U-3849

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GovERNOR SECRETARY
April 7, 2004
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality W TLAN®S /401 W Up
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 APR 12 2004
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele: WATER QUAL17-y SE
C
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Hope Mills, SR 1363 (Elk Road) V10'Wegion
Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project
STP-1363(3), State Project 8.2443601, WBS Element 34994.1.1, TIP Project U-3849
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:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Your comments should be received by June 11, 2004. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of No
Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Grdgory J. orpe, P!(. D., Director
Project D elopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
GJT/plr
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
e"`s7AT?v
.tea
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GovERNOR SECRETARY
April 7, 2004
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality "'THAN®S /401 GROUP
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 APR
12 2004
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele: WATER QU
ALIT'Y
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Hope Mills, SR 1363 (Elk Road) fro/9&egion
Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project
STP-1363(3), State Project 8.2443601, WBS Element 34994.1.1, TIP Project U-3849
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:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Your comments should be received by June 11, 2004. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of No
Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Grcfory J. orpe, PV D., Director
Project D elopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
GJT/plr
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW. NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
z 0? "
Z0
Date
? oy
ate

roIt'Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
r John F. Ki0ivan III
Division Administrator, FHWA
Hope Mills
" SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Document Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:

Beverly G. Robi son
Project Devel ment Engineer
•••`'? CARO
off,
,r` ??.•a?E5S 10,y
4 9
g SE A
J es A. McInnis, Jr., P. E. L
c
20701
Project Development Unit Head ?• y9 t q.
••??s•. NGI NE.?'?? •.
'? A.11Ac?N •?•.
Z f 2?/ ov
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Project Commitments .................................................................................i
Summary ...............................................................................................ii
I. Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................. 1
A. Project Purpose .................................................................................... 1
B. General Description ............................................................................. 1
C. Cost Estimate ...................................................................................... 1
II. Need for Project ............................................................................................... 1
1. Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 1
2. Capacity ................................................................................... 2
3. Accident Analysis .................................................................... 2
4. Thoroughfare Plan ................................................................... 2
III. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 2
A. Existing Typical Section ...................................................................... 2
B. Existing Right of Way ......................................................................... 2
C. Access Control ..................................................................................... 3
D. Speed Limits ........................................................................................ 3
E. Functional Classification ..................................................................... 3
F. Utilities ................................................................................................. 3
G. Interesting Roads and Types of Control .............................................. 3
H. Sidewalks ............................................................................................. 3
I. School Bus Data .................................................................................. 3
IV. Prop osed Improvements ................................................................................... 3
A. Project Length ...................................................................................... 3
B. Proposed Typical Section .................................................................... 3
C. Proposed Alignment ............................................................................. 4
D. Right of Way ........................................................................................ 4
E. Access Control ..................................................................................... 4
F. Design Speed ....................................................................................... 4
G. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements ...................................... 4
H. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................... 5
1. Sidewalks ............................................................................................ 5
J. Bicycle Accommodations ................................................................... 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
V. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................................................
A. Design Alternatives ..............................................................................
B "No-Build" Alternative ........................................................................
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation ......................................................
VI. Adjacent Projects .............................................................................................
VII. Evaluation of Environmental Effects ...............................................................
A. Cultural Resources .........................................................................
1. Historic Architectural Resources .............................................
2. Archaeological Resources .......................................................
B. Soci al/Economic Effects ......................................................................
1. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ......................................
2. Neighborhood Cohesion .........................................................
3. Public Facilities .......................................................................
4. Environmental Justice .............................................................
5. Economic Effects ....................................................................
C. Land Use .............................................................................................
D. Farmland Impacts .................................................................................
E. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................
F. Natural Resources ................................................................................
1. Biotic Resources ......................................................................
2. Terrestrial Communities ..........................................................
a. Disturbed Communities ...............................................
b. Alluvial Floodplain ......................................................
3. Aquatic Communities .............................
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
5. Water Resources .....................................
a. Characteristics of Water Resources .............................
b. Best Usage Classification ............................................
6. Water Quality ..........................................................................
7. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
8. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................ 14
a. Waters of the Unites States .......................................... 14
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ......... 14
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 14
d. Permits ......................................................................... 15
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation ................... 15
9. Protected and Rare Species ...................................................... 15
a. Federally-Protected Species ......................................... 15
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species 21
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ..................................................................... 23
H. Section 4(f) Resources ........................................................................ 24
1. Traffic Noise Analysis ........................................................................ 24
J. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................ 26
K. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage Tank
Facilities ............................................................................................... 28
VIII. Comments, Coordination, and Public Involvement ......................................... 28
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3a 2006/2025 Traffic Volumes Without Improvements
Figure 3b 2006/2025 Traffic Volumes With Improvements
Figure 4a Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 4b Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 4c Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 5 Southview Middle and High School Recommended Campus Layout
Figure 6 Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 7 Flood Plain Map
Figure 8 Typical Section
Tables
1 LOS With and Without Proposed Improvements ........................................... 2
2 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .................................................... 12
3 Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County ...................................... 16
4 Federal Species of Concern ............................................................................. 22
Appendix A
Appendix B
Project-Commitments
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project. STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO)'requested a review of the final plans if any of the widening project
occurred on new location. The design plans will be forwarded to SHPO for further
review.
Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a
biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the federally-
protected St. Francis' satyr, Pondberry, and Michaux's sumac prior to completion of the
final environmental document for the project.
Division 6
Sidewalks are proposed on the south side of Elk Road from Legion Road to
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road. The City of Fayetteville has committed to participate in
the cost of sidewalks in accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy.
4.2 meter (14-foot) outside lanes are proposed to provide additional width to
accommodate bicycles.
Side slopes at streams and wetland areas along this project will be at 2:1 in order
to minimize impacts.
Environmental Assessment U-3849 Page 1of 1
February 2004
i
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
SUMMARY
1. Description of the Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen SR 1363 (Elk Road) to a four-lane median divided facility with curb
and gutter, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR 1242/SR 1131 (Gillespie Road/Cameron
Road) and extend Elk Road on new location between Gillespie Road/Cameron Road and
I-95 Business/JS 301. The project is approximately 1.5 miles long.
The proposed project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 and construction in FY 2006.
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $10,669,000 which includes
$6,700,000 for construction and $3,969,000 for right of way acquisition. The cost
included in the 2004-2010 TIP is $12,265,000 which includes $4,615,000 for right of
way acquisition and $7,650,000 for construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The widening and extension of Elk Road will result in the relocation of nine
residences.
Less than 1.0 acre (0.4 ha) of wetlands will be impacted as a result of the
widening and extension of Elk Road.
3. Alternates Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project.
Alignment
All widening improvements are proposed along existing (Elk Road) SR 1363.
Elk Road will be extended from (Cameron Road) SR 1131/(Gillespie Road) SR 1242 to
I-95 Business/US 301 at SR 2273.
Typical Section
A four-lane curb and gutter section was the only typical section studied for the
proposed project. This typical section will provide a 3.7 meter (12-foot) inside lane and a
4.3 meter (14-foot) outside through lane in each direction and a variable 5.3 to 6.7 meter
(17.5 to 22 foot) median.
No Build
The No Build option was rejected as the existing facility will not effectively serve
the projected volumes.
4. Coordination
The following federal, state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Mid Carolina Council of Governments
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Fayetteville
Mayor of Hope Mills
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Water Quality
5. Additional Information
Additional Information concerning the proposed project and assessment can be
obtained by contacting the following:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Assessment Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 401
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
iv
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994. 1.1
TIP Project U-3849
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to reduce congestion and improve safety on
SR 1363 (Elk Road) and improve access to I-95 Business/US 301 for southwest
Fayetteville and Hope Mills.
B. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen existing SR 1363 (Elk Road) to a four-lane median divided facility
with curb and gutter, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR 1242 (Gillespie Road)/SR 1131
(Cameron Road) and extend Elk Road from SR 1242/SR 1131 approximately 100.6
meters (330 feet) eastward to I-95 Business/US 301. The project is approximately 2.4
kilometers (1.5 miles) long.
The proposed project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 and construction is scheduled for FY 2006.
C. Cost Estimates
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $10,669,000 which includes
$6,700,000 for construction and $3,969,000,for right of way acquisition. The cost
included in the 2004-2010 TIP is $12,265,000, which includes $4,615,000 for right of
way acquisition and $7,650,000 for construction.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
1. Traffic Volumes
Without the proposed improvements, the 2006 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
along Elk Road ranges from 12,200 vehicles per day (vpd) to 13,100 vpd. For the design
year (2025), the estimated traffic volume ranges from 20,500 vpd to 21,600 vpd. With
the proposed improvements, 2006 volumes range from 10,800 to 13,100 vpd and 2025
volumes range from 17,000 to 21,600 vpd (see Figures 3a and 3 b).
2. Capacity
A capacity analysis was performed for the proposed project to predict the level of
service (LOS). Without construction of the proposed project, Elk Road will operate at
LOS D in 2006 and a LOS E in 2025. Due to the proximity of signalized intersections
along the facility the signalized intersections will govern the operational capacity of Elk
Road with the proposed improvements. Table 1 lists the design and construction year
LOS without the proposed improvements and the design year (2025) LOS with the
proposed improvements. See Figures 4a-4c for proposed lane configurations.
Table 1 LOS With and Without Proposed Improvements
Intersections 2025 LOS with
improvements 2006 LOS without
improvements 2025 LOS without
improvements
Legion Road D C E
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road D F D
I-95 Business/US 301 B N/A N/A
3. Accident Analysis
During the three year period from May 2000 to April 2003 there were 47
accidents reported on Elk Road. Forty percent of the accidents reported were rear end,
slow, or stop type collisions. The accident rate along Elk Road for this time period was
459.40 accidents per 100 million vehicle mile (acc/100mvm). Compared to the statewide
rate of 479.25 accidents per 100 million vehicle mile for urban secondary routes, Elk
Road is slightly below the statewide rate.
4. Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed project is classified as an urban minor arterial and is consistent with
the Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, which was adopted by local governments
and NCDOT. See Figure 6.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Existing Typical Section
The existing typical section along Elk Road is a two to three lane roadway with
grass shoulders.
B. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way on Elk Road varies from 18.3 meters (60 feet) to 30.5
meters (100 feet).
2
C. Access Control
Existing Elk Road has no control of access.
D. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along Elk Road is 35 miles per hour.
E. Functional Classification
Elk Road is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial in the North Carolina functional
classification system.
F. Utilities
The utility impact rating is estimated to be medium. Utilities along Elk Road
include telephone, underground power, water, sanitary sewer, and fiber optic cable lines.
G. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
There are four T-intersections along Elk Road that are stop sign controlled.
Legion Road and Cameron Road/Gillespie Road are major "T" intersections with Elk
Road. Legion Road is currently signalized. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road is stop sign
controlled.
H. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks along Elk Road.
1. School Bus Data
Approximately 10 buses use Elk Road from Legion Road to Cameron Road/
Gillespie Road. Each of these buses makes approximately 2 to 4 trips per day for
Southview Middle and High Schools.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Project Length
The total project length is 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles).
B. Proposed Typical Section
A four lane median divided facility is proposed for Elk Road from Legion Road to
I-95 Business/US 301. The median width will vary from 5.3 to 6.7 meters (17.5 to 22
3
feet). Inside lanes will be 3.6 meters (12 feet) wide and outside lanes will be 4.2 meters
(14 feet) wide in order to accommodate bicycles (see Figure 8).
C. Proposed Alignment
No changes to the alignment of Elk Road are proposed. A best fit alignment is
proposed. This alignment will include widening on both sides of Elk Road. This
alignment minimizes impacts and costs for the proposed project. The extension of Elk
Road will be on new location. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be realigned
approximately 114.9 meters (337 feet) west of the existing alignment.
D. Right of Way
A total right of way width of 33.5 meters (110 feet) plus construction easements
will be required to accommodate the proposed improvements.
E. Access Control
The proposed improvements to Elk Road include no control of access.
F. Design Speed
An 80 km/h (50 mph) design speed is proposed for the project.
G. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements
The existing traffic signal at Legion Road will be upgraded. A new traffic signal
will be installed at the proposed new intersection of Elk Road and I-95 Business/US 301
and at the intersection of Cameron/ Gillespie Road with Elk Road. All other existing
intersections will be stop sign controlled. Proposed signalized intersection configurations
for the project are shown on Figures 4a and 4b.
Southview High School and Southview Middle School are located adjacent to
each other on the south side of Elk Road near Legion Road (see Figure 2). Currently,
school traffic backs up onto Elk Road in the mornings and afternoons. In order to
address this problem, changes will be made to the driveways for both schools as a part of
this project. Three driveways serving the schools will be closed and replaced with two
new driveways. The new driveway for the high school will connect with Elk Road across
from SR 3700 (Alexwood Drive). The new driveway for the middle school will connect
with Elk Road across from the driveway for Southview Baptist Church. Median
crossovers, left turn lanes and traffic signals will be provided at both of these new
entrances. Figure 5 shows the driveway layout recommended for these schools by
NCDOT's Municipal and School Transportation Assistance Group. Improvements
shown on Figure 5 beyond constructing the new driveways from Elk Road to existing
driveways on school property will be the responsibility of the school system.
4
H. Cost Estimates
The current cost estimate for the Elk Road widening and extension is $10,669,000
which includes $3,969,000 for right of way acquisition and $6,700,000 for construction.
1. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are proposed on the south side of Elk Road from Legion Road to
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road. The Town of Hope Mills has committed to participate in
the cost of sidewalks in accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy.
J. Bicycle Accommodations
The proposed 4.2 meter (14-foot) outside lanes will provide additional width to
accommodate bicycles.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
Only one design alternative, the "Best Fit" alternative, was examined for this
project. Within this alternative, the proposed widening has been shifted as necessary in
order to minimize project impacts. Elk Road will be widened symmetrically from Legion
Road to SR 3765 (Alexwood Drive). Elk Road will be widened mostly on the north side
from Alexwood Drive to the Cameron Road/Gillespie Road realignment. See Figure 2.
A five-lane facility was considered for the proposed Elk Road improvements.
However, because of the safety and operational benefits associated with a four-lane
median divided facility, the five-lane facility was not recommended.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative is not recommended. While this alternative avoids the
anticipated impacts of the proposed project this alternative does not meet the purpose of
the project to reduce congestion and improve safety on Elk Road and improve access to I-
95 Business/US 301 for southwest Fayetteville and Hope Mills.
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
It was determined that no alternate modes of transportation would be a practical
alternative to the recommended alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant
mode of transportation in the project area. Staggering work hours, car pooling, and van
pooling are possible ways to generally reduce highway congestion; however, these
congestion management measures are not controlled by the NCDOT. These alternatives
would do nothing to address the system linkage needs that will be improved by the
"Build" alternative.
5
VI. ADJACENT PROJECTS
Several other highway projects are proposed for this area of Fayetteville (see Figure
6).
Two projects are immediately adjacent to Elk Road. TIP Project U-2809 involves the
widening of Legion Road from SR 1007 (Owen Drive) to SR 1131 (Cameron Road).
Right of Way acquisition and construction for this project are scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 2007 and 2008, respectively.
The proposed Hope Mills Bypass (TIP Project U-620) will extend from SR 1141
(Bingham Drive) to Legion Road at Elk Road. Traffic on the Hope Mills Bypass will use
Elk Road to access I-95 Business/US 301. Right of way acquisition for the bypass is
complete. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2004.
In addition to these two projects, five other projects are in the surrounding area:
¦ U-2304A, Cumberland Road widening from NC 59 to SR 1233 (Yale Street); Right of
way acquisition is complete. Construction is underway.
¦ U-2308, NC 59 widening from south of SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 (Raeford
Road); Right of way acquisition is complete. Construction is underway.
¦ U-3311, Bingham Drive widening from the Hope Mills Bypass to US 401 (Raeford
Road); Right of way acquisition is complete. Construction is scheduled to begin
FY 04.
¦ U-3424, Bunce Road widening from US 401 (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale
Road); Right of way acquisition and construction are currently post year.
¦ U-3422, Camden Road widening from the Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC 59. Right of
way acquisition and construction are currently post year.
The proposed project is required, even with construction of these other projects.
As discusses in section V. B., the "no-build" alternative is not recommended.
VII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
6
undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential
effect. This project will not impact any properties eligible for or listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (see concurrence letter in Appendix A).
If any of the widening project is constructed on new location, the HPO is
requesting a further review of the design plans. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be
realigned on new location. NCDOT will submit the design plans to the HPO for further
review.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites along the proposed project; therefore the
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) did not recommend an archaeological survey.
See letter from the Department of Cultural Resources dated July 2, 2001 in the appendix.
If any of the widening project is constructed on new location, the HPO is
requesting a further review of the design plans. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be
realigned on new location. NCDOT will submit the design plans to the HPO for further
review.
B. Social/Economic Effects
1. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
The proposed project will require the relocation of nine homes. None of these
homes are minority-owned or occupied. The relocation program for the project will be
conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North
Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The NCDOT relocation
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. Appendix B of this document contains
additional information regarding NCDOT relocation programs and includes copies of the
relocation report prepared for the project.
2. Neighborhood Cohesion
The project will not directly cause or encourage an influx or loss of population, or
isolate people from one another. Although residential displacements may occur as a
result of the proposed project, they are not expected to have a negative impact on the
economic condition of the study area.
7
The study area is densely populated with residential and various institutional land
uses. The project will benefit the community by providing a facility that better
accommodates existing and projected future traffic.
3. Public Facilities
Southview Baptist Church and Southview Presbyterian Church are located
adjacent to each other along the north side of Elk Road within the study area. The
widening is not expected to impact the church or its parking areas. There is a ball field
located in the southeast portion of the property along the roadway. The ball field is
owned by and used by the church softball league and for unorganized recreational
purposes. Impacts to this ball field are expected to be low. This ball field is not a 4(f)
protected property.
The Radha Soami Society Beas-America is located east of I-95 Business/US 301.
The Group hosts various events for its followers throughout the year. Although the
Group has expressed concern for the project as a result of aligning their driveway with
Elk Road, no adverse impacts to the Group or its property are expected to occur.
Southview Middle School and Southview Senior High School are located adjacent
to each other on the south side of Elk Road. Buses to the middle school have access via
Legion Road south of the proposed project's western terminus. Access to the high school
is provided via Elk Road.
Both schools are separated from the existing roadway by a lightly wooded lot,
which provides an approximately 91.44 meter (300-foot) buffer from the existing
roadway. No impacts to recreational facilities at either school are expected to occur.
4. Environmental Justice
Executive order 12898 requires that each federal agency, to the greatest extent
allowed by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect
human health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and
adverse" effects on minority and low-income populations.
The proposed project will not place adverse impacts upon any areas having low
income and/or minority populations, or split or isolate any such communities. In
addition, census data and field surveys indicate that no low income or minority
communities exist within the immediate vicinity of the project. This assessment has
found no evidence or indication this project will disproportionately or adversely affect
persons on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. The proposed
project is being implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
5. Economic Effects
The proposed improvements to Elk Road are not expected to cause any changes in
the economic condition of the project study area. The project is not expected to
encourage growth within the study area. Property values may increase because the
proposed project will improve access to I-95 Business/US 301. However, land will be
required for right-of-way, removing it from the area's tax base.
C. Land Use
The project study area is in a primarily residential area within Cumberland
County's and Hope Mills' planning jurisdictions. Residential development encompasses
the length of the study area within Cumberland County's jurisdiction. The remaining
study area in Hope Mills' jurisdiction consists of institutional land uses.
Cumberland County's policies on future development, land use, and growth can
be found in the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. The Plan is a collaborative
effort between the County and its eight municipalities, including Hope Mills. In addition,
Hope Mills has a separate land use plan that was completed in 1996. The information
obtained in this land use plan is incorporated into the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use
Plan. Based on the general goals and objectives outlined in this Plan, the County is
preparing specific small area plans. However, work on small area plans for the project
area has not been initiated.
The proposed improvements to Elk Road are consistent with the Fayetteville
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan and the
Hope Mills land use plan. The largest development planned for the area is the
Worthington subdivision. According to the plat for this subdivision, there are 45 lots.
Currently, there are approximately 20 houses. The widening project will not provide new
access to undeveloped land. Although the project will create a new intersection with Elk
Road and I-95 Business/US 301, the improvements are not expected to encourage
development in the study area or cause changes in the land uses along Elk Road.
D. Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR 658) requires all
federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils, as designated by the United States Soil Conservation
Service. Farmland soils in an urbanized area or in an area committed to urban
development by the local governing body are exempt from the requirements of the FPPA.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as
designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). Land which is
planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the same level of preservation
afforded other rural, agricultural areas. The proposed widening of Elk Road is in an
urbanized area. The project lies within the jurisdiction of Cumberland County and the
9
Town of Hope Mills and is zoned for residential and office and institutional development.
Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to farmland is required.
E. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
The Council on Environmental Quality defines indirect impacts as those, "which
are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative impacts are defined as "impacts
on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.8). Based
on these definitions, the current land use plan for Cumberland County, and information
provided by the Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) and
Hope Mills' planners, it is concluded that the project will not produce measurable indirect
impacts within the study area.
Based on the forecast in the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan,
Cumberland County has no plans to further develop the study area during the next ten
years. The Worthington subdivision is the largest planned development within the study
area and is currently under construction. Hope Mills is experiencing growth in east,
north, and northwest directions, which include the project study area. Furthermore, Hope
Mills has plans within the next two years to annex the entire project area. This
annexation will not alter the current land uses along Elk Road. Property values in the
area surrounding the project may increase because access to I-95 Business/US 301 will
be improved.
Several other highway projects are proposed for this area of Fayetteville. The
cumulative impacts associated with these projects include approximately 71 residential, 9
business and 2 non-profit relocations, 6.4 acres of impacted wetlands and approximately
1,700 feet of impacted streams as a result of six projects in the Fayetteville area.
F. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
communities observed. Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are
described and discussed. Animals observed during field investigations are denoted with
an asterisk(*).
2. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: disturbed
community and alluvial floodplain. Much of the wildlife in the project study area likely
uses various communities for forage, cover, and nesting habitat.
10
a. 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, and irregularly maintained roadside shoulder.
Maintained yards are primarily restricted to housing and business sites located in
the project study area. Dominant species located in the herbaceous layer include fescue,
crabgrass, and Bermuda grass. Trees observed in this community include dogwood,
privet, loblolly pine, and laurel oak.
Regularly maintained roadside shoulders are land parcels in which the vegetation
is kept at a low-growing, early successional stage. These areas appear to be regularly
mowed and may receive frequent herbicide application. This habitat includes the
majority of land along Elk Road. Species observed here include crabgrass, Bermuda
grass, violet, Carolina geranium, and Virginia creeper.
Irregularly maintained roadside shoulder and power line corridor receive less
frequent mowing and/or herbicide application. These areas are scattered along Elk Road.
Tree saplings observed here include sassafras, laurel oak, and turkey oak. Species
observed in the herbaceous and vine layer include poison ivy, ragweed, and goldenrod.
There are also portions of irregularly maintained roadsides which contain primarily
longleaf pine.
Faunal species utilizing this community may include raccoon, white-tailed deer,
the least shrew, eastern harvest mouse, and hispid cotton rat eastern cottontails prefer
brushy edges where they primarily feed on woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include southern short-tailed
shrew, gray squirrel, and white-footed mouse.
Eastern fence lizard and five-lined skink inhabitant open habitats with plenty of
sunlight. The slimy salamander, spring peeper and eastern box turtle are commonly
observed throughout forested habitats.
b. Alluvial Floodplain
This community is located along the two unnamed tributaries that cross under Elk
Road. The wetland area found within this community is located to the north of Elk Road
within a disturbed area in a sewer easement. Both wetland and upland habitats are
present within this community type. Species observed here include giant cane, American
elm, loblolly pine, water oak, and tag alder.
11
3. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream, is located in the
project study area.
Elk Road crosses two unnamed tributaries of Little Rockfish Creek. Both of
these streams are small perennial streams.
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 included three-
lined salamander, green frog, pickerel frog, and banded water snake. Although certain
aquatic species are likely to occur within the project area, none were observed during the
field investigation.
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.
Estimated impacts are derived using the proposed 30.5-m (100-ft) right-of-way.
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 2.0 ha (5.0 ac)
Alluvial Floodplain 0.4 ha (1.0 ac)
Wetland Impacts <0.4ha (<1.Oac)
Total 2.8 ha (7.0 ac)
5. Water Resources
a. Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Cape Fear River
Drainage Basin, Hydrological unit number 03-06-15. Two unnamed tributaries are
located within the project study area. Both tributaries flow from north to south,
converging just south of the project area, before entering Little Rockfish Creek.
The western most unnamed tributary is a perennial stream. Within the project
study area, this stream channel is approximately 1.2 meters (4.0 feet) wide and 22.9
centimeters (9 inches) deep. The substrate is primarily silt and sand.
12
The eastern most unnamed tributary is also a perennial stream. Within the project
study area, this stream channel is approximately 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) wide and 12.7
centimeters (5 inches) deep. The substrate is primarily silt and sand.
b. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (1997). The classification of Rockfish Creek [Index no. 03-06-15] is C. Class C
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
6. Water Quality
Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be good indicators of water quality
because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life
cycle, are nonmobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species
richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and
rivers. All basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and to
facilitate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review. A
biological sampling site is located at the NC 87 crossing of Rockfish Creek (B-21). This
site received a Good rating in 1993 and an Excellent rating in June 1998.
7. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water resources. The
water resources located within the project study area include the unnamed tributaries and
one wetland area. Land clearing and grubbing activities in the project area may 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. Additionally, as populations and vehicular traffic increase
so does the potential for petroleum distillates and other chemical compounds to enter
nearby streams. Increased amounts of toxic materials can adversely alter the water
quality of any water resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions
13
In order to minimize impacts to water resources within the footprint of the project,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will
be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
8. Jurisdictional Issues
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
Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. 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.).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
The two unnamed tributaries (described in Section VII-F-5-a) are considered
jurisdictional surface waters. A wetland area is located adjacent to the eastern most
unnamed tributary.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will cross surface waters and a
jurisdictional wetland. Approximately 30 linear meters (100 linear feet) of both unnamed
tributaries are located within the project study area. Approximately <0.4ha (<1.0 ac) of
jurisdictional wetland is located within the proposed right-of-way. Actual impacts to the
wetland community may be less than reported because the entire right-of-way width is
often not impacted by construction projects. The amount of wetland impacts may be
modified by any changes in the roadway design.
14
d. Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States 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 and surface water impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit
will likely be necessary for this project.
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
This project involves widening an existing roadway which crosses two streams.
Avoidance of these streams is impractical. The wetland area adjacent to the easternmost
stream is located on the north side.of Elk Road. The project will impact approximately
0.15 acre of wetlands. A number of homes exist on the south side of Elk Road across
from this wetland. Shifting the proposed widening in order to avoid the wetland would
result in relocating possibly as many as ten additional homes.
Side slopes at the streams and through this wetland area will be at 2:1 in order to
minimize impacts. The project's effects on waters of the United States will be further
minimized by strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management Practices
(BMP's) during the entire life of the project. All efforts will be made to minimize
environmental impacts.
If stream impacts exceed 150 feet mitigation may be required. If wetland impacts
exceed 0.1 acre mitigation will be required.
9. Protected and Rare Species
a. 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 January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists eight
federally- protected species for Cumberland County (Table 3). A brief description of
each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
15
Table 3. Federally Protected species for Cumberland Countv.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
St. Francis satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Pondberry Lindera melissaifolia Endangered
Rough leaved loosetrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Small- whorled pogonia* Isotria medeloides Threatened
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A)
T= rttstoric tcecora- the species was Last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Endangered = a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all of 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.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has plumage that is black and white
horizontal stripes on its back, with white cheeks and under parts. Eggs are laid from April
through June.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in open pine stands that are between 80 and
120 years old. Longleaf pine stands are most commonly utilized. These birds forage in
pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees that are 10 inches (25
centimeters) or larger in diameter. The foraging range of the red cockaded woodpecker is
up to 500 acres (200 hectares). The acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
The older pines favored by the red-cockaded woodpecker often suffer from a
fungus called red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner
wood to become soft. Cavities generally take 1 to 3 years to excavate. The red-cockaded
woodpecker feeds mainly on beetles, ants, roaches, caterpillars, wood-boring insects and
spiders, and occasionally fruits and berries.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is not present within the project
area. The disturbed communities did contain pine species; however there were no pine
species greater than 60 years old and the communities were too fragmented for suitable
habitat. A search of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, indicated that
presence of the red-cockaded woodpecker was recorded within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers)
of the project area. However, the red-cockaded woodpecker colony abandoned the area
in 1990. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this species.
16
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii franciscz) Endangered
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 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: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the St. Francis' satyr in the project area is marginal. The best potential
habitat within the project area is found in the section of Wetland 1 where grasses, rushes,
and sedges are dominant. However this wetland does not appear to be a relict of beaver
activity. Based upon an October 6, 2003 conversation with Stephen Hall, Invertebrate
Zoologist with NHP, the presence of St. Francis' satyr in the project area is highly
unlikely, but cannot be completely ruled out. Mr. Hall stated that the St. Francis' satyr
has never been recorded outside of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Mr. Hall stated that the
best time to survey for the St. Francis' satyr is from mid-May to June.
A search of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no
occurrence of the St. Francis' satyr within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area.
Therefore, based upon the current information about the St. Francis' satyr, the Biological
Conclusion for the project construction should be May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely
Affect. Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a
biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect" prior to the
completion of the final environmental document for this project.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Threatened
Small whorled pogonia is a small perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These
plants arise from long slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or
six light green leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish-
green to white petals and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring
from mid-May to mid-June. Populations of this plant are reported to have extended
periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small spring ephemeral orchid is
not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not in flower, young plants
of Indian cucumber-root also resemble small whorled pogonia. Small whorled pogonia
may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows in open, dry
deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soils. It also grows in rich, mesic
woods in association with white pine and rhododendron.
17
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat is not present in the project area for small whorled pogonia. The
plant communities within the project area are severely to moderately disturbed. A search
of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of small
whorled pogonia in the project vicinity. The species was last observed in the county
more than 50 years ago. No specimens were observed during the field surveys conducted
on August 28, 2003. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered
species.
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) Endangered
Pondberry is an aromatic, deciduous shrub with erect stems and shoots, growing
as high as 6.5 feet (2 meters). It spreads vegetatively by above ground shoots (stolons).
Young stems and leaves are hairy. Leaves are alternate, drooping, and oblong, with hairy
edges, a pointed tip and rounded base, 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 centimeters) long and 0.6 to
1.4 inches (1.5 to 3.5 centimeters) wide. Pondberry is characterized by the sassafras-like
odor of its crushed leaves and tendency to form thickets of clonal, unbranched stems.
Small, pale, and clustered flowers appear from February through April before leaf
and shoot growth begins in late April. Fruiting occurs from August to September. The
fruit matures in late autumn and is fleshy, oval, bright red, and about 0.25 to 0.5 inches
(0.6 to 1.3 centimeters) in diameter.
Pondberry prefer habitat associated with bottomland hardwood forests in inland
areas, poorly drained swampy depressions, and edges of limestone sinks and ponds closer
to the coast. It occurs at the edges of swamps and ponds and depressions in forest of
longleaf pine and pond pine forests. It is typically found in somewhat shaded areas, but
can also grow in full sun.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for pondberry occurs in the wetland portion of the alluvial
floodplain. A review of the NHP database on August 27, 2003 did not indicate any
known occurrences of pondberry near the project vicinity. Buck Engineering biologists,
Greg Price and George Buchholz, performed a plant-by-plant survey on August 28, 2003
by foot in all areas of the project area containing suitable habitat for a period of
approximately 1 hour. Pondberry was not observed during the field surveys. Therefore,
the Biological Conclusion for the construction of the proposed project is May Affect -
Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the pondberry. Concurrence will be obtained from
the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely
to Adversely Affect" prior to the completion of the final environmental document for this
proj ect.
18
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Endangered
The slender stems of this perennial herb grow from a rhizome and reach heights
of 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter). Whorls of 3 to 4 leaves encircle the stem at intervals
beneath the showy yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with
fruits present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a species endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of
North Carolina and South Carolina.
This species generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins, on moist to seasonally saturated sands, and on shallow
organic soils overlaying sand. Rough-leaved loosestrife has also been found on deep peat
in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays. The grass-shrub ecotone, where
rough-leaved loosestrife is found, is fire-maintained, as are the adjacent plant
communities (longleaf pine-scrub oak, savanna, flatwoods, and pocosin). Suppression of
naturally occurring fire in these ecotones results in shrubs increasing in density and
height and expanding to eliminate the open edges required by this plant. Fire
suppression, drainage, and, to a lesser extent, residential and industrial development have
altered and eliminated habitat for this species and continue to be the most significant
threats to the species' continued existence.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is not present within the project area.
While longleaf pine uplands exist within the project area, no ecotones between longleaf
pine uplands and pond pine pocosins are present within the project area. A search of the
NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of rough-leaved
loosestrife within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. It can be concluded that
the project will not impact this species.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatus shrub that grows 0.7 to 3.3
feet (0.2 to 1.0 meter) in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports nine to
thirteen sessile, oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are 1.6 to 3.6 inches (4 to 9 centimeters)
long, 0.8 to 2 inches (2 to 5 centimeters) wide, acute, and acuminate. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simple or doubly serrate. Plants flower in June,
producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of four to five greenish-yellow to white flowers.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods and roadsides. It is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows in
open habitat where it can get full sunlight and is often found with other members of its
19
genus as well as with poison ivy. Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain
and Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac occurs within the project area. A review of
the NHP database on August 27, 2003 did not indicate any known occurrences of
Michaux's sumac near the project vicinity. Buck Engineering biologists, Greg Price and
George Buchholz, performed a plant-by-plant survey on August 28, 2003 by foot in all
areas of the project area containing suitable habitat for a period of approximately 2 hours.
Michaux's sumac was not observed during the field surveys. Therefore, the Biological
Conclusion for the construction of the proposed project is May Affect - Not Likely to
Adversely Affect for Michaux's sumac. Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service on a biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" prior to the completion of the final environmental document for this project.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) Endangered
American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems (or stems
branched only at the base) with large, purplish-yellow, tubular flowers that are borne
singly on short stalks in the axils of the uppermost, reduced leaves (bracts). Flowering
occurs from April to June in the South, and from June to mid-July in the North. Fruits
mature from early summer in the South to October in the North.
American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally
moist to dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine
flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric
sandy soils, and other open grass-sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependent on factors such
as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water tables to maintain the crucial open to partly open
conditions that it requires. Historically, the species existed on savannas and pinelands
throughout the coastal plain and on sandstone knobs and plains inland where frequent,
naturally occurring fires maintained these sub-climax communities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat, including moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, or
ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, for the American chaffseed
is not present within the project area. A search of the NHP database, conducted on
August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of American chaffseed within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project area. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this
species.
20
a. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 4 includes FSC species
listed for Cumberland County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the
level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
21
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat Present
Vertebrates
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Sc Yes
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR (PSC) Yes
Noturus sp. 1 "Broadtail" madtom SC Yes
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC Yes
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC (PT) No
Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC No
Invertebrates
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T (PE) No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T (PE) No
Plants
Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E Yes
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Yes
Danthonia epilis Bog oatgrass SR-T No
Dionea muscipula Venus flytrap SC-L No
Lilium pyrophilum Sandhills bog lily SR-L No
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E No
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice SR-T Yes
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia SR-T No
Ludwidgia brevipes Long beach seedbox SR-T Yes
Myriophyllum laxum Loose watermilfoil T No
Potamogeton
confervoides Conferva pondweed SR-D No
Pteroglossaspis ecristata Spiked medusa E Yes
Pyxidanthera barbulata
var. brevifolia Sandhills pyxie-moss E Yes
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T No
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidago verna Spring-flowering
goldenrod SR-L No
Stylisma pickeringii var.
pickeringii Pickering's dawnflower E Yes
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel W1 No
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass SR-T No
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
22
PE A Proposed Endangered species is one that has been proposed to Endangered
status but the status has not yet been adopted by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission and by the General Assembly as law.
PSC A Proposed Special Concern species that has been proposed to Special Concern
status but the status has not yet been adopted by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission and by the General Assembly as law.
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR A Significantly Rare species that is not listed as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined to need monitoring.
SR-D A Significantly Rare species that is disjunct to North Carolina from a main range
in a different part of the country or world.
SR-L A Significantly Rare species whose range is limited to North Carolina and
adjacent states.
SR-T A Significantly Rare species that is rare throughout its range (fewer than 100
populations).
T A Threatened species is any native or once native species that is likely to become
an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act.
W1 Rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which
appear to be relatively secure at this time.
Two FSC species (sandhills milkvetch and sandhills pyxie-moss) were recorded
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area based upon the NHP database as of
August 27, 2003. The sandhills milkvetch population occurs just south of Elk Road
midway between I-95 Business/US 301 and Legion Road, within the project area. The
sandhills pyxie-moss was recorded outside of the project area.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
No major drainage structures exist along Elk Road in the project area. However,
two small streams cross Elk Road. This project is located within the Cape Fear River
Basin. Cumberland County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program. There are no flood hazard zones affected by this project (see Figure 7).
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable. Erosion
and sedimentation will be controlled through the specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control methods. Groundwater
resources will not be affected by the project, as the roadway is fill and existing cut.
23
H. Section 4(f) Resources
There are no resources protected by.Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as
amended.
1. Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect the proposed project would
have on noise levels in the immediate area. The assessment included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in
the study area. A comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
was performed to determine if traffic noise impacts are likely to occur as a result of the
project. Traffic noise impacts were determined by following 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.
To determine whether highway noise levels are 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 in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 772.
Ambient noise measurements were taken to determine 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 line reference level for assessing the
impact of future noise levels on receptors in the project area. Existing noise levels in the
project area were measured at 15 meters (50 feet) from the edge of pavement and found
to be 55.1 dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was used in areas where traffic
noise was not the predominant source.
The Traffic Noise Prediction Model (TNM1.1) computer model was utilized in
order to determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the
peak hour of the year 2025.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria, or [b] substantially exceed the
existing noise levels. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to
receptors in the project area when noise impacts are predicted to occur.
The worst-case scenario for traffic noise is widening Elk Road to the north the
entire length of the project. This will result in traffic noise impacts to 45 residential
receptors.
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 18.3 meters
(60 feet) and 25.4 meters (83.3 feet), respectively from the center of the proposed
roadway.
24
Table N6 (Appendix B) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. The predicted noise level increases for this
project range up to 17 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10
dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the
sound. Forty-five (45) receptors will experience noise level increases.
Traffic noise abatement alternatives for this project were considered. These
alternatives included noise barriers, buffer acquisition and the "No Build"Alternative.
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. No
control of access is proposed for this project. Adjacent properties will have direct
driveway access to the facility. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise
reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to
construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways,
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance
from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters (50 feet) from
the barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters (400 feet) long. An access
opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise
impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The
cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold
of $25,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future
sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use
control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this
project, due to the substantial amount of right of way necessary to make vegetative
barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier should be
approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet) wide to provide 3 dBA reduction in noise levels. In
order to provide 5 dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right of way would
be required. The cost of acquiring the additional right of way and planting sufficient
vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement threshold of $25,000 per benefited
receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit
institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project.
25
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If
the proposed widening did not occur, 46.receptors would experience traffic noise impacts
by approaching or exceeding the FHWANAC. Also the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in the exterior noise levels of approximately 11 dBA. As
previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA and a
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
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.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, neither NCDOT nor
the FHWA will be responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued after the date of the final
environmental document for this project (Date of Public Knowledge).
J. Air Quality Analysis
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year 2005,
2010 and the Design year 2025, using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILESB 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 Environment, 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 in the vicinity of the
intersection of SR 1363 (Elk Road) and SR 1132 (Legion Road). The predicted 1-hour
average CO concentration for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010 and 2025 are 5.40,
5.40 and 5.90 ppm, respectively.
26
Comparison of the predicted CO ,concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO
level does not exceed the standard.
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. Area wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence,
the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers (6 to 12 miles) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
highways.
The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR parts 51 and 93
are not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment
area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
27
K. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage Tank Facilities
Based on the field reconnaissance survey and a review of the Geographical
Information System (GIS), there are no anticipated impacts to underground storage tanks
(UST) and no superfund sites were identified in the project study area.
The GIS shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites exist
within the project limits.
VIII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On July 25, 2001, a letter was mailed to the following state and local agencies to
solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project
(note: an asterisk indicates those agencies which responded to this letter):
* US Fish and Wildlife Service
* US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Geological Survey
* NC State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* NC Department of Cultural Resources
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Department of Public Instruction
MID Carolina Council of Governments
Mayor of Fayetteville
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Hope Mills
A citizens informational workshop for the widening of Elk Road was held on
February 5, 2002, at Hope Mills Town Hall. The purpose of the project, an approximate
schedule, estimated cost, and the project's current status was conveyed to citizens at the
workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to gather citizens' input prior to the design
of the proposed project. Detailed information regarding possible effects on homes and
businesses was not yet available. Citizens were encouraged to complete comment sheets
and provide the NCDOT with their input to aid in the planning and design process.
Although approximately 38 people attended the workshop, no comment sheets were
received. However, a letter from the Radha Soami Society Beas-America was received
by the NCDOT on February 19, 2002, in response to information received at the
workshop. The Radha Soami Society Beas-America is located east of I-95 Business/
US 301. The project proposes to align Elk Road with the property's entrance. The letter
expressed concern for the impacts that may occur to the property's entrance as a result of
aligning the driveway with Elk Road.
28
FIGURES
s
4017 ' 1 _g ?•
.01 01 29 d. , \41 2316
- - 2315 (.02)
BEGIN PROJECT " ad
2310
4r?nnA ??? 3622 4Q;/ I? 1 V?ur
? 1 3312 h \ ? Q 1? ? ??
eio?e?a. 9 300 3633 a'0 <'Y
U 228
3636 3369
d' r \-"Y87??40» & - 3766 '? 1392 3816 J^01' 4 3901 ?\
?3 34 / 9weisr
stems \ ? 3700 ? .O6 .09 % 4000 '?? / ?' 2267 d. .
3 da
.oy .brrna.
\ ,4 ( $ 3767 `\ ?a j' 6US di
l d FQ, ??672?' G. 3369 0 //i ?6 2269
?I )¢ a
?+r 7383 /
! 3765- \??3 /
16
37 0?/, 2219 m g ?\
a. A 06 . ;i0 /
zee
3700 EB ? Jc Wpi ScO. a ?( N 073871 tz4z
C% u«an. ri. $ V 2273 a.
>''nq ............ MS. \ X73 3700) .10 3Wmw 393 3921
.. ..._..m ...... .._.._ .. .._.._..... . a
?L 2323 ?
1132 2391
Oa 3763 tt4610' hs 2323 / o 2219
( 4011 d
1 rns.h cam' 3 2392 ,b
\
HOPE MILLS i ^06 a. 72d2+++ 2393 ` 0..a. 2363
?b X4009 4a .1 0 31 944
23
/ .03 4 11I 7 a. 2364 2363 .yo
^@"' I (.11I? a 'Jsi ti 399
1363 1) d .'??L d' eenlvYw
^? -`-''? ? 0706 - \ mFe 8966 a\4'5 ?S 900
0 9?M
2273
E ???, _ _ \ pwy 301 p8
+rn ,4 i/t SS 'F n 1731 Ra \?/',
.63
Jr. High Ra d t"e \
Soft. \, 15 _
113 13 '? 1130
55 9 96 ';? ' iArdulusa?.,\ °'.
sv L?? ??
Ra.? 2996
?
3.220
I -? ,/iz74
.20 1126
N
N
? apt.
U M
? A N
say YYlii Y
\ S
z?
m .,. ' rYmac, f1
ic0e M t / 1
Ct .s r t
ens ?
I
SCALE: 0 MILE 0.z FIGURE 1
\?r
??
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LEGION ROAD TO I-956US/US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849

