U-3423_complete file

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number
pt?-U3a a County
GUM?E??LrgrJ? Date Received
67157'1,0 Date Response Due (firm deadline)
f ?l

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
_ Asheville _ Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
_ Fayetteville _ Water Coastal Management
_ Mooresville _ Groundwater .4 Wildlife ? Ay 15 W 11500
DO
_ Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources Water Resources
Washington Recreational Consultant Land Resources Environmental Health
_ Wilmington _ Parks & Recreation Solid Waste Mgmt
- Winston-Salem X Water Quality
Radiation Protection
_
Lot
Air Quality _ Other
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
- No objection to project as proposed
_ No comment
?_`h-isufficient information to complete review
= Other (specify or attach comments)
RETURN TO: ° c? a do D
Melba McGee D
Environmental Coordinator MAY 0 9 2006
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STQRMWATER BRANCH
O.. WA7'FR Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`OC Q? North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
o
May 15, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Enviropmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affaixs
From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
Through: John Hennessy, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Uni(pX?.....
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to NC 24-87 in Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No. NHF-24(12), State Project No. 8.144340 1, TIP U-3423.
Reference your correspondence received May 9, 2006, in which you requested comments for the
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for impacts to streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin / Stream Stream Index
Subbasin Classifications Number.
UT Little Cross
Creek . and CPF 15 WS-IV 18-27-4-(1)
UT Kornbow Lake *303(d) Listed*
UT Beaver Creek CPF 15 C 18-31-24-5
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 (or the consultant(s) that requested the comments)
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. Little Cross Creek and Kornbow Lake are class WS-IV; 303(d) waters of the State. DWQ is
very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ
recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce
the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment
of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version
of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htti):/lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands
NOne Caro
aatura ly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
required by 15A NCAC 211.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater`Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. 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. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {I 5A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), 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. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ
believes the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers to determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed
scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most-current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.

19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
21. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from-the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted
with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
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 Rob Ridings at [phone].
cc: David Timpy, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
James Rerko, Division 6 Environmental Officer 6
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office copy
File Copy
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942. 1.1
TIP Project U-3423
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I
APPROVED:
O Cr
ate Aregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NBF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942. 1.1
TIP Project U-3423
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
L
J es A. McInnis, Jr., .E.
Project Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CAROB j
??ESSIOH?

wo- ?N
M,tl9
4/G/06
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ......................................................................................................................... i
I. TYPE OF ACTION .....................................................................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ...................................................................................................................1
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................2
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................................3
A. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 3
B. COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 3
C. PUBLIC HEARING ..............................................................................................................:.................... 4
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 4
A. PROJECTTERMINI ................................................................................................................................. 4
B. INTERSECTIONS/INTERCHANGES ........................................................................................................... 4
C. MEDIAN CROSSOVERS ........................................................................................................................... 5
D. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................................................ 5
1. Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................................ 5
2. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species ...................................................................... 7
E. TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 7
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................................................................8
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Appendix - Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Federally-Protected Species for Cumberland County .....................................................5

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg' Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942.1.1
TIP Project U-3423
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Roadway Design Unit /
Programming and TIP Branch
The City of Fayetteville has requested new sidewalk along the west side of Bragg
Boulevard within the project limits and has agreed to participate in the cost. A written
agreement will be executed prior to construction of the proposed project regarding cost
sharing and maintenance and liability responsibilities for the proposed sidewalks.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Roadside
Environmental Unit
NCDOT will coordinate with the property owner regarding the restoration of
landscaping along the National Register eligible Buena Vista property, if necessary.
Division Six
Along the National Register eligible Buena Vista property, Type II clearing
methods will be used to minimize the removal of vegetation in this location.
Finding of No Significant Impact - U-3423 Page 1 of 1
March 2006
i
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY THE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will have no significant impact on the
human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the August 31,
2004 Environmental Assessment (EA) and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation, which
have been independently evaluated by FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project
and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The FHWA
takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental
Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw
Road) (Figure 1). The existing roadway will be widened to three travel lanes in each
direction with a raised median and curb and gutter. Three lanes currently exist in the
northbound direction and two lanes exist in the southbound direction. The total project
length is approximately 1.52 miles.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety and increase the traffic
carrying capacity of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Fayetteville.
TIP Project U-3423 is included in the approved 2006-2012 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction
are scheduled for federal fiscal years 2008 and 2010, respectively.
The cost estimate included in the 2006-2012 TIP for this project is $7,900,000.
Of this total, $1,700,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition and $6,200,000 for
construction. Current cost estimates are as follows:
Construction $9,000,000
Right of Way Acquisition $1,700,655
TOTAL $10;700,655
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
No residential or business relocations are anticipated as part of this project. It is
anticipated highway traffic noise in the project area will result in impacts to 35
commercial receptors. However, traffic noise abatement measures are not recommended.
The "no-build" alternative would result in noise impacts to 27 commercial receptors.
The proposed project will have "no adverse effect" on the National Register
eligible property, Buena Vista, if NCDOT restores the landscaping within the
construction easement in consultation with the property owner. The project will require
limited right of way acquisition within the historic boundaries. The right of way will be
acquired to help improve sight distance and safety at the Shaw Road and Bragg
Boulevard intersection. Temporary construction easements may also be required along
the property's edge on Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard.
The Buena Vista property is protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966, as
amended. The proposed right of way required from this property involves use of land
from the Section 4(f) resource. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
this land. A programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation was included in Appendix A of the
environmental assessment.
There are no wetlands within the current project area. However, impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters total approximately 40 linear feet.
Based on anticipated impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, a Nationwide Permit
14 will most likely be applicable for the proposed project. Additionally, a North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
2.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the environmental assessment were made available to the public and to
the following federal, state and local agencies:
*US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
US Department of the Army - Fort Bragg, Public Works Business Center
*US Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
. Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which comments on the environmental
assessment were received. Copies of letters received are included in the appendix of this
document.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
NC Division of Water Quality
COMMENT: "...preliminary analysis of the project indicates that Little Cross Creek lies
within the project area. These waters are classified as WS-IV and lie within the
Critical Area of the water supply watershed."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Portions of the proposed project are located within the Little
Cross Creek water supply watershed, but none of the project is located within the
critical area of the water supply watershed.
COMMENT: "Hazardous spill catch basins may be required for stream crossings within
the critical area of the water supply watershed."
3
NCDOT RESPONSE: It is not expected that hazardous spill catch basins will be
required for the project, as none of the project is located within a water supply
watershed critical area. . . 1 1,
COMMENT: "The unnamed tributaries to be impacted within the project area are on the
303(d) list due to biological impairment. Stormwater should be designed to flow
into buffer areas or retention basins rather than routed directly into streams"
NCDOT RESPONSE: Appropriate methods of handling stormwater from the project
will be investigated as project design progresses.
C. Public Hearing
The public hearing for the project was held on May 12, 2005 at Alger B. Wilkins
Elementary School in Fayetteville. Approximately 36 citizens attended this meeting.
No opposition to the project was expressed at the hearing. Several positive
comments were received. Comments heard included concerns regarding drainage on
Bragg Boulevard and questions regarding median crossing locations. The drainage
concerns will be examined during the design phase of the project. Changes are proposed
in the location of median crossovers along the project (see Section V-B).
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proiect Termini
The southern project limit presented in the environmental assessment was at the
bridge carrying Bragg Boulevard over US 401 Bypass. Since completion of the
environmental assessment, the southern project limit has been extended approximately
750 feet south of US 401 Bypass. A turn lane is now proposed on northbound Bragg
Boulevard at the two-way ramp located in the southeast quadrant of the Bragg
Boulevard/US 401 Bypass interchange. Overhead signing is also now proposed south of
the US 401 Bypass interchange.
The northern project limit remains the same as presented in the environmental
assessment. At the northern end of the project, construction will extend approximately
1,800 feet north of Shaw Road in order to tie the proposed improvements back into
existing Bragg Boulevard (see Section II-A-1 of the EA).
B. Intersections/Interchanges
A right turn lane will be added on northbound Bragg Boulevard at the intersection
with the two-way ramp located in the southeast quadrant of the Bragg Boulevard/US 401
Bypass interchange. A right turn lane will also be added on northbound Bragg Boulevard
4
at the intersection with the two-way ramp located in the northeast quadrant of the Bragg
Boulevard/US 401 Bypass interchange. These turn lanes were not proposed in the EA.
Overhead directional signing will be added in the vicinity of the US 401 Bypass
interchange as part of the project. No overhead signing was proposed in the EA.
C. Median Crossovers
The existing median crossover at Old Shaw Road was proposed to be closed in
the EA. Two additional median crossovers are now proposed to be closed. The median
crossover at Joseph Street and a crossover located between Swain Street and Mullis Street
will be closed as part of the project.
D. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally-Protected Species
One change has occurred in the list of federally-protected species for Cumberland
County since completion of the environmental assessment. Small-whorled pogonia is no
longer listed for Cumberland County. Table 1 below presents the list of federally-
protected species for Cumberland County as of March 8, 2006.
Table 1
Federally-Protected Species for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat? Biological
Conclusion
Alligator American alligator T(S/A) N/A N/A
mississi iensis
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded E Yes No Effect
woodpecker
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Yes Not Likely to
_
Adversel Affect
Neonympha mitchellii Saint Francis' satyr E No No Effect
rancisci
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry E No No Effect
Lysimachia Rough-leaved E No No Effect
as erulae olia loosestrife
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E No No Effect
"T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance is species that are threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and are listed for the rare species' protection. T (S/A) are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
"E"-Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
their range.
"T"-Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the near future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"*" - Historic record indicating a species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
5
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
(T S/A) to other rare species that are listed for protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. Therefore, a survey is not required.
General field surveys were originally conducted within the project area in 2000.
Suitable habitat was not found for the following protected species: Saint Francis' satyr,
Pondberry, Rough-leaved loosestrife, and American chaffseed. Due to the amount of
time which had passed since the field surveys, the biological conclusions were reviewed
again in 2003 prior to completion of the environmental assessment and were found to still
be valid. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
in April 2004 indicated one occurrence of rough-leaved loosestrife within one mile of the
project area; however, habitat was not found within the project study area. There were no
recorded occurrences for the remaining species listed above.
Suitable habitat within the Bragg Boulevard project corridor and one-half mile on
either side of the corridor was surveyed for red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) in March
and April 2003. One abandoned RCW cluster and seven unassigned relic cavity trees
were found, but no red-cockaded woodpeckers were found. A biological conclusion of
"no effect" was presented in the EA for this species.
Due to the amount of time which has passed since the last survey, this area was
resurveyed for RCW on July 19th and August 25th of 2005. One abandoned RCW
cluster and eight unassigned relic cavity trees are within the one-half mile survey
corridor. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were found. Based on these results, the
proposed project is still anticipated to have "no effect" on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac was also identified within the project study
area. A plant by plant survey was conducted in June 2001 and again in July 2003. No
populations of Michaux's sumac were found during those surveys. The. US Fish and
Wildlife Service concurred on a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" for this species in a letter dated December 30, 2003 (see Appendix B
of the EA).
Due to the amount of time which has passed since the last survey, suitable habitat
was resurveyed for Michaux's sumac on July 19th and August 25th of 2005. No
individuals of the species were found. Given the results of this recent survey, the
biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for this species is
still valid.
6
2. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species
Changes have occurred in the list of Federal Candidate species and Species of
Concern since completion of the environmental assessment. As of March 8, 2006, no
Federal Candidate species are listed for Cumberland County.
American eel (Anguilla rostrata), black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens
waynei), Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) and Cuthbert turtlehead
(Chelone cuthbertii) have been added to the list of federal species of concern for
Cumberland County since completion of the environmental assessment.
Longbeach seedbox (Ludwigia brevi), conferva pondweed (Potamogeton
confervoides), Carolina goldenrod (Solidago pulchra) and Carolina asphodel (Tofieldia
glabra) have been removed from the list of federal species of concern for Cumberland
County since completion of the environmental assessment.
E. Traffic Noise Analysis
The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy has been revised since completion
of the environmental assessment. The 2004 Noise Abatement Policy has changed the
criteria for determining a "substantial increase" in noise levels. Under the new noise
abatement policy, noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or the
predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels as defined
below:
Existing. Leg(h) Substantial Increase if Receptor
Experiences Increase of
50 or less dBA 15 or more dBA
51 dBA 14 or more dBA
52 dBA 13 or more dBA
53 dBA 12 or more dBA
54 dBA 11 or more dBA
55 or more dBA 10 or more dBA
Under the 2004 noise policy, traffic noise will impact 35 businesses with
construction of the proposed project. If the proposed project were not built, 27 businesses
would experience traffic noise impacts.
7
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal,
state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration. and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no
significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement will not be required.
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph..D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
'Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
8
A

ut ?, J-
,I?s?
1007
t c-
24
57 21
Fro ?_\J
MiutaM. S
014 Late
DOOM
FBreSl9 \ Lace Role
END PROJECT Lwe
J ! IWOM
Il Left
I?
1? / o
\ c ? ,
BEGIN PROJECT
SWIG Doom
Cut Lac.)
24
?141 err
/ 401
1404 A l
ao
•,, ; Study Corridor for Fayetteville Outer Loop I
.? (not a part of this study)
m m m TIP Project U-3423 Corridor
1 o _
I MILES
-1
n to
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
e OF TRANSPORTATION
G? a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
.;?./" 7 S PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Figure 1

7
APPENDIX
. 9"
Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment
` A QAIQ.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
RMYTO
ATTENTION OR February 16, 2005
TTE
A
Planning Services Section
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
"El
WEB 2K;5
DYOF
This is in response to your letter of October 15, 2004, requesting comments on the
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard), US 401 Bypass
to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road), Cumberland County,.NCDOT Division 6,
Federal- Aid Project NHF-24(12), State Project 8.1443401, WBS Element 34942.1.1,
TIP Project No. U-3423", (Regulatory Division Action ID No.200000187).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that.
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosure
A-1
February 16, 2005
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard), US 401 Bypass
to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road), Cumberland County, NCDOT Division 6,
Federal- Aid. Project NHF-24(12),..State Project 8.1443401., WBS Element 34942.1.1,
TIP Project No. U-3423", (Regulatory Division Action ID No.200000187).
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Plannina Services Section, at
[phone]
We commented on this project by letter of January 18, 2000, a copy of which is
contained in Appendix B of the Federal Environmental Assessment (EA). These
comments indicated that the proposed project is not located.in an identified flood
hazard area. We have no further comments at this time.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Richard Spencer, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Division, at [phone]
After review of the EA and based on the information contained therein, it appears
that the project will result in only minimal impacts to aquatic resources. If NCDOT
demonstrates, at the time of application for Department. of the Army Authorization, that
they have avoided and minimized impacts to aquatic resources to the fullest extent
practicable in the design of the road improvements and the impacts do not increase, this
project may qualify for authorization under the nationwide permit.program.
If you have any questions related to DA permits, they should be addressed to
Mr. Spencer.
A-2

? N OF Ty
Qr? iy
a
O p
N
RI, M ? ?0
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Fuld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
October 19, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North-Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your October 15, 2004 letter which requested comments from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed widening of NC 2487 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe .
Drive / Shaw Road), Cumberland County (TIP No. U-3423). These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen a 1.39
mile portion of NC 24-87 to three lanes in each direction with a raised median and curb and
gutter. The EA states that no wetlands will be affected by the project, and that only 40 linear feet
of an unnamed tributary to Little Cross Creek will be affected. Due to the urban nature of the
project area, impacts to fish and wildlife resources should be minimal.
The EA states that the project will have no effect on the following six federally listed species for
Cumberland County: Saint Francis's satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci), small whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia), American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) and red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In addition, the EA states that the project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Service concurred with these
determinations in a letter dated December 30, 2003. This concurrence is still valid. We believe
that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for now. We remind you
that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that
was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that
may be affected by the identified action.
A-3
The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the potential effects of this proposed
project on fish and wildlife resources and on waters and wetlands of the United States. The
Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding
our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
y
Pete B jamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACOE, Wilmington, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
A-4
`T arsut?°?
P
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
-October 21, 2004
Mr. Omar Sultan
NCDOT
Transportation Building
1534 Mail Service Center
Interoffice
Dear Mr. Sultan:
Subject: Environmental Assessment - NCDOT proposes to widen NC24-87 (Bragg Blvd) from
US401 Bypass to SR1437 (Sante Fe Dr/Shaw Rd) in Fayetteville. TIP#U-3423.
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 05-E4220-0112. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 11/22/2004. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
<:?i' /-'? -;z7-
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coorditwor
Molting Address.
1301 Mail service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699-1301
Telephone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
state courier #51-01-00
e-mail: [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmattve Action Employer
A-5
Locallon Address.
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh. North Carolina
North Carolina .
.Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
November 24, 2004
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary

Mr. Omar Sultan
NCDOT
Transportation Building
1534 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC
Dear Mr. Sultan:
Re: SCH File # 05-E4220-0112; Environmental Assessment; NCDOT proposes to widen NC24-87
(Bragg Blvd) from US401 Bypass to SR1437 (Sante Fe Dr/Shaw Rd) in Fayetteville. TIP#U-
3423.
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental. Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region M
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone]
1301 Mail Service Center . Fax [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 state courier #31-01.00
e-mail Chrys.BoggetI@ncmaiLnet
An Equal OpportunIVAfftrmative Action Employer
A-6
Location Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
A TNCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr.,, Secretary
MEMORANDUM I'M
ti
TO: Chrys Baggett 111 ??
State Clearinghouse 6 8 (. g
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 05-0112 Bragg Boulevard, US 401 Bypass to Santa Fe Drive/Shaw
Road in Cumberland County
DATE: November 19, 2004
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,. North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: .[phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action 6A-7 •500/6 Recyded 110% Post Consumer Paper
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
A-8
r ?
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
??g?2Z•Z3?q?S??
November 15, 2004 rAl
MEMORANDUM, so'
'V
TO: Ms. Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator ll 4,
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs ??6 8 9
FROM: Beth Haines Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator,
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for widening of NC 24787 (Bragg Boulevard), US 401 Bypass
to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw-Road), in Fayetteville, Cumberland County;
Project Number. 05-0112
Federal Aid Project: NBF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WSB Element No.: 34942. 1.1
TIP Project U-3423
Division: 06.
In reply to your correspondence dated October 25, 2004 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that LIttle-Cross Creek-lies within the
project area. These waters are classified as WS-IV and lie with the Critical Area of the water supply
watershed. The Division of Water Quality offers these continents:
L Hazardous -spill catch basins maybe required for stream crossings within the critical area of the water
supply watershed.
2. Within the Cape Fear Basin, urban stormwater runoff is a major concern. The unnamed tributaries to
be impacted within the project area are on the 303(d) list due to. biological impairment. Stormwater
should be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather than routed directly into
streams,
4. 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
docurnentation. For projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior
to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
3. 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 as well as utility relocations.
401 TransPor<arfon Permitting Unit
1650 Ma?7 Service Center. Raleigh North Carolina 27899-1650 OnC
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Spite Grp Raleigh, North CaroNna 27604 NOrthCarOlula
phone: [phone] / FqX g?9-733-68931 Internet httua/h2o.enrstate.nc.us/ncweA-9 /'J?'?? 1??? //?
An Equat Opportunity/AffirrnatNe q? Empbyer-50% Recydedl109'o Post Consumer rat,?? fi ?/ l t`
U-3423 Scoping comments
Page 2
November 15; 2004
4. The DWQ requests that DOT adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) and use Best Management Practices for the
Protection of.Surface.Waters (March 1997) specifically using all applicable preventive and control
measures during the design, construction and maintenance of this project. These measures should be
implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
5. Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit applicati on. Wetland and stream impacts
should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize
wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC
2H.0506(b)(6) 1, 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. Onsite mitigation is preferable, however, .
the NC Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) is availCole for use as compensatory mitigation.
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 Beth Barnes at [phone].
pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS '
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, USEPA Region IV, Raleigh Field Office
Central Files
File Copy

A-10
Nov
?, TU
VIS?N OF E
ENVIRONMENT AND
RESOURCES
RONMENTAL HEALTH
Project Review Response
Project Number
05-0112
County
Cumberland
Proposes to widen NC 24-
87 (Bragg Blvd) from the
Project Name T1.4 DoT Type of Projectors 401 Byna_ss to SR 1437
(Sante Fe DrAhaw Rd.)
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required. by 15A NCAC 18C
.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.
Jim McRight PWS 10-29-04
Reviewer
Section/Branch
Date
S:\Pws\Angela W\Clearinghouse\Review Response Figs 1 and 2 for input.doc
A-11
NO V 0* 9 2004
DEPARTMENT OF ENVI P c p, nCN Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES' 05-0112
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Count}r
umber and
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name
US DOT Proposes to widen NC 24-87 (Bragg
Type of Project
Comments provided by:
Blvd) from the US 401 Bypass to SR
1437 (Sante Fe DrJShaw Rd.
? Regional Program Person
Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section
? Central Office program person
Name: Debra Benoy.-FRO Date: 10-28-04
Telephone nUmber. 4c 7 - /':D&
Program within Division of Environmental Health:.CEl Y ED
? Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program: N O V 04 2004
PUBLIC _01710N
Response (check all applicable): FAYETT'EV, 1 -, -r-REGIUNALOFFICE
M ' No 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

ARA-State of North Carolina ReviewingOfBce:'-
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural. Resources V
Project Number. OS 0 /? -?- Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permlt(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
t
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
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 30 days
(90
days)
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 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted afterNPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever Is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(WA)
? Well Construction Permit w ' Complete•appiiation must be received.and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit .. Appilcation copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owncr. 55 days
-
- On-site inspection. Preapplkation conference usual Filling may require Easement (90 days)
to RII 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 60 days
(20.0100, 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 60 days
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification ,;. WA (90 days)
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Q Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D,0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation 20 days
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 (30 days)
days before beginning activity. A fee of $50 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
The Sedimentation-Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOTs approved program. Particular attention should be
given to design and Installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets.
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 mired greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit an be issued
North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
• • •?'qN/a)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Pennit-22 counties On-site Inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required'ff more than five 1 day
in coastal N.C with organic soils, acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be requested (WA)
at least ten days before actual bum is planned'
E3 Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120days
A-13 (N/A)
PERMITS
Dam safety Permit
? 1 Permit to driff exploratory op or 9. well
? I Geophysical Exploration Permit
C31 state Lakes eonstructl Peon rmit
401 Water Quality Certification
CAMA Permit for MAJOR developmem
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal P
If Permit required, application 60 days before begin constnmion
must hire N.C qualified en
APP?iant
i (Statutory
neer to. Prepare
g
construction is according to DENR a Plans, Mspect ronstructton, arts
?
it

mosquito control program, and a 404 p
erm
it from Corps of Engiineen: ?h user
An Inspection of site is necessa 30

days
ry to verify Hazard Classification, A minimum
fee of $200-00 must accompany the application. An additional processing he
based on a percentage or the total project c (60 days)
ost will be required upon
completion,
.
File surety bond of $5A00 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall

, upon abandonment be PI
to DENR rules and regulations. egged according 10 days

Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of ermit
by letter. No standard application form, P Application (WA)

10 days
Application fees based on structure sere Is ?ri Must include
& drawings of structure & proof of own descriptions
?i (20 da
15
20
s
P of riparian property, (
y
(N/A)
WA SS days

S2S0.00 fee must accompany application (130 days)
60 days
SS0.00 fee mustaoom
Pany application (130 days)
Time
22 days
eodetic monuments are located in or near the Project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, Please notify: days)
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
ment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with ride l SA.Subchapter 2C 0100.
PNN
n of the proper regional office it requested
if *orphan* underground storage tankslgSY5) are discovered during any excavatie with, t sA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required on oPerotion
ments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to ate comment authority) 45'days .
(WA)
ti't.V 4
V Z04
s n?o
WAa
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Mooresville Regional office
59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street . 13 Wilmington Regional Office
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C.28115 .127 Cardinal Drive Extension
' [phone] Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone]
? Fayettevil! Regioriaf Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C.28301
(910) 48&1541
? Raleigh Regional office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mali
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone] A-14
? Winston-Salem Regional Office'
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
I
S
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942.1.1
TIP Project U-3423
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
ate r4r regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date
4A-(- John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942. 1.1
TIP Project U-3423
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
.
f
L
J es A. McInnis, Jr., .E.
Project Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
.CARpt/??
?LSSI
SEAL
y4:?; ZGI Nr? ?" .
y 4. M?
/G j04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ......................................................................................................................... i
1. TYPE OF ACTION .......................................................................................................:.:..........................I
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ...................................................................................................................1
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................2
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................................3
A. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .........................................................................3
B. COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................................3
C. PUBLIC HEARING ...................................................................................................................................4
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................4
A. PROJECTTERMINI .................................................................................................................................4
B. INTERSECTIONS/INTERCHANGES ...........................................................................................................4
C. MEDIAN CROSSOVERS ...........................................................................................................................5
D. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................................................5
1. Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................................5
2. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species ......................................................................7
E. TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................................7
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................................................................8
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Appendix - Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Federally-Protected Species for Cumberland County .....................................................5

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR, 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
J WBS Element 34942. 1.1
TIP Project U-3423
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Roadway Design Unit
Programming and TIP Branch
TheCity of Fayetteville has requested new sidewalk along the west side ofBragg
Boulevard within the project limits and has agreed to participate in the cost. A written
agreement will be executed prior, to construction of the proposed project regarding cost
sharing and'maintenance and liability responsibilities for the proposed. sidewalks.
Proiect Development! and Environmental Analysis Branch] Roadside
Environmental, Unit
NCDOT will coordinate with the property owner regarding the restoration of
landscaping along the National Register eligible Buena Vista property, if necessary.` '
Division Six
Along the National Register eligible Buena Vista property, Type II clearing
methods-will be used to minimize the removal of vegetation in this location.
r
;e
Finding of No Significant Impact - U-3423 Page 1 of 1
March 2006
. i

I
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY THE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will have no significant impact on the
human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the August 31,
2004 Environmental Assessment (EA) and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation, which
have been independently evaluated by FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project
and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The FHWA
takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental
Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION.OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw
Road) (Figure 1). The existing roadway will be widened to three travel lanes in each
direction with a raised median and curb and gutter. Three lanes currently exist in the
northbound direction and two lanes exist in the southbound direction.. The total project
length is approximately 1.52 miles.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety and increase the traffic
carrying capacity of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Fayetteville.
TIP Project U-3423 is included in the approved 2006-2012 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction
are scheduled for federal fiscal years 2008 and 2010, respectively.
The cost estimate included in the 2006-2012 TIP for this project is $7,900,000.
Of this total, $1,700,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition and $6,200,000 for
construction. Current cost estimates are as follows:
Construction $9,000,000
Right of Way Acquisition $1,700,655
TOTAL $109-700,655
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
No residential or business relocations are anticipated as part of this project. It is
anticipated highway traffic noise in the project area will result in impacts to 35
commercial receptors. However, traffic noise abatement measures are not recommended.
The "no-build" alternative would result in noise impacts to 27 commercial receptors.
The proposed project will have "no adverse effect" on the National Register
eligible property, Buena Vista, if NCDOT restores the landscaping within the
construction easement in consultation with the property owner. The project will require
limited right of way acquisition within the historic boundaries. The right of way will be
acquired to help improve sight distance and safety at the Shaw Road and Bragg
Boulevard intersection. Temporary construction easements may also be required along
the property's edge on Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard.
The Buena Vista property is protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966, as
amended. The proposed right of way required from this property involves use of land
from the Section 4(f) resource. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
this land. A programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation was included in Appendix A of the
environmental assessment.
There are no wetlands within the current project area. However, impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters total approximately 40 linear feet.
Based on anticipated impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, a Nationwide Permit
14 will most likely be applicable for the proposed project. Additionally, a North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
2
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the environmental assessment were made available to the public and to
the following federal, state and local agencies:
*US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
US Department of the Army - Fort Bragg, Public Works Business Center
*US Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which comments on the environmental
assessment were received. Copies of letters received are included in the appendix of this
document.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
NC Division of Water Quality
COMMENT: "...preliminary analysis of the project indicates that Little Cross Creek lies
within the project area. These waters are classified as WS-IV and lie within the
Critical Area of the water supply watershed."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Portions of the proposed project are located within the Little
Cross Creek water supply watershed, but none of the project is located within the
critical area of the water supply watershed.
COMMENT: "Hazardous spill catch basins maybe required for stream crossings within
the critical area of the water supply watershed."
3
NCDOT RESPONSE: It is not expected that hazardous spill catch basins will be
required for the project, as none of the project is located within a water supply
watershed critical area.
COMMENT: "The unnamed tributaries to be impacted within the project area are on the
303(d) list due to biological impairment. Stormwater should be designed to flow
into buffer areas or retention basins rather than routed directly into streams."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Appropriate methods of handling stormwater from the project
will be investigated as project design progresses.
C. Public Hearing
The public hearing for the project was held on May 12, 2005 at Alger B. Wilkins
Elementary School in Fayetteville. Approximately 36 citizens attended this meeting.
No opposition to the project was expressed at the hearing. Several positive
comments were received. Comments heard included concerns regarding drainage on
Bragg Boulevard and questions regarding median crossing locations. The drainage
concerns will be examined during the design phase of the project. Changes are proposed
in the location of median crossovers along the project (see Section V-B).
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proiect Termini
The southern project limit presented in the environmental assessment was at the
bridge carrying Bragg Boulevard over US 401 Bypass. Since completion of the
environmental assessment, the southern project limit has been extended approximately
750 feet south of US 401 Bypass. A turn lane is now proposed on northbound Bragg
Boulevard at the two-way ramp located in the southeast quadrant of the Bragg
Boulevard/US 401 Bypass interchange. Overhead signing is also now proposed south of
the US 401 Bypass interchange.
The northern project limit remains the same as presented in the environmental
assessment. At the northern end of the project, construction will extend approximately
1,800 feet north of Shaw Road in order to tie the proposed improvements back into
existing Bragg Boulevard (see Section II-A-1 of the EA).
B. Intersections/Interchanges
A right turn lane will be added on northbound Bragg Boulevard at the intersection
with the two-way ramp located in the southeast quadrant of the Bragg Boulevard/US 401
Bypass interchange. A right turn lane will also be added on northbound Bragg Boulevard
4
at the intersection with the two-way ramp located in the northeast quadrant of the Bragg
Boulevard/US 401 Bypass interchange. These turn lanes were not proposed in the EA.
Overhead directional signing will be added in the vicinity of the US 401 Bypass
interchange as part of the project. No overhead signing was proposed in the EA.
C. Median Crossovers
The existing median crossover at Old Shaw Road was proposed to be closed in
the EA. Two additional median crossovers are now proposed to be closed. The median
crossover at Joseph Street and a crossover located between Swain Street and Mullis Street
will be closed as part of the project.
D. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally-Protected Species
One change has occurred in the list of federally-protected species for Cumberland
County since completion of the environmental assessment. Small-whorled pogonia is no
longer listed for Cumberland County. Table 1 below presents the list of federally-
protected species for Cumberland County as of March 8, 2006.
Table 1
Federally-Protected Species for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat? Biological
Conclusion
Alligator American alligator T(S/A) N/A. N/A
mississi iensis
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded E Yes No Effect
woodpecker
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Yes Not Likely to
Adversel Affect
Neonympha mitchellii Saint Francis' satyr E No No Effect
rancisci
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry E No No Effect
Lysimachia Rough-leaved E No No Effect
as erulae olia loosestrife
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E No No Effect
°T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance is species that are threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and are listed for the rare species' protection. T (S/A) are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
"E"-Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
their range.
"T"-Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the near future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"*" - Historic record indicating a species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
(T S/A) to other rare species that are listed for protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. Therefore, a survey is not required.
General field surveys were originally conducted within the project area in 2000.
Suitable habitat was not found for the following protected species: Saint Francis' satyr,
Pondberry, Rough-leaved loosestrife, and American chaffseed. Due to the amount of
time which had passed since the field surveys, the biological conclusions were reviewed
again in 2003 prior to completion of the environmental assessment and were found to still
be valid. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
in April 2004 indicated one occurrence of rough-leaved loosestrife within one mile of the
project area; however, habitat was not found within the project study area. There were no
recorded occurrences for the remaining species listed above.
Suitable habitat within the Bragg Boulevard project corridor and one-half mile on
either side of the corridor was surveyed for red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) in March
and April 2003. One abandoned RCW cluster and seven unassigned relic cavity trees
were found, but no red-cockaded woodpeckers were found. A biological conclusion of
"no effect" was presented in the EA for this species.
Due to the amount of time which has passed since the last survey, this area was
resurveyed for RCW on July 19th and August 25th of 2005. One abandoned RCW
cluster and eight unassigned relic cavity trees are within the one-half mile survey
corridor. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were found. Based on these results, the
proposed project is still anticipated to have "no effect" on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac was also identified within the project study
area. A plant by plant survey was conducted in June 2001 and again in July 2003. No
populations of Michaux's sumac were found during those surveys. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service concurred on a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" for this species in a letter dated December 30, 2003 (see Appendix B
of the EA).
Due to the amount of time which has passed since the last survey,, suitable habitat
was resurveyed for Michaux's sumac on July 19th and August 25th of 2005. No
individuals of the species were found. Given the results of this recent survey, the
biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for this species is
still valid.
6
2. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species
Changes have occurred in the list of Federal Candidate species and Species of
Concern since completion of the environmental assessment. As of March 8, 2006, no
Federal Candidate species are listed for Cumberland County.
American eel (Anguilla rostrata), black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens
waynei), Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) and Cuthbert turtlehead
(Chelone cuthbertii) have been added to the list of federal species of concern for
Cumberland County since completion of the environmental assessment.
Longbeach seedbox (Ludwigia brevi), conferva pondweed (Potamogeton
confervoides), Carolina goldenrod (Solidago pulchra) and Carolina asphodel (Tofeldia
glabra) have been removed from the list of federal species of concern for Cumberland
County since completion of the environmental assessment.
E. Traffic Noise Analysis
The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy has been revised since completion
of the environmental assessment. The 2004 Noise Abatement Policy has changed the
criteria for determining a "substantial increase" in noise levels. Under the new noise
abatement policy, noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or the
predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels as defined
below:
Existing Leg(h) Substantial Increase if Receptor
Experiences Increase of:
50 or less dBA 15 or more dBA
51 dBA 14 or more dBA
52 dBA 13 or more dBA
53 dBA 12 or more dBA
54 dBA 11 or more dBA
55 or more dBA 10 or more dBA
Under the 2004 noise policy, traffic noise will impact 35 businesses with
construction of the proposed project. If the proposed project were not built, 27 businesses
would experience traffic noise impacts.
7
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal,
state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no
significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement will not be required.
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph..D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
A
1007 `I? A 4
si
Fro \
Mllff?n' L
`? ? moo=
gounderJ Own. C
FoR9n?99 \ LAIN
END PROJECT \
,f \
j 47
to
t?
'I 100
J
., m
BEGIN
I
I BOM? D0011!
lt/ ?41 ` BVP
401
r1a \\
Study Corridor for Fayetteville Outer Loop
(not a part of this study)
M TIP Project Ll-3423 Corridor
o
1 MILES
I
II 014
l (1 X11 . 10,
Leks
KmWow
Leto

PROJECT ti )"/ G?
BYP
401
\
I\
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
e OF TRANSPORTATION
a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Figure 1
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
APPENDIX
Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
February 16, 2005
Planning Services Section
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This is in response to your letter of October 15, 2004, requesting comments on the
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard), US 401 Bypass
to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road), Cumberland County, NCDOT Division 6,
Federal- Aid Project NHF-24(12), State Project 8.1443401, WBS Element 34942.1.1,
TIP Project No. U-3423", (Regulatory Division Action ID No.200000187).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that.
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W - " --
W. Coleman Long 4d
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosure
A-1
February 16, 2005
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard), US 401 Bypass
to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road), Cumberland County, NCDOT Division 6,
Federal- Aid Project NHF-24(12),.State Project 8.1443401., WBS Element 34942.1.1,
TIP Project No. U-3423", (Regulatory Division Action ID No.200000187).
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis. Plannina Services Section, at
[phone]
We commented on this project by letter of January 18, 2000, a copy of which is
contained in Appendix B of the Federal Environmental Assessment (EA). These
comments indicated that the proposed project is not located.in an identified flood
hazard area. We have no further comments at this time.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. -Richard Spencer. Wilmington Field
Office. Reaulatorv Division, at [phone]
After review of the EA and based on the information contained therein, it appears
that the project will result in only minimal impacts to aquatic resources. If NCDOT
demonstrates, at the time of application for Department. of the Army Authorization, that
they have avoided and minimized impacts to aquatic resources to the fullest extent
practicable in the design of the road improvements and the impacts do not increase, this
project may qualify for authorization under the nationwide permit.program.
If you have any questions related to DA permits, they should be addressed to
Mr. Spencer.
A-2
Alp-31 tio.,RbVl_.
M, N F th
?rP iy
o s
Ar*RCN ?°,o
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Fuld Office
Post Office Bon 33726
Raleigh, Notch Carolina 27636.3726
October 19, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your October 15, 2004 letter which requested comments from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed widening of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe
Drive / Shaw Road), Cumberland County (TIP No. U-3423). These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C..661-667d) and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen a 1.39
mile portion of NC 24-87 to three lanes in each direction with a raised median and curb and
gutter. The EA states that no wetlands will be affected by the project, and that only 40 linear feet
of an unnamed tributary to Little Cross Creek will be affected. Due to the urban nature of the
project area, impacts to fish and wildlife resources should be minimal.
The EA states that the project will have no effect on the following six federally listed species for
Cumberland County: Saint Francis's satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci), small whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia), American chaffseed (Schwalbea americans) and red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In addition, the EA states that the project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Service concurred with these
determinations in a letter dated December 30, 2003. This concurrence is still valid. We believe
that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for now. We remind you
that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that
was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that
may be affected by the identified action.
A-3
The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the potential effects of this proposed
project on fish and wildlife resources and on waters and wetlands of the United States. The
Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding
our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
y
l
Pete B j amin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACOE, Wihnington, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh; NC
A-4.
r
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
October 21, 2004
Mr. Omar Sultan
NCDOT
Transportation Building
1534 Mail Service Center
Interoffice
Dear Mr. Sultan:
Subject: Environmental Assessment - NCDOT proposes to widen NC24-87 (Bragg Blvd) from
US401 Bypass to SRI 437 (Saute Fe Dr/Shaw Rd) in Fayetteville. TEMU-3423.
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 05-E-4220-0112. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 11/22/2004. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinzttor
Malling Address:
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
Telephone. [phone]
Fax [phone]
State Courier i151-01-00
e-mail: [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunityl-O n ative Action Employer
A-5
Locadon Address
116 West Janes Street
Raleigh. North Carolina
' ? - Q ?13rNty? ...
North Carolina .
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
November 24, 2004
Mr. Omar Sultan
NCDOT
Transportation Building
1534 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC
Dear Mr. Sultan:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 05-E4220-0112; Environmental Assessment; NCDOT proposes to widen NC24-87
(Bragg Blvd) from US401 Bypass to SR1437 (Sante Fe Dr/Shaw Rd) in Fayetteville. TnW-
3423.
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental.Policy. Act.. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region M -
Mailing Addresr Te/ephm [phone] Location Addrar.
1301 Mail Service Center . Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail Chrys.Baggett®ncmaiLner
An Equal OppommiVAffirmative Action Employer
A-6
RUM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr.., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
V
2001
410'%ECEN&D
Once
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse 6 L
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: .05-0112 Bragg Boulevard, US 401 Bypass to Santa Fe Drive/Shaw
Road in Cumberland County
DATE: November 19, 2004
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,. North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: .[phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action 6A-7 •50% Recycled 110% Post consumer Paper
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
A-8
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
-- tip2 Z 142S
?°?
November 15, 2004
MEMORANDUM
' OGA o4
TO: Ms. Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM Beth Haines Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator :
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for widening of NC 24787 (Bragg Boulevard), US 401 Bypass
to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw-Road), in Fayetteville, Cumberland County,
Project Number. 05-0112
Federal Aid Project: NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WSB Element No.: 34942. 1.1
TIP Project U-3423
Division: 06.
In reply to your correspondence dated October 25, 2004 in which you requested cotnnients for the
referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project-indicates that Little-Cross Creek-hes within the
project area. These waters are classified as WS-IV and lie with the Critical Area of the water supply
watershed. The Division of Water Quality offers these comments:
1. Hazardous spill catch basins may be required for stream crossings within the critical area of the water
supply watershed.
2. Within the Cape Fear Basin, urban stormwater runoff is a major concern. The unnamed tributaries to
be impacted within the project area are on the 303(d) list due to, biological impairment. Stormwater.
should be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather than routed directly into
streams.
4. 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. For projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior
to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
3. 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 as well as utility relocations.
401 TransPortatlon Permitting Unit
1950 Ma,7 Service Center. Raleigh North Carolina 27099-1650 One
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh. North Carolina 27604 NOl hCaro na
phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone]Internet httu://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncweA-9 An EQuat Opportunity/Affirmative q? Employer-50% Rerycled/10% Post Consume, r?1 NaturiallY
U-3423 Scoping comments -
Page 2
November 15; 2004
4. The DWQ requests that DOT adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) and use Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface .Waters (March 1997) specifically using all applicable preventive and control
measures during the design, construction and maintenance of this project. These measures, should be
implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
5. Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit application. Wetland and stream impacts
should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize
wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC
2I3.0506(b)(6)1, 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. Onsite mitigation is preferable, however,
the NC Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) is avail'aole for use as compensatory mitigation.
Thank you for re questing 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 Beth Barnes at [phone].
pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, USEPA Region IV, Raleigh Field Office
Central Files
File Copy

A-10
Proposes to widen NC 24-
87 (Bragg Blvd) from the
Project Name us noT Type of Project us 4oi unam to sR 1437
(Sante Fe DrJShaw Rd.)
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required. by 15A NCAC 18C
.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].
ENVIRONMENT AND
RESOURCES
RONMENTAL HEALTH
Project Review Response
Project Number
05-0112
County
Cumberland
? 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.
Jim McRight PWS 10-29-04
Section/Branch .
Date
Reviewer
S:\Pws\Angela W\Clearinghouse\Review Response Pgs 1 and 2 for input.doc
A-11 .
lu' ll
Nov 9 2004
DEPARTMENT OF ENVI P e P nON Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES* 05-0112
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Count
umber and
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
13
13
Project Name
US DOT Type of Pro ect Proposes to widen NC 24-87 (Bragg
j
Comments provided by:
? Central Office program person
Name: Debra Benoy.-FRO Date:
Telephone number
Program within Division of Environmental Health: ,
Blvd) from the US 401 Bypass to SR
1437 (Sante Fe DrJShaw Rd.
? Regional Program Person
FLI Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section
Public Water Supply
Response (check all applicable): FAYETTEViuxRBGIONALOFFICE
10-28-04
RECEIVED
Other, Name of Program: N 0 V 0 4 2004
PUBLIC N . _CTION
' No objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
? See comments below
A__C? '&?L
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
A-12
State of North Carolina Reviewing Officer
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural. Resources
Project Number. O.r Due Date: ?[$1 ff
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 for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.

i
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Umit)
? Permit to construct &operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts On-site inspectlom Post-application technical conference usual. (? days)
not discharging into state surface water
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 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface watem facility-granted after NPOES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPOES permit-whichever is later.

? :x
Water Use Permit
Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(WA)
? Well Construction Permit _ ' Co mpldte•appiication must be received-and permit issued prior to the 7 days
Instailation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property ownci

-
On-site inspection. Preapplicadon conference usual. Filling may require Easement 55 days
(90 days)
to RII from N.C.Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
Permk to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatemeht
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC WA 60 days
(2Q.01100,20.0300,21-1.0600)
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
60 days
15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification - ,;. N/A (90 days)
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
? Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800 "
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation 20 days
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 (30 days)
days before beginning activity. A fee of $50 for the first acre or any part of an acm
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
? Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOTs approved program. Particular attention should be
given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable starmwater conveyances and outlets.
? 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 30 days
one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be Issued
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by KC. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days .1 day

? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required `If more than five 1 day
in coastal N.C with organic soils acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be requested (WA)
at least ten days before actual bum is planned'
? Oil Refining Facilities WA 90-120 days
A-13 (N/A)
Dam safety permit
PERMITS
Permit to drill expioraimy oil or gas wen
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal
If Permit required, application 60 days before begin construction
ns, must hire N.Cqualified engineer to: Prepare a APPiiq r
construction is according m MR approved ply inspect May o coegtrreper certify
mosquito Control Program, and a 404 4 Permit pemk from Corps ofrps o f require permit under
Engineers.
An Inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification
tee of 5200OOtnust A minimum
accompany the appaatlon An additional
based on a percentage O 'the total project cost will bed fee
required upon completion,
File surety bond of SS.000 with DENR running to State of N.OConditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment
to DENR rules and regulations be Plugged according
Application filed with MR at least 10 days prior to issue of Permit
by letter. No standard application form, P ??PPUgdon
APPIkadon fees based on stricture size is charged Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property,
WA
$2S0.00 fee must accompany application
SSO.00 fee must accompany application
Q Geophysical Exploration permit
? State Lakes ConsWMon permit
? 401 Water Quality CertiEgtion
0 LAMA Permit for MAJOR development
01 LAMAPermitfmMINORdevelopment
10
¦
tF

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 1 SA-Subchapter 200100.
30 days
(60 days)
10 days
(WA)
10 days
(WA)
15 - 20 days
(N/A)
55 days
(130 days)
60 days
(130 days)
22 days
(25 days)
Notifigtton of the Proper regional offtce;!i requested -------
if 'Orphan' underground storage tanks:(4S'f5) are discovered during any excavation operation
compliance with. lSA NCAC IH 1000 (Coastal 5tomnvater Rules) is required
45 days
.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority) (WA)
Y
200
.
4
tit)
-

w
E 06i

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office- marked below.
0 Asheville Regional office 13 Mooresville Regional office
Wilmington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street 13
Asheville, N.C.28801 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
[phone] Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] (910) 395-39nn
? Fayettevlll Reglosal Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C.28301
[phone]
C3 Raleigh Regional office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611.. -
[phone]
0 Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone] A-14
? Winston-Salem Regional office'
585 Waughtown Street
Winton-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]

b
?b
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 19, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your October 15, 2004 letter which requested comments from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed widening of NC 247-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe
Drive / Shaw Road), Cumberland County (TIP No. U-3423). These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen a 1.39
mile portion of NC 24-87 to three lanes in each direction with a raised median and curb and
gutter. The EA states that no wetlands will be affected by the project, and that only 40 linear feet
of an unnamed tributary to Little Cross Creek will be affected. Due to the urban nature of the
project area, impacts to fish and wildlife resources should be minimal.
The EA states that the project will have no effect on the following six federally listed species for
Cumberland County: Saint Francis's satyr (Neonympha mitchelld francisci), small whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia), American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) and red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In addition, the EA states that the project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Service concurred with these
determinations in a letter dated December 30, 2003. This concurrence is still valid. We believe
that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for now. We remind you
that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that
was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that
may be affected by the identified action.
,00
The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the potential effects of this proposed
project on fish and wildlife resources and on waters and wetlands of the United States. The
Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding
our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
. 45
?min
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACOE, Wilmington, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
' c y,
Pete B

a. srnrF
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 10, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse ( L,I?
Dept. of Administration
FROM: fox William D. Gilmore P. E. Manage
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road,
Cumberland County, F. A. Project No. NHF-24(12), State Project
No. 8.1443 TIP Project No. U-3423
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard). The
project is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in federal fiscal year 2006 and construction after federal fiscal year
2006 (post-year).
The project proposes to widen the existing roadway to provide three travel lanes in each
direction, a raised median, and curb and gutter. Bicycle accommodations and sidewalks are
under consideration. Additional right of way may have to be obtained for portions of the project.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by November 22, 1999 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Alethia Farless, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 247.
WDG/plr
Attachment
End Project
Butner Road
of
s
om
i

Fort
svP
401
BUS
401

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
°• r ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24 - 87 (BRAGG BOULEVARD)_ FROM
US 401 BYPASS TO BUTNER ROAD
Begin Project
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3423

r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
November 1, 1999
MEMORANDUM
AT?
NCDEWR
To: Melba McGe
Through: John Dorne
From: John E. Hennessy
Subject: Scoping.comments on proposed improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401
Bypass to Butner Road in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-24(12), State
Project No. 8.1443401, TIP U-3423, DENR No. OOE-0162.
Reference your correspondence dated September 10, 1999 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. Impacts to waters with a water quality
classification of WS IV are likely. The impacts could occur to waters of the Little Cross Creek (DWQ
index number 18-27-4-(1)) in the Cape Fear Basin. 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. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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.
D. 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
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
11/03/99
• Page 2
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.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. 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.
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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, 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) 1, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. 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.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
11/03/99
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
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP LJ-3423\comments\U-3423 scoping comments 2.doc
ping comments
r 15, 2004
DWQ requests that DOT adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in
,nsitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) and use Best Management Practices for the
rotection of Surface Waters (March 1997) specifically using all applicable preventive and control
measures during the design, construction and maintenance of this project. These measures should be
implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit application. Wetland and stream impacts
should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize
wetland impacts should be chosen. 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. Onsite mitigation is preferable, however,
the NC Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) is available for use as compensatory mitigation.
hank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is rei?iinded that issuance of a 401 Water
duality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instit ted to ensure that water quality
tandards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. 9 you have any questions or require
dditional information, please contact Beth Barnes at [phone].

pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, USEPA Region IV, Raleigh Field Office
Central Files
File Copy
T:+
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DI vision of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr.,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
November 15, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Beth Haines Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for widening of NC,24-87 (Bragg Boulevard), US 401 Byp
to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road), in Fayetteville, Cumberland County,
Project Number: 05-0112
Federal Aid Project: NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WSB Element No.: 34942.1.1
TIP Project U-3423
Division: 06.
In reply to your correspondence dated October 25, 2004 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that Little Cross Creek lies within the
project area. These waters are classified as WS-IV and lie with the Critical Area of the water supply
watershed. The Division of Water Quality offers these comments:
1. Hazardous spill catch basins may be required for stream crossings within the critical area of the water
supply watershed.
2. Within the Cape Fear Basin, urban stormwater runoff is a major concern. The unnamed tributaries to
be impacted within the project area are on the 303(d) list due to biological impairment. Stormwater
should be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather than routed directly into
streams.
4. 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. For projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior
to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
3. 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 as well as utility relocations.
401 Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 ?TOne
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 1 V OfthCarohna.
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htW://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands atu
An Equal Opportunitv/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recvcled/100/6 Post Consumer Paper
,1??.w.51'HTEv
??cuwvd'`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 15, 2004
Ms. Beth Barnes
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
D
1650 Mail Service Center O C T 1 9 2004
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Barnes:
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard), US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road), Cumberland County, NCDOT Division 6,
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12), State Project 8.1443401, WBS Element 34942.1.1,
TIP Project U-3423
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 November 30, 2004. If you desire a copy of the "Finding
of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincere
GJT/plr
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Ialysis Branch
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Gregor; J. ThorM, h.
Project Development a
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
eµ STA7Fv ICT
9 2004
_ NR -WATER.ITy
?,?? ,arYDSr(,yq
BRWM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mike Easley P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 Lyndo Tippett
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: Robert P. Hansen, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Engineering Unit
FROM: Jeffrey Burleson, Environmental Biologist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
SUBJECT: Protected species update (Michaux's sumac, Rhus
michauxi) for NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401
Bypass in Fayetteville to Butner Road in Fort Bragg, widen
to six lanes, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No.
NHF-24(12), State Project No. 8.1443401, TIP Project
No. U-3423.
ATTENTION: Alethia F. Raynor, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Engineering Unit
The following memorandum addresses Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), one
of the federally protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for
Cumberland County. The FWS has listed Michaux's sumac as a federally endangered
species. Potential habitat was identified throughout the project. Plant-by-plant surveys
were conducted on June 21, 2001 by NCDOT biologists, Logan Williams and Jeffrey
Burleson. After an extensive search, the only Rhus species found included, smooth
sumac (Rhus glabra), poison ivy (Rhus [Toxicodendron] radicans), and winged sumac
(Rhus copallina). There were not any specimens of Michaux's sumac found during the
survey. Therefore, project construction will not affect Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION; NO EFFECT
Thank you for you assistance with this project. If you have any questions or
need any additional information about this project, please contact Mr. Jeffrey Burleson
at [phone], Extension 315.
cc: Logan Williams, Endangered Species Coordinator
File: U-3423
OCT 1 9 2004
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT sRauo =A RBr
FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO BRAGG BOULEVARD (NORTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY 24/87), FAYETTEVILLE,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT NUMBER: 8.1443401
TIP NUMBER: U-3423
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS BRANCH
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
?f
24 October 2003
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO BRAGG BOULEVARD (NORTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY 24/87) (U-3423), FAYETTEVILLE,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By:
Ms. Jan Goodson and Dr. J.H. Carter III
Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates
Environmental Consultants
515F Midland Road
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Submitted
24 October 2003
To
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27899-1548
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO BRAGG BOULEVARD (NORTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY 24/87) (U-3423), FAYETTEVILLE,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve and
widen a portion of Bragg Boulevard (North Carolina (NC) Highway 24/87) in Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The proposed project will begin at the intersection of
United States (US) Highway 401 Bypass and run north approximately 1.2 miles to the new
construction limits of the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (U-2519DA). The purpose of the
project is to improve the capacity and safety of the existing roadway. This assessment was
prepared to document the impacts of the proposed project on the federally endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended.
PROJECT AREA
The project area is located in the eastern Sandhills of south-central North Carolina
(Figure 1), a region characterized by pine-forested, gently rolling topography and sandy soils.
Elevations in the project area range from 140 to 250 feet above mean sea level. The predominant
soils in the project area are Wagram loamy sand, Lakeland sand, Fuquay sand, Candor sand,
Vaucluse loamy sand and Blaney loamy sand. The project area is located in the Cape Fear River
Basin.
Sandhills communities in the project area included Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub
Oak Sandhill and Mesic Pine Flatwoods on uplands, with Streamhead Pocosin and Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp- Blackwater Subtype in wetlands. The Xeric Sandhill Scrub community
has a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) overstory, turkey oak (Quercus laevis) understory and a
Carolina wiregrass (Aristida stricta) ground cover. It occurs on very dry sandy sites such as
ridges and Carolina Bay rims. The Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill community has a longleaf pine
Figure 1. General project area and the one-half mile radius survey corridor for the proposed highway
improvements to Bragg Boulevard (North Carolina Highway 24/87)d), Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, North Carolina.
overstory, mixed scrub oak (Quercus spp.) understory and an often diverse ground cover
dominated by Carolina wiregrass. Mesic Pine Flatwoods typically have a canopy of longleaf
pine with an understory of oaks, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and other hardwoods. The
ground cover in frequently burned, undisturbed sites is dominated by Carolina wiregrass or
occasionally bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and a very diverse assemblage of herbaceous
plants.
Streamhead Pocosins occur in small drainages, on poorly drained flats and along some of
the larger streams. Dense thickets of shrubs and vines characterize this habitat, along with an
overstory of pond pine (Pinus serotina), loblolly pine (P. taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp - Blackwater Subtype communities occur along small to medium sized streams
and are predominantly forested with swamp black gum, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and
red maple.
With the exception of Fort Bragg Military Reservation (Fort Bragg) and Fayetteville
Public Works Commission (PWC) land, much of the project area has been converted from its
natural state. Most of the project area has been altered by human activities and consists of single
and multi-family residences, trailer parks, commercial districts, shopping centers, military
complexes and schools. Some residential and undeveloped areas retain some forest cover,
however these forested stands areas are often small and fragmented. Current land uses, along
with prolonged fire suppression, have significantly altered the natural environment in the project
area. Fort Bragg and some adjacent properties support large areas of relatively undisturbed pine
forests that are burned regularly.
The North Carolina Sandhills area contains 1 of 2 Primary Core Populations of RCWs for
the Sandhills Recovery Unit (USFWS 2003). This Primary Core Population includes RCWs in
the Fort Bragg Military Reservation (FB), the Carver's Creek, Calloway and McCain Tracts and
Weymouth Woods State Nature Preserve (USFWS 2003).
PROJECT SITE
The proposed project corridor is located along Bragg Boulevard in northwestern
Fayetteville (Bonnie Doone community) and near the Fort Bragg in Cumberland County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The U-3423 project corridor runs 1.2 miles from the intersection of Bragg
Boulevard and US Highway 401 Bypass to approximately 1500 feet north of the intersection of
Bragg Boulevard and Santa Fe Drive /Shaw Road [State Road (SR) 1437 ](Figure 2). The
northern terminus of the project corridor joins the construction limit for the proposed Fayetteville
Outer Loop, (U-2519DA) and is south of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation boundary
(approximately 2100 feet) (Figure 2). A Cape Fear railroad track parallels the project corridor to
the west.
Bragg Boulevard is a major thoroughfare of Fayetteville, North Carolina, and the
majority of the area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project is intensely developed.
Development includes single and multi-family residential neighborhoods, trailer parks,
commercial districts and shopping centers (Appendix 1). Many of the residential areas have
retained some forest cover, whereas commercial developments along Bragg Boulevard are
treeless.
Some undeveloped forested tracts remain within the project survey area. Forest stand
types within the survey area include Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp, Streamhead Pocosin and pine plantations (Appendix 1). The Xeric
Sandhill Scrub and Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill habitats were most common. Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp communities occur along small to medium sized tributaries (unnamed) of Beaver
and Little Cross Creek within the project survey corridor. Pine plantations were generally
forested with loblolly pine and/or longleaf pine ranging from 5 to 50 years old.
Other undeveloped lands have been heavily impacted by logging, prolonged fire
exclusion and various agricultural practices. Few areas of relatively undisturbed forest remain.
The proposed project corridor does not cross any perennial or intermittent drainages.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Bragg Boulevard project (U-3423) is to improve safety and increase
traffic carrying capacity of Bragg Boulevard between US Highway 401 and the proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop (U-2519DA) (see below) in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
Initially, the construction limits of the Fayetteville Outer Loop (U-2519) and the Bragg
Boulevard improvements project (U-3423) overlapped along Bragg Boulevard north of the Santa
Fe Drive/Shaw Road intersection. NCDOT officials decided to separate and individualize these
Figure 2. Location of the proposed Bragg Boulevard (NC Highway 24187) improvements and widening project (TIP U-3423), Fayetteville, Cumberland County; North Carolina.
projects. The Bragg Boulevard improvements project now begins at the intersection of Bragg
Boulevard and US Highway 401 Bypass and runs north approximately 1.2 miles to
approximately 1500 feet north of the intersection of Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road. Improvements
and widening of Bragg Boulevard beyond 1500 feet north of Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road will
now will be included in the Fayetteville Outer Loop's (U-2519DA) project design.
The Bragg Boulevard project will widen the existing roadway to accommodate a 6-lane,
median divided facility with curb and gutter. The proposed project includes 3 travel lanes in
each direction. The inside travel lanes will be widened to 12 feet and the outside travel lanes will,
be 14 feet wide to accommodate bicycles. A 17.5-foot wide raised grass median is proposed.
New clearing limits vary along the project corridor and range between 0 to 60 feet.
METHODS
In 1992, Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. (JCA, Inc.) surveyed 100 percent of pine
and pine-hardwood stands more than 30 years old within the Fayetteville Outer Loop project
corridor (U-2519) during a RCW survey of Fort Bragg. In June and July 1996, pine and pine-
hardwood stands more than 30 years old on non-federal properties within one-half mile of the
Fayetteville Outer Loop project corridor (U-2519) between U.S. 401, and Cliffdale Road were
surveyed on foot for RCW cavity trees.
Suitable RCW habitat within the Bragg Boulevard project corridor and one-half mile on
either side of the corridor was surveyed for RCW cavity trees in March and April 2003.
Potential habitat was defined as pine or pine-hardwood stands > 30 years of age (USFWS 2003).
These areas were systematically surveyed on foot due to the potential for occurrence of RCW
cavity trees. In order to ensure complete coverage, transects were spaced 50 to 100 feet apart
depending on understory density and visibility. Treeless residential and commercial areas,
swamp forests, clearcuts, hardwood stands and pine plantations less than 30 years old that
contained no older trees were not surveyed due to lack of potential RCW nesting habitat. RCW
cavity trees found were flagged with pink flagging and Global Positioning System (GPS)
coordinates were obtained using Trimble@ TSCI and Garmin® 48 units. The activity status of
each RCW cavity tree found was updated.
Potential impacts were based on the clearing limits shown on a functional design map of
the Bragg Boulevard improvements and widening project provided by NCDOT.
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Red-cockaded woodpecker - Picoides borealis
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a small, black and white woodpecker endemic
to mature, fire-maintained pine forests in the southeastern United States, where it was
historically common. Fire exclusion, conversion of forest lands to agricultural and other uses
and logging have destroyed most of this species' habitat. The RCW is State and federally listed
as endangered.
Extensive research has been done on this species in the North Carolina Sandhills from
1973 to date (North Carolina State University RCW Research Project). RCW groups located on
Fort Bragg, Camp Mackall, the Sandhills Game Land and on adjacent private lands (particularly
around Southern Pines and Pinehurst), collectively comprise the third largest RCW meta-
population in existence, the long term viability of which is essential to the recovery of this,
species. The Sandhills' RCW population is divided into 2 populations: Sandhills East Primary
Core Population and Sandhills West Essential Support population. Both populations are part of
the Sandhills Recovery Unit (USFWS 2003). The RCW groups on Fort Bragg (exclusive of
Camp Mackall), Overhills (now part of Fort Bragg), McCain, the Calloway Tract, the Carver's
Creek Tract and Weymouth Woods State Nature Preserve are part of the larger Sandhills East
Primary Core population. The smaller population consists of RCW groups on Camp Mackall
and the Sandhills Game Land are part of the Sandhills West Essential Support population. Both
Sandhills' RCW populations are well below the size (500 active clusters) that is required to be
considered "recovered".
The proposed project passes through several human-altered, fire-suppressed forest
habitats including Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp, Streamhead Pocosin and pine plantations. Single and multi-family residential
neighborhoods, trailer parks, commercial districts and shopping centers were widespread within
the survey corridor (Appendix 1).
Most residential and commercial areas were located within the central and southern
portions of the project survey corridor, south of Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road. Some residential
areas retained some forest cover; however, most of these areas consisted of stands of 40-60 year
old pine (loblolly and longleaf pine) with open to dense understories of scrub oaks and/or
ornamental shrubs and trees. Commercial areas within this area were generally treeless.
7
Suitable RCW habitat was scattered between residential and commercial developments, but these
areas were fragmented and fire suppressed. Most undeveloped lands within this portion of the
survey corridor were hardwood stands, clearcuts, or young loblolly pine plantations (< 20 years
old).
Most potential RCW habitat was located in the northern portion of the survey corridor.
Private lands located on the east side of Bragg Boulevard and south of the Fort Bragg boundary
contained large tracts of second and old-growth longleaf pine stands.
Two previously known RCW clusters [Cumberland County (CC) 16 and 17] and several
unassigned cavity trees were found (see discussion below) on the Shaw family property and
PWC land (Figure 3). Of these, CC 16 and the unassigned RCW cavity trees are located within
the one-half mile survey corridor, but outside the highway project corridor (Figure 3). Cavity
trees associated with CC 17 are located outside the one-half mile survey corridor and the
proposed project will not impact the cluster (Figure 3).
RCW Cluster CC 16 has been inactive since at least 1989 and is considered an abandoned
cluster. Eight relic cavity trees were found within this cluster on the Shaw property (Table 1).
Seven unassigned relic cavity trees were found south of CC 16 on Shaw property (4 trees) and
PWC property (3 trees) (Table 1). Four of these cavity trees were known cavity trees and have
been inactive since at least 1989. It is unknown how long the other 3 unassigned trees have been
inactive, but the current condition suggests they have not been active for many years. It is
probable that these cavity trees were once associated with 2 separate RCW clusters, but due to
the relic status they were not assigned a cluster number.
Due to the abandoned status of CC 16 and the unassigned cavity trees, foraging partitions
and foraging habitat analyses were not conducted and pine removals associated with the Bragg
Boulevard improvements project were not calculated. It should be noted, however, that
according to project design maps provided by NCDOT, the construction and clearing limits for
the Bragg Boulevard improvements project end in the vicinity of the CC 16 foraging partition
and pine removals would be minimal (Figure 2).
Both the Shaw and PWC properties are registered as Natural Areas with the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program and both properties have "Cooperative Management
Conservation Agreement" with Fort Bragg. The properties have been surveyed for protected
species by Fort Bragg biologists. RCW cavity tree surveys on both the PWC and Shaw property
Figure 3. The northeastern portion of the one-half mile RCW survey corridor for U-3423 and the location
of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees associated with Cumberland County (CC) Clusters
16 (Shaw property), CC 17 (Public Works Commission property) and unassigned cavity trees,
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
9
Table 1. Status and Global Positiong System (GPS) coordiantes of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity
trees in clusters CC 16 (Shaw property), CC 17 (Public Works Commission property),
and unassigned cavity trees, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
GPS Coordinates
Tree # Status Stage Northing Easting Comments
CC 16 untagged relic* cavity 3887193.472 686324.004
11123 relic start 3887167.817 686319.455
11124 relic cavity 3887206.413 686300.228
11125 relic cavity 3887226.124 686282.008 '
11126 relic cavity 3887213.795 686255.607 '
11127 relic cavity 3887213.795 686255.607
11128 relic cavity 3887176.844 686214.387
11129 relic cavity 3887210.561 686230.769
CC 17 11078 relic cavity 3887353 686497 2
11079 relic cavity 3887499 686794 2
11082 relic cavity 3887503 687038 2
Unassigned cavity trees
untagged relic start 3886898.179 686468.195
untagged relic cavity 3886831.389 686430.748
untagged relic start 38867669.36 686758.706'
untagged relic start 3886824.462 686654.882 '
11121 dead unknown 3886835.092 686395.420 ' snapped at cavity
11122 relic cavities 3886865.641 686465.325
11055 relic cavity 3886801.806 686746.515 '
*A relic cavity tree has been inactive for at least 5 years and typically have enlarged entrances.
' GPS coordinates taken with a Trimble@ TSC1 unit.
2 GPS corrdinates taken with a Garmin® 48 unit.
10
were completed by Fort Bragg biologists in 1994 and again in 1996 by JCA, Inc. Cavity trees on
each property were monitored annually by Fort Bragg personnel between 1994 and 1996.
According to the Cooperative Agreement, Fort Bragg is to provide recommendations to each
landowner annually pertaining to RCW cavity provisioning, prescribed burning, forest
management and soil stabilization. It is the responsibility of the landowners to implement these
recommendations. The PWC property is protecting a watershed for Fayetteville; therefore, long
term management is possible for this land. The Shaw property is privately owned and
management may cease if the property is sold.
No RCW cavity trees or foraging habitat associated with managed Fort Bragg RCW
clusters will be impacted by the project.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
One abandoned RCW cluster (CC 16) and 7 unassigned relic cavity trees are within the
one-half mile survey corridor for the Bragg Boulevard project.
Direct Impacts
Construction of the Bragg Boulevard project will have no direct impacts on CC 16 or the
7 unassigned RCW cavity trees located on the Shaw and PWC properties, Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, North Carolina. Due to the abandoned status of CC 16 and the unassigned
cavity trees, no foraging habitat analysis was conducted and pine removals associated with the
project were not calculated.
Biological Determination
No effect
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Construction of the Bragg Boulevard project will have no indirect or cumulative impacts
on CC 16 or the 7 unassigned RCW cavity trees located on the Shaw and PWC properties,
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
The Bragg Boulevard improvements project will be a minor upgrade of an existing major
thoroughfare in Fayetteville. Bragg Boulevard is already extensively developed and no
increased development is likely to result due to the project.
11
The proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop is independent of the Bragg Boulevard project.
Secondary and cumulative impacts resulting from the Fayetteville Outer Loop project would be
identified and discussed in that project's environmental documents.
Biological Determination
No effect
12
REFERENCES
Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. 1991. Red-cockaded woodpecker assessment for
US 13/NC 24 project, Cumberland County, NC. Report prepared for Maguire
Associates. 13 pp. and appendices.
Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. 1996. Biological Assessment for the Fayetteville Outer
Loop (X-2 and U-2519), Cumberland, Hoke and Robeson Counties, North Carolina.
NC. Report prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. 39 pages and
Enclosures.
Doerr, P.D., J.H. Carter III and J.R. Walters 1994. Ecological study/management of the flora
and fauna of the endangered longleaf pine ecosystem at Fort Bragg, North Carolina:
Project Final Report. Dept. of Zoology, North Carolina State University.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 296 pp.
13
Appendix l .1. Intersection of Bragg Boulevard (NC Highway 24/87) and Johnston Street within the
project corridor of the proposed Bragg Boulevard improvements and widening project
(U-3423), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.

