u2809

GYFT?9Np?Nk. ? "20STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA osq^? ??,, h? U?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo Tipp
SECRETARY
GOVERNOR
January 16, 2007

MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Kimberly D. Hinton K I
Senior Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
RE: Notice of a Public Meeting on Transportation Improvements to Legion Road
(SR 1132) from Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007)
U-2809, Cumberland County
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-2809 This project proposes to widen Legion Road from Cameron Road to Owen Drive.
KDH/cdh
Attachment
ation Member -Division 6
cc: Mr. D.M. Campbell, Jr., Board of Transport
Mr. Steve Varnedoe, P.E.
Mr. J.B. Williamson, Jr.
Ms. Deborah M. Barbour, P.E.
Mr. C.W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour, P.E.
Mr. Bill Rosser
Mr. Greg Thorpe
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E.
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
Mr. J.Victor Barbour, P.E.
Mr. Kevin Lacy, P.E.
Ms. Sharon Lipscomb
Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH NC
Mr. Mike Bruff, P.E.
Mr. John Hennessy
Mr. Charles Brown, P.E., PLS
Mr. Reginald Abbott, Jr., Right of Way Agent - Division 6
FHWA

0? - &
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING ON
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO LEGION ROAD (SR 1132)
FROM CAMERON ROAD (SR 1131) TO OWEN DRIVE (SR 1007)
U-2809
Cumberland County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the above
informal public meeting on February 12, 2007 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the South
View Senior High School Cafeteria, 4184 Elk Road, Hope Mills, 28348. Interested
individuals may attend at their convenience during the above stated hours. Please note
there will be no formal presentation.
The purpose of this meeting is to present information, answer questions, and
receive comments regarding the proposed design modifications to this project. NCDOT
proposes to widen Legion Road (SR 1132) from Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen
Drive (SR 1007). The project is about 5 miles long and involves widening Legion Road
to a four-lane median divided roadway with curb & gutter. Additional right of way will be
required to accommodate the proposed improvements.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Kimberly Hinton, Human
Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, by phone
[phone], by fax [phone], or by email khinton _dot.state.nc.us.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with .
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this meeting. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Ms. Hinton as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.
Legion Road (SR 1132)
From Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007)
Fayetteville, Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3)
State Project No. 8.2442501
T.I.P. No. U-2809
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2) (C)
For further information contact:

z5 0?
Date Wi li . Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
3o po Pr?-t
Date Ni olas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator,
F deral Highway Administration, (FHWA)
Legion Road (SR 1132)
From Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007)
Fayetteville, Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3)
State Project No. 8.2442501
T.I.P. No. U-2809
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
August 2000
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch By:
Undrea Major, Proje t Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Teresa H. Hart, P.E., Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
G41 rimes, . ., Assistant Manager
Pr ' ct Deve ment and Environmental Analysis Branch
?OFESS?
?j SEAL
- 025460
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS .........................I
1. TYPE OF ACTION .......................................................................2
II. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS .....................................................2
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .....................................2
IV. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES ....................................3
V. COORDINATION AND COMMITMENTS ..........................................3
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment .......................3
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ........... 3
C. Public Hearing .............................................................9
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................... 10
A. Cost Estimates ...........................................................10
B. Proposed Detour due to Bridge/Culvert Work .....................10
C. Wetland Findings ........................................................10
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING ON NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................... 11
APPENDIX A - Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 3 Detour Route
Figure 4 Wetlands Site Map
APPENDIX B - Agency Comments

Legion Road (SR 1132)
From Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007)
Fayetteville, Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3)
State Project No. 8.2442501
T.I.P. No. U-2809
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Hydraulics Unit / Division Eight
Species of Anadromous fish may utilize streams in the project study area.
Construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage will be adhered to for this project.
These guidelines are applicable for all projects crossing perennial or intermittent
tributaries (delineated on a USGS topographic map) located below the fall line. The
purpose of this document is to provide guidance to NCDOT to ensure that replacement of
existing and new highway stream crossing structures will not impede the movement of
Anadromous fish. Please note construction guidelines that involve time of year
restrictions.

1
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with
Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on
the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment(EA)
which has been evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The .
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility
for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS
The proposed improvement to Legion Road is included in the 2000-2006 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program. Right-of-Way acquisition and construction are
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2000. The Draft 2002-2008 TIP includes a total funding
of $13,705,000 for the project, consisting of $1,255,000 for right-of-way $11,850,000 for
construction, and $600,000 for prior years cost. The project has a current estimated cost
of $13,708,000, which includes $1,255,000 for right-of-way, $11,850,000 for
construction, $600,000 for prior years cost, and $3,000 for mitigation.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen Legion Road (SR 1132) in Fayetteville from Cameron Road (SR 1131)
to Owen Drive (SR 1007) (See Appendix A, Figure 1). The proposed improvements will
widen the existing two-lane facility to a five-lane, 19.5 meter (64 feet), face to face, curb
and gutter section. This cross section will provide for a 3.6 meter (12 feet) wide center
turn lane, two 3.3 meter (11 feet) wide inside travel lanes and two 3.9 meter (13 feet)
wide outside travel lanes. The proposed improvements will also include replacing the
existing two-lane, 7.9 m (26.3 ft) bridge at Little Rockfish Creek (Bridge No. 210). The
2
new bridge will provide for a 3.6 in (12 ft) center turn lane, two 3.3m (1 I ft) inside travel
lanes and two 3.9 in (13 ft) outside travel lanes. The 3.6 in (12 ft) center turn lane is
needed to accommodate left turns at Cameron Road (SR 1131). The total width of the
bridge is 19.2m (64 ft). The total length of the project is 6.9 km (4.3 mi).
IV. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
A section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) will be required prior to the issuance of a permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
r
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. The Corps of
Engineers will make the final determination regarding permit requirements.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment for this project was approved by the NCDOT on
April 7, 1999 and by the FHWA on April 8, 1999. Copies of the approved
Environmental Assessment were circulated to the following federal, state, and local
agencies for review and comments. An asterisk (*) denotes those agencies who
responded with written comments. Copies of the correspondence received are included
in the appendix of this document.
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services-Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archive and History
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Fayetteville
Town of Hope Mills
The Environmental Assessment was also made available to the public.
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from several
agencies. The following are excerpts of the substantive comments with responses, where
appropriate.
3
I . U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
a. Comment:
Discuss the design and construction of the proposed temporary detour that
would enable an assessment of the associated impacts. This information should
include the location, size dimensions and construction materials of the proposed
detour.
Response:
The proposed temporary detour will be an offsite detour using existing
roadway facilities. Temporary construction is not needed to provide this detour.
The detour route follows Cameron Road and Elk Road (See Appendix A. Figure
3). Elk Road intersects Legion Road approximately 1.4 miles (2.25 kilometers)
from the beginning project terminus. Traffic will be rerouted for the duration of
the bridge demolition and replacement. The proposed offsite detour will not
impact Little Rockfish Creek.
b. Comment:
Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills
from waters and wetlands and "time of year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if
undercutting is necessary for the proposed temporary detour, the undercut
material should be stockpiled and used to restore the site.
Response:
NCDOT will remove all temporary fills from waters and wetlands to
the maximum extent practicable. The project area may involve streams utilized
by Species of Anadromous fish. For this cause, there are construction guidelines
that involve time of year restrictions from March 1" to May 30`h for fish
spawning. This commitment has been included in the Summary of Environmental
and Special Commitments at the beginning of this document. Undercutting will
not be necessary for the temporary detour.
Comment:
All restored areas should be planted with native vegetation including trees
if appropriate.
4
Response:
In areas of restoration, NCDOT will plant native vegetation including
trees if appropriate.
d. Comment:
Discuss recommended bridge demolition methods, including the impacts
of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of constructing
the bridge. Incorporate the bridge demolition policy guidelines.
Response:
In the demolition of Bridge No. 210 on Legion Road at Little Rockfish
Creek, minimal impacts are anticipated. The superstructure of the bridge is a
reinforced concrete floor on steel I-beams. The end and internal bents of the
bridge are reinforced concrete caps on steel H-piles. Based on NCDOT Best
Management Practices (BMP) for bridge demolition and removal procedures, the
demolition concrete structures usually result in temporary fill. Primarily the deck
over the water will contribute to the temporary fill resulting from bridge
demolition debris. The removal of the bents will not result in fill because of
location beyond the stream edges. Nevertheless, the removal of the internal bents
will be monitored to reduce potential disturbance to the stream edges. The
temporary fill will amount to approximately 20.5 cubic yards. Conditions in the
stream will not raise sediment concerns and therefore a turbidity curtain is not
recommended.
e. Comment:
A U.S. 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 of excavated or fill material 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.
Response:
Though minimal impacts are anticipated, wetlands will be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable for the duration of project construction. NCDOT
does not foresee compensatory mitigation as an issue. Nevertheless, complete
final plans for location of work and the extent of work in wetlands shall be
submitted for review by the Regulatory Division.
f. Comment:
The proposed project might be authorized by Nationwide Permit 14
provided it meets the criteria for that nationwide permit. However, based on the
level of impact in the Environmental Assessment and the impacts associated with
the temporary detour, a Department of the Army (DA) individual permit may be
required unless impacts to wetlands meet the criteria for this general permit and
are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. We recommend that NCDOT
consider alternatives to the proposed temporary detour such as an offsite detour,
or use of the existing bridge for construction access to minimize the wetland
impacts associated with this project.
Response:
NCDOT has considered several detour alternatives to minimize the
wetland impacts associated with this project. The recommended detour proposal
is the use of an offsite detour, (see Section B; Response La. of this document).
This detour will not impact wetlands.
2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
a. Comment:
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of
the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that
they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may not be required for this
project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation
may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules {I 5A NCAC
2H.0506 (h)(2)).
Response:
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. In
compliance with the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing, our
policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
the Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. As noted in the EA
document under the Summary of Anticipated Impacts, less than 0.1 acres of
jurisdictional "wetland is located within the project study area. The actual impact
to the wetland community may be less than reported because construction projects
6
normally do not impact the entire width of Right of Way and easements. Final
permit / mitigation decisions are made by the Corps of Engineers.
b. Comment:
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rule { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(b)(6)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to
any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rule 11 5A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
Response:
The project impacts approximately 100 linear feet of stream at Little
Rockfish Creek. Your comment has been noted.
C. Comment:
Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers the replacement of
bridges with bridges. The DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to
the maximum extent practicable.
Response:
NCDOT will not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
d. Comment:
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
Response:
The contractor shall exercise every reasonable precaution to prevent the
eroding of soil and silting of rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, other water
impoundments, ground surfaces, or other property. Excavated materials shall not
be deposited, nor shall earth dikes or other temporary earth structures be
constructed, in rivers, streams, impoundments or near to such waters that they will
be carried into any river, stream, or impoundment by stream flow or surface
runoff. The use of equipment in any body of water shall be limited to those
operations which would be impossible or impractical to perform in any other way,
and shall be so controlled as to minimize any erosion or siltation resulting from its
operation. The dropping of parts or components of structures into any body of
water will not be permitted unless there is no other practical method of removal.
7
The removal from the water of any part or component of a structure shall be done
so as to keep any resulting siltation to a minimum.
Comment:
Borrow / waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Impacts to wetlands in borrow / waste areas could precipitate
compensatory mitigation.
Response:
NCDOT will avoid borrow and waste locations in wetland areas. The
contractor shall exercise every reasonable precaution to prevent the eroding of
soil and silting of rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, other water impoundments,
ground surfaces, or other property. Excavated materials shall not be deposited,
nor shall earth dikes or other temporary earth structures be constructed, in rivers,
streams, impoundments or near to such waters that they will be carried into any
river, stream, or impoundment by stream flow or surface runoff.
f. Comment:
The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically
address the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically,
stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead.
stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly designed stormwater
detention facility / apparatus.
Response:
Proposed methods for stormwater management will be addressed in the
application for the 401 Water Quality Certification. The application will include
a report as well as design plans to support the application. Details of proposed
stormwater management will be available at that time.
g. Comment:
There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts.
If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ
realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
8
Response:
Since the anticipated wetland impacts are less than 0.1 acre, mitigation is
not likely to be required.
h. Comment:
Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed
wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
Response:
A summary of the proposed wetland and stream impacts is included in
Section V, Part C of this document with associated mapping in Appendix A
Figure 4. Future documentation will include this information.
i. Comment:
Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of
impacts to wetlands and streams will require a Nationwide Permit and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401
Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to
ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost.
Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the
NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any
approval will be contingent on the appropriate avoidance and minimization of
wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical and inclusion of
appropriate mitigation where necessary.
Response:
This comment has been noted.
C. Public Hearing
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a public hearing was
held on June 17, 1999 at South View High School. The-public generally supports the
project. Much of the hearing focus centered on right of way and relocation procedures,
projected traffic volumes, and the proposed speed limit. Public concerns involved the
drainage system and the effect the proposed traffic would have on neighboring
thoroughfares. NCDOT representatives addressed questions and concerns at the hearing.
The Public Hearing transcript is available through the NCDOT Citizen's Participation
Unit, [phone].
9
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Cost Estimates
The current estimated cost for the project is $13,708,000, which includes
$1,255,000 for right-of-way, $11,850,000 for construction, $3,000 for mitigation, and
$600,000 for prior years cost.
B. Proposed Detour due to Bridge/Culvert Work
This project is a linear widening of the existing facility and shall be constructed
within the existing 100 foot (30 meter) right of way. Temporary Construction Easements
will be required at this location to contain construction. The temporary detour proposed
during the bridge replacement will utilize existing, offsite facilities. There will be no
construction associated with the detour.
C. Wetland Findings
Executive Order 11990 requires appropriate documentation to show that there is
no practicable alternative to the proposed construction and that the proposed action
includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to jurisdictional wetlands.
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. In compliance with
the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing, our policy is to maintain and
restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of the Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. As noted in the EA document under the Summary of Anticipated
Impacts, less than 0.1 acres of jurisdictional wetland is located within the project study
area. The actual impact to the wetland community may be less than reported because
construction projects normally do not impact the entire width of Right of Way and
easements. The implementation of the offsite detour during the demolition and
replacement of bridge no. 210 over Little Rockfish Creek aids in avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands. All practicable steps have been taken both to avoid
and minimize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Final permit / mitigation decisions are
made by the Corps of Engineers.
Based on the above considerations, there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed construction in wetlands, and the proposed action includes all practicable
measures to minimize harm to these resources.
10
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments from federal, state, and local agencies, it
is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that the project will not
have a significant impact upon the quality of the human or natural environment. The
project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts on
air or water quality or on ambient noise level is expected. The project is consistent with
local plans and will not divide or disrupt a community. The project will have no effect on
any historic properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
No known Section 4(f) properties will be impacted by the project. The proposed
improvements will have no effect on federally-listed threatened or endangered species.
Therefore, it is determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this
project. An Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental analysis will not
be required.
UJM/
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Project Limits $
/ ?i ? ? //? ? ?r u • f-gip
ISM 1
? pp ' r?? .y rat ? ? \? f •
I I /
I 3 / ?. go
JIM axe !a M
> .s ? tm+ 1 1? j
- ? $
..
rr b 9 ?, iES it
j 82 M
r
10
?7 1
x -.. an t:
. MI. tea ' ?' 3 its im
2 ??,.........
All. ffi 1b 2M
22§J
•w A21 2M tom
34I r no. 2M ry.
m
o .>
z • r? =t
`nre ? o
.2% e? 31?
2L2 ME 3 >ta i2a
A au W-1
B I
am
.? t' -?' /i ?/ .@ ? 123 • .? `
M! 2u am
' HOPE
MILLS
0 LAKE . n Ess 102
---_-_ _8 - `-
,. HOPE -_-_ ------ -,--- -------- -- ?t ----- -Y
` MILLS
LAKE
a ?
I ,
More Avus •Y "?, ^
M2
am
. '?
\ ?7
Project Limits
K(°o 17 Godwrn
u es? 2 SOl 5 t
r
/ Sp na • / i'wad 82
6_?RL A N , , ?
:,I X1
Fare .?? 4 81 ?' LS
1 q'' us
S01 S.
>'IlmCerland_ 96 fy4_ / ` Vandd r edman , 1
9? T
• / 3.. 1
)RoQe/ f f , Cedar Creak la
15 Lana
81 1
If
K?r
NORTti CAROLINA DEPARTtiIENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
°?, PLANNING AND ENVIRONNIENTAL
..° BRANCH
FAYETTEVILLE, LEGION RD (SR 1132),
FROM OWEN OR (SR 1007) TO
CAMERON RD (SR 1131),
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1132(3),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2442501
T.I.P. NO. U-2809
0 KILOMETERS 1
MEN
FIGURE 1
Cpl
LL)
CD
m -?.I.
fr'1 Q E
? N
W rV
z ? z
Q O

Ln U U
W
Q
' Q U?
w z
Q cn
o (In
n m O
O n rr
r-r U
n u
E
Ui
o
0
0
E
Ln
_ a;
E
M
rn
E
N
E
M
LO E
rn O -?
M I N

?• a? _ I _ ''„I a END
3 u: - . se- 1 i. • ?'? a 3 z.- I PROJECT
1 ?, ! t r yg ...
S m s, 1
10 Z--
I F
y. ,
zm.2L'-'? y7=? ???1?
;'A ul
na ?' 8
am,
as« Imam
M2 Im im =o
02 mu rz m
s
a z ' A / X3 DS >Z 1 .
Ms.
11 %1 '
-AR
lid
? ?., L^! ,?. ;tom
HOPE
X
7 \ 1 ,/ fL 2w ti IZ
BEGIN „u.
PROJECT
?• • ?, '•-•oj? ..,•.-?
v . WWI-
POSED ?PRO? as
CAMERON ROAD DETOUR
S

• una \
Kt"O 11 y Godvrn
este • /
rFe . ?S 1 t /
Spfio' ki • % ?
'11 _ }
r ae' ° 82 '
/
M
'.nom +!
fayegmff p f
a? 1
R:aLcA N
Sr r
IG
'O
-
. i
•
7
t \ )?andtr , 1 ?
t/land 96 5?
1Kgpt
Cedar Creek
Len,
`
8! 10
14
Lall,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FAYETTEVILLE. LEGION RD (SR 1132).
FROM OWEN DR (SR 1007) TO
CAMERON RD (SR 1131),
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1132(3),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2442501
T.I.P. NO. U-2809
0 KILCVETERS 1
FIGURE 3

-Qt
?QRPO_;aT= ll?ti•tl'S

Ca
_L
"C7
Ca
"Q
cis
3
/
oe•? a-'bl.o
/J
. 2 \'.
L C u
1\ MINW&
i
I At ML

1 :t Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive
l 5 (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131) in
?• 1 '??? Cumberland County. TIP No. U-2809;
v u State Project 8.24442501;
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3).
Figure 4
APPENDIX B
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
• DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. Box 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROUNA28402-1890
NFEPLYRffER TO July 27, 1999
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:
This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1999, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for Legion Road (SR 1132) From Cameron
Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-1132(3), State Project No. 8.2442501, T.I.P. No. U-2809"
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199707799).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
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, W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Servicx?s Division
Enclosure
July 27, 1999
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON.
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Legion Road (SR 1132) From Cameron Road
(SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-1132(3), State Project No. 8.2442501, T.I.P. No. U-2809" (Regulatory
Division Action I.D_ No. 199707799)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis Plannin Servicos Section at
[phone]
Our comments on flood plains were furnished to your office previously by letter dated
September 9, 1997, a copy of which is contained in Appendix B of the Environmental
Assessment (EA). We note your discussion contained in the flood hazard evaluation on
page 43 of the EA and have no further comments at this time.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC Mr. Dave Timoy Wilmington Field Office.
Reauiatory Division, at [phone]
The EA states that the purpose of the proposed project is to complete the radial-loop
design consisting of Black and Decker Road, proposed Hope Mills Bypass, and Hope Mills
Road (NC 59).
As stated in the EA, the estimated wetland impacts of the prop6 sed project are less than
0.1 acre. However, these impacts are based on the right-of-way (ROW) width along the entire
project and do not include impacts associated with the proposed temporary detour. Wetland
impacts associated with temporary detours, as proposed in the EA, may create permanent
impacts. The EA should be revised to include the following:
a. Design and construction details of the proposed temporary detour that would enable an
assessment of the associated wetland impacts. This information should include the location,
size dimensions and construction materials of the proposed detour. The EA should also
address other detour alternatives.
b. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from waters and
wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if recommended by the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for the proposed temporary
detour, the undercut material should be stockpiled and used to restore the site.
c. All restored areas should be planted with native vegetation including trees, if
appropriate.
d. The EA should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and include the
impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of constructing the
bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy guidelines pursuant to
the NCDOT agency coordination meetings held earlier this year.
July 27, 9999
Page 2 of 2
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
A U.S. Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean WaterAct of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill
material 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 spec determinations of DA permit requirements.
The proposed project might be authorized by Nationwide Permit 14 provided it meets the
criteria for that nationwide permit. However, based on the level of impact identified in the EA
and those impacts associated with the temporary detour, an individual DA permit may be
required unless impacts to wetlands meet the criteria for this general permit and are minimized
to the maximum extent practicable. We recommend that NCDOT consider alternatives to the
proposed temporary detour such as an offsite detour, or use of the existing bridge for
construction access to minimize the wetland impacts associated with this project.
Should you have any questions concerning DA permits, please contact Mr. Timpy.

i
TOTAL P.04
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
June 8, 1999
Mr. David Smith
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Programming & TIP Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Smith:
SCH File # 99-E-4220-0663; Environmental Assessment Proposed Widening of Legion Road (SR 1132)
from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131) in Cumberland County; TIP #U-2809
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,
Ms. Chrys Bagge
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region M
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
IVA
'?=? NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNTJR...
y .., GOVERNOR
- r
WAYNE MCDEV1- -"
SECRETARY

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 99-0663 EA Legion Road Improvements, Cumberland
County
DATE: June 3, 1999
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
R ECDVt?
JUN 719991
N.C. STATE CLEARWGNCIL'SE
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 / 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/i Oq POST-CONSUMER PAPER

_ Forth Carolina WAdlife Resources Commissiong
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood. Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
(ice of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: T)avid Cox, Highway Project C r
14abitat Conservation Pro ; " 14tIl-
DATE; June 2, 1999
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the SR 1132 (Legion Road) widening, from SR 1131 (Cameron Road to SR
1007 (Owen Drive) in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Nordl Carolina. TIP No.
U-2809, SCH Project No. 99-110663.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject EA and
are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to assess project
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 S(aL 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing SR 1132 from two-lanes to a five-lane, curb and gutter facility,
from SR 1131 to SR 1007. Project length is approximately 4.3 miles. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
total less than 0.1 acres.
We have reviewed the information included in the EA. Due to the environmental commitments
included in the document and that this is an upgrade of an existing roadway, we do not object to the
project as proposed. At this time, we concur with the EA for this project and anticipate our concurrence
with the upcoming finding of no significant impact-
NCDOT should continue efforts to reduce wetland impacts. NCDOT best management practices
and appropriate sedimentation and erosion control measures should be employed to minimize impacts to
ofd site resources.
Thank you fnr the otrportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please
call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
.State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary NCDENR
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
May 18, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney f
From: John Hennessy C j?
Subject: Comments on the EA for the Legion Road improvements fron Cameron Road (SR 1131)
to Owen Drive (SR 1007), Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project # STP-1132(#), State
Project # 8.2442501, TIP Project # R-U-2809, DENR Project Number 99E-0663
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. Completion of the project as proposed in the document will require the discharge of fill
material into a maximum of 0.1 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 100 linear feet of streams. The DWQ
offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical.
`i Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation may not be required for this
project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitisation may be
required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
B) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506 (h)(3) }, the
Wetland Restoration. Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Q Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers the replacement of bridges with bridges. The
' DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
D) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
E) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
' 05/ 18/99
Page 2
F) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
G) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical,
it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
H) { Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream
impacts with corresponding mapping. '
yon,, r j ;n ti c
I) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams will require a Nationwide Permit and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification.
Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water
quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final
permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on
appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent
practical and inclusion of appropriate mitigation where necessary.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require anv additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Regional Office
C:lncdoffll? U-2809\comments\ U-2809 comments.doc
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
MtERG&ERNMENTAL REVIEW _ pr-,
Reviewing Office: LA-! -7 1 G' 1
41
After review of this project it has been determined that the CO1vIMENTS Project Number: ?yF
Due Date-
Project permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained D order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.

PERMITS Normal Process Time

O SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES
or REQUIREMENTS (stahttory time fit)
Permit to coastrrrct &
operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions & ?, Application 90 days before begin constntction or a
sewer s
ste
swa
d
f
y
ms
not di
r scharging into state surface waters, r
o
construction
contracts. Orr-site '
inspection Post-application technical conference usual. 30 days
O NPDES -permit to discharge into surface water and / (90 days)
or
permit to openp and construct wastewater facilities Application 1 a days before begin activity. it to on-site inspection.
lintion
discharging into state surface waters, conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct w 90-110 des
?
water
astewater
treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of
Plans or issue of NPDES

O Water Use Permit
permit-whichever is later, /A
)
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary

O Well Construction Permit 30 days
(N/A)
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well

O Dredge and Fill Permit . 7 days
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual
Fil
SS days
.
ling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administr
ti

O a
on and Federal Dredge
and Fill Permit 90 days)
( n)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission S
ources as per 13 A NCAC
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) N/A

Any open burning associated with subject proposal ' 60 days
mast be to compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containi
ng
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which

6
requires notcation an
removal prior to demolition
C d 0 days
.
ontact Asbestos Control
Group 919-733-0820
. N/A
O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0g00 (90 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 roust be properly addressed for any land disturbing activi
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or mo
er
i
S
ry
os
on &
'
re acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with prope
tCL) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and S2000 for each addi
accompany the plan. Quality
i
a
e
a
20 days
t
onal
cr
p
rt must
(30 days)
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with res
pect to the referenced Local Ordinance

O Minting Permit (30 days)
O7 Site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affect
d l
e
and Any are mined greater
than one acre must be permitted. The a
i
30 days
ppropr
ate bond must be received
before the permit can be issued. (60 days)
O North Carolina Burning permit
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if
i

O perm
t exceeds 4 days 1 day
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22
counties in coastal N.C. with
organic soils
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resource (N/A)
s re
more
h
4°?d
than
five acres of ground clearing are involved
o„t
1 day

O Oil Refining Facilities ld
s
ou
.
requested at least ten days before
actual bum isplanned"one should be (N/A)
N/A

O Dam Safety Permit 90.120 days
(N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified en
i
g
neer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved
l
p
ans. May also require
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404
perm
from Comps of
Engineers. An inspection of site i
30 days
s necessary to v
erify
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the app po,gn Class a al ion'
°`
roc
i
(60 days)
p
ess
ng fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
,,.. SU1r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
' Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 18, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of TOnsportation
FROM: David Brook ??
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen SR 1132 (Legion Road) from SR
1007 (Owen Drive) to SR 1 131 (Cameron
Road), Cumberland County, U-2809,
Federal Aid Project STP-1132(3), State
Project 8.2442501, 97-E-4220-0831
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: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
L,-T-. Padgett
109 East Jones Street' Ralei h, North Carolina _7601-_S07 ??
N'cUUI U IVISION S DIS TR ICT ENGINEER LISTING (Revised 7128/1999)
Division Engineer D
D' Div. Maint. Engr.
1 Div. Constr. Engr. S District
V Div. Operations Engr. Address/C.S. No. Telephone T Engineer Address C.S. No. Telephone
1 D.R. Conner, PE PO Box 850 252-482-7977 1 G.A. Byrum, PE PO Box 1405 Elizabeth City 27909 10-31-04 252-331-4737
A.W. Roper, PE Edenton 27932 2 R.D. Smith PO Box 748 Ahoskie 27910 10-12-05 252-332-4021
R.E. Capehart, PE 10-62-26 3 B.R. Leggett PO Box 928 Plymouth 27962 16-15-01 252-793-4568
J.D. Jennings, PE
2 C. E. Lassiter, PE PO Box 1587 252-830-3490 1 D.R. Taylor, PE 1701 W. 5th St. Washington 27889 16-05-01 252-946-3689
Vacant
E.B. Latham, PE Greenville 27835
01-44-25 2 A.C. Everett 209 S.Glenbumie Rd. New Bern 16-60-04 252-514-4716

3
G.F. England, PE
D
J
Bowers
PE

124 Di
3
R.E. Davenport, PE 28560
1629 Hwy 258S Kinston 28504
01-23-26
252-527-0053
.
.
,
R.W. Cates, PE vision Dr.
Wilmington 28401 910-2517724 1 D.R. Huffman 410 New Bridge St. Suite 7A 11-03-31 910-346-2040

J.E. Blair, PE
H.A. Pope
PE'
04-11-03
2
K.E. Fussell, PE Jacksonville 28540
220 N. Blvd. Clinton 28328
11-31-04
910-592-6174

4 ,
D.R. Dupree
PO Box 3165 3 D.L. Thomas, PE 300 Div. Dr. Wilmington 28401 04-11-03 910-251-2655

J.H. Trogdon, III, PE
Wilson 27893 252-237-6164 t B.A. Mills PO Box 98 Halifax 27839
07-43-10
252-583-5861

W.L. Oglesby
PE
01-53-26 2 L.R. Ward, PE 3013 US 64A Nashville 27866 07-73-07 252459-2128
,
J.C. Eatmon. PE 3 R.B. Bunn, III, PE 2671 US 70W Goldsboro 27530 01-10-01 919-731-7938
5 J.G. Nance, PE
R
E
Greene
PE 2612 N.Duke St. 919-560-6851 1 T.B. Dover, PE 4009 District Dr. Raleigh 27607 51-31-00 919-733-2814
.
.
.
T.N. Parrot, PE Durham 27704
17-27-03 2 R.W. Hancock, PE 815 Stadium Dr. Durham 27704 17-27-03 919-560-6854

J. Hopkins, PE 3 S.G. Capps, PE PO Box 205 Henderson 27536 07-23-13 252492-0111
6 T.R. Gibson, PE PO Box 1150

R.K. Murphy, Jr., PE
Fayetteville 28302 910486-1493 1 R.J. Nelson, PE PO Box 2157 Lumberton 28359 14-92-03 910-618-5546

T.L. Conrad, PE
14-55-24 2 R.R. Stone, PE PO Box 1150 Fayetteville 28302 14-55-24 910-486-1496

G.W. Bums, PE 3 R.E. Crumpler, PE PO Box 27 W hiteville 28472 04-21-04 910-642-3760
7 J.W. Watkins, PE PO Box 14996

J.M. Mills, PE
Greensboro 336-334-3192 1 T.J. Dyer, PE PO Box 766 Graham 27253-0766 1740-02 336-570-6833

E.M. Cowan, PE
27415-4996 2 S.L. Hall PO Box 14996 Greensboro
02-1644
336-334-3161

8 S.P. Ivey, PE

W. F. Rosser, PE 02-16-44

PO Box 1067
3 .Vacant 27415-4996
PO Box 2513 Reidsville 27323
02-29-27
336-634-5644

Vacant
Aberdeen 28315 910-944-2344 1 J.L. Picklesimer, PE PO Box 1164 Asheboro 27203 13-62-07 336-629-1423

T. Johnson, PE
03-51-05 2 J.A. Clendenin PO Box 1067 Aberdeen 28315 03-51-05 910-944-7621

G.R. Sproles, Jr., PE 3 W.T. Campbell, PE 219 Clemmer Road Rockingham 03-80-04 910-582-7075
9 D.B. Waters
2125 Cloverdale
336
7 28378 (Hamlet)

M.T. Patton, PE
Winston-Salem -
61-2200 1 C.T. Corriher, PE 4770 S. Main SSry 28147 05-31-01 704-639-7560

M.L. Holder; PE
27103 2 M.C. Shaffner 2135 Cloverdale Ave.
13-12-04
336-761-2410
D.W. Spainhour, PE 13-12-04 Winston-Salem 27103
B.G. Payne, PE 716 W
Main St 70

B.S. Moose, PE .
.
Albemarle 28001 4-982-0101 1 J. Wilson, III 615 Concord Rd. Albemarle 28001 03-21-01 704-982-0104

A.W. Whitmore, PE
03-21-01 2 D.W. Spence, PE PO Box 190 Newell 28126 05-13-10 704-596-6900

L.N. Gordon, PE 3 P.T. Moxley, PE 130 S. Sutherland Ave.
03-05-02
704-289-1397
11 W.E. Hoke, PE PO Box 250
336-667
9111 Monore 28112

T
L
Abshe -
1 W.O. Atkins, PE PO Box 558 Elkin 28621 09-80-02 336-835-4241
.
.
r
R.C. McCann, PE N.Wilkesboro
28659 2 J
M.L. Bolick PO Box 1460 Boone 28607 15-91-02 828-265-5380

Vacant
15-13-32 3 D.J. Tetrlaff PO Box 250 N. Wilkesboro 28659 15-13-32 336-667-9117

J R.W. Spangler
.C. Lamb, Jr., PE PO Box 47
Shelby 28150-0047 704.480-5400 1 D.D. Reece PO Box 47 Shelby 28150-0047 06-53-02 704480-5402

D.C. Grissom, PE 0
6-53-03 2 J.W. Rand 124 Prison Camp Rd. Statesville 09-33-19 704-876-3947
J .L. Ruppe, PE 28687
1 W.D. Smart, PE P O Box 3279 82

R
.M. Crisp, PE A
sheville 28802 8-251-6171 1 S.A. Moore, PE RL 1, Box 169C Marion 28752 12-91-02 828-652-3344

J
1
.G. Buckner 1
2-60-02 2 K.A. Wilson, PE PO Box 3279 Asheville 28802 12-60-02 828-298-2741
R .S.Lance
1 F .D. Martin, PE P O Box 37 828
586
4
2

J
. J. Swain, Jr., PE S
ylva 28779 -
-
1
1 1 E.A. Green, PE 4142 Haywood Rd.
06 98-20
828-891-7911
R .G. Watson, PE 0 8-23-15 Horse Shoe 28742

L
.M. DeHart 2 C.R. Styles, PE ' PO Box 250 Bryson City 28713 08-30-03 828.488-2131

J
.D. Goins, PE
Chief Engine
er- O
eratio 3 J.B. Selzer, PE PO Box 1551 Andrews 28901
-54-01
828-321-4105
D ,
.A. Allsbrook, Jr., PE, Depu p
ns
ty Chief Engineer -Ope rations PO Box 25201 Raleigh
27611 1
5 51-31-00 919-733-7621
W .S. Vamedoe, PE, State M aintenance & Equipmen t Engineer PO Box 25201 Raleigh 27611 51-31-00 919-733-2330

R
. Canales, PE, State Constr
uction & Materials En
i PO Box 25201 Raleigh 27611 51-31-00 919-715-5662
g neer PO Box 25201 Raleigh 27611 51-31-00 919-715-5662
htto://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/operations/DOT enalist/
Y
Legion Road (SR 1132)
From Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive ( SR 1007
Fayetteville, Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3)
State Project No. 8.2442501 f
T.I.P. No. U-2809 ?i O

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(20(C)

7 /'
Date William D. ilmore, P.E., Manage
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
#6? -
Date ich s L. Graf, P.1.
F`Division Administrator, FHk„ A
Legion Road (SR 113 2)
From Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007)
Fayetteville, Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3)
State Project No. 8.2442501
T.I.P. No. U-2809
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
Mark L. Davis, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT gaoseIppeo".
k' A?d- -
Teresa A. Hart, Unit Head
Rich . Davis,'P/..E., CP , Assistant
Planning and Environmental Branch, N,
CAPOI ,° I,
o. o
E AL
4
4
1S944
r °
41 co
D
Ile
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
41

I.
II.
III.
SUMMARY ............................................................................................. i
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ 1
A. General Description ..................................................................... 1
B. Purpose of Project ........................................................................ 1
C. Historical Resume and Project Status .......................................... I
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................. 2
A. Existing Facility ........................................................................... 2
1. Project Terminals ............................................................. 2
2. Route Classification ......................................................... 2
3. Roadway cross-section ..................................................... 2
4. Right of Way and Access Control ................................... 2
5. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment .................................. 3
6. Speed Limit .................................................................. 3
7. Intersection and Type of Control ..................................... 3
8. Railroad Crossings ........................................................... 3
9. Bridge and Culverts ......................................................... 3
10. Utilities ............................................................................. 3
11. Sidewalks ......................................................................... 3
12. Bicycles ............................................................................ 4
13. School Bus Data ............................................................... 4
B. Traffic/Truck Volumes ................................................................ 4
C. Other Highway Projects In Area .................................................. 5
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................... 5
A. Length of Project .......................................................................... 5
B. Design Speed ............................................................. ............. 5
C. Cross Section ............................................................................... 5
D. Right of Way ................................................................................ 5
E. Access Control ............................................................................. 5
F. Speed Zones ................................................................................. 6
G. Bicycles ........................................................................................ 6
H. Landscape Planting ...................................................................... 6
I. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ................................ 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

J. Sidewalks ..................................................................................... 7
K. Bridge/Culvert Work Required .................................................... 7
L. Special Permits ............................................................................. 8
M. Maintenance of Traffic ................................................................ 8
N. Noise Barriers .............................................................................. 8
0. Estimates of Cost ......................................................................... 8
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS ............................................................................. 9
A. System Linkage ............................................................................ 8
B. Thoroughfare Planning ................................................................ 8
C. Economic Development ............................................................... 9
D. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community ............................ 9
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................... 9
A. Five-Lane Facility ........................................................................ 9
B. No-Build Alternative .................................................................. 9
C. Public Transportation Alternative ................................................ 10
VI. LAN D USE PLANNING ........................................................................ 10
A. Status of Local Planning Activities .............................................. 10
B. Existing Land Use ........................................................................ 10
C. Future Land Use ........................................................................... 10
D. Project Compatibility .................................................................. 10
E. Farmland ...................................................................................... 11
VII. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED
ACTION .................................................................................................. 11
A. Social Effects ............................................................................... 11
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .......................... t............... 11
2. Economic Factors ............................................................. 11
3. Public Facilities ................................................................ 12
4. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ........................ 12
5. Social Impacts .................................................................. 14
6. Title VI and Environmental Justice ................................ 14
7. Section 4(0 ....................................................................... 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
B
C.
D.
E.
Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 15
1. Archaeological Resources ................................................ 15
2. Architectural Resources ................................................... 16
Air Quality Analysis .................................................................... 16
Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ................. 19
1. Characteristics of Noise ................................................... 19
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives ......................................... 20
3. Ambient Noise Levels ...................................................... 20
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ................. 21
5. Traffic Noise Impact and Noise Contours ....................... 22
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ................................. 23
a. Highway Alignment ............................................. 23
b. Traffic System Management Measures ............... 23
C. Noise Barriers ...................................................... 23
7. "Do Nothing" Alternative ................................................ 24
8. Construction Noise ........................................................... 24
9. Summary .......................................................................... 24
Natural Resources ........................................................................ 25
1. Biotic Resources .............................................................. 25
a. Terrestrial Communities ...................................... 25
b. Faunal Components ............................................. 27
C. Aquatic Communities .......................................... 28
d. Anticipated Impacts ............................................. 28
2. Physical Characteristics ................................................... 30
a. Soils ..................................................................... 30
b. Water Resources .................................................. 31
3. Jurisdictional Issues ......................................................... 33
a. Waters of the United States .................................. 33
b. Protected and Rare Species .................................. 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F. Geodetic Markers .........................................................................
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation .............................................................
H. Hazardous Materials ..................................................................
1. Construction Impacts
..................................................................
VIII. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ..................................................
IX. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEMENT ....................................
X. LIST OF PREPARERS ...........................................................................
APPENDICES
Appendix A-Figures
Figure 1 A- Vicinity Map
Figure 1B- Area Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 2- Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3- Recommended Cross Section
Figure 4A- Current Traffic Volumes
Figure 4B- Design year Projected Traffic Volumes
Appendix B- Agency Comments
Appendix C- Air Quality and Traffic Noise Tables
PAGE
43
43
43
44
45
46
46
Raleigh
Legion Road (SR 1132)
From Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007)
Fayetteville, Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3)
State Project No. 8.2442501
T.I.P. No. U-2809
Summary of Environmental and Special Commitments
A. Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14) may be applicable for this project and
will be required from the Corps of Engineers or an Individual Section 404 Permit
may be required. Final permit decisions rest with the discretionary authority of
the Corps of Engineers.
B. Species of Anadromous fish may utilize streams in the project study area.
Construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage will be adhered to for this project. These guidelines
are applicable for all projects crossing perennial or intermittent tributaries
(delineated on a USGS topographic map) located below the fall line. The purpose
of this document is to provide guidance to NCDOT to ensure that replacement of
existing and new highway stream crossing structures will not impede the
movement of Anadromous fish.
C. NCDOT's Best Management Practices will be adhered to during construction for
the protection of surface waters.
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
Summary
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to improve Legion Road (SR 1132) in Fayetteville, Cumberland
County from Cameron Road (SR 1131) in Hope Mills to Owen Drive (SR 1007) (See
Appendix, Figure IA). The proposed project will widen the existing roadway to five lane
curb and gutter facility and replace the existing 7.9 m (26.3 ft.) wide bridge over Little
Rockfish Creek with a new five lane 19.2 m (64 feet) bridge. The new bridge will provide
for a 3.6 m (12ft) center turn lane, two 3.3 in (11 ft) inside lanes and two 3.9 m (13 ft )
outside lanes. A sidewalk will be included along one side of the bridge. The 3.6 m
(12 ft) center turn lane is to accommodate the left turns at Cameron Road (SR 1131). The
improved facility will include a 3.6m (12-foot) wide center left turn lane, and two 3.3m
(11-foot) wide inside lanes and two 3.9m (13-foot) wide outside lanes. The wide outside
lanes will aid in accommodating bicycle traffic. The total project length is 6.9 km
(4.3 mi.). The estimated project cost in the 2000-2006 Draft Transportation Improvement
Program is 11,800,000. Temporary or Permanent Construction Easements will be
required at some locations to contain construction.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will benefit vehicle operations in Hope Mills and southeast
Fayetteville. Legion Road provides access to residential, commercial, retail areas, and
schools between Cameron Road (SR 1131) and Owen Drive (SR 1007). The project will
increase accessibility to the region. No adverse effects on air quality, historic structures
or places, archaeological sites, streams, wetlands, federally protected species, hazardous
waste sites, or community cohesion are expected as a result of project construction.
Based on preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise
abatement measures are proposed.. Six residences and two businessds will be relocated
by the proposed improvements. Silva's Garbage Service and Greene Realty Co. are the
proposed displace business. The six residences are located along various sections of the
project.
Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an existing roadway, no
alternative corridors were considered for this project. Alternatives considered include the
ii
recommended alternative (five lane curb and gutter section), Public Transportation, and
the "Do Nothing Alternative (See Section V, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
ACTION). The "Do Nothing" Alternative was rejected because of the need to increase
the traffic carrying capacity along this section of Legion Road (SR 1132) (See Section V,
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION).
Coordination
Several federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of
this environmental assessment. Comments from the following were received and
considered during the preparation of this assessment:
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archive and History
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services-Raleigh
Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Fayetteville
Town of Hope Mills
Actions Required by Other Agencies
A general 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) will be required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
It is anticipated that the project will be authorized under a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit (33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14)) issued by the Corp of Engineers. Final Permit decisions
rest with the discretionary authority of the Corps of Engineers.
Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposed and assessment can be obtained
by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
iii
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Legion Road (SR 1132)
From Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007)
Fayetteville, Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3)
State Project No. 8.2442501
T.I.P. No. U-2809
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen Legion Road (SR 1132) in Fayetteville from Cameron Road (SR 1131)
to Owen Drive (SR 1007) (See Appendix A, Figure IA). The proposed improvements
will widen the existing two lane facility to a five lane, 19.5 meters (64 feet), face to face
curb and gutter section. This cross section will provide for a 3.6 meter (12 feet) wide
center left turn lane, two 3.3 meter (11 feet) wide inside lanes and two 3.9 meter (13 feet)
wide outside lanes. The proposed improvements will also include replacing the existing
two lane 7.9m (26.3 ft) bridge at Little Rockfish Creek. The new bridge will provide for
a 3.6 m (12 ft) center turn lane, two 3.3 m (11 ft) inside lanes and two 3.9 m (13 ft)
outside lanes. The 3.6 m (12 ft) center turn lane is to accommodate the left turns at
Cameron Road (SR 1131). The total width of the bridge is 19.2 m (64 ft). The length of
the project is 6.9 km (4.3 mi.) The current estimated cost is $11,800,000, which includes
all construction costs. If additional right-of-way is needed, it will be minimal. However,
Temporary or Pennanent Construction Easements may be required at some locations to
contain construction.
B. Purpose of Project
Legion Road is a vital part of the Fayetteville Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan.
Legion Road is a major radial linking the City of Fayetteville CBD, the rapidly growing
Town of Hope Mills, and the High growth areas between these municipalities. The major
loop facilities of Black & Decker Road, proposed Hope Mills Bypass, and Hope Mills
Road (NC 59) complete the radial-loop design to serve suburban travel in the area.
C. Historical Resume and Proiect Status
The North Carolina Department of Transportation in December 1992 completed a
feasibility study of the proposed improvements. This feasibility study recommended a
five lane curb and gutter section, 19.5 meters (64 feet) from face to face of curbs (See
Appendix A, Figure 3). The study also recommended the existing structure over the
Little Rockfish Creek be replaced with a new structure having a clear deck width
equivalent to the width of the new roadway.
2
This project is included in the 2000-2006 Draft Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition and construction scheduled to begin in
FFY 2000.
A Citizens' Informational Workshop was held in Fayetteville by NCDOT
Representatives to present the proposed project to the public and to obtain comments
and/or suggestions about the anticipated improvements. The workshop was held on
March 20, 1997 at the Elizabeth Cashwell Elementary School. Approximately 28 people
attended this meeting to express their interest in the improvements.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Facility
Project Terminals
The southern project terminus is located at Cameron Road (SR 1131) The
existing cross section is a two lane roadway with a pavement width of 7.2 meters
(24 feet) and soil shoulders with varying widths of 1.5 to 2.4 meters (5 to 8 feet).
This cross section is consistent throughout the project. Cameron Road is a two
lane facility with pavement widths of 7.2 meters (24 feet) and grass shoulders of
varying width.
The northern project terminus is at the intersection of Legion Road
(SR 1132) and Owen Drive (SR 1007). At this location Owen Drive (SR 1007) is
a seven lane curb and gutter facility. The existing cross section provides three
travel lanes in each direction and a left center turn lane.
2. Route Classification
Legion Road is designated as an Urban Minor Arterial on the North
Carolina Statewide Functional Classification System and a Major Thoroughfare
on the Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
3. Roadway Cross Section
Legion Road is predominantly a two lane, 7.2 m (24 ftJ facility with
variable width soil shoulders except at the intersection of Owen Drive. At this
location Owen Drive is a seven lane curb and gutter facility.
4. Right-of-Way and Access Control
Existing right-of-way along Legion Road is 30 meters (100 feet).
No control of access exist along the project corridor.
3
5. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal alignment within the project area is good. The vertical
alignment of the subject section of Legion Road is level. There are no steep
grades existing along this project. The maximum grade on existing Legion Road
is 1.8 %.
6. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along Legion Road is 72 km/h (45 mph) except in
school zones where the limit decreases to 56 km/h (35 mph).
7. Intersection and Type of Control
Several residential streets and driveways intersect Legion Road along the
subject section. All roads intersecting the project are at grade. Signals exist at the
following intersections: Owen Drive, West Mountain Drive, Black and
Decker/Mid Pine Road, Elk Road, and Lakeview Road.
8. Railroad Crossing
There are no railroads that will be impacted by the proposed project.
9. Bridizes and Culverts
The existing roadway crosses one major stream. Currently Bridge No.
210 exist over Little Rockfish Creek. This bridge was built in 1961. The bridge
is comprised of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams supported by
reinforced concrete caps on steel H-piles with spill through approaches. The
bridge is 41.1m (135 ft.) in length and comprised of three 13.7 m (45 ft) spans.
Bridge No. 210 has a sufficiency rating of 49.2% and an estimated remaining life
of 10 years. The bridge is on a long horizontal tangent, and is located
approximately 90 m (300 ft.) north of the Cameron Road/Legion Road
Intersection. This bridge is to be replaced.
10. Utilities
Utility conflicts along this project are considered to be,high in severity.
The following utilities are located within the project corridor: water, sewer, gas,
telephone, and cable TV.
11. Sidewalks
Presently no sidewalks exist along the project corridor. However, the city
has requested sidewalks be added along one side of the proposed facility.
4
12. Bicycles
The subject section of Legion Road is not a designated bicycle route.
There are no exclusive bicycle lanes or trails along the existing roadway.
13. School Bus Data
Currently, there are 150-200 school bus trips along Legion Road within
the project area daily.
B. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Legion Road (SR 1132) has been a major artery in the Cumberland County area.
With continuing residential and commercial development along the project corridor,
Legion Road will continue to be a major traffic route for the foreseeable future.
Therefore, as traffic continues to increase with Fayetteville's growth rate, the need for the
project becomes even more critical.
The projected 1997 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes range from a low of
3900 vehicles per day (vpd) north of Cameron Road (SR 1131) to 13,000 vpd just south
of Owen Drive (SR 1007) (See Appendix A, Figure 4a). These volumes are expected to
increase to 8,600 vpd and 21,000 vpd respectively by the year 2020 (See Appendix A,
Figure 4b).
At the present time, signalized intersections along Legion Road are operating at
level of services (LOS) B through F during peak periods. The capacity of an arterial is
generally controlled by the capacity of its signalized intersections and described by levels
of service (LOS) which range from A through F. Level of service A, the highest level of
service, is characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles do not stop at all.
Typically, drivers are unrestricted and turns are freely made. In level of service B, traffic
operation is stable but more vehicles are stopping and causing higher levels of delay.
Level of service C is characterized by stable operation with drivers occasionally having
to wait through more than one red indication. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted in
these circumstances. Level of service D is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay
and the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles
may be substantial during short periods of the peak hour. Level of service E represents
over saturated or jammed conditions, which are considered unacceptable to most drivers.
In the design year the level of service at all intersections are expected to approach LOS
"F" without the expected improvements. LOS F is considered to be the point where
traffic is still and too overly saturated for vehicles to progress. This is unacceptable by
all motorists. Legion Road operates at level of service D with current traffic. Upgrading
the facility will improve carrying capacity and improve the level of service.
5
C. Other Highway Projects in Area
There are four other highway projects in the vicinity of Legion Road. Two of
these projects cross the proposed project (See Figure 1B). TIP Project U-3312 crosses
the subject project and proposes to widen Black and Decker Road to a five-lane curb and
gutter section. Project U-620 is the Hope Mills Bypass. TIP project U-2810 is the
widening of Camden Road from NC 59 to Owen Drive from I-95 Business to NC 87 is
also included in the TIP as project number U-2912 which extends on new location to
intersecting Legion Road (SR 1132) at Elk Road.
III. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
A. Length of Project
The total proposed length is approximately 6.9 km (4.3 mi).
B. Design Speed
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing alignment, or a
minimum of 50 mph. Design speed is a correlation of the physical features of a highway
which influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired
along a highway. Design speed is not to be interpreted as the recommended or posted
speed.
C. Cross Section
The recommended cross section for Legion Road is a five lane curb and gutter
facility with a 3.6 meter (12-foot) wide center left turn lane. This cross section will
provide for two 3.3 meter (11-foot) wide inside lanes and two 3.9 meter (13-foot) wide
outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic (See Appendix A, Figure 3).
D. Right-of-Wax
The existing right-of-way width along Legion Road is 30 meters (100 feet). Since
the project is a linear widening of an existing facility, this project is anticipated to be
constructed within the existing right-of-way. Temporary or Permanent Construction
Easements may be required at some locations to contain construction; There will little
impact on the business community. Silva's Garbage Service and Greene Realty
Company will be displaced. The total number of months estimated to complete
construction is 12 months. A total of six residences and two businesses will be relocated
due to the construction of the project (See Appendix for relocation report).
E. Access Control
No control of access is proposed along the project.
6
F. Speed Zones
The existing speed limit along majority of Legion Road (SR 1132) is 72 km/h
(45 mph) except in school zones where speeds have been reduced to 56 km/h (35 mph).
The speed limit is expected to remain the same on the new facility after completion of the
project.
G. Bicycles
The subject section of Legion Road is not a designated bicycle route. The City of
Fayetteville has requested wider outside lanes with additional width to accommodate for
bicycle traffic.
H. Landscape Planting
In accordance with the NCDOT Highway Landscape Planting Policy, funding for
landscaping is included in the construction cost estimate for this project; no special
landscaping is proposed as part of this project.
I. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections on the proposed project are at grade. At present traffic signals
are located at Owen Drive, West Mountain Drive, Black and Decker/Mid Pine Road, Elk
Road, Lakeview Road. Cameron Road is unsignalized and is recommended that it
remained unsignalized. All intersections will need to be upgraded in conjunction with the
proposed project. These intersections are discussed further below.
The Legion Road/Owen Drive intersection is currently signalized. Dual left turn
lanes are recommended onto Owen Drive due to the projected volume of this movement.
The intersection is expected to perform at a "D" LOS in the design year 2020 with the
proposed improvements. The Area Traffic Engineering Staff has expressed concerns
with access into the Post Office from Legion Road. Therefore, it is recommended that a
monolithic island be provided on the northbound Legion Road approach in order to
restrict the primary post office driveway to right in/right out movements only. In
addition a monolithic island is recommended on the remaining three approaches of this
intersection.
Currently, Legion Road/West Mountain Drive/unknown street form a five leg
intersection at this location with four legs signalized. We recommend that the unknown
street (unpaved) be relocated out of the intersection in order to improve traffic safety and
operations. At the West Mountain Drive and Legion Road signalized intersection, an
exclusive left turn lane is recommended on both approaches of West Mountain Drive.
The intersection is expected to perform at a "B" LOS.
Legion Road/Black & Decker Road/Mid Pine Road intersection is currently
signalized. Black & Decker Road/Mid Pine Road will be widened to a multi-lane curb
and gutter facility under TIP U-3312. An exclusive right turn lane is recommended on
the eastbound approach of Mid Pine Road due to the number of projected right turns and
heavy through traffic. In addition, with the projected number of left turns northbound on
Legion Road dual left turns are recommended. With these additional improvements, the
intersection is expected to perform at a "C" LOS.
Legion Road/Elk Road is currently a signalized "T" intersection. It should be
noted that the future Hope Mills Bypass (TIP U-620) will form a four leg intersection at
this location. Due to the heavy volume of projected left turns, dual left turn lanes are
recommended eastbound on the future Hope Mills Bypass. It would also be desirable to
have a southbound exclusive right turn lane due to the heavy volume of right turn
motorists. With these additional improvements this intersection is expected to perform at
a "C" LOS.
Lakeview Road is a city maintained road that forms a signalized "T" intersection
with Legion Road. In the eastbound direction of Lakeview Road, we recommend
providing dual left turn lanes due to the projected volume of left turns. A southbound
exclusive right turn lane on Legion Road is needed to accommodate the large volume of
right turning motorists. It is also recommended that Lakeview Road be realigned in
order to improve the existing poor skew angle. With this geometry, the intersection is
expected to perform at a "B" LOS.
Cameron Road currently forms an unsignalized "T" intersection with Legion
Road. However, concerns exist with the adjacent intersection on Legion Road formed by
the unknown street (approximately 85 feet north of Cameron Road). To alleviate this
situation it is recommended that the road be relocated or restricted to right in/right out
movements only. It is recommended that this intersection (Legion Road/Cameron Road)
remain unsignalized. Also recommendations for an exclusive left turn lane in the
eastbound direction of Cameron Road are provided. Sufficient width should be provided
to allow for dual left turn lanes on Cameron Road approach in the future.
Sidewalks
The Fayetteville MPO has requested a sidewalk be included along one side of the
proposed facility. Terms and cost of constructing sidewalks will be worked out between
the NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville.
K. Bridge/Culvert Work Required
The widening of Legion Road to a five lane curb and gutter facility will require
the replacement of Bridge No. 210 over Little Rockfish Creek. The proposed structure
will be a five lane structure with two 3.3 in (11 ft.) inside lanes in each direction, two
3.9 in (13 ft.) outside lanes, and a 3.6 (12 ft) center lane to be used for storage of left
turning traffic at Cameron Road. The total width of the bridge is 19.2 m (64 ft).
Sidewalks are proposed along one side of the proposed structure. This new structure will
not require any additional right-of-way outside of the 30 in (100 ft) of proposed right of
way. However, temporary construction easements will be required at this location. A
temporary detour will be utilized to accommodate the construction of the new structure
and will be removed upon completion of the new bridge. The detour will follow
Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Elk Road (SR 1363) and back to Legion Road north of the
structure. The cost of this structure is included in the construction cost.
L. Special Permits
It is anticipated that the project will be authorized under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14)) issued by the Corp of Engineers. Final
Permit decisions rest with the discretionary authority of the Corps of Engineers.
A general 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) will be required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
M. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be maintained at all times during project construction. All traffic
control devices used on this project shall conform to the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control (MUTCD).
N. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as part of the subject project.
0. Estimate of Cost
Construction
Right-of-Way
Mitigation
$ 11,100,000*
$ 700,000**
$ 3,000***
Total Cost
$ 11,803,000
* Includes engineering and contingencies
** Includes relocation, acquisition, and utility costs
***0.1 acres impacted @$30,000/acre
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS
A. System Linkage
Legion Road is a major radial linking the City of Fayetteville CBD, the rapidly
growing Town of Hope Mills, and the high growth areas between these municipalities.
The major loop facilities of Black & Decker Road, proposed Hope Mills Bypass, and
Hope Mills Road (NC 59) complete the radial-loop design to serve suburban travel in the
area.
9
B. Thoroughfare Planning
Legion Road is a vital part of the Fayetteville Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan.
NCDOT and the area municipalities mutually adopted this plan in 1991 (with subsequent
revisions through 1998). This thoroughfare plan represents the highway portion of a
financially constrained, multi-modal Transportation Plan adopted by the Fayetteville
Urbanized Area MPO in 1995.
C. Economic Development
Growth in population and increased development in the Hope Mills and
Fayetteville area are anticipated to continue. Increased development in an area creates an
increased transportation demand. The proposed project will aid in the economic
development of the area by improving the accessibility between Hope Mills and
Fayetteville. This will reduce transportation costs by decreasing travel times in the area.
D. Benefits to the State, Region and Community
Benefits of the proposed project to the State, region, and community will be
primarily economic in nature. The increased capacity of Legion Road should improve
the efficiency of the roadway. This increased efficiency should result in reduced fuel
consumption and travel time for the roadway user.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Five Lane Curb and Gutter Section (Recommended)
The recommended alignment consists of widening Legion Road to a five lane,
19.2 meters (64 feet) face to face curb and gutter facility from Cameron Road (SR 1131)
to Owen Drive (SR 1007). The proposed cross section provides for two travel lanes in
each direction with a 3.6 meter (12 foot) center left turn lane. Lane widths will be striped
for two inside lanes of 3.3 meters (11 feet) and two outside lanes of 3.9 meters (13 feet).
The wide outside lanes are proposed to accommodate bicycle traffic. This project will
also include the replacement of an existing bridge over Little Rockfish Creek. The cross
section of the bridge will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes in each direction with a
total width of 19.2 m (64 ft.).
B. No-Build Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative was considered during the development of this
project. Because there are both advantages and disadvantages associated with almost any
widening project, it is important to consider the option of not constructing the project.
Although the "do nothing" alternative effectively avoids some of the potential adverse
human and natural environmental impacts, failure to improve the road will lead to
10
hazardous conditions as early as the year 2000. For this reason, the "do nothing"
alternative is not recommended.
C. Public Transportation
Currently, transit service is limited to within the Fayetteville City limits. The
transit element of the area Transportation Plan provides extended bus service to the Hope
Mills area in the near future. While this service will provide an alternate mode choice
along this corridor, it is not anticipated to significantly reduce the projected vehicular
traffic on Legion Road.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located within the jurisdictions of both Cumberland
County and the City of Fayetteville. A joint City-County Planning Commission is
responsible for long-range planning and land use controls for both jurisdictions. In 1996
Cumberland County adopted the "2010 Land Use Plan". This Plan document serves as a
type of comprehensive plan for the entire county. Based on the general goals and
objectives outlined in this Plan, the County is preparing specific small area plans. Small
area plans for the project area have not been initiated.
B. Existing Land Use
From Cameron Road north to Elk Road, land uses are primarily single family
subdivisions along with schools and churches. Land uses between Elk and Ireland Drive
are a mix of small businesses, churches, and private institutions. North of Ireland Drive,
Legion Road returns to a predominantly residential area, again with some churches and
schools. From Myrtle Drive to Black and Decker Road are several small businesses.
Past this intersection development becomes somewhat separated by large undeveloped
parcels. The commercial strip along Legion Road includes storage, restaurants and
service stations, but it also includes the J.P. Riddle Stadium, a school, and a residential
subdivision off of Legion Park Avenue.
C. Future Land Use
The Cumberland County "2010 Land Use Plan" shows the project area south of
Elk Road as low density residential. North of Elk Road, Legion Road is shown as a mix
of low and medium density residential, heavy commercial and industrial uses.
D. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
The project is consistent with the "2010 Land Use Plan."
II
E. 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 which is planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the same level of
preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
No lands within the project area are used for agricultural purposes. Further, all
lands are planned and zoned for urban uses. Farmland mitigation or avoidance is not
necessary.
VII. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Social Effects
Neighborhood Characteristics
Cumberland County is located in southern central North Carolina where
the coastal plains meet the piedmont in a region knows as the "sandhills." The
county is part of the Region M Council of Governments and is surrounded by
Harnett, Sampson, Bladen, Robeson and Hoke counties. The city of Fayetteville
is the center of the metropolitan area, which is the fourth largest area in North
Carolina. This status is in large part due to the presence of Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base. Cumberland County, according to the 1990 Census Report has a
total population of 274,566.
2. Economic Factors
According to the Employment Security Commission the county's
unemployment rate as of April 1998 was 3.5 %. This rate is slightly higher than
the state's 3.4% unemployment rate.
Within the project area itself the project presents few opportunities for
economic development. Some intensification of commercial activities may occur
in response to improved access and mobility. Reduction of traffic congestion
within downtown Hope Mills may improve the economic development potential
for that area, and the project roadway is a gateway to Fayetteville.
12
3. Public Facilities
Hope Mills Middle School near the project's southern terminus at
Cameron Road. Southview High School and Southview Middle Schools are
located on Elk Road east of its intersection with Legion. While the facilities
themselves do not directly impact the project road, their presence does make
Legion Road an important school bus route. Baldwin Elementary is located
directly on Legion, below Southview High and Middle Schools. The school has
one entrance off of Legion in addition to sharing an access road with the adjacent
neighborhood to its south. A small day care and Christian school is located at the
intersection of Legion and Buie Avenue (SR 2950), with one entrance on each
road. Elizabeth Cashwell Elementary is located directly on Legion, between
SR 1344 and the stadium. The school has two entrances off of Legion.
Directly abutting Legion are Hope Mills United Methodist Church (north
of Cameron Road), Highland Baptist Church (across from Baldwin Elementary),
Gospel Baptist (near Pioneer Road), the Church of God Prophecy (Several
Buildings between Countrytown Drive and Myrtle), and Faith Wesleyan (north of
Cashwell Elementary). The Southview Church of God owns a site on the west
side of Legion proposed for development as a church.
An American Legion lodge is across from Heidleburg Drive. The J.P.
Riddle stadium (minor league baseball) is located between SR 1344 and Legion
Park Avenue (SR 3315). The stadium has two entrances onto Legion serving
several hundred parking spaces.
4. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
"One of the unfortunate, but unavoidable, consequences of a modern
highway program .... is the necessary displacement of a comparatively small
percentage of the population for the greater good of the whole". The
recommended alternative displaces 6 residences and 2 businesses. Adequate
replacement housing is anticipated to be available for all relocatees at the time the
residents and businesses must relocate. The Division of Highways offers a
Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the effects of displacement on
families. The occupants of the affected residences may qualify for aid under one
or more of the NCDOT relocation programs.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally assisted
projects. Futhermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the
following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
Relocation Assistance
Relocation Moving Programs
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
13
The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staff to
assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Programs provides for payment of
actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a
favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation
Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up
to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who
are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform. Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed
to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in
which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time prior to
displacement for negotiations and possession of replacement housing that meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day
written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced
persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property
will be within financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and will
be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer
will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of
replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public,
or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The
relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal
programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory
services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in
adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under
the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable
14
incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees,
surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to
owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments,
and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total),
except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including
incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down
payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee
within a reasonable period of time before displacement. No relocation payment
received will be considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of
eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other
federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial
means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation.
The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of
implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing
can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary.
5. Social Impacts
The Widening of Legion Road (SR 1132), from Cameron Road (SR 1131)
to Owen Drive (SR 1007) in Cumberland County will produce positive impacts.
The proposed widening improvements will enhance the safety factors throughout
the length of the project. Visibility will be improved and increased accessibility
to commercial, residential, recreational, and institutional establishments within
the project area will be better. Impediments caused by traffic congestion will be
eradicated; thereby saving time and energy and increasing the efficiency of
motorists.
6. 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
15
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 population 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.
Analysis of the Environmental Justice Analysis map indicates that the
areas where relocations are proposed are not within census tracts containing high
proportions of non-white residents. However, these areas are very close to such a
tract. In addition, the incompatibilities of heavy commercial with residential uses
indicate that the neighborhood may house low income persons.
It appears quite probable that the project will impact persons who are
minorities and/or low income. The project is a symmetrical widening of an
existing road. Overall, the impacts of this project are not substantial and all
impacts are distributed equitably along the length of the project area. Therefore,
this analysis indicates that impacts are neither high nor adverse, nor are they
disproportionate. This assessment has not found any evidence or indication of
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability.
This assessment has not found any evidence that this project will result in
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income
populations.
Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) is any impacts to publicly owned parks, recreation areas,
wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site. There are no takings
of any Section 4(f) property proposed by this project and Section 4(f) is not
applicable.
B. Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section requires that if a federally-funded, licensed,
or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
16
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Based on 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 (See Appendix B). It is,
therefore, recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
concurs with this recommendation (See letter Appendix B)
2. Architectural Resources
As part of the process for identifying significant historic architectural
resources located in the APE, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was
consulted. In a letter dated July 18, 1997 it stated that there were no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. Therefore,
no historical architectural surveys were conducted (See Appendix B).
C. Air.Ouality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air quality. The traffic is the center of concern when determining
the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC),
particulate matter sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration 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) of the receptors location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources 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 the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). 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).
17
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,
which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less that 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 project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
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 gasoline. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately
0.53 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average has dropped to 0.003 grams 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 are 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 form 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,
18
vehicle emissions factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic
volumes are based on the average daily traffic projections for the year. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for years 2000 and 2020, using EPA publication
" Mobile Source Emission Factors", and the MOBILESA mobile source emissions
computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environmental,
Health and Natural Resources 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 along the limits
of the right-of-way 15.25 meters from the centerline of the roadway. The predicted
1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build year of 2000 and 2020 are
2.7 and 2.9 ppm, respectively. In the evaluation of the no-build scenario, the predicted
average 1-hour CO concentrations are 2.7 ppm and 4.0 ppm for the year 2000 and 2020,
respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less that 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al through A4 for input data and output (Appendix C).
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 form 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 dwelling 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.
19
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
Legion Road (SR 1132) form Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007), in
Cumberland County on noise levels in the immediate project area (See Appendix C,
Figure N1). 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 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 form the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
1. 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 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 the most 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 Table N1 (Appendix Q.
Review of Table N 1 (Appendix C) 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.
20
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some
individuals more than others and some individual's judgement of whether or not a
noise is offensive. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are
usually 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.
The third factor is related to 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 that 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.
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives
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
Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound
which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
3. 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 levels in the project area as measured at
15 meters from Legion Road (SR 1132) ranged form 60.2 to 64.9 dBA. The
21
ambient measurement locations and measured exterior Leq noise levels are
presented in Figure N1 and Table N3, respectively (Appendix Q.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current noise prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for
comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise
levels averaged approximately 1 dBA higher than the measured noise levels for
the locations where noise measurements were obtained. Hence, the computer
model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA
levels 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.
4. 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 is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposed to widen Legion
Road (SR 1132) to a five-lane curb and gutter section from Owen Drive
(SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131). The roadway will be 19.5 m (64 ft) from
face to face of the curb. This will provide for a 3.6 in (12 ft.) wide center left turn
lane, two 3.3 m (11 ft) wide inside lanes, and two 3.9 m (13 ft) wide outside lanes.
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 design year 2020. Land use is a
22
considered impact 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
Table N4 (Appendix Q. Information included in these tables consists of listings
of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise
levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
5. Traffic Noise Imaacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach"
meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the
existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in
the lower portion of Table N2 (Appendix Q. Consideration of 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 CE's, FONSI's, ROD'S, 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 predicted to
become impacted by future noise is shown in Table N5 (Appendix Q. These are
noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior
noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, there are 122 impacted residential
receptors and 2 impacted business receptors due to highway traffic noise in the
project area. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise levels contours are
15.6 and 31.7 meters, 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 indicates the exterior noise level increases for the identified
receptors for each alternative by roadway section (Appendix Q. Twenty-seven
receptors are predicted to be impacted by a substantial increase in exterior noise
levels. The predicted noise level increases for this project range from +5 to +10
23
dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the
sound.
6. 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. There are 124 impacted receptors due to highway
traffic noise in the project area.
a. 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.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures that limit vehicle type, speed, volume and
time of operation 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.
C. 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
24
be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor
located 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters
long. An access opening of 12 meters (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).
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.
7. Do Nothing Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternatives
were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 39 residential
receptors would experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the
FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing and increase in
exterior noise levels in the range of +1 to +7 dBA. As previously noted, it is
barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5dBA change in
noise levels is more readily noticed.
8. 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.
25
E. Natural Resources
Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of
the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described
and discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an
asterisk (*). Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to
the same organism will include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley
1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better
reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms,
as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Rhode et al. 1994; Potter et al. 1980).
Recreational fishing potential was obtained from Fish (1968).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identified in the project study
area: disturbed community, mixed pine-hardwood forest, and alluvial
floodplain. Much of the wildlife in the project study area likely use
various communities for forage, cover, and nesting habitat. Many species
are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings. In
addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, such
that both are required for survival and reproduction.
Disturbed Communities
This community encompasses several types of habitats that have
recently been or are currently impacted by human disturbance: maintained
yard, regularly maintained roadside shoulder, irregularly maintained
roadside shoulder, and powerline corridor.
26
Maintained yards are primarily restricted to housing and business
sites located in the project study area. Dominant species located in the
herbaceous layer include prickly pear cactus (Opuntia drumondii), fescue
(Festuca spp.), crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) and Bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon). Trees observed in this community include red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), dogwood (Corpus
florida), privet (Ligustrum sinense), red mulberry (Morus rubra), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), China berry (Melia azadarach, and laurel oak (Quercus
laurifolia).
Regularly maintained roadside shoulders are land parcels in which
the vegetation is kept in a low-growing, early successional state. These
areas appear to be regularly mowed and may receive frequent herbicide
application. This habitat includes the majority of land along Legion Road
(SR 1132). Species observed here include Richardia brasiliensis,
crabgrass, Bermuda grass, violet (Viola sp.), Carolina geranium
(Geranium carolinianum), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
and pennywort (Hydrocotyle sp.).
Irregularly maintained roadside shoulder and power line corridor
receive less frequent mowing and/or herbicide application. These xeric
areas are scattered along Legion Road. Sapling-sized trees observed here
include sassafras (Sassafras albidium), laurel oak, persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), and turkey oak (Quercus laevis). Species observed in the
herbaceous and vine layer include broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus),
rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium obtusifolium), bear grass (Yucca
filamentosa), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), evening primrose
(Oenothera biennis), prickly pear cactus, poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), ragweed (Ambrosia artemissifolia), bracken fern (Pteridium
aquilinum), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), dog fennel
(Eupatorim capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), horseweed (Erigeron
spp.), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), gerardia (Agalinus purpurea),
silver-leaved grass (Heterotheca graminifolia) and wooly golden aster
(H. gossypina).
A powerline corridor located within the ROW on the northern side
of Bridge No. 210 over Little Rockfish Creek exhibits a different plant
assemblage likely attributed to a different maintenance (i.e. mowing)
schedule. Sapling-sized hardwood species dominate here, and include
winged elm (Ulmus alata), American elm (U. americana), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), laurel oak, turkey
oak, dogwood, hackberry (Celtis laevigata), sassafras, privet, pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia), Devil's walking stick (Aralia spinosa), American
beauty berry (Callicarpa americana), and high bush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum). Vines and herbs observed here include yellow jessamine,
bamboo vine (Smilax laurifolia), grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese
27
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), broomsedge, goldenrod, St. John's wort (Hypericum sp.), and
panic grass (Panicum spp.)
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
This community is restricted in the project study area to an area
adjacent to Bridge No. 210 over Little Rockfish Creek. This community is
prevalent along sections of Legion Road, but based on project ROW
limits, these areas along Legion Road will not be impacted by project
construction.
The canopy is dominated by longleaf pine (Pine palustris) as well
as several species of hardwoods including post oak (Quercus stellata),
water oak (Q. nigra), turkey oak, willow oak, red maple (Acer rubrum),
and sweetgum. Hardwoods and shrubs located in the subcanopy include
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), American
elm, Virginia magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), high bush blueberry,
pepperbush, sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), American beauty bush
and azalea (Rhododendron sp.). Vines observed here include bamboo
vines, Japanese honeysuckle, and poison ivy.
Alluvial Floodplain
This community is located along the northwest quadrant of Bridge
No. 210 over Little Rockfish Creek. Both wetland and upland habitats are
present in this community. Species observed here include privet, giant
cane, American elm, loblolly pine, sweet pepperbush, horse sugar,
Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), water oak, and tag alder
(Alnus serrulata).
b. Faunal Component
The raccoon* (Procyon lotor) is a carnivore often observed along
wetland habitats to moist upland forests as well as urban areas. Whit-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are occasionally observed along
broken areas of mixed young forests and cutovers. These two ubiquitous
species are often observed as roadkill on adjacent roadways. Striped bark
was observed on several hardwoods adjacent to Little Rockfish Creek.
This is indicative of beaver* (Castor canadensis) activity; however, there
was no sign of a beaver dam on Little Rockfish Creek.
The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)
frequent disturbed or open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation
2s
which provide foraging and nesting habitat. Eastern cottontails
(Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer brushy edges where they primarily feed on
woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), gray squirrel* (Sciurus
carolinensis), and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Shrews
and smaller mice prefer forests with a thick layer of leaf litter.
Easter fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and five-lined skink
(eumeces fasciatus) inhabit open habitats with plenty of sunlight. The
slimy salamander (Plethodon glutininosus) inhabits woodlands were they
are known to forage at night and spend day in burrows under logs, stones,
and leaf litter. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) inhabits woodland where
it may be observed under forest litter or brushy undergrowth. Eastern box
turtles (Terrapene carolina) are commonly observed throughout forested
habitats where they feed on plants and small animals.
Mourning doves* (Zenaida macroura) and house finch*
(Carpodacus mexicanus) were observed on power lines along Legion
Road. Yellow-bellied sapsucker* (Sphyrapicus varius) and cardinal*
(Cardinalis cardinalis) were observed in a longleaf pine-turkey oak ridge
and a rufous-sided towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) was noted in a
thicket adjacent to a power line easement. These communities are not
located within the proposed ROW, but these avian species likely utilize
portions of the project study area. A mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos)
was observed in the mixed pine-hardwood forest.
C. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream, is
located in the project study area. Physical characteristics of the surface
water and condition of the water influence the faunal composition of the
aquatic communities.
d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
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 the ecosytstems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community (Table 2). Project construction will result
29
in the clearing and degradation of portions of these communities.
Estimated impacts are derived using the proposed ROW width and
temporary easements outlined in Section 1.1. Project construction does
not usually require the entire impact width; therefore, actual impacts may
be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community Biotic Community Impacts
Disturbed 13.8 ha (34.1 ac)
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest 0.1 ha (0.2 ac)
Alluvial Fooodplain <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac)
TOTAL 13.9 ha (34.3 ac)
Direct effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value
should not be significant. The project study area is currently in a highly
altered state and plants and animals here are well adapted to disturbed
conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in the disturbed community are
common throughout North Carolina because of their ability to persist in
disturbed habitats. Moreover, similar additional disturbed habitats will be
re-established after project construction. Post-project conditions should be
very similar to current conditions. Species adapted to disturbed and edge
habitat will continue to thrive. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to
terrestrial animals (moles, shrews, snakes, etc.) from construction
machinery used during clearing activities.
A small portion of the project area is relatively undisturbed. The
mixed pine-hardwood forest and alluvial floodplain adjacent to Little
Rockfish Creek likely serve as natural corridors for animal migration, as
well as refuges for animals forced from other disturbed habitats. The
proposed structure over Little Rockfish Creek will continue to bridge the
surface waters. Therefore, impacts to animals utilizing this community
will be minimal.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in
the project area as well as those downstream. Increased sedimentation the
siltation is often directly attributable to construction activities. The
suspended particles will clog the feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified
throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in
higher trophic levels. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls will be
maintained during the entire life of the project.
The construction of this project will likely increase vehicular use in
the project vicinity. This would lead to the introduction of toxic
compounds that may be carried into water resources via precipitation,
30
sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Wildlife crossing will become
difficult and will result in an increase in roadkills.
2. Physical Characteristics
Soil and water resources that occur in the project study area are discussed
below. Soil types and availability of water directly influence and distribution of
flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area is located in Coastal Plains Physiographic Province.
This area of Cumberland County is characterized as gently sloping with more
pronounced sloping near streams. The project study area is located approximately
23 to 70 in (75 to 230 ft) above mean. sea level.
a. Soils
The project study area is located within the Lakeland-Candor-
Blaney Association. This association contains nearly level to strongly
sloping, excessively drained to well drained soils which are sandy
throughout or have a loamy subsoil that may be brittle.
The dominant soil series throughout the project study area is
Lakeland-Urban land complex. This map unit consists of areas of
Lakeland soil and areas of urban land too small and intermingled to be
mapped separately. Permeability is very rapid and available water
capacity is low in Lakeland soils. Urban land consists of areas where the
original soil has been covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other
impervious surfaces. Pactolus loamy sand is located along Rockfish
Creek. This nearly level, moderately well drained to somewhat poorly
drained soil is located on terraces of small streams. Permeability is rapid
and available water capacity is low. Table 1 provides an inventory of
specific soil types that occur in the project study area.
Table 1. Soils located in project study area.
Map Hydric
Soil Series and Phase Symbol Classific.
Lakeland-Urban land complex, 1-86/o LbB Non-hydric
slopes
Blaney loamy sand, 2-8% slopes BaB Non-hydric
Pactolus loamy sand Pa Non-hydric
Vaucluse loamy sand, 8-15% slopes VaD Non-hydric
Urbanland Ur Non-hydric
31
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources
likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information
encompasses the resources' relationship to major water systems, its
physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and water quality of the
resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as
are means to minimize impacts.
Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the
Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. Little Rockfish Creek is located within
the project study area (Figure 2). Little Rockfish Creek originates along
the Cumberland-Hoke County Line and flows southward to Lake
Williams. At this point, the creek flows southeast to Hope Mills Lake.
Little Rockfish Creek then continues at the dam located on the southern tip
of Hope Mill Creek approximately 0.7 km (0.5 mi) west of the project
study area. The creek continues to flow to the east and southeast
approximately 12 km (8 mi) to its confluence with the Cape Fear River.
Little Rockfish Creek at the project study area is a perennial
stream. At the project study area, this stream is approximately 3.7 m
(12.0 ft) wide and 0.9 m (3.0 ft) deep. Substrate is comprised of sand,
gravel, and cobble. A pile of asphalt riprap is located within Little
Rockfish Creek under Bridge No. 210. The south bank of Little Rockfish
Creek is highly eroded.
Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (1997) has assigned streams.
According to the DWQ, the best usage classification of Little Rockfish
Creek (DWQ Index No. 18-31-24-(7)) is C. Class C waters are suitable
for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary,
recreation, and agriculture. No water resources classified as High Quality
Waters (HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding
Resources Waters (ORW's) are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project study area.
Water Ouality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrated Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality.
The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinverte-
32
brates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of
water quality. BMAN monitoring site #147 is located on SR 1131 over
Little Rockfish Creek. This sampling site is located approximately 2.7 km
(1.7 mi) downstream of the project study area. The site received a good-
fair rating in June 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.
Dixie Yarns, Inc./Hope Mills Plant (Permit No. NCG500155) discharges
into Little Rockfish Creek approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream of the
project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. The project
vicinity is currently experiencing rapid development and subsequent land
clearing, specifically along Legion Road in the vicinity of Little Rockfish
Creek. Land clearing activities may be a source of water quality
degradation to Little Rockfish Creek in the project study area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water
resources. The only water resource located within the project study area is
Little Rockfish Creek, located adjacent to the southern project terminus.
Land clearing and grubbing activities in this area will directly result in soil
erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity in nearby streams.
These effects may extend downstream for considerable distance with
decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on
water quality. The vegetation typically shades the water's surface from
sunlight, thus moderating water temperature. Streambank vegetation also
stabilizes streambanks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil
particles.
Locally, the construction of this project will increase the amount of
impervious area in the project study area and ultimately vehicular use in
the vicinity of the project study area. This will directly lead to an increase
in concentrations of toxic compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) which
may be carried into nearby water resources via precipitation, sheet flow,
and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic materials can
adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its
biological and chemical functions.
33
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire
impact area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the
Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life
of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with DWQ, has developed a
sedimentation control program for highway projects, which adopts formal
BMPs for the protection of surface waters.
Species of anadromous fish may utilize streams in the project study
area. Construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be adhered to for this
project. These guidelines are applicable for all projects crossing perennial
or intermittent tributaries (delineated on a USGS topographic map) located
below the fall line. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance
to NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing and new highway stream
crossing structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish.
Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis
pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the United States and Protected and
Rare Species.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States", 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. Surface waters are waters used in interstate or
foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides, all
interstate waters including interstate wetlands, and all other waters such as
intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes to place fill
material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Little Rockfish Creek is considered jurisdictional surface water
(Figure 1). This tributary is thoroughly described in Section 2.2.1. The
wetland area located within the alluvial floodplain is dominated by privet,
giant cane, sweet pepperbush, Atlantic white cedar, and tag alder. The
sandy loam soil at this site exhibited a soil color of l OYR 6/2 with l OYR
34
6/5 mottles. Observations of wetland hydrology include saturation within
30 cm (12 in) of the surface.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will cross surface waters
and jurisdictional wetlands. Bridge No. 210 is proposed to cross Little
Rockfish Creek. Approximately 30 linear m (100 linear ft) of Little
Rockfish Creek is located within the project study area. Approximately
<0.1 ha (<O.1 ac) of jurisdictional wetland is located within the proposed
ROW and easements. Actual impacts to the wetland community may be
less than reported because the entire ROW width and easements are often
not impacted by construction projects. The amount of wetland impacts
may be modified by any changes in roadway design.
Two systems are currently being used in North Carolina to
describe or rate wetlands: a classification system developed by Cowardin
et al. (1979) and a numerical rating system developed by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM, 1995).
The Cowardin system provides a uniform approach in describing
concepts and terms used in classifying wetland systems. The DEM rating
scale gauges wetland quality using a numerical rating system (0-100 with
1.00 being the highest value) that emphasizes water storage, bank/shoreline
stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life values, and
recreation/education potential. The DEM rating may be revised when a
wetland delineation is conducted at the project study area. The wetland
has a DEM rating of 49 and a Cowardin Classificaion of Palustrine,
Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded (PFO1 Q.
Construction impacts can severely affect the functions that
wetlands perform in an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water
flow regimes by intercepting and storing storm water runoff which
ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in surrounding and downstream
areas. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic and inorganic
nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows through them. The
presence of wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff
pollutants and toxins.
Permits
Impacts to wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a
permit will be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." Due to wetland impacts, a
35
Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit will likely be necessary for this project.
Final decisions concerning applicable permits rest with the COE.
Nationwide 14 Permit
A section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) may be
applicable for this project. This permit authorizes construction provided
the following conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for
the actual crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Waters of the United States is limited to a
filled area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.33 ac);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill for
the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including
wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high
flows and tidal flows and movement of aquatic organisms,
and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary
and permanent, is part of a single and complete project for
crossing of a Water of the United States.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from
the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of
the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ
is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of 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 maintain and restore 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
36
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 and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measure 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.
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. Impacts to the wetland could be
minimized by:
Decreasing the footprints of the proposed project through the
reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary
ground cover during construction.
Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for
the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to
water bodies and wetlands.
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. Compen-
satory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States. Decisions involving final mitigation comes
from the Corp of Engineers.
37
b. Protected and Rare 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 [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any
action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected,
be subject to review by the FWS. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section
9 of the ESA. As of January 15, 1999, there are eight federally-
protected species listed for Cumberland County (Table 3). A brief
description of each Endangered or Threatened species
characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally protected species for Cumberland County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
American alligator Alligatot• mississippiensis T(S/A)
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
St. Francis satyr Neonympha mitchellii Endangered
francisci
small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeloides Threatened
pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered
rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
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.
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance=a taxon that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. This
includes the American alligator.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac)
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaflets are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of
Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
3g
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods as well as areas that are
artificially disturbed including highway and railroad right-of-ways, edges of cultivated
fields, and other cleared land. 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
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present along the irregularly maintained
roadside shoulder, powerline corridor and forest/maintained ecotone. The project study
area was visited by NCDOT Biologist Chris Murray on October 27-28, 1997. A plant-
by-plant survey was conducted during the site visit. No populations of Michaux's sumac
were observed during the site visit. A review of the NHP rare species and unique habitat
database did not reveal the presence of Michaux's sumac within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project area. Impacts to Michaux's sumac will not occur from project construction.
Neonympha mitchellii fi-ancisci (Saint Francis' satyr)
Animal Family: Nymphalidae
Federally Listed: Emergency listed April 18, 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 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
The project area is comprised of disturbed communities, mixed pine-hardwood
forest, and alluvial floodplain. There are no wet meadows located in the project study
area. A review of the NHP rare species and unique habitat database did not reveal the
presence of St. Francis' Satyr within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area. Impacts to this
species will not occur from project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 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, for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
39
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 200.0
ha (500.0 ac). 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 3.6-30.3 in (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 in
(30.0-50.0 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Suitable habitat for the RCW is located within the mixed pine-hardwood forest
adjacent to Little Rockfish Creek. Scattered longleaf pine trees >60 years old are present
in this community. Accordingly, suitable nesting and foraging habitat for RCW is
located in the project study area. Suitable habitat was surveyed by NCDOT Biologist
Christopher A. Murray on 27-28 October 1997. This included walking in suitable habitat
and visually searching for RCW signs (cavity trees, start holes, etc.). A review of the
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal any RCW nesting or
occurrences within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project study area. There were no RCW
cavities or starts observed within the project vicinity. Therefore, construction of this
project will have no impact on the RCW.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry)
Plant Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
Fruits Present: June and July
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub that has a distinct sassafras-like odor.
Leaves in the pondbeny 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 which matures in August or September is a bright red drupe.
Pondberry 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 including seasonally wet, low areas among
bottomland hardwoods. 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
A plant survey was conducted on June 29-30, 1998 by NCDOT biologist to
determine if the species of pondberry were located within the project study area. No
population of pondberry was identified in the project study area. A review of the NHP
rare species and unique habitat database did not reveal the presence of pondberry within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area.
40
Lvsimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife)
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems and whorled
leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers which 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), pine flatwoods, and pocosins. 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
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is not present in the project study
area. The study area is comprised of disturbed communities, mixed hardwood forest, and
alluvial floodplain. A review of the NHP rare species and unique habitat database did not
reveal the presence of rough-leaved loosestrife within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area.
Impacts to this species will not occur from project construction.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed)
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
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 solitary flowers in the axils of the upper
most leaves. The purplish-yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a
long narrow capsule, enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
American chaffseed occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained
savannas, edges of cypress ponds, 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
The project study area is dominated by disturbed areas with a small segment of
xeric mixed pine-hardwood forest and alluvial floodplain located to the south of Bridge
No. 210 adjacent to Little Rockfish Creek. Accordingly, suitable habitat for American
chaffseed is not present in the proposed right-of-way. A review of the NHP rare species
and unique habitat database did not reveal the presence of American chaffseed within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area. Impacts to this species will not occur from project
construction.
41
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent 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
A plant survey was conducted on June 29-30, 1998 to determine if the species
were located in the project study area. No population of small-whorled pogonia were
identified in the project study area. A review of the NHP rare species and unique habitat
database did not reveal any populations of small-whorled pogonia within 1.6 km (1.0 mi)
of the project study area.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may
or may not be listed in the future. Twenty-six FSC are listed for Cumberland County
(Table 4).
42
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern.
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC Yes
southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR Yes
northern pine snake Pituophis melanolezrcus SC Yes
melanoleucus
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T Yes
yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa T Yes
Georgia indigo bush Amoipha georgiana var. T No
georgiana
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii C/PT No
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula C-SC No
resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum T-SC No
white wicky Kalmia cuneata E-SC/PC No
Sandhills bog Lilly Lilium iridollae C/PT No
bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea E No
pondspice Litsea aestivalis C No
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii C No
loose watermilfoil Mvriophvllum laxum T No
savanna cowbane Oxvpolis ternata W1 No
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana E No
wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii W2 No
conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides C No
spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata E No
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pvxidanthera barbulata E No
var. bargulata
awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa T No
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra E No
spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna E/PT No
Pickering's dawnflower Stvlisma pickeringii E No
var. pickeringii
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra C No
roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabri olia C No
Threatened (T) are native or once-native species of wild plant or animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. An Endangered (E) species is any native species or once-
native species of fauna or flora whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. Significantly rare (SR) species are
very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state. Special
Concern (SC) species require monitoring but which may be collected and sold under
regulations adopted under provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act.
Proposed Threatened (PT) are species which have been formally proposed for listing as
Threatened, but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process. Candidate
(C) species are very rare in North Carolina, with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction. Proposed Candidate (PC) are
species which have been formally proposed for listing as Candidate but has not yet
completed the legally mandated listing process. Watch Category 1 (WI) includes rare
species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which appear to be
43
relatively secure at this time. Watch Category 2 (W2) includes species with questionable
taxonomy, including taxa of dubious validity and taxa under study and potentially to be
named.
FSC species 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. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T) or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given to state listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal
the presence of these species or unique habitats in or near the project study area. Surveys
for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were these
species observed during the site visit.
F. Geodetic Markers
The proposed project could impact four geodetic survey markers. The N.C.
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow resetting of
monuments which will be disturbed. Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a
violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cumberland County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The crossing of Little Rockfish Creek is included in a detailed flood
study, having an established 100-year floodplain and floodway, with corresponding
regulated water surface elevations. Attached is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(See Figure 5), on which are delineated the established 100-year floodplain and floodway
in the vicinity of the Little Rockfish Creek crossing. The floodplain in the vicinity of the
Little Rockfish Creek crossing is undeveloped and wooded, and there are no buildings
with floor elevation below the 100-year flood level. The proposed roadway widening and
associated drainage accommodations will not have any significant adverse effect on the
existing floodplain and associated flood hazard. The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate
with Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities in final design to
ensure compliance with local floodplain ordinances.
The project is not located within a water supply watershed nor 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, and
perhaps improved, to the extent practicable. Groundwater resources should be evaluated
in final design to ensure that measures are taken, if necessary, to avoid groundwater
contamination.
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement
Based on the field reconnaissance survey, four (4) operational facilities and three
(3) non-operational facilities with the possibility for UST and/or petroleum contaminated
soil involvement within the proposed corridor alignments.
44
1. Bobby Taylor Oil Company is located in the southeastern quadrant of the
Owen Drive (SR 1007)/Legion Road (SR 1132) intersection and is
operational.
2. Strickland's Store No. 6, owned by Cary Oil Company is located in the
eastern side of Legion Road (SR 1132) approximately 200 feet south of
the West Mountain Road (SR 1154) intersection and is operational.
3. Short Stop #5, owned by Lil' Thrift Food Mart Inc., is located along the
eastern side of Legion Road (SR 1132) approximately 0.8 miles south of
Black & Decker Road (SR 1344) intersection and is operational.
4. Legion Road Citgo is located on the eastern side of Legion Road
(SR 1132) approximately 600 feet north of the Pioneer Drive (SR 3009)
intersection and is operational.
5. B &B Food Mart is located on the eastern side of Legion Road
approximately 500 feet north of the Pioneer Drive (SR 3009) intersection
and is non-operational.
6. Beach Blanket Tanning is located along the eastern side of Legion Road
approximately 400 feet south of Elk Road (SR 1363) intersection and is
non-operational.
7. Brenda's Country Kitchen is located along the eastern side of Legion
Road approximately 500 feet south of the Elk Road intersection and is
non-operational.
I. Construction Imnacts
Environmental impacts normally associated with highway construction are
generally of short term duration. The NCDOT will implement measures to minimize
anticipated construction impacts.
During project construction, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition, and other operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise
disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with applicable
local laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to
insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when the
control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in Article
107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N.C. Division of Highways has also
developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which has been approved by
the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of the rigorous
requirements to minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard
Specificaitons together with the policies of the Division of Highways regarding the
control of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on work performed by State Forces.
45.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way and
provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or
unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste
and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of
the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
NCDOT's general contract for right of way clearing allows the contractor to
market merchantable timber during construction to minimize the need for piling and
burning. This contract also includes specifications to protect trees outside the
construction limits.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
Construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious service
disruptions to utilities serving the area. Prior to construction, a determination will be
made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A
determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this will
be made at that time. In all cases, the contractor is required to notify the owner of the
utility in advance as to when this work will occur. In addition, the contractor is
responsible for any damages to water lines incurred during the construction processes.
This procedure will insure that water lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with
minimal disruption in service to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area maybe subjected to brief disruption during
construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure the transportation needs
of the public are met both during and after construction.
VIII. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Comments
Comments on the proposed improvements to US 401 Bypass were requested from
the following federal, state, and local agencies. An asterisk indicates that a written
response was received (refer to Appendix A for agency comments).
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services-Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
*City of Fayetteville
*Town of Hope Mills
Comment received have been addressed within the document.
46
B. Citizens' Informational Worksho
A Citizens' Informational Workshop was held on March 20, 1997 at Elizabeth
Cashwell Elementary School in Fayetteville to discuss the proposed improvements. The
NCDOT Office of Public Affairs advertised the workshop in the major local media prior
to its being held. Approximately 28 people attended the informational workshop,
including representatives from the NCDOT, the City of Fayetteville, and Cumberland
County Planning Department. In general the subject project is supported by the public.
This was evident by the responses and comments offered at the workshop by citizens.
C._ Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held concerning this project following the circulation of
this document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public
about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional
comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project.
IX. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it is
determined the proposed action will not have significant adverse effects upon the human
or natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Assessment is applicable for this
project.
X. LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Assessment was prepared by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The following personnel
were instrumental in the preparation of this document.
A. North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Engineer responsible for highway planning and environmental impact
analyses.
2. Mr. Richard B. Davis, P.E., Assistant Manager, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Engineer responsible for managing highway planning and environmental
impact analyses.
3. Mrs. Teresa A. Hart, Project Planning Engineer Unit Head, Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Engineer responsible for managing highway planning and environmental
Impact analyses.
47
4. Mr. Mark L. Davis, Project Planning Engineer, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Engineer Responsible for conducting highway planning and
environmental
impact analyses.
Mr. John E. Alford, P.E., Assistant State Roadway Design Engineer,
Roadway Design Branch
Engineer responsible for managing the preliminary highway design
preparation.
6. Mr. Ronald D. Allen, P.E., Project Engineer, Roadway Design Unit
Engineer responsible for the preliminary highway design preparation.
7. Mr. Christopher A. Murray, P.W.S., Environmental Biologist, Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Biologist responsible for assessing the potential impacts to Natural
Resources.
8. Mr. Greg M. Blakeney, Transportation Engineer, Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch
Engineer responsible for preparing the Traffic Noise and Air Quality
Assessments.
9. Mr. Tom Padgett, Archaeology Supervisor, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Archaeologist responsible for assessing potential impacts to
archaeological resources.
10. Ms. Barbara Church, Architectural Historian, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Historian responsible for assessing potential impacts to Historic
Architectural Resources.
11. Mr. Harrison Marshall, Community Planner, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Planner responsible for preparing the Community Impact Assessment.
12. Mr. Charles Sturdivant, Graphic Design, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Graphics Designer responsible for laying out the figures, and maps that are
incorporated into the document.
48
A. Federal Highway Administration
1. Mr. John Schrohenloher, P.E., Area Engineer
Engineer responsible for providing oversight and guidance for the FHWA
program at the project level.
2. Mr. Roy Shelton, Operations Engineer
Engineer responsible for providing oversight and guidance for FHWA
program at the project level.
MD/plr
.S
-'_
7/
END _
PROJECT =
am AL..
?m
am an
ZZI
.. ae .
?:
_.tit s
RL,
J12

m `` m
%V.t
l?
1
'.i
fix
.? IL a '
am)
,,X POPE
M.
a ------ - - -Y ALI --- ----------J ____----?;'//
4Q ` 90 ? =r--
1
( f ?
BEGIN
PROJECT
JPROPOSED
CAMERON ROAD DETOUR
I.J 29'
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
! BRANCH PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
J
FAYETTEVILL_. LEGION RD (SR 1132).
FROM OWEN DR (SR 1007) TO
CAMERGN RD (SR 1131),
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
FEDERAL AID PF.OJECT NO. STP-1132(3).
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2442501
T.I.P. NO. U-2809
? M C••AA7 1
?, -FIGURE IA

f
• ) •,• ? Q ', ? ' • i /rte •.• _•,
Ole A
?
11100
00
64.
' 1 ?' 111 t ',? ? h
•?O `' '{?` " ? @ ,u `'f? ?i?•.",,' •R• 1 :ale ' ?-•
p " • ? E 1 E1 wo
:s n e.! l 1 1 I i ?L
HOPE 't 1 t ?? k N
4 .141`x` ??=i?;: if
1 RD
k re
r lk
ti ,Y 1 r 1 ,• E k !i r
y - ??,s,x: •?, 1 1.5 a •, ' ? ??,' '?? 1 ?', • ? ? ;' ? ' ,, ' ? ? ' ;
off
Ipj I . b .. I I Nz.
10
is ? ? •?'??? q ?'????/? ? ?S? ? ?•?/? ,. ??:: r' ?' `-1? ! ? (
lb A..
C2 1!!
c:I
0 ?•;
O 3 m m y z ??' 119 ` ,? E 1ibL
•sf C 7d Z M 9 o '03 JV 41 ?:I,
A* bo 'o
01;5 F:
ITS
z .... w
z
1 y ? '
`.
•:t 1 11
U-2809 LEGION ROAD
5-LANE CURB AND GUTTER SECTION
Right of Wav
30m (100 ft)
3.9m 3.3m 3.6m 3.3m 3.9m
13' 11' 12' 11' 13'
0.6m 0.6m
F 2'
2'

curb
curb
FIGURE 3
R ?

36500
Southern Ave.
8500
3500 ? . ' 1000
?y 31000
Owen Dr. 444 Owen Dr.
6000 3000
PM
g ` 55
No-
(3,2)
13000
12 ?00
?
3400 Soo t1500 4200
<
W. Mountain Dr. Et? 4111* W. Mountain Dr.
700 500 PM
11200
Po.
10 55
(3,1)
I21,00
0 700
`f
11700
a
1000
IOU:
14700
4-200 Legena YarK Ave.
PM
10 10-65
(1,0)
1800
y 12600
Mid Pine Dr.
4000
12800
w ?
0 12600
Black & Decker Rd.
1100 PM
10 po-55
(3,2)
400
y
600
Palmerland Dr.
200 PM
10 jo- 65
(1,0)
e 600
1000

Countrytown Dr.
400 PM
10 NW- 65
12400 (1,0)
Match Line A

z ??pp
O x< O R T
6-

°
M
O
m
? •.
n
m
?7 y o

N?
O
0
y
3 '
r
1
.
0
CP jb
C

J
? p„ ,
N
y
?j a ,?
i?' 00
0
h?
W
N
iii c 4

?00
600
Pioneer Dr.
200
PM
10 00-65
(1.0)
11900

6600 1700
23 00
5900
------------
U-620 ------

4?
Elk Rd.

Hope Mills Bypass 300 . 200
PM
10 00 00-60
(3,1)
8400

1000 500
Pinewoods Dr.
500
10
P
65-04
(
) 8400
_ 9200
6100 57
Lakeview Rd. 400 *?j
10
65-00
)
3900
4400
360 ?00 4400
7200
Cameron Rd. Cameron Rd.
PM
9 55
(1,1)
? r
N
0
F
C o?n ? W
?? os
. a^ N 00

.p Q
N
n

0

O

y? W
o N
ti
}. ? f
Match Line A
20000
3200 1600
Ireland Dr.
65 44 PM 10 1600
(1,0)
20000
11j'1500
20000
17000 6000 ,4 ?:0
------------------- U-620 441 ? Hope Mills Bypass low 00
12500
A'1200 6000
Pinewoods Dr.
600
PM
10
65.
(10 12500
1000
Pioneer Dr.
PM
10 OP-65
(1.0)
13500
Elk Rd.
PM
10 -OP-60
(3.1)
13500
-
8500 8000
Lakeview Rd. 5000
65.4
P p
10
(
)
6000
7000
5500 i soo
12000 0 8000
Cameron Rd. Cameron Rd.
PM
9 01-55

OTJ

C
y mo O
N
?
.
i T
Q go 08 O
222 }
? CQi -C .
4 x t

xx
Q 1?
0
'i
r

0
C:) 0
O p. N
00
Cn
0 CD
W
N
.{ ? .i of

r
51000
45000
Owen Dr.
4%
?
Owen Dr.
7900 5700 PM
g ? 55
10-
(3,2)
19700
18800
1000
7100
\y_ A 2800

8500
W. Mountain Dr.
1600
17800
17400
16600
laoo
22800

20400
w ?
0 20200
Southern Ave.
13500
5600 0 k 1800
VI. Mountain Dr.
1200 Vi PM
9---No 55
(3,1)
"t '00 I 1 00
Legend Park Ave.
300 PM
10 - --- No 65
(1,0)

k?3000
11,800

4 Bl:ick & Decker Rd.
,800 PM
9 p p-55
(3,2)
so0
800
Palmerland Dr.
300 PM
10 -- 00-65
(1,0)
0
1200
Countrytown Dr.
S00 PM
10 --jo-65
20000 (1,0)
Match Line A

N

M M
tz x

ti
r
n CD
O
?
Cr
MM
O 0
?-..
¢
C) .
In"

N
00
0 7?
?J
W
N

,. .. ,, ,;
Ohl o -
i

? I
I

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ?I I
Al i
\ i o i.
C
v
s •
?c
r ?.
i ? ? ?s (J
i
11
u?
c Ic
J G ?f ?
l ?
l
v
?''' -
FIGURE 5
1i ?
APPENDIX B
AGENCY COMMENTS AND LETTERS
RELOCATION REPORT
It
a E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2442501 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate A of 3 Alternate
1. D. NO.: U-2809 F.A. PROJECT STP-1132(3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Legion Road from Owen Dr. to Cameron Rd.

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M I 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0
1 0
1 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 30-150 0 0-20M 3 $0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20.40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 6 150-250 1
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250.400 0 40-70M 80 250.400
4
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400.600 0 70-100M 1 50 400-600 16
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 071 600 UP 0 100 up 200 600 uP 13
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 439 34
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, Negative Report for this segment.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
11 . Is public housing available? -?
12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing •. ?r
housing available during relocation period?
'Jl?? ?,.
13. Will there be a problem of housing within .

financial means?
- ^?
r 9T
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
A.M. Simpson Yl" 3-9 -9
5

i17
Relocation A ent Date Approved b Date
ungmal is I Gopy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
I RELOCATION REPORT I
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
E.I.S. CORRIDOR F-? DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2442501 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate B of 3 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2809 F.A. PROJECT STP-1132(3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Legion Road from Owen Dr. to Cameron Rd.

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
I
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM
50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 3 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M 0 ' 150-250 0 20.40M 6 150-250 1
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 80 250400 4
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0"ll 400.600 0 70-100M 150 I
4010-600 16
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 I 600 UP 0 100 UP P
200 600 up 13
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 439 34
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, Negative Report for this segment.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
11 . Is public housing available?
12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

q
A.M. Sim son 1M 2 .7
-7
Relocation A Tent Date Approved b Date
rorm lZA rcecnsaa vuoo a Original H I Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
I RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
R
? E. 1. S. D CORRIDOR F_? DESIGN
PROJECT. 8.2442501 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate C of 3 Alternate
I.D. No.. U-2809 F.A. PROJECT STP-1132(3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Legion Road from Owen Dr. to Cameron Rd.

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M '35-50M I 50 UP
Residential 6 0 6 2 0 3 3 0 1 0
Businesses 2 0 2 1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants
_ For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M p $_0_1570 0 0-20m 3 $ 0-150 0 1
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40m 31 150-250 I 0 20.40M 6 150-250 I 1
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70m 3 I 25000 I 0 40-70M 80 250-400 4
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 150 400.600 I 16
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 UP 200 600 UP 13
displacement? TOTAL 6 0 439 34
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project? 3. Little impact on business community. Fayetteville has
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, a large active business environment.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. (A) Silva's Garbage Service - 4-6 employees, possibly
employees, minorities, etc. minority.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? (B) Greene Realty Co. - small real estate office, 4-6
6. Source for available housing (list). employees.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 6. MILS, newspapers, property managers.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 8. This is always a possibility, especially for older houses
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. and if there are any low income tenants.
families? 9. This is possible, but not known at this time.
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Limited number, but this is rarely chosen.
X 11 . Is public housing available? 12. Large, active market exists in the area.
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 13. See #8 above.
housing available during relocation period? •14. Brokers state that there are many available commercial
X 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within sites.
financial means?
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12
A.M. Simpson (
3'c(" f?
/?% - r • r -' - i = - y
Relocation A. ent Date Approved by Date
rorm 1;PA Revisea uan a
Original & 1 Copy: Stale Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
June 27, 1997
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:

Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
'/1YF
n ? ?991?
,?,.?
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Widening of Legion Road (SR 1132) from Owen Drive (SR 1007)
to Cameron Road (SR 1131) in Cumberland County; TIP #U-2809.
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 97-E-4220-0831 Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 08/04/1997. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Fumey
Administrative Assistant
116 West ]ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier S 1-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affinnative Action Emvlover

ti?.=, mar=
TOWN OF HOPE MILLS
3701 SOUTH MAIN STREET* HOPE MILLS. NORTH CAROLINA 28348-9998 • TELEPHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
July 18, 1997 ?G E 1
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch ?j{)? 2 z 1997 _
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways ? . LI'
P. O. Sox 25201 F°
Raleigh, NC 27611 _
re: Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive
(SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131), F. A. Project STP-
1132(3), State Project 8.2442501, TIP # U-2809
Dear Mr. Vick:
Regarding your June 25, 1997, request to Cumberland County
Commission Chairman J. Lee Warren, our Town was asked for any
relevant comments on same by the Cumberland County Planning
Department. We understand such comments are requested for
inclusion and study for the upcoming environmental assessment for
the subject project.
Such relevant comments and information include;
(1) a portion of the project within the Town of Hope Mills is
within a 100 flood plain (Zones A13 & B) as shown on Hope
Mills FIRM #370312 0002B, dated 11/04/81.
(2) No permits of any kind are required from the Town of Hope
Mills for any portion of the project within the Town's
jurisdiction.
(3) As previously noted during the initial January 30, 1997,
"scoping" meeting for this project, Hope Mills has both
water and sewer utility lines within the right-of-way and
under pavement through most of the project that is within
the Town Limits. Under the NCDOT utility manual, we
understand our asbestos concrete water line (16") will be
have be relocated and/or replaced with accepted material
piping from the Elk Road intersection to approximately the
project terminus.
(4) Additionally from the January 30, 1997, scoping meeting, our
representatives requested then and still request that
consideration be given to extending the project from the
intersection of Legion Road (SR 1132) with Cameron Road (SR
1131) eastward along the Cameron Road to its intersection
with NC Hwy 59. We believe this extension would well serve
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
July 18, 1997
the overall project and would make the anticipated increased
turning traffic onto and off of Cameron Road at NC Hwy. 59
safer. This is an area of considerable present peak-time
congestion particularly with the presence of Hope Mills
Middle School across from the intersection of Legion and
Cameron Roads and the other schools (Baldwin Elementary, and
Southview Middle & Senior High Schools).
Thank you for allowing us to offer these comments and we will be
glad to supply additional information if requested.
Sincerely,
Edwin S. Deaver,
ESD/SLR Mayor
cc: Phyllis Register, Town Clerk
Steven L. Routh, Town Manager
Mr. Rick Heickson, CCJPB
2
ROBERT C. W
F
, COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
S08 PERSON STREET
OF
ORD
MILTON
R. WOFFORO, COMMISSIONER P
0 BOx 1039
ROBERT W. SAUNDERS. COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE .
FAYETTEVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA 23302.1039
VANCE B. NEAL COMMISSIONER
STEVEN K. BLANCHARD. GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONE (AREA CODE 910) 433.1401
FAX (AREA CODE 910) 483-14219
ELECTRIC & WATER UTILITIES
July 29, 1997 G 1 j.? :.•

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E. :R JUL 3 1 1997
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation 51
DIVf.?t
P.O. Box 25201 c? HiG ;?"?„ .
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 %'
SUBJECT: Cumberland County Legion Road (SR 1132) from Owen Drive (SR 1007)
to Cameron Road (SR 1131), F.A. Project STP-1132 (3), State Project
&2442501, TIP Number U-2809
Dear Mr. Vick:
This letter is in response to your correspondence of June 25, 1997 to Lee Warren, Chairman
of the Cumberland County Commissioners, with regard to the Legion Road project. The letter was
forwarded to PWC for input with regard to environmental issues of the project
I reviewed the project with PWC Water Resources Construction Superintendent, Rick Davis,
who has indicated PWC has the following utilities within the right-of-way of Legion Road:
? 16" AC water main adjacent to the eastern edge of pavement from Sandy Valley
Road to Elk Road, a distance of approximately 14,100 feet
8" water main, material unknown, adjacent to the eastern edge of pavement from
Owen Drive to Sandy Valley Road, a distance of approximately 1,000 feet
8" sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the western edge of pavement from Owen
Drive to a point approximately 700 feet north of Heidelberg Drive, a distance of
approximately 11,100 feet
In addition to the water and sanitary sewer utilities, PWC has aerial electric facilities located
along the outer margin of the Legion Road right-of-way. That portion of the roadway between Owen
Drive and West Mountain Drive appears to be less than a 100' right-of-way with utility poles located
approximately 33' from the roadway centerline. PWC has valid right-of-way for the electric facilities
and will seek reimbursement for relocation cost.
- AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY . AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Page 2
July 29, 1997
If we can provide further information concerning the above utilities, please do not hesitate
to contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
PUBLIC WORKS COMNIISSION
Tom cNeill
Real Estate/Special Projects Manager
TMcN:cp
cc: Mick Noland
Rick Davis
Sam Stryker

1 :7
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 18, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of ansportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen SR 1132 (Legion Road) from SR
1007 (Owen Drive) to SR 1131 (Cameron
Road), Cumberland County, U-2809,
Federal Aid Project STP-1132(3), State
Project 8.2442501, 97-E-4220-0831
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
CE1
JUL 2 ? 1997
G
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: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
??^ _c S!reet - Rnt•ieh. North Carolina 77601-2807 ???
W •-I f
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
August 6, 1997
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Re: SCH File # 97-E-4220-0831; Scoping Proposed Widening of Legion Road (SR 1132) from
Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131) in Cumberland County; TIP #U-2809
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
Melba McGee, DEHNR
C E I
FO
r AVG 14 1997
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opponunity / ARnnalive Action Employs
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary EDEEHNF;Z
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMO
To: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
From: Melba McGeee
Environmental Review Coordinator
Subject: Project Number 97-0831
Date: August 8, 1997
The attached comments were received by this office after the response due date. These
comments should be forwarded to the applicant and made a part of our previous comment
package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
mm/mw
s:\melba\addition\addlsch
AUG 12 1997!
N.C. S7-A7'E CLEARINGHO
US€
F.O. Box 27687, W 14 FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 N C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative
919.715-4148 Action Employer
50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Stale of I
bepartmant of Environme
t
and
n
,
Health,
Natural Resources
R win
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
- PROJECT COMMENTS ec Naroi Due Date:
e
f
After review of this Proleet it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or a ?? I q
order for thi
s protect to Comply with North Carolina law
pProals indicated ma
n
d
Q
.
y
ee
to be
uestions regarding these permits should be addr obtained in
essed to the Regional Office Indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines 'relative to these plans and permits are
Regional Office.
avallabte from the same

• PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURE Normal Prose
r
(
t
t
S or R
Psrrtilt to construct b operate wastewaur treatment REQUIREMENTS
? facillUa, se nsr system:aneast b sewer APpilcsIlan 00 days before begin construction or aw
s
rd
ste
f
S
a
utory
ry tiff
Ifmt

y
a
o
ms not discharging Into state surface watera.-- construction contracts on-site Inspection. ponapptlestlon
technical conference usual y
30 Days
NPDES • permit to discharge Into surface water andfor
Permit to operate and construct wsrace w facilities Appllcalton 180 days before begin activity. On-sits Inspection.
IGIr ? dlseharglnQ into stale a
PffPptlcation conf
rl i90 days),

9
u
aCe wares.
erence usual. Adattionalty, obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment faCttltyI anted after NPOleS. Reply
time, 30 days after ieedi
t
f 0't20 days

NI
p
o
plans or issue of NPOES
permit- whichever is later. A)
(
Li water use Permit
Pre•spplicatlon technical conference usually necessary 30 nays
?. Watt Construction Permit
- (NIA)
Complete aootlcatlon must De receive: and permit Issued
prior to Inc installation of a watt 7 asya

?
OmdQa ang Fill Permit •
Application Copy must be served on each ad)aeent rlparfan pr
'Party
owner. O"Its Inspectlad p • (15 days)
55
_
ra•applle
uion Conference usual. Filling ' may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Oeperlment of
A
days

?
Permit to Construct b operate Atr Pollution Ab dministration and Federal Oradge and Fill permit. (00 days)
atement
facilities Sndfor Emission So
urces as per 15A NCAC 21M.

Any open Duming associated with subject proposal
must b NIA 50 pays
(90 days)
e In compliance with 16A NCAC 20.1 . I
Demolition or renovations or atruclures containing
asbestos material must be in
eompllahea witn 15A
NCAC 20.0525 which requires nolifkation and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbasloe Control GrOYP
919.733.002n NIA 60 aaya
Lj complex source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0900.
190 days)
The Sedlmehlstton Pollution Control Act of 1073 must be rowr
Control Dian will be required If on
gr addressed for any land di
t
s
urbing eetrv lt y. Anerosion t sedimentacio
e or more acres to be ffuturbed Plan tiled with proper Regional Office Una
ds a before beginning activity A fee of S30 for the first Sere and 520.00 for each additlonai a
at bast 30
? The Seolmo
f
y
20 da

n
cre or
I can must secom an the Ian
ny m
atlon Pollution Control Act of 1973 nwi be addressed with respect to the rsferrenced
an
ys
30 oa ;I
Local Ordt
ce (30 days)
? Mining Permit Onsite Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EMNR,
varlet with type mine and
number of acres Of aHeetsd Any area
mined 9reate.f than one acre must be penniled.•The a
i 30 da s
y
ppropr
ate bona
L North Carolina 8u?nin must be received before the permit Can be jasuad.
g permit i60 days)
O"Ite inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if
permit
exceeds 4 deYe

1

? Special Ground Cl arance t3umtng Permh . 22
Countks in and Cl N.C
On-site Inspection by N
coastal
with or
O
0i
l
l day
(NIA)
.
.
.
v
s
ganic tolls
on Forest Resources required "it more
loan live acres of ground clearing activities are Involved, inspections
should be requested at leas I
( day
NIA
t ten days before actual burrs is planned...
C3 )
Oil Refining Facilities
NIA 00.120 days
IN/A!
r' If permit required, application a0 days before begin construction.
6-1
Dom Safely Permit Applicant must hire N.C. qualified
engineer to: prepare plans.
inspect construction, certify construction Is according to EMNR ap rov
ed Plans. May also re
p
uir
days
q
e permit under mosquito control ro ?
a 40e Permit from Corps of Engineers. An inaoectton of site Is nee
sar
t
nd 1e0 days)
y
es•
o verity Matard Classification. A minimum lee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application
A
.
n additional processing fee based on a
rotniage or the total Dro"ecl cost will be reauiree ueon enrnnt-1-
Normal PrOCe69
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or RECUIREMENTS (Statutory time
limit)
Permit to drill exploratory all or pas well File aunty bond of 55,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.

conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon 10 days

abandonment, be Alucued according to EHNR rules and regulations. (NIA)
? Geophysical Exploration permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to is
f
sue o
permit
Application by letter. No standard application form
10 days
. (NIA)
State Ludes Construction P
? ermit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include .

descriptions A drawings of structure & proof of ownership .

of riparian property. (NIA)
lA)
401 Water Ouslity Urtiflcation 60 Days
NIA (tad days)

CAMA P
ermit for MINOR development $250-00 fee must acdOmpan
Y application 55 dayS
(1!0 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development SSOAO (ea must acdompany application 22 days
f25 oaysl
r7 Several geodetic monuments are located In or near the project area. if any monuments need to be moved or oestroyed. please notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey, 80. 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
(J Abandonment of any welts, If required. must be in Amtdance witn Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional of rice is requested If "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
? Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stofmwater Rules) M required. 45 days
' Other comments (attach additional Vegas as neeessarybNng certain to ells eommenI authority):
Questions reparding these permits should be addressed to he Regional Office marked below

? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place .
? Fayetteville Regional Office

Asheville. NC 26801
(704) 25146208 Suite 714 Waehovia Building
Fayetteville. INC 28301
(1119) 486.1541
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 N ? Raleigh Re
io
l Off

orth Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Moor
vill
NC 2 g
na
ice
3800 Barrett Drive
S

es
e.
8115
(704) 6631099 .
uite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 73
32314
? Washington Regional Office
1424 C
li ? Wilmington Re
i
l
f

aro
na Avenue
Washington. NC 27889
[phone] g
ona
o
fice
127 Cardinal Drive Extcnslon
Wilmington. n- :;:„;

? Wi [phone]
nston-Salem Regional Office
An94; runnn a.,.. Qi-A
1North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Dept of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
T
August 6, 1997

ransportauon Building
Raleigh, NC 27611 u" 1997
Z
Dear Mr. Vick:
v
??N1GNt41•
Re: SCH File # 97-E-4220-0831; Scoping Proposed Widening of Legion Road (SR 1132) from
Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131) in Cumberland County; TIP #U-2809
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,
6? `0
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region M
Melba McGee, DEHNR
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An FApW Oppottmity / Atr=wive Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
M4
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
199',
AUG CL?
MEMORANDUM ? SF f4R?ss D
'60,1 oing"
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0831 Scoping Legion Road Improvements, Cumberland County
DATE: August 5, 1997
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review. More
specific comments will be provided during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation of the
environmental document, additional information is needed, the applicant is
encouraged to notify our respective divisions.
attachments
R
P.O. Box 27687, FAX [phone]
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 N30f C An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 275-1-11124 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NCuEC , H"--r- , FALL. LAKE TEL 19-E?S -9: ':D ALtg V'
89
a qUG ,997 o
se?
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, D£HNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 4, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1132 (Legion Road)
improvements, from SR 1007 (Owen Drive) to SR 1131 (Cameron Road),
Cumberland County, North Carolina, TIP No. 13-2809, SCH Projcct No.
97-0831.
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.S.C:. 661-667d).
At this time we have no specific comments regarding this project. However, to
facilitate our review of the environmental document, our general informational needs are
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas-to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
C , HCF- , ra! L_ L1;K'E i EL _ 19-5_: o
Memo 2 August 4, 1997
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
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Howard Hall, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, LTW;WA
Health and Natural Resources 0
Division of Water Quality A&4
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor. WWI
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
? C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director C
August 1, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #97-0831; WQS# 11674
Legion Road Widening from Owen Drive to Cameron Road
TIP U-2809; 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. 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) to be employed.
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/ 100% post-consumer paper
97-0831 DOT Scoping
August 1, 1997
Page 2
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-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 new road construction or 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?
ED 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
97-0831 DOT Scoping
August 1, 1997
Page 3
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?
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 restrict 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 to 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
repotting 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
97-0831 DOT Scoping
August 1, 1997
Page 4
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 anarea with state and federally
endangered species or if the waters are high quality or nutrient sensitive.
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 give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments. .
mis.\970831 Legion Road scoping
enclosed wetland handout
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
f ie' th and Natural Resources r**o
Division of Envitonmentcl Mencgernent
Jcmes S. Hunt. Jr.. Governor
Jonathan 8. Howes.. SECretary J?F=y_ N R
A. Preston Howard.-Jr., P.E.. Director _
_.:_October 5, 1995
MF-MO
Tc: Wet-'=d consultants and tnunic:palides
From: John Domes/ '-' .
I tP7
t?
Re: Modification to.Cettification for Nationwide Pe.aa it 12 - Utility lines
Tne Division of Environmental Manaz :ne= (DE:ti1) has - ssu ed the Genem-1 Ce dfication
(GC) for Nationwide Pc.-,,nit 12 and Regional Pe.;mic 049. Tne new GC will expedite the permicing
press and c!ar,iy for the applicant conditions necessary for a cetfiable project Tne significant
ch izes are:
1) No fertilizer applied within 10 fee: of are=s; - --
2) Anti-seep collars every 150 fee: in wetlands:
3) Reston: to original contours after construcyon. A specific plan is needed:
4) . Rip rap is restricted to szmam bortom and banks directly impacted by the -
utility line; _ :.
The t: n iruc:ion coridor (including ac:-ess roads and stock, iiing of m- r -'DTs)
is limited to 40. feet in width:
6) Coils-action corridors parallel to screams shall be placed at the furthest
distance from the stream to.the maximum ex nt practicable; and _
i) Although you still need to acoly to the U.S. Arnv Coros of Eneine.-s for
these oe-mim written concur-nce from DEM is no lonzer needed orovided
that 01 conditions of the General Ce afic2don are followed. Written
is rcauiaTd if the uuii%r lame' ii irutciiZu pardLIZ: and CiOSe: tt'.,.*1 10
feet to a stream or if the line crosses a stream channel at less than 75 de2*ees
or more than 105 degrees (i.e., not perpendicular seam crossing).
A copy of the revised GC is enclosed for your information. DF-M will be making compliance
st:e irspe_.icns. Show'd the ud1iry line be installed such that a condition is violated. remedial actions
intruding utility line re!ocadon or it staLation of anti-seep collars fines may be imposed. -
Should you have any auesdons, please conger Eric Galamb or John Domev at (919)-733-
1786.
nw 12.mun RECEIVED
OCT 16 1995
EW RCNMENTAL SC:D=s
-7••wd
P.O. Scx 29535. Rdeigh. Ncrth Ccccunc 27625-r.6;:= 7eiephcne 919-7; 3-7015 FAX [phone]%
M :__c C==crrL-n&j, A:farncive Ac-:cn E:.•=c,er SM fecicec! 1C°. PC:: - =rU. ner ;,crer
7. The construction corridor (including access roads and stockpiling of
materials) is limited to 40 feet (12.2 meters) in width and must be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
8. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from comina_
into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
°. Permanent, maintained access corridors shall be restricted to the
minimum width practicable and shall not exceed 10 feet (3 meters) in
width except at manhole locations. A 1.0 feet (3 meter) by 10 feet (3
meters) perpendicular vehicle turnaround must be spaced at least 500
feet (152.4 meters) apart.
10. An anti-seep collar shall be placed at the downstream (utility line
gradient) wetland boundary and every 150 feet (45.7 meters) up the
gradient until the utility•exits the wetland for buried utility lines. Anti-seep
collars may be constructed with class B concrete or compacted clay.
Perpendicular wetland crossinas less than 150 feet (45.7 meters) long do
not require anti-seep collars.
The compacted clay shall'have a specific discharge of 1 X 10"' cm/sec or'
? less. A se ion and plan view diagram is attached -for compacted.c!ay
and concrete anti-seep collars. -
The following.specifications shall apply to class 8 concrete:
a) Minimum cement content, sacks
per cubic yard with rounded
course aggregate.,_....-
b) Minimum cement conterrt, sacks
per cubic yard with aneular
course aggregate - - -
c; Maximum water-cement ratio
gallons per sack 6.8
d) Sump range 2' to 4"
e) Minimum strength - 22 day psi 2,500
11. Placement of rip rap is restricted to stream bottom and banks directly
impacted by the placement of the utility line. The stream berm must be
restored to the original contour after construction;
12. This General certification does not authorize any permanent changes in
precons?ruction elevation contours in waters or wetlands. The permitted
will have a specific plan for restoring wetland contours. Any excess
material will be removed to a high around disposal area;
13. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid
\ - -1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
\ WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
WREPLY REFER TO September 9, 1997
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
l?GE1VF0
n X01
-? SEP 1
U. HEN.°s
This is in response to your letter of June 25, 1997, requesting our comments on
"Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road
(SR 1131), F.A. Project STP-1132(3), State Project 8.2442501, TIP # U-2809" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199707799).
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. E. Shuf rd, Jr., .E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (with copy of
incoming correspondence):
Mr. John Domey
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27687-7687
S
September 9, 1997
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road
(SR 1131), F. A. Project STP-1132(3), State Project 8.2442501, TIP # U-2809' (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199707799)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County and partially within the jurisdiction
of t.a tcw-n vi riope fZlis and U-ie diy of Fayetteviile, all of w: rich participate in i;ie National
Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panels 160 and 195 of the February 1982
Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); the city of Fayetteville FIRM index; and
Panel 13 of the June 1984 Fayetteville FIRM, the roadway is not located in an identified flood
hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey
topo maps of the area ("Hope Mills, N.C.' and "Fayetteville, N.C.'
Based on a review of Panel 2 of the November 1981 Hope Mills FIRM, the roadway
crosses Little Rockfish Creek, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations ,
determined and a floodway defined. We refer you to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's "Procedures for *No Rise' Certification For Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways " copies of which have been provided to your office previously. In addition, we
suggest coordination with the town of Hope Mills for compliance with their flood ordinance and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon Wilmington Field Office
Regulatory Branch, at (910 251-4725
According to your letter of June 25, 1997, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation is proposing to widen Legion Road to a five-lane, curb and gutter facility. No
control of access is proposed for the road.
Based on available information, including the Cumberland County Soil Survey, National
Wetland Inventory Maps, and aerial photography, it appears that the project will impact
wetlands adjacent to Little Rosh Creek near Hope Mills. These areas are generally
associated with riparian stream corridors and provide a number of penefits to receiving waters
including the attenuation and desynchronization of flood events, improvements to water quality
in downstream receiving waters, and the uptake and transformation of many biologically active
compounds. In addition, these areas provide valuable wildlife habitat for a variety of birds, -
mammals, amphibians, and reptiles.
September 9, 1997
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road
(SR 1131), F. A. Project STP-1132(3), State Project 8.2442501, TIP # U-2809" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199707799)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS : (Continued
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 of excavated or fill material
in waters of the United States or any adjacent or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this
pmjeccct, inrludirg di£pr•sal of construction eiehris. Under nllr m: igation pnliicy, 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 branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for project specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
If you have any questions, they should be addressed to Mr. McLendon.
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY AND TRAFFIC NOISE TABLES
Table Al:
CAL3QRC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MCDr. - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2809: SR 1132, Cumberland County RUN: SR 1132, Build, Year 2000
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
----
-------------------------
VS - .0 CM/S VO - .0 CIS ZO - 106. 04
U - 1.0 M/S CUB - 4 (D) A=4 - 60. MINUTES KDM - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
-------------- "
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINA= (M)
• LENGTS BRG TYPE
WE EF
8 w V/C QUEUE
• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 " (M) (DEC)
---------------------
- (C/MI)
-------------- (M) (M) (VER)
---------°-----------
-------»»-_---_------"-----------------------------
1, Far Lane Link 10.8 -605.0 10.8 --------
-
805.0 • 1610. 360. AG 654. 17.8 .0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 " 1610. 180. AG 654. 17.8 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
----------------
• COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR • X Y Z
--------------------------------------------------------__ ----
1. R/w, 15.25m From CL -9.9 .0 1.8 •
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maxim= concentration, only the first
angle, Of the angles With same maxim=
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
KIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE • (PPM)
(DEGR)- REC1
t MAX - 2.7
DEGR. " 10
TBE RICHEST CONCENTRAiTION IS 2.70 PPM AT 10 DECREES FROM REC1 .
;able A2:
CAL3QBC: LINE SCnICE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2809: SR 1132, Cumberland County RUN: SR 1132, Build, Year 2020 -
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---------
------------------
VS • .0 CM/S -
VD . .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM „
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 3 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MLYB - 1000. M AMB ' 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LILAC DESCRIPTION
• LINK COORDINATES (M) • LENCTS BRG TYPE VP8
EF
S w V/C QUEUE
• X1 Ti X2 Y2 • (M) (DEG)
------------------------ ------- (G/MI)
-------- (M) (M)_. (VER)
---- ---------------- --
------- ----- ------
1. Far Lane Link -------- ----------- -a------- -------- -
• 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 1610. 360. AG 1050. 13.8 .0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -BOS.O • 1610. 180. AG 1050. 13.8 .0 13.2
RECrP1CR LOCATIONS
-----------------
• COORDIuzw _(M) "
RECEPTOR • X Y Z •
------ -------- -------------- ----------- -------- -----------_?-.
1. R/W, 15.25m From CL ' -9.9 .0 1.8 °
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMAM : 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 PANGS: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE " (PPM) ..
(DECR)• REC1
MAX • 2.9
DEGR. • S
TEES SIOPFST CONCFrnWION 13 2.90 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
Table A3:
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION :MODEL - VERSION 2.0, .:ANUAR`! 1992
JOB: U-2809: SR 1132, Cumberland County RUN: SR 1132,:ro-Build, Year 2000
9]TE i METFAROLOGICAL VARIABLES
Vs - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/3 CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MzxH - 1000. M AMS - 1. 8 PPM
Lnm VARIABLES
»LINK DESCRIPTION LnM COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH
EF
H
w V/C QUEUE
• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC)
------------------»--
• (G/MI)
»----- (M)
----- (M) (VES)
------------------
------
_w--»------------ »----»»»»----»------------
1. Far Lane Link 3.6 -805.0 3.6 605.0 • 1610. 360. AG 654. 25.2 .0 9.2
2. Near Lane Link .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 • 1610. 180. AC 654. 25.2 .0 9.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
---------------
• ComwnuaFS (M) '
RECEPTOR • X Y Z '
------ -»---- »»-------------------- »»------------ »
1. R/W, 15.25m From CL ' -13.5 .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 --Y?'•
KIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE • (PPM)
(DEGR)• REC1
------------
MAX s • 2.7
DEGR. • 3
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION 13 2.70 PPM AT 3 DEGREES FRDM REC1 .
Table A4:
CAL3QHC: LINE SCURCS DISPERSICN MCDEL - Vr_RSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2809: SR 1132, Cumberland County RUN: SR 1132,No-Build, Year 2020
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
------ ---
------------------
VS . .0 CM/S %M .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) • LENGTH BRG TYPE VP8 IF H W V/C QVEUE
' X1 Y1 X2 Y- , , (DEC) (C/`LI) (Y) (M) (?)
------- ---------- -- ------ ______??__-----------------------__-•------- ---------------------------- -- --_----------------
1. Par Lane Link • 3.6 -805.0 3.5 805.0 • 1610. 360. AG 1050. 34.6 .0 9.2
2. Year Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 • 1610. 180. AG 1050. 34.6 .0 9.2
t
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
• COORDINATES (M) '
RECEPTOR X Y Z
---- - - ------ - -- - - ---- ------
1. R/w, 15.25m From C. • -13.5 .0 1.6 •
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of tae angle corresponding to
the -w4mum concentration, only the fiat
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE • (PPM)
(DEGR)• REC1
------------
MAX • 4.0
DEGR. • 10 -
TIM HIGHEST CONCENTRATION 13 4.00 PPM AT 10 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
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

SO-
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
1 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 PERS ON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10-
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category Lea(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE ..
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Lea(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
zr
c
0
U
c
R
m
c E
m 3
J (,
N
J
W m
> O
Z i
Ul W 0
<O
m
F- Z J
F- N
Z en
W_
m r-
G cr
Q to
O
co
N
M
a
W N LA t0 N
N
W CC CO t0 to to t0
ZJ?
Z
O
a

_
q
N
N
N
N
to A us N
W 0 C7 C7 C7 C7
Z
O

Q m
U ?
L t
U
`
J U
C t t V U
N U U a ?

o _w n
.Lr m G !O
m N
=
z 3 to
C

E a t°
CL
Y o O
_
U. C7 =
O Ca! Ud CdJ ?
N N
c? N
CV) N
CV)
V- N
t7

cn W-
cn r
U)
cn
W
H
N
c'7 o
N
m
c
ea
N
m
10
m
c
m
t
r
m
r
c
m
U
m
5
r
E
0
m
m
E
La
0
co
m
N
m
m
E
m
m
3
N
CD
N
m
m
m
N
O
c
C
m
? U
E
to m
m r
t?
h- o
H
Z
._1
m
o+
ro
a
a
0
m
N
1
7
x
a
M
H
>;
w c
m O
? O
M U
O .v
a' C
04 ro
Z ?
114 W
a H s?
ID ~
O
E = U
U
M ?
? N
rv ?
a
E
a
v
ro
0
x
C
O
a
Im
m
a
C4 i ? I I I
? o o o ?o w %n w w w m w w w w w %o m m w w w %o %o w o o l %o
w a n v

ul 04 ?O

> ac
"
o a z r

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+I+

?r
O O O
I
p) v
V v v

4 a in %a w m a 0 0 w m w w n ?o w m Ln w w w w n n r-

n
?
w
1
> = a
n
0
4 M %0

d)
H

z 1
p ?' 1 1 1 1 I i l l l t t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
w
E
U
H
O

i
w a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i
l l
o: a a a ° c>: a a x o: a a x a a? a ..? a a a .? a ? ? a o: a a
a
i~ ?

'? M
?+ v
ro
0
0
0
0
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C I O

O p O
m
O
r
%o
.?
w
N
%o .
n
?
N
.-f
in
N
0
co .
N .
.+ .
Ln .
r7
0%
O
O .
O
m
m
r
N
•+ •+
?' N N N fn f•1 P1 e'1 M e'f PI N e'f t'! t7 PI r'1 t7 f7 N N N ID N
W Q
t
o

Z to x to
I
a

a

a
1 - -

-
o - ?
a: 4 0 1 -4 1
a z j, 4

-4 O
I
Z w a .r O z Q
? O
Q?
04 03 ad w w > a ?
v P r t o 0 0 m ? 0 C o c o 0 ? 0 0 a% O o4 a 0 0 •? ? r+ V v ? n
a
o w H M to in y %a 0 m to w %O %a %a AO w %a W In W w %O %o w %a %0 %a i?
z a ,?, 0 I
?

O O x N
H Z N
to M /C P1
3
w E 3 a a a _ -
is v) O 0 -4 a - a -4 r4 a
a
i N 0 1%
w E 03
V a ' i
m
O
O
z
Q Q w m m m U m m 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m w w m
w
E v
w w
E4
4
1
U
Q V 4 m m m N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
ta' w U U u U u u u u u U u u u u u u u u a u a 0 u u u
C
Z to c c c c c c c c C c c c c c c c c c c c
m c
m c
m c
m c
m c
m C
m •+ L m
O O
. 4 L
0 m
v m
v m
v O
-4 m
v m
v m
v m
v m
v m
v m
v m
v m
v m
v m
.v m
v m
.0 m
.0 .v v .0 v v v v O 0 m
Q A l 1 1 - 1 _d .4 it - + -+ - 1 -4 .. 4 ._ f - 4 •d - 1 -4 -1 +1 .4 - 1 -1 •.4 - + -1 -1 ..1 -1 O L -4
Q z ( ? 7 m m m 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m L 7
L m
m
E"' .t m t m m m m a 1 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Y m
0: u
to U t>:
W a t o U * : I L' a to 0 ; 0 : a t> » o ; x m tz 0 : t% 1% 0 : ft . 0 : 1% O w 04 0: t
.

U
w
.?
N
r1
as
te
1 ?a
P
a0
tT
O . r N rn v it 1 ?D n m a

•1 ? I O •+

NNN
1 NI e1

N v

N I

N ?O I n I

N
N C41
a p ? ? r 1 r1 r" 1 .i r' 1 r .
l . I I
M
a i
m
. e
m ?
>, m
ro v
3
v
ro fa
L
la m
m Aj
L C
}J a
O
O -1
La 4
W m
41
m x
c m
-1 m
0
iJ ro
13 C
-+ 3
w O
JJ
c in
CI m
O
.d
m m
y >
0
'mv m
1 O
>a C
I
w
C >+
b O
c 0%
0
..4
y ro
? U
? b
sa c
a ro
c
O N
u r
r
m y
> 1a
? d
m a
mr U
O
c n
N
to
V
m a)
>. C.
ro
3 u
v u
ro ro
14 E
v ...
m m
m m
.?
a O
O C
wro
m m
m m
y AJ
c c
O D

N
m
ZT
ro
- a
of
0
m
N
1
a
x
o.
M
E
as y
W C
a 0
o
m U
O .d
0. C
e W f0
z ?
00
H
N
Q
E Z U
U
W N
w ?
E ?
a
07
v
0
10
a
C
O
a
IT
m
a

00
I
I
to
013 ba ar t o t o %C to m co m m co t- co co co m co co cc a co
ao co co co m m m co
z °°
>
i a i + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

0-0
a
w
m
a s
tp
r
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
m
m
to
to
to
fT
m v
t,
r
t-
t?
w
in
m
c-
w
I
> O to to to to m to ?o to to to to to to m to to m to to to to to to to to to
3
e4
a' w
?
i
s
t
t
s
t
s
s
?c
s
t
a
gy
s
s
s
?

O
z I
?" t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t i 1 1 1 1 1
? ?
E
U ?

m o a
a I m
O. .
7 C I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! I I I t I I l i t l l l l
1 0 4
U C

a

E
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
E
?; ? o 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oa m y to -^I Ot e N N t0 t0 O N n1 4 an O O I c;
•-? to
9
Cn
.-f
n
<
C. N N f•1 M N a f•1 f7 PI N 'n PI N N Q M M N N m f'1 f7 N f•l f'1 e'f N N f1
N O m
a a ? e

ft O ?i
W 04
z Vl m O
?'
96
o 00
s m
.? Ia
_
=
v I
a
=
_
_
-
_
_
_
- -
_
_
a < .. I b 1
a z 4 a

m ?
E °
s W O
m ?
O •? •, m t` m m m m of O O m m •"f O v 0 0 m 0 m f- t- (fit m
O 00 to f0 %o to to
10 to to m to to to to to to w to to to O %n m to lit m a to a to
z a .o a to I
° m
o
a m N
rA ?zf oc 3 en f1
m E 3
a y Im m
„ ?4
f .-f
s
s
z -+
3 .4
.•f
z
z
s
z
z
z
z
s
z
s
s
z
fC ft ft
zX z >
H
m a
? y
a o
a s
3-+
a
0
0

°
?+ v
w
m
m
m
U
U
to
m
m
m
m
in
to
m
a
to
m
m
m
t4
m
m
U
U
U
m
m
m
m
64
E
dc
U
I
I
N m m m m m m m m m m m O m m m m m m m m
an U U U m m U U o o U U U U m U
U U U o 0 U m m m 0 0 0 U
z to G C C C m m c C C C C G C C C m c C C C C C m m m C C C C
M O O m m m m m O m m m m m m m m m m 0 1 m m .C m 0 m m m 01 m m m
-f V V V C C - 1 V b .o •C V .o .o IV C b .o .a b U -Q M C C C b M V V
a, O JJ .• t .. f -t .d .-1 J J -d -.1 -t - f - f -d - 4 - i - f - f - f - f .d 4 -f .d -f -t -f -f
O
Z
U
m
m
m
m
m
u
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
E fC m 0 1 m m 7 2 0 1 m 01 m m m m m m 7 m m 0 1 0 1 C m 0 1 s 3 7 m m m m
m a m a a a m m A a a a a x a a a m a a a a U a a m m m a a a a

00 71 ? o f O •'t

- N f 1 l
to
w
t0
N
m
/T
O
?
f N
f'1 ll
Q to fo t?
IM
l 0

1
,
O

1
-

1
f N

fln

Q

tf1 to
a O N f• f M f•l f n M of fn e•f f•f Q W a Q v v e Q to to to to to to to
M
m
m ?
W
ro v
3
ro s+
0 0
tr
s+ m
S C
O ?
E O
L L
w m
y
m x
c m
°
-f m
iJ o
O
Ll C
-+ 3
$4 o
? z
e m
v m
.-1
m m
y m
c
m m
o m
• -f
>» C
I
W
4 bf
0 a)
7 U
-J7f -p
I+f c
y ro
c
O N
U C-
m ++
? L
.-1 tL
.m+ U
c ?
N
m
ro
3 +?
? m
s0+ E
m m
m m
..f
O C
w
aro
m m
m m
41 41
c c
O O
1 s
a •
{ z
M
m
D•
A
• a
O
m
N
t
a
E
w c
a ?
? o
m cl
o .v
a c
z rd W
z ?
w
m
0
E = U
N
N
a
H
a
0
a
C
O
m
a

w
I
l
I
w a y r m m m J m m m m m m m m m m m h m m ? m m m m m r h ? h

w
i
z + + + + +I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
,
i
H
':
a I x
x
o h
to to
to h
to m
to
v ?o
?o m
tc m
to co
?o m
?o m
?o
to m
?o m
to
to h
?o to
? h
? h
to h
?c h
to h
to h
to h
?o h
to h
?o h
%D h
-4 h
%o
w ?„? to
a? ae v : « s a . . . : . : . . . : . . . s, . s

to C
?+ O
Z cl
t
t t l l l l l l l l l l .i I l t t l l l l l l l l l t l l l
p ?
110 e
E e
U N

p
w a
a a
I I I t t I 1 1 i l l l l l l l l i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ro
O
a

'71 I 1
E to
'
o a a a a a cc a a a a m a a a a a 4 4 a 4 4 a a a a .a a a a
E, m
?
3 to
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
0
0
0
0 ?
-+ m %o o r m m m p h to to v o o m c tV o m Cr a1 0t O Ot m m m m
H tL N t1 f"f N Q t1 N N N N N N V' Q N N P1 N P1 N N N N f? N N N N N
O
a a cl

p
m x i
e
a
Z C13 0

00
-
-
S 2 S
O'. A 1
a z 0
I

w
71-

0
Go 61
H tOi > b O CC O% O V m 0 0 0 0 0 +? h t° m at 0 m m O m at m of m c c c c
i to w to to to to w w w w to w to m to to m m w w to m m to to }tz to w ?
a in
I I
m
E Z mi N
dl H N
w E 3
cc M 0 .
x t -4
-i
t
i
2
2
2
i
x
2
i
2
i
i
2
2
i
S
2
S
2
2
2

m
z 04 ix vl
0
x
z a
o
? 0
? ? m m m m ea U m o U m m o e, o m m m m m m m m m m m trl m m m
E
I
?
U
oG N
a
?
o
m
W
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

at

m

m

m

m

m

m
w as n n U E m c1 m m n n m m m 0 0 0 U n u u 0 n u 0 u u n u
z
z to c c C C C m c m m C c m m m c c c c C C C c c c c c c c c
o O O 0 1 m m c 0 1 m m m m m 0 m 0 m m m m m m m m 0 o m m 0 0 0
- + do 10 V V c I V c c V 13 c c c T *a v v V 13 V *a V v v v v v v
a
Z O m m m m 7 m m m m m m m m m m m m m w m
w m m m m m m m m m
E m m m m a ??c o m o o m ® o 0 7 m m m m e e o a a ?m m m m m m
a a w o c a a a U m a m m a a a om m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
oa
Oa % h m O t O _ 4 ,4 - , Q to t0 h m c O 1.4 1 N N 1 Q In t0 h m m O l T
-1
to
a 0 t o to a t0 t0 1 t0 1
t0 t0 t0 tO tO tO ,
tO h h h h _ h h h h h m m ,
m
l m
M
m
. Q
m
>, co
0
3
? L
O O
4 -a
s+ m
m i+
t c
y -r
O
0
w
w m
y
m x
c m
.4 m
y A
? e
-+ 3
s+ o
y t
c m
v m
m to
m >
it m
0
c
'v m
.4
1 0
a• c
w
C ?
i° 0
C Ot
O m
-d 1J
17 ?
? U
la C
L ?o
C
O N
0 h
h
m 3.1
> L
-4 1%.
m a
..ma U
C r1
N
m
L
m 01
>, a
a
3 41
10 4
0 E
m m
.4
o c
wa
m m
y y
cc
Q O
t S
a •
m ,
a+ I ,.
m w
_ a m
p j= o N m m m m m m n C r
w a x e- m m? m m m r m m m m m m m v m?
i a z ++++++++++++++++++m+lm++++++++++ a?
I 0 0
rl O NI L m
tt1 y. Q e Q
a p r e` r el r t? P r? m P m m e` r e` 0 CID J'%a D m t. r %O %O r m L
W .o F ?o 'O ?O ?C ?o .O +1
a I x ip 4 t a a a a a a a a a Y a a s a s a s a a a a 1.e
0 -4
M Q ?
O U m x
z 1 c m
M p ?" I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t l l Q
+? m
O W W
E e ?
N U rl 2
Ia O
a 1 m
p„ o. 1 I t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q m
H I m >
9 0 ?+
? c E m m m
O a a a a .] a a a a a trla ala a a a a a a a'a a a a a a a a x 0 m
a'
E
DO* -4
C U 3 ?Wi C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o o cc CO a 00 0 0 00 0 0 OI 00 0 1 O
1 0
w
G p p •'? m' CH Cn m o m 0% m r O N v 00 0 ev e"I %o e+ .4 v 0 e. Q\ O N N co I >.
e"1 N N en t1 e"1 N
-W W 10 ? O a N N N N N N N N N of N N m f" e"1 en CV N fn en rn N
.a a etl
$4 04 1%
04 17
E U Q d
m" W w
o z m o I y m
0 -4 E+ z U a w 1 = - _ - = - _ _ _ _
a
w N a o f i s
IL M a, C to
E 0 n
E-4 0 CK O O tv, m„
W o?OOCn ?+O? %M V"O vmCnNOIO?totol0%O > y,
o to z wa `O !n% a So In ow son %o Ow ui Go %o In In Ln I %o %o Ln a ?o %c I tn I in I Ln I Ln %o a.
.t In %n in I
a m
I I -m U
A IH w 4 ,-4 en Q O
C
m
m x o m a I I m m
z w a m >.
o c.
m
30 u
E ro ro
a 0
m
n ?
M
m m m m to m m m m Ego
w
ROX m w w m m U U m m m m m w E
H H
< 1 m m
U m
u u u u u a o
O m m m m m m• m m i mu mum W-4 m O -4
u u u u e
Qf C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C O C
Q m m m m m m m m m m m m t c m m VV u us 00
y O .1 +4 ..e -.1 +1 .r ..1 ..1 ..r -4 ...1 .a +1 Le >a .,e .e a ..e
E ,1 y
Q m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a a a a a a a a a aa a rJ r, a a a
C C
O .i N N CD O ? v en OI a + N n a m to
fL' O CD fn m a1 a% Cn a?I o% 0 Cn Cn CH 40% Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OI ?I .yl reI
l 4 -41 0 0
H 1
0
m
0%
A
a
O%
O
co
N
1
rr
a.
M
ul
rd C
a 0
W U
O .d
a C
e 4X7 b
Z ?
W
m W 0O E
F Z U
N ?
? N
Iz ?
H. -?
a
y.
ttf
0
a
C
O
Q1
A
a
W
I ?
I
y
14 04 P m m m m m m m m m m m t0 In tl1 w N Ill w w O I w 0 w ui t11 ut
04 a
" an In
I
>
i a U + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1-1

1 OI O
v v
to
•.7 ?
= f` m m co m m co co m co 0% co t0 in Ill IO %0 IO t` m V v N t0 t` W In t0
I
04
> x w w w w w w to w w w t0 w to t0 m t0 w t0 %a %0 ? ? t0 t0 t0 tO tO to
w ?.
rl l K ? a : a w w w a a w a w a a : a w

H - I
C

? I
z 1
p ?1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1
I

rr .? In
p -+
w a 9-4
a y
il
n a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 taA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
v
10

1
n I
S

0 O O 0 o O O O 0 0 0 a O O

O -4 t- t- P V. 0 In .4 to N A A N O O e+ In Mf 1` t` -'1 ?
y O J a lV N N N N N N N N N N P1 N f7 en N fn N d' N Pf N N t'1 N

c
1
1
1% 4J
o.

a:
z I

J e
W
z ° °
W «7 m a v Q
I
1
I
w m w
h'1 ?a > m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -A O -1 O W O 0 0 0 -4 -+ -+ N V V -I -1l -1 0 O -+

a
0 A to to to to to to to tO to m to m w w w w w w w m
tO
to
m
tO
to
iIO
Ln
I
%n
(
I
I
(
I
? m A

v
m C4 C4
C4 M .4 m en
E
O c
a t
A X -ti z s z z s s s z ...
i , -+ - - .
OC ?+ dC
a I
i
W x o A a I I
z w a m m I I
Jo
- s
a/
a E
0 E
0 I •.

14 0
w
m
m
m
v
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
v
CC
90
CO
U
m
m
m
w
04
U
CC
U
CO
m
U
F
E+
?
I
1 I

O 01 m 01 m m 01 m
01 m m ell m 0f
m 01 01 01 01 m
m
be OA O V u m V u O O V O V U m u U V m U V tJ m V m V V m
Z t» c c c c m c C c C c c C c c m c C c m c c c m C m C c m
~ 0 O 01 01 m ® m m m 01 01 0 m m O 01 01 m 0 01 01 m 01 -+ t m 01 0f m
' 01 01
.4 v b b c v V v b V v 13 v -d c .0 v .0 c .0 .0 .0 O u c V c 17 v c
a 0 Aj .4 -4 -4 ..1 -4 -1 -4 ..1 ..1 -4 -d ...f A.f ..f _.1 .-1 -1 .-1 ..1 ...1 ..f 0 W --4 -.1 ...1 ..1 .1 ..1
O
m m m m m m m A m m l? 0 m O ? a u U m W m' m
a N a a a m o
C a
G O
G a
G O
G a G % C
i a
4 eL
' 0.
' v
i cc
U
'
Q
a
tD
m
0,
N
w elf IO co 0, O -f N 1
f " Ln T
O P ' i
A',. -4 - 1 N N N N N N N f'9 P1 f
f f7 f'f 1

-1
-1
1 ..1
co
..a
m ?
>4 co
A ;o
3
b L
W -4
tr
s1 m
m i+
s c
O 4
L L
w 40
JJ
m x
c m
if a
.Q c
-4 3
$4 0
y r
c m
0
v m
.-1
m m
O >
?+ m
0 •?
C
m 0?
'fl C
N G
1
W
C >1
b 0
c m
? ?
L A
3 U
? b
L C
L f0
C
O N
U r
m y
> 4
O A
m a
..4 U
0
C r•f
N
m
L
m m
>. a
341
-0 u
w E
m 0t
m m
0 -4
G O
O C
wb
m m
c c
O O
1 =
.a w
10
Q
01
to
06
m
0
m
N
1
x
a
E
y ?
W c
a 3
? O
H U
O .0
? W ro
z ?
a m
m ~
O
H = U
U
!-I
w ev
E
a
.Q
m
O
a
c
0
.a
0%
m
a
w
I
I
f
f
I
f
I
`

f
1o m In o a o a o a o o o o a a o o o o o a o
o o o o o
f
. o
W .7 rl rl .-1 -4 -4 '4 rf
.,
., .i
.,
.,
rf
.ti I
.+
> a
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+I
+
++
+
+
+
+i
+
i a z 4t j ; • i i i i R a i 4t i i i i i i i i i i i i i
<h
.a S
a
in
m
m
.,
.,
.-,
..4
.4
r,
.4
0
10
01
0
.-I
.,
o+
o
-
-
'-
t. r
r t-

r
o
Q1
10

w to

r
0
P? s l0 1c .o r r r r r r r r r 10 ?o r r r 1o r t f r
a
l H
X
ft
a
u
#
t
i
i
t
i
K
i
?
t
i
?t
•
4
i
i
.9
i
i
S
;
R

N 0
?+ ai i

Z 1 0
? I l i I I I I t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t 1 l 1 I I 1 1

04 ?
c-

.. m

6 .?
a:
p: 1
o. `i3 y l l i I t t 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1
>

p a a a ? a a a a al 4 &3 4 4 a .a a a a a a a c>r OG w w 9 w a a
>+
3 E
Of -4
10
0
0
0
cc
O
O
O
O I
o
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

p p
c
%0
_.r
?w
m
to
m
r
m
m
m
m
01
O
U
In
.4
ON
r
In
%0
r
r
0%
.i
•?
O
E-4 4 fh f7 fn .-I 9-4 -4 1-4 V4 r-f .'1 .-I N N N .--I .-I C4 .-1 ."f .-I .-I .-I .-I -f N N N

O
W
m
a U 1 1
a
dr. 0 4J
04 04
p
Z U3 m I

O
3 m
O
i W 1 C 1 - - = - - - a : -
a
a =
-
y 1 ; I
a z o
l

E > t I ?
a
z x -4 I
(4
04
?+ M > W T rl O Q .4 -1 0 01 T O
M O W In m 10 %0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1o in in 10 10 10 In .0 10 .0 %a t0 %a %0 m W 10
Z .3 m e I

c7 a
N y
N
Z
H P1 ? N I
I
-1 ac m

W E 3
.-f
-
-
- - -

N a

iad a b
m
N
.d m
s a i
a o 0 '
V V V U m m Cal m m m m m m m m m m m m U m m m m m m m m
O 0 w
E ?
1
1
V
i v an m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
O W m m m m G U G U V U V G O D U G 0 0 G m u u O u 0 V V
c 0
c
w H C m m m C m C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c m c c c c c
m c
m m m
z
t.l 7 O m m m O
4 m
c m
'0 m
V m
'0 m
v m
V m m
'O m
'0 m
10 m
'0 ' m
0 m
'0 m
'0 m
10 m
'0 m
c m
'O m
'0 m
b m
'0 '0 V V '0
I -•?
M y c
-1 c
..i c
-4 -
aJ ..1 -.1 -.4 -1 .. 4 + I - 4 ..r ..1 ..I .d .. 1 .. I - 1 -1 .. 1 .d -d ..I -4 4 . I . 4 -+ -+
a z n m m m v m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
n : m e l o m 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
E . 7 h m m m rn m x aG a c I z c c tz m 1% 0 I Z C a t7c v + m CG 0: Iz I X a tz a 94
?
Iw
I
1
I
I
V m v tn 10 r m 0% 0 .- -I
N P 1 aT N 10 r m Q1 O . . N f' 1 v 1n 1 0 r m 01 O
04 1w 1w 1w
p
'
Ln
n Ln Ln
?
w
%W
O
?
%wa
w
1
14
-4 -4
M -f I rl l . -f l . -f I
- I .4 rf .4 1 -4 •
-1 -
- I .
-
4 I . 4 14 -I 1 -
4 . I

m
.Q
m ?
ro v
3
du
m w
O O
fr -+
la
>a m
.mC C
0
O
La 4
W m
y
m x
c m
-4 m
y a
? c
--1 3
l+ 0
L
41
c m
0
V m
m m
m >
41 m
0
C
b m
I O
>. C
i
W
c a.
ro >+
O
C 01
0 m
-4 y
yJ to
? U
v
? c
1J ro
c
0 N
U r
r
m L
> L
m to
m C;
m
-+ U
C f'1
N
m
L
m m
>. C.
ro
3 +?
'0 U
ro ro
0 c
w
d m
M m
0 -4
a 0
O C
la
aro
m m
m m
0 0
C C
m m
O t7
t =
a •
P
IV
a+
ro
a
o?
0
m
N
1
.&
a
M
m ii
w c
a 0
O
y U
O .O
G- c
w a
z ?
a m 94
m ~
I
E 0 z U
U
w
w N
w
E 'i
a
a
0
a
c
O
Q?
m
a
m
w a ? o? o o
v! w w •-? •?
> a
z a i + + +

t :
Of
a
a ?0 0 .1
I Z ?o P r
w
a? ~
t

R1
as
M

?• 1
p ?"
' 1 1 1
w
?i

ff ?
O
'. 1

1 c 1 I 1
0
U
PI
E o'
° a a a
? E
H
3 Q w o o 0
q
E ?C ?4 m r
to -4 -4

o ?
w w p
02
z
a
m m 1
-.3
a
O
O
Aj
E m
z w a

o >+
°
?
o
0
m
z a
a c %

v a
L

Z >0 c
N
3
W -4
E 0
a vs O y -4 z s

w x O y a
z as a m m
m
3
?
a E
z
O a O
w
m
m
m

E 1
=
t U in
a
O m
0 m
W
z o C c c c
O m m m

a y a -4 .a
u m m m
E a H cz a a
w
hl
U .i N en
w •1- P P P

M
m
m ?
?m
ro v
3
.O
to 14
O O
Lr ?
L
Ir m
= c
}J
O
E O
O -+
14
W m
J.1
M x
0
-4 m
41 a
7
? c
-+ 3
M O
c m
O
U m
ri
m m
W >
Ai d
O
m m
'p m
+4
>+ C
1
w
c >-
a Ir
C Q?
0 y
0 U
$4 c
m
41
c
O l`7
U P
Q) 41
> L
m
-+ U
C el
N
m
- L
m m
ro
3 u
'o U
ro ro
s0+ E
d m
m m
0 -4
0 C
11
Q,m
m m
O1 m
dJ JJ
0 0
c c
m m
O D

}
s >,
Q -•
? o
ED U
m c
Q Ls
E: m
iLJ ,a
H
Z U U
H
Z
-j cn
m
Q ^
W
F
Q in
m
Q vi
W O
mm
N
O?
Z
Q ?
U.

O
LU
O
O I
O O I
O
O
uj O `
~
U
N
n
Z 0 O O O O O O
_

O O a
%t U= U O O O O N N
W Q U.
U

?ON
m
^
co
r
u) N
CN
^ N
O CL H
s u
Q 2 Q O O O O O O
I
n

Cn
LLJ m N et n
' of CO

'
O=
U ? N N C) N C
) Q
Z
Q n n n O
F-
< U OD m La v I
v v ^ v
r

w Cn
E
Ca
C7 I
v

O

LU
U
to co
LO CA
m C
Cp ?i
In c
D
D
LU
LU J
a LU G

E

as

m

m

Lo
m
O S c)
cn C14
to
CO Lo
CO v
CO LO
CO
Z
?
X m E LO I •- Cn •- n
J
LO tp
CO I CA
CO
CO
m
CO
m m
m
s
Y ?

? ? Q Q
z0
m
s
(n
M

CL M
° C
7 CD

3
Q s 0 0
vv) 3 a o
W O
> O
= Y
W M
m
~
0
Y
J CL
>. c
«. c
is

3
CV)
0
^ Y G m m

U)
-i _
0 0 0
0 0
U. LL U. U. U-
^: N C7 4 Ln
eo
eo
cc
0
m?
c
tLi H
O
G
m
O
cc G
a.+ p
H
m m
A C
CD m
C U
m
O
c
O O
U
m ?
L m
•• 7
E y
O ?
` E
C,
CD ..
O ?
N N
w w
La U
E c
r
M ?
m ?
U p
w C
M O
? Q
O
cp n
?m
C
1° c
C m
m
910
Lo N
n
^ N
r
a
? o
U
=)'D
? c
eo
W m
N
W 'OE
Z U U U
Z
W Z N
m W r
^
~ J
W
Ln ci
00
Z ao
U N
? s
CL
w

tJ? Q LU N
U m F" + ' O I O 0 P?
I i N n
N
O

JJ
Q W W

W •
Q J W r-
O
O
O
O
N
N
W S •
cn
cn
U
?
Z

Lo
N
?? O O O O O O
rn n
W
N
W
®
O
O
O
O
O
U
Z O
CV
J
W
CY)
J O O O O 0 O
W ^
O
Z
r
Q C O O O O N N
0 ^

N
X
W
a?
o)
N
crf
C9
a?
^

r
co

0

W
u of
O
O
O
O
O
O

O
?? O O O O O O
V
n
J
?
CC a

- Y ?
e O

O c
i
cl
? N
F-
r
- C
O m
U cc
o
U)
W
O
O
m CL
O
S
Y
y
m
~
D
J O O.
? O
.. c
m

CV)
3
m cr)
? Y a ? m
fn J S O
E E E E E
O O O O O
U. U. Li LL Li
r- N C7 Q Ui
N
Z
W
C
a
0
E
0
0
s
m
m
ch
m
of N
eo Z
CD
U W
C J
e? H
C c
y
? m
7
!0 V
o m
m m
c c
CD co
Q Q
+ •
? N
s +
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
R
1 Tiches I Utility Line
(Diameter Varies)
1 foot i_ Class B Concrete
{ I or Compacted Clay
1- I
I
6 inches French Width 6 inches
-oil 10.
?-
Not to exceed 40 feet
SECTION
•
Class B Concrete
or Compacted Clay
12
inches
Y
6 inches H+ I..,Linches
PLAN
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, LT11?qjl
Health and Natural Resources ` • •
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, ,Secrta p E H N F=1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
PROJECT REVIEW COIENTS
Project Number: 97- O 8 3 / County: ?.ca,n 6erI4 nd
Project Name: LGgia.,. P-o" (:Se7132)_ S? Prai ' B 2442501
NC Office of State Plannin - Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey Office at 919/733-3836.
i ?-
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
n
' 4a W.4.'-' - 7/6/-97
R vlewer
Geological Survey SegRo Land Quality Section Date Geodefic Surve
[phone] [phone] (919) 733-3 section
836
FAX [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affrmotive Action Employer 50% recycled/ I mw post-conarner pcoer
`STAB e
J/i wy?` I J ~ `•]
_71
•Qr s .r •A= •?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 18, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of ansportation
FROM: David Brook ?!?.
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
SUBJECT: Widen SR 1132 (Legion Road) from SR
1007 (Owen Drive) to SR 1131 (Cameron
Road), Cumberland County, U-2809,
Federal Aid Project STP-1132(3), State
Project 8.2442501, 97-E-4220-0831
We have received information concerning the above project from the State r?--t.:..;? _?
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: L' tate Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1?3a'3
non v
?<'?.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 18, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of ansportation
FROM: David Brook &e,0k1,Z ,
?./
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen SR 1132 (Legion Road) from SR
1007 (Owen Drive) to SR 1131 (Cameron
Road), Cumberland County, U-2809,
Federal Aid Project STP-1132(3), State
Project 8.2442501, 97-E-4220-0831
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: VState Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Ralcigh, North Carolina 27601-2S07 13 0?>,
3

PPS?ENT or ¢ United States Department of the Interior
o`` yT
FISH AND `VILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
_ Post Office Box 33726
CH 3 `1b Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
August 12, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
t`•
Z
oviS, C v 1997
YCr
Subject: Widening of Legion Road, TIP No. U-2809, Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of June 25, 1997, 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.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen Legion Road (SR 1132)
from Owens Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131). The
existing road would be widened to a 5-lane, curb-and-gutter
roadway. No control of access is proposed.
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
r 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
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;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the action area of the proposed project which may be
directly or indirectly affected;
9. 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 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Man ua 1 and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. 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,
8. 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 page identifies 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:
1. 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 an onsite
inspection;
3. 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;
C. 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 ?
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect
any listed species or as habitat including project
proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, 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 me at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely,
/AWdz17CQ 4. 1414
Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:8/12/97:WP:A:cumu2809
G
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 aristoso 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 Tof eldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC
KEY:
Static nefinitinn
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'l,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 specie observation is uncertain.
Ineidental/mierant record, the species was observed o-••c:ae ;
O.fC f10!^??1 }fin O. nr ??6ei??r
"'" Historic, obsure and incidental record.
Federally-Listed, Candidate and Federal Species of Concern
(revised Alay 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 NA1NIE STATUS
Aimophila aestivalis FSC
,41ligator nzississippiensis T(S..'A)
Reterodon simus FSC* '
Picoides borealis Endangered
Pituophis ntelanoleucus melanoleucus FSC**
Fusconaia masoni FSC
Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered
Amoroha georgfana 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
.(,
r
3 dM STATE
S
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR

)TATE OF NORTH I_AROLINA _N
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
4 May 1998
Memorandum To: Teresa Hart, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
t FOLSON
RETARY
r" .
From: Christopher A. Murray, P.W.S., Biologist .
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
Subject: Proposed widening of Legion Road (SR 1132) from
Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131) in
Cumberland County. TIP No. U-2809; State Project
No. 8.24442501; Federal Aid Project No. STP-
113 2 (3) .
Attention: Mark Davis, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project study area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent
information concerning Waters of the United States and protected
species is also provided.
CC: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File:U-2809

Proposed widening of Legion Road (SR 1132) from
Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131)
Cumberland County
TIP No. U-2809
State Project No. 8.24442501
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3)
Natural Resources Technical Report
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
PERMITS, MITIGATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNIT
CHRIS A. MURRAY, P.W.S., BIOLOGIST
4 MAY 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..............................................1
1.1 Project Description .................................. .1
1.2 Purpose .............................................. .1
1.3 Methodology .......................................... .1
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Biologist ................ .4
2.0 Physical Characteristics ................................. .4
2.1 Soils ................................................ .5
2.2 Water Resources ...................................... .5
2.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources ............. .6
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ...................... .6
2.2.3 Water Quality .................................. .6
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ......... . 7
3.0 Biotic Resources ......................................... .8
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .............................. .8
3.1.1 Disturbed Community ............................ .9
3.1.2 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest ..................... 10
3.1.3 Alluvial Floodplain ............................ 10
3.2 Faunal Component ..................................... 11
3.3 Aquatic Communities .................................. 12
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources .............. 12
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues .................................... 13
4.1 Waters of the United States .......................... 14
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters. 14
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................. 14
4.1.3 Permits ........................................ 15
4.1.4 Mitigation ..................................... 16
4.1.4.1 Avoidance .............................. 16
4.1.4.2 Minimization ........................... 16
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ................ 17
4.2 Protected and Rare Species ........................... 17
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................... 17
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed
Species ........................................ 22
5.0 References ............................................... 24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ...................................2
Figure 2. Site Topographic Map ................................3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soils located in project study area ..................5
Table 2. Anticipated impacts to Biotic Communities ..........12
Table 3. Federally-protected species .........................18
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern ..........................23
I `• 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
recommendations which will minimize impacts are given.
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment for the proposed project. This report inventories the
natural resources occurring within the project area and
identifies any natural resource concerns which must be addressed
in the planning stages of this project. Estimations on the type
and degree of impacts to the ecosystems, along with
1.1 Project Description
The project involves the widening of Legion Road (SR 1132)
from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131) in Cumberland
County. Legion Road will be widened to a five-lane curb and
gutter; 19.5 m (64.0 ft) from face to face of curb. The proposed
right-of-way (ROW) is 30.5 m (100.0 ft), currently owned by
NCDOT. Project length is approximately 6.9 km (4.3 mi).
The project also includes the replacement of Bridge No. 210
on Legion Road over Little Rockfish Creek. The new bridge will
be 41 m (135 ft) in length at the same elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic will be detoured off-site, which will allow
symmetrical roadway widening. Additional easements will be
required at the vicinity of the bridge. This report is relevant
only in the context of existing design concepts as stated above.
If design parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigations will need to be conducted.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made
for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
1.3 Methodology
Research of the project study area was conducted prior to
field investigations. Information sources used in the pre-field
investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
map (Hope Mills and Fayetteville), National Wetland Inventory
maps (Hope Mills and Fayetteville), and Soil Survey of Cumberland
and Hoke Counties (United States Department of Agriculture,
1984). Water resource information was obtained from publications
of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (1988,
I _ \ \ ?nden ??/
God-i
sftcgfs?e I-
?? r• ='r'--I '`.. _..? ! - - _? / Spri-I i Ino ?' fl:
r1?y r -? J _ - - L - / `
NORTH CAROLINA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
r.. w?... /, 1 rVander A,
59
-F{oDe Mil s ?R,
cedar creew \
?C 87 (I '1I
\, t -- T7, .,7 .
M END PROJECT - . j
a__ ra • • x, ? $? n Y
m s i
as aae y ex
• rs mm.
At
ac
m Of
)8. yg n.7 L 2
Y /s
.La
- S1
a/
_
zm ..
z. cm aj
LAKE m v+ s ?.,
i
j am ? Vazs a:a
- `' NORTH CAROLL;A DEPARTNMN OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
BEGIN PROJECT,-' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
F.AYETTEVILLE
SR U32 (LEGION ROAD),
? SR 1007 (ONVEN DRIVE)
TO SR 113,,?'(CAIIIERON ROAD),
Cn, 1BERLAIND COUNTY
TIP NUMBER L'-2809
FIGURE I
?l. . lS?fPf : ia?;.r. r? .li :'ti nr-? \\1 ?? I ICI ?' .a ?• '\ t ???
C
i
1
•'
•
I? ?:
° • ?
":
ive
D ?.:.Q%`
• Owen r

s,==' II
O . /I
;/ •••

';

Begin Project

L ?l • JB_ y _ _• • 1132
I IV\ II
17 -
\ - _ ° '? n n
4_ i
P -- I I -yam i ?- • •221 .
?• I •?I iii / ? :
1 '
113 B7SUbsta / • • • l •'I ?Q ?/ >? r.
1063 •.? U ?. '.`?• :? J ??' '•i: 3D•
sTem?lr?d ?.?f C'/ / r' ©? •.\• ?`• •, / is
t zii
IT 91% %
/ •?. ?•?;o Host ??(!?? •I%J l? `J v-?y•r t \ ???
Ramp
•?. ? ?_ 11S
wr L1tt1e _ l ? ?• -.
is
- - 1 Rockf h eic
11 S ?? ` .
..
' ••'` Cameron Road - ?c
End Project.
?/ ??Substa i, ra ' , dulu
4
1991), North Carolina Division of Water Quality (1997) and from
the Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Cumberland County (NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, 1995).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species
and federal species of concern (4 November, 1997) and from the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT Biologist Chris A. Murray on 27-28 October
1997 and 15 April 1998. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observational
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).
Definitions for descriptions used in this report are as
follows: Project Study Area denotes the area bound by proposed
ROW limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project
Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS
quadrangle map centered on the project.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Chris A. Murray, Professional Wetland Scientist
Education: B.S. Zoology, St. Cloud State University, St.
Cloud, Minnesota
M.S. Coastal Ecology, Univ. North Carolina at
Wilmington, North Carolina
Experience: Environmental Services, Inc. 1991-1992
Environmental Investigations, P.A. 1992-1994
N. Carolina Dept. of Transportation 1995-present
Expertise: Wetland Delineation, NEPA Investigations, and
Protected Species Surveys
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources which occur in the project study
area are discussed below. Soil types and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.

S
The project study area is located in Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. This area of Cumberland County is
characterized as gently sloping with more pronounced sloping near
streams. The project study area is located approximately 23 to
70 m (75 to 230 ft) above mean sea level.
2.1 Soils
The project study area is located within the Lakeland-
Candor-Blaney Association. This association contains nearly
level to strongly sloping, excessively drained to well drained
soils which are sandy throughout or have a loamy subsoil that may
be brittle.
The dominant soil series throughout the project study area
is Lakeland-Urban land complex. This map unit consists of areas
of Lakeland soil and areas of,Urban land too small and
intermingled to be mapped separately. Permeability is very rapid
and available water capacity is low in Lakeland soils. Urban
land consists of areas where the original soil has been covered
by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other impervious surfaces.
Pactolus loamy sand is located along Rockfish Creek. This nearly
level, moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained soil is
located on terraces of small streams. Permeability is rapid and
available water capacity is low. Table 1 provides an inventory
of specific soil types which occur in the project study area.
Table 1. Soils located in project study area.
Map Hydric
Soil Series and Phase Symbol Classific.
Lakeland-Urban land complex, 1-8% slopes LbB Non-hydric
Blaney-loamy sand, 2-8a slopes BaB Non-hydric
Pactolus loamy sand Pa Non-hydric
Vaucluse loamy sand, 8-15% slopes VaD Non-hydric
Urban land Ur Non-hydric
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses the resources, relationship to major
water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification,
and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these
water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize
impacts.
6
2.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in
the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. Little Rockfish Creek is
located within the project study area (Figure 2). Little
Rockfish Creek originates along the Cumberland-Hoke County line
and flows southward to Lake Williams. At this point, the creek
flows southeast to Hope Mills Lake. Little Rockfish Creek then
continues at the dam located on the southern tip of Hope Mills
Creek approximately 0.7 km (0.5 mi) west of the project study
area. The creek continues to flow to the east and southeast
approximately 12 km (8 mi) to its confluence with the Cape Fear
River.
Little Rockfish Creek at the project
perennial stream. At the project study a
approximately 3.7 m (12.0 ft),wide and 0.
Substrate is comprised of sand, gravel, a
asphalt rip rap is located within Little
Bridge No. 210. The south bank of Little
highly eroded.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
t study area is a
rea, this stream is
9 m (3.0 ft) deep.
nd cobble. A pile of
Rockfish Creek under
Rockfish Creek is
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Water Quality (1997). According to the DWQ, the
best usage classification of Little Rockfish Creek (DWQ Index No.
18-31-24-(7)) is C. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. No water resources classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW's) are located within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling
for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to.very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and
overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. BMAN monitoring site #147 is located on SR 1131 over
Little Rockfish Creek. This sampling site is located
approximately 2.7 km (1.7 mi) downstream of the project study
area. The site received a good-fair rating in June 1990.
7
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. Dixie Yarns, Inc./Hope Mills Plant
(Permit No. NCG500155) discharges into Little Rockfish Creek
approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. The
project vicinity is currently experiencing rapid development and
subsequent land clearing, specifically along Legion Road in the
vicinity of Little Rockfish Creek. Land clearing activities may
be a source of water quality degradation to Little Rockfish Creek
in the project study area.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water
resources. The only water resource located within the project
study area is Little Rockfish Creek, located adjacent to the
southern project terminus. Land clearing and grubbing activities
in this area will directly result in soil erosion leading to
increased sedimentation and turbidity in nearby streams. These
effects may extend downstream for considerable distance with
decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect
on water quality. The vegetation typically shades the water's
surface from sunlight, thus moderating water temperature.
Streambank vegetation also stabilizes streambanks and reduces
sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
Locally, the construction of this project will increase the
amount of impervious area in the project study area and
ultimately vehicular use in the vicinity of the project study
area. This will directly lead to an increase in concentrations
of toxic compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) which may be
carried into nearby water resources via precipitation, sheet
flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic
materials can adversely alter the water quality of any water
resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the
entire impact area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced during
the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with
DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway
projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface
waters.
8
Species of anadromous fish may utilize streams in the
project study area. Construction guidelines outlined in N DOT
Stream Crossing Guidelines For Anadromous Fish Passage should be
adhered to for this project. These guidelines are applicable for
all projects crossing perennial or intermittent tributaries
(delineated on a USGS topographic map) located below the fall
line. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to
NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing and new highway
stream crossing structures will not impede the movement of
anadromous fish.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study
area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within
these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the
context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community
are described and discussed. Fauna observed during field
investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*). Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references
to the same organism will include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification
system utilized by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et a1. (1968). Habitats used by terrestrial wildlife and
aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of
available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al.
1980; Webster et al. 1985; Rhode et a1. 1994; Potter et al.
1980). Recreational fishing potential was obtained from Fish
(1968).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identified in the project
study area: disturbed community, mixed pine-hardwood forest, and
alluvial floodplain. Much of the wildlife in the project study
area likely use various communities for forage, cover, and
9
nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may
utilize the edges of forests and clearings. In addition, many
species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, such that
both are required for survival and reproduction.
3.1.1 Disturbed Community
This community encompasses several types of habitats that
have recently been or are currently impacted by human
disturbance: maintained yard, regularly maintained roadside
shoulder, irregularly maintained roadside shoulder, and powerline
corridor.
Maintained yards are primarily restricted to housing and
business sites located in the project study area. Dominant
species located in the herbaceous layer include prickly pear
cactus (Opuntia drumondii), fescue (Festuca spp.), crabgrass
(Digitaria spp.) and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). Trees
observed in this community include red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), dogwood (Cornus
florida), privet (Ligustrum sinense), red mulberry (Morns rubra),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), China berry (Melia azedarach), and
laurel oak (Quercus Iaurifolia).
Regularly maintained roadside shoulder are land parcels in
which the vegetation is kept in a low-growing, early successional
state. These areas appear to be regularly mowed and may receive
frequent herbicide application. This habitat includes the
majority of land along Legion Road. Species observed here
include Richardia brasiliensis, crabgrass, Bermuda grass, violet
(viola sp.), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and pennywort (Hydrocotyle
sp ) .
Irregularly maintained roadside shoulder and power line
corridor receive less frequent mowing and/or herbicide
application. These xeric areas are scattered along Legion Road.
Sapling-sized trees observed here include sassafras (Sassafras
albidium), laurel oak, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and
turkey oak (Quercus laevis). Species observed in the herbaceous
and vine layer include broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), rabbit
tobacco (Gnaphalium obtusifolium), bear grass (Yucca
f.ilamentosa), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), evening primrose
(Oenothera biennis), prickly pear cactus, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), ragweed (Ambrosia artemissifolia),
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), dog fennel (Eupatorim capillifolium), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), horseweed (Erigeron spp.), partridge pea (Cassia
10
fasciculata), gerardia (Agalinus purpurea), silver-leaved grass
(Heterotheca graminifolia) and wooly golden aster (H. gossypina).
A powerline corridor located within the ROW on the northern
side of Bridge No. 210 over Little Rockfish Creek exhibits a
different plant assemblage likely attributed to a different
maintenance (i.e. mowing) schedule. Sapling-sized hardwood
species dominate here, and include winged elm (Ulmus alata),
American elm (U. americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), laurel oak, turkey oak,
dogwood, hackberry (Celtis laevigata), sassafras, privet,
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), Devil's walking stick (Aralia
spinosa), American beauty berry (Callicarpa americana), and high-
bush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). Vines and herbs observed
here include yellow jessamine, bamboo vine (Smilax laurifolia),
grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), winged sumac
(Rhus copallina), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), broomsedge,
goldenrod, St. John's wort (Hypericum sp.), and panic grass
(Panicum spp.).
3.1.2 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
This community is restricted in the project study area to
the an area adjacent to Bridge No. 210 over Little Rockfish
Creek. This community is prevalent along sections of Legion
Road, but based on project ROW limits, these areas along Legion
Road will not be impacted by project construction.
The canopy is dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
as well as several species of hardwoods including post oak
(Quercus stellata), water oak (Q. nigra), turkey oak, willow oak,
red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetgum. Hardwoods and shrubs
located in the subcanopy include blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica),
horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), American elm, Virginia
magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), high-bush blueberry, pepperbush,
sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), American beauty bush and
azalea (Rhododendron sp.). Vines observed here include bamboo
vine, Japanese honeysuckle, and poison ivy.
3.1.3 Alluvial Floodplain
This community is located along the northwest quadarant of
Bridge No. 210 over Little Rockfish Creek. Both wetland and
upland habitats are present in this community. Species observed
here include privet, giant cane, American elm, loblolly pine,
sweet pepperbush, horse sugar, Atlantic white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides), water oak, and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata).
11
3.2 Faunal Component
The raccoon* (Procyon lotor) is a carnivore often observed
along wetland habitats to moist upland forests as well as urban
areas. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are
occasionally observed along broken areas of mixed young forests
and cutovers. These two ubiquitous species are often observed as
roadkill on adjacent roadways. Striped bark was observed on
several hardwoods adjacent to Little Rockfish Creek. This is
indicative of beaver* (Castor canadensis) activity; however,
there was no sign of a beaver dam on Little Rockfish Creek.
The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas dominated by
herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat.
Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer brushy edges
where they primarily feed on woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), gray
squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), and white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus). Shrews and smaller mice prefer forests
with a thick layer of leaf litter.
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus) inhabit open habitats with plenty of
sunlight. The slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) inhabits
woodlands where they are known to forage at night and spend the
day in burrows under logs, stones, and leaf litter. The spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer) inhabits woodlands where it may be
observed under forest litter or brushy undergrowth. Eastern box
turtles (Terrapene Carolina) are commonly observed throughout
forested habitats where they feed on plants and small animals.
Mourning doves* (Zenaida macroura) and house finch*
(Carpodacus mexicanus) were observed on power lines along Legion
Road. Yellow-bellied sapsucker* (Sphyrapicus varius) and
cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis) were observed in a longleaf
pine-turkey oak ridge and a rufous-sided towhee* (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus) was noted in a thicket adjacent to a power line
easement. These communities are not located within the proposed
ROW, but these avian species likely utilize portions of the
project study area. A mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos) was
observed in the mixed pine-hardwood forest.
12
3.3 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream,
is located in the project study area. Physical characteristics
of the surface water and condition of the water influence the
faunal composition of the aquatic communities.
Perennial streams support an assemblage of fauna that
require a constant source of flowing water, as compared to
intermittent or standing water. Amphibians and reptiles commonly
observed in and adjacent to medium-sized perennial streams
include three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), green frog
(Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (R. palustris), and banded water
snake (Nerodia fasciata). According to Fish (1968), Little
Rockfish Creek has an ecological classification of Largemouth.
The stream is described as providing good fishing for chain
pickerel (Esox niger), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
bluegill (L. macrochirus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides). Limited dip netting in Little Rockfish Creek
resulted in the collection of Asiatic clam* (Corbicula fulminea).
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
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 the
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the
relative abundance of each community (Table 2). Project
construction will result in the clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived
using the proposed ROW width and temporary easements outlined in
Section 1.1. Project construction does not usually require the
entire impact width; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community Biotic Community Impacts
Disturbed 13.8 ha (34.1 ac)
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest 0.1 ha (0.2 ac)
Alluvial Floodplian <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac)
TOTAL 13.9 ha (34.3 ac)
13
Direct effects on wildlife population levels and habitat
value should not be significant. The project study area is
currently in a highly altered state and plants and animals here
are well adapted to disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna
occurring in the disturbed community are common throughout North
Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed
habitats. Moreover, similar additional disturbed habitats will
be re-established after project construction. Post-project
conditions should be very similar to current conditions. Species
adapted to disturbed and edge habitat will continue to thrive.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals
(moles, shrews, snakes, etc.) from construction machinery used
during clearing activities.
A small portion of the project area is relatively
undisturbed. The mixed pine-hardwood forest and alluvial
fl.oodplain adjacent to Little,Rockfish Creek likely serve as
natural corridors for animal migration, as well as refuges for
animals forced from other disturbed habitats. The proposed
structure over Little Rockfish Creek will continue to bridge the
surface waters. Therefore, impacts to animals utilizing this
community will be minimal.
Construction activities will impact the water resources
located in the project area as well as those downstream.
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly
attributable to construction activities. The suspended particles
will clog the feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and
amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified throughout
the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls will
be maintained during the entire life of the project.
The construction of this project will 1
vehicular use in the project vicinity. This
introduction of toxic compounds which may be
resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and
Wildlife crossings will become difficult and
increase in roadkills.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
ikely increase
would lead to the
carried into water
subsurface drainage.
will result in an
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the United
States and Protected and Rare Species.
14
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the
broad category of "Waters of the United States," 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. Surface waters are
waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to
the ebb and flow of tides, all interstate waters including
interstate wetlands, and all other waters such as intrastate
lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes to place
fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Little Rockfish Creek is considered a jurisdictional surface
water (Figure 1). This tributary is thoroughly described in
Section 2.2.1. The wetland area located within the alluvial
floodplain is dominated by privet, giant cane, sweet pepperbush,
Atlantic white cedar, and tag alder. The sandy loam soil at this
site exhibited a soil color of 10YR 6/2 with 10YR 6/5 mottles.
Observations of wetland hydrology include saturation within 30 cm
(12 in) of the surface.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will cross
surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands. Bridge No. 210 is
proposed to cross Little Rockfish Creek. Approximately 30 linear
m (100 linear ft) of Little Rockfish Creek is located within the
project study area. Approximately <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac) of
jurisdictional wetland is located within the proposed ROW and
easements. Actual impacts to the wetland community may be less
than reported because the entire ROW width and easements are
often not impacted by construction projects. The amount of
wetland impacts may be modified by any changes in roadway design.
Two systems are currently being used in North Carolina to
describe or rate wetlands: a classification system developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979) and a numerical rating system developed by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM,
1995).
15
The Cowardin system provides a uniform approach in
describing concepts and terms used in classifying wetland
systems. The DEM rating scale gauges wetland quality using a
numerical rating system (0-100 with 100 being the highest value)
that emphasizes water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization,
pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life values, and
recreation/ education potential. The DEM rating may be revised
when a wetland delineation is conducted at the project study
area. The wetland has a DEM rating of 49 and a Cowardin
Classification of Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous,
Seasonally Flooded (PF01C).
Construction impacts can severely affect the functions
that wetlands perform in an ecosystem. Wetlands influence
regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing storm
water runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in
surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have been documented
to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials
from water that flows through them. The presence of wetlands
adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants and
toxins.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, a permit will be required from the COE for
discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." Due to wetland impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14
Permit will likely be necessary for this project. Final decision
concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
Nationwide 14 Permit
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) may be
applicable for this project. This permit authorizes construction
provided the following conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessary for the actual crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Waters of the United States is
limited to a filled area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.33 ac);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the
fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
16
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged, or otherwise
designed to prevent the restriction of, and to withstand,
expected high flows and tidal flows and movement of
aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project for crossing of a Water of the United States.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification
from the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny
water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United
States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a
prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of 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 maintain and restore 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.
4.1.4.1 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 and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset
unavoidable impacts, such measure 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.
4.1.4.2 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
17
through project modifications and permit conditions. Impacts to
the wetland could be minimized by:
- Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
- Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and
temporary ground cover during construction.
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs
for the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to
water bodies and wetlands.
4.1.4.3 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 which 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.
4.2 Protected and Rare 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 [ESA] of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review
by the FWS. Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. As of 4 November 1997, there are eight
federally-protected species listed for Cumberland County (Table
3). A brief description of each Endangered or Threatened species
characteristics and habitat follows.
18
Table 3. Federally protected species for Cumberland County.
Common Name _ Scientific Name Status _
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
St. Francis satyr Neonympha mitchellii Endangered
francisci
small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeloides Threatened
pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered
rough-leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
loosestrife
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
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.
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance=a taxon that
is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare
species and is listed for protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation. This includes the American
alligator.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac)
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub.
The bases of the leaflets are rounded and their edges are simply
or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to
white in color. Fruits, which develop from.August to September on
female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods as well as
areas that are artificially disturbed including highway and
railroad right-of-ways, edges of cultivated fields, and other
cleared land. 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
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present along the
irregularly maintained roadside shoulder, powerline corridor and
forest/maintained ecotone. The project study area was visited by
NCDOT Biologist Chris Murray on 27-28 October 1997. A plant-by-
plant survey was conducted during the site visit. No populations
19
of Michaux's sumac were observed during the site visit. A review
of the NHP rare species and unique habitat database did not reveal
the presence of Michaux's sumac within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project area. Impacts to Michaux's sumac will not occur from
project construction.
Neonympha mitchellii francisci (Saint Francis' satyr)
Animal 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 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
The project area is comprised of disturbed communities, mixed
pine-hardwood forest, and alluvial floodplain. There are no wet
meadows located in the project study area. A review of the NHP
rare species and unique habitat database did not reveal the
presence of St. Francis' Satyr within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project area. Impacts to this species will not occur from project
construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 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, for foraging and nesting habitat. A
forested stand must contain at least SO* 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 200.0 ha
20
(500.0 ac). 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 3.6-30.3
m (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30.0-
50.0 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in
April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Suitable habitat for the RCW is located within the mixed
pine-hardwood forest adjacent to Little Rockfish Creek. Scattered
longleaf pine trees >60 years old are present in this community.
Accordingly, suitable nesting and foraging habitat for RCW is
located in the project study area. Suitable habitat was surveyed
by NCDOT Biologist Christopher A. Murray on 27-28 October 1997.
This included walking in suitable habitat and visually searching
for RCW signs (cavity trees, start holes, etc.). A review of the
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal
any RCW nesting or occurrences within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the
project study area. There were no RCW cavities or starts observed
within the project vicinity. Therefore, construction of this
project will have no impact on the RCW.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry)
Plant Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
Fruits Present: June and July
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 which matures in August or September is a bright red
drupe.
Pondberry 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 including seasonally wet, low areas among
bottomland hardwoods. 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 Unresolved
Suitable habitat for pondberry is present in the wetland
portion of the alluvial floodplain. Surveys will be done in
21
Summer 1998 when the plant is in fruit. A review of the NHP rare
species and unique habitat database did not reveal the presence of
pondberry within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife)
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender
stems and whorled leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers
which 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), pine flatwoods, and pocosins. 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
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is not present
in the project study area. The study area is comprised of
disturbed communities, mixed hardwood forest, and alluvial
floodplain. A review of the NHP rare species and unique habitat
database did not reveal the presence of rough-leaved loosestrife
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area. Impacts to this
species will not occur from project construction.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed)
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
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 solitary
flowers in the axils of the upper most leaves. The purplish-
yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a long
narrow capsule, enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
American chaffseed occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire
maintained savannas, edges of cypress ponds, ecotonal areas
between peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems. Soils are
22
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
The project study area is dominated by disturbed areas with a
small segment of xeric mixed pine-hardwood forest and alluvial
floodplain located to the south of Bridge No. 210 adjacent to
Little Rockfish Creek. Accordingly, suitable habitat for American
chaffseed is not present in the proposed right-of-way. A review
of the NHP rare species and unique habitat database did not reveal
the presence of American chaffseed within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project area. Impacts to this species will not occur from project
construction.
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: 10 September, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long
pubescent 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: Unresolved
Habitat for small-whorled pogonia does exist in the project
study area, specifically within the mixed pine-hardwood forest
located to the south of the bridge over Little Rockfish Creek. A
plant-by-plant survey will have to be conducted in mid-May to mid-
June 1998 to determine if the small-whorled pogonia is located in
the project study area. A review of the NHP rare species and
unique habitat database did not reveal any populations of small-
whorled pogonia within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal
species which may or may not be listed in the future. Twenty-six
FSC are listed for Cumberland County (Table 4).
23
Table 4. Federal S ecies of Concern.
Common Name Scientific Name NC Habitat
Status
Bachman's sparrow
southern hognose snake
northern pine snake
Atlantic pigtoe
yellow lampmussel
Georgia indigo bush
Sandhills milkvetch
Venus flytrap
resinous boneset
white wicky
Sandhills bog lilly
bog spicebush
pondspice
Boykin's lobelia
loose watermilfoil
savanna cowbane
Carolina grass-of-
parnassus
wavyleaf wild quinine
conferva pondweed
spiked medusa
Sandhills pyxie-moss
a•omed meadowbeauty
Carolina goldenrod
spring-flowering
goldenrod
Pickering's dawnflower
Carolina asphodel
roughleaf yellow-eyed
Aimophila aestivalis SC
Heterodon simus SR
Pituophis melanoleucus Sc
melanoleucus
Fusconaia masoni T
Lampsilis cariosa T
Amorpha georgiana var. T
georgiana
Astragalus michauxii C/PT
Dionea muscipula C-SC
Eupatorium resinosum T-SC
Kalmia cuneata E-SC/PC
Lilium iridollae C/PT
Lindera subcoriacea E
Litsea aestivalis C
Lobelia boykinii C
Myriophyllum laxum T
Oxypolis ternata W1
Parnassia caroliniana E
Parthenium radfordii W2
Potamogeton C
confervoides
Pteroglossaspis E
ecristata
Pyxidanthera barbulata E
var. bargulata
Rhexia aristosa T
Solidago pulchra E
Solidago verna E/PT
Stylisma pickeringii
var. pickeringii
Tofieldia glabra
Xyris scabrifolia
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
E No
C No
C No
grass
Threatened (T) are native or once-native species of wild
plant or animal which is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. An Endangered (E) species is any native
species or once-native species of fauna or flora whose continued
existence as a viable component of the State's flora or fauna is
determined to be in jeopardy. Significantly rare (SR) species
are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations
in the state. Special Concern (SC) species require monitoring
but which may be collected and sold under regulations adopted
under provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act.
24
Proposed Threatened (PT) are species which have been formally
proposed for listing as Threatened, but has not yet completed the
legally mandated listing process. Candidate (C) species are very
rare in North Carolina, with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction. Proposed Candidate (PC) are species which have been
formally proposed for listing as Candidate but has not yet
completed the legally mandated listing process. Watch Category 1
(W1) includes rare species whose status in North Carolina is
relatively well known and which appear to be relatively secure at
this time. Watch Category 2 (W2) includes species with
questionable taxonomy, including taxa of dubious validity and
taxa under study and potentially to be named.
FSC species 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. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP
list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state
protection under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of
protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT
activities.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique
habitats did not reveal the presence of these species or unique
habitats in or near the project study area. Surveys for the
above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were these species observed during the site visit.
5.0 References
Amoroso, J.L. (ed.) 1997. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina." Raleigh, North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goulet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States., U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Enginneer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of
North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries.
25
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. (eds.) 1997. "Natural
Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina.
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.
1995. Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1988.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water
Quality Review 1983-1986.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1997.
"Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North
Carolina River Basins."
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell.
Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, &
Delaware. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina (3rd Ap rox.)
Raleigh, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Soil Survey of.Cumberland
and Hoke Counties. Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals ot
the Carolinas, Virginia, an Maryland. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 8, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