GRAPHIC BY: CHARLES S7URDIVAN7 DATE: 70106103
Y '.
k?!
F
'??'
F'
6'.
? ?
-_
f r
?
?
-
r•
- ?.

??
??
l
:
?~
.
,?.
.?;?E:jt'i?;?
?,?'
r, ?'?''
' ?::

pr .
.;? ?,?'
'i':
` 1M'

xc
?'??-'.,
?' '-
... _?A:' .:may '-
12200
17300
2006
ESTIMATED ADT WITHOUT PROJECT
2025
U-620
A MATCH LINE A
10400 L J
18500 12500
20700
500 PM 200
2600 1500 80E- 10
? (1.1)
1100 L:3700
PM 14900 N o
1700 ?i8500 60E--10 21600 FALCONBRIDGE ROAD 00 ??N
300{' I
12500 (3.2) 900
LEGION ROAD
2600 Y 3800 LEGION ROAD
3100 5400
13100 g
21600 `q
12200
20500
1100 PM 2200

gI$?
N i 1300 10 60 -
2600
(1.1)
? ?I r? AI FYIN(1(lll /1F711/F
1 1300
12200
20500
?S o
rnrn
800 PM 300
1300 60 - 10
(1.1)
DUNROBIN DRIVE z
501
700
12400
20600
600
1 PM 1300
1000 10 ? 00 2100
g g?
L°9 F
1100 BENT CREEK DRIVE
12500
20700
i
A MATCH LINE A
LEGEND
PM
DH V - D
U.0
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (I )
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (f I
PM PDI PEAK PERIOD
(L) DUALS TT-STS (i /
INDICATES THE DIRECTION OF
PEAR PLOW.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
/
i?
9300 7400
15300 123
E
12600
21000
5200
V8-70-0
PM
1900 sow 10 7100
X3000 (3.2) 11700
CAMERON ROAD
GILLESPIE STREET

'k NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LEGION ROAD TO I-95BUS/US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849

FIGURE 3.
12200
17300
2006
ESTIMATED ADT WITH PROJECT
2025
0-620
A MATCH LINE A
10400
18500 12500
20700
500 PM 200
2600

1100 3700

PM 14900 1500 60 ? 10 60/
(1.1) OIIO
N,o
FALCONBRIDGE ROAD
1700 8500 s0, 10 21600 ? "
3m
E--1
12500 (3.2) 900
LEGION ROAD 2600 1 3800 LEGION ROAD
3100 QQI?
g 5400 12600 1
13100 r?. 21000

i1600 ,o
1100
$ ? ? 2400
1600 L

^
4000 ?
1
12200 T66 j
7600 1900 60F 10 3400
20500 .1 l 3000 (32) 6200
1100
X1300 PM 2200
10 60 2600 CAMERON ROAD
500
'
GILLESPIE STREET

° 1100 B00

1100
11 1300
10800
17000 1 4700
7000
12200 ?
20500 5300 y PM
21000 8501 15400 Bo-1D 20300

30200 ALEXWOOD DRIVE
21100 (3.2) 28500
B00 PM
300
1300 60<- 10 600 US 30117-95BUS US 30117-95BUS
(t 1) ?$l0 3W? '` 200
orn 600 11 22400
DUNROBIN DRIVE
700 1300
2500
12400 1200
100 2000
20600 <f00 1002 0 10-56 1200
600 <100 0 (6,3) 2100
PM 1300
000 10 X80 2100
m
BENT CREEK DRIVE
F1
100
12500
20700
------ ------
A MATCH LINE A
LEGEND
PM
DHV ? D
U,e)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (f )
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (f )
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
W) DUALS,TT-ST'5 (I )
INDICATES THE DIRECTION OF
PEAK FLOW.
REVERSE FLAW FOR AM PEAK
i
?i
TO BE DEAD-END ?0 SR 2273
0
0 0° 100
0
500
VACANTFACTORY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
/ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LEGION ROAD TO I-95BUS/'US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849
FIGURE 3b
LFEGION ROAD
I
LOS D
of
ELK ROAD 2 300'
- - - - - - - - - -
300' ?L I r 300'
-------- .r -- -
U- 4 LOS B

--- - --- --
FP -PP i0o' J?? r zoo
-- _' 'SCI
ELK ROAD

MIDDLE SCHOOL ENT.
Figure 2: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Church Entrance /
Middle School Entrance 2025 Design Year
FIGURE 4a'
LEGION RC
I
I
III
.I
o l o0
0 00
k+ 4
I
0
0
LOS D
Z 300'
f
LEGION ROAD
Figure 1: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Legion Road
2025 Design Year
u-3a49
CHURCH ENT.
LOS B
o 200'
0
ti
y?
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENT.
Figure 2: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Church Entrance /
Middle School Entrance 2025 Design Year
FIGURE 4a?
ELK ROAD
LOS D
300'
CAMERON ROAD / GILLESPIE STREET
u-3849
LOS B
11
u-3849

CAMERON ROAD / GILLESPIE STREET
Figure 7: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Cameron Road /Gillespie Street
2025 Design Year
I-95 / US 301 BUS.
ELK ROAD +)
I-95 / US 301 BUS.
Figure 8: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and 1-95 /US 301 Business
2025 Design Year FIGURE 4b'
------------ o
0
•£ 3xn?I?
6"2-n IDWOUd dIJ.
AINfloo QNV'I'dauNf10
10£ SfI/S1IU96-I OZ QVO-d NOID31
((IVO,d XII3) £9£1 IIS
HONV'IH SISA'IVNV 'IV,LN3NINOIIIAN3
QNV LNHWdOrIHA30 J.O3fO'Id ?-
SAVMHJIH zlO NOISIAI4
NOI.LV-LllOdSNV'dJ-
d0 LN3W.LdVd3(l VNI'IOIIVO HXHON

1V3d KV )JOd AL014 SMASH
ACrIA avid
d0 NOLL33HIO 3HJ, s3J.VDIGNI
(Z) S4s-J.L'nvrlO (rr)
Oola3d avid xd Hd
(i) JildS 'IVNOLIJ3NIO O
(T) 31CI IOA A'MrIOH NOISM AHO
(rr)
of AHO
Lad
(IN3J3-1
V 3N17 HO1VW V
OOLOZ
OOSZG
OOG1
??
3A210 N33LYJ 1N38
a
S au
S
WO
001z 09<- OL 0001
00EG Wd -
009
0090.7
00621
001
z8 (o 109
$g
(L'L)
0L was 00E1
OOE Nd 009
133MLS 3/dS377/9
bull (rc) 000E
OO1L OL X09 0061
nd
OOLB
0OZ9
?oEZI
0061
00o1Z
009N
006
OVON NOa3WV3
OOE91
ODES
100E
OV0213V02I8N007V:i
g $ WO 0091
x109 OL -j 09 -
11OOZ rid 009
OOLOZ
009ZG
0090Z
OOZZI
OOE1
0011
3AM0000MX37V m
009- l
09E- - of
OOEI? p
?g g
OOZZ wd 0011
009oZ
OOZZG
? 00912
?
g OOIEG
0065 001E
OVOU NOIS37 008E 009z
(ZIC) OOSZG-1
0091z M ---->09 0099
00661 wd ooze
009Z
3i1M0 NI8OIINnO
IAF50051-1
L 006011
d 3NI7 /iO1VW d
oz9-n
9ZOZ
103m0 ld inOH1iM lad (MVINI1S3
900Z
OVON NOIJ37
OOELI
OOZZG
4£ 3lIfIDI3
6Y8£-fl .L03fOlld dI.L
X LNfl00 QNVIuaff HflO
I0£ Sfl d'SfIU96-I OZ QVOU NOIDTI
((IVO,d H1I3) £9£I 119
HONVIN SISA'IVNV IVINHKNO)IIAN3
UNV ,LN3WdO'I3A3a I33fO'dd s
SSVtAHDIH SO NOISIAIG t
NOId.V,L21OdSNV'LL '
SO LNSlq.LdVd3Q VNI'IONVO H.LIION
. d=-0Vd 1NVOVA
009
0

ELZZ Ms OOL 0
to
ON3-OV3O 39 Ol
OOLZ (E'9) 0-1 1 OOW
ooat 99F of o OOt>
Wd OOOZi OOt
ON
OOZt
OOSZ
Wet
006 009
sne96-me sn / z
66? -
sne96
wos sn
00992 (Z's) 001 a oozoe
00coz Ot-----o9 00696 x1199 o00tz
Wd ?? "Clip OOEG
OOL6 OOOLL
00901,
008 oott
00Z9 (Z'E) 000E
006E u1, ?? 006E
Wd
006Z? qo
OOtL$
NOSE 009L
0091 0006
000te
00zt
MR
IVad KV llod &Old asaanau
'Aa'Id avad
do Moll,
aula alt sauvalaxt
(n sus-.1.Vivaa ao
aowad IYad Wd Kd
(U Lllds WHOLL7"la a
(n 3wa-toA A-I)jnoH xolsaa AHa
o'n
a<-AHa
Wd
QN3J3'I
V 3N I40.LM V
------- ------
Woe
ONG
OOLL
3AW N33MO 1N39
(1,'t) g
OOLZ app of OOOi?i
OOEL Wd -
0090Z
0062E
00902
OOZZL
OOL

3ARIO N/eONNII(3
Wt)
109 of -3.09 OOEL
OOE Wd 009
vvov Vvvi (v F
(1,'t)
0092
oe<- of

Met <1
?$I
$
OOZZ Wd O70 t
WSW
OWN
0091,2
("' OOtEt
0069 8 Dote
OVOM NO1037 008E }0092
We) 009n
N + 009LZ ot?09 0099 Lt
gg ?? ObO?J3'JO218NOO7bd Wd 001,E
0066t 00Lc I
(1,'t) 009t 009_2
109 01, X09 -
11 OOZ Wd 009
OOLOZ
00921, 0098{
0060E
V 3Nn Ho1VW y
' OZ9Y)
9z0Z
103rmld HlIM 1(3V a31VINI1S3
9002
DWELL
OOZZL
OVOa Nomm
ALEXWOOD DRIVE
r
LOS C
0
N
ELK ROAD b
U-3849
O
r 250' -
250' -
I
HIGH SCHOOL ENT.
Figure 3: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Alexwood Drive /High School Entrance
2025 Design Year FIGURE 4c i

H I
z
O
z U
J ?
a?
az
WO
U U
O0
U O
I--
0
z
400000
¦¦ W
m
U a I K Q
Z _ - ?J H C
-- - --- -- - -- c, ® t? c? M U O ¢ Q
6 c a a" ?ax? wm C7 I
opz z a z t ZME- W aD C)
I'
?? is P, F v LT
0 00
Z U
F
£ a U -Zi Lt a it uZ-. a t=i U
S ^ G O i F. N J? ??p i
N ?1 1+ fa. z U x to O Q .. C P
~ a 4 1--1 __ C, Z
ccpp vi ? m ?
N F m O1 - "
.- OI F. E a 2 2 G a M G U ? 'S '7 ..", 00 O t'
?H7 qqw {C" m r; •• ¢ tG O u r, h N W O O 7 O C` 1 Z p
d 4 p c0 y, a -. - z y z a o0 M DO r'l O ?
W ?1 CV M rl ?t ?di
II /?T yJ9 Qb '-. ? ? I
d;
ti
' J
00
4op ..w
r
1 t_y. I 2 7•? yy ?P
_ y.
r E ? ?? r
r ??f
%- ray us ? ? / ; ?'._ c'4 , / _a i.z? ,1, j t 'l?, ? !? ? Qd Q?Q??•'? y? ??,? r .o^?? - _.
O?
r J
{
40 L-
?; h l •'9
1? 4
+b.
- V
Gr _ -
C
r d'
t z r ?'
F
i c?6 ?o?? - .. ? ?- jam' ? _ ??i ?.?_? ?( r ?? bl ? t ?._ .m' '.?
M c
T7L
?? 1kw 13
v
'Otto
ern 7?+, FSC? ?'l• '+ ? ? Zd
J????? a 1
n ,
.,E.???? -7-
4",
/ ?, ?ALA ?, z?.
h
1 ?h
X00
o°
r
1
e ` / 1t
I
z
o
I TIC
w=
V 4 4
W ? p
O O
c i
_ _ rL °
17

6 r
?il
.
?
Al? ,l r.,•

W
Aa
1 r'
Q
O
•I?'? i i .?. / i!'?? '? 1 ..
cr-
M
U
'

n
m
L
0
' r

Q
M W

Q'

'o
F j =
(n Z d'
z w
' Q :) 10
C
R I
o Omo
?
Q? LoU?
W YoC)

W O o

s
cli
- g
o M© O
°

'm M Q W
O
a: 'm ww?a
W
o 0 cnzZ)
OU
z a _
Ur v
W

1
Q
z
O
C7

Z
C?
O
I

V
I
p?
? W
cn
co
m
Q
I co
D V N I W
o w

W
a.
- N
0
I-
-
o
CL

0
a
O

2
C9
O
APPENDIX A
Federal Aid #STP-1363(3) TIP # U-3849 County: Cumberland
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: SR 1363 from I-95 (BUS) to Legion Road
On June 18, 2002, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2111,
? Federal Highway.Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? 'Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
E There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
Q/ There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
? There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as (List Attached) is
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
[There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
? All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
?- V ) ZI)pZ
FHWA, r the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO ate
o /,/ rf /,) -?
State Historic Preservation Officer J Date
A-1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 2, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook(
Deputy State Histo reservation Officer
Re: Proposed Improvements to State Road 1363 (Elk Road) from State Road 1132 (Legion Road)
to 1-95 Business (U.S. 301), Cumberland County, TIP Number U-3849, ER 01-9852
Thank you for your letter of May 23, 2001, concerning the above project.
No archeological sites are recorded adjacent to State Road 1363 in the proposed project area. Based upon our
examination of mapping available to us, it appears this is a developed area. Therefore, if this project consists of only
widening the existing, we recommend no archeological survey. However, we emphasize if anv National Register
listed or eligible structures are located in the project area they may include unassessed archeological components.
Archeological investigation of such properties would be necessary.
The survey of Cumberland County is more than 10 years old. We recommend that an architectural historian on
your staff identify and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings
to us.
If the widening project is on new location please submit plans for further review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: FHwA
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] 9733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
A-2

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
_ David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Dtv Jives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary lv- Mirector
September 4, 2001
MEMORANDUM . SEP 6 2001
to .?
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager o DwtsM OF
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch C` HI?iWA vs
?fy-"{?,,?`t?r2,
ANPL?S
I A N
From: David Brook `-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Proposed Improvements to SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to I-95 Business
(U.S. 301), Cumberland Countv, TIP Number U-3849, ER 01-9852
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 Rrithin the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted in over a
decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
No archeological sites are recorded adjacent to SR 1363 in the proposed project area. Based upon our
examination of mapping available to us, it appears this is a developed area. Therefore, if this project
consists of widening the existing only, we recommend no archeological survey.
If the widening project is on new location please submit plans for further review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: SCH
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] 9715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
A-3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
September 6, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dome
From: John E. Hennessy.. 4
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening and extension of SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132
(Legion Road) to I-95 BusinesslUS 301 in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-
1363(3), State Project No. 8.2443601, TIP U-3849, DEAR No. 02E-0059.
Reference your correspondence dated July 20, 2001 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams
and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to tributaries of the Little
Rockfish Creek (Class C waters, DWQ index No. 18-31-24-(7)) located in the Cape Fear River Basin is
possible. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other
streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified,
the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
B. 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.
C. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However,
should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned waters, the DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource
Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-4
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
09/06/01
Page 2
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification.2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
E. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert,
it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
J. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
K. 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 becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
L. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
M. 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.
N. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
A-5
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
09/06/01
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone]. .
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox,'NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3849\comments\TIP U-3849 scoping comments.doc
A-6
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 4, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager SLP Ln
c:
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?.?
1548 Mail Service Center •-
Raleivh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed widening and extension of SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR
1131 (Cameron Road)/SR 1242 (Gillespie Road) to I-95 Business/US 301, Cumberland County,
North Carolina (TIP No. U-3849). This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1363 to a
four-lane, median divided facility with curb and gutter on a 100-foot right-of way. The project is
approximately 1.5 miles in length.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we 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 region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic 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 techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
A-7
'he National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Hope Mills 7.5 Minute Quadrangle indicates
sere may be wetland or stream resources in the specific work area. However, while the NWI
.laps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu
f a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
zethodology.
Ve reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
,ublic notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
-le planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
roject implementation.
n addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
roject include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
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;
Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States;'and,
A-8
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 enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Cumberland County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. 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
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/04/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-3849.tip
A-9
COMINION NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC**
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush (=Georgia Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC
leadplant)
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauzii FSC
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula FSC
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened*
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC
Pondberry (=Southern spicebush) Lindera melissifolia Endangered
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis FSC
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii FSC
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperctlaefolia Endangered
Loose watermilfoil ;l?fyriophvllum la-rum FSC
Savanna cowbane Oxvpolis ternata FSC
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana FSC
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii FSC
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides FSC
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata FSC
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevistyla FSC
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauzii Endaneered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC

Januarv 15, 1999 A_ 10 Page 15 of 4",
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES D? E_ o
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name .,e//L Type of Project
_ ?'?,•,S
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
( For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
2 et
Reviewer
ectio iBranch
Date
A-11
1\JI VIVILI V 1 !'11VU
NATURAL RESOURCES Project Number
has
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
w
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name "ct /7)
Comments provided by:
? Regional Program Person 71 /AUG E'J' 2001
Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply' ?&1ion o{
? Central office program person
Name: n ?y
Date:
Telephone number:
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
? Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program:
ZN se (check all applicable):
objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
? See comments below

A-12
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
+??r?-. ? Mate of Norm l.arollna - --- > ?_
HCOS Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: C `???q Due Date: G
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order f
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed.to the Regional Office indicated on the revers
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Norrr
(Statr
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters.
NPOES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 9
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Preappiication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.o800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Secticn)-at-Fee _
-49sre beginning activity. A4ee c' Q^ r .h f t arrP nr a -
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance.
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C.Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five
d
in coastal N.C.. with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requeste
at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
Oil Refining Facilities N/A
Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
A-13
PERMITS
Q1 Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
Ell Geophysical Exploration Permit
Q1 State Lakes Construction Permit
I 401 Water Quality Certification
131 CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
I CAMA Permit for MINOR development
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS -'?
Normal Prcce: Time
(Statutory Time Limit) I
File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according _
to DENR rules and regulations.
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application
by letter. No standard application form.
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
N/A
$250.00 fee must accompany application
$50.00 fee must accompany application
F1 I Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
I Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
1 Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Z11 Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
* I Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
10 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
15 - 20 days
(N/A)
55 days
030 days)
60 days
(130 days)
22 days
(25 days)
45 days
(N/A)
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional office ? Mooresville Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone]
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N.C.28301 Raleigh, N.C.27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone] [phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
a

A-14
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Full wood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and. Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 28, 2041
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1363 (Elk Road)
widening and extension, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to T-95
Business/US 301, Cumberland County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-3849,
SCll Project No. 02-E-0059.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore 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 revicw4d th4 proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S-C• 661-6674).
We have no specific concern8 regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document preparation and the review process, Our general informational needs are
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for proiw
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with;
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1_721 Mail Service Cenccr - Raleigh, NC 2 7699-1 72 1
Tclephonc: [phone] c A-15 Pax: [phone]
Memo
2 September 28, 2001
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. 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. (Aver type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as it moult of ditching, other drainage, or fi l ling 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. Covcr 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 wil ifc 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 mlyzes the environmental
effects of highway const=tion 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. 1f construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or pri vate development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmentaI document, and all project sponsors should
be identified,
Thank you i`or 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: USFWS, Raleigh
A-16
yN
P ,rte
North Carolina
Department of . Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
September 6, 2001
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
fytG?->E i I'll, J
ocs ? 2?r? T
t?
Re: SCH File' 02-E-4220-0059; Scoping Proposed Improvements to SR 1363 (Elk Road) in
Cumberland Co.; TIP' U-3849
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Interaovernmental_
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].
Attachments
cc: Region M

Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
A. Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
A-17
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
.l
IN REPLY REFER TO June 22, 2001
Regulatory Division
Subject: Action ID No. 200100862 5
Mr..William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I am responding to your Memorandum to David Timpy.dated May 23, 2001 requesting
scoping comments on TIP Project U-3849, SR 1363 (Elk Road), from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to
I- 95 Business (US 301), Cumberland County, North Carolina. A site visit was conducted on
June 14, 2001 to identify and determine the extent of jurisdictional areas and to become
acquainted with the proposed project. As a result of the site visit, jurisdictional areas as defined
at 33 CFR 328.3(a) were identified at the proposed project site. Therefore, 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 dredged, excavated or fill material into waters of
the United States, including wetlands associated with this project.
Based on the information provided in the reference memorandum and the site visit, it
appears that the proposed project will involve the crossing of two un-named tributaries to Little
Rockfish Creek. The extent of these jurisdictional areas should be delineated in the field and
identified in the project planning report (Environmental Assessment). An assessment of the
proposed impacts from this project should contain the amount of both permanent and temporary
impacts to surface waters and wetlands and should indicate quantities by type (e.g. wetland
verses stream). If concrete structures are a component of this project, methods must be
employed to avoid any contact of "live" concrete with surface waters and all instream
construction should be conducted in the "dry" by use of stream diversion methods. If temporary
stream di'version's are to be utilized, a plan and description should be provided showing the
proposed structure and method of diversion. A restoration plan will be required showing how
the diversion area will be returned to pre-construction conditions following the completion of the
project. If restoration involves revegatation of the disturbed area, the plan should include a
planting scheme using only endemic vegetation
The type of authorization and any specific permit requirements will depend on the crossing
design, extent of the fill work within jurisdictional areas, construction methods and other public
interest and environmental factors. Based on the site visit, project description in the above
A-18
a
referenced memorandum and the apparent level of aquatic resource impacts associated with the
proposed project, coordination pursuant to the integrated NEPA/Section 404 merger agreement
does not appear to be warranted.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our scoping comments. Should you
have any questions or wish to discuss our comments further, please call Mr. Richard K. Spencer
at the Wilmington Field Office at 910-251-4172.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team

Copies Furnished:
Ms. Beverly Robinson.?
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Mr. Garland Pardue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr..David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27564
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
p'_19
APPENDIX B
11/03/2003 16:42 910-486-1077 NC DOT R/W DIV 6 PAGE 02/02
R LOCATION REPORT
North arolina Department of Transportation
« ARE4 RELOCATION OFFICE
E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2443601 COUNTY Cumberland Ahemate ' 1 of 1 Alte_mate
Lo: n'O.: U-3849 F.A. PROJECT STP-1363 3 -
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Secondary Road 1363 (Elk Road) from S R 1132 egion Road to I-95. Business/
US 301
.?., ..:. :.::€:.:: •?:.. ; . ?, .. .15TI?YtATELY i) P ...:.. .. .., .... 1 s :. ? . .,.. I Si is ,,I:.. ?. ... y::::
. i ..... ?., ,....Ilf . .I I . . ? ...... . , . . .. ... i . i? %EC?s1! :.•. .• i :? 'ri?YC.i'?CYllii.:.. ,.'.:a • ?.. .. _ i
Type of
[Asplacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 8 1 9 5 1 9 ---"----
Businesses 0 p
0 0

6F
i11MYEW:ING: i ?.

;

: ; •. ' f,:;:.; .. C ? L?Nf?L
;
1:IWi3ilfiu
?A,? '
i
<

Farms

0 0 0 0

Owners Tenafrt

s' .
,
,:
,
:. 'i
...
',E jt?
"Fox Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 1 so-ISO axorn _MN
2p' $ 0-150 0
lhi<!: s:i. '.:°:,,;: '; it:: :,..:`!:: ': SNBYYERALLt?UE$rfbligi :€ii•. ""`';> -::::.'':".' "s 20410m ISO-2so 20.4ow? 100 1.54-2W
20
Yes No aln alt "YES' answers. 40-70M 250.400 40-70&1 B00 zoo 40
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-t00a 1 40"00 70.70QM 900 40W0
200
'.X. 2- Will schools or churches be affect by ' 100 ur 7 600 ur 100 uF _
800 , 6DO UP 250'
displacement? TOTAL 9" 11 . 1
.;:i
h:
2,420
510
X 3. Will business services still be available after °il .09 A
4
0 ( e"' 6jf:NU rntser I

Ij ' h'„I';. [
project? .
.
20 M ft.-
'Note
Th
0 + : ?+.-.w.rrd+:JYr
:
e
-
111" 11 (value) Is au ancloned
3. No Buslnesit a ected
I . 4. Will any business be displaoW7 If so, 6 8, 14. MLS, Local Ft ' hors, Newspapers, etc.

41
?i
indicate size, type, estimated number of
$. As mandated
I
Law
i? employees, minorities, eta 9. Number Unk n
X
1 5. WIII relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. Cumberiarnd C unty

2.
1 0. Source for available housing (list). 12, Or Built if ne: sarv
X 7. WIII additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 8. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
I? Ili II Ii.
` families?
X 10, Will public housing be needed' for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
l I . , Lc"lilt}}
1
F source):
-- • -
111
jj ?? ro f'rfl 3iulp
11;1
il ?;j?E3il1
ii
I
- ,? 5 Number months estimated to complete
M
i`C II.
k
I'u? ? 1 PELOCATION? 18-24 Months
i
'
R. butt, Jill.. DM
Forth 115.4 Revisa.'. 0 5Ass d
?l m ?t?r HS O
?.w p:mod Date
9hal & 1 Copy. S: ate Revocation Agent.
2 Copy R ght of'Wsy Office
B-1
All property acquisitions are subject to the Uniform Relocation and Real Property
Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This Act provides for uniform and
equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit
associations, or farms by Federal and federally-assisted programs, and establishes
uniform and equitable land acquisitions policies.
Relocation assistance payments and counseling will be provided to persons and
businesses in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Properties Acquisitions Policies Act, as Amended, to ensure adequate relocation and a
decent, safe, and sanitary home for displaced residents. All eligible displacees will be
entitled to moving expenses. All benefits and services will be provided equitably to all
residential and business relocatees without regard to race, color, religion, age, national
origins and disability as specified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When relocation is necessary, it is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has
the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation.
*Relocation Assistance,
*Relocation Moving Payments, and
*Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
These regulations and programs help ensure that property owners are
compensated fairly for the loss of value of their property.
B-2
Cn
W
W
J
(n
O
z
0
J
U_
Lij
01-1
n
I

?
001

I
r

co O

(D _
VI
MI
N ?

06 W
O
O
N
o6 i
j

v
(j) ' 0c) vl I ?I

W

O
o- o
CY)

U') I
W
I i
CL U

M
LU -
O
°
N ), O

0

O c)

NI
1

O,
OI O'

)
V
O ''.
CO!
O W LO
1:6
c
o:
LO
Co

Rf J [o
L N

E

U ^^``
W
J
Q
co

`c'
?I
, (0;
CAM
"T

C\l
cy) (0
(0
?'

O
CO L O M
co; CO ;

O
L-
LL O !

C)
N
ti
o
m . °'
cri
v

W
coI co

M
cn wl
U) U)

E
0
-1

l

?i
m!
E
O
2 c :
(n:

mi

CO 01 Z o
C? U d W' o w,
Z) W cr)
O:
c; CY)
C°
Ci
O U M; O; ! M: O'
LLl c) ' U) v.
a- L r) I -.
Q
O
Ir-
w
LL
O
0-1
LU
z
w
U
L11
O
w
LL
L11
Q
D
O
z
O
U
W
U)
O
z
ui
O
z
M
i
00
M
I
W ?
r
r p
~.• U
? U
v1 ??
1...1 W
zM
M

U O
C7
a`Z?
?F
wU
QOM

X a W

E»

¢??
W

Q
U

¢
Co
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

v

o Q
Fp
Q U?
In.
???
W¢cY
M

X W

F-

¢wF-
W

C?
U

p?

Q
o

o
o

o
kn

o
o

o
o

o
?p
U
aZ?
??jF
w¢a
¢rv u
M
W

F

w?
W

Q
U

Q
o

o
o

o
o

o
o
?p
U?
aZ?
2p?

Qv?U
M

O N
w
O LL E`a
U
¢G?
W

0
U

Q
o

o
CD

v

o
0

0
0

?

0
V] (]?
a
? M
o ¢
?w?v M
00
^ Q
??? M
00

^ Q

?? O

rn

n
0
?
Z
? U?
OZ?o Q=U?
OZ`c
v? Q?U?
?pZ?o v ,
v?
F
p
i a
H QO? ¢ Q ¢ ¢
Q
?
UL1-o o
? ¢
Up-?o o
o E
-
O pri
2UOco
o F
-
O ¢Oci¢
?U q o E
-
p
??

a o ? o tn

W Q o
cc C)
C rq CD
CD O CD ¢
n CO
o"a-- L
'1
z
z
z
z

C
Cl
C 00
kn
'1
0 0 0
`
'
O `?^ O - O M p M

Z F
a
UZ
w
o UC7
Z
E UC7 =
U vn
c
W
D O
^ .?
p W
ti c Z
p Z o
ti c c
i?
p 0
ti c
a ?? 3 ?w 3 zp ap
w
w c,

[.?

w O

?

M V]

Z

M O
O
M

"'

r
.

M O

M

a

M O

M M
? ?
O
Z
T
ca
o
a>
? O
L
LJ o
O
ca L
? Y
C ?
4. U
O
L ?
S?
y
U O
N
O
N L
C-1
CD
G U
? r
U
? o
o°
N ?
c3
w cc
0
o
m
O N
N

}
d-
00
a
W ?
W U
`O U o
z
Wz?
W
W ?1
? -rs
O
zx
U
(s, M
M
w w w w
?F R;_ ?? cG_ QE- ?_ ?E.c4_
E..., O F» N
U p N N F" O W N
m F, CN C N ,?- OWN
p E'
N
N O w N
U p E- = 0 O

U U
C4
U U
x
12. C. U U

¢ w W ¢ W w ¢ W w ¢ W w
a
Q ] W=
z Z
=
¢ z W U=
.
w
F w u= = v in
?r ?
F¢ W CG o o C
t]
CG v v < W c
Z z m F) z Cl z
W
z ?z z

V) tt) V N cn ,n V
N O O N O O ¢ ^ O O N O O
¢ Q ?
G s ?
C
U
z Ci
U
z

Cl L
U
z CG
U
z
c
o 0 o
W 0 o o 0 o o 0 0
N W N w N W N
W W cN L c,
W
cn O O w wl N N L:]
C/) ,r) N N vi O O
O O O C
z z z z
O p to O p
oll
N
ON N
O
O
N
N
O
p
?
tf)

w w w -?

W
N
N X CS
N
N X C,
N
N X
N
N

O O O O
C, CS. C.
L]
U c
O
O Grp
U
O
O w
U v
O
O L'
(? v
O
O
W w w rv

Ivol o o lov o o v o o ° o 0

C Cn
o ?
-
ff O O J O -
? O
N ["' N N F N
M M M C1
zu z z z
o z cx o x o c
_ _
w
cc O
° c a Z
c z N
° c a Z
c% Z N
° c
o ?'
U W ?r y U W = U •?
.,o 3
w
oQ .,
vx1
xtr) C/) p
w...
Q3 ?.
-ow
xW) cn
w0
Ca
CLn
x C
w
o r.
pL^
C1Ykn
3 ? -Le
CG ?

C
o
O C? o a o
C? m o

N
z
w
CO
¢
C:
O
0
a?
a?
... N
v W
U ?
c C1
.? H
cz r
L
Y
y L
c.2 U
?o
o .n
N N
c
c,- cam.
a? 3
-- N
to
,
op United States Department of the Interior
,yam
s FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
RCH 3 ?% Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 4, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed widening and extension of SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR
1131 (Cameron Road)/SR 1242 (Gillespie Road) to I-95 Business/US 301, Cumberland County,
North Carolina (TIP No. U-3849). This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1363 to a
four-lane, median divided facility with curb and gutter on a 100-foot right-of way. The project is
approximately 1.5 miles in length.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we 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 region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic 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 techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
r'
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Hope Mills 7.5 Minute Quadrangle indicates
there may be wetland or stream resources in the specific work area. However, while the NWI
maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu
of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
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 construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, 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,
4 .
r'
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 enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Cumberland County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. 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
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy) c?
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/04/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-3849.tip
daSWEo
V+r.n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 7, 2004
Mr. Steve Hall WETLAWS1401 GROUP
NCDENR - Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Recreation APR 12 2004
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 WATER G7U,gjf?y SECTION
Dear Mr. Hall:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Hope Mills, SR 1363 (Elk Road) from Legion
Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project
STP-1363(3), State Project 8.2443601, WBS Element 34994.1.1, TIP Project U-3849
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:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Your comments should be received by June 11, 2004. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of No
Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Gre 9fy J. Th e, Ph.
Project Dev opment 4
GJT/plr
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Director
Environmental Analysis Branch
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
APR 12'2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
z Z?oy
Date
} 3A(/Oz/
ate
ro/?'Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
John F. iVIvan III
Division Administrator, FHWA
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Document Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:

Beverly G. Robison
Project Devel ment Engineer
???•CARO,??N•.
??.•`?E5S 10,E q ?•.
O q
• a SE AL
Ja es A. McInnis, Jr., P. E. 20701 =
Project Development Unit Head ;9s •c`,ry VQ`•?¢?`
?? i N •?
Z f eel oy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Project Commitments .................................................................................i
Summary ............................................................................................... ii
1. Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................. 1
A. Project Purpose .................................................................................... 1
B. General Description ............................................................................. 1
C. Cost Estimate ...................................................................................... 1
II. Need for Project ............................................................................................... 1
1. Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 1
2 Capacity ................................................................................... 2
3. Accident Analysis .................................................................... 2
4. Thoroughfare Plan .................................................................... 2
III. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 2
A. Existing Typical Section ...................................................................... 2
B. Existing Right of Way ......................................................................... 2
C. Access Control ..................................................................................... 3
D. Speed Limits ........................................................................................ 3
E. Functional Classification ..................................................................... 3
F. Utilities ................................................................................................. 3
G. Interesting Roads and Types of Control .............................................. 3
H. Sidewalks ............................................................................................. 3
I. School Bus Data .................................................................................. 3
IV. Proposed Improvements ................................................................................... 3
A. Project Length ...................................................................................... 3
B. Proposed Typical Section .................................................................... 3
C. Proposed Alignment ............................................................................. 4
D. Right of Way ........................................................................................ 4
E. Access Control ..................................................................................... 4
F. Design Speed ....................................................................................... 4
G. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements ...................................... 4
H. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................... 5
n I. Sidewalks ............................................................................................ 5
J. Bicycle Accommodations ................................................................... 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
V. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................................................ 5
A. Design Alternatives .............................................................................. 5
B. "No-Build" Alternative ........................................................................ 5
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation ...................................................... 5
VI. Adjacent Projects ............................................................................................. 6
VII. Evaluation of Environmental Effects ............................................................... 6
A. Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 6
1. Historic Architectural Resources ............................................. 7
2. Archaeological Resources ....................................................... 7
B. Social/Economic Effects ...................................................................... 7
1. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ...................................... 7
2. Neighborhood Cohesion ......................................................... 7
3. Public Facilities ....................................................................... 8
4. Environmental Justice ............................................................. 8
5. Economic Effects .................................................................... 9
C. Land Use ............................................................................................. 9
D. Farmland Impacts ................................................................................. 9
E. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ........................................................... 10
F. Natural Resources ................................................................................ 10
1. Biotic Resources ...................................................................... 10
2. Terrestrial Communities .......................................................... 10
a. Disturbed Communities ............................................... 11
b. Alluvial Floodplain
3. Aquatic Communities .............................................................. 12
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ................................. 12
5. Water Resources ...................................................................... 12
a. Characteristics of Water Resources ............................. 12
b. Best Usage Classification ............................................ 13
6. Water Quality .......................................................................... 13
7. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............ 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
8. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................ 14
a. Waters of the Unites States .......................................... 14
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ......... 14
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 14
d. Permits ......................................................................... 15
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation ................... 15
9. Protected and Rare Species ...................................................... 15
a. Federally-Protected Species ......................................... 15
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species 21
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ..................................................................... 23
H. Section 4(f) Resources ........................................................................ 24
I. Traffic Noise Analysis ........................................................................ 24
J. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................ 26
K. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage Tank
Facilities ............................................................................................... 28
VIII. Comments, Coordination, and Public Involvement ......................................... 28
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3a 2006/2025 Traffic Volumes Without Improvements
Figure 3b 2006/2025 Traffic Volumes With Improvements
Figure 4a Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 4b Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 4c Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 5 Southview Middle and High School Recommended Campus Layout
Figure 6 Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 7 Flood Plain Map
Figure 8 Typical Section
Tables
1 LOS With and Without Proposed Improvements ........................................... 2
2 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .................................................... 12
3 Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County ...................................... 16
4 Federal Species of Concern ............................................................................. 22
Appendix A
Appendix B
Project -Commitments
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) requested a review of the final plans if any of the widening project
occurred on new location. The design plans will be forwarded to SHPO for further
review.
Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a
biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the federally-
protected St. Francis' 'satyr, Pondberry, and Michaux's sumac prior to completion of the
final environmental document for the project.
Division 6
Sidewalks are proposed on the south side of Elk Road from Legion Road to
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road. The City of Fayetteville has committed to participate in
the cost of sidewalks in accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy:
• 4.2 meter (14-foot) outside lanes are proposed to provide additional width to
accommodate bicycles.
Side slopes at streams and wetland areas along this project will be at 2:1 in order
to minimize impacts.
Environmental Assessment U-3849 Page Iof 1
February 2004
i
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/LTS 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
SUMMARY
Description of the Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen SR 1363 (Elk Road) to a four-lane median divided facility with curb
and gutter, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR 1242/SR 1131 (Gillespie Road/Cameron
Road) and extend Elk Road on new location between Gillespie Road/Cameron Road and
I-95 Business[US 301. The project is approximately 1.5 miles long.
The proposed project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 and construction in FY 2006.
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $10,669,000 which includes
$6,700,000 for construction and $3,969,000 for right of way acquisition. The cost
included in the 2004-2010 TIP is $12,265,000 which includes $4,615,000 for right of
way acquisition and $7,650,000 for construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The widening and extension of Elk Road will result in the relocation of nine
residences.
Less than 1.0 acre (0.4 ha) of wetlands will be impacted as a result of the
widening and extension of Elk Road.
3. Alternates Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project.
Alignment
All widening improvements are proposed along existing (Elk Road) SR 1363.
Elk Road will be extended from (Cameron Road) SR 1131/(Gillespie Road) SR 1242 to
I-95 Business/US 301 at SR 2273.
Typical Section
A four-lane curb and gutter section was the only typical section studied for the
proposed project. This typical section will provide a 3.7 meter (12-foot) inside lane and a
4.3 meter (14-foot) outside through lane in each direction and a variable 5.3 to 6.7 meter
(17.5 to 22 foot) median.
No Build
The No Build option was rejected as the existing facility will not effectively serve
the projected volumes.
4. Coordination
The following federal, state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Mid Carolina Council of Governments
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Fayetteville
Mayor of Hope Mills
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Water Quality
5. Additional Information
Additional Information concerning the proposed project and assessment can be
obtained by contacting the following:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Assessment Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 401
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
iv
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to reduce congestion and improve safety on
SR 1363 (Elk Road) and improve access to I-95 Business/US 301 for southwest
Fayetteville and Hope Mills.
B. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen existing SR 1363 (Elk Road) to a four-lane median divided facility
with curb and gutter, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR 1242 (Gillespie Road)/SR 1131
(Cameron Road) and extend Elk Road from SR 1242/SR 1131 approximately 100.6
meters (330 feet) eastward to.I-95 Business/US 301. The project is approximately 2.4
kilometers (1.5 miles) long.
The proposed project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 and construction is scheduled for FY 2006.
C. Cost Estimates
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $10,669,000 which includes
$6,700,000 for construction and $3,969,000 for right of way acquisition. The cost
included in the 2004-2010 TIP is $12,265,000, which includes $4,615,000 for right of
way acquisition and $7,650,000 for construction.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
1. Traffic Volumes
Without the proposed improvements, the 2006 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
along Elk Road ranges from 12,200 vehicles per day (vpd) to 13,100 vpd. For the design
year (2025), the estimated traffic volume ranges from 20,500 vpd to 21,600 vpd. With
the proposed improvements, 2006 volumes range from 10,800 to 13,100 vpd and 2025
volumes range from 17,000 to 21,600 vpd (see Figures 3a and 3b).
2. Ca aci
A capacity analysis was performed for the proposed project to predict the level of
service (LOS). Without construction of the proposed project, Elk Road will operate at
LOS D in 2006 and a LOS E in 2025. Due to the proximity of signalized intersections
along the facility the signalized intersections will govern the operational capacity of Elk
Road with the proposed improvements. Table 1 lists the design and construction year
LOS without the proposed improvements and the design year (2025) LOS with the
proposed improvements. See Figures 4a-4c for proposed lane configurations.
Table 1 LOS With and Without Proposed Improvements
Intersections 2025 LOS with
improvements 2006 LOS without
improvements 2025 LOS without
improvements
Legion Road D C E
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road D F D
I-95 Business/LJS 301 B N/A N/A
3. Accident Analysis
During the three year period from May 2000 to April 2003 there were 47
accidents reported on Elk Road. Forty percent of the accidents reported were rear end,
slow, or stop type collisions. The accident rate along Elk Road for this time period was
459.40 accidents per 100 million vehicle mile (acc/100mvm). Compared to the statewide
rate of 479.25 accidents per 100 million vehicle mile for urban secondary routes, Elk
Road is slightly below the statewide rate.
4. Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed project is classified as an urban minor arterial and is consistent with
the Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, which was adopted by local governments
and NCDOT. See Figure 6.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Existing Typical Section
The existing typical section along Elk Road is a two to three lane roadway with
grass shoulders.
B. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way on Elk Road varies from 18.3 meters (60 feet) to 30.5
meters (100 feet).
2
C. Access Control
Existing Elk Road has no control of access.
D. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along Elk Road is 35 miles per hour.
E. Functional Classification
Elk Road is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial in the North Carolina functional
classification system.
F. Utilities
The utility impact rating is estimated to be medium. Utilities along Elk Road
include telephone, underground power, water, sanitary sewer, and fiber optic cable lines.
G. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
There are four T-intersections along Elk Road that are stop sign controlled.
Legion Road and Cameron Road/Gillespie Road are major "T" intersections with Elk
Road. Legion Road is currently signalized. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road is stop sign
controlled.
H. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks along Elk Road.
I. School Bus Data
Approximately 10 buses use Elk Road from Legion Road to Cameron Road/
Gillespie Road. Each of these buses makes approximately 2 to 4 trips per day for
Southview Middle and High Schools.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Project Length
The total project length is 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles).
B. Proposed Typical Section
A four lane median divided facility is proposed for Elk Road from Legion Road to
I-95 Business/US 301. The median width will vary from 5.3 to 6.7 meters (17.5 to 22
3
feet). Inside lanes will be 3.6 meters (12 feet) wide and outside lane's will be 4.2 meters
(14 feet) wide in order to accommodate bicycles (see Figure 8).
C. Proposed Alignment
No changes to the alignment of Elk Road are proposed. A best fit alignment is
proposed. This alignment will include widening on both sides of Elk Road. This
alignment minimizes impacts and costs for the proposed project. The extension of Elk
Road will be on new location. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be realigned
approximately 114.9 meters (337 feet) west of the existing alignment.
D. Right of Way
A total right of way width of 33.5 meters (110 feet) plus construction easements
will be required to accommodate the proposed improvements.
E. Access Control
The proposed improvements to Elk Road include no control of access.
F. Design Speed
An 80 km/h (50 mph) design speed is proposed for the project.
G. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements
The existing traffic signal at Legion Road will be upgraded. A new traffic signal
will be installed at the proposed new intersection of Elk Road and I-95 Business/US 301
and at the intersection of Cameron/ Gillespie Road with Elk Road. All other existing
intersections will be stop sign controlled. Proposed signalized intersection configurations
for the project are shown on Figures 4a and 4b.
Southview High School and Southview Middle School are located adjacent to
each other on the south side of Elk Road near Legion Road (see Figure 2). Currently,
school traffic backs up onto Elk Road in the mornings and afternoons. In order to
address this problem, changes will be made to the driveways for both schools as a part of
this project. Three driveways serving the schools will be closed and replaced with two
new driveways. The new driveway for the high school will connect with Elk Road across
from SR 3700 (Alexwood Drive). The new driveway for the middle school will connect .
with Elk Road across from the driveway for Southview Baptist Church. Median
crossovers, left turn lanes and traffic signals will be provided at both of these new
entrances. Figure 5 shows the driveway layout recommended for these schools by
NCDOT's Municipal and School Transportation Assistance Group. Improvements
shown on Figure 5 beyond constructing the new driveways from Elk Road to existing
driveways on school property will be the responsibility of the school system.
4
H. Cost Estimates
The current cost estimate for the Elk Road widening and extension is $10,669,000
which includes $3,969,000 for right of way acquisition and $6,700,000 for construction.
1. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are proposed on the south side of Elk Road from Legion Road to
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road. The Town of Hope Mills has committed to participate in
the cost of sidewalks in accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy.
J. Bicycle Accommodations
The proposed 4.2 meter (14-foot) outside lanes will provide additional width to
accommodate bicycles.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
Only one design alternative, the "Best Fit" alternative, was examined for this
project. Within this alternative, the proposed widening has been shifted as necessary in
order to minimize project impacts. Elk Road will be widened symmetrically from Legion
Road to SR 3765 (Alexwood Drive). Elk Road will be widened mostly on the north side
from Alexwood Drive to the Cameron Road/Gillespie Road realignment. See Figure 2.
A five-lane facility was considered for the proposed Elk Road improvements.
However, because of the safety and operational benefits associated with a four-lane
median divided facility, the five-lane facility was not recommended.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative is not recommended. While this alternative avoids the
anticipated impacts of the proposed project this alternative does not meet the purpose of
the project to reduce congestion and improve safety on Elk Road and improve access to I-
95 Business/US 301 for southwest Fayetteville and Hope Mills.
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
It was determined that no alternate modes of transportation would be a practical
alternative to the recommended alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant
mode of transportation in the project area. Staggering work hours, car pooling, and van
pooling are possible ways to generally reduce highway congestion; however, these
congestion management measures are not controlled by the NCDOT. These alternatives
would do nothing to address the system linkage needs that will be improved by the
"Build" alternative.
5
VI. ADJACENT PROJECTS
6).
Several other highway projects are proposed for this area of Fayetteville (see Figure
Two projects are immediately adjacent to Elk Road. TIP Project U-2809 involves the
widening of Legion Road from SR 1007 (Owen Drive) to SR 1131 (Cameron Road).
Right of Way acquisition and construction for this project are scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 2007 and 2008, respectively.
The proposed Hope Mills Bypass (TIP Project U-620) will extend from SR 1141
(Bingham Drive) to Legion Road at Elk Road. Traffic on the Hope Mills Bypass will use
Elk Road to access I-95 Business/US 301. Right of way acquisition for the bypass is
complete. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2004.
In addition to these two projects, five other projects are in the surrounding area:
¦ U-2304A, Cumberland Road widening from NC 59 to SR 1233 (Yale Street); Right of
way acquisition is complete. Construction is underway.
¦ U-2308, NC 59 widening from south of SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 (Raeford
Road); Right of way acquisition is complete. Construction is underway.
¦ U-3311, Bingham Drive widening from the Hope Mills Bypass to US 401 (Raeford
Road); Right of way acquisition is complete. Construction is scheduled to begin
FY 04.
¦ U-3424, Bunce Road widening from US 401 (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale
Road); Right of way acquisition and construction are currently post year.
¦ U-3422, Camden Road widening from the Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC 59. Right of
way acquisition and construction are currently post year.
The proposed project is required, even with construction of these other projects.
As discusses in section V. B., the "no-build" alternative is not recommended.
VII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
6
undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential
effect. This project will not impact any properties eligible for or listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (see concurrence letter in Appendix A).
If any of the widening project is constructed on new location, the HPO is
requesting a further review of the design plans. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be
realigned on new location. NCDOT will submit the design plans to the HPO for further
review.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites along the proposed project; therefore the
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) did not recommend an archaeological survey.
See letter from the Department of Cultural Resources dated July 2, 2001 in the appendix.
If any of the widening project is constructed on new location, the HPO is
requesting a further review of the design plans. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be
realigned on new location. NCDOT will submit the design plans to the HPO for further
review.
B. Social/Economic Effects
1. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
The proposed project will require the relocation of nine homes. None of these
homes are minority-owned or occupied. The relocation program for the project will be
conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North
Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The NCDOT relocation
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. Appendix B of this document contains
additional information regarding NCDOT relocation programs and includes copies of the
relocation report prepared for the project.
2. Neighborhood Cohesion
The project will not directly cause or encourage an influx or loss of population, or
isolate people from one another. Although residential displacements may occur as a
result of the proposed project, they are not expected to have a negative impact on the
economic condition of the study area.
7
The study area is densely populated with residential and various institutional land
uses. The project will benefit the community by providing a facility that better
accommodates existing and projected future traffic.
3. Public Facilities
Southview Baptist Church and Southview Presbyterian Church are located
adjacent to each other along the north side of Elk Road within the study area. The
widening is not expected to impact the church or its parking areas. There is a ball field
located in the southeast portion of the property along the roadway. The ball field is
owned by and used by the church softball league and for unorganized recreational
purposes. Impacts to this ball field are expected to be low. This ball field is not a 4(f)
protected property.
The Radha Soami Society Beas-America is located east of I-95 Business/US 301.
The Group hosts various events for its followers throughout the year. Although the
Group has expressed concern for the project as a result of aligning their driveway with
Elk Road, no adverse impacts to the Group or its property are expected to occur.
Southview Middle School and Southview Senior High School are located adjacent
to each other on the south side of Elk Road. Buses to the middle school have access via
Legion Road south of the proposed project's western terminus. Access to the high school
is provided via Elk Road.
Both schools are separated from the existing roadway by a lightly wooded lot,
which provides an approximately 91.44 meter (300-foot) buffer from the existing
roadway. No impacts to recreational facilities at either school are expected to occur.
4. Environmental Justice
Executive order 12898 requires that each federal agency, to the greatest extent
allowed by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect
human health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and
adverse" effects on minority and low-income populations.
The proposed project will not place adverse impacts upon any areas having low
income and/or minority populations, or split or isolate any such communities. In
addition, census data and field surveys indicate that no low income or minority
communities exist within the immediate vicinity of the project. This assessment has
found no evidence or indication this project will disproportionately or adversely affect
persons on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. The proposed
project is being implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
8
5. Economic Effects
The proposed improvements to Elk Road are not expected to cause any changes in
the economic condition of the project study area. The project is not expected to
encourage growth within the study area. Property values may increase because the
proposed project will improve access to I-95 Business/US 301. However, land will be
required for right-of-way, removing it from the area's tax base.
C. Land Use
The project study area is in a primarily residential area within Cumberland
County's and Hope Mills' planning jurisdictions. Residential development encompasses
the length of the study area within Cumberland County's jurisdiction. The remaining
study area in Hope Mills' jurisdiction consists of institutional land uses.
Cumberland County's policies on future development, land use, and growth can
be found in the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. The Plan is a collaborative
effort between the County and its eight municipalities, including Hope Mills. In addition,
Hope Mills has a separate land use plan that was completed in 1996. The information
obtained in this land use plan is incorporated into the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use
Plan. Based on the general goals and objectives outlined in this Plan, the County is
preparing specific small area plans. However, work on small area plans for the project
area has not been initiated.
The proposed improvements to Elk Road are consistent with the Fayetteville
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan and the
Hope Mills land use plan. The largest development planned for the area is the
Worthington subdivision. According to the plat for this subdivision, there are 45 lots.
Currently, there are approximately 20 houses. The widening project will not provide new
access to undeveloped land. Although the project will create a new intersection with Elk
Road and I-95 Business/US 301, the improvements are not expected to encourage
development in the study area or cause changes in the land uses along Elk Road.
D. Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR 658) requires all
federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils, as designated by the United States Soil Conservation
Service. Farmland soils in an urbanized area or in an area committed to urban
development by the local governing body are exempt from the requirements of the FPPA.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as
designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). Land which is
planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the same level of preservation
afforded other rural, agricultural areas. The proposed widening of Elk Road is in an
urbanized area. The project lies within the jurisdiction of Cumberland County and the
9
Town of Hope Mills and is zoned for residential and office and institutional development.
Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to farmland is required.
E. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
The Council on Environmental Quality defines indirect impacts as those, "which
are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative impacts are defined as "impacts
on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.8). Based
on these definitions, the current land use plan for Cumberland County, and information
provided by the Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) and
Hope Mills' planners, it is concluded that the project will not produce measurable indirect
impacts within the study area.
Based on the forecast in the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan,
Cumberland County has no plans to further develop the study area during the next ten
years. The Worthington subdivision is the largest planned development within the study
area and is currently under construction. Hope Mills is experiencing growth in east,
north, and northwest directions, which include the project study area. Furthermore, Hope
Mills has plans within the next two years to annex the entire project area. This
annexation will not alter the current land uses along Elk Road. Property values in the
area surrounding the project may increase because access to I-95 Business/US 301 will
be improved.
Several other highway projects are proposed for this area of Fayetteville. The
cumulative impacts associated with these projects include approximately 71 residential, 9
business and 2 non-profit relocations, 6.4 acres of impacted wetlands and approximately
1,700 feet of impacted streams as a result of six projects in the Fayetteville area.
F. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
communities observed. Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are
described.and discussed. Animals observed during field investigations are denoted with
an asterisk(*).
2. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: disturbed
community and alluvial floodplain. Much of the wildlife in the project study area likely
uses various communities for forage, cover, and nesting habitat.
10
a. 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, and irregularly maintained roadside shoulder.
Maintained yards are primarily restricted to housing and business sites located in
the project study area. Dominant species located in the herbaceous layer include fescue,
crabgrass, and Bermuda grass. Trees observed in this community include dogwood,
privet, loblolly pine, and laurel oak.
Regularly maintained roadside shoulders are land parcels in which the vegetation
is kept at a low-growing, early successional stage. These areas appear to be regularly
mowed and may receive frequent herbicide application. This habitat includes the
majority of land along Elk Road. Species observed here include crabgrass, Bermuda
grass, violet, Carolina geranium, and Virginia creeper.
Irregularly maintained roadside shoulder and power line corridor receive less
frequent mowing and/or herbicide application. These areas are scattered along Elk Road.
Tree saplings observed here include sassafras, laurel oak, and turkey oak. Species
observed in the herbaceous and vine layer include poison ivy, ragweed, and goldenrod.
There are also portions of irregularly maintained roadsides which contain primarily
longleaf pine.
Faunal species utilizing this community may include raccoon, white-tailed deer,
the least shrew, eastern harvest mouse, and hispid cotton rat eastern cottontails prefer
brushy edges where they primarily feed on woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include southern short-tailed
shrew, gray squirrel, and white-footed mouse.
Eastern fence lizard and five-lined skink inhabitant open habitats with plenty of
sunlight. The slimy salamander, spring peeper and eastern box turtle are commonly
observed throughout forested habitats.
b. Alluvial Floodplain
This community is located along the two unnamed tributaries that cross under Elk
Road. The wetland area found within this community is located to the north of Elk Road
within a disturbed area in a sewer easement. Both wetland and upland habitats are
present within this community type. Species observed here include giant cane, American
elm, loblolly pine, water oak, and tag alder.
11
3. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream, is located in the
project study area.
Elk Road crosses two unnamed tributaries of Little Rockfish Creek. Both of
these streams are small perennial streams.
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 included three-
lined salamander, green frog, pickerel frog, and banded water snake. Although certain
aquatic species are likely to occur within the project area, none were observed during the
field investigation.
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.
Estimated impacts are derived using the proposed 30.5-m (100-ft) right-of-way.
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 2.0 ha (5.0 ac)
Alluvial Floodplain 0.4 ha (1.0 ac)
Wetland Impacts <0.4ha (<1.Oac)
Total 2.8 ha (7.0 ac)
5. Water Resources
a. Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Cape Fear River
Drainage Basin, Hydrological unit number 03-06-15. Two unnamed tributaries are
located within the project study area. Both tributaries flow from north to south,
converging just south of the project area, before entering Little Rockfish Creek.
The western most unnamed tributary is a perennial stream. Within the project
study area, this stream channel is approximately 1.2 meters (4.0 feet) wide and 22.9
centimeters (9 inches) deep. The substrate is primarily silt and sand.
12
The eastern most unnamed tributary is also a perennial stream. Within the project
study area, this stream channel is approximately 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) wide and 12.7
centimeters (5 inches) deep. The substrate is primarily silt and sand.
b. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (1997). The classification of Rockfish Creek [Index no. 03-06-15] is C. Class C
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
6. Water Quality
Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be good indicators of water quality
because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life
cycle, are nonmobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species
richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and
rivers. All basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and to
facilitate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review. A
biological sampling site is located at the NC 87 crossing of Rockfish Creek (B-21). This
site received a Good rating in 1993 and an Excellent rating in June 1998.
7. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water resources. The
water resources located within the project study area include the unnamed tributaries and
one wetland area. Land clearing and grubbing activities in the project area may 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. Additionally, as populations and vehicular traffic increase
so does the potential for petroleum distillates and other chemical compounds to enter
nearby streams. Increased amounts of toxic materials can adversely alter the water
quality of any water resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions
13
In order to minimize impacts to water resources within the footprint of the project,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will
be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
8. Jurisdictional Issues
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
Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. 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.).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
The two unnamed tributaries (described in Section VII-F-5-a) are considered
jurisdictional surface waters. A wetland area is located adjacent to the eastern most
unnamed tributary.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will cross surface waters and a
jurisdictional wetland. Approximately 30 linear meters (100 linear feet) of both unnamed
tributaries are located within the project study area. Approximately <0.4ha (<1.0 ac) of
jurisdictional wetland is located within the proposed right-of-way. Actual impacts to the
wetland community may be less than reported because the entire right-of-way width is
often not impacted by construction projects. The amount of wetland impacts may be
modified by any changes in the roadway design.
14
d. Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States 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 and surface water impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit
will likely be necessary for this project.
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
This project involves widening an existing roadway which crosses two streams.
Avoidance of these streams is impractical. The wetland area adjacent to the easternmost
stream is located on the north side of Elk Road. The project will impact approximately
0.15 acre of wetlands. A number of homes exist on the south side of Elk Road across
from this wetland. Shifting the proposed widening in order to avoid the wetland would
result in relocating possibly as many as ten additional homes.
Side slopes at the streams and through this wetland area will be at 2:1 in order to
minimize impacts. The project's effects on waters of the United States will be further
minimized by strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management Practices
(BMP's) during the entire life of the project. All efforts will be made to minimize
environmental impacts.
If stream impacts exceed 150 feet mitigation may be required. If wetland impacts
exceed 0.1 acre mitigation will be required.
9. Protected and Rare Species
a. 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 January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists eight
federally- protected species for Cumberland County (Table 3). A brief description of
each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
15
Table 3. Federally Protected species for Cumberland County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
St. Francis satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Pondberry Lindera melissaifolia Endangered
Rough leaved loosetrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Small- whorled pogonia* Isotria medeloides Threatened
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A)
*= Historic Record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Endangered = a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all of 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.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has plumage that is black and white
horizontal stripes on its back, with white cheeks and under parts. Eggs are laid from April
through June.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in open pine stands that are between 80 and
120 years old. Longleaf pine stands are most commonly utilized. These birds forage in
pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees that are 10 inches (25
centimeters) or larger in diameter. The foraging range of the red cockaded woodpecker is
up to 500 acres (200 hectares). The acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
The older pines favored by the red-cockaded woodpecker often suffer from a
fungus called red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner
wood to become soft. Cavities generally take 1 to 3 years to excavate. The red-cockaded
woodpecker feeds mainly on beetles, ants, roaches, caterpillars, wood-boring insects and
spiders, and occasionally fruits and berries.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is not present within the project
area. The disturbed communities did contain pine species; however there were no pine
species greater than 60 years old and the communities were too fragmented for suitable
habitat. A search of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, indicated that
presence of the red-cockaded woodpecker was recorded within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers)
of the project area. However, the red-cockaded woodpecker colony abandoned the area
in 1990. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this species.
16
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii franciscz) Endangered
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 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: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the St. Francis' satyr in the project area is marginal. The best potential
habitat within the project area is found in the section of Wetland 1 where grasses, rushes,
and sedges are dominant. However this wetland does not appear to be a relict of beaver
activity. Based upon an October 6, 2003 conversation with Stephen Hall, Invertebrate
Zoologist with NHP, the presence of St. Francis' satyr in the project area is highly
unlikely, but cannot be completely ruled out. Mr. Hall stated that the St. Francis' satyr
has never been recorded outside of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Mr. Hall stated that the
best time to survey for the St. Francis' satyr is from mid-May to June.
A search of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no
occurrence of the St. Francis'-satyr within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area.
Therefore, based upon the current information about the St. Francis' satyr, the Biological
Conclusion for the project construction should be May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely
Affect. Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a
biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect" prior to the
completion of the final environmental document for this project.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Threatened
Small whorled pogonia is a small perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These
plants arise from long slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or
six light green leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish-
green to white petals and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring
from mid-May to mid-June. Populations of this plant are reported to have extended
periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small spring ephemeral orchid is
not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not in flower, young plants
of Indian cucumber-root also resemble small whorled pogonia. Small whorled pogonia
may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows in open, dry
deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soils. It also grows in rich, mesic
woods in association with white pine and rhododendron.
17
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat is not present in the project area for small whorled pogonia. The
plant communities within the project area are severely to moderately disturbed. A search
of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of small
whorled pogonia in the project vicinity. The species was last observed in the county
more than 50 years ago. No specimens were observed during the field surveys conducted
on August 28, 2003. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered
species.
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) Endangered
Pondberry is an aromatic, deciduous shrub with erect stems and shoots, growing
as high as 6.5 feet (2 meters). It spreads vegetatively by above ground shoots (stolons).
Young stems and leaves are hairy. Leaves are alternate, drooping, and oblong, with hairy
edges, a pointed tip and rounded base, 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 centimeters) long and 0.6 to
1.4 inches (1.5 to 3.5 centimeters) wide. Pondberry is characterized by the sassafras-like
odor of its crushed leaves and tendency to form thickets of clonal, unbranched stems.
Small, pale, and clustered flowers appear from February through April before leaf
and shoot growth begins in late April. Fruiting occurs from August to September. The
fruit matures in late autumn and is fleshy, oval, bright red, and about 0.25 to 0.5 inches
(0.6 to 1.3 centimeters) in diameter.
Pondberry prefer habitat associated with bottomland hardwood forests in inland
areas, poorly drained swampy depressions, and edges of limestone sinks and ponds closer
to the coast. It occurs at the edges of swamps and ponds and depressions in forest of
longleaf pine and pond pine forests. It is typically found in somewhat shaded areas, but
can also grow in full sun.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for pondberry occurs in the wetland portion of the alluvial
floodplain. A review of the NHP database on August 27, 2003 did not indicate any
known occurrences of pondberry near the project vicinity. Buck Engineering biologists,
Greg Price and George Buchholz, performed a plant-by-plant survey on August 28, 2003
by foot in all areas of the project area containing suitable habitat for a period of
approximately 1 hour. Pondberry was not observed during the field surveys. Therefore,
the Biological Conclusion for the construction of the proposed project is May Affect -
Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the pondberry. Concurrence will be obtained from
the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely
to Adversely Affect" prior to the completion of the final environmental document for this
proj ect.
18
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Endangered
The slender stems of this perennial herb grow from a rhizome and reach heights
of 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter). Whorls of 3 to 4 leaves encircle the stem at intervals
beneath the showy yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with
fruits present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a species endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of
North Carolina and South Carolina.
This species generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins, on moist to seasonally saturated sands, and on shallow
organic soils overlaying sand. Rough-leaved loosestrife has also been found on deep peat
in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays. The grass-shrub ecotone, where
rough-leaved loosestrife is found, is fire-maintained, as are the adjacent plant
communities (longleaf pine-scrub oak, savanna, flatwoods, and pocosin). Suppression of
naturally occurring fire in these ecotones results in shrubs increasing in density and
height and expanding to eliminate the open edges required by this plant. Fire
suppression, drainage, and, to a lesser extent, residential and industrial development have
altered and eliminated habitat for this species and continue to be the most significant
threats to the species' continued existence.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is not present within the project area.
While longleaf pine uplands exist within the project area, no ecotones between longleaf
pine uplands and pond pine pocosins are present within the project area. A search of the
NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of rough-leaved
loosestrife within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. It can be concluded that
the project will not impact this species.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxia)
Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatus shrub that grows 0.7 to 3.3
feet (0.2 to 1.0 meter) in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports nine to
thirteen sessile, oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are 1.6 to 3.6 inches (4 to 9 centimeters)
long, 0.8 to 2 inches (2 to 5 centimeters) wide, acute, and acuminate. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simple or doubly serrate. Plants flower in June,
producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of four to five greenish-yellow to white flowers.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods and roadsides. It is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows in
open habitat where it can get full sunlight and is often found with other members of its
19
genus as well as with poison ivy. Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain
and Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac occurs within the project area. A review of
the NHP database on August 27, 2003 did not indicate any known occurrences of
Michaux's sumac near the project vicinity. Buck Engineering biologists, Greg Price and
George Buchholz, performed a plant-by-plant survey on August 28, 2003 by foot in all
areas of the project area containing suitable habitat for a period of approximately 2 hours.
Michaux's sumac was not observed during the field surveys. Therefore, the Biological
Conclusion for the construction of the proposed project is May Affect - Not Likely to
Adversely Affect for Michaux's sumac. Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service on a biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" prior to the completion of the final environmental document for this project.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) Endangered
American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems (or stems
branched only at the base) with large, purplish-yellow, tubular flowers that are borne
singly on short stalks in the axils of the uppermost, reduced leaves (bracts). Flowering
occurs from April to June in the South, and from June to mid-July in the North. Fruits
mature from early summer in the South to October in the North.
American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally
moist to dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine
flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric
sandy soils, and other open grass-sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependent on factors such
as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water tables to maintain the crucial open to partly open
conditions that it requires. Historically, the species existed on savannas and pinelands
throughout the coastal plain and on sandstone knobs and plains inland where frequent,
naturally occurring fires maintained these sub-climax communities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
- Suilable habitat, including moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, or
ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, for the American chaffseed
is not present within the project area. A search of the NHP database, conducted on
August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of American chaffseed within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project area. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this
species.
20
a. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 4 includes FSC species
listed for Cumberland County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the
level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
21
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat Present
Vertebrates
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Yes
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR (PSC) Yes
Noturus sp. 1 "Broadtail" madtom SC Yes
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC Yes
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC (PT) No
Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC No
Invertebrates
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T (PE) No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T (PE) No
Plants
Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E Yes
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Yes
Danthonia epilis Bog oatgrass SR-T No
Dionea muscipula Venus flytrap SC-L No
Lilium pyrophilum Sandhills bog lily SR-L No
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E No
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice SR-T Yes
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia SR-T No
Ludwidgia brevipes Long beach seedbox SR-T Yes
Myriophyllum laxum Loose watermilfoil T No
Potamogeton
confervoides Conferva pondweed SR-D No
Pteroglossaspis ecristata Spiked medusa E Yes
Pyxidanthera barbulata
var. brev
ifol i a
Sandhills pyxie-moss
E
Yes
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T No
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidago verna Spring-flowering
goldenrod SR-L No
Stylisma pickeringii var.
pickeringii Pickering's dawnflower E Yes
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel W1 No
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass SR-T No
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
22
PE A Proposed Endangered species is one that has been proposed to Endangered
status but the status has not yet been adopted by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission and by the General Assembly as law.
PSC A Proposed Special Concern species that has been proposed to Special Concern
status but the status has not yet been adopted by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission and by the General Assembly as law.
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR A Significantly Rare species that is not listed as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined to need monitoring.
SR-D A Significantly Rare species that is disjunct to North Carolina from a main range
in a different part of the country or world.
SR-L A Significantly Rare species whose range is limited to North Carolina and
adjacent states.
SR-T A Significantly Rare species that is rare throughout its range (fewer than 100
populations).
T A Threatened species is any native or once native species that is likely to become
an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act.
W l Rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which
appear to be relatively secure at this time. .
Two FSC species (sandhills milkvetch and sandhills pyxie-moss) were recorded
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area based upon the NHP database as of
August 27, 2003. The sandhills milkvetch population occurs just south of Elk Road
midway between I-95 Business/US 301 and Legion Road, within the project area. The
sandhills pyxie-moss was recorded outside of the project area.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
No major drainage structures exist along Elk Road in the project area. However,
two small streams cross Elk Road. This project is located within the Cape Fear River
Basin. Cumberland County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program. There are no flood hazard zones affected by this project (see Figure 7).
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable. Erosion
and sedimentation will be controlled through the specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control methods. Groundwater
resources will not be affected by the project, as the roadway is fill and existing cut.
23
H. Section 4(f) Resources
There are no resources protected by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as
amended.
I. Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect the proposed project would
have on noise levels in the immediate area. The assessment included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in
the study area. A comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
was performed to determine if traffic noise impacts are likely to occur as a result of the
project. Traffic noise impacts were determined by following 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.
To determine whether highway noise levels are 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 in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 772.
Ambient noise measurements were taken to determine 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 line reference level for assessing the
impact of future noise levels on receptors in the project area. Existing noise levels in the
project area were measured at 15 meters (50 feet) from the edge of pavement and found
to be 55.1 dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was used in areas where traffic
noise was not the predominant source.
The Traffic Noise Prediction Model (TNM1.1) computer model was utilized in
order to determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the
peak hour of the year 2025.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria, or [b] substantially exceed the
existing noise levels. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to
receptors in the project area when noise impacts are predicted to occur.
The worst-case scenario for traffic noise is widening Elk Road to the north the
entire length of the project. This will result in traffic noise impacts to 45 residential
receptors.
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 18.3 meters
(60 feet) and 25.4 meters (83.3 feet), respectively from the center of the proposed
roadway.
24
Table N6 (Appendix B) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. The predicted noise level increases for this
project range up to 17 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10
dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the
sound. Forty-five (45) receptors will experience noise level increases.
Traffic noise abatement alternatives for this project were considered. These
alternatives included noise barriers, buffer acquisition and the "No Build"Alternative.
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. No
control of access is proposed for this project. Adjacent properties will have direct
driveway access to the facility. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise
reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to
construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways,
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance
from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters (50 feet) from
the barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters (400 feet) long. An access
opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise
impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The
cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold
of $25,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future
sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use
control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this
project, due to the substantial amount of right of way necessary to make vegetative
barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier should be
approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet) wide to provide 3 dBA reduction in noise levels. In
order to provide 5 dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right of way would
be required. The cost of acquiring the additional right of way and planting sufficient
vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement threshold of $25,000 per benefited
receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit
institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project.
25
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If
the proposed widening did not occur, 46.receptors would experience traffic noise impacts
by approaching or exceeding the FHWANAC. Also the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in the exterior noise levels of approximately 11 dBA. As
previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA and a
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
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.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, neither NCDOT nor
the FHWA will be responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued after the date of the final
environmental document for this project (Date of Public Knowledge).
J. Air Quality Analysis
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year 2005,
2010 and the Design year 2025, using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILE513 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 Environment, 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 in the vicinity of the
intersection of SR 1363 (Elk Road) and SR 1132 (Legion Road). The predicted 1-hour
average CO concentration for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010 and 2025 are 5.40,
5.40 and 5.90 ppm, respectively.
26
Comparison of the predicted CO.concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO
level does not exceed the standard.
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. Area wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence,
the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers (6 to 12 miles) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
highways.
The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR parts 51 and 93
are not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment
area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
27
K. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage Tank Facilities
Based on the field reconnaissance survey and a review of the Geographical
Information System (GIS), there are no anticipated impacts to underground storage tanks
(UST) and no superfund sites were identified in the project study area.
The GIS shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites exist
within the project limits.
VIII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On July 25, 2001, a letter was mailed to the following state and local agencies to
solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project
(note: an asterisk indicates those agencies which responded to this letter):
* US Fish and Wildlife Service
* US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Geological Survey
* NC State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* NC Department of Cultural Resources
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Department of Public Instruction
MID Carolina Council of Governments
Mayor of Fayetteville
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Hope Mills
A citizens informational workshop for the widening of Elk Road was held on
February 5, 2002, at Hope Mills Town Hall. The purpose of the project, an approximate
schedule, estimated cost, and the project's current status was conveyed to citizens at the
workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to gather citizens' input prior to the design
of the proposed project. Detailed information regarding possible effects on homes and
businesses was not yet available. Citizens were encouraged to complete comment sheets
and provide the NCDOT with their input to aid in the planning and design process.
Although approximately 38 people attended the workshop, no comment sheets were
received. However, a letter from the Radha Soami Society Beas-America was received
by the NCDOT on February 19, 2002, in response to information received at the
workshop. The Radha Soami Society Beas-America is located east of I-95 Business/
US 301. The project proposes to align Elk Road with the property's entrance. The letter
expressed concern for the impacts that may occur to the property's entrance as a result of
aligning the driveway with Elk Road.
28
FIGURES
4017 1 ? ? _ .4 t4
?; 'WyvQB .g 4
" 29 2318
2315 (.02)
BEGIN PROJECT "G pa \ u.
p_ ``? /2310
FMn,a ???? C 3632 qyp/? ?? [ ?\
y?0 (.02) 3342 b ""? gR? Q ?? `\ u,
C °bs
Edo- // 300
3633 0\3 .? .10
/) y, a t ?\ r-??.?p pit 03
3835 3369
/ 4 3901 ?\
(.07) g ° 4j 766 "28 1392 3616 301
$34 t?.pg swrMad< y? ?, " ewr
?•t? / p rwsen \? 6,wwra 3 34 q
7 \ 3700 1 06 .09 99 ? a 4000 2287
Cb Ana ? .70 r.,v
\ tt ,
BUS
O .4 F? I-'872 4 d 3767 9 3369 95 2289
c
?4r 1363 ` P
B3 85 ` 37 03 18 2219 ti t'B 4
y.1ppAA 10 /?y? 2288
S01MMvi4w ,p 1242
07 3874-\
Ebm. SM. Jr. Hl9h SM. z ??( 03? 700 cnanw? a. ?p' $ -3875 .B !2773 a.
? & SaMNSW °? 10 N .15 ?y C.
3936 Y
_ Sr NqR SM \ &'13 3700 .70 rand 3921
.....R . ................. _... .. .. ...._.. ........... I
.3... .37b4...w?' °°'°?......................... ... ...... d p 2343
1132 ? ,,,,,,, zasl4*
763 tt 10 2323 _ Jo 2219
D' ( 4011
\ / I cu 2392
HOPE MILLS 1242 2393 2363
.05 a I D, ??/,,' ceaa /a
d-4009 p) "?
p1 .0, X1144
.7 t 23 20 r? , 7
d
03 0 4 1131 7 d 2364 2363
^,yy I l?Mwp ^sm ti 399
?/ 0. 1383 C11c7.?? / tt a. d $ d- RetlVU?
-? \ ,?!. <orOjre\ `- FOA,. ?•, / B Ss 6'¢?l 5 a 900
2273 j- +y ?`?`' 4yM
e
END PROJECT
361 1
Hope J
""ar '$ y?' \ \ ?p ?? 1191 63
molt
Jr. High / Ra dl\ 16 `.>? i t
113 p
3 '9 113\ 9
b 98 1 1245 /Ardulusa
-2^20 y
?I ^/ (? ?? yf 1 ' - cr. ,/1274
c/
.20 1126
'•?/'" ?•?J ? $ ?uW` 1355 / ? / 350 ` ?. ? _
N
n?r'p r
°2r?a?n'Uke-. ,t?t.,+y: ?/s' 'wae<•!• (u _.
??r 07111 .. 3 y / c
s
ix,ss ?• rin4m <?
y CeYa.•f.?\
ry en4
i u \ .
SCALE: o MILE B.z FIGURE 1
GRAPHIC BY: CHARLES STURDIVAN7 DATE: 10108103

t NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LE GION ROAD TO I-956US/US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849

?.?,.? rte. ._.?.?ur?r ?? t-14 1 f?n??v ?.._

I
??-
w.
X
1AW
Y
Apr-
1
2006
ESTIMATED ADT WITHOUT PROJECT
2025
0-620
12200 110
17300 1700 `J1
LEGION ROAD
I
L MATCH LINE _A
10400
18500
L 0 PM 14900
8500 60F 10 21600
12500 (3,2)
2600 x3800 LEGION ROAD
3100 5400
13100 ? g
21800 "'
12200
20500
1100 PM 2200
1300
' 10 --->00
2600
N g? (1,t)
°' r-> At FYwnnn nalvF
1300
12200
20500
?glg
800 PM 300
1300 EOF- 10 801
(1.1)
DUNROBIN DRIVE
501
700
12400
20600
600
PM 1300
y? to X80 2100
g qq
? (tit)
"f F
1100 BENT CREEK DRIVE
12500
20700
A MATCH LINE A
LEGEND
PM
DHV- rD
UA)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (i )
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (Z)
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
UA DUALS TT-STS (S )
-? INDICATES THE DIREC77ON OF
PEAK FLOW.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
?j
12500
20700
FAL <? g
300V
900
12600
21000
9300 7400
15300 12
500 PM 20
0
1500 ? (1,1) F 10 600
CONBRIDGE ROAD
5200
? 8700
L? PM
eoE- to 7100
1900
3000 (3,2) 11700
CAMERON ROAD
GILLESPIE STREET
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND i
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LEGION ROAD TO I-95BUS/US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849

FIGURE 3.
2006
ESTIMATED ADT WITH PROJECT
2025
U-620
MATCH UNE
J
10400 _
18500 12500
20700
500 PM 200

100
12200
2600

3700

M 14900 60 <- 10 801
1500 )-1
(t,t)

FALCONBR/DGE ROAD

l

8
1700 8500 60E- 10 21600 300 "'
17300 12500 (3.2) 900
LEGION ROAD P600 x3800 LEGION ROAD
3100 5400
g 12600
13100 21000
21600 g? 1100
? 60
1800 L

4000 ?
12200
7600 3500 1900 60f- 10 3400
20500 3000 (3.2) 6200

$ $

? 1100
1300 PM 2200
10 - >60 260
(t,t) CAMERON ROAD
0

400
GILLESPIE STREET
1100 800
F 100 ALEXA(OOD DRIVE
1300
10800
17000 4700
- 7?
12200 00
20500 5300 PM
21000 8501 15400
15
L to 20300
80
30200 21100 (3.2) 28500
800 PM 300
1300 80<--- 10 601 } US 301/1-95BUS
300 US 30111-95BUS
(t.t) <J o
$
l r;_0_0 600 400
DUNROBIN DRIVE z
501
700 1300
2500
12400 1200
100 ,000
20600 <100 1 -:;o 0 10 X55 1200
<100 U (6,3) 2100
600 PM 1300

1000 10 X60 2100
y (1.1)
g ? BENT CREEK DRIVE
1100
12500
20700
------ ------
A MATCH LINE A
LEGEND
PM
DHV------- ?D
UA)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (Z)
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (S )
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
W) DUALS. TT-M 0)
-3 INDICATES THE DIRECTION OF
PEAK FLOW.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
TO BE DEAD-END
Rol
I f o SR 2273
o 100
0
500
VACANT FACTORY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
1
i i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
L PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LEGION ROAD TO I-95BUS®US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849

FIGURE 3b
LEGION ROAD
a o
Cn C1
?1?14 4 ?
I I
O
•
O
LEGION ROAD

Figure l: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Legion Road
U-3849 2025 Design Year
CHURCH ENT.
LOS B
- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -
O --
O .C- 200'
O

MIDDLE SCHOOL ENT.
Figure 2: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Church Entrance /
Middle School Entrance 2025 Desian Year
U-3849
FIGURE 4a!
u-3849
CAMERON ROAD / GILLESPIE STREET
LOS D
300'

CAMERON ROAD / GILLESPIE STREET
Figure 7: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Cameron Road /Gillespie Street
2025 Design Year
I-95 / US 301 BUS.
ELK ROAD -.?)
LOS B
v-3849
') L 4) 7 T
I-95 / US 301 BUS.
Figure 8: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and 1-95 /US 301 Business
2025 Design Year MST MP
4b'
------------ o
•
O
ALEXWOOD DRIVE

U-3849
Ro

I
I
I
I
I
I
i
HIGH SCHOOL ENT.
Figure 3: Recommended Laneage and
Elk Road and Alexwood Drive /High
2025 Design Year
Storage (in feet)
School Entrance
FIGLJRI
4c
.y
E
i
L
i
H
a
w„ .
LL
0
T-To- g
i
DN //
o U UI . N a E- n¢ Q W L
n z O w
V R'
L S ? 2 ? CJ z 'l O?
H w m m z z z a rte- A° C? -' 01 cq p
p
MAI*
?e-w. y ono

\ 1-
?T-
Y?
46
E 400
k? -
? oa
r/
?eskIs
got
i ? Y 1`y
XK
211<
`, - .?,,,` y'r/?' I Ira. '•''`-' / ?' ? "i ,'8='`',?,? ?' '?? ? -_ - -
!„ I i tt 150. ?' F 'Loom
?, ,' O w BEGIN ? ! , _ r-` «. - } ??- = ?.• , d
PROJECT
/1 e
05
-, l t _ f t }_ * k y .' J? , S:er fir ch
;END ?': s Palk 4 ?- c \
_ f
ROJ Ems,
jW,
LEGEND
.. PROPOSED PROJECT -
- c FLOODPLAIN
183
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
•tl PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LE GION ROAD TO 1-95BUS/US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849
SCALE: °I Few 2000 FIGURE 7
GRAPHIC BY: CHARLES ST URDIVAM

DATE: 0'122104
, _
Q
z
J
O
C?
2
O
Q ? I
I
z
? I
V
W
co co
M a I LL.
V N I w
?-
CIO-
U-
L 0
W i
N
o
0
z
O
Z
O
APPENDIX A
Federal Aid #STP-1363(3) TIP # U-3849 County: Cumberland
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: SR 1363 from I-95 (BUS) to Legion Road
On June 18, 2002, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway.Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? 'Scoping meeting
[Z Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
? There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as (List Attached) is
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
[V?There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
? All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed
Signed:
- -/&-/ -(DL4 f - ?-
Representative, NCDOT Date
14 Jf)zIJ0z
FHWA, r the Division A inistrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO ate
W/ct%a
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
A-1
e^`?v
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 2, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Histo reservation Officer
Re: Proposed Improvements to State Road 1363 (Elk Road) from State Road 1132 (Legion Road)
to I-95 Business (U.S. 301), Cumberland County, TIP Number L-3849, ER 01-9852
Thank you for your letter of May 23, 2001, concerning the above project.
No archeological sites are recorded adjacent to State Road 1363 in the proposed project area. Based upon our
examination of mapping available to us, it appears this is a developed area. Therefore, if this project consists of only
widening the existing, we recommend no archeological survey. However, we emphasize if anv National Register
listed or eligible structures are located in the project area they may include unassessed archeological components.
Archeological investigation of such properties would be necessary.
The survey of Cumberland County is more than 10 years old. We recommend that an architectural historian on
your staff identify and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings
to us.
If the widening project is on new location please submit plans for further review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: FHwA
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
A-2
M ?TA1F o
y° .w = o+a
r.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Di,
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary 1A
September 4, 2001

ves and History
MEMORANDUM . SEP 6 2001
tri -o
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager O 04v00N OF
??. HIGHWAYS
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch r ? iuirr ?tr
,/VT?
From: David Brook ! atspt?y
Deputy State Histoi c Preservation Officer
Re: Proposed Improvements to SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to I-95 Business
(U.S. 301), Cumberland Countv, TIP Number L'-3849, ER 01-9852
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. However, since a survey has not been conducted in over a
decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
No archeological sites are recorded adjacent to SR 1363 in the proposed project area. Based upon our
examination of mapping available to us, it appears this is a developed area. Therefore, if this project
consists of widening the existing only, we recommend no archeological survey.
If the widening project is on new location please submit plans for further review.
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.
-XI
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: SCH
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center
Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh . NC 4613 Mail Service Center
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center
A-3
Raleigh 27699-4617
Raleigh 27699-4613
Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone] 9715-4801
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
PM4
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
September 6, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
From: John E. Hennessy,. ?4
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening and extension of SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132
(Legion Road) to I-95 Business\US 301 in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-
1363(3), State Project No. 8.2443601, TIP U-3849, DENR No. 02E-0059.
Reference your correspondence dated July 20, 2001 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams
and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to tributaries of the Little
Rockfish Creek (Class C waters, DWQ index No. 18-31-24-(7)) located in the Cape Fear River Basin is
possible. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other
streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified,
the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
B. 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.
C. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However,
should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned waters, the DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource
Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 100,10 post-consumer paper
A-4
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
09/06/01
Page 2
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification.2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
E. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert,
it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
J. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
K. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules f 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 becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
L. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
M. 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.
N. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
A-5
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
09/06/01
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone]. .
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox,'NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3849\comments\TIP U-3849 scoping comments.doc
A-6
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 4, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager S?t? t Ln?
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699-1548 y 77
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed widening and extension of SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR
1131 (Cameron Road)/SR 1242 (Gillespie Road) to I-95 Business/US 301, Cumberland County,
North Carolina (TIP No. U-3849). This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1363 to a
four-lane, median divided facility with curb and gutter on a 100-foot right-of way. The project is
approximately 1.5 miles in length.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we 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 region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic 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 techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
A-7
,he National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Hope Mills 7.5 Minute Quadrangle indicates
were may be wetland or stream resources in the specific work area. However, while the NWI
:laps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu
T a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
Ve reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
ublic notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
ae planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
roject implementation.
n addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
roject include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
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;
Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
A-8
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 enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Cumberland County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. 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
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/04/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-3849.tip
A-9
COMINION NAINIE SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Southern hop
nose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC**
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush (=Georgia Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC
leadplant)
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michaurii FSC
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula FSC
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened-
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC
Pondberry (=Southern spicebush) Lindera melissifolia Endangered
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis FSC
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii FSC
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia aspendaefolia Endangered
Loose watermilfoil Myriophyllum !arum FSC
Savanna cowbane Oxvpolis ternata FSC
Carolina grass-of-pamassus Parnassia caroliniana FSC
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii FSC
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides FSC
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata FSC
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulaia var. brevisryla FSC
Awned meadowbeauty Rheria aristosa FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
v
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia F S C
Januarv 15, 1999 A-10 Page 1 -5 of 4:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES Ol E- oos"
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name 4?L Type of Project z6)' /.7,•15
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
Reviewer
j
ectio /Branch
Date
A-11
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Named
Comments provided by:
Project Number
? - ovs
County
? j
w
act 'te"O"4tzeuz
? Regional Program Person ? 4d`' ?>' ..
J ...rQ?
Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply ???fion ot? ?r
? Central Office program person
Name: n 1AU
Date:
Telephone number: ` -
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
? Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program:
ZN se (check all applicable):
objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
? See comments below
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
l
A-12
Mate OT North Carolina
HIMENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Project Number: 0')-F--400fq G
Due Date: .
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order t
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the revers
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Norrr
(StatL
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment S
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDE5. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Preappiication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820. --
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
20.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with prow Regional Office (Land Quality SectionYatkeestJ6-
.
1 ° "
cayrbeiwe beginning activity. A4ee cLS4(Lf *h F«* arrP r a - -- - - E S T r . .; J 0
:.,.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. I
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C.Division of Forest Resources required V more than five
in coastal N.C..with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.'
Oil Refining Facilities N/A
Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C.qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
A-13
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Prc:e: :i Time
-'?

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N
C
di (Statutory Time Limit)
.
. con
tional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according
1 days
to DENR rules and regulations. (
N/A)

Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form, (N/A)

State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions

& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. 20

days
L 15 -
/
(N/A)

401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
(130 days)

it for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
7 (130 days)
CAMAPermit
for MINOR development
T
$50.00 fee must accompany application
22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100
! Notification of the proper regional office is requested if 'orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
F-1I Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
1 Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
45 days
(N/A)
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Mooresville Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place_ 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone] [phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N.C.28301 Raleigh, N.C.27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone] [phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
S
A-14
E North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission P
Clarks R. Fullwtod, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r
Habitat Conservation Program -
DATE: September 28, 2001
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1363 (Elk Road)
widening and extension, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to T-95
Business/US 301, Cumberland County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-3849,
SCll Project No. 02-E-0059.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore 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 R.csources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewod the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U,S.C. 661-667d).
We have no specific concem8 regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs are
outlined below:
l . Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endatlgered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for prajrj4t
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
Mailing Add ress_
Division of Inland Fisheries a '_721 Mail ServiccCenter - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] c A-15 rax: [phone]
Memo
and,
2 September 28, 2001
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 4. 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 moult 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 perion delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Covcr type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed pmject. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the pprn'eet will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compenuating 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 constmetion and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to cuvirontnental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will resuit
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or pri vate 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: USFWS, Raleigh
A-16
North Carolina
Department of. Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
September 6, 2001
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
t V
F? CMG
OCT 5 2n-m
L?
'ate."V ;t i,i?>
Re: SCH File 02-E-4220-0059; Scoping Proposed Improvements to SR 1363 (Elk Road) in
Cumberland Co.: TIP# U-3849
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].
Attachments
cc: Region M

Sincerely,
6?z 6%;? e?
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity ! Affirmative Action Employer
A-17
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
a
IN REPLY REFER TO June 22, 2001
Regulatory Division
Subject: Action ID No. 200100862
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I am responding to your Memorandum to David Timpy. dated May 23, 2001 requesting
scoping comments on TIP Project U-3849, SR 1363 (Elk Road), from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to
I- 95 Business (US 301), Cumberland County, North Carolina. A site visit was conducted on
June 14, 2001 to identify and determine the extent of jurisdictional areas and to become
acquainted with the proposed project. As a result of the site visit, jurisdictional areas as defined
at 33 CFR 328.3(a) were identified at the proposed project site. Therefore, 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 dredged, excavated or fill material into waters of
the United States, including wetlands associated with this project.
Based on the information provided in the reference memorandum and the site visit, it
appears that the proposed project will involve the crossing of two un-named tributaries to Little
Rockfish Creek. The extent of these jurisdictional areas should be delineated in the field and
identified in the project planning report (Environmental Assessment). An assessment of the
proposed impacts from this project should contain the amount of both permanent and temporary
impacts to surface waters and wetlands and should indicate quantities by type (e.g. wetland
verses stream). If concrete structures are a component of this project, methods must be
employed to avoid any contact of "live" concrete with surface waters and all instream
construction should be conducted in the "dry" by use of stream diversion methods. If temporary
stream diversions are to be utilized, a plan and description should be provided showing the
proposed structure and method of diversion. A restoration plan will be required showing how
the diversion area will be returned to pre-construction conditions following the completion of the
project. If restoration involves revegatation of the disturbed area, the plan should include a
planting scheme using only endemic vegetation
The type of authorization and any specific permit requirements will depend on the crossing
design, extent of the fill work within jurisdictional areas, construction methods and other public
interest and environmental factors. Based on the site visit, project description in the above
A-18
A
1
referenced memorandum and the apparent level of aquatic resource impacts associated with the
proposed project, coordination pursuant to the integrated NEPA/Section 404 merger agreement
does not appear to be warranted.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our scoping comments. Should you
have any questions or wish to discuss our comments further, please call Mr. Richard K. Spencer
at the Wilmington Field Office at 910-251-4172.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Beverly Robinson ?
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Mr. Garland Pardue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27564
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
A-19
APPENDIX B
11/03/2003 16:42 910-486-1077 NC DOT R/W DIV 6 PAGE 02/02
RELOCATION REPORT
North arolina Department of Transportation
ARE4 RELOCATION OFFICE
E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2443601 COUNTY Cumberland Altemate 1 of 1 Alte_mate
TD_ N U-3849 F.A. PROJECT STP-1363 3
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Secondary Road 1363 (Elk Road) from S R 1132 egion Road io 1-95. Business!
US 301
:a....:r:;:..:.....
,: .. 15TIiNATE?f 16
r..:... ....:: i:::: •? .,r::
Type
Usplacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0.15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 8 1 g 5 1 9
Businesses 0 0
0 "`.;v4uFaFiyweht yi:a'; ` ='I;:; d,<,.,aMftrljaiVi?riuut, ,:,.,-„E .,
Farms 0 0 0 0 owners Tenants' For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 p a2oM i so-ISO
0-2061 in
a o•1s0 p
° a =X aie arc ••rrs- answers.
X I. Will special relocation services be necessary?
X, 2• Will schools or churches be affect by
displacement?
X 3. Will business swYk,;es still be available after
s
Il,tkiilur,i. II I project?
4. Will any business be dispiaoed? If so,
f l t" ' iit

? indicate size,
tYPP• estimated number of

,,ila i='
tl k employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
`' i • 0. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. . Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 8. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
:ICI I;i: h.
11 families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?'
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing wW)ln
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sltes available (list
t:!!
II ;
source).
lei 1IIBnI, lihk .
i?in . ,IgIIN ir:
5,
Number months estimated to complete
RELOCA11ON"' 18-24 Months
w

20-40m 190-2660 20-40*1 100 1506250 20
40-70M 250-400 40-70ei
0n
600 2501
TO-loom 1 40000 7a100M g00 400.000 200
r 6600 UP 9 too up, coo up
250"
ToTAt :2,420 510
;IkE?Ni I I j
"

*Note: The 0-20 M ()wel
'
lu®) Is a>r;andc ned
,
3. No Buslnesil e ected
6 & 14. MLS, Local Ite' itors, Newspapers., etc.
8. As mandated Law
9. Number Unk io rn
11. Cumberland C unty
12. Or Built if ne; sarv
rive d Date,
glnal tt 1 Copy. Fate Reoocation Agertt.
2 Copy Ft ght of'wey offtre
B-1
All property acquisitions are subject to the Uniform Relocation and Real Property
Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This Act provides for uniform and
equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit
associations, or farms by Federal and federally-assisted programs, and establishes
uniform and equitable land acquisitions policies.
Relocation assistance payments and counseling will be provided to persons and
businesses in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Properties Acquisitions Policies Act, as Amended, to ensure adequate relocation and a
decent, safe, and sanitary home for displaced residents. All eligible displacees will be
entitled to moving expenses. All benefits and services will be provided equitably to all
residential and business relocatees without regard to race, color, religion, age, national
origins and disability as specified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When relocation is necessary, it is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has
the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation.
*Relocation Assistance,
*Relocation Moving Payments, and
*Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
These regulations and programs help ensure that property owners are
compensated fairly for the loss of value of their property.
B-2
U)
w
W
J
LLJ
U/
O
z
a
w
_J
f-
_U
r)
Lij
ry
a.
Lo i col
?
oe
M
?
0 = I

M
O
( i

1
0
C0
v M
N 1
O
W
*k °

o
"1
00
0) i
U) 1 CC) ?I
U

W :.

O F- O
? T7
Cl) ~ !

d. p
CY) W o O)l
0 ; ° LO,
0
j
? ' ^
O M !
N M
M
W r CO CO

1 r^
vJ .

0 O
LO 0c) i

s W

R3 ,
J
EO
%.
N
C
N
? O

U
N
J
Q,
co
O N
v'
CD

1
co

F.- M (n - ! i j ``'

z V rn ;

O O M' (D
;
U (D co
E Z'
o O! N °'

co
° °'
V V

W
N;
M I N;
M
C)

C'7
?i
c!1!
NI
ci

-J .-

(n'
r??l
c

ry
0-1

U
co

m 0 3i
m'
-, Lo;
0 U-; Lo,
co It o, z o
U W. ai W'
COI ; COI c
O U M o
O M O

CO

co &
a); rn,
a):
Q
Q
O
0-1
w
IL
0
or_
w
z
w
0
w
2
0
w
w
w
Q
U)
D
0
z
0
0
w
U)
O
z
ui
O
z
M
1
00
M
i
? a
w ?
F" o
z U c
?zC;3
? U
zM
M
A p
U w o o Q p
O F W o o p
O F w o o
O W o 0
C7 U
N
?r
Q
o
o C7
? ¢ N
aZ? ¢ O N
a.z?
-'

k a o 0 0
O U a O O U a p u a p O a
W ¢ w

U U o o wQrx
fi.
U U o o wU¢c?

F" ?U U o o wUC4

F-<w U o 0

ON
kn
vl C4
N
SO

° C4

?O N < C4

ON
Xa?
0
v ? c c Xaa

O
E" ? o
?n XaW

--
O aa v ?, x?w

p
? ? c v
?
C4
F- Q o o 0
U
a -
UE?
x
A Q o o w

Q . ¢ Q o 0
T
es
>?
? o
w
L 0
L
ai °r
c ?
U
O
N Q)
C
U O
Q) ci
cC ?
c> -
L ?
y L
LC CU
Q cn
E U
L
fC5 N
70
U L
C
-p O
U
O Q
CD p
N p
O p
c?
O
O Q
^ N

rn
"Zt
OMO
W ?
W o
U
zz?
O
zx
U
w M
w ?
Q QM?
C40
W W W W
F N N N F N D1 F"' N N N p F N O O
U U U U
C:) U
a¢ ¢
? U 0 U
¢ a C) U
. p
.. c
.
w La ¢ W w Q W W ¢
L 7 C:7
F- _
E-
CG -_ ¢ W o o - T r
¢
W tf) w - C:W
F
C1 z pa 0 Z m O z q z
?z
?z z

W
Cl) N
II
O
C w
V) N
II
O
O w

cn N

I

I

O

C W n

N
11

O

O
W 1 W A ¢ n h
? [.1
C
u
z
N C4
u
z
N u
z 'l-
N u
z
CD o o - o 0 0 0 0 0 - o 0 0
N W N LLl N N
r
C+
L
cl
C1
W

Vo - O O w
v'? ?t
N 7
N W

CIO ,
W)
N n
N _
W i O C
O O O ^
z z z N
O_ p vMi O_ O N N O_ O N N O p h vr"'i
L L G?
W W W
_
W a x C\ X CN
C-4
C14 X ON
C,4
C14

J OO O O

G
L1

?
G
W

rr
C.
W

v _

GL`
U O U C O U O O
z
C4

0
v
o
o 0
v
o
o 0
v
o
o 0
?
o
c

70
Cis
' 'o
?
C
' o
N
C V] r. C/? ,.. V] ? V]

.2
Ob .-

to

¢

tb

,

N N N N
M
- M M M
z c? z z z
o
z x o x o C4 o
_
cn _
F V _
E^ J
ul _
cn

L °
..
C4, C4
U W w u Gi. '? U Gz .N
50
W
QQ
v x1
04 m
W ..
03 Z
-p m
xkr) (A
w°
03

?
W
Q
v d
G'ke)
?

a
° LL, w^
"

F Mo
M Mo Mo
M c o
M
w M r+r m cn = M V] M cn
04 O N+
Q Q? O
O C4 O
C m
0 O

N
z
w
°
E
a
O
N
y
v N
"z
ca
? w
U
c C1
r E-
c _
? L
i
N L
C3 U
c a
c .n
T T
N ?
N N
a
^ fV
kn
PO
F WATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
O 'QQG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
> . l Division of Water Quality
May 11, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee /
From: John Hennessy 1, ?j?
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment to construct the Widening of SR 1363 (Elk Road)
from Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301 in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project
STP-1363(3), State Project No. 8.2443601, TIP U-3849, DENR Project Number 04-0305.
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. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The project will have impacts to wetlands, streams, and other surface waters
associated with:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification(s) Stream Index Number
Rockfish Creek Cape Fear C 03-06-15
The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) The document does present any mapping that shows the location of wetlands and streams. In addition, the
document does not give any specified amount of anticipated impacts to wetlands and streams. Until the
DWQ has: 1) a map that clearly displays all the wetlands, streams, and other surface waters located in the
project, with the proposed project superimposed onto those resources, and 2) a table of anticipated impacts
that are resultant from the proposed design, we cannot agree that appropriate avoidance and minimization
has occurred for this project. As such, issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification for this project
could be delayed until the information is provided to the DWQ for review, and we are convinced that all
appropriate avoidance and minimization has occurred for this project.
B) 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 will be required for this project in accordance with
Environmental Management Commission's Wetland Rules 11 5A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) }.
C) In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A 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 Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748

O?O? \ NA
T??QG
?r
7

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
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.
F) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
G) An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required. The
-- - - type and detail of analysis-should conform to, the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on-the assessment of--- - - --
secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
H) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers 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, the
development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsnieyer, Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy
c:\ncdot\TIP U-3849\comments\U-3849 EA comments.doc
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748
A
+* t
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
2- 2?Oy
Date
311-11OZI
ate
roA'Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
/ V YL--
John F. V Ivan III
Division Administrator, FHWA
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Document Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
Beverly G. Robi son
Project Develwment Engineer
•??•-? CARO,?-''••
°o? •• 'nq ••?
?.•'??* •.•© E5St
SE AL
Ja Ls A. McInnis, Jr., P. E. 20701
Project Development Unit Head ?:• ?F??
M *%14
G? X1+'1 ? ?? ?'
2?u/ 04
F .
. . ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Project Commitments .................................................................................i
Summary ........................................................ .................................... ii
I. Description of.the Proposed Action .............................................
....................
A. Project Purpose .................................................................................... 1
B. General Description ............................................................................. 1
C. Cost Estimate ...................................................................................... 1
II. Need for Project ............................................................................................... 1
1. Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 1
2. Capacity ................................................................................... 2
3. Accident Analysis .................................................................... 2
4. Thoroughfare Plan ................................................................... 2
III. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 2
A. Existing Typical Section ...............................................
.......................
B. Existing Right of Way ......................................................................... 2
C. Access Control ..................................................................................... 3
D. Speed Limits ......................................................................................... 3
E. Functional Classification ..................................................................... 3
F. Utilities ................................................................................................. 3
G. Interesting Roads and Types of Control .............................................. 3
H. Sidewalks ............................................................................................. 3
I. School Bus Data .................................................................................. 3
IV. Proposed Improvements ................................................................................... 3
A. Project Length ...................................................................................... 3
B. Proposed Typical Section .................................................................... 3
C. Proposed Alignment ............................................................................. 4
D. Right of Way ........................................................................................ 4
E. Access Control ..................................................................................... 4
F. Design Speed ....................................................................................... 4
G. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements ...................................... 4
H. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................... 5
- I. Sidewalks ............................................................................................ 5
J. Bicycle Accommodations ................................................................... 5
. .

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
V. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................................................ 5
A. Design Alternatives .............................................................................. 5
B. "No-Build" Alternative ........................................................................ 5
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation ...................................................... 5
VI. Adjacent Projects ............................................................................................. 6
VII. Evaluation of Environmental Effects ............................................................... 6
A. Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 6
1. Historic Architectural Resources ............................................. 7
2. Archaeological Resources ....................................................... 7
B. Social/Economic Effects ...................................................................... 7
1. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ...................................... 7
2. Neighborhood Cohesion ......................................................... 7
3. Public Facilities ....................................................................... 8
4. Environmental Justice ............................................................. 8
5. Economic Effects .................................................................... 9
C. Land Use ............................................................................................. 9
D. Farmland Impacts ................................................................................. 9
E. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ........................................................... 10
F. Natural Resources ................................................................................ 10
1. Biotic Resources ...................................................................... 10
2. Terrestrial Communities .......................................................... 10
a. Disturbed Communities ............................................... 11
b. Alluvial Floodplain ...................................................... 11
3. Aquatic Communities .............................................................. 12
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ................................. 12
5. Water Resources ...................................................................... 12
a. Characteristics of Water Resources ............................. 12
b. Best Usage Classification ............................................ 13
6. Water Quality .......................................................................... 13
7. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............ 13
R

i f
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
8. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................ 14
a. Waters of the Unites States .......................................... 14
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ......... 14
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 14
d. Permits ......................................................................... 15
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation ................... 15
9. Protected and Rare Species ...................................................... 15
a. Federally-Protected Species ......................................... 15
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species 21
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ..................................................................... 23
H. Section 4(f) Resources ........................................................................ 24
I. Traffic Noise Analysis ........................................................................ 24
J. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................ 26
K. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage Tank
Facilities ............................................................................................... 28
VIII. Comments, Coordination, and Public Involvement ......................................... 28
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3a 2006/2025 Traffic Volumes Without Improvements
Figure 3b 2006/2025 Traffic Volumes With Improvements
Figure 4a Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 4b Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 4c Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 5 Southview Middle and High School Recommended Campus Layout
Figure 6 Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 7 Flood Plain Map
Figure 8 Typical Section
Tables
1 LOS With and Without Proposed Improvements ........................................... 2
2 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .................................................... 12
3 Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County ...................................... 16
4 Federal Species of Concern ............................................................................. 22

Appendix A
Appendix B

Project-Commitments
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland-County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) requested a review of the final plans if any of the widening project
occurred on new location. The design plans will be forwarded to SHPO for further
review.
Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a
biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the federally-
protected St. Francis' satyr, Pondberry, and Michaux's sumac prior to completion of the
final environmental document for the project.
Division 6
Sidewalks are proposed on the south side of Elk Road from Legion Road to
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road. The City of Fayetteville has committed to participate in
the cost of sidewalks in accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy.
4.2 meter (14-foot) outside lanes are proposed to provide additional width to
accommodate bicycles.
Side slopes at streams and wetland areas along this project will be at 2:1 in order
to minimize impacts.
Environmental Assessment U-3849
February 2004
i
Page 1 of 1

;..
r ::
'..
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility
From Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994.1.1
TIP Project U-3849
SUMMARY
1. Description of the Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen SR 1363 (Elk Road) to a four-lane median divided facility with curb
and gutter, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR 1242/SR 1131 (Gillespie Road/Cameron
Road) and extend Elk Road on new location between Gillespie Road/Cameron Road and
I-95 Business/US 301. The project is approximately 1.5 miles long.
The proposed project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right 6f way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 and construction in FY 2006.
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $10,669,000 which includes
$6,700,000 for construction and $3,969,000 for right of way acquisition. The cost
included in the 2004-2010 TIP is $12,265,000 which includes $4,615,000 for right of
way acquisition and $7,650,000 for construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The widening and extension of Elk Road will result in the relocation of nine
residences.
Less than 1.0 acre (0.4 ha) of wetlands will be impacted as a result of the
widening and extension of Elk Road.
3. Alternates Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project.
Alignment
All widening improvements are proposed along existing (Elk Road) SR 1363.
Elk Road will be extended from (Cameron Road) SR 1131/(Gillespie Road) SR 1242 to
I-95 Business/US 301 at SR 2273.
Typical Section
A four-lane curb and gutter section was the only typical section studied for the
proposed project. This typical section will provide a 3.7 meter (12-foot) inside lane and a
4.3 meter (14-foot) outside through lane in each direction and a variable 5.3 to 6.7 meter
(17.5 to 22 foot) median.
No Build
The No Build option was rejected as the existing facility will not effectively serve
the projected volumes.
4. Coordination
The following federal, state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Mid Carolina Council of Governments
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Fayetteville
Mayor of Hope Mills
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Water Quality
5. Additional Information
Additional Information concerning the proposed project and assessment can be
obtained by contacting the following:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Assessment Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 401
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
IV
Hope Mills
SR 1363 (Elk Road)
Legion Road (SR 1132) to I-95 Business/US 301
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP-1363(3)
State Project 8.2443601
WBS Element 34994. 1.1
TIP Project-U-3849
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to reduce congestion and improve safety on
SR 1363 (Elk Road) and improve access to I-95 Business/US 301 for southwest
Fayetteville and Hope Mills.
B. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen existing SR 1363 (Elk Road) to a four-lane median divided facility
with curb and gutter, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR 1242 (Gillespie Road)/SR 1131
(Cameron Road) and extend Elk Road from SR 1242/SR 1131 approximately 100.6
meters (330 feet) eastward to I-95 Business/US 301. The project is approximately 2.4
kilometers (1.5 miles) long.
The proposed project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 and construction is scheduled for FY 2006.
C. Cost Estimates
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $10,669,000 which includes
$6,700,000 for construction and $3,969,000 for right of way acquisition. -The cost
included in the 2004-2010 TIP is $12,265,000, which includes $4,615,000 for right of
way acquisition and $7,650,000 for construction.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
1. Traffic Volumes
Without the proposed improvements, the 2006 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
along Elk Road ranges from 12,200 vehicles per day (vpd) to 13,100 vpd. For the design
year (2025), the estimated traffic volume ranges from 20,500 vpd to 21,600 vpd. With
the proposed improvements, 2006 volumes range from 10,800 to 13,100 vpd and 2025
volumes range from 17,000 to 21,600 vpd (see Figures 3a and 3b).
2. Capacity
A capacity analysis was performed for the proposed project. to predict the level of
service (LOS). Without construction of the proposed project, Elk Road will operate at
LOS D in 2006 and a LOS E in 2025. Due to the proximity of signalized intersections
along the facility the signalized intersections will govern the operational capacity of Elk
Road with the proposed improvements. Table 1 lists the design and construction year
LOS without the proposed improvements and the design year (2025) LOS with the
proposed improvements. See Figures 4a-4c for proposed lane configurations.
Table 1 LOS With and Without Proposed Improvements
Intersections 2025 LOS with
improvements 2006 LOS without
improvements 2025 LOS without
improvements
Legion Road D C E
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road D F D
I-95 Business/US 301 B N/A N/A
3. Accident Analysis
During the three year period from May 2000 to April 2003 there were 47
accidents reported on Elk Road. Forty percent of the accidents reported were rear end,
slow, or stop type collisions. The accident rate along Elk Road for this time period was
459.40 accidents per 100 million vehicle mile (acc/100mvm). Compared to the statewide
rate of 479.25 accidents per 100 million vehicle mile for urban secondary routes, Elk
Road is slightly below the statewide rate.
4. Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed project is classified as an urban minor arterial and is consistent with
the Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, which was adopted by local governments
and NCDOT. See Figure 6.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Existing Typical Section
The existing typical section along Elk Road is a two to three lane roadway with
grass shoulders.
B. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way on Elk Road varies from 18.3 meters (60 feet) to 30.5
meters (100 feet).
2
C. Access Control
Existing Elk Road has no control of access.
D. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along Elk Road is 35 miles per hour.
E. Functional Classification
Elk Road is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial in the North Carolina functional
classification system.
F. Utilities
The utility impact rating is estimated to be medium. Utilities along Elk Road
include telephone, underground power, water, sanitary sewer, and fiber optic cable lines.
G. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
There are four T-intersections along Elk Road that are stop sign controlled.
Legion Road and Cameron Road/Gillespie Road are major "T" intersections with Elk
Road. Legion Road is currently signalized. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road is stop sign
controlled.
H. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks along Elk Road.
1. School Bus Data
Approximately 10 buses use Elk Road from Legion Road to Cameron Road/
Gillespie Road. Each of these buses makes approximately 2 to 4 trips per day for
Southview Middle and High Schools.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Project Length
The total project length is 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles).
B. Proposed Typical Section
A four lane median divided facility is proposed for Elk Road from Legion Road to
I-95 Business/US 301. The median width will vary from 5.3 to 6.7 meters (17.5 to 22
3
feet). Inside lanes will be 3.6 meters (12 feet) wide and outside lanes will be 4.2 meters
(14 feet) wide in order to accommodate bicycles (see Figure 8).
C. Proposed Alignment
No changes to the alignment of Elk Road are proposed. A best fit alignment is
proposed. This alignment will include widening on both sides of Elk Road. This
alignment minimizes impacts and costs for the proposed project. The extension of Elk
Road will be on new location. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be realigned
approximately 114.9 meters (337 feet) west of the existing alignment.
D. Right of Way
A total right of way width of 33.5 meters (110 feet) plus construction easements
will be required to accommodate the proposed improvements.
E. Access Control
The proposed improvements to Elk Road include no control of access.
F. Design Speed
An 80 km/h (50 mph) design speed is proposed for the project.
G. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements
The existing traffic signal at Legion Road will be upgraded. A new traffic signal
will be installed at the proposed new intersection of Elk Road and I-95 Business/US 301
and at the intersection of Cameron/ Gillespie Road with Elk Road. All other existing
intersections will be stop sign controlled. Proposed signalized intersection configurations
for the project are shown on Figures 4a and 4b.
Southview High School and Southview Middle School are located adjacent to
each other on the south side of Elk Road near Legion Road (see Figure 2). Currently,
school traffic backs up onto Elk Road in the mornings and afternoons. In order to
address this problem, changes will be made to the driveways for both schools as a part of
this project. Three driveways serving the schools will be closed and replaced with two
new driveways. The new driveway for the high school will connect with Elk Road across
from SR 3700 (Alexwood Drive). The new driveway for the middle school will connect
with Elk Road across from the driveway for Southview Baptist Church. Median
crossovers, left turn lanes and traffic signals will be provided at both of these new
entrances. Figure 5 shows the driveway layout recommended for these schools by
NCDOT's Municipal and School Transportation Assistance Group. Improvements
shown on Figure 5 beyond constructing the new driveways from Elk Road to existing
driveways on school property will be the responsibility of the school system.
4
H. Cost Estimates
The current cost estimate for the Elk Road widening and extension is $10,669,000
which includes $3,969,000 for right of way acquisition and $6,700,000 for construction.
1. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are proposed on the south side of Elk Road from Legion Road to
Cameron Road/Gillespie Road. The Town of Hope Mills has committed to participate in
the cost of sidewalks in accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy.
J. Bicycle Accommodations
The proposed 4.2 meter (14-foot) outside lanes will provide additional width to
accommodate bicycles.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
Only one design alternative, the "Best Fit" alternative, was examined for this
project. Within this alternative, the proposed widening has been shifted as necessary in
order to minimize project impacts. Elk Road will be widened symmetrically from Legion
Road to SR 3765 (Alexwood Drive). Elk Road will be widened mostly on the north side
from Alexwood Drive to the Cameron Road/Gillespie Road realignment. See Figure 2.
A five-lane facility was considered for the proposed Elk Road improvements.
However, because of the safety and operational benefits associated with a four-lane
median divided facility, the five-lane facility was not recommended.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative is not recommended. While this alternative avoids the
anticipated impacts of the proposed project this alternative does not meet the purpose of
the project to reduce congestion and improve safety on Elk Road and improve access to I-
95 Business/US 301 for southwest Fayetteville and Hope Mills.
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
It was determined that no alternate modes of transportation would be a practical
alternative to the recommended alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant
mode of transportation in the project area. Staggering work hours, car pooling, and van
pooling are possible ways to generally reduce highway congestion; however, these
congestion management measures are not controlled by the NCDOT. These alternatives
would do nothing to address the system linkage needs that will be improved by the
"Build" alternative.
VI. ADJACENT PROJECTS
Several other highway projects are proposed for this area of Fayetteville (see Figure
6).
Two projects are immediately adjacent to Elk Road. TIP Project U-2809 involves the
widening of Legion Road from SR 1007 (Owen Drive) to SR 1131 (Cameron Road).
Right of Way acquisition and construction for this project are scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 2007 and 2008, respectively.
The proposed Hope Mills Bypass (TIP Project U-620) will extend from SR 1141
(Bingham Drive) to Legion Road at Elk Road. Traffic on the Hope Mills Bypass will use
Elk Road to access I-95 Business/US 301. Right of way acquisition for the bypass is
complete. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2004.
In addition to these two projects, five other projects are in the surrounding area:
¦ U-2304A, Cumberland Road widening from NC 59 to SR 1233 (Yale Street); Right of
way acquisition is complete. Construction is underway.
¦ U-2308, NC 59 widening from south of SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 (Raeford
Road); Right of way acquisition is complete. Construction is underway.
¦ U-3311, Bingham Drive widening from the Hope Mills Bypass to US 401 (Raeford
Road); Right of way acquisition is complete. Construction is scheduled to begin
FY 04.
¦ U-3424, Bunce Road widening from US 401 (Raeford Road) to SR 1400 (Cliffdale
Road); Right of way acquisition and construction are currently post year.
¦ U-3422, Camden Road widening from the Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC 59. Right of
way acquisition and construction are currently post year.
The proposed project is required, even with construction of these other projects.
As discusses in section V. B., the "no-build" alternative is not recommended.
VII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
6
undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential
effect. This project will not impact any properties. eligible for or listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (see concurrence letter in Appendix A).
If any of the widening project is constructed on new location, the HPO is
requesting a further review of the design plans. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be
realigned on new location. NCDOT will submit the design plans to the HPO for further
review.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites along the proposed project; therefore the
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) did not recommend an archaeological survey.
See letter from the Department of Cultural Resources dated July 2, 2001 in the appendix.
If any of the widening project is constructed on new location, the HPO is
requesting a further review of the design plans. Cameron Road/Gillespie Road will be
realigned on new location. NCDOT will submit the design plans to the HPO for further
review.
B. Social/Economic Effects
1. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
The proposed project will require the relocation of nine homes. None of these
homes are minority-owned or occupied. The relocation program for the project will be
conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North
Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The NCDOT relocation
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. Appendix B of this document contains
additional information regarding NCDOT relocation programs and includes copies of the
relocation report prepared for the project.
2. Neighborhood Cohesion
The project will not directly cause or encourage an influx or loss of population, or
isolate people from one another. Although residential displacements may occur as a
result of the proposed project, they are not expected to have a negative impact on the
economic condition of the study area.
7
The study area is densely populated with residential and various institutional land
uses. The project will benefit the community by providing a facility that better
accommodates existing and projected future traffic.
3. Public Facilities
Southview Baptist Church and Southview Presbyterian Church are located
adjacent to each other along the north side of Elk Road within the study area. The
widening is not expected to impact the church or its parking areas. There is a ball field
located in the southeast portion of the property along the roadway. The ball field is
owned by and used by the church softball league and for unorganized recreational
purposes. Impacts to this ball field are expected to be low. This ball field is not a 4(f)
protected property.
The Radha Soami Society Beas-America is located east of I-95 Business/US 301.
The Group hosts various events for its followers throughout the year. Although the
Group has expressed concern for the project as a result of aligning their driveway with
Elk Road, no adverse impacts to the Group or its property are expected to occur.
Southview Middle School and Southview Senior High School are located adjacent
to each other on the south side of Elk Road. Buses to the middle school have access via
Legion Road south of the proposed project's western terminus. Access to the high school
is provided via Elk Road.
Both schools are separated from the existing roadway by a lightly wooded lot,
which provides an approximately 91.44 meter (300-foot) buffer from the existing
roadway. No impacts to recreational facilities at either school are expected to occur.
4. Environmental Justice
Executive order 12898 requires that each federal agency, to the greatest extent
allowed by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect
human health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and
adverse" effects on minority and low-income populations.
The proposed project will not place adverse impacts upon any areas having low
income and/or minority populations, or split or isolate any such communities. In
addition, census data and field surveys indicate that no low income or minority
communities exist within the immediate vicinity of the project. This assessment has
found no evidence or indication this project will disproportionately or adversely affect
persons on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. The proposed
project is being implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
8
5. Economic Effects
The proposed improvements to Elk Road are not expected to cause any changes in
the economic condition of the project study area. The project is not expected to
encourage growth within the study area. Property values may increase because the
proposed project will improve access to I-95 Business/US 301. However, land will be
required for right-of-way, removing it from the area's tax base.
C. Land Use
The project study area is in a primarily residential area within Cumberland
County's and Hope Mills' planning jurisdictions. Residential development encompasses
the length of the study area within Cumberland County's jurisdiction. The remaining
study area in Hope Mills' jurisdiction consists of institutional land uses.
Cumberland County's policies on future development, land use, and growth can
be found in the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. The Plan is a collaborative
effort between the County and its eight municipalities, including Hope Mills. In addition,
Hope Mills has a separate land use plan that was completed in 1996. The information
obtained in this land use plan is incorporated into the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use
Plan. Based on the general goals and objectives outlined in this Plan, the County is
preparing specific small area plans. However, work on small area plans for the project
area has not been initiated.
The proposed improvements to Elk Road are consistent with the Fayetteville
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan and the
Hope Mills land use plan. The largest development planned for the area is the
Worthington subdivision. According to the plat for this subdivision, there are 45 lots.
Currently, there are approximately 20 houses. The widening project will not provide new
access to undeveloped land. Although the project will create a new intersection with Elk
Road and I-95 Business/US 301, the improvements are not expected to encourage
development in the study area or cause changes in the land uses along Elk Road.
D. Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR 658) requires all
federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils, as designated by the United States Soil Conservation
Service. Farmland soils in an urbanized area or in an area committed to urban
development by the local governing body are exempt from the requirements of the FPPA.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as
designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). Land which is
planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the same level of preservation
afforded other rural, agricultural areas. The proposed widening of Elk Road is in an
urbanized area. The project lies within the jurisdiction of Cumberland County and the
9
Town of Hope Mills and is zoned for residential and office and institutional development.
Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to farmland is required.
E. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
The Council on Environmental Quality defines indirect impacts as those, "which
are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.$). Cumulative impacts are defined as "impacts
on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.8). Based
on these definitions, the current land use plan for Cumberland County, and information
provided by the Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) and
Hope Mills' planners, it is concluded that the project will not produce measurable indirect
impacts within the study area.
Based on the forecast in the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan,
Cumberland County has no plans to further develop the study area during the next ten
years. The Worthington subdivision is the largest planned development within the study
area and is currently under construction. Hope Mills is experiencing growth in east,
north, and northwest directions, which include the project study area. Furthermore, Hope
Mills has plans within the next two years to annex the entire project area. This
annexation will not alter the current land uses along Elk Road. Property values in the
area surrounding the project may increase because access to I-95 Business/US 301 will
be improved.
Several other highway projects are proposed for this area of Fayetteville. The
cumulative impacts associated with these projects include approximately 71 residential, 9
business and 2 non-profit relocations, 6.4 acres of impacted wetlands and approximately
1,700 feet of impacted streams as a result of six projects in the Fayetteville area.
F. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
communities observed. Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are
described and discussed. Animals observed during field investigations are denoted with
an asterisk(*).
2. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: disturbed
community and alluvial floodplain. Much of the wildlife in the project study area likely
uses various communities for forage, cover, and nesting habitat.
10
a. 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, and irregularly maintained roadside shoulder.
Maintained yards are primarily restricted to housing and business sites located in
the project study area. Dominant species located in the herbaceous layer include fescue,
crabgrass, and Bermuda grass. Trees observed in this community include dogwood,
privet, loblolly pine, and laurel oak.
Regularly maintained roadside shoulders are land parcels in which the vegetation
is kept at a low-growing, early successional stage. These areas appear to be regularly
mowed and may receive frequent herbicide application. This habitat includes the
majority of land along Elk Road. Species observed here include crabgrass, Bermuda
grass, violet, Carolina geranium, and Virginia creeper.
Irregularly maintained roadside shoulder and power line corridor receive less
frequent mowing and/or herbicide application. These areas are scattered along Elk Road.
Tree saplings observed here include sassafras, laurel oak, and turkey oak. Species
observed in the herbaceous and vine layer include poison ivy, ragweed, and goldenrod.
There are also portions of irregularly maintained roadsides which contain primarily
longleaf pine.
Faunal species utilizing this community may include raccoon, white-tailed deer,
the least shrew, eastern harvest mouse, and hispid.cotton rat eastern cottontails prefer
brushy edges where they primarily feed on woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include southern short-tailed
shrew, gray squirrel, and white-footed mouse.
Eastern fence lizard and five-lined skink inhabitant open habitats with plenty of
sunlight. The slimy salamander, spring peeper and eastern box turtle are commonly
observed throughout forested habitats.
b. Alluvial Floodplain
This community is located along the two unnamed tributaries that cross under Elk
Road. The wetland area found within this community is located to the north of Elk Road
within a disturbed area in a sewer easement. Both wetland and upland habitats are
present within this community type. Species observed here include giant cane, American
elm, loblolly pine, water oak, and tag alder.
11
3. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream, is located in the
project study area.
Elk Road crosses two unnamed tributaries of Little Rockfish Creek. Both of
these streams are small perennial streams.
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 included three-
lined salamander, green frog, pickerel frog, and banded water snake. Although certain
aquatic species are likely to occur within the project area, none were observed during the
field investigation.
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.
Estimated impacts are derived using the proposed 30.5-m (100-ft) right-of-way.
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 2.0 ha (5.0 ac)
Alluvial Floodplain 0.4 ha (1.0 ac)
Wetland Impacts <0.4ha (<1.Oac)
Total 2.8 ha (7.0 ac)
5. Water Resources
a. Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Cape Fear River
Drainage Basin, Hydrological unit number 03-06-15. Two unnamed tributaries are
located within the project study area. Both tributaries flow from north to south,
converging just south of the project area, before entering Little Rockfish Creek.
The western most unnamed tributary is a perennial stream. Within the project
study area, this stream channel is approximately 1.2 meters (4.0 feet) wide and 22.9
centimeters (9 inches) deep. The substrate is primarily silt and sand.
12
The eastern most unnamed tributary is also a perennial stream. Within the project
study area, this stream channel is approximately 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) wide and 12.7
centimeters (5 inches) deep. The substrate is primarily silt and sand.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of ter
Ou-ality (1997).-The classification of Rockfish Creek [Index no. 03-06-15] is C. Clas (
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreatio
and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Re
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 milof-the project study area.
6. Water Quality
Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be good indicators of water quality
because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life
cycle, are nonmobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species
richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and
rivers. All basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and to
facilitate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review. A
biological sampling site is located at the NC 87 crossing of Rockfish Creek (B-21). This
site received a Good rating in 1993 and an Excellent rating in June 1998.
7. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water resources. The
water resources located within the project study area include the unnamed tributaries and
one wetland area. Land clearing and grubbing activities in the project area may 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. Additionally, as populations and vehicular traffic increase
so does the potential for petroleum distillates and other chemical compounds to enter
nearby streams. Increased amounts of toxic materials can adversely alter the water
quality of any water resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions
13
In order to minimize impacts to water resources within the footprint of the project,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will
be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
8. Jurisdictional Issues
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
Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. 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.).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
The two unnamed tributaries (described in Section VII-F-5-a) are considered
jurisdictional surface waters. A wetland area is located adjacent to the eastern most
unnamed tributary.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will cross surface waters and a
jurisdictional wetland. Approximately 30 linear meters (100 linear feet) of both unnamed
tributaries are located within the project study area. Approximately <0.4ha (<1.0 ac) of
jurisdictional wetland is located within the proposed right-of-way. Actual impacts to the
wetland community may be less than reported because the entire right-of-way width is
often not impacted by construction projects. The amount of wetland impacts may be
modified by any changes in the roadway design.
14
d. Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States 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 and surface water impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit
will likely be necessary for this project.
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
This project involves widening an existing roadway which crosses two streams.
Avoidance of these streams is impractical. The wetland area adjacent to the easternmost
stream is located on the north side of Elk Road. The project will impact approximately
0.15 acre of wetlands. A number of homes exist on the south side of Elk Road across
from this wetland. Shifting the proposed widening in order to avoid the wetland would
result in relocating possibly as many as ten additional homes.
Side slopes at the streams and through this wetland area will be at 2:1 in order to
minimize impacts. The project's effects on waters of the United States will be further
minimized by strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management Practices
(BMP's) during the entire life of the project. All efforts will be made to minimize
environmental impacts.
If stream impacts exceed 150 feet mitigation may be required. If wetland impacts
exceed 0.1 acre mitigation will be required.
9. Protected and Rare Species
a. 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 January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists eight
federally- protected species for Cumberland County (Table 3). A brief description of
each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
15
Table 3. Federally Protected species for Cumberland County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
St. Francis satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Pondberry Lindera melissaifolia Endangered
Rough leaved loosetrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Small- whorled pogonia* Isotria medeloides Threatened
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A)
*= Historic Record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Endangered = a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all of 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.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has plumage that is black and white
horizontal stripes on its back, with white cheeks and under parts. Eggs are laid from April
through June.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in open pine stands that are between 80 and
120 years old. Longleaf pine stands are most commonly utilized. These birds forage in
pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees that are 10 inches (25
centimeters) or larger in diameter. The foraging range of the red cockaded woodpecker is
up to 500 acres (200 hectares). The acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
The older pines favored by the red-cockaded woodpecker often suffer from a
fungus called red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner
wood to become soft. Cavities generally take 1 to 3 years to excavate. The red-cockaded
woodpecker feeds mainly on beetles, ants, roaches, caterpillars, wood-boring insects and
spiders, and occasionally fruits and berries.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is not present within the project
area. The disturbed communities did contain pine species; however there were no pine
species greater than 60 years old and the communities were too fragmented for suitable
habitat. A search of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, indicated that
presence of the red-cockaded woodpecker was recorded within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers)
of the project area. However, the red-cockaded woodpecker colony abandoned the area
in 1990. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this species.
16
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci) Endangered
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 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: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the St. Francis' satyr in the project area is marginal. The best potential
habitat within the project area is found in the section of Wetland I where grasses, rushes,
and sedges are dominant. However this wetland does not appear to be a relict of beaver
activity. Based upon an October 6, 2003 conversation with Stephen Hall, Invertebrate
Zoologist with NHP, the presence of St. Francis' satyr in the project area is highly
unlikely, but cannot be completely ruled out. Mr. Hall stated that the St. Francis' satyr
has never been recorded outside of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Mr. Hall stated that the
best time to survey for the St. Francis' satyr is from mid-May to June.
A search of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no
occurrence of the St. Francis' satyr within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area.
Therefore, based upon the current information about the St. Francis' satyr, the Biological
Conclusion for the project construction should be May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely
Affect. Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a
biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect" prior to the
completion of the final environmental document for this project.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Threatened
Small whorled pogonia is a small perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These
plants arise from long slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or
six light green leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish-
green to white petals and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring
from mid-May to mid-June. Populations of this plant are reported to have extended
periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small spring ephemeral orchid is
not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not in flower, young plants
of Indian cucumber-root also resemble small whorled pogonia. Small whorled pogonia
may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows in open, dry
deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soils. It also grows in rich, mesic
woods in association with white pine and rhododendron.
17
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat is not present in the project area for small whorled pogonia. The
plant communities within the project area are severely to moderately disturbed. A search
of the NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of small
whorled pogonia in the project vicinity. The species was last observed in the county
more than 50 years ago. No specimens were-observed during the field surveys conducted
on August 28, 2003. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered
species.
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) Endangered
Pondberry is an aromatic, deciduous shrub with erect stems and shoots, growing
as high as 6.5 feet (2 meters). It spreads vegetatively by above ground shoots (stolons).
Young stems and leaves are hairy. Leaves are alternate, drooping, and oblong, with hairy
edges, a pointed tip and rounded base, 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 centimeters) long and 0.6 to
1.4 inches (1.5 to 3.5 centimeters) wide. Pondberry is characterized by the sassafras-like
odor of its crushed leaves and tendency to form thickets of clonal, unbranched stems.
Small, pale, and clustered flowers appear from February through April before leaf
and shoot growth begins in late April. Fruiting occurs from August to September. The
fruit matures in late autumn and is fleshy, oval, bright red, and about 0.25 to 0.5 inches
(0.6 to 1.3 centimeters) in diameter.
Pondberry prefer habitat associated with bottomland hardwood forests in inland
areas, poorly drained swampy depressions, and edges of limestone sinks and ponds closer
to the coast. It occurs at the edges of swamps and ponds and depressions in forest of
longleaf pine and pond pine forests. It is typically found in somewhat shaded areas, but
can also grow in full sun.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for pondberry occurs in the wetland portion of the alluvial
floodplain. A review of the NHP database on August 27, 2003 did not indicate any
known occurrences of pondberry near the project vicinity. Buck Engineering biologists,
Greg Price and George Buchholz, performed a plant-by-plant survey on August 28, 2003
by foot in all areas of the project area containing suitable habitat for a period of
approximately 1 hour. Pondberry was not observed during the field surveys. Therefore,
the Biological Conclusion for the construction of the proposed project is May Affect -
Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the pondberry. Concurrence will be obtained from
the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely
to Adversely Affect" prior to the completion of the final environmental document for this
project.
18
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Endangered
The slender stems of this perennial herb grow from a rhizome and reach heights
of 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter). Whorls of 3 to 4 leaves encircle the stem at intervals
beneath the showy yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with
fruits present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a species endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of
North Carolina and South Carolina.
This species generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins, on moist to seasonally saturated sands, and on shallow
organic soils overlaying sand. Rough-leaved loosestrife has also been found on deep peat
in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays. The grass-shrub ecotone, where
rough-leaved loosestrife is found, is fire-maintained, as are the adjacent plant
communities (longleaf pine-scrub oak, savanna, flatwoods, and pocosin). Suppression of
naturally occurring fire in these ecotones results in shrubs increasing in density and
height and expanding to eliminate the open edges required by this plant. Fire
suppression, drainage, and, to a lesser extent, residential and industrial development have
altered and eliminated habitat for this species and continue to be the most significant
threats to the species' continued existence.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is not present within the project area.
While longleaf pine uplands exist within the project area, no ecotones between longleaf
pine uplands and pond pine pocosins are present within the project area. A search of the
NHP database, conducted on August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of rough-leaved
loosestrife within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. It can be concluded that
the project will not impact this species.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxir)
Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatus shrub that grows 0.7 to 3.3
feet (0.2 to 1.0 meter) in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports nine to
thirteen sgssile, oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are 1.6 to 3.6 inches (4 to 9 centimeters)
long, 0.8 to 2 inches (2 to 5 centimeters) wide, acute, and acuminate. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simple or doubly serrate. Plants flower in June,
producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of four to five greenish-yellow to white flowers.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods and roadsides. It is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows in
open habitat where it can get full sunlight and is often found with other members of its
19
genus as well as with poison ivy. Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain
and Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac occurs within the project-area. A review of
the NHP database on August 27, 2003 did not indicate any known occurrences of
Michaux's sumac near the project vicinity. Buck Engineering biologists, Greg Price and
George Buchholz, performed a plant-by-plant survey on August 28, 2003 by foot in all
areas of the project area containing suitable habitat for a period of approximately 2 hours.
Michaux's sumac was not observed during the field surveys. Therefore, the Biological
Conclusion for the construction of the proposed project is May Affect - Not Likely to
Adversely Affect for Michaux's sumac. Concurrence will be obtained from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service on a biological conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" prior to the completion of the final environmental document for this project.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) Endangered
American chaffseed is an erect perennial herb with unbranched stems (or stems
branched only at the base) with large, purplish-yellow, tubular flowers that are borne
singly on short stalks in the axils of the uppermost, reduced leaves (bracts). Flowering
occurs from April to June in the South, and from June to mid-July in the North. Fruits
mature from early summer in the South to October in the North.
American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally
moist to dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine
flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric
sandy soils, and other open grass-sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependent on factors such
as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water tables to maintain the crucial open to partly open
conditions that it requires. Historically, the species existed on savannas and pinelands
throughout the coastal plain and on sandstone knobs and plains inland where frequent,
naturally occurring fires maintained these sub-climax communities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat, including moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, or
ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, for the American chaffseed
is not present within the project area. A search of the NHP database, conducted on
August 27, 2003, found no occurrence of American chaffseed within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project area. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this
species.
20
a. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 4 includes FSC species
listed for Cumberland County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state-protection under the State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the
level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
21
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name J NC Status Habitat Present
Vertebrates
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Yes
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR (PSC) Yes
Noturus sp. 1 "Broadtail" madtom SC Yes
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC Yes
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC (PT) No
Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC No
Invertebrates
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T (PE) No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T (PE) No
Plants
Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E Yes
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Yes
Danthonia epilis Bog oatgrass SR-T No
Dionea muscipula Venus flytrap SC-L No
Lilium pyrophilum Sandhills bog lily SR-L No
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E No
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice SR-T Yes
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia SR-T No
Ludwidgia brevipes Long beach seedbox SR-T Yes
Myriophyllum laxum Loose watermilfoil T No
Potamogeton
confervoides Conferva pondweed SR-D No
Pteroglossaspis ecristata Spiked medusa E Yes
Pyxidanthera barbulata
var. brevifolia Sandhills pyxie-moss E Yes
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T No
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidago verna Spring-flowering
goldenrod SR-L No
Stylisma pickeringii var.
pickeringii Pickering's dawnflower E Yes
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel W1 No
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass SR-T No
?
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
22
PE A Proposed Endangered species is one that has been proposed to Endangered
status but the status has not yet been adopted by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission and by the General Assembly as law.
PSC A Proposed Special Concern species that has been proposed to Special Concern
status but the status has not yet been adopted by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission and by the General Assembly as law.
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold -under regulations -adopted under -the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR A Significantly Rare species that is not listed as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined to need monitoring.
SR-D A Significantly Rare species that is disjunct to North Carolina from a main range
in a different part of the country or world.
SR-L A Significantly Rare species whose range is limited to North Carolina and
adjacent states.
SR-T A Significantly Rare species that is rare throughout its range (fewer than 100
populations).
T A Threatened species is any native or once native species that is likely to become
an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act.
W l Rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which
appear to be relatively secure at this time.
Two FSC species (sandhills milkvetch and sandhills pyxie-moss) were recorded
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area based upon the NHP database as of
August 27, 2003. The sandhills milkvetch population occurs just south of Elk Road
midway between I-95 Business/US 301 and Legion Road, within the project area. The
sandhills pyxie-moss was recorded outside of the project area.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
No major drainage structures exist along Elk Road in the project area. However,
two small streams cross Elk Road. This project is located within the Cape Fear River
Basin. Cumberland County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program. There are no flood hazard zones affected by this project (see Figure 7).
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable. Erosion
and sedimentation will be controlled through the specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control methods. Groundwater
resources will not be affected by the project, as the roadway is fill and existing cut.
23
H. Section 4(f) Resources
There are no resources protected by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as
amended.
1. Traffic Noise Analvsis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect the proposed project would
have on noise levels in the immediate area. The assessment included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in
the study area. A comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
was performed to determine if traffic noise impacts are likely to occur as a result of the
project. Traffic noise impacts were determined by following 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.
To determine whether highway noise levels are 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 in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 772.
Ambient noise measurements were taken to determine 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 line reference level for assessing the
impact of future noise levels on receptors in the project area. Existing noise levels in the
project area were measured at 15 meters (50 feet) from the edge of pavement and found
to be 55.1 dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was used in areas where traffic
noise was not the predominant source.
The Traffic Noise Prediction Model (TNM1.1) computer model was utilized in
order to determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the
peak hour of the year 2025.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria, or [b] substantially exceed the
existing noise levels. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to
receptors in the project area when noise impacts are predicted to occur.
The worst-case scenario for traffic noise is widening Elk Road to the north the
entire length of the project. This will result in traffic noise impacts to 45 residential
receptors.
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 18.3 meters
(60 feet) and 25.4 meters (83.3 feet), respectively from the center of the proposed
roadway.
24
Table N6 (Appendix B) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. The predicted noise level increases for this
project range up to 17 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10
dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the
sound. Forty-five (45) receptors will experience noise level increases.
Traffic noise abatement alternatives for this project were considered. These
alternatives included noise barriers, buffer acquisition and the "No Build"Alternative.
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. No
control of access is proposed for this project. Adjacent properties will have direct
driveway access to the facility. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise
reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to
construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways,
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance
from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters (50 feet) from
the barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters (400 feet) long. An access
opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise
impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The
cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold
of $25,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future
sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use
control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this
project, due to the substantial amount of right of way necessary to make vegetative
barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier should be
approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet) wide to provide 3 dBA reduction in noise levels. In
order to provide 5 dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right of way would
be required. The cost of acquiring the additional right of way and planting sufficient
vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement threshold of $25,000 per benefited
receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit
institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project.
25
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If
the proposed widening did not occur, 46 receptors would experience traffic noise impacts
by approaching or exceeding the FHWANAC. Also the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in the exterior noise levels of approximately 11 dBA. As
previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA and a
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
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.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, neither NCDOT nor
the FHWA will be responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued after the date of the final
environmental document for this project (Date of Public Knowledge).
J. Air Quality Analysis
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year 2005,
2010 and the Design year 2025, using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILESB 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 Environment, 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 in the vicinity of the
intersection of SR 1363 (Elk Road) and SR 1132 (Legion Road). The predicted 1-hour
average CO concentration for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010 and 2025 are 5.40,
5.40 and 5.90 ppm, respectively.
26
Comparison of the predicted CO.concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO
level does not exceed the standard.
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. Area wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence,
the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers (6 to 12 miles) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
highways.
The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR parts 51 and 93
are not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment
area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
27
K. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage Tank Facilities
Based on the field reconnaissance survey and a review of the Geographical
Information System (GIS), there are no anticipated impacts to underground storage tanks
(UST) and no superfund sites were identified in the project study area.
The GIS shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites exist
within the project limits.
VIII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On July 25, 2001, a letter was mailed to the following state and local agencies to
solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project
(note: an asterisk indicates those agencies which responded to this letter):
* US Fish and Wildlife Service
* US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Geological Survey
* NC State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* NC Department of Cultural Resources
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Department of Public Instruction
MID Carolina Council of Governments
Mayor of Fayetteville
Cumberland County Commissioners
Mayor of Hope Mills
A citizens informational workshop for the widening of Elk Road was held on
February 5, 2002, at Hope Mills Town Hall. The purpose of the project, an approximate
schedule, estimated cost, and the project's current status was conveyed to.citizens at the
workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to gather citizens' input prior to the design
of the proposed project. Detailed information regarding possible effects on homes and
businesses was not yet available. Citizens were encouraged to complete comment sheets
and provide the NCDOT with their input to aid in the planning and design process.
Although approximately 38 people attended the workshop, no comment sheets were
received. However, a letter from the Radha Soami Society Beas-America was received
by the NCDOT on February 19, 2002, in response to information received at the
workshop. The Radha Soami Society Beas-America is located east of I-95 Business/
US 301. The project proposes to align Elk Road with the property's entrance. The letter
expressed concern for the impacts that may occur to the property's entrance as a result of
aligning the driveway with Elk Road.
28
FIGURES
4
4017 / g 11
.4 ?a
\i tw.e,p .qq _o' 4
29 Or. , Z7 2316
7? -7
2315 (02)
BEGIN PROJECT "G \ dd u.
\ /2310
332
y?Y 1.02) 3342
300 ?'~ 4 C Ady` e+°• i G.r ???\?\ 47-1
(((? ' 3633 '03 %-10 Oc \? /' 228 \: Y?\
'
-3635 3369
reN\?•.,,(.0» 4 Q- 3766 1392 3816 // 4 3901
g )'w 301 filmur
3:1 Z. .08 99 ? 000 2287 d. t°° l \
??p d \ CT 31
.09
I 4 r 3767 S fiU6
I-'872.__' 3369 95 2289
a a
1363 I 3785 ` m?
37 \ 0 ? 3 16 2219 B 0 ?
d C6. 10 2288
R ?/ w. 1212
Jr. High
6?ItlwF SM. d w
3700 -'2273 a'
SOIL 073874
& SwM1Mw °\?? 10 '15 3875 y _
Cilll.. 3934
? $ 83 3700 J .10 uirnla.n 3921
._... __.._8t. ........ $ ..._..._ _ p
1132 3 2391 2323
??? 1 ?
3763 x4610 2323 m?Jg 2219
4ta ( 4011
?. \ 7' 1 0!I!I!y ?? 2392
HOPE MILLS / 1uz :393. 3s3 8
.06
a d x/009
j' 1 7 p/'?:''7 .1 a o? 0? 391
229 4
/
.03 4 1131, 2366 2363 h? m ti
(.11). 399
1383 C / O '\?b d nowual
900
845
/2273
? \ ?? ?l ?j r ? "' ?? ? END PROJEC ° Q tr
/ E ?•IJJ - -\S301
M11. .05 1131 43
Jr. High 'k 0
113 3 '9\ . 1130
\ 4 96 12 V \ \1 /
>x L`.gC'7 ?/, p ?j J 1213 /Ardulusa '?•,\
HI1 RQ 2996 {?-?^ \ \ ?l ` / / 7
2220 yn
(\ l ?` ` C. ?27a
1!M r > v- sot
.20
?iI'? J 1yH• 355 ,' 350
N
T
lel F. _. rye/00? /
ray
Inn
• YanCV f)
r
ry ! j
? 11
Y
-'-?
r
SCALE: o MILE oil FIGURE 1
\ i
!
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LE GION ROAD TO I-95BUS/US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849

