
I f ?owl /17,0` • I) ^r I " `... n ) O 1 $ Ala, aA
c-
•z
/ 'T
1 © .
1.0 RL4
.ii
b A
•? Jf W-7
\ ?.r
seer
k \ 7)1
INSET
10 .+* `? SEE FIGURE 18
/ Q' ?• NORTH CAROLL DEPARTMENT OR
TRANRTATION
IVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Q D
PLa.YNING AND FNVMONMENTAL
BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
WIDEN SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)
FROM SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO
1-95 BUSINESS/US301 IN FAYETTEVILLE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
E_7 T.I.P NO. U-3312
FIGURE to
CUMBERLAND COUNTY F- ' rm
ZM3
1
ALI
\ j PROJECT LIMIT
s i4
S n
i
• o.
•' "-.._ n ..at
wl
117
1149 ..? c5.01 0)j?
i i 1007
11411
Lr / 1 iw
1144
f t m N \ "Am \.05
N .. I PROJECT LIMIT
I I ?? ?rr-?I ! Ill ,? ? •/' •p I
v l i °- .r uU l 11 ' `/? ?T.MY ? 7DI
.,a 1150 .06
?y X82 S?3 / ? ./ ? I a I__ \\ ?6 •r ,? ?4
C I? 3031 / s x I
I
3314 MIA
am m W-1
yo J i
? ;Fffi
.m b
ALI • o / /
1
710..? 3!L \\ /mss /?
I4? 1 Tai /
QV t
in ILI
;7 2m
/ 220 /
i a i? .o1
1 4
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
\` I • f a• DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r42 Z21 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Zoo
B Q Q VICINITY MAP
-------------- 3V- ___• - ________ -- 70' -- ---------- WIDEN SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD)
FROM SR 1141 (CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO
1-95 BUSINESS/US301 IN FAYETTEVILLE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
IFAYETTEVILLE E-8 T.I.P NO U-3312
0 o.a i .,u
FIGURE 1B
w
v

z
W
W
O
N ?
C-O?C7
U??Q
ti ? W Z
O
z
?M
h?
O
04
0
a
0
a
O

E ?
0 0
M
N
J
M
r- 1= r,
'IR
M
M

T
?rv
O O
M
E-9

1
3
7
T
J
7
I ?

1
i
7
J• / f
L u
N
1rr T?T1
FBI
cn
O
O
z

z
W

W

O

cn ?--i ? W

U ? W L7
H h?
ti ?
w Q
a U W ?

z ?

U

1--
?
M
?.
cC
3
0
s
c^.4
b
cn
UI
0
a
L
a
w
0
E
kr)

M
W
E
0 0 N
M ? fT
T
o
ry <? 1
3
? o
00
?O N
M ?
n
C
1
n
3
N ? `n
U
F-'
z
E-10
w
w

COMMENT SHEET
Engineer: Yamamoto
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 1344 (BLACK AND DECKER ROAD),
FROM SR 1141(CUMBERLAND ROAD) TO I-95 BUSINESS
FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP NO. U-3312
June 18, 1998
NAME:
(Please Print)
ADDRESS:
CITY
STATE ZIP
Comments, concerns and/or questions regarding TIP Project U-3312
v
(Please continue on back if you need additional space.)
Send comments to Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, North
Carolina Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
E-11
Citizens Informational Workshop
Comment Sheet (Continued)
TIP U-3112
Was the project adequately explained to you? Yes No Were NCDOT
representatives understandable and clear in their explanations? Yes No
Please explain
Were NCDOT representatives courteous and helpful? Yes
Please explain
Were display maps and handouts easy to read and understand? Yes No
Please explain
How might we better present proposed projects and address citizen's concerns in future
informational workshops?
How did you hear about this meeting today?
Do you feel that the workshop was adequately advertised? Yes No
Please explain
Based on the information provided, were all substantial questions answered? Yes No
Please explain
What was the most helpful aspect about the workshop today? What was the least helpful aspect
about it?

Please indicate any additional comments or suggestions regarding our public involvement '
process:
Thank you for attending the workshop.
Your comments are very important in the planning process.
No
E-12
__r"459y
01 qoN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAU
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GoVmNoR
July 30, 2001
Mr. Ronald E. Ferrell, Program Manager
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program
NCDENR-DWQ
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION for proposed work on SR 1344 (Black and Decker Road)
from SR 1141 to I-95 Bus., Fayetteville, Cumberland County. State
Project 8.2443001, Federal Aid No. STP-1344(2), TIP U-3312
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to build
approximately 0.4 miles of new alignment in conjunction with widening SR 1344. The
purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP) provide confirmation that you are willing to accept payment for the
compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts to wetlands and streams associated
with the proposed project.
Following are the particulars of the impact area:
• Cumberland County
• Cape Fear River Basin, Coastal Plain Province
• Cataloguing Unit: 03030004
• 1.15 acres of jurisdictional non-riparian wetland impacts
• 0.21 acres of mechanized clearing in wetlands
• 331 linear feet of stream impacts (unnamed tributaries to Big Sandy Run)
We propose to mitigate for 1.36 acres of wetland impacts at a ratio of 2:1. Mitigation
required for wetlands is 2.72 acres. At a cost of $12,000 per acre, NCDOT is proposing to
provide payment in the amount of $32,640 to offset wetland impacts.
We propose to mitigate for 331 feet of stream impacts at a ratio of 2:1, for a total of 662
linear feet. At a cost of $125 per linear foot. NCDOT is proposing to provide payment in
the amount of $82,750 to offset stream impacts. The total payment for stream and
wetland impacts incurred for this project will be $115,390.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE. [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
g ?0?1
AM
If you are willing to accept responsibility for this mitigation, please send a letter of
confirmation to Mary Frazer at NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, FAX number 919-733-9794. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Mary Frazer at 919-733-1200.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USAGE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. T. R. Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer