R-2230A

State of North Carolina IVA
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources T4*01
I"'
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ® E N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To:. Melba McGee ;
Through: John Dorney_ V t-A y ?4
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for NC 210 Widening From Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
State Project DOT No. 8.1441501, TIP #R-2230A
EHNR # 94-0950, DEM WQ # 10645
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. . The document states that 4.8 acres of wetlands will be impacted.
A. DEM still recommends that DOT apply for an Individual Certification/Permit for
the entire project since there are two locations that are below headwaters and
thus need an Individual Certification,
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an FONSI by DEM would not preclude the
denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
nc21 O.fon
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Y
Spring Lake,
NC 210 Improvements,
from Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
F. A. Project M - 5373(3)
State Project 8.1441501
T. I. P. # R-2230 A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Finding of No Significant Impact
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
3 -2:3 -7+ q/,
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
31 to ? Nicho
KA-Di vis
L. Graf,_ P. E.
Administrator, FHWA

vr,
Spring Lake,
NC 210 Improvements,
from Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
F. A. Project M - 5373(3)
State Project 8.1441501
T. I. P. # R-2230 A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Finding of No Significant Impact
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
William oo win Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
r ?/. 4??) ?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Mot/
Z4
SE AL
17282 •
°°•FRT
S
P. ?P?`•• ?1
Spring Lake,
NC 210 Improvements,
from Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
F. A. Project M - 5373(3)
State Project 8.1441501
T. I. P. # R-2230 A
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative
Action, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any
significant impact on the human or natural environment. This Finding of No
Significant Impact is based on the Environmental Assessment for the
subject project, which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues
and impacts of the proposed project. It provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not
required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and
content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to improve NC 210 from Holland Drive, in Spring Lake,
to Ray Road (SR 1121), north of the Cumberland-Harnett county line. The
existing two and three lane facility will be widened to a five lane curb
and gutter facility, with a new wider bridge over the Lower Little River.
This 3.9 mile project has an estimated cost of $8,300,000 (including
$6,600,000 for construction and $1,700,000 for right of way). This project
is included in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The TIP cost estimate for this project is $7,720,000 (including $6,600,000
for construction and $1,120,000 for right of way).
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A. Action Required by Other Agencies
A predischarge notification will be issued for the replacement of the
bridge over the Lower Little River as required by 33 CFR 330.7. The
crossing at Jumping Run Creek may require a predischarge notification as
well. When final wetlands delineation and hydrological designs are
complete; NCDOT will include this crossing in the predischarge
notification, if so warranted. Other minor wetland impacts will also be
noted in this predischarge notification. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will evaluate the proposed crossing to determine the need for an
individual permit.
2
B. Protection of Habitat for the Endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has concurred with the NCDOT
that this project will not adversely affect the Federally endangered
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW). The USFWS has placed no special
restrictions on the construction of this project. NCDOT will continue to
make every effort to minimize the amount of RCW habitat affected by this
project.
C. Wetland Impacts and Best Management Practices
NCDOT will mitigate for the project related loss of jurisdictional
wetland by the restoration and/or enhancement of a similar amount of
wetland in the project vicinity. A complete mitigation plan will be
developed in coordination with the COE and other agencies during the
permit process after the final project design is complete.
Impacts to wetlands in the project vicinity will be avoided and/or
minimized to the extent practicable. This project has been designed to
keep unavoidable wetlands impacts to a minimum. NCDOT Best Management
Practices will be implemented and properly maintained throughout project
construction.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment for this project was approved by the
FHWA on August 28, 1992. The following federal, state, and local agencies
and officials were provided copies of the Environmental Assessment and
asked for their comments on the project:
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Human Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
* N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health,
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region M Council of Governments
Cumberland County Commissioners
The Mayor of Spring Lake
& Natural Resources
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written responses were
received. Substantive comments are discussed in the following section and
copies of the agencies' comments are included in the appendix of this
report. The Environmental Assessment was also made available to the
public.
3
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
The following is a summary of the comments received from federal,
state, and local agencies with responses where appropriate:
Federal Agencies
1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Comment:
"The proposed project is sited in Cumberland and Harnett
Counties, which participate in the Federal Flood Insurance
Program. The proposed improvements have planned crossings of
Little River and Jumping Run Creek in Cumberland County. ... We
suggest that you coordinate with Cumberland County for
compliance with their flood plain ordinance and possible
revision to their flood insurance maps and report."
Response:
As stated in the Environmental Assessment, the proposed
widening will be designed to have minimal impact on the flood
plains of the Little River and Jumping Run Creek. No revisions
to Cumberland County's flood insurance maps should be required.
After further hydraulic design, Cumberland County will be
contacted to verify that no flood insurance map revisions will
be required.
Comment:
"The width of encroachment into wetlands at each crossing
was not provided. Stating that impacts "are based on a 100' ROW"
does not provide enough information to verify that a crossing
qualifies for a particular Nationwide Permit."
Response:
Estimating wetland impacts on 100 feet of right of way is
intended to provide an upper value for the anticipated impact
area at each wetland site.
The acreages presented in Table 3 of the EA are based on
preliminary design information. Final project design may
indicate that the actual impact areas are smaller. Permit
applications will be based on the final project design.
Comment:
"... the proposed crossings at Little River and Jumping Run
Creek are located below the headwaters... Individual Department
of the Army authorization may be required for impacts to
wetlands at these two sites."
4
Response:
Permit needs for this project will be reviewed after
further design. If required, NCDOT will apply for individual
permits for these two crossings.
Comment:
"The Environmental Assessment should provide detailed
information on how impacts to Little River and adjacent wetlands
were determined."
Response:
Identification of wetlands and boundary determinations were
made in accordance with the rules outlined in the 1989 Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
Comment:
"Concurrence must be obtained from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service that no impacts to federally protected species
or their habitat will occur if Department of the Army permits
are granted."
Response:
Further coordination with the USFWS and additional habitat
analysis has led the USFWS to concur with the NCDOT's finding
that this project will not adversely affect Federally endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker (see Appendix, page A-3).
Comment:
"Onsite mitigation options should be explored and a
mitigation plan provided to this office prior to permit
application."
Response:
Onsite mitigation will be explored as the primary method of
mitigation for wetland impacts on the project. A number of
possible mitigation sites have been identified during field
investigations. A complete mitigation plan will be developed and
submitted to the COE prior to permit application.
5
2. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Comment:
"The foraging habitat analysis does not consider overlap
among foraging ranges of the several colonies in the project
vicinity.
Response:
A new complete habitat analysis for the proposed project
was commissioned by the NCDOT. This analysis was performed by
Dr. J. H. Carter and Associates and considered overlap of
foraging ranges. The analysis was submitted to the USFWS on
January 13, 1994. The appendix to this report includes a letter
from the USFWS stating their concurrence with the findings of
that analysis. This project will not adversely affect the
Federally endangered RCW.
Comment:
"Information available to this office indicates that at
least one other active red-cockaded woodpecker cluster occurs in
the vicinity but was not recorded and considered in the
surveys."
Response:
The above referenced habitat analysis did not reveal any
additional colonies in the immediate project area. No
additional colonies are currently located within a 0.5 mile
radius of habitat affected by this project.
State Agencies
1. NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
" the project will still impact nearly five acres of
wetland habitat. ... the quality of aquatic habitat in the study
area is relatively high, supporting numerous sport fish species.
Siltation impacts from highway construction could significantly
reduce the fisheries potential of affected habitat.
Response:
Of the estimated 4.8 acres of wetland impacts for the
project, three acres will be at the site of the proposed bridge
over the Little River. In an effort to reduce wetland impacts
and to preserve the existing alignment on NC 210, the bridge
will be replaced at the site of the existing bridge. Staged
construction will be used to allow the existing bridge to serve
as a detour bridge during construction. The remaining 1.8 acres
of impact are divided among 13 other sites along the project.
NCDOT has minimized wetland impacts to the extent
practicable. All applicable Best Management Practices will be
implemented and strictly maintained throughout construction of
the proposed project in an effort to minimize siltation of
affected wetland areas and aquatic habitat.
2.
Comment:
" the NCWRC recommends that the NCDOT include all
wetland impacts from the project under a single 404 permit. To
the extent possible, mitigation for wetland loss should involve
restoration and enhancement of previously degraded wetlands in
the project area."
Response:
The NCDOT will mitigate for anticipated impacts to
wetland(s) where Individual permit(s) will be required, since
the project is a widening of an existing facility mitigation for
cumulative acreage from multiple Nationwide sites will not be
required. This is in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
COE.
. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses will be proposed
in the permit application and will likely include such measures
as restoration and/or enhancement of previously degraded
wetlands in the project area.
Comment:
"While the EA states that project impacts to RCW foraging
habitat will be minimal, the NCWRC recommends that these habitat
areas be avoided to the extent possible during construction.
Placement of easements, spoil, and other project related
clearing should be actively minimized in RCW foraging habitat.
Response:
DOT will make every effort to minimize all construction
activities in the foraging habitat area for the RCW on this
project.
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Comment:
"NCDOT is requested to discuss thoroughly a mass-transit
alternative to widening the existing road."
Response:
The City of Fayetteville, the Town of Spring Lake, and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation have adopted a
thoroughfare plan designed to provide Fayetteville and the
surrounding area with an efficient transportation network. The
thoroughfare plan includes both highway improvements and transit
service. The widening of NC 210 with project R-2230A is a part
of that thoroughfare plan.
Bus service is not currently provided for the NC 210
corridor. Fayetteville's existing transit system has a ridership
of 1%-2% of the estimated daily internal trips generated by the
city. A conservative estimate of 5% reduction in automobile
trips by implementing bus service in the project corridor would
still result in an average daily traffic (ADT) of 12,000
vehicles per day in 1995 and 20,000 vehicles per day in 2015.
These traffic volumes still warrant the proposed improvements.
As stated in the Environmental Assessment, providing some
form of public transportation would not be a feasible
alternative to improving the subject roadway. Public
transportation is not a viable substitute for widening NC 210.
Public bus transportation would be a likely supplement to
improving the existing facility, thus extending the useful life
of the upgraded facility.
Comment:
"DEM recommends DOT apply for an Individual Permit for the
entire project."
Response:
See response to similar comment from NCWRC on page 6.
C. Public Hearing Comments
A combined corridor/design public hearing for this project was held
on July 22, 1993 at VFW Post No. 9103 in Harnett County. Approximately 75
citizens and 10 NCDOT personnel attended this hearing.
The following comments are typical of those raised by the public at
the public hearing.
Comment:
Approximately five citizens
way acquisition or compensation
property improvements.
raised questions about right of
for the displacement of specific
Response:
Each property owner will be visited individually by a right
of way appraiser as part of the acquisition process. During
these visits any specific questions about compensation or
property improvements will be answered.
8
Comment:
About four citizens raised questions about existing
drainage problems or proposed drainage treatments. Such as "Are
the ditches going to be put back in that are on the side of the
road?"
Response:
Existing shoulder ditches will not be required after the
project is completed. The proposed improvements include curb and
gutter which will handle this drainage function. Any questions
that could be answered at the hearing by DOT design staff were
addressed there. Any identified drainage problems were noted and
will be considered in the final project design.
Comment:
"Once this project starts, how long is this area going to
be torn up?"
Response:
Construction should take about two years to complete.
Comment:
"Anybody thought about the integration of the loop that is
projected to come into 210?" (TIP Project R-2629)
Response:
This project has been coordinated with project R-2629. An
interchange is currently proposed at NC 210 on project R-2629.
The proposed five lane section, on NC 210, can easily be bridged
to construct this interchange.
Comment:
"Is there a proposed speed limit?"
Response:
The existing speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph). This
project has been designed to allow a continued 45 mph speed
limit.
Comment:
"...I live right at the intersection of Manchester Road and
NC 210. I propose that we put a stoplight there. There have been
so many accidents there."
Response:
Study of accident data and traffic projections available at
this time do not indicate a need for a signal at this
intersection as part of this project. This intersection can be
studied after the project is completed to determine if the
situation has changed.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Right of Way
Page 1, Right of Way: Further review of existing documentation
revealed that the existing right of way width at the north end of the
project is 60 feet, symmetrical about the center line of existing
NC 210, from SR 1451 (Manchester Road) to SR 1121 (Ray Road). Existing
right of way is 100 feet in width along the remainder of the project.
B. Geodetic Markers
Page 2, Geodetic Markers: Further evaluati
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources to
geodetic markers likely to be impacted by the
markers are located along the project and may
construction. The NC Geodetic Survey will be
construction.
C. Intersection Treatment
on led the NC Department of
revise the estimate of
project. Three geodetic
be impacted by project
contacted prior to
Page 6, Proposed Intersection Treatment: After further evaluation the
realignment of Samual Drive has been included as part of this project.
Samual Drive will be realigned to intersect NC 210 opposite SR 1620
(McCormick Road), eliminating an off-set intersection. This will reduce
conflicts between vehicles attempting left turns into the two roads.
VI. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING
Executive Order 11990 (23 CFR 771.125(a)(1)) states that federal
agencies shall avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in
wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. As described in the
Environmental Assessment, the subject project will impact approximately
4.8 acres of wetland. No practicable alternative to this wetland taking
exists because:
10
1. The no-build alternative would not relieve the growing traffic
congestion along this section of NC 210. This would only
increase the safety risks to and trip times for the traveling
public.
2. Other possible alignments would involve greater wetland impacts,
since such alignments would involve a new location crossing of
the Lower Little River. Other alignments would also have a
greater impacts on habitat for the Red-cockaded woodpecker, a
federally protected species known to live in the project area.
NCDOT has incorporated with this project all practicable measures to
minimize harm to wetlands because NCDOT will:
1. Mitigate for the project related loss of jurisdictional wetland
by the restoration and/or enhancement of a similar amount of
wetland in the project vicinity. A complete mitigation plan will
be developed in coordination with the COE and other agencies
during the permit process after the final project design is
complete.
2. Use applicable best management practices in the construction of
this project to ensure that the minimum amount of wetland
practicable will be impacted.
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no
practicable alternative to this proposed construction in wetlands and that
the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to
wetlands which may result from such use.
VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state,
and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration that
this project will not have a significant impact upon the human or natural
environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement or further
environmental analysis will not be required.
11
Additional Informational
Additional information concerning the project and Finding of No
Significant Impact can be obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
WTG/plr
APPENDIX
Agency Comments on the
Environmental Assessment
\EµT OF ¦
PSF« •=?? ?yF TAI?o? e?
United States Department of the Interior AME
y O
7 9
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RCH s \a°9 Raleigh Field Office ¦
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 23, 1992 Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina
27611-5201
Attention: William T. Goodwin Jr.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your October 19, 1992, request for comments on the
environmental assessment prepared for Spring Lake, NC 210
improvements, from Holland Drive to Ray Road, Cumberland and
Harnett Counties, North CarolinA (T.I.P. number R-2230A). The Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) offers the following recommendations
in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service has reviewed the environmental assessment -or this
project and finds that it adequately addresses environmental
impacts, except in its analysis of impacts to the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a Federally-listed, endangered
species. The Service cannot concur at this time with the
---conclusion on page 25 that "minimal impact to the species is
anticipated."
The Service does not concur with your conclusion because:
O The foraging habitat analysis does not consider overlap
among foraging ranges of the several colonies in the
project vicinity.
o Information available to this office indicates that at
least one other active red-cockaded woodpecker cluster
occurs in the vicinity but was not recorded and
considered in the surveys.
A-1
"We.can discuss these issues in greater detail if you wish to meet
with the Service. The Service appreciates the opportunity to
comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact
Debbie Mignogno, Endangered Species Coordinator, or David Dell,
Permits Coordinator for this office (919/856-4520).
Sincerely,
bv't"- &-a
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
r
A-2
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 15, 1994
Mr. H. Frank Vick
P.E, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
¦
TAKES¦v?
PRIDE IN
AMERICA??
El IrtAA 1 7 1994
'(fir ?. E•Ilt ?l•i •1 L• ',Y,:,
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your
January 13, 1994, biological assessment for the Federally-listed
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) in the
study area of R-2230; Improvements to NC Highway 210, from Holland
Drive, 3.9 miles to Ray Road (SR 1121) ; Spring Lake, Cumberland and
Harnett Counties, North Carolina (Federal Aid Project RS-3274(3),
State Project No. 6.441037). The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has designated the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) as the non-Federal representative to conduct
informal consultations and prepare biological assessments on
Federally-listed species. However, FHWA is responsible for
furnishing guidance and supervision as well as independently
reviewing and evaluating the scope and contents of the biological
assessments. The ultimate responsibility for compliance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C.1531-1543)(Act), remains with FHWA.
The project proposal involves widening the existing 2 and 3 lane
highway. to a 5 lane curb ard.getter section, and widening the
bridge over the Lower Little River. The proposed right-of-way width
for this project is 100 feet, inclusive of. the existing highway.
The paved section will be 64 feet wide with approximately 20 feet
on either side cleared for the road expansion. The proposed project
will pass through the foraging habitat of one group of RCWs.
Service guidelines for evaluating potential impacts to RCWs from
proposed actions define foraging habitat as a one-half mile radius
from the RCW cluster center. The one-half mile radius foraging
circle for this group is overlapped by 4 other active RCW foraging
circles (Figure 1). The proposed highway widening project will
directly impact the foraging area of RCW cluster "A". The foraging
analysis, however, indicates sufficient post project foraging
A-3
substrate remaining to satisfy the RCW group's foraging
requirements pursuant to current Service guidelines.
Therefore, the Service concurs with your assessment that the
proposed project will not adversely affect the Federally endangered
RCW. In view of this, we believe the requirements of Section 7 of
the Act are fulfilled. However, obligation under Section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of
this identified action that may affect listed species in a manner
not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified
in a manner which was not considered in this review;.or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
Due to the cumulative impact of Federal, State and private
developmental activity occurring in and around the Fort Bragg and
Fayetteville areas, the service is concerned about the long-termed
viability of the Sandhills RCW population. Additionally, NCDOT
along with FHWA has several proposed construction projects in this
area (i.e., X-2, NC-87 and Fayetteville Outer Loop). The Service
recommends future Section 7 consultations, in the vicinity of the
Fort Bragg/Fayetteville area, include an integrated highway/RCW
master plan with the recovery of the RCW as a key objective. To
further assist Federal agency's in meeting their responsibilities
under the Act, we recommend that future biological reports
regarding endangered species not requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement contain the following:
1. A description of the
2. A description of the
by the action;
3. A review of the lite:
4. A description of any
that may be affected
action to be considered;
specific area that may be affected
rature and other information;
listed species or critical habitat
by the action;
5. An analysis of the "effects of the action", as define by
-CFR 402.02, on. the species and habitat including
consideration of direct, indirect, cumulative effects,
and the results of any related studies;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may
affect any listed species or critical habitat;
7. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of
potential effects; and
8. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
The Service appreciat#s your continuing efforts and shared
commitment to the recovery and long-term conservation of Federally