y' j =7
Appendix 1.2. Multi-family residences within the survey corridor of the proposed Bragg Boulevard
(NC Highway 24/87) improvements and widening project (U-3423), Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Appendix 1.3. Trailer park within the survey corridor of the proposed Bragg Boulevard
(NC Highway 24/87) improvements and widening project (U-3423), Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, North Carolina.

y y
?'
., 4
Appendix 1.4. Loblolly pine plantation located within the survey corridor of the proposed Bragg
Boulevard (NC Highway 24/87) improvements and widening project (U-3423),
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Appendix 1.5. An unburned Streamhead Pocosin vegetative community within the survey
corridor for the proposed Bragg Boulevard (NC Highway 24/87) improvements
and widening project (U-3423), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.

f' 4 1
Appendix 1.6. A recently thinned loblolly pine plantation within the survey corridor of the
proposed Bragg Boulevard (NC Highway 24/87) improvements and widening
project (U-3423). Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Appendix 1.7. A second-growth longleaf pine stand and agricultural field within the survey corridor
of the proposed Bragg Boulevard (NC Highway 24/87) improvements and widening
project (U-3423), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.

Appendix 1.8. A Xeric Sandhill Scrub vegetative community (all pines removed) within the survey
Corridor of the proposed Bragg Boulevard (NC Highway 24/87) improvements and
widening project (U-3423), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Appendix 1.9. A 30-40 year old loblolly pine plantation stand within the survey corridor of
the proposed Bragg Boulevard (NC Highway 24/87) improvements and
widening project (U-3423), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942.1.1
TIP Project U-3423
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
M
APPROVED:
RR@[20W[Ab
ocr i s 2004
VYMMDSANDTT Al RBWa
1
8 AI y
Date (l-Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
8 3/ of O
ate ohn F van, III, P.E.
Divisi Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942.1.1
TIP Project U-3423
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
ti ?:3
Alethia F. Raynor, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
r" t P041->4 L
J es A. McInnis, Jr., .E.
Project Development Unit Head
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
6/3'104
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .......................................................... :.................. Page 1 of 1
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................... 1
A. Project Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1
B. General Description ................................................................................................ 1
C. Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................... 1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT ............................................................................................... 1
A. Description of Existing Facility .............................................................................. 1
1. Project Termini ................................................................................................... 2
2. Route Classification ............................................................................................ 2
3. Physical Description of Existing Facility ........................................................... 2
a. Roadway Typical Section ................................................................................... 2
b. Right of Way and Access Control ...................................................................... 3
c. Speed Limit ......................................................................................................... 3
d. Intersections ........................................................................................................ 3
e. Railroad Facilities ............................................................................................... 3
f. Structures ............................................................................................................ 3
g. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks .................................................................. 4
h. Utilities ................................................................................................................ 4
4. School Bus Usage ............................................................................................... 4
5. Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 4
6. Airports ............................................................................................................... 4
7. Other Highway Projects in the Area ................................................................... 4
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility ............................................................................. 5
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity ................................................................................... 5
2. Accident Record .................................................................................................. 6
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ................................................................................... 6
1. Capacity .............................................................................................................. 6
2. Safety .................................................................................................................. 6
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................ 7
A. Roadway Typical-Section ....................................................................................... 7
B. Right of Way and Access Control .......................................................................... 7
C. Speed Limit ............................................................................................................. 7
D. Design Speed .......................................................................................................... 7
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................................................... 8
F. Intersections/Interchanges ....................................................................................... 8
G. Median Crossovers .................................................................................................. 8
H. Railroad Involvement .............................................................................................. 8
I. Structures ................................................................................................................ 8
J. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks ...................................................................... 8
K. Utilities ....................................................................................................................9
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................. 9
A. Typical Section Alternatives ................................................................................... 9
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation ......................................................................... 9
C. "No-Build" Alternative ..................................................................................... 10
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION .............10
A. Natural Resources .................................................................................................10
1. Biotic Resources ...............................................................................................10
a. Terrestrial Communities ...................................................................................10
b. Aquatic Communities ....................................................................................... 12
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects .......................................................................13
Terrestrial Impacts ....................................................................................................13
Aquatic Impacts ........................................................................................................ 13
2. Water Resources ............................................................................................... 14
a. Physical Characteristics and Water Quality ...................................................... 14
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects ....................................................................... 15
3. Waters of the U.S .............................................................................................. 15
a. Surface waters/Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.) ................................................. 16
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................... 16
c. Anticipated Permit Requirements ..................................................................... 16
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation .......................................................: 16
4. Rare and Protected Species ............................................................................... 16
a. Federally-Protected Species .............................................................................. 16
b. Federal Candidate/State-Protected Species ....................................................... 18
B. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 20
1. Historic Architectural Resources ...................................................................... 20
2. Archaeological Resources ................................................................................. 21
C. Section 4(f) Resources .......................................................................................... 21
D. Community/Social Effects .................................................................................... 22
1. Neighborhoods/Communities ........................................................................... 22
2. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ............................................................... 22
3. Minority/Low-income Populations ..................
E. Land Use ............................................................................................................... 22
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning ......................................................................... 22
2. Future Land Use ................................................................................................ 23
F. Prime and Important Farmland ............................................................................. 23
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...................................................................................... 24
H. Traffic Noise Analysis .......................................................................................... 24
1. Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................................... 24
2. Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 24
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives .......................................................................... 25
I. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................................ 26
J. Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 26
K. Geodetic Survey Markers ..................................................................................... 26
L. Indirect/Cumulative Effects .................................................................................. 27
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................... 27
A. Citizens Informational Workshop ......................................................................... 27
B. Public Hearing .................... :................................................................................. 28
C. Agency Coordination ............................................................................................ 28
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 3A 2010 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 3B 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 5 Water Resources/Floodplains in Project Area
Figure 6 Fayetteville Area TIP Projects
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
Appendix B - Comments Received
Appendix C - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 - Capacity Analysis for Bragg Boulevard without project .....................................5
Table 2 - Capacity Analysis for Bragg Boulevard with project ........................................ ..6
Table 3 - Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ................................................. 13
Table 4 - Water Resources in Project Area ...................................................................... 14
Table 5 - Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters ................................................................ 15
Table 6 - Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County ........................................ 17
Table 7 - Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County ........................................ 19
Table 8 - State Listed Species in Project Vicinity ............................................................. 19
Table 9 - Anticipated Noise Impacts in the Year 2030 ..................................................... 24
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville `
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 4,01 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid` Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942.1.1
TIP Project U-3423
Proied Development and Environmental Analysis, Branch / Roadway Design Unit /
Programming and TIP Branch
The City of Fayetteville has requested new sidewalk along the west side of Bragg
Boulevard within the project limits and has agreed to participate in the cost. A written
agreement will be executed prior to construction of the proposed project regarding cost
sharing and maintenance and liability responsibilities for the proposed sidewalks.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Roadside
Environmental Unit
NCDOT will coordinate with the property owner regarding the restoration of
landscaping along the National Register eligible Buena Vista property, if necessary.
Division Six
Along the National Register eligible Buena Vista property, Type II clearing
methods will be used to minimize the removal of vegetation in this location.
Environmental Assessment - U-3423 Page l of 1
August 2004
SUMMARY
1. Tyne of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation.
2. Proiect purpose/Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 24-87
(Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road) in
Fayetteville. The existing roadway will be widened to three travel lanes in each direction
with a raised median and curb and gutter. The total project length is approximately 1.39
miles.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety and increase the traffic
carrying capacity of NC 24-87 in Fayetteville.
3. Alternatives Considered
Different typical section alternatives for widening the existing roadway, alternate
modes of transportation, and the "no-build" alternative were considered as alternatives
for the proposed project (see Section IV). Widening the existing roadway using a 20-foot
raised median was chosen as the preferred alternative because it minimizes impacts to
adjacent properties. Alternate modes of transportation and the "no-build" alternative do
not effectively meet the purpose and need for the project.
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts
No residential or business relocations are anticipated as part of this project. It is
anticipated highway traffic noise in the project area will result in impacts to 35
commercial receptors. However, traffic noise abatement measures are not recommended.
The "no-build" alternative would result in noise impacts to 27 commercial receptors.
The proposed project will have "no adverse effect" on the National Register
eligible property, Buena Vista, if NCDOT restores the landscaping within the
construction easement in consultation with the property owner. The project will require
limited right of way acquisition within the historic boundaries. The right of way will be
acquired to help improve sight distance and safety at the Shaw Road and Bragg
Boulevard intersection. Temporary construction easements may also be required along
the property's edge on Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard.
The Buena Vista property is protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966, as
amended. The proposed right of way required from this property involves use of land
from the Section 4(f) resource. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
this land. A programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation is included in Appendix A of this
document.
. Impacts to terrestrial communities are divided between two types: Managed Pine
Forest communities, and Maintained/Disturbed communities. Impacts to the Managed
Pine Forest community could total less than 0.1 acres. Impacts to Maintained/Disturbed
communities could total approximately 7.1 acres with construction of the project.
There are no wetlands within the current project area. However, impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters could total approximately 40 linear feet with construction of
the project affecting unnamed tributaries to Little Cross Creek.
5. Special Permits Required
Based on anticipated impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, a Nationwide
Permit 14 will most likely be applicable for the proposed project. Additionally, a North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
6. Coordination
This project was coordinated with the following federal, state, and local agencies
during this study:
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Army - Fort Bragg, Public Works Business Center
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
7. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated.
ii
8. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph..D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
iii
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety and increase the traffic
carrying capacity of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Fayetteville.
B. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw
Road) (Figure 1). The existing roadway will be widened to three travel lanes in each
direction with a raised median and curb and gutter. The total project length is
approximately 1.39 miles.
TIP Project U-3423 is included in the approved 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way and construction are
scheduled for federal fiscal years 2008 and 2010, respectively.
C. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate included in the 2004-2010 TIP for this project is $7,745,000.
Of this total, $1,445,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition and $6,300,000 for
construction. Current cost estimates are as follows:
Construction $6,200,000
Right of Way Acquisition $1,700,655
TOTAL $7,900,655
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
NC 24 is primarily an east-west facility that connects Fayetteville with Clinton
and Kenansville to the east and Cameron and Carthage to the west. NC 87 runs north-
south and connects Fayetteville with Elizabethtown to the south and Spring Lake and
Sanford to the north. Bragg Boulevard extends from downtown Fayetteville through Fort
Bragg and Spring Lake. NC 24 and NC 87 run concurrently along Bragg Boulevard
through the project limits. The studied section of NC 24-87 is from the US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road).
1. Project Termini
The southern project terminus is at the US 401 Bypass interchange with Bragg
Boulevard. The northern project terminus is the Shaw Road/Santa Fe Drive intersection
with Bragg Boulevard; however, construction will extend approximately 1,800 feet north
of Shaw Road in order to tie the proposed improvements back into existing Bragg
Boulevard.
Approximately 4,100 feet north of Shaw Road/Santa Fe Drive, Bragg Boulevard
enters the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. The Army has requested the portion of Bragg
Boulevard on Fort Bragg be closed to through traffic. This closure will occur following
completion of the Fayetteville Outer Loop between Bragg Boulevard and NC 210
(Murchison Road) (TIP Projects U-2519 and X-2) and the widening of Murchison Road
from the outer loop to Bragg Boulevard north of Fort Bragg (TIP Project U-4444). The
completion of these two projects would allow through traffic to bypass more sensitive
areas of Fort Bragg. As part of TIP Project U-2519, an interchange between the proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop and Bragg Boulevard will be constructed.
2. Route Classification
NC 24-87 is classified as an urban principal arterial in the statewide functional
classification system.
3. Physical Description of Existing Facility
a. Roadway Typical Section
From the US 401 Bypass to the southern Fort Bragg Reservation limits, Bragg
Boulevard has three travel lanes in the northbound direction and two travel lanes in the
southbound direction. Guardrail exists in the 30-foot grass median along this section.
Several median cuts and left turn lanes are provided within the project limits. Curb and
gutter is located on the outside of the northbound lanes from the US 401 Bypass to the
southern Fort Bragg limits. Curb and gutter is also located on the southbound side, but
only in the area approaching the US 401 Bypass. Paved shoulder exists in the remaining
areas. Existing travel lanes are approximately 11-feet wide.
South of the project limits, Bragg Boulevard is a six-lane median divided facility
with curb and gutter and sidewalk on the west side. North of the project limits, Bragg
Boulevard tapers to a four-lane median divided facility with soil shoulders.
2
b. Right of Way and Access Control
Within the project limits, the existing right of way width along Bragg Boulevard
varies between 100 and 120 feet. The existing right of way west of Bragg Boulevard
may be less than the right of way east of Bragg Boulevard, due to the location of the
Cape Fear Railways line. The rail line is located adjacent to Bragg Boulevard, on the
west side of the road.
There is no existing access control along the subject portion of Bragg Boulevard.
c. Speed Limit
The speed limit along the studied portion of Bragg Boulevard is 45 mph.
d. Intersections
The intersection of US 401 Bypass and Bragg Boulevard is grade-separated, with
connecting access roads in all four quadrants accommodating turning movements. The
intersections of these access roads with Bragg Boulevard are unsignalized with right-
in/right-out access to Bragg Boulevard. The remaining intersections within the project
limits are at-grade. Two intersections with Bragg Boulevard are signalized: Mike
Street/Johnson Street and Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road (see Figure 2).
e. Railroad Facilities
Railroad tracks owned by the Cape Fear Railways run north-south along the west
side of Bragg Boulevard within the project limits. The tracks are located approximately
18 feet west of the outside southbound travel lane. These tracks have been out of service
since 1984. In many areas, the rail line runs through parking lots and has been paved
over with asphalt.
E Structures
Bridge Number 86 carries Bragg Boulevard over US 401 Bypass. This bridge
was constructed in 1980, and has a sufficiency rating of 78.0 (out of 100 possible rating
points). It has a clear roadway width of 98 feet and is approximately 171 feet long. The
bridge accommodates six travel lanes and has sidewalks on each side. Three bar metal
rail exists on both sides of the bridge. No improvements to this structure are proposed as
part of this project.
3
g. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
No exclusive bicycle lanes or other bicycle accommodations are located along the
existing facility. Sidewalks are in place on the west side of Bragg Boulevard from the
downtown area to the US 401 Bypass. No sidewalks are present within the project limits.
h. Utilities
Underground and aerial utilities are located along both sides of Bragg Boulevard.
4. School Bus Usage
Approximately fifteen Cumberland County school buses travel along portions of
Bragg Boulevard twice daily.
5. Traffic Volumes
Traffic projections were prepared for the subject section of Bragg Boulevard for
the years 2010 and 2030. In the year 2010, average daily traffic along Bragg Boulevard
within the project limits will likely range between 35,800 and 43,200 vehicles per day.
By the year 2030, traffic in this area is predicted to range between 44,200 and 49,700
vehicles per day. Traffic volumes are shown in greater detail on Figures 3A and 3B.
6. Airports
There are no airports or other aviation facilities in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
7. Other Highway Projects in the Area
There are 59. highway projects planned for Cumberland County. Projects
included in the approved 2004-2010 TIP in the vicinity of Bragg Boulevard are listed
below and shown on Figure 6.
TIP Project U-2519 - Fayetteville Outer Loop, I-95 South of Fayetteville to east
of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard). Project involves construction of a freeway on
new location. As part of this project, an interchange with Bragg Boulevard is
proposed. Right of way acquisition for parts of the project is scheduled to begin
in fiscal year 2005; grading and structure work is scheduled for fiscal year 2007.
4
TIP Project U-2911 - SR 2685 Extension (Lake Valley Drive) from SR 1415
(Yadin Drive) to US 401 Bypass. Project involves widening existing to multi-
lanes with part on new location. Construction is scheduled for 2004.
TIP Project X-2 - Fayetteville Outer Loop, west of NC 210 (Murchison Road) to
I-95. Project involves construction of a freeway on new location. Parts of the
project are under construction or have been completed. Right of way acquisition
for the remaining parts is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005 and construction
is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2007.
TIP Project U-4444 -NC 210 (Murchison Road) from the Fayetteville Outer
Loop (TIP U-2519 and X-2) to NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake.
Project involves widening existing to multi-lane facility. Planning and
environmental studies for this project are underway. The project does not
currently have a right of way or let schedule.
TIP Project U-4719 -NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from NC 210 north to
McKenzie Road and from SR 1601 (Chapel Hill Road) north to SR 1451
(Manchester Road). Project involves construction of raised median and
resurfacing along the existing road. Right of way and construction are scheduled
for fiscal year 2004.
As stated in Section II-A-1, the Army has requested the portion of Bragg
Boulevard on Fort Bragg be closed to through traffic following completion of the portion
of the Fayetteville Outer Loop between Bragg Boulevard and Murchison Road (TIP .
Projects U-2519 and X-2) and the widening of Murchison Road between the Outer Loop
and Bragg Boulevard north of Fort Bragg (TIP Project U-4444). Completion of these
improvements will allow through traffic to bypass more sensitive areas of Fort Bragg.
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity
Capacity analyses were performed for the existing signalized intersections along
Bragg Boulevard within the project limits. These calculations were performed for the
years 2010 and 2030. Table 1 presents the results.
Table 1
Capacity Analysis for Bragg Boulevard without project
Level of Service
INTERSECTION 2010 2030
Bra Blvd. & Mike St./Johnson St. B C
Bra Blvd. & Santa Fe Dr./Shaw Rd. E F
5
The results of the capacity analyses show that without the proposed
improvements, excessive delays will occur at the Shaw Road/Santa Fe Drive intersection.
2. Accident Record
An accident study was conducted along Bragg Boulevard in Fayetteville for the
time period between June 2000 and May 2003. During this study period, 241 crashes
were reported on Bragg Boulevard between US 401 Bypass and Santa Fe Road/Shaw
Road. One fatal crash was reported. The largest number of crashes were rear-end type
collisions due to vehicles slowing or stopping. Approximately forty-six percent of the
crashes reported were of this type.
The crash rate for this section of Bragg Boulevard is 484.53 crashes per 100
million vehicle miles. In comparison, the statewide crash rate for urban four-lane divided
facilities (no control of access) between 2000-2002 was 552.94 crashes per 100 million
vehicles miles.
C. Benefits of Proposed Proiect
1. Capacity
The proposed project will increase the traffic carrying capacity of Bragg
Boulevard within the project limits. The project includes improvements at the two
signalized intersections within the project limits in addition to the through lanes proposed
for Bragg Boulevard. The addition of turn lanes at the intersections helps to reduce delay
and to improve level of service. Table 2 shows the level of service with the proposed
improvements for the two signalized intersections on Bragg Boulevard.
Table 2
Capacity Analvsis for BragLr Boulevard with nroiect
Level of Service
INTERSECTION 2010 2030
Bra Blvd. & Mike St./Johnson St. B B
Bra Blvd. & Santa Fe Dr./Shaw Rd. D E
2. Safety
As reported in Section II-B-2, the largest number of accidents were rear-end type
collisions due to slowing or stopping. Additional turning lanes have been proposed at the
two signalized intersections along Bragg Boulevard. These turn lanes should improve the
accident experience along Bragg Boulevard by shifting traffic out of the through lanes
and reducing stopping or slowing along the main line.
6
The inclusion of bicycle accommodations and sidewalks as part of the proposed
project will provide improved conditions above those currently present along Bragg
Boulevard. Providing accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians will also help to
improve safety along Bragg Boulevard.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Typical-Section
It is recommended to widen Bragg Boulevard to a six-lane, median-divided
facility with curb and gutter. The proposed typical section includes three travel lanes in
each direction. Twelve-foot inside travel lanes and 14-foot outside travel lanes are
proposed. The 14-foot outside lanes are recommended to accommodate bicycles. A 20-
foot raised grassed median is recommended. Figure 4 depicts the proposed typical
section for the project.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
A variable amount of right of way along both sides of Bragg Boulevard will be
required for the project. Right of way acquisition along the National Register eligible
property, Buena Vista, will be limited to the area near the intersection of Shaw Road and
Bragg Boulevard (see Section V-B for information about Buena Vista). Temporary
construction easements will also be required along much of the project. Right of way and
temporary construction easements will be acquired as needed for improvements to streets
intersecting Bragg Boulevard. As stated in Section II-A-3-b, the existing right of way on
the west side of Bragg Boulevard may be less than the right of way on the east side of the
road, due to the location of the Cape Fear Railways line. Right of way ownership in this
area will be investigated.
Due to the number of existing driveways, no change in access control is
recommended as part of the project.
C. Speed Limit
It is anticipated the posted speed limit along Bragg Boulevard will be 45 MPH
following completion of the project.
D. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for this project is 50 MPH. This design speed is
consistent with the proposed 45 MPH speed limit.
7
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated for this project.
F. Intersections/Interchanges
Improvements to intersecting streets were examined as part of this project.
Additional turn lanes or additional storage length for existing turn lanes are proposed
where warranted. Additional right of way acquisition is proposed at several of the
intersections to help improve sight distance.
G. Median Crossovers
The existing median crossover at Old Shaw Road will be eliminated with the
proposed project. The remaining median breaks will be retained. Left-turn lanes are
provided in these locations.
H. Railroad Involvement
No railroad crossings are proposed within the project limits. Due to the location
of the Cape Fear Railways line along the west side of Bragg Boulevard, the exact right of
way ownership in this location must be investigated.
At one time, the City of Fayetteville considered preserving this rail line for future
light rail transit use. However, it has been determined further preservation of this rail line
for future use is not feasible. Current plans for the Fayetteville Outer Loop interchange
with Bragg Boulevard will sever the existing rail line. Correspondence from the
Fayetteville WO Transportation Advisory Committee regarding this issue is included in
Appendix B.
I. Structures
There are no new structures proposed for this project.
J. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
A 14-foot outside travel lane will be provided in both directions to accommodate
bicycles. These accommodations are recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Division of the Department and are supported by the local government.
8
The City of Fayetteville has requested sidewalk construction on the western side
of Bragg Boulevard as part of this project and has agreed to participate in the cost. This
would tie into the existing sidewalk, which runs from downtown and ends at the US 401
Bypass. A written agreement will be executed prior to construction of the proposed
project regarding cost sharing and maintenance and liability responsibilities for the
proposed sidewalks.
K. Utilities
It is anticipated the proposed project will have a high degree of utility conflict.
Underground and aerial utilities are located along both sides of Bragg Boulevard.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Typical Section Alternatives
Bragg Boulevard is surrounded by dense commercial development for the
majority of the project limits. Many businesses are located in close proximity to the
roadway. The Cape Fear Railways rail line also runs adjacent to Bragg Boulevard on the
west side (see Figure 2).
A six-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter is proposed for this
section of Bragg Boulevard. Reducing the existing 30-foot median to 20 feet by
widening to the inside is proposed to help reduce impacts to surrounding businesses.
Reduction in the median width may also help limit serious impact to utilities that are
located along both sides of Bragg Boulevard. Retaining the existing 30-foot median and
widening to the outside was eliminated from consideration due to numerous anticipated
impacts.
Curb and gutter along the facility will help maintain continuity of the facility.
Bragg Boulevard is currently a 6-lane curb and gutter facility south of the proposed
project.
Guardrail currently exists in the median along this section of Bragg Boulevard.
Instead of retaining the guardrail, a raised median is proposed.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) offers bus service in the project
area. From Bragg Boulevard, riders can access locations along the US 401 Bypass,
including Cross Creek Mall. Bus service is available between 5:45 AM and 7:30 PM.
9
Expansion of the transit system would not meet the purpose and need of the project, and
therefore, was eliminated from further consideration.
As mentioned in Section II-A-3-e, railroad tracks run along the west side of Bragg
Boulevard. The City of Fayetteville had considered preserving this rail line for future
light rail transit use. However, it has been determined further preservation of this rail line
for future use is not feasible. Current plans for the Fayetteville Outer Loop interchange
with Bragg Boulevard will sever the existing rail line. Fort Bragg also has a marshalling
area for parking of their train cars. The stacking of these trains could possibly inhibit free
flow along the Cape Fear rail line. Correspondence from the Fayetteville MPO
Transportation Advisory Committee regarding this issue is included in Appendix B.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no-build" alternative avoids impacts to the area along Bragg Boulevard.
However, this alternative does not address the purpose and need of the project. The "no-
build" alternative does not provide any additional capacity or safety measures to Bragg
Boulevard. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from consideration.
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED
ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant plants and animals likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Animals observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities overlap within the project area: the
Maintained/Disturbed community and the Managed Pine Forest community.
Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community can be found throughout the project study
corridor. This community encompasses several types of habitats that have recently been
or are currently impacted by human disturbance. This includes irregularly maintained
10
roadside shoulders and yards and residential and commercial landscapes that receive
regular maintenance.
Vegetation occurring along roadside shoulders includes fescue, dandelion, horse
nettle, dog fennel, golden rod, smooth sumac, beggar's tick, elephant's ear, wood sorrel,
clovers, chickory, violets, and buckhorn plantain. Areas receiving less frequent
maintenance are. occupied by broomsedge, poison ivy, blackberries, Japanese
honeysuckle, goldenrods, yarrow, and ragweed. Vegetation associated with residential
and business landscapes includes: flowering dogwood, Chinese dogwood, forsythia,
azaleas, lilac, loblolly pine, longleaf pine, southern red oak, various ornamental hybrids
of hollies, Chinese fir, arbor vitae and juniper. Fescue, clover, plantains and crabgrass
dominate lawn areas.
Managed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The Managed Pine/Hardwood Forest can be found throughout most of the project
area and is adjacent to the Perennial Stream and Maintained/Disturbed communities.
This managed community has a canopy dominated by loblolly and longleaf pine.
Other species found in this community include: sweetgum, water oak, post oak, live oak,
blackjack oak, turkey oak, red maple, white oak and southern red oak. The herbaceous
layer is dominated by wire grass. The understory in this community is sparse, due to the
frequent prescribed fire. However, during extended undisturbed periods (between fire
intervals) some species including magnolia, turkey oak, horse sugar, sassafras, mockernut
hickory, American holly, sparkleberry, blueberry, blackberry, bracken fern, red bay,
persimmon and flowering dogwood will survive.
This forest community can be found throughout the project area in different stages
of succession and age. This forest is manipulated using common forestry practices, such
as: frequent prescribed fire, selective harvesting, use of herbicides, and planting.
Wildlife
The maintained/disturbed community dominates the project area. Nearly all the
forested parcels within the project area have received some degree of impact by human
activities. Generally, the community boundaries are abrupt, with little transition area
between them.
Despite the disturbance of the forest areas by human-influenced activities, a
vertically stratified and complex habitat with abundant food and shelter resources is
available for a variety of fauna. Primarily bird species, such as red headed woodpecker,
red-cockaded woodpecker, ruby-crowned kinglet, golden-crowned kinglet, brown
creeper, blue-gray gnatcatcher, yellow-rumped warbler, white-breasted nuthatch, tufted
titmouse, red-eyed vireo, pine warbler*, gray catbird and northern cardinal* utilize the
canopy. Species occupying the forest floor include the American toad, ground skink and
11
eastern box turtle. Other ground-dwelling species include the worm snake, southeastern
crowned snake, southeastern shrew, and woodland vole.
Small mammals such as least shrew, white-footed mouse, and house mouse are
able to utilize the limited amount of vegetative cover of unmowed road shoulders and
fields. The burrowing eastern mole is common in open areas bordering forested tracts.
These small mammals are important prey items for black rat snake, red fox, red-tailed
hawk* and other birds of prey. Various species of birds feed along roadsides on seeds,
berries and insects. Some of these species include the northern cardinal*, American
robin* and white-throated sparrow. Snakes such as the black racer and eastern garter
snake may venture into this habitat to feed on insects and small mammals.
Virginia opossum and raccoon frequently forage nocturnally in these habitats, or
travel along roadways between habitats. These animals are often road kill victims.
Consequently road kills attract a large number of scavenger species including turkey
vulture* and common crow*, as well as domestic dogs and cats.
b. Aquatic Communities
. There are two perennial streams located within the project study area; both are
unnamed tributaries to Little Cross Creek. The perennial stream community is divided
into two components: adjacent to a nonforested community and adjacent to a forested
community. The-streambank vegetation found in the nonforested component has the
same vegetation as the surrounding community.
The streambank vegetation found in the forested component is more diverse.
Vegetation found in this community may include: black willow, river birch, red maple,
Chinese privet, tag alder, elderberry, giant cane, tearthumb, titi, southern lady fern, netted
chain-fern, cinnamon fern, Virginia chainfern, viburnums, Joe-pye-weed, false nettle, and
orange-spotted jewelweed.
Aquatic Wildlife
Streams within the project area are generally too small to support large
individuals of representative species. Smaller individuals of the larger species such as fry
and young of the year fish, as well as those species that are generally small are likely to
be found in these streams.
The project area's surface water can be expected to provide habitat for a limited
number of aquatic organisms. Examples of aquatic insects that may be found in this
community include water strider, riffle beetle, crane fly, stream mayfly and black-winged
damselfly. In addition, the bullfrog, pickerel frog, Queen snake, and northern water
snake may occupy this community.
12
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
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.
Terrestrial Impacts
Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation of portions of the
communities described in the previous sections. Estimated impacts to the communities
are derived using the proposed right of way width (Table 3). Project construction does
not usually require the entire right of way width; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 3
Estimated impacts to terrestrial communities
Community Impacted Area acres
Managed Pine/Hardwood Forest <0.1
Maintained/Disturbed 7.1
TOTAL 7.2
The biotic communities found within the project study area will be altered as a
result of project construction. The majority of the project study area is located in
disturbed habitat. Additional disturbed habitats will be re-established as roadside
shoulder and other types of irregularly maintained communities after project
construction.
Reduced habitat due to the proposed widening will displace some wildlife while
attracting other wildlife by the creation of additional early successional habitat. The size
of fragmented habitat areas is always relative to the species of concern; however,
fragmented areas more than likely will disrupt continuity between populations of some
animal and plant communities. Species adapted to disturbed and edge habitat will thrive,
while species that require larger tracts will decrease or disappear due to competition or
habitat reduction.
Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic
habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, and stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic habitats
often affects the community by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of the
habitat. Specifically, these impacts could include: inhibition of plant growth; clogging of
feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish and the burial of benthic
organisms; algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations; and mortality
13
among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic substances and decreases
in dissolved oxygen.
2. Water Resources
a. Physical Characteristics and Water Quality
Two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) to Little Cross Creek exist within the
study area for the proposed project (see Figure 5). Waters in the project vicinity are part
of the Cape Fear River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 03030004, subbasin 03-06-15.
Descriptions of the two tributaries are provided in Table 4.
Table 4
Water Resources in Proiect Area
Water
Resource Classification Channel
Width Channel
Depth Substrate Flow
UT1 Perennial 2 ft 0.5 ft Sand, gravel Very slow
UT2 Perennial 3 ft 0.5 ft Sand, gravel Very slow
UT1 and UT2 are both perennial streams. UT1 is located on the east side of
Bragg Boulevard, just north of Swain Street. UT2 is located on the east side of Bragg
Boulevard, approximately 900 feet south of Johnson Street. Both tributaries appear to
have been mechanically entrenched and have an abundance of consumer refuse.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). The classification of Little Cross Creek and its unnamed tributaries is
WS IV. Class WS IV waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds. Class C waters are protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and wildlife.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the project
study area.
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(MAN) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There are no BMAN stations located directly
upstream or downstream of the project area.
Point source refers to discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or
any other well-defined point. Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
14
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. There are no permitted point source dischargers located in the project study
area.
Nonpoint source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water or
a non-defined point of discharge. In the project area, parking lots, roads and impervious
surfaces may serve as sources for various forms of nonpoint source pollutants.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Construction of the proposed project will likely impact water resources due to
pipe installation and/or the lengthening of existing pipes. Construction activities are
likely to alter and/or interrupt stream flows and water levels at each aquatic site.
Estimated surface water impacts are based on feet of stream within the proposed right of
way. Anticipated impacts are shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters
Stream Impacts feet
UT I 20
UT2 20
Total 40
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and turbidity from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation
and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction, toxic spills, and increased vehicular use.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during construction of the project.
3. Waters of the U.S.
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"waters of the United States," as defined under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Any action that
proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
(33 U.S.C. 1344).
15
a. Surface waters/Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.)
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". No wetlands were found to exist within the
project study area.
As discussed in Section V-A-2=a, two surface waters exist within the project area
and are considered jurisdictional.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The project will not affect any wetlands, but will affect approximately 40 linear
feet of jurisdictional surface waters (see Table 5 in Section V-A-2-b).
c. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. A Nationwide Permit 14
will most likely be applicable for the proposed project. Additionally, a North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
As mentioned in Section V-A-3-a, no wetlands were found to exist within the
project area. The proposed project will likely involve extension of pipes carrying
unnamed tributaries to the Little Cross Creek. These stream impacts are unavoidable.
Best Management Practices will be used during construction in order to minimize the
project's effects on the streams. Compensatory mitigation will not likely be required for
this project unless stream impacts equal or exceed 150 feet, per crossing.
4. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended. As of January 29, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists eight federally
protected species for Cumberland County (Table 6).
16
Table 6
Federall Protected specie s for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat? Biological
Conclusion
Alligator American alligator T(S/A) N/A N/A
mississi iensis
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded E Yes No Effect
woodpecker
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Yes Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Neonympha mitchellii Saint Francis' satyr E No No Effect
firancisci
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled T* No No Effect
0 onia
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry E No No Effect
Lysimachia Rough-leaved E No No Effect
as erulae olia loosestrife
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E No No Effect
"T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance is species that are threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and are listed for the rare species' protection. T (S/A) are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
"E"-Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
their range.
"T"-Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the near future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"*" - Historic record indicating a species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
(T S/A) to other rare species that are listed for protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. Therefore, a survey is not required.
General field surveys were conducted within the project area on April 13, 2000
and October 5, 2000. Suitable habitat was not found for the following protected species:
Saint Francis' satyr, Small-whorled pogonia, Pondberry, Rough-leaved loosestrife, and
American chaffseed. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the field surveys,
the biological conclusions were reviewed again in 2003 and were found to still be valid.
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database in
April 2004 indicated one occurrence of rough-leaved loosestrife within one mile of the
project area; however, habitat was not found within the project study area. There were no
recorded occurrences for the remaining species listed above. The project is anticipated to
have "no effect" on these federally-protected species.
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is present within the
proposed project vicinity. Suitable-habitat within the Bragg Boulevard project corridor
and one-half mile on either side of the corridor was surveyed for RCW cavity trees in
March and April 2003. One abandoned RCW cluster [Cumberland County (CC) 16] and
seven unassigned relic cavity trees are within the one-half mile survey corridor. Due to
17
the abandoned status of CC 16 and the unassigned cavity trees, no foraging habitat
analysis was conducted and pine removals associated with the project were not
calculated. The proposed project is not anticipated to have any direct impacts on CC 16
or the seven unassigned RCW cavity trees located within the one-half mile survey
corridor. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have "no effect" on the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
Potential'habitat for Michaux's sumac was also identified within the project study
area. A plant by plant survey was conducted on June 21, 2001 and again on July 30,
2003. No populations of Michaux's sumac were found during the surveys. Therefore,
the proposed project is "not likely to adversely affect" this protected species.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with these biological conclusions in
a letter dated December 30, 2003 (see Appendix B).
b. Federal Candidate/State-Protected Species
There are twenty-seven Federal Species of Concern listed for Cumberland
County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state
listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 7 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. Table.8
lists State Listed Species for Cumberland County if species' occurrences were recorded
within one mile of the project area.
18
Table 7
Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aimo hila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Yes
Heterodon simus Southern ho ose snake SR/PSC * Yes
Noturus s p. 1 "Broadtail" madtom SC Yes
Pituo his melanoleucus Melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC** Yes
Rana ca ito ca ito Carolina gopher fro SC/PT Yes
Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic i oe T/PE No
Lam sills cariosa Yellow lam mussel T/PE No
Amor ha eor Tana var. eor Tana Georgia indigo-bush E Yes
Astra alus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Yes
Danthonia a ills Bo oat ass SR-T No
Dionaea musci ula Venus flytrap C-SC No
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T No
Lindera subcoriacea Bo s icebush E No
Litsea aestivalis Ponds ice C No
Lobelia bo kinii Bo kin's lobelia C No
Ludwi is brevi es Lon beach seedbox SR-T Yes
M rio llum laxum Loose watermilfoil T No
Potamo eton con ervoides Conferva ondweed C No
Ptero lossas is ecristata Spiked medusa E Yes
P idanthera barbulata var. brevis la Sandhills pyxie-moss E Yes
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeau T No
Solids o ulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solids o verna Spring-flowering goldenrod T No
S lisma ickerin ii var. ickerin h Pickerin 's dawnflower E Yes
To ieldia labra Carolina asphodel C No
X ris scabri olia Rou leaf yellow-eyed ass C No
Table 8
State Listed Species in Project Vicinity
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Eu atorium resinosum Resinous boneset (pine barrens boneset T-SC No
R nchos ora oli antha Feather-bristle beaksed a SR-P No
Schoeno lectus etuberculatus Canb 's bulrush SR-P Yes
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is
determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the near future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which 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.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease.
The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a
different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
19
"W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well
known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"/P"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
*-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain
A review of the NCNHP database in April 2004 indicated two occurrences of
Sandhills pyxie-moss and one occurrence of Pickering'-s dawnflower within one mile of
the project area. The database also indicated two occurrences of resinous boneset, one
occurrence of feather-bristle beaksedge, and one occurrence of Canby's bulrush within
one mile of the project area. Surveys for FSC and state listed species were not conducted
during the site visit.
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed 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 at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account
the effect of their 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
NCDOT architectural historians surveyed the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of
the proposed project. Four properties over fifty years of age were identified in the APE.
The Buena Vista property was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. The remaining properties were determined not eligible for the National Register
and not worthy of further evaluation.
Buena Vista is a plantation house that was built around 1844. This property was
determined eligible for the National Register as part of a study performed for the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2). Location of this property is shown
on Figure 2. The historic boundaries of this property encompass the main plantation
house, a brick house, a log house, a smokehouse, and a stand of old growth longleaf pines
that contribute to the historic character setting. The proposed project will require limited
right of way acquisition within the historic boundaries. The right of way will be acquired
to help improve the sight distance and safety at the Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard
intersection. Temporary construction easements may also be required along the
property's edge on Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard. The State Historic Preservation
Office (HPO), NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concurred that
the proposed project will have "no adverse effect" on Buena Vista if NCDOT restores the
20
landscaping within the construction easement in consultation with the property owners.
A copy of the concurrence form is included in Appendix B.
2. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has reviewed the project for
archaeological resources. In a letter dated November 16, 2000, HPO stated there are no
known archaeological sites within the proposed project area and recommended that no
archaeological survey be performed (Appendix B).
C. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that
publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or
land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance may be used for federal
projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land and the
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such
use.
The Buena Vista property is protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966, as
amended. The proposed project will require limited right of way acquisition within the
historic boundaries. The right of way will be acquired to help improve the sight distance
and safety at the Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard intersection. Temporary construction
easements may also be required along the property's edge on Shaw Road and Bragg
Boulevard.
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic property, have been
evaluated: (a) do nothing; (b) improve existing without using 4(f) land; (c) build on new
location. The do nothing alternative does not provide any additional capacity or safety
measures to Bragg Boulevard. Improving Bragg Boulevard without the use of the 4(f)
property would result in unique engineering and safety problems. Constructing a facility
on new location that meets the purpose and need for the project would result in
substantial environmental impacts and would substantially increase the project cost.
Therefore, these alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
Measures to minimize harm include the restoration of landscaping along the
property in consultation with the property owner. This project has been coordinated with
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), whose correspondence has been included
in Appendix B of this document. Section 106 has been resolved and documented, and the
SHPO concurs with the proposed mitigation.
The programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation is included in Appendix A of this
document.
21
D. Community/Social Effects
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
Dense commercial development is located along both sides of Bragg Boulevard,
adjacent to the highway corridor. Residential development is generally found behind the
commercial areas, set away from Bragg Boulevard. Most of the residential areas were
built as part of the Bonnie Doone neighborhood, located just north of the US 401 Bypass,
or as dwellings for military personnel or families.
2. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
It is anticipated no residential or business relocations will be necessary as part of
this project.
3. Minority/Low-income Populations
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 is not anticipated to require the relocation of any homes or
businesses. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have any disproportionate impacts
on minority or low-income populations.
E. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning
Bragg Boulevard is surrounded by dense commercial development within the
Fayetteville City limits. The majority of the project area adjacent to the highway is zoned
commercial. Examples of businesses in this area include convenience stores, pawn
shops, car dealerships and offices or small manufacturing. Zoning for residential uses is
generally found behind the commercial areas, setback from Bragg Boulevard. One area,
located on the east side of the road and north of Shaw Road is zoned for a planned
neighborhood district.
As previously mentioned, the Fort Bragg Military Reservation is located north of
the project limits. Traffic is currently permitted to continue traveling along Bragg
22
Boulevard through the Reservation limits. Access is restricted at each of the intersections
with Bragg Boulevard in this area.
2. Future Land Use
The Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan was developed in 1996. The
recommended land use within the project area as documented in the Land Use Plan is not
significantly different from existing land use and zoning. The project area is within the
Urban Services Area and the Municipal Influence Area for Fayetteville. The intersection
of Bragg Boulevard and the US 401 Bypass and the area immediately adjacent to Bragg
Boulevard are classified as heavy commercial development. Outside of the commercial
areas, medium density residential development is recommended. On the east side of
Bragg Boulevard, north of Shaw Road, low density residential development is
recommended. This classification accommodates the planned neighborhood district
zoning.
Bragg Boulevard, within the project area, is designated a strip commercial street
segment. With this classification, the type of commercial development along the road
may be retained and enhanced, but expansion is not encouraged. The Land Use Plan also
recommends a specific study or plan be prepared for the East Fayetteville Area, which
includes the project area.
As mentioned in Section II-A-1, the Army has requested the portion of Bragg
Boulevard on.Fort Bragg be closed to through traffic. This closure will occur following
completion of the Fayetteville Outer Loop between Bragg Boulevard and Murchison
Road (TIP Projects U-2519 and X-2) and the widening of Murchison Road from the outer
loop to Bragg Boulevard north of Fort Bragg (TIP Project U-4444). Right of way and
construction schedules have not been established for TIP Project U-4444; therefore, it has
not been determined when access to Fort Bragg from Bragg Boulevard will be restricted.
F. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land. acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. Land which has been previously developed or
planned for development by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements of
the Act.
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 project area meets the planned urbanization
23
condition, as it is currently zoned for commercial and residential development.
Therefore, no further consideration of farmland impacts is required.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cumberland County and the City of Fayetteville currently participate in the
National Flood Insurance Regular Program. There are no floodplain or major stream
crossings within the project limits; therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will
not adversely affect floodplains in the project vicinity. Figure 5 presents streams and
floodplains in the project area.
H. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect the proposed
widening will have on noise levels in the project area. Future year noise levels, both with
and without the proposed project, were predicted. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction
noise (Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations).
1. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise levels were taken in the immediate vicinity of the project to
determine existing background noise levels. The existing background equivalent sound
level (Leq) was 71.9 dBA.
2. Analysis Results
Table 9 presents anticipated noise impacts, both with and without the project, in
the year 2030.
Table 9
Anticipated Noise Impacts in the Year 2030
Homes Businesses
Build 0 35
No-Build 0 27
As shown in Table 9 above, it is anticipated the proposed project will result in
traffic noise impacts to 35 commercial receptors in the year 2030. Traffic noise impacts
occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either approach (within 1 dBA) or exceed
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement criteria, or substantially
24
exceed the existing noise levels. Table 1 in Appendix C outlines FHWA's noise
abatement criteria.
The predicted noise level increases for this project is +1 to +4 dBA. When real-
life noises are heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as
a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 109.4 and
190.7 feet, respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This information
should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over properties adjacent to
the roadway, in order to prevent further development of activities or land uses which
would be incompatible with predicted traffic noise levels.
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Noise abatement measures were considered for all impacted receptors.
Alternatives examined included highway alignment adjustments, traffic system
management measures, noise barriers, and the "no build" alternative.
None of the traffic noise abatement alternatives were considered feasible.
Highway alignment changes would not be practical as a noise abatement measure due to
increased impacts on the surrounding businesses and residences. Traffic management
measures limiting vehicle type, speed, and time of operations would not be appropriate
due to the negative effect on the capacity and level-of-service of the proposed roadway.
Noise barriers are not considered reasonable measures for this project because of the
number of openings required for businesses and other establishments along the roadway.
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. The "no-build"
alternative is also not feasible due to the capacity and safety benefits of the project. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 27 impacted commercial receptors would experience
traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria.
General construction noise impacts from paving operations and/or from earth
moving equipment may temporarily interfere with the conversations of individuals living
or working near the project or passing by the construction area. 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, the Federal/State governments will not be responsible for
providing noise abatement measures for new development within the noise impact area
25
for building permits which are issued following the date of the final environmental
document for the project (date of public knowledge).
1. Air Ouality Analysis
The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been designated by the
Environmental Protection Agency as a nonattainment area for ozone on April 15, 2004.
Cumberland County is under an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the
noriattainment designation has been deferred until September 30, 2005. 40 CFR Parts 51
and 93 are not applicable until September 30, 2006 (one year after the nonattainment
designation becomes effective).
The Bragg Boulevard intersection with Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road was selected
to analyze air quality impacts of the proposed project. The "worst-case" predicted 1-hour
average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2010, 2015, and 2030 are
6.30, 6.80, and 7.40 parts per million (ppm), respectively. Comparison of the predicted
CO concentrations to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) indicates no
violation of these standards. The maximum permitted CO concentrations by NAAQS are
35 ppm for a 1-hour averaging period and 9 ppm for an 8-hour averaging period. Since
the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis are less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be performed 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.
J. Hazardous Materials
The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit performed a field reconnaissance survey for the
project. In addition, a public record review was conducted to identify any known
regulated underground storage tanks (UST) facilities, hazardous waste or dumpsites,
regulated landfills and Superfund sites.
Based on the field reconnaissance survey and records search, no items of concern
were found within the project corridor. However, there is the possibility unregulated
USTs or unregulated landfills may exist within the proposed right of way limits. If a site
with unregulated USTs or landfills is identified, a preliminary site assessment will be
performed prior to right of way acquisition.
K.. Geodetic Survev Markers
A Geodetic Control Index Map for Cumberland County was examined for
geodetic markers located near the proposed project. No geodetic markers appear to be
26
within the construction limits of the project, therefore no impacts are anticipated.
However, if it is determined the project will impact any geodetic survey markers in the
area, the NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow
resetting of monuments.
L. Indirect/Cumulative Effects
As mentioned in Section V-E, Bragg Boulevard is surrounded by dense
commercial development within the Fayetteville City limits. Therefore, the proposed
project is not likely to promote increased development along much of the corridor.
However, the land use at the northern end of the proposed project is less dense. This area
is also in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with the Fayetteville Outer Loop.
Development in this location may or may not necessitate rezoning, as some of the area is
currently zoned for a planned neighborhood district.
The proposed project is anticipated to provide improved conditions for existing
roadway users rather than generation of new users. However, the connection with the
Fayetteville Outer Loop may produce new trips or new users along the Bragg Boulevard
corridor.
The proposed project is not anticipated to have any direct impacts on the
abandoned RCW cluster (CC 16) or the seven unassigned RCW cavity trees located
within the one-half mile survey corridor. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to
have "no effect" on the red-cockaded woodpecker. At this time, it is not known if the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop project will also impact these clusters or cavity trees.
Cumulative impacts resulting from the Fayetteville Outer Loop project will be identified
and discussed in that project's environmental document.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop for the project was held on March 30, 2000.
Property owners adjacent to Bragg Boulevard were notified about the meeting with
informational flyers distributed by mail and advertisements in the local paper. An aerial
photograph showing the proposed project was displayed and informational handouts were
available to workshop participants. Staff from both NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville
were available to answer questions. There was very little public participation at the
workshop. One citizen suggested acquiring property from the west side of the highway.
They stated that since the railroad is no longer used, acquiring property from that side
could be done with little trouble and inconvenience. No other written comments about
the project were received.
27
B. Public Hearin
A public hearing will be held following approval of this document. The public
hearing will allow the public to view more detailed information than previously available
at the citizens informational workshop and will provide a forum for public comments.
C. Agency Coordination
Comments regarding the proposed project were requested from various federal,
state and local agencies. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
An asterisk designates that comments were received from that agency.
*U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Army - Fort Bragg, Public Works Business Center
*U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation
*N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*City of Fayetteville
*Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
28
w)
F WA
1007 /
Foh
Q ?
all
t
014
SOUTva-
(t8 . ` LOW Ro
?.0
END PROJECT Lake
4 7 Kombow
( ?i f ? Lmce •
1 1 \\ IL • .
j 1007 Z-3 ?? 9y I
m J
lop
BEGIN PROJECT
\ Bonr" Doom
\ \ 2?
/
T 1/15 ? , BVP 57
401
6-143*_ A
- , p It
o
/ M Study Corridor for Fayetteville Outer Loop
(not a part of this study)
111M TIP Project 03423 Corridor \
r 1 0 1 \
I MILES

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
e OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
TIP Project U-3423
Figure 1
?. ' ?,. 7 i I PRELIMINARY y + r rK
Bragg Boulevard
55 - pm 9
Proposed Outer 59200 __
Loop
(not a part of this
study)
Santa Fe Drive 38300
9 Pm- 55
(5,2)
Mike Street 1400
?' pm
10
60 (2,1)
Skibo Road 53700
55 - pm 9
(5,3).
38500 (8,4) N
13400 ? ? 4500
?
-? 50300
_______
_
_ ___ Proposed Outer

11300 ?-? 34500
? 11300 Loop
(not a part of this
O I
" Study)
O
m
O ?
N o
u'
43200
16000 ? 1? 2200 14200
Shaw Road

12100• 10200
800
O
O
O
,
N
38900
39200
500 ?
? } 1800
?? 4000
Johnson Street

41
600 300

900

10 Pm?

60
(2,1)
O
O
rn
O
M
39400
0000 =ADT (vpd)
DHV Fac =Design Hourly Volume (%) at K30
K30 =30th highest hourly volume as (%) of ADT
D =Directional Flow (%)
-0 =Direction of D
am/pm =am or pm peak
(0,0) Trucks (Dual, TTST)
pm
10 - 1 60
(4,3)
(DHV) (D)
(Trucks)
10600 } 4100 41900 Skibo Road -
-? 34900 US 401 Bypass
82004-1 900 9 Pm h' 55
(5,3)
O
O
ti
N
35800
Bragg Boulevard
U-3423
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
2010 ADT
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3A
Proposed Outer _ 86100 -
Loop
(not a part of this
. study)
Santa Fe Drive 38900
9 - mb 55
(5,2)
Mike Street 2000
60 4 pm 10
(2,1)
Skibo Road 71400
55 4 pm 9
(5,3)
0000 =ADT (vpd)
DHV Fac =Design Hourly Volume (%) at K30
K30 =30th highest hourly volume as (%) of ADT
D =Directional Flow (%)
-0 =Direction of D
am/pm =am or pm peak
(0,0) Trucks (Dual, TTST)
pm
10 P 60
(4,3)
(DHV) (D)
(Trucks)
Bragg B oulevard

43500 m

s
55 ? (8,4)

N
18900 ?
? ? 6300
?
? 73500
__ _______
_
_ _______ Proposed Outer

15700 ?-? 51500
? 15700 Loop
f
hi
t
s
(not a part o
o EI
` v study)
M
r ??
o

49700 U
14700 ? ? 2600
? 17900
? Shaw Road

12100?i ?-? 12100
? 3200
O
O
N
M
47700
48700
700 ?
? ? 2400
?- 5300
Johnson Street

900
44 400

500

10 pm 10 60
(2,1)
O
O
O
LO
49000
14200 ? 5600
? 55800 Skibo Road -
-?
46200 US 401 Bypass
11000 000 9 55
(5,3)
O
O
N
O
N
44200
Bragg Boulevard
U-3423
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
2030 ADT
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 313
TIP PROJECT U-3423
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION

10' 14'
7El(ISTIN
5' SIDEWALK
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
`•+, „ R" o°' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive?Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
TIP Proiec# U-3423

VAR. 100' TO 120'
12' 12' 20' 12'
r15' 151
Figure 4
12' 14 10'
2'
24
87
TIP PROJECT U.4719 -
J Spring Lake
paps pjl ? ? TIP PROJECT X-2
Q Fans Bass -? \ i 6 TIP PROJECT U4444
24 = I I'\h,'..i'J' ?, ???• •• /- /' 301
87
?• SUBJECT PROJECT,
TIP PROJECT U-3423 _ II
BYP
II ? . 401 • ?.,_
?. BUS
I TIP PROJECT U-2911 95
301
` 95
¦ ??`r "? ti' , FAYETTEVILLE ff o_ I
eas _ ?401 _ • Q ?? ',_` ( -' 7' ,l I ' I
4
59
p `- /' % 95 FaysesvWMJ Op /
Hope Mills,
'` Fees PoyBf
• • •L ~ TIP PROJECT U-2519 \\95
O? RJR J jI ?e t, J , 1 \ -
,FO'F?`? oe?SONOOO oo,? , ? I
\ ` I 87 J
Pardon i ) O
71
e' - / \
\ 301 F O ) o oe NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
20 - 1\ _ _ \ \ 1 ,,,o•'r ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ti
-i \ Fayetteville Area TIP Projects
95
1 \ '
1 0 1 2 3 ?
MILES ?"4,
Figure 6
APPENDIX A
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)
EVALUATION
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT: NHF-24(12)
STATE PROJECT 8.1443401
TIP. PROJECT. U-3423
Description: Widening of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project U-2519). The existing
roadway will be widened to three travel lanes in each direction with a raised
median and curb and gutter.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics, ?
safety, and/or physical condition of the X
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location?
F-1 X
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the ?
existing highway? X
4. Does the project require the removal or -
alteration of historic buildings, F-1 X
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are ? X
important to preserve in place rather -
than to recover for archaeological
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) ?
site considered minor (i.e. no effect, X
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic ? X
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
determination of "no adverse effect"?
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed X ?
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation
of an EIS? ' ? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do nothing
Does the "do nothing" alternative
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create a cost or impact of
extraordinary measure?
Yes No
X ?
? X
? X
? X
? X
2. Improve the hiahwav without usine the
adjacent historic site
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining walls,
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
X
1-1
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii, unique engineering,
ransportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
F-I
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facili . on new ?
location without using the historic site. X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X
historic integrity of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been ?
agreed to, in accordance with 36 CFR X
Part 800, by the FHWA, the SHPO,
and as appropriate, the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
NCDOT will coordinate with the property owner regarding the restoration of landscaping
along the Buena Vista property, if necessary.
Type II clearing methods will be used during construction to minimize the removal of
vegetation in this location.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see Appendix B
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation not applicable
c. Property owner see attached
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies see Appendix B
e. US Coast-Guard not applicable
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Appr ved:
8.? O'1
Date
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch,
SLAIZ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 14, 2004
John Shaw
Post Office Box 1656
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302
Dear Mr. Shaw:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Widening of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project U-2519),
Cumberland County, TIP Project U-3423
The subject project proposes to widen NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401
Bypass to the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project U-2519). The existing roadway will
be widened to three travel lanes in each direction with a raised median and curb and gutter.
Staff from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) recently met to discuss anticipated impacts the
proposed project would have on the National Register of Historic Places eligible property, Buena
Vista. It was determined the proposed widening of Bragg Boulevard will have no adverse effect
if NCDOT restores any landscaping within the construction easement in consultation with the
property owner. A signed concurrence form stating this commitment is attached.
Please take time to review the form, in particular the, environmental commitment for no
adverse effect. Please contact me with any questions or comments. I can be reached by mail at
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1548, by phone at [phone], extension 247
or by email at [e-mail]. I would appreciate receiving any comments you have by
June 28, 2004. If you do not own property within the National Register eligible boundary of
Buena Vista, please disregard this letter. Furthermore, I would appreciate being contacted if you
can provide me with mailing information for the appropriate property owner(s).
Letter sent to property owners of Buena Vista. Mr. John Shaw telephoned the Project Development
Engineer on June 30, 2004 to discuss the proposed project and potential impacts to the Buena Vista
property.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1W MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITEE: WWW.DOH.DOT. STATE. NC. LIS RALEIGH NC
fuLE1GH NC 2762P-154F
If you have any questions regarding the form, please contact Mary Pope Furr, Historic
Architecture Supervisor, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at (919) 715-
1620.
Sincerely,
edlr?
Alethia Raynor, PE
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
Cc: Rob Hanson, Assistant Branch Manager, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Carl Goode, Office of Human Environment, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
David Brook, Administrator, State Historic Preservation Office
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS RECEIVED

July 3, 2000
Ms. Alethia Raynor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Ms. Raynor:
The widening of Bragg Boulevard is included as a project in the current Transportation
Improvement Program. The project is listed as U-3423.
The City of Fayetteville has an interest in the construction of sidewalk on Bragg
Boulevard. The City has recently completed the construction of sidewalk on the westside
of Bragg Boulevard from downtown to 401 Bypass. When Bragg Boulevard is widened,
the City would like to participate with DOT on continuing the sidewalk on the westside.
You may forward a municipal agreement to me for the project. I will be happy to process
the agreement and return it for execution.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Jimmy Teal,
Chief Planning Officer
43:1 HAY STREET
FAYF..T,rEVILL.E. NC 28301.5537
[phone]
An Equal Opportunity. Affirmative Artion Employcr
Mr. Rick Ileicksut. SecretarN
Post Office Box 1829
Fayetteville. NC 28302
Telephone [phone]
FA \ [phone]
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE E .-MAIL: nccickscn(a!co.LYimb?rland.nc.ux
FAYETTEVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
MAYOR EDWIN S. DEAVER
CHAIRMAN
[phone]
October 6, 2001
Memorandum
To: Alethia Raynor
PD&EA Branch
N C Department of Transportation
1548 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
From: Rick Heicksen, Secretar j?_
Subjedi: Project U-3423 use of abandoned rail line
COUNCILNI:IN MARK KENDRICK
VICE-CHAIRMAN
[phone]
In the past the MPO has requested that the abandoned rail line along Bragg Boulevard be
protected for future Passenger Rail service from Ft. Bragg to Fayetteville and for use by Ft.
Bragg in case of major deployment.
In 1990 when all the major units deployed from Ft. Bragg they did not need to use this rail line.
The current track on Ft Bragg is owned by Ft. Bragg and because of limited marshalling areas
this track is also used for marshaling. Ft. Bragg due to recent events is now a limited access
base.
Considering the above the MPO is not apposed to the use of the abandoned rail line as a part of
Project U-3423.
If you need any further assistance please let me know.
Email copy: William Gilmore PE, Manager PD&EA Branch
('ONTINI'rN - Cll,l/r'rUillh.?.Sri r•: l'oom.'/r I r71 1. I'm I \si'mu I I /ON P/. I N \r \f,

James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 26 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
..a SrATp Q,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transpo 'on '
David Brook pj?_
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
,,
3• ?l-f a y,
Proposed Improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd.) from US 401 Bypass to Butner
Road, TIP No. U-3423, Cumberland County, 00-E-4220-0162
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
On July 29, 1999, April Alperin of our office attended a scoping meeting concerning the above project.
At that meeting the Keithville Rental Units and the Shaw-Gillis House were identified as properties
determined eligible for the National Register that may be within the Area of Potential Effect for the above
project. At the July 29th meeting, we requested that an architectural historian with NCDOT identify and
evaluate any other properties over fifty years of age within the project area and report the findings to us.
To date, we have not received any documentation regard either request. We look forward to receipt of the
requested information and further consultation on this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:ldb At the time of the scoping meeting, the project limits extended further north along Bragg Boulevard to end
at Butner Road in Fort Bragg. The Keithville Rental Units were listed (in the above letter) as a National
cc: B. Church Register eligible property potentially within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project. Since that
time, the State Historic Preservation Office has determined this property is no longer within the APE (see
concurrence form, this appendix). Therefore, the Keithville Rental Units were not discussed in the Historic
Architectural Resources section of this document.
August 20, 1999 correspondence from April Alperin stated the Shaw-Gillis House was incorrectly cited as
being in the area of the project. She stated the Buena Vista property should have instead been identified as
a property potentially within the project's APE.
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
xi STATE
-1z
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
August 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development-.and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook Deputy State stc Preservation Officer
Re: Widening of NC 24/87 (Bragg Boulevard), from US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville to
Butner Road in Fort Bragg, TIP No. U-3423 Cumberland County, CH 00-E-4220-0162
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 2000, transmitting the survey report by Sarah LeCount,
NCDOT concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
the criterion cited:
Stryker Golf Course is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion C (Design Construction) as a rare example of the untouched work
of an internationally prominent golf course architect, Donald Ross. We concur with
the boundaries as noted on page 17 of the report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
The Historic Architectural Report prepared for this project examined properties along Bragg Boulevard
from the US 401 Bypass to Butner Road in Fort Bragg. Since the time of the report, the project limits have
been shortened. The State Historic Preservation Office has determined Stryker Golf Course (listed in the
letter above) is no longer within the Area of Potential Effect for the project (see concurrence form, this
appendix). Therefore, Stryker Golf Course was not discussed in the Historic Architectural Resources
Section of this document.
di„ STATE ?.?
r?`a 4y
yr - .1Z
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook 01 t f?
Deputy State Hist is Preservation Officer
Re: Proposed Improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd.) from US 401
Bypass to Bunter, TIP No. U-3423, Cumberland County, ER 99-9317
Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources, which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction.
We, therefore recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: T. Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] 715-4801
rrrr •?
I n___.n
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
Widening of NC 24/87 (Bragg Blvd.) from US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville to
utner Road in Fort Bragg
On Nov. 14, 2000 , representatives of the
V North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:

NCDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
R resentative, SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
Date
Date
l?
14/ o
ate
(over)

Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
;Q_ ??vlll? V?c?ti"rC?l V?'?it5 ( _"
Jt/
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
Gol Course, (_DE - MO
FCI low, ????1 ?'CY^1 r1" ?kC?t cv ???? ???4 ??
&ms, hr?q ROWS I ne-
e r`
u L ?'.c? i s c? O) E) -- 1Q)C) artc-)e C ?Ve.d- of i ?h O'u c to y
iv? ? ` C I'?V i t'0 Y1 f'Y`L-bL C ! CO Yl' Nm_ nuAt
NC DCfT v`- t 1 r ? S?z, r4P 1rj 1OJ w
{ tt? 0,) C'Gl'15 ;f fa ??'1
I nv- con,?,huchon ea5?l ?,
I
C' `YReason(s) why effect is not adverse (if a plica?bl). I ?'? n raj .
Initialed: NCDOT P-ip-?-_ FHWA
SHPO ??
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 28, 1999
A1T7V%VJ
NCDENR
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of NC 24-87 from Butner Road to the 401 Bypass in
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-24(12), State Project No.
8.1443401, TIP U-3423 A&B.
Reference your correspondence dated June 25, 1999 in which you requested comments for the widening of
NC24-87 (TIP U-3423 A&B). Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts
to perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. 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. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that
the Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact 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), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/28/99
Page 2
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. 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.
I. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. 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.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. 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.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/28/99
- 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] or [e-mail].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3423\comments\U3423 scoping comments.doc
Ukkk&-4 "` L A-1

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
September 29, 1999
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd.) from US 401 Bypass to
Butner Road, Cumberland County; TIP #U-3423
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 00-E-4220-0162. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 11/22/1999 . Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
ooO? -
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
?k FC
E^ ,?
rrE ?r1 ??
n 1?n
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
...J
i
y?' .??wto
W.r
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
November 23, 1999
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re; SCH File # 00-E-4220-0162; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd.) from
US 401 Bypass to Butner Road, Cumberland County; TIP #U-3423
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
6?? 45;? e-
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region M
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 29, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

- n

^?. r? n

Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
proposed improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road,
Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3423). 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 the existing
roadway to provide three travel lanes in each direction, a raised median, and curb and gutter.
Bicycle accommodations and sidewalks are under consideration. Additional right-of-way may
have to be obtained for portions of the project.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people.
Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
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.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Fayetteville and Manchester 7.5 Minute
Quadrangles does not show any apparent wetland resources along the project corridor. 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. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. 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:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. 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);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
2
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,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached page identifies the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Cumberland County. Habitat requirements for the
federally-listed species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for
the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation should include survey
methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should be
included in the document regarding protected species:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
3
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation.
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
FSC's include 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 Mr.
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
r /
eo? M. Hefner
r
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (Dave Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCWRC, Creedmore, NC (David Cox)
USEPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Alethia Farless)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/28/99:919/856-4520 extension 32:\u-3423.tip
4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources + .
Division of Water Quality
.w.zl=I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director NCDENR
November 1, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melb
Through: John
From: John
41
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401
Bypass to Butner Road in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-24(12), State
Project No. 8.1443401, TIP U-3423, DENR No. OOE-0162.
Reference your correspondence dated September 10, 1999 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. Impacts to waters with a water quality
classification of WS IV are likely. The impacts could occur to waters of the Little Cross Creek (DWQ
index number 18-27-4-(1)) in the Cape Fear Basin. 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. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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.
D. 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
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
11/03/99
Pa-e 2
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.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. 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.
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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(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 211.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. 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.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
11/03/99
Paae 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
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3423\comments\U-3423 scoping comments 2.doc
All
Aig?
NCDENR
`JAMES B. HUNT JR.
"GOVERNOR

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
November 16, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM:
Stephen Hall
J?
SUBJECT:
Scoping - Improvements to Bragg Boulevard, Fayetteville
REFERENCE: OOE-0162
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for several colonies of red-
cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis), federally and state listed as Endangered,
from both sides of Bragg Boulevard where it passes through Fort Bragg. Widening of
Bragg Boulevard may have potential impacts on both foraging habitat and cavity trees
used by this species. We therefore recommend that a careful survey be conducted to
identify all possible impacts, both direct and indirect, and that the US Fish and
Wildlife Service be consulted regarding ways to avoid, minimize, or compensate for
these impacts.
1615 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27 699-1 6 1 5
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

, .
t% 5.1v
.,o.?.:.,a....,....
Commission
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733 3391 Y? ??,yyYR?yR?? y y !?
} Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director.
E
' ,;.-MEMORANDUM ,:? •f: _ ?,?
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
T?.j?' . ?: " ! •.:?,: R
FROM David Cox; Highway Project C
Habitat Co
s>1 ? _? ;. nservation Progr
DATE: November 16, 1999
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the NC 24-87 (Bragg
Boulevard) widening, from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road, Cumberland
County, North Carolina. TTP No. U-3423, SCH Project No. 00-E-0162.

This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
°a A ?r, NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
f r =?. the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
„ ; Y...(NCWRC} have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 11 .4332 2 c and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16!'-.,;I-_
F U S C. 661-667d). K
syEki t t'i ,! .'Di}i :f?• ?^ ?{ a 1 a.F iK pafY3k{ Fd.X93urJ_
"M ..F... At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
k ;. process, our general informational needs fire outlined below:,: nY.ti„e ?i ;t
Y+QIi. ? y R.wa,?. ... .r,rx f'L?F i r• ?f t? r ;w .A<.n aft wt
1 Description of fishery and wildlifo;resow?ees :within'the project'arca,
F , ; .x -, including a listing of federally or. state designated threatened, eh angered, , n.
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for prQiect
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
sap, 't
Plant SPCC ICS can be developed through consultation with:.
mmr- -4
:. ? ..f . ; 3, =`The Natural Heritage Program"aat_ t" }
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
y,>h 1615 Mail Service Center -
Raleigh, N. C. 27699 -1615
[phone]
and,
` lr R!t x
..SS.S

Memo 2 November 99

1fi,I
9
W l i1, u .. E -
t
?7•a3e`? fp* _.
?1^-' p4?' °1•' ? ,' t"?a

,'
__ _y A?..e'Y ^'KS ?ts.{.Yt {, 4A i. y.R t?.ytl 3 '? F ?' '.c
y NIF pf.ry`/t ..'±.r,••?•[?
,
, ..i
- '4 a•.P7"!
4^" 7 x r
i
+?
•?g!G'
'?"
?
n l
,
_
,
_
1
...
'^.i
t
?
?' k
NCDA Plant Conservation Program .P
y
0 B

?• ?? =. ..
ox 27647 y
zmawlw *s - ,
?, ?? , ? ? >Ralei
C:`27b11` ` " '`'' ,mss ? n ?;
h, N
'y: g
.
[phone] 44pi?
?
`
... .... ...
- .. ., .+..a.:. ..... r^ i -r' t-. t E•., a;: s
s14>.::'s , `'? ,?,?. rG.tl :MA-
tt??y''i?..?•r 't"t3
?? .-.
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.
:,'1'Y9Tlw ?.:.Z+ggMif .?r„ •... . '. +iv ..... .. :, .•.,n ':EK.",td i;mnt.:.t„i:'•±:.ij...i-iT?;::: :•±1."•I:';.:}.i w..x..: .l- ;Tt .-?i w1,J VTFi'•k•t!r`o'/rfi:?'.T... :?>..
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project -
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
,,w ?;;:....:.,... coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE.
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified arnd
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project.-Potential borrow sites should be included."
" S The extent to which the 'ect will result in loss, degradation, or
prof
?fragmentatipn of v?nldlife habitat (wetlands or uplands) -r„? ,
i». .ra•2?k ?s'cat .,. w:.itsF'akr..xx? »xru3tiw x ;rtc?cs: snuff
ie?i fA- b Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
f`?i t degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses .J.
r?ema!'.l. y?:r .... _ +f't•;` tit' g. y1, 5,.c e,. ti: -fe,? ??,r fr PI',? ?. ?'°''?``.; Q}E.
:} L
cumulative impact assessment section.which analyzes thc'cnvironmental`i
*? t} y elY`ecls of highway construction and uantifiesAthe contributio o this'l '
..;individual project to environmental degradation_ Vii= t i#.E, ' . .
K. A discussiciri cif,the prob4bl0,1mpacts on'natural resources'wluch? }1I,?c salt
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road it ss?-M
. a ^,._ yti (.i•s. 1 ti`?y>T 'li'??Jl? i ?:..` 'tom
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
.x Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for - w? ?>Aw ri
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact. me at.(9.19) 528.-9886,E ;s
i
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 18, 2000
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to your letter of September 10, 1999, requesting preliminary
comments on "NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road,
Cumberland County, F.A. Project No. NHF-24(12), State Project No. 1443401, TIP
Project No. U-3423" (Regulatory Division Action ID No. 200000187).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps constructed flood control or
navigation project. Our Regulatory Division has commented previously on this project
by letter dated October 8, 1999. Enclosed are our comments on flood plains.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
VCC man Long
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosure
January 18, 2000
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road, Cumberland County,
F.A. Project No. NHF-24(12), State Project No. 1443401, TIP Project No. U-3423"
(Regulatory Division Action ID No. 200000187).
FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
Based on a review of Panels 75 and 115 of the February 1982 Cumberland County.
Flood Insurance Rate Map, the proposed project is not located in an identified flood
hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of one of your site maps, which is a portion
of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topographic map of the area.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
December 30, 2003
A ?
Alethia Raynor, PE
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Raynor:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 23, 2003 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusions of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation for seven federally threatened or endangered species for the proposed widening of
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Shaw Road / Santa Fe Drive)
in Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3423). The existing road will be widened to
accommodate a six-lane, median-divided facility with curb and gutter. The seven species are as
follows:
Common Name Scientific Name Biological Conclusion
Saint Francis's satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci No effect
small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides No effect
pondberry Lindera melissifolia No effect
rough-leaved loosestri.fe Lysimachia asperulao-folia No effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana No effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis No effect
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs that the project will have no effect on the Saint
Francis's satyr, small whorled pogonia, pondberry, rough-leaved loosestrife and American
chaffseed. According to the information provided, a survey was conducted for Michaux's sumac
on June 21, 2001 and July 30, 2003. No specimens of Michaux's sumac were observed. Due to
the negative survey results, the Service concurs that the project may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect Michaux's sumac.
According to the Biological Assessment prepared by Dr. J.H. Carter Ill and Associates and dated
October 24, 2003, all red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat within the project corridor and
within one-half mile on either side of the corridor was surveyed for cavity trees in March and
April 2003. One abandoned RCW cluster (CC 16) and seven unassigned relic cavity trees are
located within a one-half mile radius of the proposed project. No active RCW clusters were
located. Due to the absence of active clusters within a one-half mile radius of the project, the
Service concurs that the project will have no effect on the RCW.
We believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if- (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
APPENDIX C
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
TABLE 1
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
s

f
w
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
FA Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in L.eq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.

U12@[q0WqRN
O C T 1 9 2004
DENR - WATER QUq?,1n.
TtANpS AND S1b gTER BROO
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 0
GOVERNOR
October 26, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Robert P. Hansen, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Engineering Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
FROM: Jeffrey Burleson, Environmental Bioiogist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for NC 24-87
(Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville to
Butner Road in Fort Bragg, widen to six lanes,
Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-
24(12), State Project No. 8.1443401, TIP Project No. U-
3423.
ATTENTION: Alethia F. Raynor, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Engineering Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with
analyses of probable impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of project
construction. Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected species is
also provided, with respect to regulatory concerns which must be considered.
Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report copied onto disk
format.
Cc: File: U-3423
WIDENING OF NC 24/87 (BRAGG BOULEVARD) TO SIX LANES
FROM US 401 BYPASS IN FAYETTEVILLE TO BUTNER ROAD IN FORT BRAGG
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP NO. U-3423
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1443401
FEDERAL PROJECT NO. NHF-24(12)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
U-3423
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
JEFFREY BURLESON
ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
October 26, 2000
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~ TRANSPORTATION
j DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
.? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24 - 87 (BRAGG BOULEVARD) FROM
US 401 BYPASS TO BUTNER ROAD
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3423

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... .. 1
1.2 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................. ..1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... ..2
1.4 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................ .. 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... ..3
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................. .. 3
2.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................................... .. 3
2.3 WATER RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. .. 6
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ........................................................................... .. 6
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .................................................................. .. 7
2.3.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. .. 7
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .................................................. .. 8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ ..9
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. 10
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed ..................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Managed Pine/hardwood Forest ................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Perennial Stream ........................................................................................................... 12
3.2 WILDLIFE .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna .......................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Aquatic Fauna .............................................................................................................. 14
3.3 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................... 14
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts ........................................................................................................ 14
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts ............................................................................................................ 16
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 16
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................................ 17
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands Impacted .......................................................................... 17
4.1.2 Characteristics of Surface Waters Impacted ............................................................... 17
4.1.3 Permits ......................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.4 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.4.2 Minimization ........................................................................................................................ 1
8
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................................... 19
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................................ 20
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........................................................................................ 20
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ................................................. 26
5.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................29
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area .......................................................4
Table 2. Water resources located within the project area ................................6
Table 3. Project study area surface waters and characteristics ......................7
Table 4. Anticipated impacts to terrestrial communities ................................15
Table 5. Federally protected species for Cumberland County .......................20
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species for
Cumberland County .....................................................................................27
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area and Topography
Figure 3. Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites and Water Resources
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
project. The project lies in Cumberland County (Figure 1). The purpose of this
report is to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the
proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the
proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to
these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures
that will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may
affect the selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in
design criteria. Such environmental concerns should be addressed during the
preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses
contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the existing
preliminary, project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria
change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes constructing additional lanes (to six) on NC
24/87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville to Butner Road in
Fort Bragg. Project length is 7.8 km (4.9 mi). The purpose of this project is to
improve safety and increase traffic carrying capacity of NC 24/87 (Bragg
Boulevard) in Fayetteville and Fort Bragg. The proposed right of way varies
along the project; although, additional right of way may only be needed if the
alignment interferes with the Cape Fear Railroad line in Fayetteville. The project
has been divided into two sections, A and B. Section A (Station 0+0.0-125+0.0)
begins at the US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville and continues to the Fort Bragg
Reservation boundary. Section B (Station 125+0.0-292+0.0) begins at the Fort
Bragg Reservation boundary and continues to Butner Road.
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe
the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This
report also attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures that will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions are relevant
only in the context of existing design concepts. If design parameters and criteria
change, additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
2
1.3 METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed.
Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Fayetteville and Manchester).
USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Cumberland County, North Carolina
(1984).
NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity
Base Maps of Cumberland County(1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in
the study area was obtained from the FWS list of protected and candidate
species (June 26, 2000) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for
documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and locations of
significant natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT Environmental Biologists Logan Williams, Clay Willis, Sue Brady, Karen
Lynch, and Jeffrey Burleson on April 13, 2000 and on October 5, 2000. Water
resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and described.
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley
(1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et a!.
(1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped
utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife
community composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based
on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved using a
variety of observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on
vegetative communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on
criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environment Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental Management, 1995).
Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et al.
(1979).
3
1.4 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used
concerning the limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area"
denotes the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full
length of the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area
extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region"
denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute
USGS quadrangle map, i.e. [163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)].
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed
below with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site
topography significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction,
along with other possible construction limitations or management concerns.
Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased
potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from
construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of water
resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the
availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Cumberland County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of
Ndrth Carolina. In addition, the northwestern section of Cumberland County is in
the Sandhills region (Figure 1). The lower elevations are in the southeastern part
of the county where elevations can be less than 100 feet above sea level. The
northwestern part of Cumberland County reaches elevations of 270 feet above
sea level. The county is located in the Cape Fear River drainage basin and is
drained by tributaries running to the Cape Fear River. Significant geologic
features in Cumberland County are the Carolina bays ranging in size from less
than 1 acre to more than 1,000 acres. Soils in these areas are wet throughout
the year. These areas are located primarily in the southeastern Cumberland
County.
2.2 SOILS
Generally, soils are characterized into Soil Associations or "General Soil
Mapping Units" with consistent patterns of soil, relief, and drainage. The project
study area in Cumberland County lies within the Wagram-Faceville-Norfolk
4
"General Soil Mapping Unit". This soil unit is characterized by nearly level to
gently sloping, well-drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil on uplands.
There are nine soil types located in the project area. An inventory of these soils
can be found in Table 1. A brief description of each soil type is also provided.
Table 1. Soils occurring in the proiect area.
Map
Symbol Specific Mapping Unit % Slope Hydric Capability'
Unit
VaD Vaucluse loamy sand 8-15 Non- We
hydric
WgB Wagram-Urban land 0-8 Non- Not assigned
complex hydric
WaB Wagram loamy sand 0-6 Non- Its
hydric
BaD Blaney loamy sand 2-8 Non- Ills
hydric
LaB Lakeland sand 1-8 Non- IVs
hydric
LbB Lakeland-urban 1-8 Non- Not
land complex hydric assigned
GdB Gilead loamy sand 2-8 Non- Ille
hydric
Ur Urban land 0-6 Non- Not
hydric Assigned
VaD (Vaucluse loamy sand), 8-15 % slope -This is a well-drained soil located
on side slopes in uplands. This soil will likely be found in the northern and
western parts of Cumberland County. Permeability is moderately slow in the
upper part of the subsoil and slow in the lower part. Reaction ranges from
extremely acid through strongly acid in all horizons. The hazard of erosion is
'severe when the soil is exposed. Most areas in this soil are in woodland and
a few are in pasture or cropland. This soil is suited to most urban and
recreational uses. Slope can be a limitation to building site development.
• WgB (Wagram-Urban land complex), 0-8 % slope -This map unit consist of
areas of Wagram soil and areas of Urban land that are too small and too
intermingled to be mapped separately. Permeability is moderately rapid, and
available water capacity is low to medium. Reaction is very strongly acid or
strongly acid throughout the soil. Urban land consists of areas where the
original soil has been covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other
impervious surfaces. Slope is modified to fit the site and commonly ranges
from 0 to 4 percent.
• WaB (Wagram loamy sand), 0-6 % slope- This soil is well drained and
located on broad, smooth flats and side slopes of uplands. Permeability is
5
moderately rapid, and available water capacity is low to medium. Reaction is
very strongly acid or strongly acid throughout the soil. Most areas of this soil
are in cultivated crops. The rest are in pasture or woodland. This soil is well
suited to most urban uses.
• BaD (Blaney loamy sand), 2-8 % slope- This soil is well drained, located on
the side slopes and narrow ridges of uplands. It is mostly in the western and
northern parts of Cumberland County. Permeability is moderately slow, and
available water capacity is low. Reaction is very strongly acid or strongly acid
throughout the soil, except where the surface has been limed. The hazard of
erosion is moderate where the soil is exposed. A perched water table
frequently is above the brittle subsoil for brief periods after heavy rains.
• LaB (Lakeland sand), 1-8 % slope- This soil is well drained, located on broad
ridges of uplands and on rims of bays. Lakeland sand can be found all over
the county. Permeability is very rapid, and available water capacity is low.
Reaction is strongly acid to medium acid throughout the soil, except where
the surface has been limed. Most areas of in this soil are woodland and the
rest are in pasture and row crops.
• LbB (Lakeland-urban land complex), 1-8 % slope- This map unit consist of
areas of Lakeland soil and areas of Urban land that are too small and too
intermingled to be mapped separately. Permeability is moderately rapid, and
available water capacity is low to medium. Reaction is very strongly acid or
strongly acid throughout the soil, except where the surface has been limed.
Urban land consists of areas where the original soil has been covered by
concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other impervious surfaces. Slope is modified
to fit the site and commonly ranges from 0 to 4 percent.
• GdB (Gilead loamy sand), 2-8 % slope- This soil is moderately well drained,
located on side slopes along streams in uplands. Gilead loamy sand can be
found mostly in the northern and western portions of Cumberland county.
Permeability is moderately slow to slow. The hazard of erosion is moderate
where the soil is exposed. A perched water table frequently is above the
brittle subsoil for brief periods after heavy rains. Reaction is very strongly acid
to strongly acid throughout the soil, except where the surface has been limed.
Most areas of in this soil are woodland and the rest are in cultivated row
crops.
• Ur- (Urban land), 0-6 % slope- This map unit consist of areas that are more
than 85 percent urban. Urban land consists of areas where the original soil
has been covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other impervious
surfaces. Slope is modified to fit the site and commonly ranges from 0 to 4
percent. Nearly all of the precipitation is converted to runoff, which will
increase the flooding hazard in low-lying areas. Graded areas increase the
hazard of waterway and reservoir siltation.
6
2.3 WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning surface water resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments
include the physical characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality
aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major regional
drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also
discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project area is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear
River Basin is the largest river basin in the state and covers an area of 9,149
square miles in 24 counties. The basin is confined to the Piedmont, Sandhills,
and Coastal Plain ecoregions. The project is located in the Cape Fear subbasin
03-06-15, United States Department of Interior Hydrologic Unit 03030004. This
subbasin is located in the Sandhills ecoregion of the state and contains the city
of Fayetteville, the largest urban area, as well as the majority of the Fort Bragg
Military Reservation.
There are three water resources, which are three unnamed tributaries to
Little Cross Creek (UT 1, UT 2, and UT 3) (Table 2). Unnamed tributaries receive
the same DWQ classification as the unnamed tributary's receiving stream. Little
Cross Creek is classified by the N. C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as Class
WS IV. Class WS IV are waters protected as water supplies which are generally
in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Local programs to control
nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges of pollution shall be required;
suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses represents freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and
wildlife. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a minimum
(DEHNR 1997).
Table 2. Water resources located within the project area.
Water Station No. DEM Index Date Class Stream type
Resource
UT 1 to Little 26+80 18-29-4-(1) 8-3-92 WS IV Perennial
Cross Creek
UT 2 to Little 35+85 18-29-4-(1) 8-3-92 WS IV Perennial
Cross Creek
UT 3 to Little 143+50 18-29-4-(1) 8-3-92 WS IV Perennial
Cross Creek
7
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-1 or WS-11) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
There are three surface waters, UT 1, UT 2, and UT 3, located within the
project study area (Table 3). Current stream impacts are apparently the result of
residential and commercial development, and their associated impacts, such as
roadways, parking lots, and driveways. The topography in the project vicinity is
flat. All three streams were mechanically entrenched and had an abundance of
consumer refuse.
Table 3. Project study area surface waters and characteristics.
Water Channel Bank-full Stream Stream Receiving
Resource Width' Depth' Width' Flow Substrate2 Stream
UT 1 2 0.5 3 Very S, G Little Cross
slow Creek
UT 2 3 0.5 4 Very S, G Little Cross
slow Creek
UT 3 3.5 1 6 slow S, C, G Little Cross
Creek
' measured in feet
2 C=cobble, S=sand, Si=silt,
2.3.3 Water Quality
The DWQ is the state agency responsible for regulating and enforcing
Surface Water Quality rules. To accomplish this task the DWQ collects data on
the biological, chemical and physical condition of North Carolina surface waters.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by
the DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program
which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water
quality by sampling for benthic macroinverteb rate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Many benthic macroinverteb rates have stages in their life cycle that can
last from six months to a year. Therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will
not be overcome until the next generation (DEM, 1993). Different taxa of
macroi nverteb rates have different tolerances to pollution; thereby, long term
changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from
pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the
species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long
term water quality conditions.
8
"Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from
Poor to Excellent to each benthic sample based on the number of taxa present in
the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT)," (DEM,
1993). A biotic index is also developed for the macroinvertebrate samples by
summarizing tolerance data for all species in a given sample. A bioclassification
is derived from the data generated from the EPT and biotic index metrics. There
are no BMAN stations located directly above or below the project area.
Point source discharge is defined "as any discharge that enters surface
waters through a pipe, ditch or any other well-defined point. The term commonly
refers to discharges associated with waste water treatment plant facilities. In
addition, discharges from storm water collection systems at industrial sites and in
large urban areas are now considered point source discharges" (DEM, 1993).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted
point source dischargers located in the project study area.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through storm water or snowmelt (DEM, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve
as a source for various forms of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and
plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to erosion, which
can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause
of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina (DEM, 1993). Pesticides, chemical
fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to
receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
nutrients. Animal wastes can also be source of bacterial contamination and
elevate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained
soils enhances the transportation of storm water into surface waters (DEM,
1993). Within the project vicinity, there is predominately impervious surface in
the form of parking lots of major shopping centers, roadways, and private
residences. The water resources within the project area receive most of their
input from runoff from the surrounding impervious surfaces.
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project may result in impacts to water resources.
Land clearing and grubbing activities during project construction 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
9
moderating water temperature. The removal of streamside canopy will result in
fluctuating water temperatures. During warmer portions of the year, the water
temperature will increase, resulting in a decrease in dissolved oxygen because
warmer water holds less oxygen. Stream bank vegetation also stabilizes stream
banks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
The installation and/or extension of hydraulic modifiers such as culverts
and pipes during project construction typically results in sedimentation and
turbidity in stream resources. The placement of culverts and pipes in-stream
may result in alterations of the water level. This disruption of the stream reduces
stream flow downstream of the project. Temporary diversions of water flow will
raise the water level upstream from the project and lower the water level
downstream of the project. Additionally, they may accelerate water flow during
storm events, leading to stream bank scouring and substrate disturbance.
Locally, the construction of this project will increase the amount of
impervious area in the project study area and ultimately vehicular use in the
vicinity. This will directly lead to an increase in concentrations of toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) which may be carried into nearby water
resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased
amounts of toxic materials can adversely alter the water quality of any water
resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of
disturbance of the stream bank and substrate. Sedimentation from these
activities may be high during construction, but should diminish rapidly following
project completion when exposed soils are revegetated and stream banks
stabilized with native vegetation. Wooded buffers effectively trap organic
nutrients and sediments before they reach water resources. This will increase
long-term water quality and provide wildlife habitat.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described
and discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations is denoted with an
asterisk (*). Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
10
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references
to the same organism will include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley
1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better
reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms,
as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Rhode et al. 1994; Potter et al. 1980).
Recreational fishing potential was obtained from Fish (1968).
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two terrestrial communities are identified in the project area:
Maintained/Disturbed and Managed Pine Forest communities. Community
boundaries within the study area overlap. Faunal species likely to occur within
the study area will exploit all communities for shelter and foraging opportunities
or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community can be found throughout the project
study corridor. Several habitats are included in this description: road shoulders
and residential/commercial landscapes. Road shoulders are irregularly
maintained, receiving only periodic mowing and herbicide applications.
Residential and business landscapes receive more frequent mowing and general
maintenance.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding
communities by filtering storm water run-off. Vegetation occurring here includes
fescue (Festuca spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), horse nettle (Solanum
carolinensis), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), golden rod (Solidago
altisma), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), beggar's tick (Bidens sp.), elephant's ear
(Elephantophus tomentosa), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), clovers (Trifolium spp.),
chickory (Cichoruim intybus), violets (Viola spp.), and buckhorn plantain
(Plantago lanceolata). Areas receiving less frequent maintenance are occupied
by broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
blackberries (Rubus spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
goldenrods (Solidago spp.), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and ragweed
(Ambrosia artemissifolia).
11
Vegetation associated with residential and business landscapes includes:
flowering dogwood (Comus florida), Chinese dogwood (C. kousa chinensis),
forsythia (Forsythia sp.), azaleas (Rhododendron spp.), lilac (Syringa vulgaris),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), longleaf pine (P. palustris), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), various ornamental hybrids of hollies (Ilex spp.), Chinese fir
(Cunninghamia lanceolata), arbor vitae (Thuja sp.) and juniper (Juniperus sp.).
Fescue, clover, plantains and crabgrass (Digitaria sp.) dominate lawn areas.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
such that both are required for survival and reproduction.
3.1.2 Managed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The Managed Pine/hardwood Forest can be found throughout most of the
project area and is adjacent to the Perennial Stream and Maintained/Disturbed
communities.
This managed community has a canopy dominated by loblolly and
longleaf pine. The herbaceous layer is dominated by wire grass (Aristida stricta).
To a lesser degree, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Q. nigra),
post oak (Q. stellata), live oak (Q. virginiana), black jack oak (Q. marilandica),
turkey oak (Q. laevis), red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Q. a/ba) and
southern red oak are included in the canopy, subcanopy, and shrub layer of this
community. The understory in this community is sparce, due to the frequent
prescribed fire. However, some understory species will survive during extended
undisturbed periods between fire intervals, that include: magnolia (Magnolia
grandiflora), turkey oak, horse sugar (Symplocus tinctoria), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), American holly (Ilex opaca),
spprkleberry (Gayluccacia frondosa), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), blackberry,
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) red bay (Persea borbonia), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana) and flowering dogwood. The vine layer is dominated by
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), muscadine grape (Vitus
rotundifolia), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), bona-nox (S. bona-nox), cat brier,
wisteria (Wisteria frutescens), yellow jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens) and
Japanese honeysuckle.
This forest community can be found throughout the project area in
different stages of succession and age. This forest is manipulated using common
forestry practices, such as: frequent prescribed fire, selective harvesting, use of
herbicides, and planting. Using the current forest management techniques, this
forest habitat is being manipulated to favor federal and state protected species
inhabiting Fort Bragg Military Reservation.
12
3.1.3 Perennial Stream
There are three perennial streams located within the project study area,
unnamed tributaries to Little Cross Creek. The perennial stream community is
divided into two components: adjacent to a nonforested community and adjacent
to a forested community. The streambank vegetation found in the nonforested
component has the same vegetation as the surrounding community.
The streambank vegetation found in the forested component is more
diverse. Vegetation found in this community may include: black willow (Salix
nigra), river birch (Betula nigra), red maple, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
tag alder (Alnus sen-ulata), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), titi (Cyrilla
racemiflora), southern lady fern (Athyrium aspleniodes), netted chain-fern
(Woodwardia aerolata), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), Virginia
chainfern (Woodwardia virginica), viburnums (Viburnum spp.), Joe-pye-weed
(Eupatorium dubium), false nettle (Bohemeria cylindrica), and orange-spotted
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis).
3.2 WILDLIFE
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit all
biotic communities discussed. The maintained/disturbed community dominates
the project area. Nearly all the forested parcels within the project area have
received some degree of impact by human activities. Generally, the community
boundaries are abrupt, with little transitional area between them. Forested tracts
and drainage ways provide habitat for species requiring a forest community, and
also provide shelter and movement corridors for other species of wildlife within
the project vicinity.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna
The conglomeration of community types within the project area forms a
contiguous and diverse association of habitats, which allows for similarly
complex faunal components. Because of the disturbed nature of all of the
habitats in the project area, the faunal component is expected to consist mostly
of opportunistic animals able to adapt to the "edge" habitat created by human
activites. Conversely, species which require large undisturbed forested habitats
are likely to be absent from the project area. Herbivorous mammals, such as
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), frequent the vegetatively diverse "edges" of disturbed areas and
community borders.
13
Despite the disturbance of the forest areas by human-influenced activities,
a vertically stratified and complex habitat with abundant food and shelter
resources is available for a variety of fauna. The canopy strata provide a
plethora of food items including insects, mast and leaves. Primarily bird species,
such as red headed woodpecker (Melanverpes erythrocephalus), red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula),
golden-crowned kinglet (R. satrapa), brown creeper (Certhia familiaris),
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus
bicolor), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), pine warbler (D. pinus)*, gray catbird
(Dumetella carolinensis) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*, utilize the
canopy. However, gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis or H.
versicolor), and eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) also utilize this
stratum.
Many of the ground-dwelling species, including worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), southeastern crowned snake (Tantilla coronata), southeastern shrew
(Sorex longirostris), and woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum) are fossorial (living
in burrows). Other species occupying the forest floor include the American toad
(Bufo americanus), ground skink (Scincel/a lateralis) and eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina). Earthworms, insects and other invertebrates constitute the
majority of these species' diets. The woodland vole and eastern box turtle
consume mainly plant material and fungi.
Top predators expected to occur here include various hawks (Accipiter
spp. and Buteo spp.), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), black rat snake
(Elaphe constrictor), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix). These species are
important in maintaining populations of rodents, small birds and other small
animals. Because of the open, relatively non-stratified nature of
maintained/disturbed communities such as the roadside habitats, resident
vertebrate fauna, are generally small in size. Small mammals such as least
shrew (Sorex cinereus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and house
mouse (Mus musculus) are able to utilize the limited amount of vegetative cover
of unmowed road shoulders and fields. The burrowing eastern mole (Scalopus
aquaticus) is common in open areas bordering forested tracts. These small
mammals are important prey items for black rat snake, red fox (Vulpes vulpes),
red-tailed hawk (Bueto jamacensis)* and other birds of prey.
Faunal community complexity is a function of vegetative community
complexity. Few animals reside along roadsides because of the limited size and
complexity of the habitat. Various species of birds feed along roadsides on
seeds, berries and insects. Some of these species include the northern
cardinal*, American robin (Turdus migratorius)* and white-throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis). Snakes such as the black racer (Coluber constrictor)
14
and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) may venture into this habitat to
feed on insects and small mammals.
Virginia opossum and raccoon frequently forage nocturnally in these
habitats, or travel along roadways between habitats. These animals are often
road kill victims. Consequently road kills attract a large number of scavenger
species including turkey vulture (Carthartes aura)* and common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos)*, as well as domestic dogs and cats.
3.2.2 Aquatic Fauna
The aquatic communities impacted by the proposed project are the
unnamed tributaries to Little Cross Creek. Physical characteristics of the water
body and condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also influence
the aquatic community.
Species abundance and diversity within a stream are dependent on the
size and water quality of the water body. These first order streams within the
project area are generally too small to support a rich diversity of ichthyofauna, or
large individuals of representative species. These streams are likely to support
smaller individuals of the larger species such as fry and young of the year fish,
as well as those species that are generally small (in size).
The project area's surface water can be expected to provide habitat for a
limited number of aquatic organisms. Ichthyofauna is absent; however, several
aquatic insects may be found in this community, including: water strider (Gems
spp.), riffle beetle (Psephenus herricki), crane fly (Tipula spp.), stream mayfly
(Ephemeroptera) and black-winged damselfly (Calopteryx maculata). In
addition, the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R. palustris), Queen
snake (Regina septemvittata), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) may
occupy this community.
3.3 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC RESOURCES
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of the
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here
as well.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts
15
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community (Table 2). Project construction will result in the
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts
are derived using the proposed ROW width outlined in preliminary plan sheets
provided by NCDOT. Project construction does not usually require the entire
impact width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 4. Anticipated impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Impacted Area*
Section' A Section B TOTAL
Managed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.05(0.02) 4.65(1.88) 4.70(1.90)
Maintained/Disturbed 7.05(2.85) 37.61(15.22) 44.66(18.07)
TOTAL 7.10(2.87) 42.26(17.10)
*acres(hectares)
The biotic communities found within the project study area will be altered
as a result of project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting,
foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. The majority of the project study area is
located :in disturbed habitat. Additional disturbed habitats will be re-established
as roadside shoulder and other types of irregularly maintained communities after
project construction.
Most of the project study area is located within existing the travel corridor.
The impacted area outside of the existing project corridor will result in habitat
loss and habitat fragmentation. The forested tracts will become smaller and will
eliminate further habitat for plants and animals. Many vertebrates as well as
insects and plants have restrictive habitat requirements; the resulting landscape
disturbance may affect the long-term viability of these species once their habitats
are fragmented to a greater degree. The size of fragmented habitat areas is
always relative to the species of concern; however, fragmented areas more than
likely will disrupt continuity between populations of some animal and plant
communities. Species adapted to disturbed and edge habitat will thrive, while
species that require larger tracts will decrease or disappear due to competition or
habitat reduction.
Clearing and conversion of forested tracts for roadway development
eliminates nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for faunal organisms. Many
forested systems offer all of the necessary components (i.e. food, water, cover)
to support vertebrate species. The loss of this habitat will displace animals from
this area as they search for additional habitat. This may concentrate animals
into a smaller area that can cause degradation of remaining habitat and
increased mortality due to disease, predation, and starvation. Individual
mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals (moles, shrews, snakes, etc.)
from construction machinery used during clearing activities. Wildlife crossings
will become difficult and will result in an increase in roadkilis.
16
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of
aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, and stream banks). Disturbance of
aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by
reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical
alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities.
. Inhibition of plant growth.
Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the
burial of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic
substances and decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal.
Loss of benthic macroirive rtebrates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to construction
activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified
throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption
and/or additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level
may severely impact spawning activities of mobile and sessile organisms.
Construction runoff and highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species
inhabiting water resources.
The construction of this project will increase vehicular use in the project
vicinity. This may lead to the introduction of toxic compounds that may be
carried into water resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface
drainage.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the United States and Protected and
Rare Species.
17
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal
Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Surface
waters are used in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and
flow of tides, all interstate waters including interstate wetlands, and all other
waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes to
place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands Impacted
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified
in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to
be considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must be met; 1)
presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values among other indicators), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including;
saturated soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized root channels, matted vegetation, high
water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots. Using the
current design, there are no wetlands located within the project area.
4.1.2 Characteristics of Surface Waters Impacted
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet
of the stream that is located within the proposed ROW. Physical aspects of surface
waters are described in section 2.3.2. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters within
the project area could total, but not exceed, 50 linear feet of creek (proposed ROW).
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. Consequently, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water
quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) (Linear Transportation
Crossing) Permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers is likely to be
applicable for project construction at the crossing of Waters of the United States,
18
culvert extension in the unnamed tributaries to Little Cross Creek. A Nationwide
Permit 14 authorizes activities for the construction, expansion, modification, or
improvement of linear transportation crossings in Waters of the US, including
wetlands, and other special aquatic sites, provided the discharge does not cause
the loss of greater than 0.5 acre of Waters of the US.
This project will most likely require a 401 Water Quality Certification from
the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of
the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulation.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore
the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of, averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope
and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology
and logistics, in light of overall project purposes. Due to the nature of a roadway
widening project (symmetrical or asymmetrical), linear stream impacts to
perpendicularly-crossed channels are unavoidable. However, construction will
be contained within the existing ROW throughout Section B from station 125+00
to the northern project terminus at Butner Road.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.
19
Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and
permit conditions.
Practicable means to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands
impacted by the proposed project include:
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
ROW widths and easements, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground
cover during construction.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands.
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies
and wetlands.
• Minimization of "in-stream" activities.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable,
adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation
and enhancement of Waters of the United States.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
• More than 0.04 ha (0.1 ac) of wetlands per site
• And/or more than 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams per site
Current projected project impacts will not exceed the above-mentioned wetland
and linear stream thresholds for compensatory mitigation. Therefore,
compensatory mitigation is not anticipated for construction of this project.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest
with the COE.
20
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process
of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
development. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of June 16, 2000, the FWS lists eight
federally protected species for Cumberland County.
Table 5. Federally protected species for Cumberland County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci E
small-whorled pogonia lsotria medeoloides T
pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
• '" "T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance is species that are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are
listed for the rare species' protection. T (S/A) are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
• "E"-Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
• "T"-Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the near future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) T(SIA)
Animal Family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: 04 June 1987
The American alligator is a large reptile with a broad snout, a short neck,
heavy body, and a laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish to dark gray.
21
The alligator inhabits freshwater marshes and swamps in the coastal plain
of North Carolina. It is found from the southern boundary of the Albemarle Sound
throughout the coastal plain of eastern and southeastern North Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT REQUIRED
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T S/A). This is due to its similarity of appearance to another rare
species that is listed for protection. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats did not contain any
American Alligator project vicinity (Figure 3). T S/A species are not subject to
Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not required.
In addition, habitat for American alligator is not present within the project area.
Therefore, project construction will not affect the American alligator.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
.Animal Family: Picoidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely
black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male.
The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a
large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cape, neck, and throat. The
RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pines
(Pinus palustris) for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are
>60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands of at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees
that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are
located in colonies from 3.6 to 30.3 m (12 to 100 ft) above the ground and
average 9.1 to 15.7 m (30 to 50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in
April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Suitable nesting habitat and foraging habitat is present within the project
area. Fort Bragg's Endangered Species Management Plan reveals several
established clusters within the project vicinity (1997). In addition, the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats did contain red-cockaded woodpecker sightings or active nesting trees
within the project vicinity. Several active nesting cavities can be found within two
22
hundred feet of the project area (Figure 3). Additional environmental studies will
be needed, to determine if a formal Section 7 consultation will be required.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Date Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
. Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of
the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers
of Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. The fruit, which develops from
August to September on female plants, is a red, densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is
dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It
usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams.
Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
There is habitat for Michaux's sumac in the form of wooded edges within
the project study area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats did not contain any Michaux's
sumac sightings within the project vicinity (Figure 3). Fort Bragg's Endangered
Species Management Plan does not reveal any records or sightings of Michaux's
sumac within the project vicinity (1997). Since habitat is present within the
project area, a plant-by-plant survey for Michaux's sumac will need to be
conducted from May through October.
Neonympha mitchelli francisci (Saint Francis' satyr) E
Family: Nymphalidae
Federally Listed: 18 April 1994
Currently this species is known from a single metapopulation located on
Fort Bragg in the coastal plain of North Carolina. Historically, it is thought to
have had a patchy distribution throughout the coastal plain prior to loss of habitat
through fire suppression and over collection. It was thought to be extinct until
rediscovery in 1992.
Saint Francis' satyr is a small dark brown butterfly with a typical wingspan
of 34-44 mm (1-2 in). This species can be identified by conspicuous eyespots
on the lower surface of the fore and hind wings. The eyespots are characterized
23
by dark maroon-brown centers containing opalescent patches, borders are straw
yellow in color with an outermost border of dark brown. Saint Francis' satyr can
be further distinguished by two bright orange bands along the posterior wing
edges and two darker bands across the central portion of each wing. Two flights
occur each year one in early May and the second in early August. Larvae are
thought to feed on a wide variety of grasses and sedges.
Suitable habitat for this satyr is found in wide wet meadows dominated by
sedges and wetland graminoids. This species prefers recently disturbed wetland
habitats. In most localities this habitat is not available on a permanent basis,
forcing metapopulations to move to areas of more recent disturbance.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, wide wet meadows dominated by sedges and wetland
graminoids, is not present in the project area. In addition, a search of the NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrence of Saint
Francis' satyr within the project vicinity (Figure 3). Fort Bragg's Endangered
Species Management Plan does not reveal any records or sightings of Saint
Francis' satyr within the project vicinity (1997). Therefore, no effects to this
species will result from construction of this project.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) E
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots
and a hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical
leaves that are somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced
at the end of the stem. Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or
deciduous-coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and
sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where
there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, second growth deciduous-coniferous forests with an
open canopy and open shrub layer, does not exist within the project area. The
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no listing of small-
24
whorled pagonia within the project vicinity (Figure 3). Therefore, project
construction will not affect this species.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) E
Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
The pondberry is currently known from 19 populations in the southeastern
United States. North Carolina is home to only one known population; this
population occurs on private land in Bladen County..
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub that has a distinct
sassafras-like odor. It grows approximately 2 meters tall and spreads through
stolons., Leaves in the pondberry are six to sixteen centimeters long and two to
six centimeters wide, arranged alternately, have rounded bases, and droop
downward. It has small pale yellow flowers that appear in early spring before the
leaves. The fruit which matures in August or September is a bright red drupe.
This plant grows in lowland habitats with hydric soils. These sites are
generally flooded at some time during the growing season. It is associated with
the margins of sinks, ponds, and other like depressions. The soils present are
sandy with a high peat content in, the subsurface. Areas inhabited by this
species show signs of past fire maintenance and now have shrubby conditions.
The plants generally grow in shady areas but may also be found in areas that
receive full sunlight.
BfOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat is not present within the project study area. In addition,
the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no listing of the
pondberry within the project vicinity (Figure 3). Therefore, project construction
will not affect this species.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bladen, Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus,
Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Onslow, Pamlico, Pender, Richmond, Scotland.
25
This plant which is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and
South Carolina and is currently found in nine locations in North Carolina and is
believed to be extirpated from South Carolina.
This perennial herb has slender stems that grow to a height of three to six dm
from a rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle the stem at intervals below the
showy yellow flowers, and usually occur in threes or fours. Flowers are borne in
terminal racemes of five petal flowers. Fruits are present from July through
October.
This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands
and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet,
peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow
organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep peat in
the low shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly
drained depressions of unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire-
maintained. It is rarely associated with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Fort Bragg's Endangered Species Management Plan reveals two records
of rough-leafed loosestrife within the project vicinity (1997). In addition, the NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats contains several listings of rough-
leafed loosestrife within the project vicinity (Figure 3). However, suitable habitat
is not present within the project study area. Project construction will not affect
this species, due to the lack of suitable habitat.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) E
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
Distribution in N.C.: Bladen, Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Pender, Scotland.
This species is known historically from Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware,
Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, and Virginia in
which it has been extirpated. The only confirmed North Carolina population is on
Fort Bragg military base in Hoke County.
The American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only at the
base (if at all) and grow to a height of 3-8 dm. The entire plant is pubescent,
with upwardly curving hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to
elliptic, stalkless, and 2 to 5 centimeters long. The leaves are three veined and
become progressively smaller towards the top. It bears solitary flowers in the
26
axils of the upper most leaves. The purplish-yellow flowers are arranged into
racemes. The fruits are a long narrow capsule, enclosed in a loose-fitting
sack-like structure.
This species occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained savannas,
ecotonal areas between peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems. Soils
are generally sandy, acidic, and seasonally moist to dry. Fire is important in the
maintenance of open habitat for the American chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat is not present within the project study area. In addition,
the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no listing of the
American chaffseed within the project vicinity (Figure 3). In addition, Fort Bragg's
Endangered Species Management Plan does not reveal any records or sightings
of American chaffseed within the project vicinity (1997). Therefore, project
construction will not affect this species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species
that may or may not be listed in the future. Theses species were formerly
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened. Federal Species of Concern are not
afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Significantly Rare (SR), or Special Concern (SR) by 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. Twenty-Seven FSC are listed for Cumberland
County. Table 4 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for
each species in the study area. This species list is provided for informational
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
27
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species for
Cumberland Countv.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Habitat
Status
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Sc present
Heterodon simus Southern hognose SR/PSC * present
snake
Pituophis melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC** present
melanoleucus
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC/PT present
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE absent
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T/PE absent
Amorpha georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E present
var georgiana
Astragalus michauxii sandhills milkvetch T present
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC absent
Kalmia cuneata white wicky E-SC absent
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T absent
Lindera subcoriacea bog spicebush E absent
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice C absent
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia C absent
Myriophyllum laxum loose watermilfoil T absent
Oxypolis temata savanna cowbane W1 absent
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of- E absent
parnassus
Parthenium radfordii wavyleaf wild quinine W1 absent
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed C absent
Pteroglossaspis ecristata spiked medusa E present
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. Sandhills pyxie-moss E present
brevistyla
Rhexia aristosa awned meadowbeauty T absent
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E absent
Solidago vema spring-flowering T absent
goldenrod
Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickering's dawnflower E present
pickeringii
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C absent
Xyris scabrifolia roughleaf yellow-eyed C absent
arass
• "E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
• "T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered
species within the near future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
28
• "SC"--A Special Concern species is one which 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.
• "C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is
also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main
range in a different part of the country or the world.
• "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is
generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in
North Carolina.
• "W1 "--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North
Carolina is relatively well known and which appears to be relatively secure at
this time.
• "/P"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the
listing process.
• *-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than
50 years ago.
• ** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows
no occurrences of rare species in the project study area; however, several of
these species have been found within the project region (Figure 3). Surveys for
FSC and state listed species were not conducted during the site visit.
29
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. (ed.), 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina." Raleigh, North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goulet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
"Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States", U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Fish, F.F. 1968. "A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina".
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Division of Inland
Fisheries.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. (eds.) 1999. "Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980.
"Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia". Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. "The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina". Raleigh,
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. 1995.
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1997a. Basinwide Assessment Report
Support Document-Cape Fear River Basin.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1997b. Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan-Draft Executive Summary.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1997c. Water Quality Stream
Classification for Streams Located in North Carolina.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. "Birds of the Carolinas
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
30
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. "Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas". Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. "Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware". Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. "Soil Survey of Cumberland County".
Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Defense. 1997. "Fort Bragg and Camp MacKall
Endangered Species Management Plan, 199772001". Fort Bragg
Endangered Species Branch, Fort Bragg, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. "Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland". Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Figure 2. Project Study Area and Topography
0.7 0 :0.7 1A 2.1 Miles
Railroads (100k)
Natl. Hwy. Sys. (Primary Roads)
/Blue Ridge Parkway (Federal)
Interstate
/,us
NC
SR
City
Other
Proposed
Hydro Rivers/Streams (I 00k)
Hydro -Water Bodies (100k )

..
Figure 3. Natural Heritage Occurance, Sites and Water Resources
Young Lake
I MANCHESTER SANDHILLS k
%COIDES BOREA STREAMHEAD POCOSIN
=V--'US
SMISMA PICKERINGII VAR PICIMING11
? PICOIDESBOREAU
24
PICOIDESBOREAU? PYXIDAMHERABARBULATAVARBREVIFOUK?
PYXIDANBIGRA BARBULATA VAR BREMFOLIA?`
RCOIOESBOREAL7S- _. ?..?, COMESBOREAUS
/RNFlSCR AK SAND
PICOIDES BOREAU-( _
PYXIDANTHERA BARBULATA VAR BREVF
PHASEOLUSSINUATUS
FORT BRAGG NEA BOG COMPLEX NATURAL AREA
I
PICODES BOREALIS/
L T
STYLISMA
WET PINE FTATWOODS--
- ^
PICODES8
PICODES BOREAUS
MODES BOREALI
PICODESBOREAUS?j 1OO
PICODESBOREAUS_
PICOIDESBOREALIS
?
?i ? Leh
;x? 1 +
I +
i
PICOIDESBOREAUS
ii?
PICOIDESBOREALIS
EUPATORIUMRESINOSUM BONNIE DOONE NATURAL AREA' SC
C
XYRISSCABRIFOLIA
OR LUPATORIUM RESINOSUM
UUUMIRIDOLLAE
+ SCHOENOPLECTUSSUBTERMNAIIS 0
+ DANTHONIA E%LIS 4?
++ SOUDAGOPLACHRA h
++ COASTAL PLAIN SEMPERIAMENTIMPOLNDMENT
I
IISSCABRIF
RESRSOSUM
.!Y\ PICOIDESBOREAUSI i'
MYRIOPHYLLUIVI AXUM
BEEA"? `1 ??
FLATWOOOS
RHYNCHOSPORAOLIGANTHA
LYSIMACHIAASPERUUFOUA i
RHYNCHOSPORAMACRA
I
\ i
\%COIDESBOREAUS
1 PINEISCRUS OAK SANDHILL
i
;01DESBOREAUS '
`\SANDMLL SEEP ,J
LRIS,ROBBINSII
i
----7PICONESBOREAUS
PH(SEOLUSSINUA7WS ,
rt SANMV SEEP
y? CLADILW1AWtISCOIDES
TO%EIbIA GLABRA
BARBULATA VAR
BOREALIS"
24
`a
+ ERIOCAULONTEXENSE !0
CARER EXILIS
LINDERASLIBCORIACEA
w

CIL IUMtA$IySCOIDES
/r
K ftESINO PICODES BOREALIS
?NI
i?
IBOREAUS
I PICODESBORW S
87
n
,' EUPATORI -RESINOSI
LL SE
XYRIS
YRIS SCABRI ? A
ERIOCAULON NSE
RHYNCHOSPORA
IOPHYLLUM LAX
OSPORAOLI
i
I
KERIC SANDHILL SCRU
SETUBERCULATUS .
IOONE NATURAL AREA
PYADANTHERA BARBULATA VAR BREVIFOLIA
l?
C)
K

Railroads (100k)
Interstate
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
SIIBCORIACEA OT,
UKr40nERA1'
Nat Heritage Occurence Sites (Restricted-100k)
Natl. Hwy. -.Sys. (Primary Roads)
Blue Ridge Parkway (f=ederal)
US
? ' NC
l
SR
`City
Other
Proposed
Hydro - Rivers/Streams (100k)
Hydro -Water Bodies (100k )
N
W
S
E
0.7 0 0.7 1A 2.1 ?fles

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
November 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
1
FROM: Beth Haines Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator ?L
SUBJECT: Review of Environmental Assessment for widening of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard), US
401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road), in Fayetteville, Cumberland
County,
Federal Aid Project: NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WSB Element No. 34942. 1.1
TIP Project U-3423
Division: 06.
In reply to your correspondence dated October 15, 2004 in which you requested comments for the above
referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that Little Cross Creek lies within the
project area. These waters are classified as WS-IV, and the proposed project lies with the Critical Area of
the water supply watershed. The Division of Water Quality offers these comments:
1. Hazardous spill catch basins may be required for stream crossings within the critical area of the water
supply watershed.
2. Within the Cape Fear Basin, urban stormwater runoff is a major concern. The unnamed tributaries to
be impacted within the project area are on the 303(d) list due to biological impairment. Stormwater
should be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather than routed directly into
streams.
4. 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. For projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior
to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
401 Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 One
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NofthCarohna
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone]! Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands NituAaliff
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
U-3423 Environmental Assessment
Page 2
November 23, 2004
3. 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 as well as utility relocations.
4. The DWQ requests that DOT adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) and use Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters (March 1997) specifically using all applicable preventive and control
measures during the design, construction and maintenance of this project. These measures should be
implemented prior, to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
5. Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit application. Wetland and stream impacts
should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize
wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC
2H.0506(b)(6) 1, 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. \Onsite mitigation is preferable, however,
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) is availabI for use as compensatory mitigation.
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 Beth Barnes at [phone].
pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, USEPA Region IV, Raleigh Field Office
Central Files
File Copy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Projed Number: Ccwnty: Date Received: Dace Response Due (firm deadline):
-- ?l 12 - U r P?11 f f? 12, 51o 1
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office Reegional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ?(6H ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries

ayetteville
)(7
Water
? Coastal Management
? Mooresville Groundwater

ildlife ? Water Resources
W
o,
?
? Raleigh and Quality Engineer ..S
Environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem , Parks & Recreation ? Other

? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-OWRegion: Dace: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
O Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
15 M LI !.'/ P
O C T 2 7 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH

HEIVKN tv:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942.1.1
TIP Project U-3423
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
8 3i oN
Date rco-Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
S 3/ ov 0
ate ohn F van, III, P.E.
Divisi Administrator; Federal. Highway Administration (FHWA)
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942.1.1
TIP Project U-3423
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
Alethia F. Raynor, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
r ln?
J es A. McInnis, Jr., .E.
Project Development Unit Head
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
613,104
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ............................................................................. Page 1 of 1
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................... 1
A. Project Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1
B. General Description ................................................................................................ 1
C. Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................... 1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT ............................................................................................... 1
A. Description of Existing Facility .............................................................................. 1
1. Project Termini ................................................................................................... 2
2. Route Classification ............................................................................................ 2
3. Physical Description of Existing Facility ........................................................... 2
a. Roadway Typical Section ................................................................................... 2
b. Right of Way and Access Control ...................................................................... 3
c. Speed Limit ......................................................................................................... 3
d. Intersections ........................................................................................................ 3
e. Railroad Facilities ............................................................................................... 3
f. Structures ............................................................................................................ 3
g. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks .................................................................. 4
h. Utilities ................................................................................................................ 4
4. School Bus Usage ............................................................................................... 4
5. Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 4
6. Airports ............................................................................................................... 4
7. Other Highway Projects in the Area ................................................................... 4
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility ............................................................................. 5
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity ................................................................................... 5
2. Accident Record .................................................................................................. 6
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ................................................................................... 6
1. Capacity .............................................................................................................. 6
2. Safety .................................................................................................................. 6
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................ 7
A. Roadway Typical-Section ....................................................................................... 7
B. Right of Way and Access Control .......................................................................... 7
C. Speed Limit ............................................................................................................. 7
D. Design Speed .......................................................... :............................................... 7
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................................................... 8
F. Intersections/Interchanges ....................................................................................... 8
G. Median Crossovers .................................................................................................. 8
H. Railroad Involvement .............................................................................................. 8
I. Structures ................................................................................................................ 8
J. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks ...................................................................... 8
K. Utilities ....................................................................................................................9
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................. 9
A. Typical Section Alternatives ................................................................................... 9
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation ......................................................................... 9
C. "No-Build" Alternative ......................................................................................... 10
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ............. 10
A. Natural Resources ................................................................................................. 10
1. Biotic Resources ............................................................................................... 10
a. Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................... 10
b. Aquatic Communities ....................................................................................... 12
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects ....................................................................... 13
Terrestrial Impacts .................................................................................................... 13
Aquatic Impacts ........................................................................................................ 13 .
2. Water Resources ............................................................................................... 14
a. Physical Characteristics and Water Quality ...................................................... 14
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects ....................................................................... 15
3. Waters of the U.S .............................................................................................. 15
a. Surface waters/Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.) ................................................. 16
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................... 16
c. Anticipated Permit Requirements ................................................................. 16
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ........................................................ 16
4. Rare and Protected Species ............................................................................... 16
a. Federally-Protected Species .............................................................................. 16
b. Federal Candidate/State-Protected Species ....................................................... 18
B. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 20
1. Historic Architectural Resources ...................................................................... 20
2. Archaeological Resources ................................................................................. 21
C. Section 4(f) Resources .......................................................................................... 21
D. Community/Social Effects .................................................................................... 22
1. Neighborhoods/Communities ........................................................................... 22
2. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ............................................................... 22
3. Minority/Low-income Populations ................................................................... 22
E. Land Use ............................................................................................................... 22
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning ......................................................................... 22
2. Future Land Use ................................................................................................ 23
F. Prime and Important Farmland ............................................................................. 23
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...................................................................................... 24
H. Traffic Noise Analysis .......................................................................................... 24
1. Ambient Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 24
2. Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 24
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives .......................................................................... 25
I. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................................. 26
J. Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 26
K. Geodetic Survey Markers ..................................................................................... 26
L. Indirect/Cumulative Effects .................................................................................. 27
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................... 27
A. Citizens Informational Workshop ......................................................................... 27
B. Public Hearing ...................................................................................................... 28
C. Agency Coordination ............................................................................................ 28
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 3A 2010 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 3B 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 5 Water Resources/Floodplains in Project Area
Figure 6 Fayetteville Area TIP Projects
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
Appendix B - Comments Received
Appendix C - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 - Capacity Analysis for Bragg Boulevard without project .....................................5
Table 2 - Capacity Analysis for Bragg Boulevard with project ........................................ ..6
Table 3 - Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ................................................. 13
Table 4 - Water Resources in Project Area ....................................................................... 14
Table 5 - Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters ................................................................ 15
Table 6 - Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County ........................................ 17
Table 7 - Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County ........................................ 19
Table 8 - State Listed Species in Project Vicinity ............................................................. 19
Table 9 - Anticipated Noise Impacts in the Year 2030 ..................................................... 24
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to. SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
"Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-24(12)
State Project 8.1443401
WBS Element 34942.1.1
i
TIP Project U-3423
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Roadway Design Unit /
Programming and TIP Branch
The City of Fayetteville has requested new sidewalk along the west side of Bragg
Boulevard within the project limits and has agreed to participate in the cost. A written
agreement will be executed prior to construction of the proposed project regarding cost
sharing and maintenance and liability responsibilities for the proposed sidewalks.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Roadside
Environmental Unit
NCDOT will coordinate with the property owner regarding the restoration of
landscaping along the National. Register eligible Buena Vista property, if necessary.
Division Six
Along the National Register eligible Buena Vista property, Type II clearing
methods will be used to minimize the removal of vegetation in this location.
Environmental Assessment.- U-3423 Page I of 1
August 2004
SUMMARY
1. Tyne of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation.
2. Proiect purpose/Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 24-87
(Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road) in
Fayetteville. The existing roadway will be widened to three travel lanes in each direction
with a raised median and curb and gutter. The total project length is approximately 1.39
miles.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety and increase the traffic
carrying capacity of NC 24-87 in Fayetteville.
3. Alternatives Considered
Different typical section alternatives for widening the existing roadway, alternate
modes of transportation, and the "no-build" alternative were considered as alternatives
for the proposed project (see Section IV). Widening the existing roadway using a 20-foot
raised median was chosen as the preferred alternative because it minimizes impacts to
adjacent properties. Alternate modes of transportation and the "no-build" alternative do
not effectively meet the purpose and need for the project.
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts
No residential or business relocations are anticipated as part of this project. It is
anticipated highway traffic noise in the project area will result in impacts to 35
commercial receptors. However, traffic, noise abatement measures are not recommended.
The "no-build" alternative would result in noise impacts to 27 commercial receptors.
The proposed project will have "no adverse effect" on the National Register
eligible property, Buena Vista, if NCDOT restores the landscaping within the
construction easement in consultation with the property owner. The project will require
limited right of way acquisition within the historic boundaries. The right of way will be
acquired to help improve sight distance and safety at the Shaw Road and Bragg
Boulevard intersection. Temporary construction easements may also be required along
the property's edge on Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard.
The Buena Vista property is protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966, as
amended. The proposed right of way required from this property involves use of land
from the Section 4(f) resource. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
this land. A programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation is included in Appendix A of this
document.
Impacts to terrestrial communities are divided between two types: Managed Pine
Forest communities, and Maintained/Disturbed communities. Impacts to the Managed
Pine Forest community could total less than 0.1 acres. Impacts to Maintained/Disturbed
communities could total approximately 7.1 acres with construction of the project.
There are no wetlands within the current project area. However, impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters could total approximately 40 linear feet with construction of
the project affecting unnamed tributaries to Little Cross Creek.
5. Special Permits Required
Based on anticipated impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, a Nationwide
Permit 14 will most likely be applicable for the proposed project. Additionally, a North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
6. Coordination
This project was coordinated with the following federal, state, and local agencies
during this study:
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Army - Fort Bragg, Public Works Business Center
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
7. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated.
ii
8. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph..D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch .
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
iii
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Proiect Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety and increase the traffic
carrying capacity of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Fayetteville.
B. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw
Road) (Figure 1). The existing roadway will be widened to three travel lanes in each
direction with a raised median and curb and gutter. The total project length is
approximately 1.39 miles.
TIP Project U-3423 is included in the approved 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way and construction are
scheduled for federal fiscal years 2008 and 2010, respectively.
C. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate included in the 2004-2010 TIP for this project is $7,745,000.
Of this total, $1,445,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition and $6,300,000 for
construction. Current cost estimates are as follows:
Construction $6,200,000
Right of Way Acquisition $1,700,655
TOTAL $7,900,655
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
NC 24 is primarily an east-west facility that connects Fayetteville with Clinton
and Kenansville to the east and Cameron and Carthage to the west. NC 87 runs north-
south and connects Fayetteville with Elizabethtown to the south and Spring Lake and
Sanford to the north. Bragg Boulevard extends from downtown Fayetteville through Fort
Bragg and Spring Lake. NC 24 and NC 87 run concurrently along Bragg Boulevard
through the project limits. The studied section of NC 24-87 is from the US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road).
1. Project Termini
The southern project terminus is at the US 401 Bypass interchange with Bragg
Boulevard. The northern project terminus is the Shaw Road/Santa Fe Drive intersection
with Bragg Boulevard; however, construction will extend approximately 1;800 feet north
of Shaw Road in order to tie the proposed improvements back into existing Bragg
Boulevard.
Approximately 4,100 feet north of Shaw Road/Santa Fe Drive, Bragg Boulevard
enters the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. The Army has requested the portion of Bragg
Boulevard on Fort Bragg be closed to through traffic. This closure will occur following
completion of the Fayetteville Outer Loop between Bragg Boulevard and NC 210
(Murchison Road) (TIP Projects U-2519 and X-2) and the widening of Murchison Road
from the outer loop to Bragg Boulevard north of Fort Bragg (TIP Project U-4444). The
completion of these two projects would allow through traffic to bypass more sensitive
areas of Fort Bragg. As part of TIP Project U-2519, an interchange between the proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop and Bragg Boulevard will be constructed.
2. Route Classification
NC 24-87 is classified as an urban principal arterial in the statewide functional
classification system.
3. Physical Description of Existing Facility
a. Roadway Typical Section
From the US 401 Bypass to the southern Fort Bragg Reservation limits, Bragg
Boulevard has three travel lanes in the northbound direction and two travel lanes in the
southbound direction. Guardrail exists in the 30-foot grass median along this section.
Several median cuts and left turn lanes are provided within the project limits. Curb and
gutter is located on the outside of the northbound lanes from the US 401 Bypass to the
southern Fort Bragg limits. Curb and gutter is also located on the southbound side, but
only in the area approaching the US 401 Bypass. Paved shoulder exists in the remaining
areas. Existing travel lanes are approximately 11-feet wide.
South of the project limits, Bragg Boulevard is a six-lane median divided facility
with curb and gutter and sidewalk on the west side. North of the project limits, Bragg
Boulevard tapers to a four-lane median divided facility with soil shoulders.
2
b. Right of Way and Access Control
Within the project limits, the existing right of way width along Bragg Boulevard
varies between 100 and 120 feet. The existing right of way west of Bragg Boulevard
may be less than the right of way east of Bragg Boulevard, due to the location of the
Cape Fear Railways line. The rail line is located adjacent to Bragg Boulevard, on the
west side of the road.
There is no existing access control along the subject portion of Bragg Boulevard.
c. Speed Limit
The. speed limit along the studied portion of Bragg Boulevard is 45 mph.
d. Intersections
The intersection of US 401 Bypass and Bragg Boulevard is grade-separated, with
connecting access roads in all four quadrants accommodating turning movements. The
intersections of these access roads with Bragg Boulevard are unsignalized with right-
in/right-out access to Bragg Boulevard. The remaining intersections within the project
limits are at-grade. Two intersections with Bragg Boulevard are signalized: Mike
Street/Johnson Street and Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road (see Figure 2).
e. Railroad Facilities
Railroad tracks owned by the Cape Fear Railways run north-south along the west
side of Bragg Boulevard within the project limits. The tracks are located approximately
18 feet west of the outside southbound travel lane. These tracks have been out of service
since 1984. In many areas, the rail line runs through parking lots and has been paved
over with asphalt.
f. Structures
Bridge Number 86 carries Bragg Boulevard over US 401 Bypass. This bridge
was constructed in 1980, and has a sufficiency rating of 78.0 (out of 100 possible rating
points). It has a clear roadway width of 98 feet and is approximately 171 feet long. The
bridge accommodates six travel lanes and has sidewalks on each side. Three bar metal
rail exists on both sides of the bridge. No improvements to this structure are proposed as
part of this project.
3
g. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
No exclusive bicycle lanes or other bicycle accommodations are located along the
existing facility. Sidewalks are in place on the west side of Bragg Boulevard from the
downtown area to the US 401 Bypass. No sidewalks are present within the project limits.
h. Utilities
Underground and aerial utilities are located along both sides of Bragg Boulevard.
4. School Bus Usage
Approximately fifteen Cumberland County school buses travel along portions of
Bragg Boulevard twice daily.
5. Traffic Volumes
Traffic projections were prepared for the subject section of Bragg Boulevard for
the years 2010 and 2030. In the year 2010, average daily traffic along Bragg Boulevard
within the project limits will likely range between 35,800 and 43,200 vehicles per day.
By the year 2030, traffic in this area is predicted to range between 44,200 and 49,700
vehicles per day. Traffic volumes are shown in greater detail on Figures 3A and 3B.
6. Airports
There are no airports or other aviation facilities in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
7. Other Highway Projects in the Area
There are 59 highway projects planned for Cumberland County. Projects
included in the approved 2004-2010 TIP in the vicinity of Bragg Boulevard are listed
below and shown on Figure 6.
TIP Project U-2519 - Fayetteville Outer Loop, I-95 South of Fayetteville to east
of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard). Project involves construction of a freeway on
new location. As part of this project, an interchange with Bragg Boulevard is
proposed. Right of way acquisition for parts of the project is scheduled to begin
in fiscal year 2005; grading and structure work is scheduled for fiscal year 2007.
4
TIP Project U-2911 - SR 2685 Extension (Lake Valley Drive) from SR 1415
(Yadin Drive) to US 401 Bypass. Project involves widening existing to multi-
lanes with part on new location. Construction is scheduled for 2004.
TIP Project X-2 - Fayetteville Outer Loop, west of NC 210 (Murchison Road) to
I-95. Project involves construction of a freeway on new location. Parts of the
project are under construction or have been completed. Right of way acquisition
for the remaining parts is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005 and construction
is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2007.
TIP Project U-4444 - NC 210 (Murchison Road) from the Fayetteville Outer
Loop (TIP U-2519 and X-2) to NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake.
Project involves widening existing to multi-lane facility. Planning and
environmental studies for this project are underway. The project does not
currently have a right of way or let schedule.
TIP Project U-4719 -NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from NC 210 north to
McKenzie Road and from SR 1601 (Chapel Hill Road) north to SR 1451
(Manchester Road). Project involves construction of raised median and
resurfacing along the existing road. Right of way and construction are scheduled
for fiscal year 2004.
As stated in Section II-A-1, the Army has requested the portion of Bragg
Boulevard on Fort Bragg be closed to through traffic following completion of the portion
of the Fayetteville Outer Loop between Bragg Boulevard and Murchison Road (TIP
Projects U-2519 and X-2) and the widening of Murchison Road between the Outer Loop
and Bragg Boulevard north of Fort Bragg (TIP Project U-4444). Completion of these
improvements will allow through traffic to bypass more sensitive areas of Fort Bragg.
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity
Capacity analyses were performed for the existing signalized intersections along
Bragg Boulevard within the project limits. These calculations were performed for the
years 2010 and 2030. Table 1 presents the results.
Table 1
Capacity Analysis for Bra Boulevard without project
Level of Service
INTERSECTION 2010 2030
Bra Blvd. & Mike St./Johnson St. B C
Bra Blvd. & Santa Fe Dr./Shaw Rd. E F
The results of the capacity analyses show that without the proposed
improvements, excessive delays will occur at the Shaw Road/Santa Fe Drive intersection.
2. Accident Record
An accident study was conducted along Bragg Boulevard in Fayetteville for the
time period between June 2000 and May 2003. During this study period, 241 crashes
were reported on Bragg Boulevard between US 401 Bypass and Santa Fe Road/Shaw
Road. One fatal crash was reported. The largest number of crashes were rear-end type
collisions due to vehicles slowing or stopping. Approximately forty-six percent of the
crashes reported were of this type.
The crash rate for this section of Bragg Boulevard is 484.53 crashes per 100
million vehicle miles. In comparison, the statewide crash rate for urban four-lane divided
facilities (no control of access) between 2000-2002 was 552.94 crashes per 100 million
vehicles miles.
C. Benefits of Proposed Proiect
1. Capacity
The proposed project will increase the traffic carrying capacity of Bragg
Boulevard within the project limits. The project includes improvements at the two
signalized intersections within the project limits in addition to the through lanes proposed
for Bragg Boulevard. The addition of turn lanes at the intersections helps to reduce delay
and to improve level of service. Table 2 shows the level of service with the proposed
improvements for the two signalized intersections on Bragg Boulevard.
Table 2
Capacity Analysis for Brae Boulevard with proiect
Level of Service
INTERSECTION 2010 2030
Bra Blvd. & Mike St./Johnson St. B B
Bra Blvd. & Santa Fe Dr./Shaw Rd. D E
2. Safety
As reported in Section II-B-2, the largest number of accidents were rear-end type
collisions due to slowing or stopping. Additional turning lanes have been proposed at the
two signalized intersections along Bragg Boulevard. These turn lanes should improve the
accident experience along Bragg Boulevard by shifting traffic out of the through lanes
and reducing stopping or slowing along the main line.
6
The inclusion of bicycle accommodations and sidewalks as part of the proposed
project will provide improved conditions above those currently present along Bragg
Boulevard. Providing accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians will also help to
improve safety along Bragg Boulevard.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Typical-Section
It is recommended to widen Bragg Boulevard to a six-lane, median-divided
facility with curb and gutter. The proposed typical section includes three travel lanes in
each direction. Twelve-foot inside travel lanes and 14-foot outside travel lanes are
proposed. The 14-foot outside lanes are recommended to accommodate bicycles. A 20-
foot raised grassed median is recommended. Figure 4 depicts the proposed typical
section for the project.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
A variable amount of right of way along both sides of Bragg Boulevard will be
required for the project. Right of way acquisition along the National Register eligible
property, Buena Vista, will be limited to the area near the intersection of Shaw Road and
Bragg Boulevard (see Section V-B for information about Buena Vista). Temporary
construction easements will also be required along much of the project. Right of way and
temporary construction easements will be acquired as needed for improvements to streets
intersecting Bragg Boulevard. As stated in Section II-A-3-b, the existing right of way on
the west side of Bragg Boulevard may be less than the right of way on the east side of the
road, due to the location of the Cape Fear Railways line. Right of way ownership in this
area will be investigated.
Due to the number of existing driveways, no change in access control is
recommended as part of the project.
C. Sneed Limit
It is anticipated the posted speed limit along Bragg Boulevard will be 45 MPH
following completion of the project.
D. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for this project is 50 MPH. This design speed is
consistent with the proposed 45 MPH speed limit.
7
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated for this project.
F. Intersections/Interchanges
Improvements to intersecting streets were examined as part of this project.
Additional turn lanes or additional storage length for existing turn lanes are proposed
where warranted. Additional right of way acquisition is proposed at several of the
intersections to help improve sight distance.
G. Median Crossovers
The existing median crossover at Old Shaw Road will be eliminated with the
proposed project. The remaining median breaks will be retained. Left-turn lanes are
provided in these locations.
H. Railroad Involvement
No railroad crossings are proposed within the project limits. Due to the location
of the Cape Fear Railways line along the west side of Bragg Boulevard, the exact right of
way ownership in this location must be investigated.
At one time, the City of Fayetteville considered preserving this rail line for future
light rail transit use. However, it has been determined further preservation of this rail line
for future use is not feasible. Current plans for the Fayetteville Outer Loop interchange
with Bragg Boulevard will sever the existing rail line. Correspondence from the
Fayetteville MPO Transportation Advisory Committee regarding this issue is included in
Appendix B.
I. Structures
There are no new structures proposed for this project.
J. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
A 14-foot outside travel lane will be provided in both directions to accommodate
bicycles. These accommodations are recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Division of the Department and are supported by the local government.
8
The City of Fayetteville has requested sidewalk construction on the western side
of Bragg Boulevard as part of this project and has agreed to participate in the cost. This
would tie into the existing sidewalk, which runs from downtown and ends at the US 401
Bypass. A written agreement will be executed prior to construction of the proposed
project regarding cost sharing and maintenance and liability responsibilities for the
proposed sidewalks.
K. Utilities
It is anticipated the proposed project will have a high degree of utility conflict.
Underground and aerial utilities are located along both sides of Bragg Boulevard.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Typical Section Alternatives
Bragg Boulevard is surrounded by dense commercial development for the
majority of the project limits. Many businesses are located in close proximity to the
roadway. The Cape Fear Railways rail line also runs adjacent to Bragg Boulevard on the
west side (see Figure 2).
A six-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter is proposed for this
section of Bragg Boulevard. Reducing the existing 30-foot median to 20 feet by
widening to the inside is proposed to help reduce impacts to surrounding businesses.
Reduction in the median width may also help limit serious impact to utilities that are
located along both sides of Bragg Boulevard. Retaining the existing 30-foot median and
widening to the outside was eliminated from consideration due to numerous anticipated
impacts.
Curb and gutter along the facility will help maintain continuity of the facility.
Bragg Boulevard is currently a 6-lane curb and gutter facility south of the proposed
proj ect.
Guardrail currently exists in the median along this section of Bragg Boulevard.
Instead of retaining the guardrail, a raised median is proposed.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) offers bus service in the project
area. From Bragg Boulevard, riders can access locations along the US 401 Bypass,
including Cross Creek Mall. Bus service is available between 5:45 AM and 7:30 PM.
9
Expansion of the transit system would not meet the purpose and need of the project, and
therefore, was eliminated from further consideration.
As mentioned in Section II-A-3-e, railroad tracks run along the west side of Bragg
Boulevard. The City of Fayetteville had considered preserving this rail line for future
light rail transit use. However, it has been determined further preservation of this rail line
for future use is not feasible. Current plans for the Fayetteville Outer Loop interchange
with Bragg Boulevard will sever the existing rail line. Fort Bragg also has a marshalling
area for parking of their train cars. The stacking of these trains could possibly inhibit free
flow along the Cape Fear rail line. Correspondence from the Fayetteville MPO
Transportation Advisory Committee regarding this issue is included in Appendix B.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no-build" alternative avoids impacts to the area along Bragg Boulevard.
However, this alternative does not address the purpose and need of the project. The "no-
build" alternative does not provide any additional capacity or safety measures to Bragg
Boulevard. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from consideration.
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED
ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant plants and animals likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Animals observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities overlap within the project area: the
Maintained/Disturbed community and the Managed Pine Forest community.
Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community can be found throughout the project study
corridor. This community encompasses several types of habitats that have recently been
or are currently impacted by human disturbance. This includes irregularly maintained
10
roadside shoulders and yards and residential and commercial landscapes that receive
regular maintenance.
Vegetation occurring along roadside shoulders includes fescue, dandelion, horse
nettle, dog fennel, golden rod, smooth sumac, beggar's tick, elephant's ear, wood sorrel,
clovers, chickory, violets, and buckhorn plantain. Areas receiving less frequent
maintenance are occupied by broomsedge, poison ivy, blackberries, Japanese
honeysuckle, goldenrods, yarrow, and ragweed. Vegetation associated with residential
and business landscapes includes: flowering dogwood, Chinese dogwood, forsythia,
azaleas, lilac, loblolly pine, longleaf pine, southern red oak, various ornamental hybrids
of hollies, Chinese fir, arbor vitae and juniper. Fescue, clover, plantains and crabgrass
dominate lawn areas.
Managed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The Managed Pine/Hardwood Forest can be found throughout most of the project
area and is adjacent to the Perennial Stream and Maintained/Disturbed communities.
This managed community has a canopy dominated by loblolly and longleaf pine.
Other species found in this community include: sweetgum, water oak, post oak, live oak,
blackjack oak, turkey oak, red maple, white oak and southern red oak. The herbaceous
layer is dominated by wire grass. The understory in this community is sparse, due to the
frequent prescribed fire. However, during extended undisturbed periods (between fire
intervals) some species including magnolia, turkey oak, horse sugar, sassafras, mockernut
hickory American holly, sparkleberry, blueberry, blackberry, bracken fern, red bay,
persimmon and flowering dogwood will survive.
This forest community can be found throughout the project area in different stages
of succession and age. This forest is manipulated using common forestry practices, such
as: frequent prescribed fire, selective harvesting, use of herbicides, and planting.
Wildlife
The maintained/disturbed community dominates the project area. Nearly all the
forested parcels within the project area have received some degree of impact by human
activities. Generally, the community boundaries are abrupt, with little transition area
between them.
Despite the disturbance of the forest areas by human-influenced activities, a
vertically stratified and complex habitat with abundant food and shelter resources is
available for a variety of fauna. Primarily bird species, such as red headed woodpecker,
red-cockaded woodpecker, ruby-crowned kinglet, golden-crowned kinglet, brown
creeper, blue-gray gnatcatcher, yellow-rumped warbler, white-breasted nuthatch, tufted
titmouse, red-eyed vireo, pine warbler*, gray catbird and northern carding? utilize the
canopy. Species occupying the forest floor include the American toad, ground skink and
11
eastern box turtle. Other ground-dwelling species include the worm snake, southeastern
crowned snake, southeastern shrew, and woodland vole.
Small mammals such as least shrew, white-footed mouse, and house mouse are
able to utilize the limited amount of vegetative cover of unmowed road shoulders and
fields. The burrowing eastern mole is common in open areas bordering forested tracts.
These small mammals are important prey items for black rat snake, red fox, red-tailed
hawk* and other birds of prey. Various species of birds feed along roadsides on seeds,
berries and insects. Some of these species include the northern cardinal*, American
robin* and white-throated sparrow. Snakes such as the black racer and eastern garter
snake may venture into this habitat to feed on insects and small mammals.
Virginia opossum and raccoon frequently forage nocturnally in these habitats, or
travel along roadways between habitats. These animals are often road kill victims.
Consequently road kills attract a large number of scavenger species including turkey
vulture* and common crow*, as well as domestic dogs and cats.
b. Aquatic Communities
There are two perennial streams located within the project study area; both are
unnamed tributaries to Little Cross Creek. The perennial stream community is divided
into two components: adjacent to a nonforested community and adjacent to a forested
community. The streambank vegetation found in the nonforested component has the
same vegetation as the surrounding community.
The streambank vegetation found in the forested component is more diverse.
Vegetation found in this community may include: black willow, river birch, red maple,
Chinese privet, tag alder, elderberry, giant cane, tearthumb, titi, southern lady fern, netted
chain-fern, cinnamon fern, Virginia chainfern, viburnums, Joe-pye-weed, false nettle, and
orange-spotted j ewelweed.
Aquatic Wildlife
Streams within the project area are generally too small to support large
individuals of representative species. Smaller individuals of the larger species such as fry
and young of the year fish, as well as those species that are generally small are likely to.
be found in these streams.
The project area's surface water can be expected to provide habitat for a limited
number of aquatic organisms. Examples of aquatic insects that may be found in this
community include, water strider, riffle beetle, crane fly, stream mayfly and black-winged
damselfly. In addition, the bullfrog, pickerel frog, Queen snake, and northern water
snake may occupy this community:
12
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
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.
Terrestrial Impacts
Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation of portions of the
communities described in the previous sections. Estimated impacts to the communities
are derived using the proposed right of way width (Table 3). Project construction does
not usually require the entire right of way width; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 3
Estimated impacts to terrestrial communities
Community Impacted Area acres
Managed Pine/Hardwood Forest <0.1
Maintained/Disturbed 7.1
TOTAL 7.2
The biotic communities found within the project study area will be altered as a
result of project construction. The majority of the project study area is located in
disturbed habitat. Additional disturbed habitats will be re-established as roadside
shoulder and other types of irregularly maintained communities after project
construction.
Reduced habitat due to the proposed widening will displace some wildlife while
attracting other wildlife by the creation of additional early successional habitat. The size
of fragmented habitat areas is always relative to the species of concern; however,
fragmented areas more than likely will disrupt continuity between populations of some
animal and plant communities. Species adapted to disturbed and edge habitat will thrive,
while species that require larger tracts will decrease or disappear due to competition or
habitat reduction.
Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic
habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, and stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic habitats
often affects the community by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of the
habitat. Specifically, these impacts could include: inhibition of plant growth; clogging of
feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish and the burial of benthic
organisms; algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations; and mortality
13
among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic substances and decreases
in dissolved oxygen.
2. Water Resources
a. Physical Characteristics and Water Quality
Two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) to Little Cross Creek exist within the
study area for the proposed project (see Figure 5). Waters in the project vicinity are part
of the Cape Fear River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 03030004, subbasin 03-06-15.
Descriptions of the two tributaries are provided in Table 4.
Table 4
Water Resources in Proiect Area
Water
Resource Classification Channel
Width Channel
Depth Substrate Flow
UT1 Perennial 2 ft 0.5 ft Sand, gravel Very slow
UT2 Perennial 3 ft 0.5 ft Sand, gravel Very slow
UTl and UT2 are both perennial streams. UT1 is located on the east side of
Bragg Boulevard, just north of Swain Street. UT2 is located on the east side of Bragg
Boulevard, approximately 900 feet south of Johnson Street. Both tributaries appear to
have been mechanically entrenched and have an abundance of consumer refuse.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). The classification of Little Cross Creek and its unnamed tributaries is
WS IV. Class WS IV waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds. Class C waters are protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and wildlife.
. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the project
study area.
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There are no BMAN stations located directly
upstream or downstream of the project area.
Point source refers to discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or
any other well-defined point. Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
14
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. There are no permitted point source dischargers located in the project study
area.
Nonpoint source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water or
a non-defined point of discharge. In the project area, parking lots, roads and impervious
surfaces may serve as sources for various forms of nonpoint source pollutants.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Construction of the proposed project will likely impact water resources due to
pipe installation and/or the lengthening of existing pipes. Construction activities are
likely to alter and/or interrupt stream flows and water levels at each aquatic site.
Estimated surface water impacts are based on feet of stream within the proposed right of
way. Anticipated impacts are shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters
Stream Impacts feet
UT 1 20
UT2 20
Total 40
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and turbidity from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation
and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction, toxic spills, and increased vehicular use.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during construction of the project.
3. Waters of the U.S.
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"waters of the United States," as defined under 33 CFR §3283(a). Any action that
proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
(33 U.S.C. 1344).
15
a. Surface waters/Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.)
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". No wetlands were found to exist within the
project study area.
As discussed in Section V-A-2-a, two surface waters exist within the project area
and are considered jurisdictional.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The project will not affect any wetlands, but will affect approximately 40 linear
feet of jurisdictional surface waters (see Table 5 in Section V-A-2-b).
c. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. A Nationwide Permit 14
will most likely be applicable for the proposed project. Additionally, a North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
As mentioned in Section V-A-3-a, no wetlands were found to exist within the
project area. The proposed project will likely involve extension of pipes carrying
unnamed tributaries to the Little Cross Creek. These stream impacts are unavoidable.
Best Management Practices will be used during construction in order to minimize the
project's effects on the streams. Compensatory mitigation will not likely be required for
this project unless stream impacts equal or exceed 150 feet, per crossing.
4. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended. As of January 29, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists eight federally
protected species for Cumberland County (Table 6).
16
Table 6
Federally protected species for Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat? Biological
Conclusion
Alligator American alligator T(S/A) N/A N/A
mississi iensis
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded E Yes No Effect
woodpecker
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Yes Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Neonympha mitchellii Saint Francis' satyr E No No Effect
firancisci
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled T* No No Effect
0 oma
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry E No No Effect
Lysimachia Rough-leaved E No No Effect
as erulae olia loosestrife
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E No No Effect
"T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance is species that are threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and are listed for the rare species' protection. T (S/A) are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
"E"-Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
their range.
"T"-Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the near future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"*" - Historic record indicating a species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
(T S/A) to other rare species that are listed for protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. Therefore, a survey is not required.
General field surveys were conducted within the project area on April 13, 2000
and October 5, 2000. Suitable habitat was not found for the following protected species:
Saint Francis' satyr, Small-whorled pogonia, Pondberry, Rough-leaved loosestrife, and
American chaffseed. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the field surveys,
the biological conclusions were reviewed again in 2003 and were found to still be valid.
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database in
April 2004 indicated one occurrence of rough-leaved loosestrife within one mile of the
project area; however, habitat was not found within the project study area. There were no
recorded occurrences for the remaining species listed above. The project is anticipated to
have "no effect" on these federally-protected species.
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is present within the
proposed project vicinity. Suitable habitat within the Bragg Boulevard project corridor
and one-half mile on either side of the corridor was surveyed for RCW cavity trees in
March and April 2003. One abandoned RCW cluster [Cumberland County (CC) 16] and
seven unassigned relic cavity trees are within the one-half mile survey corridor. Due to
17
the abandoned status of CC 16 and the unassigned cavity trees, no foraging habitat
analysis was conducted and pine removals associated with the project were not
calculated. The proposed project is not anticipated to have any direct impacts on CC 16
or the seven unassigned RCW cavity trees located within the one-half mile survey
corridor. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have "no effect" on the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac was also identified within the project study
area. A plant by plant survey was conducted on June 21, 2001 and again on July 30,
2003. No populations of Michaux's sumac were found during the surveys. Therefore,
the proposed project is "not likely to adversely affect' 'this protected species.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with these biological conclusions in
a letter dated December 30, 2003 (see Appendix B).
b. Federal Candidate/State-Protected Species
There are twenty-seven Federal Species of Concern listed for Cumberland
County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state
listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 7 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. Table 8
lists State Listed Species for Cumberland County if species' occurrences were recorded
within one mile of the project area.
18
Table 7
Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland Countv
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aimo hila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Yes
Heterodon simus Southern ho ose snake SR/PSC * Yes
Noturus s p. 1 "Broadtail" madtom SC Yes
Pituo his melanoleucus Melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC** Yes
Rana ca ito ca ito Carolina gopher fro SC/PT Yes
Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic i oe T/PE No
Lam silis cariosa Yellow lam mussel T/PE No
Amor ha eor Tana var. eor Tana Georgia indigo-bush E Yes
Astra alus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Yes
Danthonia a ilis Bo oat ass SR-T No
Dionaea musci ula Venus flytrap C-SC No
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T No
Lindera subcoriacea h E No
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice C No
Lobelia bo kinii elia C No
Ludwi is brevi es R
eedbox SR-T Yes
M rio h llum laxum milfoil T No
Potamo eton con ervoides dweed C No
Ptero lossas is ecristata sa E Yes
P xidanthera barbulata var. brevis la Sandhills pyxie-moss E Yes
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeau T No
Solida o ulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solida o verna Spring-flowering goldenrod T No
S lisma ickerin ii var. ickerin ii Pickerin 's dawnflower E Yes
To ?eldia labra Carolina as hodel C No
X ris scabri olia Rou leaf yellow-eyed ass C No =:d
Table 8
State Listed Species in Project Vicinity
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Eu atorium resinosum Resinous boneset (pine barrens boneset T-SC No
R nchos ora ofi antha Feather-bristle beaksed a SR-P No
Schoen lectus etuberculatus Canb 's bulrush SR-P Yes
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is
determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the near future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which 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.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease.
The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a
different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
19
"Wl"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well
known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"/P"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
*-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain
A review of the NCNHP database in April 2004 indicated two occurrences of
Sandhills pyxie-moss and one occurrence of Pickering's dawnflower within one mile of
the project area. The database also indicated two occurrences of resinous boneset, one
occurrence of feather-bristle beaksedge, and one occurrence of Canby's bulrush within
one mile of the project area. Surveys for FSC and state listed species were not conducted
during the site visit.
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed 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 at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account
the effect of their 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
NCDOT architectural historians surveyed the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of
the proposed project. Four properties over fifty years of age were identified in the APE.
The Buena Vista property was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. The remaining properties were determined not eligible for the National Register
and not worthy of further evaluation.
Buena Vista is a plantation house that was built around 1844. This property was
determined eligible for the National Register as part of a study performed for the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2). Location of this property is shown
on Figure 2. The historic boundaries of this property encompass the main plantation
house, a brick house, a log house, a smokehouse, and a stand of old growth longleaf pines
that contribute to the historic character setting. The proposed project will require limited
right of way acquisition within the historic boundaries. The right of way will be acquired
to help improve the sight distance and safety at the Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard
intersection. Temporary construction easements may also be required along the
property's edge on Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard. The State Historic Preservation
Office (HPO), NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concurred that
the proposed project will have "no adverse effect" on Buena Vista if NCDOT restores the
20
landscaping within the construction easement in consultation with the property owners.
A copy of the concurrence form is included in Appendix B.
2. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has reviewed the project for
archaeological resources. In a letter dated November 16, 2000, HPO stated there are no
known archaeological sites within the proposed project area and recommended that no
archaeological survey be performed (Appendix B).
C. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that
publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or
land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance may be used for federal
projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land and the
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such
use.
The Buena Vista property is protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966, as
amended. The proposed project will require limited right of way acquisition within the
historic boundaries. The right of way will be acquired to help improve the sight distance
and safety at the Shaw Road and Bragg Boulevard intersection. Temporary construction
easements may also be required along the property's edge on Shaw Road and Bragg
Boulevard.
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic property, have been
evaluated: (a) do nothing; (b) improve existing without using 4(f) land; (c) build on new
location. The do nothing alternative does not provide any additional capacity or safety
measures to Bragg Boulevard. Improving Bragg Boulevard without the use of the 4(f)
property would result in unique engineering and safety problems. Constructing a facility
on new location that meets the purpose and need for the project would result in
substantial environmental impacts and would substantially increase the project cost.
Therefore, these alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
Measures to minimize harm include the restoration of landscaping along the
property in consultation with the property owner. This project has been coordinated with
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), whose correspondence has been included
in Appendix B of this document. Section 106 has been resolved and documented, and the
SHPO concurs with the proposed mitigation.
The programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation is included in Appendix A of this
document.
21
D. Community/Social Effects
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
Dense commercial development is located along both sides of Bragg Boulevard,
adjacent to the highway corridor. Residential development is generally found behind the
commercial areas, set away from Bragg Boulevard. Most of the residential areas were
built as part of the Bonnie Doone neighborhood, located just north of the US 401 Bypass,
or as dwellings for military personnel or families.
2. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
It is anticipated no residential or business relocations will be necessary as part of
this project.
3. Minority/Low-income Populations
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 is not anticipated to require the relocation of any homes or
businesses. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have any disproportionate impacts
on minority or low-income populations.
E. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning
Bragg Boulevard is surrounded by dense commercial development within the
Fayetteville City limits. The majority of the project area adjacent to the highway is zoned
commercial. Examples of businesses in this area include convenience stores, pawn
shops, car dealerships and offices or small manufacturing. Zoning for residential uses is
generally found behind the commercial areas, setback from Bragg Boulevard. One area,
located on the east side of the road and north of Shaw Road is zoned for a planned
neighborhood district.
As previously mentioned, the Fort Bragg Military Reservation is located north of
the project limits. Traffic is currently permitted to continue traveling along Bragg
22
Boulevard through the Reservation limits. Access is restricted at each of the intersections
with Bragg Boulevard in this area.
2. Future Land Use
The Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan was developed in 1996. The
recommended land use within the project area as documented in the Land Use Plan is not
significantly different from existing land use and zoning. The project area is within the
Urban Services Area and the Municipal Influence Area for Fayetteville. The intersection
of Bragg Boulevard and the US 401 Bypass and the area immediately adjacent to Bragg
Boulevard are classified as heavy commercial development. Outside of the commercial
areas, medium density residential development is recommended. On the east side of
Bragg Boulevard, north of Shaw Road, low density residential development is
recommended. This classification accommodates the planned neighborhood district
zoning.
Bragg Boulevard, within the project area, is designated a strip commercial street
segment. With this classification, the type of commercial development along the road
may be retained and enhanced, but expansion is not encouraged. The Land Use Plan also
recommends a specific study or plan be prepared for the East Fayetteville Area, which
includes the project area.
As mentioned in Section II-A-1, the Army has requested the portion of Bragg
Boulevard on Fort Bragg be closed to through traffic. This closure will occur following
completion of the Fayetteville Outer Loop between Bragg Boulevard and Murchison
Road (TIP Projects U-2519 and X-2) and the widening of Murchison Road from the outer
loop to Bragg Boulevard north of Fort Bragg (TIP Project U-4444). Right of way and
construction schedules have not been established for TIP Project U-4444; therefore, it has
not been determined when access to Fort Bragg from Bragg Boulevard will be restricted.
F. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. Land which has been previously developed or
planned for development by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements of
the Act.
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 project area meets the planned urbanization
23
condition, as it is currently zoned for commercial and residential development.
Therefore, no further consideration of farmland impacts is required.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cumberland County and the City of Fayetteville currently participate in the
National Flood Insurance Regular Program. There are no floodplain or major stream
crossings within the project limits; therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will
not adversely affect floodplains in the project vicinity. Figure 5 presents streams and
floodplains in the project area.
H. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect the proposed
widening will have on noise levels in the project area. Future year noise levels, both with
and without the proposed project, were predicted. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction
noise (Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations).
1. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise levels were taken in the immediate vicinity of the project to
determine existing background noise levels. The existing background equivalent sound
level (Leq) was 71.9 dBA.
2. Analysis Results
Table 9 presents anticipated noise impacts, both with and without the project, in
the year 2030.
Table 9
Anticipated Noise Impacts in the Year 2030
Homes Businesses
Build 0 35
No-Build 0 27
As shown in Table 9 above, it is anticipated the proposed project will result in
traffic noise impacts to 35 commercial receptors in the year 2030. Traffic noise impacts
occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either approach (within 1 dBA) or exceed
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement criteria, or substantially
24
exceed the existing noise levels. Table 1 in Appendix C outlines FHWA's noise
abatement criteria.
The predicted noise level increases for this project is +1 to +4 dBA. When real-
life noises are heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as
a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 109.4 and
190.7 feet, respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This information
should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over properties adjacent to
the roadway, in order to prevent further development of activities or land uses which
would be incompatible with predicted traffic noise levels.
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Noise abatement measures were considered for all impacted receptors.
Alternatives examined included highway alignment adjustments, traffic system
management measures, noise barriers, and the "no build" alternative.
None of the traffic noise abatement alternatives were considered feasible.
Highway alignment changes would not be practical as a noise abatement measure due to
increased impacts on the surrounding businesses and residences. Traffic management
measures limiting vehicle type, speed, and time of operations would not be appropriate
due to the negative effect on the capacity and level-of-service of the proposed roadway.
Noise barriers are not considered reasonable measures for this project because of the
number of openings required for businesses and other establishments along the roadway.
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. The "no-build"
alternative is also not feasible due to the capacity and safety benefits of the project. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 27 impacted commercial receptors would experience
traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria.
General construction noise impacts from paving operations and/or from earth
moving equipment may temporarily interfere with the conversations of individuals living
or working near the project or passing by the construction area. 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, the Federal/State governments will not be responsible for
providing noise abatement measures for new development within the noise impact area
25
for building permits which are issued following the date of the final environmental
document for the project (date of public knowledge).
1. Air Ouality Analysis
The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been designated by the
Environmental Protection Agency as a nonattainment area for ozone on April 15, 2004.
Cumberland County is under an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the
nonattainment designation has been deferred until September 30, 2005. 40 CFR Parts 51
and 93 are not applicable until September 30, 2006 (one year after the nonattainment
designation becomes effective).
The Bragg Boulevard intersection with Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road was selected
to analyze air quality impacts of the proposed project. The "worst-case" predicted 1-hour
average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2010, 2015, and 2030 are
6.30, 6.80, and 7.40 parts per million (ppm), respectively. Comparison of the predicted
CO concentrations to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) indicates no
violation of these standards. The maximum permitted CO concentrations by NAAQS are
35 ppm for a 1-hour averaging period and 9 ppm for an 8-hour averaging period. Since.
the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis are less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be performed 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.
J. Hazardous Materials
The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit performed a field reconnaissance survey for the
project. In addition, a public record review was conducted to identify any known
regulated underground storage tanks (UST) facilities, hazardous waste or dumpsites,
regulated landfills and Superfund sites.
Based on the field reconnaissance survey and records search, no items of concern
were found within the project corridor. However, there is the possibility unregulated
USTs or unregulated landfills may exist within the proposed right of way limits. If a site
with unregulated USTs or landfills is identified, a preliminary site assessment will be
performed prior to right of way acquisition.
K. Geodetic Survey Markers
A Geodetic Control Index Map for Cumberland County was examined for
geodetic markers located near the proposed project. No geodetic markers appear to be
26
within the construction limits of the project, therefore no impacts are anticipated.
However, if it is determined the project will impact any geodetic survey markers in the
area, the NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow
resetting of monuments.
L. Indirect/Cumulative Effects
As mentioned in Section V-E, Bragg Boulevard is surrounded by dense
commercial development within the Fayetteville City limits. Therefore, the proposed
project is not likely to promote increased development along much of the corridor.
However, the land use at the northern end of the proposed project is less dense. This area
is also in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with the Fayetteville Outer Loop.
Development in this location may or may not necessitate rezoning, as some of the area is
currently zoned for a planned neighborhood district.
The proposed project is anticipated to provide improved conditions for existing
roadway users rather than generation of new users. However, the connection with the
Fayetteville Outer Loop may produce new trips or new users along the Bragg Boulevard
corridor.
The proposed project is not anticipated to have any direct impacts on the
abandoned RCW cluster (CC 16) or the seven unassigned RCW cavity trees located
within the one-half mile survey corridor. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to
have "no effect" on the red-cockaded woodpecker. At this time, it is not known if the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop project will also impact these clusters or cavity trees.
Cumulative impacts resulting from the Fayetteville Outer Loop project will be identified
and discussed in that project's environmental document.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop for the project was held on March 30, 2000.
Property owners adjacent to Bragg Boulevard were notified about the meeting with
informational flyers distributed by mail and advertisements in the local paper. An aerial
photograph showing the proposed project was displayed and informational handouts were
available to workshop participants. Staff from both NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville
were available to answer questions. There was very little public participation at the
workshop. One citizen suggested acquiring property from the west side of the highway.
They stated that since the railroad is no longer used, acquiring property from that side
could be done with little trouble and inconvenience. No other written comments about
the project were received.
27
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following approval of this document. The public
hearing will allow the public to view more detailed information than previously available
at the citizens informational workshop and will provide a forum for public comments.
C. Agency Coordination
Comments regarding the proposed project were requested from various federal,
state and local agencies. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
An asterisk designates that comments were received from that agency.
*U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Army - Fort Bragg, Public Works Business Center
*U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation
*N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*City of Fayetteville
*Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
28
este Q01
r too%
fagett+ ltd ?A