GRAPHIC BY: CHARLES S7URDIVAM DATE: 10108103
?"
.??1 _ }.
?.? C ? ,J-
?:, . E ..
?? - ?
?' .?
?.
... _ ?.
,_. . a.
??:
r'?,
,??
t:cr?
wyo s
a?
??„
???
?? .,? .?.
z•?-
Y ,n _iif
0I? ?? M ±d.. _.?
. ,
12200
17300
LEGION ROAD
800 PM
1300 sow 10
(1.1)
2006
ESTIMATED ADT WITHOUT PROJECT
2025
U-620
L
MATCH LINE
J
10400 _ _
185W 12500
20700
500 PM 200

100
2800

300
L

M 14900 60-*-- 10
15W
(1,7)

ALCONBRIDGE ROAD 600

0

812

°
1"!
1700 8500 so< -10 21600
300 Y (
,
12500 (32) 900
2600 x3800 LEGION ROAD
3100 5400
g 12600
13100 21000
21600 5200

7400
8700
?i
12200 _ ""?-?,
12 PM
7
205W 15300 --
1900 so<- 10
11700
3000 (3.2)

A 1100
'1300 PM 2200
1080 CAMERON ROAD
G/LLESPIESTREET
$I I
I
g 2800
(1.1)
a, J, 1100
r
t 1300 ALEXWOOD DRIVE
12200
20500
300
601 ?$Ig
DUNROBIN DRIVE
501
700
12400
20600
600
PM 1300
1000 10 -->e0 2100

700 BENT CREEK DRIVE
1'100
12500
20700
------
A MATC ------
H LINE A
LEGEND
PM
DHV ? D
(L)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (1 )
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (2)
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
(aA DUAL%TT-STS (Z)
-'s INDICATES THE DIRECTION OF
PEAK FLAW.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
? TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
j PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LEGION ROAD TO I-95BUS/US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849
FIGURE 3.
2006
ESTIMATED ADT WITH PROJECT
2025
ILan
12200
17300
LEGION ROAD Y60p x3800 LEGION ROAD
3100 $ 5400
13100
21600
12200
205W
1100 PM 2200
1300 1050 2600
g $? (1,1)
1?
,1300 ALEXWOODDRIVE
12200
20500
800 PM 300
1300 50F- 10 601
(1.1) ?$I g
DUNROBINDR/VE z
501
700
12400
20600
600
PM 1300
J000
y 10 X50 2100
(t,t)
P7000

100
0
1
BENT CREEK DRIVE
12500
20700
------ ----
A MATCH LINE --
A
LEGEND
PM
DtIV->D
us1
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (Z)
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (2)
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
(dA) DUALS,TT-SrS (Z)
- INDICATES THE DIRECTION OF
PEAK FLOW.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
A MATCH UNE A
L J
12500
2020 00
500 PM 200
w <__ 10 600
1500
1
FALCONBRIDGE ROAD ; g!
3
011'
900
12600
21000
$
1100
?
a ? ? 2TOp
18

600

501
90
3400
0 50. 10
190
3000 (3,2) 6200
CAMERON ROAD 500

_

400
GILLESPIE STREET
1100 800
106,00
17000 4700
7000
5300 l-? PM
21000 SSNI 15400
L 80,. t0 20300
30200 21100 (3.2) 28500
US 301A-95BUS
3N
200 US 301/1-95BUS
600 400
1300
2500
1200
100 x2000 PM
<100 100 0 10-_>55 1200
<100 (8,3) 2100
TO BE DEAD-END SR 2273
0 0 100
0
500
VACANTFACTORY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
1 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
L PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LEGION ROAD TO I-95BUS®US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849
FIGURE 3b
?2600
11001 1 3700 PM 14900
1700 8500 50E-10 21600
12500 (3.2)
LEGION ROAD
I I
I I
III I
? I
I ? ? I
ELK ROAD I
LOS D
---
Q r 300'
0
(- ELK ROAD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGION ROAD

Figure 1: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Legion Road
U 38?9 2025 Design Year
-
CHURCH ENT.
LOS B
- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -
' 200'
100, go C

MIDDLE SCHOOL ENT.
Figure 2: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Church Entrance /
Middle School Entrance 2025 Design Year
'J '`'?" FIGLTF
CAMERON ROAD / GILLESPIE STREET
u-3849
LOS D
300•

CAMERON ROAD / GILLESPIE STREET
Figure 7: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and Cameron Road /Gillespie Street
2025 Design Year
I-95 / US 301 BUS.
ELK ROAD +j 414 1
LOS B
u-3849
-t7 -t
I-95 / US 301 BUS.
Figure 8: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
Elk Road and 1-95 /US 301 Business _
2025 Design Year FIGURE 4b'
------------ o
0
•
ALEXWOOD DRIVE

O
•
O
HIGH SCHOOL ENT,
Figure 3: Recommended Laneage and
Elk Road and Alexwood Drive /High
U-3849 2025 Design Year

Storage (in feet)
School Entrance
FIGURI
4c
wv? 6?
jj •> C
T w S
.a 1 ? h. ? aT+ C R
= cc a
cv _ = w
1,4
?
_ E ~p'o'o z,
10 ?
o N O '?
(. c t W M
0
t
?« r 9 b Vi
._ k
? 5 a +P , y f V]
yr;

z
0
H
z U
J?
a?
?- V)
w z
0
U V
Z O?
00
O
z
.00,00 1

•`?'?'3'.., T , as
- b„ _ - I -
LL.
E 01
1 I -p -' - - --- - - -- °' d ¢ CL Z?,?'
w z HI s i-- ?c)I- dF d
LI E-' w W -1
a < (?
i a -?- N GZd°'w ?d a
l ( rl N O E-' ...? w
Zm) D ZD Z > CO
is # -i- 8 o i,? o oi'°? PFa[yF dZ3?n" wd
a
V F q N _• _ O rn U Fr
100
q ri U 7 ?i O z. c 2
-_ ?. c N GG f+4. 2 C z vii F IS- 1 .. F I J ,?O
o a
00 cv1 -- m0 [C F O O a3
.3 ??qqpp m Z z z u 9 o z U 'Y J\ 00 O .
H a N F < c u F F u w w O O -7 O N z ° 1
EC 0
> O p m = t? a c a .. t- 7 y z a 00 M 00 p
a p c'1 ,2
d U 0 U N N W M N / 11 w _ j= s I
N of w w _ 10
T r ? ,
OE-9
I
I
i E
dO 'A,
II
l_j,
° C1V SAY . ?' r - 9' -r 1
-? V?,e,
I It
I_
i
h A
(12I CTa 3ZI
iv p
Ob
U _
I
117
'G -
/
0 -' N \ P
E
I:
0{
Y
s ,
s
° I fj? I
-31
a
a 1
I ? 1 u j
t
1 ?
y? I 1N
e.
'f
. U 211; ..'? r
cr? ?. ?r \ I N.{ ?F'? tt I iYr i ?,• ?. `?. ti~ i7' t r
E r td- a ?,, f I
L ? / yc Jr• _'? .';ir I.. ti, 1? ? r ? it .?? ?. ? '
_-, . ??w?4
wor
yBEGIN at- , r e?
'y% SOP PROJECT ! , R _ • '? ,
Yti
`
t • - x32 t
i?
• /

- 44
?- ..
? f
-
• 7 ?.? .
' is :
1' -

911otJc ? ? ?z• -.. _ _

\ r

f
Y !
•
• -- y
-- + ` -
•
? LEGEND

' • t PROPOSED PROJECT
- FLOODPLAIN

Y ? \t?
?• z j .
n
5 :
jr
I _
D%
I ?
'i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1363 (ELK ROAD)
LE GION ROAD TO 1-95BUS/US 301
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3849
SCALE: ° FEET 200° FIGURE 7
GRAPHIC BY: CHARLES STURDNANT
DATE: 01 /22/04 ?

F-
D
2
O
c?

2
C7
O
Q -dK- I
Z
O

V -
W
co
a
I co
V N
N ui
o
-

o
L
Q LL
CL W

CL
Ln
O I
H
0 -
CL
Cli
0
s
O
O

2

O
APPENDIX A
Federal Aid #f,STP-1363(3) TIP # U-3849 County: Cumberland
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: SR 1363 from I-95 (BUS) to Legion Road
On June 18, 2002, representatives of the
2 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
[]?? Federal Highway.Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? `S
coping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
? There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as (List Attached) is
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
? All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
[There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed
Signed:
Represen rive, NCDOT Date
`?. 14 -Q::t ?- ) Z1)pZ
FHWA, r the Division A str to
ator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO ate
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
A- I
?yj? ?'YVcO
"' ray
ti
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 2, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ffi(
Deputy State Histo reservation Officer
Re: Proposed Improvements to State Road 1363 (Elk Road) from State Road 1132 (Legion Road)
to I-95 Business (U.S. 301), Cumberland County, TIP Number L'-3849, ER 01-9852
Thank you for your letter of May 23, 2001, concerning the above project.
No archeological sites are recorded adjacent to State Road 1363 in the proposed project area. Based upon our
examination of mapping available to us, it appears this is a developed area. Therefore, if this project consists of only
widening the existing, we recommend no archeological survey. However, we emphasize if any National Register
listed or eligible structures are located in the project area they may include unassessed archeological components.
Archeological investigation of such properties would be necessary.
The survey of Cumberland County is more than 10 years old. We recommend that an architectural historian on
your staff identify and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings
to us.
If the widening project is on new location please submit plans for further review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: FHwA
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center
A-2
Raleigh 27699-4617
Raleigh 27699-4613
Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone] •715-4801

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
September 4, 2001
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Hist ?c Preservation Officer

Div }ves and History
4j zctor
S
SEP 6 2001
rn -?
0 DiVfS,'DlklOF
c` HIGHWAYS
4
4./E C
?? n! AN' P.
Re: Proposed Improvements to SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to I-95 Business
(U.S. 301), Cumberland County, TIP Number L'-3849, ER 01-9852
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. However, since a survey has not been conducted in over a
decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
No archeological sites are recorded adjacent to SR 1363 in the proposed project area. Based upon our
examination of mapping available to us, it appears this is a developed area. Therefore, if this project
consists of widening the existing only, we recommend no archeological survey-.
If the widening project is on new location please submit plans for further review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: SCH
Administration
Restoration
Survey & Planning
Location
507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC
515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC
515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center
4613 Mail Service Center
4618 Mail Service Center
Raleigh 27699-4617
Raleigh 27699-4613
Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone] 9715-4801
[phone] •715-4801
A-3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality AM &I *Jd
A*A
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary NCDEWP.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
September 6, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
From: John E. Hennessy J4
f
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening and extension of SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132
(Legion Road) to I-95 Business\US 301 in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-
1363(3), State Project No. 8.2443601, TIP U-3849, DENR No. 02E-0059.
Reference your correspondence dated July 20, 2001 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams
and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to tributaries of the Little
Rockfish Creek (Class C waters, DWQ index No. 18-31-24-(7)) located in the Cape Fear River Basin is
possible. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other
streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified,
the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
B. 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.
C. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However,
should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned waters, the DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource
Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-4
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
09/06/01
Page 2
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification.2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
E. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert,
it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
J. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
K. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A 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 becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
L. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
M. 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.
N. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
A-5
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
09/06/01
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone]. ,
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox,'NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C.\ncdot\TTP U-3849\comments\T1P U-3849 scoping comments.doc
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
September 4, 2001
ti
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager StP Vii??
c:
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, .? ; cr
1548 Mail Service Center `r •- ?`\''`'
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed widening and extension of SR 1363 (Elk Road) from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to SR
1131 (Cameron Road)/SR 1242 (Gillespie Road) to I-95 Business/US 301, Cumberland County,
North Carolina (TIP No. U-3849). This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1363 to a
four-lane, median divided facility with curb and gutter on a 100-foot right-of way. The project is
approximately 1.5 miles in length.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we 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 region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic 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 techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
A-7
-he National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Hope Mills 7.5 Minute Quadrangle indicates
here may be wetland or stream resources in the specific work area. However, while the NWI
naps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu
,f a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
Ve reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
)ublic notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
he planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
,roject implementation.
n addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
roject include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered.
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
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;
Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
A-8
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 enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Cumberland County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. 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
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
< ?:g ?z ? ?' e. " z4
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDN-R, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/04/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-3849.tip
A-9
CONIIION NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's "sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC**
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush (=Georgia Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC
leadplant)
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula FSC
Resinous boneset Euvatorium resinosum FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened*
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC
Pondberry (=Southern spicebush) Lindera melissifolia Endangered
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis FSC
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia bovkinii FSC
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lvsimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Loose watermilfoil 1Vfvri0phvllum la-cum FSC
Savanna cowbane Oxvpolis ternata FSC
Carolina grass-of-pamassus 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. brevistvla FSC
Awned meadowbeauty RheYia aristosa FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC
Carolina asphodel Tof eldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia F S C
Januarv 15, 1999 A-10 Page 15 of 4,,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES D? E- oa5
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name .2//
Type of Project ")" ?? `??'•?
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
[ If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
n
et ,.r?? L C L w' ,,? / c?/r C
Reviewer ectio /Branch Date
A-11
IL/IVIvIC1V 1 /y1 VU
NATURAL RESOURCES
Project Number
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH aos
County
7 / ^
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
r1
Project Name /li( gj?ect i?,?,
Comments provided by: % ?t!
? Regional Program Person 2001

Regional Engineer for Public Water Suppl
74, n
c
`-
jj ??pY
? Central Office program person
Name:
Date: f4z?
Telephone number: 5 o' qf r - -
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
? Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program:
ZN se (check all applicable):
objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
? See comments below
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health

A-12
--t?r-?- Mate or Ivortn Larollna
HIMEAR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Project Number: Due Date: G
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order t
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the rever-
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Norrr
(Statt
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment S
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDE5. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be incompliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919.733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
20.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with prop`r Regional Office (Land Quality Section)at4eesr38;
a sxfsre beginning activity. ?°° t cnn c .ti C tt arro nr a __ ____ \ T V ?' `?, 1_- `?? y' ?}1 P
°.y
`
`
ed Local Ordinance.
eferenc
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the r
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five
in coastal N.C..with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
Oil Refining Facilities N/A
Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
A-13
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Nor
mal Rcte_ Time
--?

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well

File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C conditional that any tutory

(Statutory
Time Li.nit)
opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according 10 days
to DENR rules and regulations. (N.!A)
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. 15 - 20
days
(NI A)
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A 55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application
22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
1 Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100
i Notification of the proper regional office is requested if 'orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
F-1I Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
1 Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
45 days
(N/A)
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Mooresville Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone] [phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N.C.28301 Raleigh, N.C.27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone] [phone]
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
a
R
A-14
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission I?
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovetmnental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 28, 2001
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1363 (Elk Road)
widening and extension, from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to T-95
Business/US 301, Cumberland County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-3849,
SCII Project No. 02-E-0059.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NC:DOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N: C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
LJ,$.C. 661-6674).
We have no specific concerns regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs are
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for pr(?iw
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N, C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, M C. 27699-1615
[phone]
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • '_721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] c A-15 rax: [phone]
Memo
and,
2 . September 28, 2001
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 4. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
ehannelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Covet type maps showing wetland acreages impacted'by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a raplt of duelling, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wotlattd identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S.. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the peraotr delineating wetlands should be identi fied and
criteria listed.
4. Covcr type maps showing acreages of uplgnd wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in Im, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compmsating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
eflccts of highway constmtion 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
he identifcd,
Thant: you I,or the opportunity to provide input iu irl the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: USFWS, Raleigh
A-16
North Carolina
Department of. Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
September 6, 2001
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

OCT 5 2!'G1
Re: SCH File' 02-E-4220-0059; Scoping Proposed Improvements to SR 1363 (Elk Road) in
Cumberland Co.; TIP' U-3849
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental_
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies review-ine this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Attachments
cc: Region M

Sincerely,
6? 6%p L-?
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
A-17
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
A
IN REPLY REFER TO June 22, 2001
Regulatory Division tl j???? ?
Subject: Action ID No. 200100862
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I am responding to your Memorandum to David Timpy.dated May 23, 2001 requesting
scoping comments on TIP Project U-3849, SR 1363 (Elk Road), from SR 1132 (Legion Road) to
I- 95 Business (US 301), Cumberland County, North Carolina. A site visit was conducted on
June 14, 2001 to identify and determine the extent of jurisdictional areas and to become
acquainted with the proposed project. As a result of the site visit, jurisdictional areas as defined
at 33 CFR 328.3(a) were identified at the proposed project site. Therefore, 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 dredged, excavated or fill material into waters of
the United States, including wetlands associated with this project.
Based on the information provided in the reference memorandum and the site visit, it
appears that the proposed project will involve the crossing of two un-named tributaries to Little
Rockfish Creek. The extent of these jurisdictional areas should be delineated in the field and
identified in the project planning report (Environmental Assessment). An assessment of the
proposed impacts from this project should contain the amount of both permanent and temporary
impacts to surface waters and wetlands and should indicate quantities by type (e.g. wetland
verses stream). If concrete structures are a component of this project, methods must be
employed to avoid any contact of "live" concrete with surface waters and all instream
construction should be conducted in the "dry" by use of stream diversion methods. If temporary
stream diversions are to be utilized, a plan and description should be provided showing the
proposed structure and method of diversion. A restoration plan will be required showing how
the diversion area will be returned to pre-construction conditions following the completion of the
project. If restoration involves revegatation of the disturbed area, the plan should include a
planting scheme using only endemic vegetation
The type of authorization and any specific permit requirements will depend on the crossing
design, extent of the fill work within jurisdictional areas, construction methods and other public
interest and environmental factors. Based on the site visit, project description in the above
A-18
a
referenced memorandum and the apparent level of aquatic resource impacts associated with the
proposed project, coordination pursuant to the integrated NEPA/Section 404 merger agreement
does not appear to be warranted.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our scoping comments. Should you
have any questions or wish to discuss our comments further, please call Mr. Richard K. Spencer
at the Wilmington Field Office at 910-251-4172.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
11
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Beverly Robinson
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Mr. Garland Pardue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr..David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27564
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
N-19
APPENDIX B
11/03/2003 16:42 910-486-1077 NC DOT R/W DIV 6 PAGE 02/02
R LOCATION -REPORT
North arollna Department of Transponation
17-71 AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
Y E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
Lai
s PROJECT: 8.2443601 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate 1 of 1 _Altemato
I.D: n'O.: U-3849 F.A. PROJECT ISTP-1363(3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Secondary Road 1363 (Elk Road) from S R 1132 egion Road so I-95. Business!
US 301
. .;ter. o- ... .> 6. ::•;;,..
i F:Er ?:. ... ...: ..: E E' ? is I• :: ` :"" ?f::, ::' "J;3f;'!i1! : 1 x.51 :•..?; ?' ? `?'+'?Si'0 ?:? ??. : r':I?:;"` :f E `7i: ,
I.. ! , ?.S ATE?t ?i,aPf.,?
Type of
UIs lacees Own
p era Tenants Total Mlnodfies 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 8 1 9 5
1 9
Businesses 0 0
a???fu :6F. ii?weisliuc>
l(,
aw?uiNi0;"?"i?i tl
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenant s' For Szil
e For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-206 1 $ 0.150 a2orl _
20 $0-150 p
II ! sii : ?N8yyERJALt'.QltE$1IOt?g"`, li•.. ' 20410m
150-230
20-4DrYi
100 15025(1 20
Yes No stn all "YES" answers. 40.70M 250400 1 40-7001 _
600 250100 40
X 1. Will special relocation services be nelmssary? 70-t00r 1 400400 70-100M 900 400- 11
250
X 2- Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 7 500 up too M. 800 NO ur' 250
displacement?
ToTA'
g"

ICI

I .1
:2,4 20
it

,

510
X 3. Will business services still be available after

o
®
, ; ; „ ?tEIUhATZ11
(
?#
oy i
urr
IN 1
''I'` `! c
co
l ' Note. The 0-20 M Dwel li (value) Is abandoned
3. No Businessi a acted

E 4- WIII any business be displaced? If so, 6 & 14. MLS, Local ft ltors, Newspapers, etc.
li 3.
A indicate slzs, type, estimated number of
8• As mandated
Law
li
Il; . ;i;(
employees, minorities, etc,
9, Number Unk io
n
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. Cumberland C unty
6. Source for available housing (list). 12. Or Built if ne. sarv
X 7. WIII additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 8. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
ilj;111'IS;lil,ll( families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X '11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
Fia;li. 1. housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing wifiln
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
44 i l<.
(741!?
l ?lal%°i
source).
3:.
Il
i?!IIIUni,;
fill ', lt(11111 15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
18-24 Months
a

10-13-03
roved Date,
Cr1gInpI&jCapy- . Sete Re.ocatlon Agent.
2 Copy Rght of 1Ysy oH1cF
B-1
All property acquisitions are subject to the Uniform Relocation and Real Property
Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This Act provides for uniform and
equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit
associations, or farms by Federal and federally-assisted programs, and establishes
uniform and equitable land acquisitions policies.
Relocation assistance payments and counseling will be provided to persons and
businesses in accordance_with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Properties Acquisitions Policies Act, as Amended, to ensure adequate relocation and a
decent, safe, and sanitary home for displaced residents. All eligible displacees will be
entitled to moving expenses. All benefits and services will be provided equitably to all
residential and business relocatees without regard to race, color, religion, age, national
origins and disability as specified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When relocation is necessary, it is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has
the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation.
*Relocation Assistance,
*Relocation Moving Payments, and
*Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
These regulations and programs help ensure that property owners are
compensated fairly for the loss of value of their property.
B-2
Cn
W
W
J
Lli
U)
O
Z
a
LLJ
J
?
LLI
_U
01-1
CL
co i
?I

co o
d- ,-. CC)

?
"'
N
06
W
O Ni rni
C/) 00 ! v '

W 01

O
I
i 0

°
M
!
W ?
d. p W

CY) O

O

c?

o,
?i LI

O
O C+') .
N co
O
m ?- CO i CO :

O j LO (0

'
(6 ,:
J Eo
N
0
E

U CU
J Q !
m O
`r'
(UO" C6.

~ C'J

CO

Cf)

C.0

Z Cfl rn (0 ,
D
O O "'

' m co U')
E Z

LL O

(?'
N
ti
o °
CO
v

Y
W C
CI
M ! M
C'7
cn i
(n
M U) c l J! cn c
L W I W OL W
li
Q LL LO
C)) LL U'):
0)
co F... Q Z !. o
C'7 / 1
?J LL1 W "p

Z)
W N
LL
C'7 I

(0

=

.
Cl)
(0

0
y
y
7F

O
U
M
O 'i
Cl) :
O
?I E5)
a- L 0

0
Q
O
cl?
w
LL
0
w
z
w
U
w
O
0-1
LL
w
Q
D
0
z
O
U
w
U)
O
z
w
O
z
M
i
00
M
1
? a
W ?
r
z U ?
N
d U
C4 ,
W
zM
M
rF+1
O W o o Q p W o o O W o o p w o 0
U F, U E. O F F F^
¢ N Q 0 N Q C7 N ? V N
az?
0 CD QFO o o ??FO o a ?oFO 0 0
w p w
w w
O U a C). 0
U a p ¢w p O Qw
W¢ U o o W Q U o o W Q U o o 4t Q U o 0
F" cn U r" v? U F cn U r' cn u
?"' N ?Q. ?" M QN.. M Q G.
v'1 V") N O O O N O N ?p ?p
O W ? ? ? x0 W ? C.1 In In X Fc?. W Lti7 ? ? X ? w ? v rr
r- ?. O w e O LL)
U R' U rs:
U cY. U
¢?F"Q o o ¢?FQ o o ¢Ww,r"Q o o c?LF¢ 0 0
¢
Q M ¢ M ¢ M ¢ O
00
?FZ wOZ`o v? ?pz?o cn ?pz? a)
¢ ¢ FQ w r- ¢.j
0 L1-po ?Up? ?up? o ??pn O
V v rq r-
Cn
b
CD C/) Cl)
-? O J o0 00 N , O h
N
W N w N W N O
_ W y
W ri 4- r
O
CIO N m o .Z3 o° °o oo C\
o O z ?. r z
a' C C
Q)
Q ? r ^
'O
c ? C =
Q Q Q Q
z ?- ?-
O M o M o M z
,- O M
cn
UZ `YV 50
a C/) Z o N ccn
o n W Z 0
p w e Z k., c w Z ri c :i: ° i
3 D p w e
Q W? W xCN 3 Y °N CN ?W)
U o w w w W
Fr M O C/) C''1 0 M O O
w M M rw ?p M ? ?p M J ?p ?
a F. :D F = p
?? o D u o O r o O r o
? Z
T
3
b
cs
o
?o
L
?0
?o
L L
CS
y
c ?
C
L ?
U O
L
N L
ti
a?
E
a?
ti o
? o
r ?
o° d
N ?
C3
. -a
0
o Q
O N
kf) r-
M1
ca
00
m
I
a_
zU?
w
W
? U
c
O
z?
U
Li, M
Q M
W W W W
G=¢ G H Q G x¢ ? Q
E"' N N N Q W fV cV
F
O N N C) F
N O O
J
? U m ^
U C
.1 ..
U
aQOU a OU GOU cQ?U

Q W W Q W W Q W W Q LS] W

zaW za W Z
W zw
=
FQ- W
v
vtn
W CL r
O
r) J
=
?OV LLI

- W C:?
FQ
2'z 0 ?'z ?
m
o_ a
o_
z m c
_
z
? ? z z
cn C/)
co
LL)
tn !n

? to (n

c k

?
N O O N O O N O O N O O
n n n
W W W
U
z U
z a u
z U
z
o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o 0 0
? N W N ? N ? N

G1 L
G1
G1

W
V]
to
O
O
W
rn
vi
N
N
W
Cn -1
to
N
N
L
V] -1

-
O
C
O O O ^
z z z N
O p in WM C O N N O O N N O o vMi vMi

W W C:]

X
W a
h
N
N X
W
N
N X
?"' ON
h
N
N X CN
N
N

O C O O
C.. C.
U O O U O O U O O ()
- O O
W w W L,

0
1
O
C> 0
11
O
o 0
v
o
o 0
o
0

C CIO - ? C/)
th to to
.-? O .? O -a O O
N N N N
M M M M
z? z z - z
oz a o x o o
r In cn
a.

c E

° C
z
CL Z
z
r? z
= N
N
o
) Uc
W
G-? -v p
4v, W
G3 •d p
rrtn W?
G 'a fYl
stn W
G
a?
U
_

?
W =
O
W=
G
W =
,
W
i M p M O _
Cn ?.
. O
M O M O
M
w M Cn
:D = M cn ?+ M (n
:D v1
O
I? Ly
0 94 O a C4 O
1 m
Q O
Cn z v? z
fV
z
w
0
o`
0
a?
a?
cn
.? N
as
ai W
U J
c p
Q
•L
N L
as u
C O
c s?
C
N N
'O 3
cn ti
Q Q
hl