A-4
listed species. If you have any questions, please contact Ray
Johnson at [phone].
Sincerely
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
cc: Mr. Roy C. Shelton
Operations Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
A-5
M
I Jv
l
, ow
1
t
1
--?-- 13.1
A 367
A81
371
1'3 2

um
FORT
BRAGG
MILIT4RY
RESERVATION
FIGURE 1:

A

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER
FORAGING HABITAT CIRCLES
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
R-2230
A-b
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
November 30, 1992
W REPLY REFER W
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. "forth Carolina 27011-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
71 DEC 0 2 1992
?? OfVfSlG?1 pF ?'?
?4' a , HIG?:.a,AYS aQ?
This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1992,
requesting our comments on the "Environmental Assessment for
Federal Aid Project: Spring Lake, NC 210 Improvements, from
Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121), Cumberland-Harnett
Counties, F. A. Project RS-3274(3), State Project 8.1441501,
T.I.P. :R-2230A" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199300571).
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
perspective, involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains,
and other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands.
The proposed improvements do not cross any COE-constructed flood
control or navigation projects.
The proposed project is sited in Cumberland and Harnett
Counties, which participate in the Federal Flood Insurance
Program. The proposed improvements have planned crossings of
Little River and Jumping. Run Creek in Cumberland County. Little
River has been studied by detailed methods with the 100-year flood
elevations determined and a floodway defined. The 100-year flood
plain of Jumping Run Creek has been mapped using approximate
methods. We suggest that you coordinate with Cumberland County
for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and possible,
revision to their flood insurance maps and report.
Our Wilmington Regulatory Office has reviewed the above-
mentioned project and offers the following comments.
a. The width of encroachment into wetlands at each crossing
- was not provided. Stating that impacts "are based on a 100' ROW"
does not provide enough information to verify that a crossing
qualifies for a particular Nationwide Permit.
A-7
-2-
b. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as
amended, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 330.6, published in
the Federal Register on November 22, 1991, authorization was
provided for discharges of dredged or fill material into
headwaters and isolated waters. We have determined that the
proposed crossings at Little River and Jumping Run Creek are
located below the headwaters of these two waterbodies and,
therefore, Nationwide Permit No. 26 does not apply for wetland
fills associated with these crossings. Individual Department of
the Army authorization may be required for impacts to wetlands at
these two sites.
c. The Environmental Assessment should provide detailed
information on how impacts to Little River and adjacent wetlands
were determined.
d. Concurrence must be obtained from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service that no impacts to federally protected species
or their habitat will occur if Department of the Army permits
are granted.
e. Onsite mitigation options should be explored and a
mitigation plan provided to.this office prior to permit issuance.
Mr. Scott McLendon is the point-of-contact for processing
your Department of the Army permit for the proposed project.
Should you have questions concerning the permit, please contact
Mr. McLendon at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If ,
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,;
Lawtench. Saunder'9
CH O, P ,fanning Division
A-8
N'ORTH'CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
' D l5 lh ?I ' DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
12-02-92 `LL RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 603-8003
"OJECT MANAGEM t -- r
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS 1i 1992 f
MAILED TO: FROM:
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
CALVIN LEGGETT DIRECTOR
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG/INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 2107
FROM HOLLAND DRIVE TO RAY ROAD (SR 11213 IN SPRING LAKE, NC
(TIP #R-2230A)
SAI NO 93E42200259 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV. ASSESS.
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
1S SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION M

A-9
w. STAle e
State of North Carolina
.Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM

Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee bL-."`-'
Project Review Coordinator
RE: EA for the Proposed Improvements to NC 210 from
Holland Drive to Ray Road, Cumberland/Harnett
Counties, 93-0259
DATE: November 301 1992
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has
reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed improvements
to NC 210, Spring Lake, from Holland Dr. to Ray Rd.(SR1121) in
Cumberland-Harnett counties, TIP Y R=2230A.
We ask that you continue to work with our agencies to thoroughly
answer their concerns in the final document and that every effort
be made to avoid and minimize environmental impacts during the
final design and construction stages.
Thank you for your continuing cooperation toward our mutual goals.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Tclephone 919.7336376
An Eoual Ov?rtuni ?• ?.ffirmad?r .aC:ion Ftnnln.rr
A-10

i '
RE.. North Caroliiza Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N.'Salisbury=Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environm t, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: (,,,Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: November 17, 1992
SUBJECT: Administrative Action - Environmental Assessment
(EA) for NC 210 Improvements from Holland Drive to
Ray Road, Cumberland/Harnett Counties, North
Carolina, TIP No. R-2230A, SCH Project No. 93-
0259.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
completed a review of the proposed project and possible
impacts on existing wildlife and fishery resources in the
study area. Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332 (2)(C)), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes
to widen 3.9 miles of NC 210 and replace an existing bridge
over the Lower Little River. In previous scoping comments,
(Fred A. Harris, November-8-,--1990), the NCWRC requested that
information on fish and wildlife populations, listed
species, and aquatic and wetland habitats be included in the
document. We also requested that wetland sites in the
project area be mapped, and that construction impacts on
wetland areas be described and mitigation measures proposed.
The NCWRC appreciates that project impacts have been
reduced by the use of existing right-of-way for the proposed
highway improvements. However, the project will still
impact nearly five acres of wetland habitat. As mentioned
in the EA (p. 19), the quality of aquatic habitat in the
study area is relatively high, supporting numerous sport
A-11
Memo Page 2 November 17, 1992
fish species. Siltation impacts from highway construction
could significantly reduce the fisheries potential of
affected habitat. Loss of upland habitat along the project
corridor may affect state- and federally listed species,
particularly red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW).
While wetland mitigation is mentioned in the EA, the
number of wetland sites for which mitigation will occur is
not specified. Since an individual 404 permit is likely to
be required for the project, the NCWRC recommends that the
NCDOT include all wetland impacts from the project under a
single 404 permit. To the extent possible, mitigation for
wetland loss should involve restoration and enhancement of
previously degraded wetlands in the project area.. off-site
mitigation areas, if needed, should be identified within the
Cape Fear River basin. Hydrologic crossing structures and
roadway approaches should be designed to minimize wetland
encroachment, -and Best Management Practices should be
strictly followed during construction activities in these
areas. While surveys were not conducted for state listed
species, the likelihood of impacts on many of these species
may be-reduced by avoiding or minimizing loss of wetland and
aquatic habitat.
While the EA (pp. 24-25) states that project impacts to
RCW foraging habitat will be minimal, the NCWRC recommends
'that these habitat areas be avoided to the extent possible
during construction. Placement of easements, spoil, and
other project related clearing should be actively minimized
in RCW foraging habitat. The RCW Foraging Habitat Study
(Appendix A) has been forwarded to NCWRC endangered species
biological staff. If subsequent review of project impacts-
on RCW habitat is warranted, the NCDOT should coordinate
such review with the NCWRC and other agencies. .
Thank you for the ongoing. opportunity to provide input
to planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please call David Yow, Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone].
DLS/DLY
cc: Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
A-12.
:i
E-5
L o ,1092
State of North Carolina
Department of En?ironment, Health, and Natural . Source- a
Division of Land Resources v eve ?;'•??
-nes G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
dWn W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
z
Project Number: t ' :: ? . ••=> County: C -• %! %c-?"L,^,?•?>
,j
Director
Project Name: c c T5'
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact. 3 geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at (9 (F-9) 733-3836':
7 2-
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmen' al
Polio-Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
---Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,-
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation. control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opporruniry Affirmative Action Employer A-13
y ?
State of North Carolina =
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Mardn, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary November 16, 1992 Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica SwihartW4.'""??6?-? u r
?? CLU.t? i uQ, GLu2Q5?55 y?cLt??
Through: John Dorne?? O
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: . Proposed NC 210 Widening From Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
State Project DOT No. 8.1441501, TIP #R-2230A
EHNR # 93-0259, DEM WQ # 7331
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the Final EA document:
A. NCDOT is requested to discuss thoroughly a mass-transit alternative to
widening the existing road.
B. Will borrow or waste locations be in wetlands? If so, the contractor will be
required to obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. DEM recommends that DOT apply for an Individual Permit for the entire project.
This would expedite th-e permitting process since Nationwide Permit 14 requires
writtel,-concurrence.
D. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
nc210.ea
cc: Eric Galamb
Asheville Fayette: iiic
704/2;1.6205 919/4E6-:5,11
P.C uoz
RE-CIWIAL OFFICES
Mooresville Raleigh; Was`:neon i:mington Wms•o.:•S&;err.
704/663-1699 919/571-700 9iS.-5.6451 ;•395-390 n 9i9iS9: 7007
Pollution Prevention 11 s
Z9535. Raleigh. Nortli Caroli._ ='S2G-0535 7:1c?honc::•'=_.7015
An E.^,ual opportunity Action =:.?iova:
A-14

DIVISI02+ OF PARKS AND RECREATION
.4ovember 16, 1992
?y
Memorandum
?- 1
TO: Melba-McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: EA -- NC 210 Improvements, Spring Lake
REFERENCE: 93-0259
The assessment of the potential biological impacts of this
project appear to be reasonably complete, although the vegetative
survey conducted in January (p. 15) was probably done too early
to have identified all the species potentially present in the
study area.
The analysis of probable impacts to the colony of the federally-
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Pi.coides borealis) is also
quite detailed. However, it only considers the present situation
and does not allow for additional losses elsewhere within the
foraging range or potential restoration of the habitat within the
area that will be lost due to the project. We assume that the US
Fish and Wildlife Service has been consulted about the possible
need for mitigation and we will defer to their judgement in this
regard.

A-15
?d Sri o?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary November 16, 1992 Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica Swihart
Through: John Dorne),
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Proposed NC 210 Widening From Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
State Project DOT No. 8.1441501, TIP #R-2230A
EHNR # 93-0259, DEM WQ # 7331
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the Final EA document:
A. NCDOT is requested to discuss thoroughly a mass-transit alternative to
widening the existing road.
B. Will borrow or waste locations be in wetlands? If so, the contractor will be
required to obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. DEM recommends that DOT apply for an Individual Permit for the entire project.
This would expedite the permitting process since Nationwide Permit 14 requires
written concurrence.
D. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
nc210.ea
cc: Eric Galamb
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 7 04/663 -1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Fqual Opportunity Afl-irnlative Action Employer

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment El Project located in 7th floor library
Project.Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Du (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone
? Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
? Raleigh
? Washington
? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Regional Office Area
All R/O Areas
it
ater
roundwater
and Quality Engineer
t ecreational Consultant
? Coastal Management Consultant
? Ottrers--- >sr?, ,
...OCT 29 j99"? .
Date:
Response (check all applicable)
In-House Review
? Soil and Water
? Coastal Management
? Water Resources
VWildlife -lb.'?'J' ?Ou7
Forest Resources
Land Resources
Parks and Recreation
Environmental Management
? Marine Fisheries
Water Planning
Environmental Health
Solid Waste Managemen
? Radiation Protection
? David Foster
?Other (specify)
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
P$-104
Spring Lake,
NC 210 Improvements,
from Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
F. A. Project RS - 3274(3)
State Project 8.1441501
T. I. P. # R-2230A
f
i
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
f. ate L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
11- Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
F? ?Z
Date r ..1
rll 1 .7 L. UI UI , f . L..
vi on Administrator, FHWA
Spring Lake,
NC 210 Improvements,
from Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
F. A. Project RS - 3274(3)
State Project 8.1441501
T. I. P. # R-2230A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Wi 11 iam T. Goodwin Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Urban Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Franklin Vick, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY i
I. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Length of Studied Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4. Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
5. Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
6. Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
7. Intersecting Roads and Type ofControl . . . . . . 2
8. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
10. Geodetic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
11. Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
12. School Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.
C. Transportation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Accident Record. . . .
? 3
E. Benefit to State, Region, and
Community. 4
II. DES CRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Historical Resume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Recommended Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Project Termini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Proposed Typical Section. . . . . . 5
4. Proposed Right of Way and Access Control . . . . . 5
5. Required Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Permits . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Proposed Intersection Treatment . . . . . . . . . 6
III. ALT ERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Recommended Alternative. . . . . . . . . 6
B. Other Widening Alternatives and Detour Structure . . . 7
C. Public Transportation Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. "No-Build" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
IV. SOC IAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . 8
A. Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE
1. Status of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Project Compatibility with Local Plans . . . . . . 10
B. Soc ial and Economic Characteristic . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Neighborhood Characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Economic Factors. ,. . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Public Facilities and Services. . . . . . . . 11
4. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action . . . . . 11
a. Relocation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
b. Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Architectural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
a. Uplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
b. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C. Plant Community Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
a.
b.
6. Pr
a.
b.
Permi is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
otected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Federally-protected Species. . . . . . . . . 23
State-Protected Species. . . . . . . . . . . 26
E. Floodplain Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 28
G. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 34
H. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 36
I. Contaminated Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
J. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Tables and Figures
Appendix A - Foraging Habitat Survey
Appendix B - Correspondence
Spring Lake,
NC 210 Improvements,
from Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
F. A. Project RS - 3274(3)
State Project 8.1441501
T. I. P. # R-2230A
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to improve NC 210 from Holland Drive, in Spring Lake,
to Ray Road (SR 1121), north of the Cumberland-Harnett county line. (See
Figure 1 for project location.) The existing two and three lane facility
is to be widened to a five lane curb and gutter facility, with a new wider
bridge over the Lower Little River. This 3.9 mile project has an estimated
cost of $ 8,200,000 (including $6,500,000 for construction and $1,700,000
for right of way).
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact.on the Spring Lake
area by providing better access and safer travel for part of the NC 210
corridor between Spring Lake and Lillington. Approximately 3 residences
and 2 businesses will be relocated by the proposed project. It is
anticipated replacement housing will be available as needed. There may be
some erosion and siltation during construction; however, the effects will
be short term in nature and minimized to the extent possible. No
significant effects to plant or animal life are expected. No recreational
facilities or sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
will be involved. Sixty-three residences and 6 businesses are predicted
to experience traffic noise level increases approaching or in excess of
the FHWA noise abatement criteria (see Section IV.F.) However, no
receptors are predicted to experience a substantial increase in noise
level. Air quality will not be reduced by the proposed improvements.
3. Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an existing
roadway, alternative alignments are not feasible or practicable. Due to
the traffic and development characteristics of this route, only a five
lane curb and gutter section was studied. A number of different widening
strategies were considered in an attempt to determine which would have the
least impact on the environment and adjacent properties. A symmetrical
widening alternate and two different asymmetrical widening alternates were
considered.
The "do-nothing" alternative was considered and rejected, due to the
traffic and safety benefits provided by the proposed improvements.
4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were
consulted regarding this project :
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*U. S. Soil Conservation Service
*State Clearinghouse
N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Human Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
*N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region M Council of Governments
Cumberland County Commissioners
The Mayor of Spring Lake
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written responses were
received. Those comments are included in the appendix of this report.
5. Action Required by Other Agencies
All stream crossings, except the Lower Little River crossing, will
meet the criteria for Nationwide #26 or #14 permits. The Lower Little
River crossing will require a predischarge notification to be sent to the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for their evaluation of the proposed crossing
to determine the need for an individual permit.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
L. J. Ward, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Spring Lake,
NC 210 Improvements,
from Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121)
Cumberland-Harnett Counties
F. A. Project RS - 3274(3)
State Project 8.1441501
T. I. P. # R-2230A
I. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Studied Section
The studied portion of NC 210 is 3.9 miles in length.
2. Functional Classification
NC 210 is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System.
3. Existing Cross Section
The cross section of the studied portion of NC 210 varies. The
first several hundred feet are a five lane curb and gutter section.
Actual construction begins at the point where the cross section
tapers to a three lane shoulder section. The three lane, 40-foot
pavement, shoulder section extends for a distance of about 0.75 mile.
This section has a 12 foot travel lane in each direction, a 12 foot
center left turn lane, and a two foot paved shoulder on each side.
Total usable shoulder width for this section is eight feet.
From the end of the three lane section northward the existing
cross section consists of a two lane, 24 foot pavement, shoulder
section. This section consists of two 10 foot travel lanes with a
two foot paved shoulder on each side. A 10 foot center left turn
lane is provided where needed. Total usable shoudler width for this
section is also eight feet.
4. Right of Way
The existing right-of-way is 100 feet in width. It is
symmetrical about the centerline of the existing roadway.
5. Alignment
The existing horizontal roadway alignment contains no curves
greater than 3 degrees and the vertical grade does not exceed 3
percent at any location along the project.
2
6. Structures
Bridge No. 49 over the Lower Little River has a sufficiency
rating of 50.4. This bridge, which is 28 feet wide and approximately
240 feet long, will be replaced.
Structure No. 69, a single concrete arch culvert over Jumping
Run Creek, has a sufficiency rating of 87.5. This culvert has a span
of 44 feet, a rise of 17 feet 4 inches, and a length of 37 feet 9
inches. It will be retained and extended.
7. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The following State Roads intersect NC 210 within the project
limits; SR 1620, SR 1601, SR 1678, SR 1451, SR 1600, SR 1151,
SR 1121, and SR 2051. All of these intersections are at-grade, and
all but SR 1451 and SR 1121/SR 2051 are stop sign controlled. Both of
these intersections are signalized.
8. Access Control
No control of access exists, and none is planned for the
project.
9. Utilities
Water, sewer, electric, and telephone lines are located along
the project.
10. Geodetic Markers
Two geodetic markers are located along the project and will be
impacted by the construction. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey
will be contacted prior to construction.
11. Bicycle Facilities
NC 210 is not part of the Bicycling Highway System. There does
not appear to be any exceptional level of bicycle traffic on the
roadway; therefore, no special provisions need to be made for bicycle
traffic.
12. School Buses
A total of 5 school buses use the studied section of NC 210
daily during the school year.
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated traffic volumes for the studied facility are as follows
(see also Figure 3): .
1995 Average Daily Traffic = high 17600 vpd
low 13400 vpd
3
2015 Average Daily Traffic = high 30000 vpd
low 22500 vpd
(vehicles per day)
Truck Tractor Semi-Trailer (TTST) = 19. of ADT
Dual Tired Vehicles (Dual) = 3% of ADT
The Design Hourly Volume (DHV) is estimated to be 10% of the ADT.
NC 210 is a major highway connecting Lillington and Spring Lake. A
considerable amount of traffic is added to the flow on NC 210 at SR 1121
(Ray Road), almost doubling the total traffic at this point. For this
reason, SR 1121 was chosen as the northern terminal for the subject
project. From SR 1121 southward traffic gradually increases to the maximum
levels indicated above.
Due to the urban nature of development in the vicinity of this
project, intersection levels of service will control the overall level of
service of the facility. Currently, all unsignalized intersections along
the project are operating at level of service B or better. Both
signalized intersections are also operating at level of service B.
C. Transportation Planning
NC 210 is designated as a Major Thoroughfare on the Fayetteville
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The five lane proposed cross section for
NC 210 is in conformance with the thoroughfare plan, and construction of
this project will be a step in the implementation of the thoroughfare
plan.
D. Accident Record
A total of 144 reported accidents including 3 fatalities occurred on
the studied portion of NC 210 during the period between March 1, 1989 and
February 29, 1992. Forty-six accidents involved vehicles that were in
rear-end collisions, 33 involved vehicles making left turns and an
additional 31 involved vehicles that ran off the roadway.
The total accident rate for the studied section of NC 210 is 250.7
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (ACC/100 MVM). The statewide
average total accident rate for similar facilities from January 1, 1989 to
December 31, 1991 was 275.3 ACC/100MVM.
Due to the medium to high density development along the studied
portion of NC 210, rear-end collisions will continue to be a problem in
the future unless provisions are made to handle projected traffic volumes.
The proposed improvements, two travel lanes in each direction and a
continuous center turn lane, will reduce the potential for this type of
accident. The center turn lane will provide motorists with a place to stop
and wait for a gap in opposing traffic before making a left turn without
having to stop in a travel lane. The additional through lane in each
direction will allow drivers to slow down for a right turn without slowing
all traffic moving in their direction as occurs under current conditions.
4
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The widening of this portion of NC 210 will provide safer and more
efficient access to Spring Lake, Fayetteville, Fort Bragg Military Base
and Pope Air Force Base.
Improved access and safety to the area, savings in operating costs,
reduction in travel times, and the general improvement in the ease and
convenience of travel will benefit all concerned.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Descriation
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to improve NC 210 from Holland Drive, in Spring Lake, to Ray Road
(SR 1121), north of the Cumberland-Harnett county line. (See Figure 1 for
project location.) The existing two and three lane facility is to be
widened to a five lane curb and gutter facility, with a new wider bridge
over the Lower Little River. This 3.9 mile project has an estimated cost
of $8,200,000 (including $6,500,000 for construction and $1,700,000 for
right of way).
B. Historical Resume
This project is included in the 1992-1998 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Originally, R-2230 was to include improvements to NC 210
from Spring Lake to Lillington, a distance of 17.8 miles. Subsequently,
this project designated R-2230A. A was selected for federal funding.
Other improvements to NC 210 north of this project will be made in the
future using state funds. The TIP has allocated $1,070,000 for right of
way acquisition and $4,550,000 for construction of this project (R-2230A).
The total allotment of funds for R-2230 in the 1992-1998 TIP is
$11,425,000 including $350,000 spent in prior years, $4,100,000 for right
of way acquisition, and $6,975,000 for construction.
C. Recommended Improvements
1. Length of Project
The studied portion of NC 210 is 3.9 miles in length.
2. Project Termini
The project's southern terminus is the end of the existing five
lane curb and gutter section just north of Holland Drive in Spring
Lake.
The project's northern terminus is just north of SR 1121 (Ray
Road) in Harnett County.
5
3. Proposed Typical Section
The proposed typical section is a five lane curb and gutter
section. This section is to have a width of 64 feet from face of curb
to face of curb (see Figure 4).
4. Proposed Right of Way Width and Access Control
The proposed right of way width for this project is 100 feet
primarily symmetrical about the centerline of the existing facility.
Exceptions include the following locations where the centerline will
be shifted to reduce impacts to adjacent properties.(See Section III.
A., for further discussion of these exceptions.) These shifts in
alignment may require the acquisition of additional right of way.
1) In the area of the SR 1601 intersection, the centerline
will be shifted west approximately 14 feet.
2) In the area of the bridge over the Lower Little River, the
centerline will be shifted east approximately 18 feet to
facilitate the staged replacement of the existing bridge.
3) In the area of the SR 1121/SR 2051 intersection, at the
north end of the project, the centerline will be shifted
west approximately 14 feet.
No control of access to abutting properties is proposed for this
project.
5. Required Structures
Bridge No. 49 over the Lower Little River will be replaced with
a wider structure. This new structure will be 80 feet wide and
approximately 240 feet in length. This replacement will be
accomplished in two stages. First, the existing structure will
continue to carry traffic while the eastern lanes of the new bridge
are constructed just east of the existing structure. Then, traffic
will be shifted to the new structure so that the existing structure
can be removed and the western section of the new structure built in
its place.
The arch culvert over Jumping Run Creek, structure number 69,
will be retained and extended approximately 20 feet on each end so
that the proposed cross section can be accommodated.
6. Design Speed
The design speed for this facility will be 50 miles per hour.
This is due to the urban nature of the proposed curb and gutter
section and the rolling terrain along the project. The speed limit
is expected to be 45 miles per hour.
6
7. Permits
A predischarge notification is required for the bridge over the
Lower Little River. This will alert the US Army Corps of Engineers so
that they may determine the need for an Individual Section 404 permit
for this structure.
It is anticipated that the Nationwide Section 404 permit
provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) are applicable in other areas.
The conditions and best management practices described in the
provisions of 330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
8. Proposed Intersection Treatment
All roadway intersections will be at-grade and stop sign
controlled, with the exception of SR 1601 (Chapel Hill Road) and
SR 1121 (Ray Road)/SR 2051 (Raynor Road) which will remain
signalized. The signal controls at these intersections will be
revised to accommodate the new traffic patterns.
SR 1601 will be realigned to intersect NC 210 opposite the
northern most entrance to the Cedarwood Shopping Center. This
realignment will eliminate a poor angle of intersection between
NC 210 and existing SR 1601. The traffic signal at the existing
intersection will be moved to the new intersection. The entrance to
the shopping center at the existing SR 1601 intersection will remain
open, but will no longer be signalized. All existing pavement on SR
1601 not needed to provide access to residences will be removed.
SR 1451 (Manchester Road) will be realigned to intersect NC 210
at a safer, more efficient angle. This new intersection will be
approximately 900 feet to the south of the existing intersection.
Portions of existing SR 1451 not needed to provide access to
residences will be removed.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative consists of widening the studied portion
of NC 210 to a five lane curb and gutter section. This curb and gutter
section will be 64 feet from face of curb to face of curb. This five lane
section will provide two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous
center left turn lane.
The proposed roadway is to be widened symmetrically about the
centerline of the existing roadway throughout most of the project.
Exceptions to this symmetrical widening include a short section in the
area of the SR 1601 intersection, a section at the bridge over the Lower
Little River, and a short section at the north end of the project in the
area of the intersection of SR 1121/SR 2051.
7
The section of asymmetrical widening in the area of the SR 1601
intersection will move the proposed centerline approximately 14 feet to
the west to reduce any adverse impacts to the parking facilities for the
Cedarwood Shopping Center. This shift will also reduce impacts to a
Precision Tune auto repair facility adjacent to the shopping center.
Shifting the proposed centerline approximately 18 feet to the east in
the vicinity of the bridge over the Lower Little River will aid in the
staged construction of the proposed replacement structure. Using the
existing bridge to maintain traffic while the eastern section of the
proposed structure is constructed will eliminate the need for a detour
structure. After the eastern section of the new bridge is complete,
traffic can be shifted to it allowing the existing bridge to be removed
and replaced by the western section of the new bridge.
The area of asymmetrical widening at the north end of the project
will shift the proposed centerline approximately 14 feet west reducing
impacts to several residences located on the east side of the existing
facility.
Other improvements include realigning SR 1601 and SR 1451 to
intersect NC 210 at more acceptable angles to provide safer traffic
movement between these facilities. SR 1601 will be realigned to intersect
NC 210 opposite the northern most entrance to Cedarwood Shopping Center.
The existing traffic signal will be shifted north to the proposed
intersection. Any part of existing SR 1601 not needed to provide access
will be removed. SR 1451 will be realigned to intersect NC 210
approximately 900 feet south of its current intersection. Portions of
existing SR 1451 not needed to provide access will also be removed. See
figure 2 for aerial views of these intersections.
B. Other Widening Alternatives and Detour Structure
In addition to the recommended improvements, consideration was given
to widening the entire roadway symmetrically about the centerline of the
existing facility. This alternative would also require the construction of
a detour structure to replace the existing bridge over the Lower Little
River. This alternative would also necessitate the relocation of three
additional businesses and would considerably increase the right of way
cost due to increases in proximity damages to several residences.
x In addition to the proposed cross section, consideration was given to
a four lane facility. This cross section was rejected due to the capacity
deficiencies caused by left turning vehicles and the additional risk of
rear-end collisions caused by vehicles turning left from the inside travel
lane. Improving the entire facility to a three lane facility would also
fail to provide the needed traffic carrying capacity.
C. Public Transportation Alternative
While a considerable portion of the traffic on NC 210 is local
traffic, residential densities are low enough that providing some form of
public transportation would not be a feasible alternative to improving the
8
subject roadway. Public transportation is not a viable substitute for
widening NC 210. Public bus transportation would be a likely supplement to
improving the existing facility, thus extending the useful life of the
upgraded facility.
D. "No-Build" Alternative
If the "no-build" alternative were chosen, it would have a
considerable negative impact on transportation in the Spring Lake area.
NC 210 is a highly congested facility at present, especially during peak
periods. With the projected increases in traffic the service provided by
the existing facility would deteriorate even more. Increased congestion
would lead to higher operating costs and increased travel times. Motorist
safety would also be sacrificed leading to even greater losses due to
accidents and deaths. Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been
rejected.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use Planning
1. Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located in the planning and zoning
jurisdictions of Cumberland County, the Town of Spring Lake, and
Harnett County. Spring Lake enforces its zoning ordinance only within
its municipal limits (See Figure 5).
Cumberland County's most recent Land Use Plan was adopted in
1971 and updated in 1974. The County is currently developing a draft,
county-wide Comprehensive Plan. An Economic Potential Study of
Downtown Spring Lake was prepared by the Cumberland County Joint
Planning Board in 1979.
Harnett County adopted its Land Use Plan in 1976, and approved
an update in 1987.
2. Existino Conditions
Spring Lake is located adjacent to Pope Air Force Base and the
Fort Bragg Military Reservation. As such, it is home to many military
personnel and their families. Accordingly, the population is
somewhat transitory.
The land uses found adjacent to NC 210 in Harnett County are
typical of those in areas of transition from rural character and use
to more urban development. Land uses along NC 210 in Harnett County
are mixed, with residential uses located next to commercial and light
industrial uses. Much of the land remains undeveloped.
Convenience-type businesses are located at the intersection of
NC 210 and SR 1121. South of the intersection, linear residential
development exists on the east side of the roadway. More commercial
9
land uses, including service stations and convenience stores, occur
on the west side. Residential subdivisions are accessed from NC 210
on the east side of the roadway. The backyards of some homes "front"
on the roadway.
Near Jumping Run Creek, south of the Cumberland County line, the
land is undeveloped and wooded. Development is sparse between
Jumping Run Creek and the Little River. Some businesses located in
this area include a junkyard, automotive repair, tire sales, and
thrift shops.
The land use takes on a more suburban character inside the
Spring Lake municipal limits. The Cedarwood Shopping Center is
located on the east side at the intersection of NC 210 and SR 1601
(Chapel Hill Road). It is a neighborhood shopping center with a
grocery store, pharmacy, and small specialty shops. Some space in the
shopping center is vacant. Other land uses in Spring Lake along NC
210 include a funeral home, churches, retailers, restaurants, and
private residences. The Mae Rudd Williams School is located south of
the intersection of Holland Drive and NC 210, outside the proposed
project limits.
3. Existing Zoning
The Town of Spring Lake exercises zoning authority within its
municipal limits. The predominant zoning classification located along
NC 210 in Spring Lake is the Planned Commercial District C(P). This
classification designates areas for use by retail developments. C(P)
districts are located in the vicinity of the project's southern
terminus at Holland Drive north of Lake Park Drive, and on the
eastern side of the roadway south of Chapel Hill Road to the northern
municipal limits.
A large Residential District (R-10) accommodates an existing
subdivision on the western side of NC 210, accessed by Samuel Drive.
Smaller Spring Lake zoning districts are scattered along the roadway.
These are dominated by commercial and residential districts
accommodating varying development densities. One Office and
Institutional District (0&I) is located at the intersection of NC 210
and North Fifth Street.
Cumberland County is responsible for zoning enforcement north of
the Spring Lake municipal limits. Most County zoning districts
located along NC 210 are residential. R-10 Residential District is
the most common, which permits single family development on lots
10,000 square feet or more in size. R-10 districts are located in the
area of the Little River and adjacent to the Spring Lake municipal
limits.
Other residential districts adjacent to the roadway include the
Rural Residential (RR) classification, which permits only low density
development, and R-6 and R-6A Residential Districts, which permit a
mix of mobile homes, single family, and multifamily development.
10
Several relatively small commercial districts most accommodating
existing businesses occur along NC 210 north of Spring Lake. The most
common commercial district is the C-3, Heavy Commercial classifica-
tion, which permits a wide array of business, service, recreational,
and office uses. Other Cumberland County commercial districts along
NC 210 include the C-1, Local Business Districts and C(P) Planned
Commercial Districts.
4. Future Land Use
According to the most recent Cumberland County Land Use Plan
Map, most of the land adjacent to NC 210 is designated for low
density residential development (2 to 7.5 dwelling units/acre).
Medium density residential development (7.5 to -15 dwelling
units/acre) is planned near the intersection of NC 210 and NC 87-24.
A commercial node is also indicated for the intersection. A
neighborhood shopping center is planned for the west side-of NC 210,
south of the Little River. Medium density residential development is
to surround the designated neighborhood shopping center. The land
use of the east side of NC 210, north of the Little River is expected
to remain rural.
The Harnett County Land Use Plan indicates that the land
adjacent to and east of NC 210 is expected to remain rural.
Residential development is expected west of NC 210 near the
Cumberland County line.
5. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
Land uses along NC 210 are mixed, with a combination of
commercial, residential, and office uses. This land use
configuration requires direct access from NC 210 to almost every
parcel. As the proposed widening will improve traffic flow in the
area by facilitating turning movements to the adjacent land, the
project is compatible with local plans.
B. Social and Economic Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristic
Cumberland County is located in the southeastern section of the
state and is bounded by Sampson, Bladen, Robeson, Hoke, Moore, and
Harnett Counties. According to the U. S. Population Census Data for
1990, Cumberland County has a population of 274,566.
Spring Lake is situated just north of the city of Fayetteville.
It is also contiguous to the Fort Bragg Military Base and Pope Air
Force Base. According to the 1990 census, Spring Lake has a
population of 7,524.
In the vicinity of the project's southern terminus at Holland
Drive the population density is relatively high. This urban setting
is a mixture of residential and commercial development, including the
11
Cedarwood Shopping Center. Moving north along the project this urban.
sprawl gives way to highway type commercial establishments intermixed
with suburban residential development and undeveloped land. By the
north end of the project, at SR 1121 (Ray Road) development has
changed to a more rural character.
2. Economic Factors
At the end of December 1990, Cumberland County had 94,630
persons in the labor force. Out of this total 89,720 persons were
employed. This left an unemployed total of 5,360 or 5.7 percent.
Employment in the town of Spring Lake and the surrounding area
is enhanced by the proximity of the Fort Bragg Military Base and Pope
Air Force Base. The proposed action will increase the accessibility
of these facilities to commuters using NC 210 to reach their jobs.
It is anticipated that after the proposed improvements are made
to the existing facility, increased commercial and residential
development will take place along the proposed facility. This should
enhance the local tax base.
A few businesses located in close proximity to the existing
facility may have to be relocated to provide adequate room for the
proposed facility.
3. Public Facilities and Services
Public Facilities along the proposed project consist of Fire
Station Number 14, Little River Baptist Church, V. F. W. Post 4542
N. C. Ladies Auxiliary, United Pentecostal Holiness Church, and
Adcock Funeral Home.
These facilities appear to be far enough back from the existing
roadway so they will not be impacted by the proposed action.
4. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action
a. Relocation Impacts
Relocation of 3 families and 2 businesses will be
unavoidable where homes and businesses are located in close
proximity to the existing facility. A few others will suffer
from proximity damage due to the proposed improvements. These
relocations are not expected to cause a breakup of a community,
nor the disruption of services. It is anticipated that adequate
replacement properties will be available for the relocatees.
All relocations will be in accordance with the revised North
Carolina General Statutes Chapter 133. A relocation report is
included in the Appendix to this document.
12
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of
state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT
staff will be available to assist displacees with information
such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or
businesses for sale or rent and financing of other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general,
provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to
purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable-
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation
Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will
compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify
and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be
conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is
designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of
displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow
ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations, and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day
written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation
of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less
desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals
displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of
displaced businesses, non-profit organization, and farm
operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
13
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be
displaced will receive an explanation regarding all available
options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental
of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving
existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible).
The relocation officer will also supply information concerning
other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to
a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to
compensate the displacee for the costs of moving personal
property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and
farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in
reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and
other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings.
Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing
payments, increase interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment,
not to exceed $5,250, to rent a, replacement dwelling or to make
a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase
of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what
the State determines is required when the rent supplement
exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be
displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted
construction projects unless or until comparable or adequate
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered
as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of
eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement
payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose
of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of
implementation by the State so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appears to
be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
14
b. Social Impacts
The proposed action will have a positive impact on the
community as a whole. Such positive impacts will include:
increased safety for the motoring public, and improved
visibility and accessibility for various businesses and services
along the proposed facility. Since Spring Lake serves as a
bedroom community for military and civilian personnel of the
local. Military Bases, the proposed improvements will increase
their efficiency in getting to and from their destinations.
The proposed action will not be
cohesion, and it will not interfere
public facilities or services.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Architectural Resources
a disruption to community
with the accessibility of
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, and the Regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Governing the Section
106 Review Process, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. It is also subject
to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966, as amended.
A comprehensive reconnaissance level survey of the area
surrounding the project corridor was conducted. All roads in the
survey area were driven to delineate an appropriate Area of Potential
Effect (APE), record worthy properties over 50 years of age, and
determine the presence of properties listed in or potentially
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
appropriate APE determined for this project is a narrow corridor on
either side of the existing road basically running behind the
properties directly facing present NC 210 in developed areas and
along contour and tree lines in the wooded areas and open fields (See
Figure II). The APE is characterized by rather regular spaced
buildings fronting NC 210 interspersed with thickly wooded areas and
open fields. Clumps of intensive development, most commonly mobile
home parks and assisted housing, are located at either end of the
project.
No properties 50 years old or older nor any properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register were found in the Area of
Potential Effect. Overhills, a potentially eligible National Register
property consisting of approximately 15,000 acres is located to the
west of this project and the Fort Bragg Military Reservation is
located to the east. Neither of these properties will be affected
either physically or visually by the improvements to this section of
NC 210. A buffer of new development effectively shields Overhills
from the project. Wooded areas and modern development separate the
project from Fort Bragg. Therefore no further compliance activities
associated with either Section 106 or the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 as amended or with Section 4(f) of-the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 are appropriate.
15
2. Archaeological Resources
Since this project is to widen an existing facility in an urban
setting, the possibility of undiscovered, undisturbed archaeological
sites is slight. A number of other archaeological surveys in the area
have shown a scarcity of significant sites. NCDOT requested a ruling
from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as to the need
for an archaeological survey for this project.
The SHPO responded by letter dated May 17, 1990 stating that:
"Based on the information at hand, we concur with the assessment that
potentially significant archaeological sites will not be affected by
the proposed project. Therefore, we do not recommend that an
archaeological survey be conducted in connection with this project".
The SHPO's entire response is included in the appendix of this
report.
D. Natural Resources
A field survey was conducted January 20, 1991 to identify-vegetative
communities, wildlife species and other natural resources contained within
the study area. Vegetative communities and wildlife were inventoried along
the 3.9 mile alignment. Wetlands were identified using methods in the
1987 "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands".
In-house preparatory work was done prior to the field investigation.
The Cumberland County soil survey, the hydric soils lists for Cumberland
and Harnett Counties, and United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Manchester N.C. quadrangle map were studied to identify potential wetland
sites. Harnett County does not have a published survey, but pertinent soil
maps were obtained from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). "Classifi-
cations and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape
Fear River Basin" (N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
- NCDEHNR) was reviewed to determine classifications for drainages crossed
in the study area. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were consulted to determine if any
protected flora or fauna occur in the project area. In addition, aerial
photographs and other resources were used to identify potential habitat.
1. Plant Communities
Seven plant communities were identified in the study area.
Upland plant communities are comprised of Man-dominated Areas, Xeric
Sandhill Scrub, Mesic Pine Flatwoods and Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest.
Wetland plant communities include Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest, wet
Pine flatwoods and Sand and Mudbar Communities.
a. U lands
Man-dominated Areas
Man-dominated lands are areas where man's structures or
activities prevent natural plant succession. Maintained highway
rights of way,and residential and commercial development
16
physically prevent natural plant succession. Maintained shoulder
slopes, grounds and lawns support turf (Festuca sp.) as the
dominant vegetative component complemented with landscape
ornamentals. Mowing is frequently associated with these areas.
Agricultural lands are areas currently managed for
agriculture, including fields under cultivation, fields
temporarily fallow and staging areas associated with farming.
This community is scattered throughout the project area. Corn,
tobacco, soybeans, small grains and forage crops are commonly
grown. Because of routine management practices associated with
farming, this community is considered to retain only isolated
remnants of its native character, providing little of its
initial value as wildlife habitat. Fields allowed to lay fallow
host a proliferation of herbaceous plants, both native and
invading weedy species. Tall goldenrod (Solidago canadensis var.
scabra), dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), fall panic grass
(Panicum dichotomiflorum) and hairy crabgrass (Digitaria
cil' iaris) occur within the fields and along field edges.
Xeric Sandhill Scrub
Xeric Sandhill Scrub communities occur on coarse, deep,
infertile sands on upland ridgetops and slopes in the project
area. Here, they typically grade into wet pine flatwoods. They
are excessively drained and are low diversity communities,
supporting an open canopy of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
with an open to dense understory of turkey oak ( uercus laevis).
Wire grass (Aristida stricta) is the dominant herb, with patches
of trailing arbutus (Epigaea repens) encountered occasionally.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
Mesic pine flatwoods in the study area are sites that are
neither excessively drained nor have a significant seasonal high
water table. Longleaf and loblolly pines (Pinus taeda) share a
fairly closed canopy. Dense understory is comprised of southern
red oak ( uercus falcata), water oak ( uercus nigra), sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua) and scattered red maple (Acer rubrum).
Patches of wire grass and braken fern (Pteridium a ui inum
dominate in places. A vigorous vine layer omposedlow
jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) and green-briers (Smilax
rotundifolia and S. bona-nox).
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Loblolly pine, sometimes scattered with longleaf pine,
shares an open to closed canopy with a variety of hardwood
species. Prevalent are willow oak ( uercus p hellos), post oak
(Q. stellata), southern red oak and hickories (Carya allida and
C. tomentosa). Dogwood (Cornus florida) is frequently seen in
the understory, as are blueberries ()(accinium spp.), wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera) and horse sugar (Symplocos tintoria). Braken
fern and pip is ssewa (Chimaphila maculata) are notable herbaceous
species. Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), yellow jessamine and
greenbrier form the vine stratum.
17
b. Wetlands
Wet Pine Flatwoods
Wet pine flatwoods occur on sandy sediments, typically
grading into.xeric sandhill shrub communities in the project
area. An open to closed canopy consists of loblolly and
longleaf pine. Redbay (Persea borbonia), sweet bay (Magnolia
virginiana), sassafras (Sassafrabidum), wax myrtle and
blueberries are important understory components. Inkberry (Ilex
lg abra) forms dense thickets in some areas. Wild azalea
(Rhododendron nudiflorum) is encountered frequently. Cinnamon
fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), braken fern, and cane (Arundinaria
gigantea) form the herbaceous layer.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Mixed pine/hardwood forests are the most prevalent wetland
community in the project area. Loblolly pine, river birch
(Betula ni ra), water oak, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
ann sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) form the canopy. American
elm (Ulmus americana) is an important component at Jumping Run
Creek. Sweet bay, red maple, and fetter bush (Lyonia sp.),
interspersed with thickets of dewberry (Rebus trivial7s) form
the understory. Witches grass (Dichanthelium sco arium) and
cane. form the herbaceous stratum. Greenbrier Smilax
laurifolia) and yellow jessamine are common vines.
Sand and Mudbar Community
Large expanses of sand and mud deposits are prevalent in
and adjacent to wetland site #13 (see figure B1). These areas
are disturbed by flooding, sediment input and deposition from
the adjacent stream channel. Because of these community
dynamics, the system does not support a forest canopy.
The vegetational structure is composed of a dense
herbaceous layer interspersed with a few scattered shrubs and
trees. Typical herbs and shrubs include wool grass (Scirpus
c erinus), soft rush (Juncus effusus) witches grass Aster
Aster spp.), thoroughwort (Eupatorium spp.), slender spikerush
(Chasmanthium laxum), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), tear
thumb (Po ygonum teretifolium) and black willow (Salix njM).
A few trees such as cypress (Taxodium distichum), river birch
and willow oak occur along the fringes of the channel.
C. Plant Community Impacts
The future widening will eliminate strips of plant
communities. This will result in direct loss of plant species
from clearing operations, soil compaction, and soil erosion.
Filling and sedimentation of wetlands may alter drainage or
hydrologic continuities. Large tracts of swamp are contiguous
18
to wet pine and wet mixed pine/hardwood sites. Indirect impacts
to these adjacent communities may occur during construction
activities.
Acreage impacts to each community are summarized in Table
below. Calculations are based on 100 feet of right-of-way.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
PLANT COMMUNITY
Uplands
Man-dominated Areas
Xeric Sandhill Scrub
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Wetlands
Wet Pine Flatwoods
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Mud and Sandbar Community
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
14.2
1.9
.9
2.3
Upland Total 19.3 Acres
0.4
4.2
0.2
Wetland Total 4.8 Acres
2. Wildlife
The diversity of wetland communities provide a variety of
opportunities for wildlife. Of special interest are the wetland
forests. Such forests act as natural corridors for the passage of
mammals because they extend for many miles in uninterrupted strips.
They also serve as refuges for mammals forced from more disturbed
upland sites. Such mammals as beaver (Castor canadensis), mink
(Mustela vison), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), and raccoons (Procyon
lotor) inhabit these wetlands sites.
Wetland communities are valuable habitat for reptiles and
amphibians. Pine woods treefrog (Hyla femoralis), spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer), bullfrog (Rana catesbeian dwarf salamander
(Eur cea quadridiqitata), southern dusky sa amander (Desmognathus
auricu atus), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), spotted
turtle (( lemmys utg tats), yellowbel y slider (Chrysem ss scri ta),
ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), rat snake (Ela he obsoleta) and
cottonmouth (A kistrodon iscivorus_) are but a few o the reptiles
and amphibians likely to be f? ound in the bottomlands and wet pine
forests of the area.
19
Wetland communities are valuable habitat for reptiles and
amphibians. Pine woods treefrog (Hyla femoralis), spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), dwarf salamander
(Eur cea quadridigitata), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
auricu atus), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), spotted
turtle (Clemmys uttata), yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripta),
ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) and
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) are but a few of the reptiles
and amphibians likely to be found in the bottomlands and wet pine
forests of the area.
Personal communication with fisheries biologist Keith Ashley of
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) revealed that there is
a spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) stocking program underway in
the Little River. The Little River is a fall line stream with a rock
and cobble substrate, which is a preferred habitat for this species.
Other common fish inhabitants of area streams include the redear
sunfish (Le omis microlophus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
bluegill (Le om-is macrochirus), a few largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) and chain pickerel (Esox niger).
It is in the old-field habitats that many species of small
mammals are most common. As agricultural fields are left fallow,
they become vegetated with annual and perennial weeds. This provides
food and cover for eastern moles (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern
harvest mice (Reithrodontomys humilis), hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon
hispidus) and eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Pine forests of the area support a sizable white-tail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) population.
Bird life is rich in these areas. The red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) is a common inhabitant, as is the pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus ileatus), yellow-bellied sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus varius), eastern ebird (Sialia sialis), Carolina wren
IThryothorus ludovicianus), pine warbler (Dendroica almarum) and
rufous- sided towhee (Pi ilo fuscus).
Wildlife Impacts
Loss of wildlife habitat are serious impacts that will occur
from the proposed widening of NC 210. Creation of a "highway
barrier" can affect both short-term migrations (diurnal, nocturnal,
diel) and long term migrations (seasonal) of animal populations,
depending on individual species requirements for food, water and
cover. Also, animal migration may be interrupted due to vehicular
noise, and road-kills will decrease numbers of individuals of
vulnerable species. Aquatic species will be particularly affected.
Dredging, filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization and
land clearing are construction activities that may result in the
direct loss of benthic organisms and an increase in silt load in
wetland environments. Motile benthic macroinvertebrates are better
able to avoid impacts, and will have a faster recovery rate from
siltation than those species that are filter feeders and relatively
immoblile. The removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential
food supply for vertebrate and aquatic organisms.
20
Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish-and benthos, such as:
decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibits plant and algal
growth, clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and
the gills of fish, buries benthi c organisms on the bottom cutting
them off from a food source, modifies preferred benthic substrate and
spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
3. Soils
The following soil series are located within the project area:
Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slope, Gilead loamy sand, 8 to 15
percent slope, Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slope,
Roanoke and Wahee loams, Wickham fine sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent
slope, Tarboro loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slope, Chewacla loam,
Vancluse-Gilead loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slope, Blaney loamy
sand, 2 to 8 percent slope, Dothan loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slope
and Candor sand, 1 to 8 percent slope.
Small streams in the project area are associated with Blaney
loamy sands and Gilead loamy sands. A perched water table is
frequently above the brittle subsoils. In addition, numerous seepage
areas occupy these soils.
Extensive areas of xeric sandhill scrub are associated with
Candor sands and Dothan loamy sands. These areas typically grade
into wet pine flatwoods; where Blaney loamy sands predominate.
Most of the commercial and residential development is located on
Wickham fine sandy loam, a well drained soil with hydric inclusions
of Roanoke.
Table 2. HYDRIC AND NONHYDRIC SOIL SERIES IN STUDY AREA
SOIL SERIES
CLASSIFICATION
HYDRIC INCLUSION
Blaney loamy sand
Dothan loamy sand
Candor sand
Roanoke and Wahee loam
Wickham fine sandy loam
Tarboro loamy sand
Altavista fine sandy loam
Dogue fine sandy loam
Chewacla loam
Vancluse-Gilead loamy sand
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Hydric (Roanoke)
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Roanoke
Roanoke
21
4. Water Resources
The study area falls within the confines of the Cape Fear River
basin. The proposed project will cross the surface waters of Jumping
Run Creek and the Little River. Jumping Run Creek has a "best usage"
classification of C as designated by N.C. Division of Environmental
Management (NC-DEM). Class C designates waters suitable for
secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife and agriculture. The Little River has a "best usage"
classification of WS-III. This indicates that it is a water supply
segment with no categorical restrictions on watershed development or
discharges and is suitable for all Class C uses. Seven unnamed
tributaries to be crossed are associated with the Little River. As
stated in 15 NCAC 2B .0301.(i) (1), any stream which is not named in
the schedule of stream classifications carries the same classifi-
cation as that assigned to the stream segment to which it is a
tributary.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) (NC-DEHNR,
Division of Environmental Management) addresses long term trends in
water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the use of benthic
macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive to very subtle
changes in water quality. Taxa richness in the Little River near
Manchester declined sharply between 1984 and 1986 and the
bioclassification was changed from Good to Fair.
Water Resource Impacts
Nine drainages in the study area will receive probable impacts
from the subject project. These potential impacts are increased
sedimentation from construction and/or erosion; increased
concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff and/or toxic
spills; scouring of stream beds dud to the channelization of streams;
alterations of water level due to interruptions or.additions to
surficial and/or groundwater flow; changes in light incidence due to
the removal of vegetative cover.
5. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) takes jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill
material into these wetlands as authorized by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
x
These wetland communities were identified in the project
corridor (Figure B1) on the basis of low soil chroma values,
hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of hydrology or hydrological
indicators, such as stained, matted vegetation, high water marks on
trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
Most of the wetlands in the area are associated with streams and
are disturbed communities. For example, what was once bottomland
hardwood forest, is now, mixed/pine hardwood and pine forest due to
selective cutting and clear cutting of hardwoods.
22
Table 3. ESTIMATED WETLAND ACREAGE IMPACTS, BY SITE
Site# Plant Community
1 Mixed Pine/Hardwood
2 "
3 "
4 "
5 "
6 Pine Forest
7 „
8 Mixed Pine/Hardwood
9 IN
10 "
11 IN
12 IN
13 Sand and Mudbar
14 Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Estimated Impacts
0.2
0.1
0.1
3.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
Total Acres 4.8
a. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required from the
COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Based upon site location and estimated
acreage involved, it is anticipated that most impacts could be
authorized by a Nationwide #26 permit. However, an Individual
404 permit may be required due to the size of wetland site #4.
State water quality certification is required for permits which
may result in any discharge into waters of the United States.
Final judgement concerning specific permit requirements is
reserved for the COE.
Nationwide permit #26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)] generally
authorizes discharges of dredge or fill material in wetlands
located above the headwaters (flow less than 5 cubic feet per
second) of non-tidal rivers, streams and their lakes and
impoundments including adjacent wetlands. In general, a
nationwide permit applies above headwaters if less than one acre
of water and/or wetland is being filled. Authorization also
applies to "isolated waters" not part of a surface tributary
system. Nationwide permits are valid only if the conditions
applicable to them are met as outlined in [33 CFR 330.5 (b)] and
[33 CFR 330.6 (a)].
23
As indicated above, a permit is required for work in waters
of the United States and their adjacent wetlands. If one to 10
acres of wetlands are being filled, as in site #4, a
predischarge notification is required in accordance with [33 CFR
330.7]. Final determination as to whether an individual permit
will be required rests with the COE.
b. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not likely to be required under
a Nationwide #26 permit according to the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
COE. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with
the COE.
Compensatory mitigation is required for actions covered by
Individual Section 404 permits. In an effort to minimize
wetland impacts the structure over the Little River will be
replaced in the same location as the existing structure. While
this will not eliminate wetland impacts at Site #4, impacts will
be less than if the bridge were built on new location. On-site
mitigation opportunities will be considered first, with several
potential mitigation sites having been identified. A less
desirable option is to mitigate acreage by debiting the North
Carolina Department of Transportation Company Swamp Mitigation
Bank, as outlined in an agreement between the USFWS, North
Carolina Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and NCDOT.
6. 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 provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended.
Scoping comments received from the USFWS report several
federally Endangered species known to occur in Cumberland and
Harnett Counties (See Table 4). In addition, several Candidate
(formerly Status Review) species may occur in the area. These
are species not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
24
A brief description and habitat requirements for the above
listed species are summarized below.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (E)
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was once a common bird in
the mature pine forests of the Southeast. It lived from east
Texas to Florida and north to Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland.
Today, its range and population have been reduced through loss
of habitat. Forty-one North Carolina counties are known to
currently support active RCW colonies. These are largely
restricted to the upper, middle and lower coastal plains.
The red-cockaded woodpecker has specific nesting and
foraging habitat requirements. Nesting habitat consists of pine
or pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands over 60 years
of age. Available foraging habitat is defined as pine and
pine-hardwood stands (50 percent or more pine) over 30 years of
age contiguous to and within 0.5 miles of the colony centroid.
The 0.5 mile radius from the colony centroid represents the
foraging range of clans and may encompass areas outside of the
project area.
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat was identified within
0.5 mile of NC 210 and it was determined that clearing for
roadway expansion would eliminate strips of this habitat.
The next step was to determine if RCW colonies were
present. A colony site must be contiguous with foraging
habitat. Nonforaging habitat 10 acres or larger in size and 330
feet or greater in width would make adjacent foraging habitat
noncontiguous. Subsequent surveys, by a team of two NCDOT
biologists, were conducted by walking north-south line transects
spaced 50 to 100 yards apart (depending on midstory density).
These surveys were conducted during March and April 1991.
Surveys for colony sites resulted in the discovery of a single,
active tree representing a previously undocumented active colony
(Colony A), approximately 1300 feet east of NC 210 and
contiguous with identified foraging habitat likely to be
impacted. Active colonies have been documented on the adjacent
Fort Bragg Military Reservation by the NCNHP, but no record
exists for Colony A.
With the RCW present in the study area, a quantitative
assessment of anticipated impacts to the colony was necessary.
A foraging habitat analysis was conducted to determine the
quantity of foraging substrate (See Appendix A). In summary,
this study showed that approximately 10,929 square feet of pine
basal area and 8,798 pine stems >10 inches dbh will remain for
the exclusive use of this colony (Colony A). This exceeds the
minimum values of 8,490 pine basal area and 6,350 pine stems >10
inches dbh recommended in the RCW recovery plan. The clearing
necessary for roadway expansion will have only minimal impact on
25
the locally abundant foraging habitat currently used by Colony
A. For this reason, minimal impact to the species is
anticipated.
Pondberry (E)
This deciduous shrub is a member of the aromatic laurel
family. It's leaves have a distinct sassafras odor when
crushed. Mature leaf blades are oblong-elliptic, oval or
lance-ovate, and are pubescent on both sides. Yellow flowers in
umbel-like clusters appear in early spring, before the leaves.
Bright red drupes mature in the fall.
Pondberry is found in a variety of wetland habitats, from
boggy margins of cypress-gum ponds, open bogs, sandy sinks and
swamps. Wetland acreage present in the project corridor
highlighted the possibility that pondberry could be present. A
plant by plant survey by a NCDOT biologist was conducted in
wetland habitats within the right of way; March 24, 1991.
Pondberry was not present in the impact zone. The subject
project will have no impact on this species.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife (E)
This species generally occurs in the ecotones or edges
between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins on wet,
poorly drained, peaty soils, on seasonally saturated sands and
on shallow, organic soils overlaying sands. Field observations
reveal no suitable habitat for this plant. The subject project
will have no impact on this species.
Cape Fear Shiner (E)
The Cape Fear Shiner is endemic to the Cape Fear drainage
in NC and is currently known from three populations in Randolph,
Moore, Lee and Chatham Counties. Historically it is known from
the Cape Fear River, Parkers Creek and Kenneth Creek in Harnett
County, but recent, extensive surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service have failed to recollect it.
No stream crossings were encountered in Harnett County.
This eliminates the possibility of the occurrence of the Cape
Fear Shiner in the project area. The subject project will have
no impact on this species.
b. State-Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the.North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and
the NC Department of Agriculture.
26
the Cape Fear River, Parkers Creek and Kenneth Creek in Harnett
County, but recent, extensive surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service have failed to recollect it.
No stream crossings were encountered in Harnett County.
This eliminates the possibility of the occurrence of the Cape
Fear Shiner in the project area. The subject project will have
no impact on this species.
b. State-Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and
the NC Department of Agriculture.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
reports no state protected species within the immediate project
area. However, documentation exists for the red-cockaded
woodpecker and the sandhills pixie moss on the adjacent Fort
Bragg Military Reservation.
The USFWS provided information on several Status Review
(SR) species that occur in Cumberland and Harnett Counties that
may occur in the project corridor. The following state
designations for these species are provided in Table 5. One
species, the Pine barrens tree frog H la andersonii) is listed
as a Status Review species by the USFWS, but does not have a
state protection designation.
Table 5. STATE-PROTECTED SPECIES
Cumberland/Harnett Counties
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Aimophila aestivalis
Elliptio marsupiobesa
Semotilus lumbee
Calamovi fa brevipilis
Ptero ossas is ecristata
Hexasty is ewisii
Kalmia cuneata
Nestronia umbellula
Pyxidanthera barbulata
var. brevifolia
Rhexia aristosa
Soli ago verna
COMMON NAME STATUS/RANK
Bachman's sparrow (C) SC/S3
Cape Fear spike (C) T/S1
Sandhills chub (C) SC/S3
Riverbank sand grass (H) E/S1
False coco (C) E/SX
Lewis' heartleaf (H) C/S3
White wicky (C) E-SC/S2
Nestronia (H) T/S3
Wells Pixie-moss (H) E/S2
Awned meadow beauty (C) T/S2
Spring flowering goldenrod(H) E/S2
27
Carex barrattii
Ilex amelanchier
Parnassia caroliniana
Rudbeckia heliopsidis
Eupatorium resinosum
Barratt's sedge (H) E/SH
Sarvis holly (H) C/S2
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (H) E/C2
Sun-facing coneflower (H) T/C2
Resinous thoroughwort (H) E/C2
Note: C and H denote Cumberland and Harnett Counties
NC Rank Designations: S1 = Critically imperiled in NC because of extreme
rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or because of some factor making it
especially vulnerable to extirpation from NC; S2 = Imperiled in North
Carolina because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences); S3 = Rare or uncommon in
NC (21 to 100 occurrences; SX = apparently extirpated from North Carolina;
SH = of historical occurence in North Carolina, perhaps not having been
verified in the past 20 years, and suspected to still be extant; E-SC = An
endangered plant which requires population monitoring, but which may be
collected and sold under specific regulations.
Suitable habitat requirements for these species are summarized below.
No surveys were conducted for the species or suitable habitat.
Bachman's Sparrow
Habitat: open long-leaf pine forests, old fields
(Breeding season only)
Cape Fear Spike
Habitat: muddy, loose, sandy substrates below log jams.
Is only known from the Cape Fear River in Cumberland and
Bladen Counties.
Sandhills Chub
Habitat: small to medium-sized, slow-flowing creeks
with sand and gravel bottoms and sparse vegetation.
Restricted to the Carolina Sandhills region in the Lumber
River system (Peedee drainage) and in adjacent tributaries
of the Yadkin and Cape Fear drainage.
Riverbank Sandgrass
Habitat: savannahs, sandhill seeps
False Coco
Habitat: pinelands
Lewis' Heartleaf
Habitat: forests, pocosin edges
White Wicky
Habitat:
Nestronia
Habitat:
pocosins
upland forests
28
Well's pixie moss
Habitat: sandhills
Awned Meadow Beauty
Habitat: limesink ponds, clay-based Carolina bays
Spring Flowering Goldenrod
Habitat: dry pinelands
Barratt's Sedge
Habitat: bogs, open wet areas
Sarvis Holly
Habitat: blackwater swamps and riverbanks, clay-based
Carolina bays
Carolina Grass-of-Parnassus
Habitat: Wet savannas
Sun-facing Coneflower
Habitat: moist pine flatwoods and woodland borders
Resinous thoroughwort
Habitat: seepage bogs, beaver ponds, pondshores, shrub
swamps
E. Floodplain Involvement
Both Cumberland and Harnett Counties are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Regular program in which a detailed study for the Little
River has been completed. The proposed widening will not have an impact on
the floodplain of the Little River or Jumping Run Creek. The terrain in
the vicinity of the project is fairly rolling with natural draws and
streams located such that the proposed project can be drained without
difficulty.
Since this project is the widening of an existing roadway, no impact
on quality or quantity of ground water is anticipated. Siltation of
adjacent areas due to project construction will be minimized with the
implementation and maintenance of stringent erosion and sediment control
measures.
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation
includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field
survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also
includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise
levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting
from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the
current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
29
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually
a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale approximates the frequency response of the human
ear by placing most emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000
Hertz. Because the A-weighted scale closely describes the response of the
human ear to sound, it is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements. Sound levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed
as dBA. Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which
means an A-weighted decibel level.
Most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise
levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially
on three things:
1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise,
2) the relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise, and
3) the type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to
note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise. Loud
noises bother some more than others and some individuals become aroused to
anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also
enter into an individuals judgement of whether or not a noise is
objectionable. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are
usually considered to be much more objectionable than the same noises in
the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from
other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when
background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally be much
more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when
background noises might be 55 dBA.
30
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation
would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities
requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises
while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the
same degree.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises which
intrude into their lives, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to regulate many of
these types of noises including airplane noises, factory noise, railroad
noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise,
methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few
years.
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as Leq(h). The
Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying
sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in
the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772).
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise is that which results from the natural and mechanical
sources and human activity, and is considered to be usually present in a
particular area. The purpose of this noise level information is to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noise levels for residences and other noise
sensitive receptors.
Ambient noise measurements were taken along the project at
representative locations using a GenRad 1988 Precision Integrating
Sound-Level Meter and Analyzer. The noise levels were recorded for a
20-minute period during anticipated peak traffic noise periods. Traffic
counts were taken at each measurement site during the sampling periods and
differences in the measured noise levels are attributed to variations in
site conditions and traffic volumes. The field study revealed that
existing traffic noise levels are uniform along the NC 210 corridor. A
typical ambient measurement site would be the location on NC 210 about 1.0
mile north of SR 1601, where noise levels, measured at 50 feet from the
center of the near lane of travel, were about 65 dBA. This value is
representative of those measured at other locations along the project.
31
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing
noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The
modeled existing noise levels were within 1.7 to 2.9 dBA of the measured
noise levels for all of the locations for which noise measurements were
obtained. Differences between measured and modeled dBA levels can be
attributed to the bunching or platooning of vehicles, low traffic volumes,
and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's evenly-spaced vehicles and
single vehicle speed.
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds
through a continual changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed project consists
of widening the existing roadway to a five lane, 64 foot, curb and gutter
section. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included.
The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat
and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents "worst- case" topographic
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related
noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being
analyzed.
This computerized model was utilized to enable the determination of
the number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the
design year 2011, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses predicted
to expect a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to select
receptor locations such as 25, 50, 1009 200, 4009 800, and 1600 feet from
the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the
roadway). The location of these receptors were determined by the change
in projected traffic volumes along the proposed project. The result of
this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using
this grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
32
Over the entire project some 63 residences and 6 businesses are
predicted to experience noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the
noise abatement criteria.
No receptors are predicted to experience a substantial increase in
traffic noise levels. Predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +5 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it i's possible
to barely detect 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.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement Measures
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category.
Highway Alignment
An abatement measure such as alteration of the proposed alignment is
normally a reasonable abatement measure along areas of relocation.
However, on most widening projects, shifting the highway alignment is not
reasonable or feasible from a planning and design standpoint. Alignment
selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed
improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. This
selection for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For
noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of
siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas.
The existing alignment already accomplishes this goal in the most
reasonable and feasible manner.
Changes in the vertical alignment
impacts of certain highway facilities.
not reasonable or feasible and would be
involves at-grade intersections and no
can be effective in limiting noise
However, this mitigation measure is
too costly for this project, which
control of access.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations can often be effective noise abatement
measures. For this project, however, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often
33
be applied with a'measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively defract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earthen berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, with driveway
connections permitted for most abutting properties and with all
intersecting roadways adjoining the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce
the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety
at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient
reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight (8) times the
distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor
located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet
long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit
its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter
5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along-
a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility.
Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these two qualities and, thus, would not be acceptable abatement
measures in their case.
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors generally
require noise barriers which are too costly because of the length and
height required for a reasonable noise level reduction. For this reason,
no isolated receptors were analyzed in detail for this report.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures are
feasible and none are recommended for this project.
"No Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no build" alternative were also
considered. Level of service C ("worst case") traffic volumes with future
truck traffic projections were applied to the existing two-lane highway
configuration. Future no build traffic noise levels were then computed.
If the project is not undertaken, 10 residences would likely become
impacted by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Furthermore, noise
levels would increase on the order of 2-4 dBA. This small increase to the
present noise level would be barely noticeable to the people working and
living in the area. In addition, no traffic noise impacts would result
from substantial increases.
34
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
feasible or reasonable and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no
additional reports are required for this project.
G. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and emissions
from internal combustion engines. The impact resulting from the
construction of a new highway or the improvement of an existing highway
can range from aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving
the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For these reasons, most of the analyses presented are concerned
with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100
meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO
emissions from cars operating on streets further from the receptor
location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source
computer modeling and the background component was determined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) These two concentration components were determined separately,
then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for
comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone
and nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of
concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. Area-wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future
due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control
devices on new cars, and thus help lower ambient ozone and nitrogen
dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydro
35
carbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account
for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than
two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources
(e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars are very low, there is no
reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating
of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline
eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of
leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974
was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 gram per gallon.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars
use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed
project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptors to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and meteorological
parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily
traffic projections. The modeling analysis was performed for a "worst
case" condition using winds blowing parallel to the roadway. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the design year 2011
and for ten years prior (2001) using the EPA publication "Mobile Source
Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban areas.
36
The receptor affected by "worst case" air quality conditions
resulting from the proposed widening of NC 210 is a business location in
the northeast corner of the intersection of NC 210 and SR 1121. Air
quality conditions at this receptor were also analyzed for the no build
alternate. The predicted 2001 and 2011 one hour average CO concentrations
for the proposed widening and the no build alternate are as follows:
1-Hour CO
Concentration
"Worst Case" (ppm)
Alternate Receptor 2001 2011
Build
5-lane curb-and-gutter Business, NE 3.1 3.0
Corner of NC 210
and SR 1121
No Build
2-lane roadway Business, NE 3.1 3.0
Corner of NC 210
and SR 1121
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the "worst case" 1- hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be
concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. The
results also show that building the project will maintain good air quality
conditions in the area.
The project is located within the Sandhills Air Quality Control
Region. The ambient air quality for Cumberland and Harnett Counties has
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this
project.
H. Construction Impacts
There are a number of environmental impacts normally associated with
the construction of highways. These are generally short term in duration
and measures will be taken to mitigate these impacts.
Traffic along NC 210 will experience brief periods of disruption
during construction.
Telephone, water, sewer and electric services are available in the
area. The Department of Transportation will hold a preconstruction
conference between the Department, the Contractor, representatives of the
involved utility companies, and pertinent local officials. Methods to
coordinate utility adjustments will be discussed at this conference.
37
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and,
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. Overall, construction noise impacts are
expected to be minimal since, for the most part, the project traverses
developed areas of low-density. In some areas, construction noise impacts
would be expected to be more substantial due to the project's close
proximity to existing housing. 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.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "N. C. Highway Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures" together with the policies of the Division of
Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on
work performed by State Forces.
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the Contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the
right-of-way is permitted by the Engineer.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken
not to block existing drainage ditches.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for the use on
this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of the material from the borrow
38
source will have no effect on any known district, site, building,
structure, or object that is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer
prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
I. Contaminated Properties
A reconnaissance survey of the study area identified 7 active
facilities with potential for underground storage tanks (UST) or hazardous
materials involvement. A subsequent records search of the DEM/Groundwater
Section was conducted to determine the status of these tanks. The
following information was obtained:
Site Number 1
Cumberland, Harnett Oil and Gas Company is located in the southwest
quadrant of SR 1600 and NC 210 has three 8,000 gallon USTs on the
premises. These USTs are located approximately 50 feet from the existing
centerline of NC 210. These tanks were installed in August 1990 and are
constructed of double-walled fiberglass reinforced plastic. The four
monitoring wells, which surround these corrosion resistant tanks, function
as a method of leak detection for the UST system. These USTs are in
compliance with current UST regulations. Therefore, a low risk for soil
and/or ground water contamination is_anticipated at this location.
Site Number 2
Quick Stop #36 is located approximately 0.30 mile south of the
intersection of SR 1600 and NC 210. The three USTs on the premises are,
registered with the DEM/Groundwater Section. According to their records,
these tanks were installed May 6, 1985 and are constructed of steel with a
FRP coating. The USTs at this facility are located approximately 60 feet
from the existing centerline of NC 210. These USTs will not be disturbed
by the proposed project.
Site Number 3
Scotchman Stores #138 is located near the intersection of SR 1451 and
NC 210. There are five USTs on the premises that are constructed of steel
and surrounded by monitoring wells. These tanks are registered with the
DEM/Groundwater Section. All available information suggests that there has
not been a release of petroleum hydrocarbon from this facility. This UST
system is in compliance with current UST regulations. Therefore, a low
risk for soil and/or ground water contamination is anticipated at this
location. These tanks are located approximately 36 feet from the existing
centerline of NC 210.
Site Number 4
C & H Foodstore is located approximately 0.10 mile north of the
intersection of SR 1680 and NC 210. There are five USTs on the premises
that were installed approximately 2 years ago. The USTs at this facility
are constructed of steel and have cathodic protection. In addition to the
corrosion protection feature of these tanks, monitoring wells also
39
surround the USTs. Since
regulations, a low risk
anticipated. These tanks
existing centerline of NC
Site Number 5
this system is in compliance with current UST
for soil and/or groundwater contamination is
are located approximately 52 feet from the
210.
210 Foodmart is located near the intersection of NC 210 and SR 1680.
The three gasoline USTs at this facility were installed March 29, 1977 and
are registered with the DEM/Groundwater Section. According to their
records, each of these tanks is constructed of steel and has a respective
capacity of 6,000 gallons. The USTs at this facility are located
approximately 60 feet from the existing centerline of NC 210. These USTs
will not be disturbed by the proposed project.
Site Number 6
Brown Auto Paint and Body Shop/Baker's Performance is located just
south of the Lower Little River bridge. A field inspection of the facility
indicated that acceptable housekeeping practices are utilized for the
disposal of hazardous materials. Contaminated soils and/or groundwater are
not anticipated at this location.
Site Number 7
Short Stop Foodmarts (Amoco) #56 is located near the intersection of
NC 210 and SR 1620. The four USTs at this facility are registered with the
DEM/Groundwater Section. According to the DEM records, all but one of the
tanks were installed on April 13, 1976. Their records also indicate that
each tanks is constructed of steel and has a respective capacity of 6,000
gallons. The USTs at this facility are located approximately 62 feet from
the existing centerline of NC 210. These USTs will not be disturbed by
the proposed project.
A files search of the Division
conducted to determine whether any
potentially contaminated sites are
review of these files, none of the
Counties were identified within the
J. Farmland
of Solid Waste Management was also
known unregulated dumps or other
within the project corridor. After
known sites in Cumberland and Harnett
corridor.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all Federal agencies and
their representatives to consider the impact on prime farmland of all
construction and land acquisition projects. In compliance with the Act,
the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine the
existence of any prime or important farmland in the vicinity of the
project. The SCS indicated that due to the existing and planned urban
development along the roadway, the project will not affect farmland soils,
as defined by the Act.
40
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
On October 19, 1990 a letter was mailed to the following federal,
state, and local agencies and officials to solicit suggestions and receive
environmental input concerning the proposed project:
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*U. S. Soil Conservation Service
*State Clearinghouse
N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Human Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
*N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region M Council of Governments
Cumberland County Commissioners
The Mayor of Spring Lake
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written responses were
received. Those comments are included in the appendix of this report.
On November 13, 1990 an Informational Workshop was held in Spring
Lake to obtain public comments and suggestions on the project. This
meeting was only attended by a few citizens, but those in attendance
voiced their support for the project.
WTG/plr
Tables and Figures