This responds to your letter of April 20, 1999, requesting comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment, dated April 1999, for
Legion Road (SR 1132) from.Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007), Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2809). This report 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 of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen the existing roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter facility and replace the existing bridge
over Little Rockfish Creek with a new five-lane bridge. The total length of the project is 4.3
miles.
Purpose and Need
The Service does not concur with the Purpose and Need for this project as described on pages 1-
5. On page 1 the sole purpose given for this project is that it serves as a segment of a
Thoroughfare Plan and would complete the radial-loop design serving suburban travel in the
area. Except for a section on Traffic/Truck Volumes the remaining catalog of needs is simply a
list of existing conditions, as noted on page 2. Part C, on page 5, strongly reinforces the notion
that the sole purpose of the project is that it meshes nicely with other NCDOT projects in the
area. The statement lacks any accident data that would tend to be more supportive of a legitimate
public safety need for this project.
Alternatives Analysis
In addition to the "No Build" and "PublicTransportation" alternatives, the document presents
only one alternative, described above. Given that this alternative is on existing alignment, rather
than on new location, the Service concurs with this decision. However, the Service retains the
right to recommend other alternatives if data not contained in this EA/FONSI become available
and to provide comments on the final alignment.
Wetlands
As required by the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Environmental Protection agency, the NCDOT
should first endeavor to avoid, then minimize, and finally compensate for wetland losses that
would be incurred if this project is implemented. All wetland and stream impacts of this project
are associated with the replacement of the bridge over Little Rockfish Creek. As noted on pages
34-35 of the EA the wetland impact of the preferred alternative is less than 0.33 acre and the
stream impact on Little Rockfish Creek is less than 200 linear feet. Therefore, the NCDOT
proposes to apply for a Nationwide 14 permit. Avoidance and minimization can be
accomplished by selecting the least environmentally damaging alternative, which in this case is
improvement on alignment, using High Quality Water erosion control standards, implementing
Best Management Practices, and reducing the extent of clearing and grubbing activity in and
adjacent to wetlands and water bodies.
Endangered Species
The Service notes that the EA provides a detailed discussion (pgs. 37-41) of the potential project
related impacts on the eight federally-protected species listed for Cumberland County. Based on
field observations and occurrence records, NCDOT has concluded that this project will not
impact any of the listed species. The Service concurs with NCDOT's "No Effect"
determinations. However, this decision would be reconsidered if additional information on listed
species that could be impacted by this project comes to light, or if there is a significant change in
project plans.
Section 4(t)
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that the Secretary of
Transportation may not approve the use of land from any publicly owned park, recreational area,
wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or other designated area, purchased all, or in part, with Federal
funds unless a determination has been made that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative
to the use of the land from the property and (2), the action includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to the property from such use.
The NCDOT has declared that this project will not result in the taking of any 4(f) properties.
The Service concurs with with this declaration.
2
Summary
The Service considers that this EA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources
and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these resources. Based on the information
provided, the Service concludes that this project, implemented as described, will not have
significant impact on resources under our jurisdiction, and will not oppose authorization of this
project under Nationwide Permit 14.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the project. Please advise us of any
changes in project plans and provide us with your response to any issues we have raised in this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom McCartney at (919)
856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
John M. He er
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (Timpy)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (Bell)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Graf)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:06/04/99:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-2809.tip
3
s ?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
lV?
Cb- FMS/nom `S 19
This is in response to your letter of June 25, 1997, requesting.our comments on
"Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road
(SR 1131), F.A. Project STP-1132(3), State Project 8.2442501, TIP # U-2809" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199707799).
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. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
E closure
Copy Furnished (with copy of
incoming correspondence):
Mr. John Domey
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27687-7687
September 9, 1997
September 9, 1997
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road
(SR 1131), F. A. Project STP-1132(3), State Project 8.2442501, TIP # U-2809" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199707799)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County and partially within the jurisdiction
of the town of Hope Mills and the city of Fayetteville, all of which participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panels 160 and 195 of the February 1982
Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); the city of Fayetteville FIRM index; and
Panel 13 of the June 1984 Fayetteville FIRM, the roadway is not located in an identified flood
hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey
topo maps of the area ("Hope Mills, N.C." and "Fayetteville, N.C.")
Based on a review of Panel 2 of the November 1981 Hope Mills FIRM, the roadway
crosses Little Rockfish Creek, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. We refer you to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification For Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways," copies of which have been provided to your office previously. In addition, we
suggest coordination with the town of Hope Mills for compliance with their flood ordinance and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
According to your letter of June 25, 1997, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation is proposing to widen Legion Road to a five-lane, curb and gutter facility. No
control of access is proposed for the road.
Based on available information, including the Cumberland County Soil Survey, National
Wetland Inventory Maps, and aerial photography, it appears that the project will impact
wetlands adjacent to Little Rockfish Creek near Hope Mills. These areas are generally
associated with riparian stream corridors and provide a number of benefits to receiving waters
including the attenuation and desynchronization of flood events, improvements to water quality
in downstream receiving waters, and the uptake and transformation of many biologically active
compounds. In addition, these areas provide valuable wildlife habitat for a variety of birds,
mammals, amphibians, and reptiles.
t t
September 9, 1997
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road
(SR 1131), F. A. Project STP-1132(3), State Project 8.2442501, TIP # U-2809" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199707799)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS : (Continued)
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 of excavated or fill material
in waters of the United States or any adjacent or isolated 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 branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
If you have any questions, they should be addressed to Mr. McLendon.
-4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 25, 1997
Mr. Coleman Long
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Long:
SUBJECT: Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to
Cameron Road (SR 1131), F. A. Project STP-1132(3), State Project 8.2442501,
TIP # U-2809
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun studying
the proposed improvements to Legion Road (SR 1132) from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron
Road (SR 1131). The project is included in the 1998-2004 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2000 and construction in
fiscal year 2002.
This project includes the widening of Legion Road to a 5-lane roadway with curb and
gutter: 64 feet (19.5m) from face to face of curb. This will provide for a 12-foot (3.6m) wide
center left turn lane, two 11-foot (3.3m) wide inside lanes, and two 13-foot (3.9m) wide outside
lanes. There is no control of access proposed, and all adjoining properties will have at least one
access point on Legion Road. The proposed right of way, 100 feet (30.5m) wide, is currently
owned by DOT. However, additional right of way may be needed in isolated locations for the
purpose of temporary/permanent construction easements.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by August 4, 1997 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
?' J
2
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Richard Brewer, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension 212
Sincerely,
3','- 4&
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
HFV/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment

NORTH CAROLINA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
ayrr u r?
r . C` A
AI'm
lay S
i I 3* c\
IOl 59 . c
?
3vanaer
mEerl Intl
rr a ?
)Kooe Mil R?
r Cedar creek a ?\
n3 * z
IS Lena \
It
a 1 L art,
END\ PROJECT s a>? °
ar
..saa s
.2u AA.
?-..mq se mom.. ,/,3 ___• ?
Z=Z
am
212 y
a:
Qa am .n4
as ME
as aa_ as: • ' ,_ ?:
ai =am
am.° as j` a! M .m m
an
an
sa ' aat ,? am
.. a?
am,' Mr. i
M, 1" m
Wit
IP,
in
is" -'"- / rtoPE , '>=. _ rase am
{ MILS
7 l ARE ?-- m J? ?) st ' r
HOPE
1 MILS 1--- :a
1 ( Lo4KE a>v
$t ' s)ti iDls ?Vaaa Trt
NOR wu+ r _ f, ' '--
'''- NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
ito
-- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'?
`` PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
BEGIN PROJECT , - _
- - ---,- ?--- ,r: FAYETTEV111E
SR 1132 (LEGION ROAD),
SR 1007 (OWEN DRIVE)
TO SR 1131 (CAMERON ROAD),
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP NUMBER U-2809
FIGURE 1
? r
mss. SfATFq,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 25, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Roadi
FROM: ? fH. Franklin Vick, P.E., ManageJ
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVED
JUN 3 9...1997
EW RONMENTgL SCIENCES
""e..?U
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Cumberland County, Legion Road (SR 1132), from Owen
Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131), F. A. Project
STP-1132(3), State Project 8.2442501, TIP # U-2809
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun studying
the proposed improvements to Legion Road (SR 1132) from Owen Drive (SR 1007) to Cameron
Road (SR 1131). The project is included in the 1998-2004 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2000 and construction in
fiscal year 2002.
This project includes the widening of Legion Road to a 5-lane roadway with curb and
gutter: 64 feet (19.5m) from face to face of curb. This will provide for a 12-foot (3.6m) wide
center left turn lane, two 11-foot (3.3m) wide inside lanes, and two 13-foot (3.9m) wide outside
lanes. There is no control of access proposed, and all adjoining properties will have at least one
access point on Legion Road. The proposed right of way, 100 feet (30.5m) wide, is currently
owned by DOT. However, additional right of way may be needed in isolated locations for the
purpose of temporary/permanent construction easements.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by August 4, 1997 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Richard Brewer, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension 212
HFV/plr
Attachment

17 ?5 Goa4?
ancKe-s 401 s Ift t
` Wirt ? • 10 ? Wade 4 82
JArraa. 4 61 a ?, s
Faye# z z us
NORTH CAROLINA '
CUMBERLAND COUNTY Cumber) nd 59 ;Vander 4 3 I
_ `9
1
-1{o Mils 3 / Cedar Creek - g
1
n? * 15 Lena
81 \\ zw
.S - - 2^.. T? - - - \
iL2
i _
END PROJECT
g? 1 '? ,/-?r e q y
4ozz, Mel C-3
A
3P1??-" ?` 84 y. _
gm MR
ia!l
J II _ .?- >a.A12
At
m$ m ao r3e ile
Au 22u, M,
mm
:s lm
a.
,m
20 Me ma
.21 nm
na ME 3 X11 2A,
?lm 30 me
211121
Ad.
HOPE , am ?Ze '-- -
14 an. YS zm
L4KE HOPE im
------ - -------- -----------
MILLS
LAKE r qu am
1 1 Imm Z.
nOR.WAS R
`•? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
. 3 TRANSPORTATION
?4 - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
BEGIN PROJECT,-'
FAYETTEVILLE
SR U32 (LEGION ROAD),
SR 1007 (OWEN DRIVE)
TO SR U31 (CAMERON ROAD),
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP NUMBER U-2809
FIGURE 1
4L5
.......thart@ mail.dot.state.nc.us„U-2809...........................................................................................................................................1.........?
: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. .
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Cyndi Bell)
Subject: U-2809
Hi Teresa! Reference your 6/25/97 request for preliminary data to begin studying the Legion Road
widening project in Fayetteville.
There appears to be only one stream crossing on this project, near the southern end. It's an existing
crossing of Little Rockfish Creek. Please advise me if you know of other stream crossings on this
alignment not visible on your map or our records. At this location, Little Rockfish Creek is Class C,
so we won't be recommending any special erosion control measures or hazardous spill catch basins. All
of the streams in the study area (bounded by CSX railroad and Business I-95) are Class B or C. NWI
maps show no wetlands in the project footprint, and as usual we know you will be doing a site review to
confirm wetland locations in the project area. Field studies should also include survey of project
area for perennial streams not shown on the vicinity map provided. Your Little Rockfish Creek crossing
appears to be perpendicular, which is good. Just keep in mind that culverting or channnelization of
this stream in excess of 150 feet would likely require mitigation.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments. I look forward to reviewing the EA.
Cyndi Bell
Printed for [e-mail] (C ndi Bell) 1
N :
RECEIVED
FEB 1 019971
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?PAI(!H
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 5, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Richard L. Brewer, P. E.
Planning and Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Notes, Legion Road (SR 1132), from
Cameron Road (SR 1131) in Hope Mills to Owen Drive
(SR 1007) in Fayetteville, State Project 8.2442501,
T.I.P. # U-2809.
The scoping meeting for the subject project was held on Thursday,
January 30, 1997, at 3:00 p.m. in the Planning and Environmental Conference Room.
The following people were in attendance:
Steve Routh
Rick Heicksen
Ray Goff
John Taylor
Rob Allen
Lanette Cook
Ray McIntyre
Scott Cooke
Kevin Bowen
Kelly Becker
Jerry Snead
David Cox
Cyndi Bell
Ron Allen
David Williams
Debbie Barbour
Debbie Bevin
Ray Moore
Stephen Lowry
Richard Davis
Richard Brewer
Town of Hope Mills
Cumberland Co. Planning
Division 6
Locations and Surveys
Photogrammetry
Program Development
Program Development
Traffic Congestion Management
Traffic Congestion Management
Traffic Congestion Management
Hydraulics
Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Water Quality
Roadway
Roadway
Roadway
SHPO
Structure Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental

The major topics of discussion at the meeting were as follows:
1. Roadway and Structures have agreed to design a new structure over the Little
Rockfish Creek. The new structure would be locatedparallel to the old structure
in order to maintain the traffic flow during project construction. The old bridge
will be removed at the end of the project.
2. A request for funding of sidewalks has been submitted. The sidewalks will be
built within the Town of Hope Mills and the City of Fayetteville municipal limits.
The sidewalks would serve the schools along the project. Also, the Division
suggested roadway cross sections that are suitable for bike traffic.
3. The Division has suggested that the project limits be extended. This would allow
improvements to Cameron Road and to the NC 59/Cameron Road intersection.
Program Development will investigate this area to see if extra funding can be
appropriated.
4. The Division provided three more recommendations. The geometrics of the
Owen Drive/Legion Road intersection should be improved to reduce the accident
experience. The six traffic signals on this project should be included on a
proposed closed loop system. Traffic Engineering should investigate the
necessity of additional turning lanes at each intersection.
5. The town of Hope Mills expressed concerns about asbestos concrete water lines
that were located inside the project right-of-way. They requested that DOT
consider abandoning the lines under the proposed roadway.
6. Planning and Environmental agreed to adjust their Environmental Assessment
schedule back one year. The extended schedule will provide more time to
develop the detailed mapping that is needed for the design process.
7. Local planners predicted that this project could be accelerated on the TIP due to
strong support from the transportation board member.
If any of the above comments are in need of revision, or if you need to submit additional
comments, please write or call Richard Brewer at 733-3141.
w
I?
1

??_ __ - ?,? ?? -??x- ? - _ Wiz- ----_ - - --- - - -- -
--._----- - -- -- -- --- -
G

I. a

U-2809 Scoping Fact Sheet
Federal-Aid Project: STP-1132(3)
State Project: 8.2442501
Description: Fayetteville. SR 1132 (Legion Road) from SR 1007 (Owen Drive) to
SR 1131 (Cameron Road)
County: Cumberland
Division: 6
General Description of Work: Widen existing roadway to a multi-lane facility
Recommended Cross Section: 5 lane, curb and gutter, 64 feet (19.5 meters) f-f
Classification: Minor Arterial
Sidewalks: None currently proposed
Bicycles: No provision of bicycle facilities currently recommended
Right of Way (existing): 100 feet
[Construction easements and utility adjustments are likely; estimated
cost $6.500.000]
Control of Access: None proposed
Design Speed: 50 mph (80 km/h)
Traffic Volumes (1996): 4900-13000 veh/day
(2020): 9400-21000 veh/day
Railway: No effect on a railroad or rail corridor.
Planning Schedule: EA In progress - October 98
FONSI December 98 - July 99
R/W Acquisition: FY 00
Let: FY 02
?C iC Q/G? ?-ell )

?,{y' ? STATE o-
N d?ml?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PIANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 20, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
RECEIVED
DEC 3 .Q 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
^1-r
GARLAN D B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager 1
Planning and Environmental Branch /
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Notice for SR 1132 (Cameron Road)
in Cumberland County, State Project No. 8.2442501,
TIP No. U-2809
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 January 30, 1997 at 3:00 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 Richard Brewer, P. E., Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 212.
RLB/plr
Attachment
2-014
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 12/20/96
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2809
Project # 8.2442501
F.A. Project # STP-1132(3)
Division 6
County Cumberland
Route Legion Road (SR 1132)
Functional Classification Minor Arterial
Length 6.9km (4.3 miles)
Purpose of Project:
The purpose of this project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and accident
experience of Legion Road. This project was requested by the Fayetteville Urban Area
Transportation Advisory Committee and should improve traffic flow and safety between
Fayetteville and Hope Mills.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements of work:
The project consists of widening Legion Road (SR1132) to a 5-lane, 19.2m
(64 foot), curb and gutter facility from Cameron Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive
(SR 1007) (see attached map). The existing bridge over Little Rockfish Creek will be
replaced with a new bridge with a clear deck width of 19.2m (64 feet). Minor signal
revisions will be required at the intersections of Owen Drive, West Mountain Road,
Black and Decker Road, Elk Road and Lakeview Road.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA and FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA In Progress - Oct 98
FONSI Dec 98 - Jul 99
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other? No X
If yes, by whom and amount:
($) or (%)
How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: Minor Arterial
Type of Access Control: Full Partial X None
Type of Roadway: The existing facility is generally a two lane, two way, roadway with a
pavement width of 7.2m (24 feet) and soil shoulders with varying widths of 1.5 to 2.4m
(5 to 8 feet). There is one bridge (Bridge #210) on Legion Road, located approximately
0.32km (0.2 miles) north of Cameron Road. The bridge spans Little Rockfish Creek and
is 40m (135 feet) long with a clear deck width of 7.9m (26.3 feet).
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings 1 -
Typical Section of Roadway: The proposed cross section is a five-lane, 19.2m (64 foot),
curb and gutter facility.
Traffic: ADT(1995) 4100 to 11.000 vpd Projected ADT(2015) 10,000 to 13.500 vpd
% Trucks N/A
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 311
Design Speed: 80km/h (50mph)
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)... $ 10,400,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util., and acquisition)...... $
Force Account Items ................................. $
Preliminary Engineering .............................. $
Total Cost ........................................ $
1997-2003 TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ....................................... $ 6,500,000
Right of Way ...................................... $ 100,000
Total Cost........ .............................. $ 6,600,000
2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface........... ............... ......... $ 2.179,584
X Resurfacing .................................. $ 302,720
Milling & Recycling (Removal) .................... $
Turnouts .................................... $
Shoulders: Paved ............................ $
Earth ............................. $
X Earthwork ......................................... $ 459.130

X Subsurface Items: ..................................
Subgrade and Stabilization ........................... $
$
421808
X Drainage (List any special items) ....................... $ 1376,000
Sub-Drainage ...................................... $
X Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x ......... $
X New Bridge 135ft x 64ft ......... $ 518.400
Widen Bridge x ........ $
X Remove Bridge 135ft x 24ft ........ $ 25.920
New Culverts:
Size Length Fill Ht. ..... $
Culvert Extension .............................. $
Retaining Walls:
Type Avg. Ht. Skew ..... $
Noise Walls .................................. $
Any Other Misc. Structures ...................... $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter(2'-6") ........................ $ 454.080
X Fine Grading ...................................... $ 210.000
X Utilities .......................................... $ 350,000
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. ............ $
X Erosion Control .................................... $ 72.000
Landscape ........................................ . $
Lighting .......................................... $
X Traffic Control ..................................... $ 215.000
Signing: New ................................ $
Upgrading ........................... $
X Traffic Signals New ........................... $
X. Revised ........................ $ 150.000
RR Signals: New ............................... $
Revised ........................... $
With or Without Arms ............... $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement ............. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ............. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade............ $
X Pavement Markings:
Paint Thermo X Markers X .......... $ 80.000
Delineators........ .............................. $
PROJECT SCORING SHEET-
X Other(Mob.andMisc. , Clearing & Grubbing) .............. $ 2.227.358
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 9.044.000
Contingencies & Engineering .............................. $ 1.356.000
PE Costs .............................................. $
Force Account .......................................... $
Right of Way: Subtotal: $ 10,400,000
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost: (Includes R/W) $
Prepared By: Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and initial and date after comments.
4

•/IPa IZ19 • .01 Ofd
I M 9 /
1 lzaa ` 1?a ?
1? ?/ - ,? ,? /••? N I ,-? 3323? ' I--v
. a3
300 'p ila
1@fI«
.a 3691 ?????.@ Ix w ' Y u? ,I .Oa tab // Y_V W ` I ton .W y 1N
?? -__-a7 1 u ? r?l Lse ooi \os?
I _ e, - e l 11 lar /\ 3lal 3om {„ I
I? 1a3 lal Izre z ?,aa V I ? a d•oa / 1 '.? 11x I 1003. •? .? lzaz 1
yid gay, "' t3» t?1
/• 1391 Imo' -'_ /
,? T>a- 1zp ?? ?,1
3606
- I /,1389 1 ??
/ ? 1 f 1
Ins / ? 1 _x} n?1
. 3319
Im I d' ° 331a
\ ? 1bt 1313 -10 >? ` ?, ` -
1m 39v ?" ..
1
1?a
13t, ?01
310 ? 3939 3000
13u
?3?y \O 1za2 ? ??
- ! IZI6 ? ?
? 3691 \7716 - 29•-JB ?/ "0`
I#a -Ry =1 San `
.31 31n .
29.0 ?, - asn n,1 3213
3019
3^37
.z1 ? zsa ?? - r a,e av I
3030 2219 ' /l \ ` / V 8 3166 1
/ I au ? a
w \ = ? I
/-'- .? aloe z3oo \
7
V \? 3636 ^
?`\ ? ?J 3369 •• /
` 1 `. = ?o T 3616.-, n as \
HOPE I/ I'>3r r zm •, '?
PILLS
O LACE I,s\ °? 3?a V m _ are /
/
------ - ________ _-_____---= pt."
„ HOPE
9 MILLS \ zm ,? t ?'/
LACE ' \? 1M ,33? a,z 3363
63 4 i ,111 ' '?- - 2 --
\
a / a
.-,A / 613
HOPE MOLLS ?`^, 1 `•?
b.. f.A7 I`a ,may ./ ? 1
1 . it
aLm
/
I ,
3zr I .. ,.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONNIENTAL
BRANCH
FAYETTEVILLE, LEGION RD (SR 1132),
FROM OWEN DR (SR 1007) TO
CAMERON RD (SR 1131),
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1132(3),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2442501
T.I.P. NO. U-2809
0 KILOMETERS I
FIGURE 1
?r•
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF LEGION ROAD
FROM OWEN DRIVE TO CAMERON ROAD
Project 8.2442501 U-2809 Cumberland County
A citizens informational workshop will be held on
Thursday, March 20, 1997 in the Elizabeth Cashwell Elementary
School 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 Legion Road (SR 1132) from Owen Drive
(SR 1007) to Cameron Road (SR 1131). ?_The project proposes to
widen the roadway to a multi-lane facility.-
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. Richard Brewer, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch, P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at
[phone] - Extension 212.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the workshop. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Brewer at the above
number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
workshop.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
?EHNR
August 1, 1997 RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM AUG 0 5 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Ia. Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #97-0831; WQS# 11674
Legion Road Widening from Owen Drive to Cameron Road
TIP U-2809; 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. 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) to be employed.
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
97-0831 DOT Scoping
August 1, 1997
Page 2
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-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 new road construction or 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
97-0831 DOT Scoping
August 1, 1997
Page 3
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?
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 restrict 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? Spec 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
97-0831 DOT Scoping
August 1, 1997
Page 4
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.
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 give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
m1s:\970831 Legion Road scoping
enclosed wetland handout
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
rDepartment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form I I of
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
X13-()?I bZY1
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
F
tt 'Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
e
aye Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
? Mooresville bitroundwater Ruildlife C3 f Solid Waste Management
El Raleigh 2Q Land Quality Engineer NForest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W El Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
ng
on
as ? Coastal management Consultant Parks and Recreation / ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others Environmental Management V
? Winston-Salem PWS S (
2l
Vl-
L
AA
C
,., L
,-
-.
-
-
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-Hou Reviewer/Age y:

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
DConsistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS 104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

STArt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
Mr. John Hennessy
DWQ - DENR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
April 20, 1999
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
ILP
c?G,o
<f
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Legion Road (SR 1132) From Cameron
Road (SR 1131) to Owen Drive (SR 1007), Fayetteville, Cumberland County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1132(3), State Project No. 8.2442501,
T.I.P. No. U-2809
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Resources
Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project
will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments
received on the Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for
preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide
planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as
discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded
to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

2
Your comments should be received by June 7, 1999. If no comments are received by that
date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of No Significant
Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/plr