s
1007
a 24
67 l
FOB, _,; ?: i \
9?' \
V1 Mil
i 0 \
?\ I 814 1615
Boa oat»
FodBgour? Lake I Rase
END PROJECT
I h
4 7 Kombow
( Il lake
1 1 x Irk, .
F
1007
J

%&/
J - m?
m

BEGIN PROJECT

\ \ Bmrft Do"
\ \ 24
/
T 1415 '
401
syp
401 67

?

1404
`?- A
I
? p I
Qo

• : Study Corridor for Fayetteville Outer L
(not a part of this study) oop l

1
TIP Project U-3423 Corridor \ 1
o \
=-
I J MILES
i?4o1
? u
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
G a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Cumberland County
TIP Project U-3423
Figure 1
,p D !
*ir^ 0 s.t?.7 .?. • d ? r.' ' v ? "'?+?i
M. S
r ?
WMWAWr
*j AU ;A A V,31 1?
r y ?` ? Y m
74
?a'?i'y ?„?` a;r ! 439
got
114 r" - 4 7jk
04
: far : : , g r
r a _qr 11 •'S ? a ;J?;
fj, -t PRELIMINARY n? 1 ji lot
,, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
?'t iw a ,t91 ar Y ??? + a 30. 40
r9 ?a1 \ 1??? i3jj
i:ff NF! J 4$t"'??s,?? lNTil? i' 1 1 j i fe 1 ap a e .-'f
71-
s .,
T.?A rta aav>'-.3?4.?y=.. uzu a.,a ?'j?
elk'. ' ?+ ? F
'L
.
q1b
l...w:-++.?.'^.+rr.....'+•.......r ..'.,,,_ ....,.-,.,vy.,... -Z NC .... - J w ___"'-'-"`?."T"'i.n-- -. .....w.., n ?.L......._-... -. ...rc..a.._.-. _.,
-87
•-,.c
esiistliiji34I-:ii?;1ailss?l ,+ a dJE ^`9; i f?yU & n,$ '`i !, 1y
?) - , _ 1 ,
}lid 33 } a • _
14
' f? 1 g
; i
Or,
.
01
x
r.
•':?
?a4 j
,
r
•
43,
" T
n:
77,
..
-' ,.
,
"
.
40 e "? • r
ICC i I
3 1
NORTH LAFULI dM CrE6.ARTMENT
Of TRANSPORTATION
„« .? ?, `? ? y .,?•,;?„ ?5 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
? ---- --- - -
S
?
NC 24 87 (Bragg Boulevard)
C
from US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road)
Vii. -?li• ?a i?a?ir t4M "? oft&
,
Cumberland County
TIP Project U-3423 -- - --
' }"' r - :f'''? '? :? ?, Figure 2
Bragg B oulevard

38500 Pm
55 (` 8 4) s
N

Proposed Outer
_ 59200 ______ 13400 ?
__________ A 4500
_?_-?_______
___50300_
Proposed Outer
_ Loop
11300 ?-? 34500
? 11300 Loop
(not a part of this (not a part of this
study) o ?I
" ^ study)
o
0 ??I
N o
43200

Santa Fe Drive
38300 16000 ? * 2200
?
14200
Shaw Road
s Pm? 55
(5
2)
12100 10200
1800
, i • ?
0
0
0
N
38900
39200

Mike Street
1400 500 ? ? 1800
?-
4000
Johnson Street

m ? 10
60
(2.1)

000 i 300

900
Pm -
10 60
(21)
0
0
rn
m
M
39400
Skibo Road 53700
Pm
55 9
(5,3)
0000 =ADT (vpd)
DHV Fac =Design Hourly Volume (%) at K30
K30 =30th highest hourly volume as (%) of ADT
D =Directional Flow (%)
---? =Direction of D
am/pm =am or pm peak
(0,0) Trucks (Dual, TTST)
pm
10 0 60
(4,3)
(DHV) (D)
(Trucks)
10600 R t41 00 41900 Skibo Road -
s-? ? 34900 US 401 Bypass
Pm
55
8200 2900 s (5,3)
0
0
N
35800
Bragg Boulevard
U-3423
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
2010 ADT
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3A
Bragg B oulevard

43500 Pm
55 (' 8 4) s
N

Proposed Outer
_ 86100 ______ 18900 *
__________ } 6300
_?_-?_______
___73500_
proposed Outer
Loop
`

15700 ? 51500

? 15700
0) Loop

i
(not a part of this (not a part of th
s
study) O E
a{ C study)
CD
M
co

o

49700 Un

Santa Fe Drive 38900 14700 ? } 2600.
? 17900.
Shaw Road
s Pm- 55
2)
(5
12100? 12100
200
, i•
0
O0
N
M
47700
48700

Mike Street 2000 700 R } 2400
?- 5300
Johnson Street

60
m ? 10
(2,1)

900 400

500
10 Pm -0 60
(2,1)
O
O
O
LO
49000
71400 14200 * 5600
?-? 55800 Skibo Road -
Skibo Road
46200 US 401 Bypass
55 ( m ) s 11000 000
55
s
??
(5 3)
O
O
N
O
N
0000 =ADT (vpd)
DHV Fac =Design Hourly Volume (%) at K30
K30 =30th highest hourly volume as (%) of ADT
D =Directional Flow (%)
-? =Direction of D
am/pm =am or pm peak
(0,0) Trucks (Dual, TTST)
pm
10 --0 60
(4,3) D)
(DHV) (Trucks) (
44200
Bragg Boulevard
U-3423
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
2030 ADT
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3B
TIP PROJECT U-3423
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION

rr
VAR. 100' TO 120'
10' 14' 12' 12' 20' 12' 12' 14' 10'
2'
15' 1.5,,
EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING PAVEMENT
5' SIDEWALK
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
c°`t OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)
US 401 Bypass to
SR 1437 (Santa Fe DriveShaw Road)
Cumberland County
Figure 4
24
87
j TIP PROJECT U4719
3Prin9 Lake I ?' r r
ti e
POPB AM `?
PO?e TIP PROJECT U 4444 L J TIP PROJECT X-2
Arm
i ?• 24 I 1^?lf_? 301
A 87
L
SUBJECT PROJECT , ?_ ,'• " I
TIP PROJECT U-3423
\ t / \ BYP
_ ` 101
'r \
BUs (.
I ¦ TIP PROJECT U-2811 i 98 ,
301 ?
l 95
¦ ?y-? ??``?`{ _ FAYETTEVILLE
¦ ?: ??? n
401 • a ? ????? ? ?1 f ?, I
¦ .ti 89 F 0.
? ? I I I
/ ' MunklpW "
11 arport °y
r- Hope Mills ° \ r
-
aL TIP PROJECT U-2519 DS
C)
?, 4 _ R?FSO D ¦
87
!PaWon - i
301 ) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
i
o? ; J, I \ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
' ,•° ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
v
Fayetteville Area TIP Projects
Z \ r
1 0 1 2 3
MILES •? ', ?''y Figure 6
APPENDIX A
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f
EVALUATION
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT: NHF-24(12)
STATE PROJECT 8.1443401
TIP. PROJECT. U-3423
Description: Widening of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project U-2519). The existing
roadway will be widened to three travel lanes in each direction with a raised
median and curb and gutter.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of the X
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location? F]
X
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the ?
existing highway? X
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings, X
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are ? X
important to preserve in place rather
than to recover for archaeological
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) ?
site considered minor (i.e. no effect, X
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic ? X
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
determination of "no adverse effect"?
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed X ?
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation
of an EIS? ? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do nothing
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create a cost or impact of
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the highway without using the
adjacent historic site
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining walls,
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
Yes No
X
F1 X
? X
F-I X
? X
x?
F-I
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facili on new
location without using the historic site. X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or iii a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X F
historic integrity of the site.
?. Measures to minimize harm have been
agreed to, in accordance with 36 CFR X ?
Part 800, by the FHWA, the SHPO,
and as appropriate, the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
NCDOT will coordinate with the property owner regarding the restoration of landscaping
along the Buena Vista property, if necessary.
Type II clearing methods will be used during construction to minimize the removal of
vegetation in this location.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see Appendix B
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation not applicable
c. Property owner see attached
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies see Appendix B
e. US Coast Guard not applicable
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Appr ved:
83/ o?
Date f
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch,

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
CiovERNOR
June 14, 2004
John Shaw
Post Office Box 1656
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302
Dear Mr. Shaw:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Widening of NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project U-2519),
Cumberland County, TIP Project U-3423
The subject project proposes to widen NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401
Bypass to the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project U-2519). The existing roadway will
be widened to three travel lanes in each direction with a raised median and curb and gutter.
Staff from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) recently met to discuss anticipated impacts the
proposed project would have on the National Register of Historic Places eligible property, Buena
Vista. It was determined the proposed widening of Bragg Boulevard will have no adverse effect
if NCDOT restores any landscaping within the construction easement in consultation with the
property owner. A signed concurrence form stating this commitment is attached.
Please take time to review the form, in particular the environmental commitment for no
adverse effect. Please contact me with any questions or comments. I can be reached by mail at
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1548, by phone at [phone], extension 247
or by email at afraynor(i?dot.state.nc.us. I would appreciate receiving any comments you have by
June 28, 2004. If you do not own property within the National Register eligible boundary of
Buena Vista, please disregard this letter. Furthermore, I would appreciate being contacted if you
can provide me with mailing information for the appropriate property owner(s).
Letter sent to property owners of Buena Vista. Mr. John Shaw telephoned the Project Development
Engineer on June 30, 2004 to discuss the proposed project and potential impacts to the Buena Vista
property.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
FALEIc,H NO 2769P-154F
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NO
If you have any questions regarding the form, please contact Mary Pope Furr, Historic
Architecture Supervisor, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at (919) 715-
1620.
Sincerely,
ed,?
Alethia Raynor, PE
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
Cc: Rob Hanson, Assistant Branch Manager, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Carl Goode, Office of Human Environment, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
David Brook, Administrator, State Historic Preservation Office
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS RECEIVED

July 3, 2000
Ms. Alethia Raynor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Ms. Raynor:
The widening of Bragg Boulevard is included as a project in the current Transportation
Improvement Program. The project is listed as U-3423.
The City of Fayetteville has an interest in the construction of sidewalk on Bragg
Boulevard. The City has recently completed the construction of sidewalk on the westside
of Bragg Boulevard from downtown to 401 Bypass. When Bragg Boulevard is widened,
the City would like to participate with DOT on continuing the sidewalk on the westside.
You may forward a municipal agreement to me for the project. I will be happy to process
the agreement and return it for execution.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
JChief Planning Officer
433 HAY STREET
FAYEWEVILLE, NC 25301-5535
[phone]
An Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action b:mployer
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Rick I lcieksen. San:tarv
Post Office Box 1829
Pave teville. NC 28302
Telephone [phone]
IAIL: ??iLk7631
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORN' COMMITTEE EI-MA(91) 678-
1 M nhciclcscntako.aImbal;uul.na.us
FAYETTEVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN RLANNING ORGANIZATION
MAYOR EDWIN S. DEAVER
CHAIRMAN
[phone]
October 6, 2001
Memorandum
To: Alethia Raynor
PD&EA Branch
N C Department of Transportation
1548 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
From: Rick Heicksen, SecretarYl
Subjeci: Project U-3423 use of abandoned rail line
COUNCIL\I;1N MARK KENDRICK
VICE-CHAIRMAN
[phone]
In the past the MPO has requested that the abandoned rail line along Bragg Boulevard be
protected for future Passenger Rail service from Ft. Bragg to Fayetteville and for use by Ft.
Bragg in case of major deployment.
In 1990 when all the major units deployed from Ft. Bragg they did not need to use this rail line.
The current track on Ft Bragg is owned by Ft. Bragg and because of limited marshalling areas
this track is also used for marshaling. Ft. Bragg due to recent events is now a limited access
base.
Considering the above the MPO is not apposed to the use of the abandoned rail line as a part of
Project U-3423.
If you need any further assistance please let me know.
Email copy: William Gilmore PE, Manager PD&EA Branch
C'OATLV(Y.N(1 - C(?t1PIt1.71L.?.SII 1: ( •0011:71 I1'II 1. I'M t N10!tr 1170 !'!. l \! \4
? 57'A7E a
Ouw
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 26 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transpo 'on '
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Proposed Improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd.) from US 401 Bypass to Butner
Road, TIP No. U-3423, Cumberland County, 00-E-4220-0162
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
On July 29, 1999, April Alperin of our office attended a scoping meeting concerning the above project.
At that meeting the Keithville Rental Units and the Shaw-Gillis House were identified as properties
determined eligible for the National Register that may be within the Area of Potential Effect for the above
project. At the July 29th meeting, we requested that an architectural historian with NCDOT identify and
evaluate any other properties over fifty years of age within the project area and report the findings to us.
To date, we have not received any documentation regard either request. We look forward to receipt of the
requested information and further consultation on this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:ldb
cc: B. Church
August 20, 1999 correspondence from April Alperin stated the Shaw-Gillis House was incorrectly cited as
being in the area of the project. She stated the Buena Vista property should have instead been identified as
a property potentially within the project's APE.
At the time of the scoping meeting, the project limits extended further north along Bragg Boulevard to end
at Butner Road in Fort. Bragg. The Keithville Rental Units were listed (in the above letter) as a National
Register eligible property potentially within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project. Since that
time, the State Historic Preservation Office has determined this property is no longer within the APE (see
concurrence form, this appendix). Therefore, the Keithville Rental Units were not discussed in the Historic
Architectural Resources section of this document.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
STATE o
?y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History '
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
August 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development.and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook1
Deputy State I sto?ric Preservation Officer
Re: Widening of NC 24/87 (Bragg Boulevard), from US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville to
Butner Road in Fort Bragg, TIP No. U-3423 Cumberland County, CH 00-E-4220-0162
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 2000, transmitting the survey report by Sarah LeCount,
NCDOT concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
the criterion cited:
Stryker Golf Course is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion C (Design Construction) as a rare example of the untouched work
of an internationally prominent golf course architect, Donald Ross. We concur with
the boundaries as noted on page 17 of the report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
The Historic Architectural Report prepared for this project examined properties along Bragg Boulevard
from the US 401 Bypass to Butner Road in Fort Bragg. Since the time of the report, the project limits have
been shortened. The State Historic Preservation Office has determined Stryker Golf Course (listed in the
letter above) is no longer within the Area of Potential Effect for the project (see concurrence form, this
appendix). Therefore, Stryker Golf Course was not discussed in the Historic Architectural Resources
Section of this document.
d'"` STATE w?
sr -
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Hist is Preservation Officer
Re: Proposed Improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd.) from US 401
Bypass to Bunter, TIP No. U-3423, Cumberland County, ER 99-9317
Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources, which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction.
We, therefore recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: T. Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-4801

CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
Widening of NC 24/87 (Bragg Blvd.) from US 401 Bypass in Fayetteville to
Butner Road in Fort Bragg
On Nov. 14, 2000 , representatives of the
V North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
NCDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
:R: resentative, SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer

Date
Date
k? 1141 o?
ate
//V/o C7
(over)
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
'boa _,. L 'hv i lic Ludc?l ???
C?v
?tu
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
v4 C?OAr C(JU i'S? 17E _C? C(AL) QS Q? C.f U'
Con [tiA
lUUol?? ? ?Ae) ClAo emsh ROW i i rye
7 ? ?? ..c? ?J i S? cZ O) E) - tQk) afi_urt,^)C C ?VC.C?- uv i rh X11 ? _?dbu w-
iv? ? ???G ??.V ? ?'0 r11'Y`l.v?tCU% Co rnr'ri.? t? n???,t
NC DG \A i 1
2?'
C `eReason(s) why effect is not adverse (if aphcable). I
SHPO ??
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 28, 1999
NCDENFt
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of NC 24-87 from Butner Road to the 401 Bypass in
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-24(12), State Project No.
8.1443401, TIP U-3423 A&B.
Reference your correspondence dated June 25, 1999 in which you requested continents for the widening of
NC24-87 (TIP U-3423 A&B). Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts
to perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. 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. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that
the Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact 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), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/28/99
Page 2
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. 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.
I. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 211.0506(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 211.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. 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.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/28/99
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] or [e-mail].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3423\comments\U3423 scoping comments.doc
UWA-4 ?t r, ?..

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
September 29, 1999
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd.) from US 401 Bypass to
Butner Road, Cumberland County; TIP #U-3423
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 00-E-4220-0162. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 11/22/1999 . Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
(?'x , / ? ? --Z? -
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator

IPn9
S
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
` y ?
I
Mew
V
Owr
North Carolina
Department of Administration
x, :_.
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
November 23, 1999
A
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: SCH File # 00-E-4220-0162; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd.) from
US 401 Bypass to Butner Road, Cumberland County; TIP #U-3423
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
6?? /? `,-
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region M
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 29, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 2(5'201
RaIcig1 , 1VC 2^611-J20.1
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

ra rn

Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
proposed improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road,
Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3423). 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 the existing
roadway to provide three travel lanes in each direction, a raised median, and curb and gutter.
Bicycle accommodations and sidewalks are under consideration. Additional right-of-way may
have to be obtained for portions of the project.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people.
Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
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.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Fayetteville and Manchester 7.5 Minute
Quadrangles does not show any apparent wetland resources along the project corridor. 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. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. 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:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. 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 Cor2s of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
2
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,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached page identifies the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Cumberland County. Habitat requirements for the
federally-listed species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for
the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation should include survey
methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should be
included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of.
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
3
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation.
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
FSC's include 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 Mr.
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
v
ohn M. Hefner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (Dave Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCWRC, Creedmore, NC (David Cox)
USEPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Alethia Farless)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/28/99:919/856-4520 extension 32:\u-3423.tip
4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
WTI
and Natural Resources Division of Water QualitKEMNEdm*24
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director NCDENR
November 1, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGe
Through: John Dorne
From: John E. Hennessy
Subject: Scoping continents on proposed improvements to NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401
Bypass to Butner Road in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-24(12), State
Project No. 8.1443401, TIP U-3423, DENR No. 0013-0162.
Reference your correspondence dated September 10, 1999 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. Impacts to waters with a water quality
classification of WS IV are likely. The impacts could occur to waters of the Little Cross Creek (DWQ
index number 18-27-4-(1)) in the Cape Fear Basin. 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. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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.
D. 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
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
11/03/99
Page 2
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.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. 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.
I. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(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 211.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. 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.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
11/03/99
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
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3423\comments\U-3423 scoping comments 2.doc

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION

v

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
November 16, 1999
FROM: Stephen Hall I ?t
SUBJECT: Scoping - Improvements to Bragg Boulevard, Fayetteville
REFERENCE: OOE-0162
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for several colonies of red-
cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis), federally and state listed as Endangered,
from both sides of Bragg Boulevard where it passes through Fort Bragg. Widening of
Bragg Boulevard may have potential impacts on both foraging habitat and cavity trees
used by this species. We therefore recommend that a careful survey be conducted to
identify all possible impacts, both direct and indirect, and that the US Fish and
Wildlife Service be consulted regarding ways to avoid, minimize, or compensate for
these impacts.
1615 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1615
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
k-

J-
.t( 1'
i'al

a
v
_ S.
...-.ty ...y -Ne
n7l
T North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission®. i ?.......
.312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733 3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
t a MEMORANDUM
r.: r r r c z
:P
L t :•i? .-- ',, i ems" r
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
%.x 7i' -,t tom: +' . 'irv..:.'> ,:? •..a ! C-•..4e, -6s-r. >?r.er -:•wr•r @ 7. -.. { ,r
RIM It ROM David Cox,' Highway Project C for w _ »? t y, w ; r?
ti "r;
Habitat Conservation Progr
D"?J
DATE: November 16,1999
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the NC 24-87 (13ragg
Boulevard) widening, from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road, Cumberland
County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-3423, SCH Project No. 00-E-0162.

X - This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
t f NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from'' ,
t. .r
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources C ommission
'.
, -,:(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in j'4 r
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (421.1.S.C.
44
R, p ...4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended 16 F U S C. 661-667d) .,
. t
...,...t"''? ?•T` Cf?'ta}.? -?,i.:l. i:.w1Y.yLYM?,S: 3r`??«'$?r'?J_,
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding,
-:; -
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
.`•, " '` process, our general informational needs are outlined be
low:
: A+tx y ...a;- .. :1 at.a? ;. .nt r0 tt.. ? wE.:rjra.:a. lr:'t ix :.. t.,+v • s..•NOSt aN . ?'?+, -; w.?
tr1 ?s ?ry.+c,a cy ?Y r > rr y
Of ??}F r att kx y > xx y rx +N y i fie #Rej..as croyx fie: vs j#i et P• i > C
t ,t. t } '?y4ls ''9fWf $tlr .v, '? is' " :1{+.t Description of fishery and wildlife resources within'the. projectjarc V
including a listing of federally or state designated threat ened, endangered, , ?- or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
T'"MY:A
`t? _• construction should be included in the inventories. A
..,_ . , .. listing of designated
and,

?f(?riy. stydq
,. l9FW L':.{? ?:.. ?.Y L f .5 I Y, yyi.'4?}iti?4i
''f 9 .S}' 'S w S'F`
:'g'i4,J["A+ '1?e$
2
- - t{'1w S4?3 l-?" TY??'r ,
? y34Ysx.Y\? ]'Yl i ?i ? r7? t '.{IIS
??

+, ,, -i _ r±t• " 1t
a ,t: J c ^>: t
.
tt f
lJL kr 1.4 4 14 r .`i+
?.-?'! r?•Pft:lfi 4?'?N ,Lei 1
?}
,,,},3
Y"' 1.a'r,w ¢?nty? w
N. u. Livision of rarxs and Recreation
};? , ..?....... 1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699 -1615 ' i
[phone]

. Memo 2 November 16, 1999

r C 7'
?
F 't1f f 41"? r i M ak}FiK 3[,

7' --• '' -
' rF r
4 'R t 7
;

rei r{
w t
"fL? .
.
i
NYr SaM °X . k'Yy •i t 4:. ^ ?t X73 "tS ? •
i ? e
T NCDA Plant Conservation Program
'>'
-
`
'
'w`I'r Std , ?s .x 27647{ :' trc oa?$... ?r,,s ..x ?„ .F
...f.r l > s?
y ,
a"l, .}FFw 71 ''.. ?$d a I
1?v 42
+x
i ?
'
- .:
M
Raleigh, N. C
27b 11
s 4
Aw "
w-k4 .
,? r
y ,?>k.e w (919} 733 3610 'q s a, a,+TN?+p asac S afi?ws 'A"
g
DN't3 .
=xr:W t, 2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project.. The need for
*;
?
§ =
;
: .:.
i}
s
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed a
d th
t
t
f
n
e ex
en
o
such activities.

3. ..::;i 5:?:.__'?."ii; : r1 ::` ;:.ir'?a ?:#"+?xtF#rSY,•td'??`.;!'?5"s?k..,.,..,
Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
„ ?- 4. Cover type maps showing ..s upland l , r . .... , :- _ „ .. ,s .?... .
acreages of u wildlife habitat impacted by the
Y
w. .
proposed project Potential borrow sites should be included:'
5 The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat.(wetlands or uplands). _?
w._v,:??rlc:s?.a;afay?c}A..FiX'?6'ittca?.l.,a,a.??.aif a s c7i'
b Mitigation for.avoiding, minimizing or rcompensating for direct and indiree .'
i degradation in habitat quality as well. as quantitative losses fA f a1}' '" ''
:. . :" YY Yid p? l S.
,,?;iY __:,' .?-y',.i,A - {. }VR :r Jf4' aFt .l..f: 1;?",. ?'"-3 !,•}'." f
?7 A cumulative impact assessment section'..which analyzes thc'cnv,ronmental'
' `effects of highway construction and 4uant1fies,the contributio4„o ttusll
,. r.?
t.individual project to environmental demm?atinn_' AN"'
K, A discussign cif the probable Unpacts da natural e§qu'rces which vv
from ll-t s-"
om seeon 5' development facilitated by the improved road do c ess.
r. •_<.I S. ,Lrsr, l4cwl?:+? _f,? >t i•?-a#l w? t'r?:.: ;(1?{?.) 9i^.C^. i1'.e ?.it?`E.?.??.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the o >ru
P2N U, ;
pportunity to provide input in the early planning st4es for ..>..?? >~_
_this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at (919) 528.-9886,

cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 18, 2000
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to your letter of September 10, 1999, requesting preliminary
comments on "NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road,
Cumberland County, F.A. Project No. NHF-24(12), State Project No. 1443401, TIP
Project No. U-3423" (Regulatory Division Action ID No. 200000187).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps constructed flood control or
navigation project. Our Regulatory Division has commented previously on this project
by letter dated October 8, 1999. Enclosed are our comments on flood plains.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Y,
WFC6 man Long
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosure
January 18, 2000
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from US 401 Bypass to Butner Road, Cumberland County,
F.A. Project No. NHF-24(12), State Project No. 1443401, TIP Project No. U-3423"
(Regulatory Division Action ID No. 200000187)
FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis. Planning Services Section at
[phone]
Based on a review of Panels 75 and 115 of the February 1982 Cumberland County.
Flood Insurance Rate Map, the proposed project is not located in an identified flood
hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of one of your site maps, which is a portion
of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topographic map of the area.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
December 30, 2003
R
Alethia Raynor, PE
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Raynor:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 23, 2003 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusions of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation for seven federally threatened or endangered species for the proposed widening of
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) from the US 401 Bypass to SR 1437 (Shaw Road / Santa Fe Drive)
in Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3423). The existing road will be widened to
accommodate a six-lane, median-divided facility with curb and gutter. The seven species are as
follows:
Common Name Scientific Name Biological Conclusion
Saint Francis's satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci No effect
small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides No effect
pondberry Lindera melissifolia No effect
rough-leaved loosestri.fe Lvsimachi,7Cerrilapiolin No effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana No effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis No effect
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs that the project will have no effect on the Saint
Francis's satyr, small whorled pogonia, pondbeny, rough-leaved loosestrife and American
chaffseed. According to the information provided, a survey was conducted for Michaux's sumac
on June 21, 2001 and July 30, 2003. No specimens of Michaux's sumac were observed. Due to
the negative survey results, the Service concurs that the project may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect Michaux's sumac.
According to the Biological Assessment prepared by Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates and dated
October 24, 2003, all red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat within the project corridor and
within one-half mile on either side of the corridor was surveyed for cavity trees in March and
April 2003. One abandoned RCW cluster (CC 16) and seven unassigned relic cavity trees are
located within a one-half mile radius of the proposed project. No active RCW clusters were
located. Due to the absence of active clusters within a one-half mile radius of the project, the
Service concurs that the project will have no effect on the RCW.
We believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
APPENDIX C
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
TABLE 1
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
vity
gory Description of Activity Category
F F
A Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exteriod and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Lea(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.