NORTH CAROLINA
CUMBERLAND AND HARNETT
i

woo `
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
NC 210
FROM SPRING LAKE TO SR 1121
CUMBERLAND AND HARNETT COUNTIES
R-2230
0 mile-- 1 FIG.1
, IF
£ `,ryy
L -W
r' .-ik a ?c ar
__ , , , ", ? S - A , ' .! aa,7 , . ,: 7 ,,, ? fib „!? .? "%." ? a ''? 4 a .. " # " fi'" -
f" .
-,
' s %
t4,4
. 'a
'i ? E F - A #.'h 6 Y - - ''? A. 1(a?1111aaall .. t:' i -?: let ,?,
??
.. _ F , i
11 N,
r ,? s
S
$ ai; ??
r? 4?, "
I 11 1_6 1 :, - ' :w ,., Ss 3t ec
? kli-l"1111
` = ?$;
i,.11 ?n , - ?_ , - - \ I ?_ ?,? I ?. ,? , -t - . - ? I 1, .?,
I . - E1A
?? ...... ?X, ., i
a, a, .,:rr ''" ? "-,• x ,",ry '*"a.. ;' " a •_,3 4. k ? N. `* 16 -,. ^. in. ,? : ;,,: -'` 1,.. ." I
-
g % 4 b
„ "
k
,? d'
s * "'
r
p x
-fi k, ?. ?._. . t, _ _ - a
,.e a t a
r,
U, - r t z ?' - t4 ti ielt ,,,, x H b . _ ,?.
?
m, - * , sue.- .
1.: " - .
_ g
'IV _ ??
;?
t
J?
.
I
I " I I i -
s
I'
^: _a
11 I- a r :
k
=?? i
?` ?: '? '. bg`.y _ 4`; mow: ' `a}"' s?.-f ?i,
. ??, ,&?
?, , , ? ? ?' ? . k?_ I 11? - , ? * x
I
A ? ? . . '??-,,??' "L _,A?, , ?, " ? ?1 , ,;;,- , J? - -
c€.
, 1? ? - I 1, - : ?1? t ?',??,Nll 1, ., % : 1. .? I , I ;
r' a g
x
.- I - . '. I ? I k? r I : ?, ?,?. I , p r' w a?*' "rya ':• 4r " { ..^. rv
;:
x _ Apr I - , } 3 ,
d
a o
I'll .. ?
cti ? a ? " - _ ?
' ?4n x
4, _ ? k ?`
r $ a ^`»
s r ,4 e w §
j }
?r_ , " ? ". , -. " 11' 1 41 - N , v "?
I a- *.
'`
??_ _;,? -111 4 ?? "', 11 I 'A - " ?? ? A ? I I I - I
, , 1141, 11
" ° . °"
;
? ? * ` I < ? ?', ? 5? " ti
*. x kkvY ''w" ?, 7 y
-1 t
:,
r
" a' $; ,1' ..ate""'.. ?a rn ?.?, ' g
I 1, . ',
3.
..,. -
s
„ram _ ,. - n a .M. Y R-...
.. .,.
,p „tt,
r
4 <,
p
m
?g-• ° , .. '- t -+,` , d' ' 9 _-# yr X
f ?n '' a~
,`- r„
' ? ,, , , >r A? - .,r c
{
" x ,- s a 2>
" €, c _ ,
t , ? 1? -oww" I ? ?) .,
"Al ? _?, , I ,,, ? - ? I I I N` ,?,, '?- ., , ?,?41 ,.,t 4?? - '' I
E
?.
a , .. ^ ..e°. - -
,
a+. 6k , ' x: i.-11 -* / w. 3
4*, * ' .' E "' s "'t ?5? ,1C I "'tom I fl- s
4 Nlvqh
f t -.14
, , * - *t , ,.,,, ,?i , 1, I I ? , i , ,- , I I ?
t- . ' 3 g ',.` ?' '
I i,' x ` 1 I -1, ,,? ?" ,_ 1,x. ? -
e? i
,
-"
I -Ili A i r1l,", ? - , ?? '? _ ? 11 I I --k -11 ,
, ,,;r, t. . s° '3, , V -
N ?' $w. ,11 _'11 #, T ,.;. t A .ask., +."
" I 1- 11 1, ? O" *W"-X*' , T- '' ? ,? , 1;1.-, ? 11 ",*, - * ? , - !k , 4?) i ?
r', rr rer
, - ", , - ?i,? . .emu .?, ..:' . ,L ,_ m. s """ k
,
- .,
s t? t ?? '??A r
a > °s c .4 a s r^
"" , t , ""3 , , I
? 1? " '.. / t ?,j r , q - - =%,_,, , "? , , ?? " , , , 'I * , ?& - I , !, 0- t$
, $
,. ?. "?
?x ¢° `, a
p. II
IN ?,
_ :, A -
t,, n " , , " - 1 4,
, ., 4
i
Iy
I I r 1 '5 ki ,? I ? -,)r .. r c`'
I
I
" 11
t
„n. ? .
` R
- .,
4.
,
'-? , ?? I ?, , I t , - t, ", ,? _h, ? ,
4 ; . , : O"i % ^' a,, L ,b •^' t , =s'r' "w Z y N T'.? a aexrrjf 11 J ,
x
?a may.,,, pp
Y
_^
r' _ r y 'w v
,r's '? < °- -" : +* .l ems. s.F.°"ni
r" a#ro
#
e + £
-k,,", ,x`)?, , , 4,,'?i K, I __ - ", ? ,
?, m .? , x. i ? , t 4 , ? t ? `. " fi r' ' :..
, 11 .11, ? .,'? , -, ?o_ - , , , "' .11 I I ?? 1 :, i
;-
NNW"
v
x
A '
Kk.
d, P 'ar
? Y
<
g z
I ,
bf
`p.
pp--?? t
?-r c
r
?.,;a°e ," ? ?. ?. ,4 n,?s; ?' ..,,.. -#? ?9 ,??, x°?y 'i?'0 M??..8 ? "?? ?$ ,ti n`# ??. lk .•?« 4y}. ?. Aq, .??4 .?°d
? '. .. , ii °(?ai h" 4 ! '?• ?: €' ?p,qg `?• "?» ? .ice k
a: <+ +V ^ '+Pq._ .? T1 ms`s `
10
5 % a
s
ie § k
e. n
p k ?t
Y
?"' ? '? ? .r s .µ ? ?? , r ? ? l.'' '?" Vi'm'; r #? ? ?. "` ' ? ' "` t? ? "' '?? v ?^,?•. `..
«
W?o
• ?s ,. " s °' t * xr; :t ,?? ; _ ?a? al •z ' t „off Y } ,
i 14
t ark " #,, a Via, µ s_ ry
.V yast` .a o. F ?" ri v>:• 1wy` g#? '?# «'m. ," Y °P..gn t '
??fp'??+A t? fem.'" '? i *?e;• ?`.Y• g da •. ', •`?,,. r. +:- `w '. ?,
`t
a. °?• ? ? "''•y ...?,r • ? zN? .' « •? 'e ?' "'? c ?_ ., ? '%? ', '"`' tea. wy ,. '' ?' '" ?« "S I
. x ??: < ?. , , k ,? ? -.a• ., t ?.. ??+ ' ;? - .may, +?ka , ? .,^ ?, ? ;?" ? .?._x ' ?' ?` •?« ? s `.
x
A& v
o-
. yam, ?,
k
s
40
g
All
_`''" as :, ` a j ax ., k
It.
4
4
?• .,.?, ? `4t ? ? ??t??.. ? w ? ti`p' °:,?. ?. ,3, "?. '? ? ?.? .,
o #
? ?. •r=, ,: `ate `_, r ? z ?: ?';? ? O ???y ?:: ? _^ k'K;:.F $?'4.' ,y g ??: ? ??y? ?
6^ ?: ,?. ? ? ,? & .? °?,? ? _„? r?a• rc ? ,? ? ?``?? s ire°, ,aT° ? i
a
"
w
g,-
A, "A
z-
p
4
a .
r ' e
a ?~ra ? ? <r q t
'PIN
a ?•<
.
Z n ? .,?? . - ' • '?_? - ??.c< ?. ._. ,u ... ? m „ .,? ?? ?4° ,n? '`v?-? ..:-?-.: '•t. max, ? `?a,.'?? ?? ? ????
? ?r
NC 210 FROM HOLLAND DRIVE TO SR 1121 (Ray Road)
1995/2015 ADT IN HUNDREDS
74
126
11 5
SR 1121 18 8 SR 2051
• 91 73 2 15
151 121 3 23
Harnett Co.
-------
----------
Cumberland Co. ----- --------
134 ------ --------- --------
225
7
SR 1451 11
26 19
46 34
145
242
2
SR 1678 3 TTST - 1%
DUAL - 2%
9 7 DHV - 10%
15 12 DIR - 60%
150
251
5
SR 1601 8
27 23
51 41
173
295
3
5 SR 1620
6 9
10 15
176
300
Holland Drive
Only Major Intersections Shown
Not To Scale
Figure 3
Z
O
1
V
LU
rr
ULI
1
rD
V
0
Z
cr
V
W
Z
J
I
E
m
m
-A I
L r
E
co ?
0
U
is
0? N
V
U
io
N
N
T
N
r
N
r
N
r
N
T
It
LIJ
cr-
a
T
T
E
N '

c

1
1
' BEGIN
PROJECT

SPRING LAKE
POP. 6,273
RESERVATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF f
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SPRING LAKE
TOWN LIMITS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
R-2230
0 mile 1/2 FIG. 5 (((
:11
- -
l + L' Sa \? n7??`?? l C - r• ens n ?f\_
' ? \ ? . ? a': ?„? ,? ?a?ar4tl!'+ty` ?r I llbl.l l .I. h! Il ??( \\ ? \ ',` ,} 11
l -I ?,i- ? ??/ ?1?5?1?1 .? ? ?tiC' ? \ '.L1... Cl \\? %r???•? '?? -3- ? ,1_-- ?. { C?`_ B -i Y ?!'I `, •- ?I ?? ' ?/?N _%' •??
. ?.... \0 ?. "-\\,_J, ( /,! %_.??I`- 1 t ? 3) ??F fiord!>-"}„ti a -.':+ 1 ?•i""?•.?..'1 ,y'? t 1 ? ? ,•
y ;R. 1 G d
..? ?_ \ 'E\ '+? : jas? -{?sC ????, ?' 1`' r.?' Lt r? 4r'?.- i/ . ,.. ?'/,!f I .V,.•• •'i•? (`?\ ?- y
-=° ? ? ?- -- ?-? / " V (1??a\ C1 r -??I ? f I ? 'a0/ ?? ?I (^ ,Ft?...'•??? ?? ,!•t •?I •V?:i' r u / .?iL -•--
---??. , - ? it ? i II l , ? \? ? (? « + 1 L/ '? r-•.\ ?_
-yea-' ,. ? •? ? : I ? II It\ ? ))2??4,?k :••' '•w ;•. ? •?c ?` \\
qII msmm j _ ..I?? ? -[ „? q/? iu _ `i, `\? ?° .'?.,` •i / O o - ?r+P.•'•• ?\s?•? '''i? •''. i.,$ .'?•''.• Ca, '1,,` ' I
3 -1-ii .? ;: r J `?.`. ?• '1 %? n - •s??'..?' a;.!'?/ /? ?# j; 'w{.': `? ??''m.: ?2t
'_?) j _ 1L21 I "'?. b=?y ?, ,°s6°'' Ir. \,? /; / _. •? , ? ,?/ ,\ y??e•.% ?` •, ,'? • •i '? •. ?Sr•
???1' --`' %'!-•' -- ?],`iIt', _ /gym 1 <?? ? 1 ?/? ? F?? ?i•. ?t .-.-..?::'?? r ??? I? jv '•_..-a.I}?• :?`. Sr i?•• 1 '_
s:<I' 1 J:-?'?I . ?? ?._. y /.+?y's I fi / 1 /i/I ! ?'I ? tl•_ /' ?i 7 1 I ? ! ` '?' f? . 'y I
u _mh. ?? ? ? 1 \I lC•? _ /l . ?? ll:=' ?F ',? ••,,.-7, ?r'w f ?,_ F .. • . ?J ) r • i'• j??'`
?\\;? \'? ?/ '' ?\,. it c? - / ? 1\ ri ?j•.r• .?, -1
a `;\m ? *?; _ I ? l ? 1`? /./ •? 'Y ? ,r • t' ,gffff? ;??y • ,?' C` 1'l 'ti?f: 1 ? ? '?., ? L?\ \
'?? ._ `a5i'c'' %' '/ 1 O /?'p M11'??fi(. ?• 6 •v +. ,?Y ?'( ?? •:41 '? 061 ?1 •'\1
7.I ,,,?%'? i,? u' 1 J °?. ? ?? '?` ?J i ./?•-4? '1\ ?':?/ t,l+? ? '1 Jam. j?
?L7r.
I` , .+ \' j 1 u, 7 r: a4' ... -?% "?. \-:? 7 ? r'•s=a?,??i i • " ? :rr ?? '? : 1` f,'?.yY >? / ? r? ? (r 11
.. ' •`\ a .,.1 ? /•' :i^: \ //1 .'l •4• x_ l f ?1,?1^ Ili / .?,
%
1 ',• , 'I ', - .i, ?lrj '-'r _ ? '. a .? :• _- ? , ? • \ :`' `JJ1 ' --?I-- . ?, ,
laq
A; 99
17
Oro ? ) ? : Y . .i ? '' ?t1? /. • ?' ' ;; ? 1 -- _. ,+ mot. • A •? \-? ?-? ..!! I
Iled .,
j` 1
i led /. .. ^'• .J'/ .. ...,_>id' I ,? ??' ' ._ '? ..i
•` ' )lied c,+ ?,j9 ?/#L .? „=? F\?Ya ? y???,«L???•?f- ?, 5 -\?
%'`' \ lane ???o`` .. i ' `, y"y ?" ?I//) -? ???, - -"r ( -'---• ??. i_t. ??:J%r•.
t j Cam' \0 ! ?? i ' / / ?_JI t?
-06
• 1
// ?'' / I ?,?/ r, ,.•'? ?in\ 7 ... , , ... \ ?r? ` \?11 ^^ { F 4# ?/?' ' t- , •1 -? ri 4? _. "•? O)? \ -? [?i l / /! ...,
rte' ?' ?% : j i • l `{ a'' /( b J; f P ` a `` a+ _ ` j., ,1 j ` ` r' l -71
061
1\ ` ? / 'fj•?• • I r • ? 1 ??? `? ! / \ 7? 1 f I 1. r-IJ 1 r /r ? r (~F f/ '1 # O \\`?.:
:??,? ? (.I, T- •? I .t, \?. '?6 ? 1:, ,?,?``?? 1 i? IY a[t t'\ ? fir`' ? ?` t` '•+(?i ? i.
..i / r • ?\ ,) /1 ?1,, - ,yi; - - ?t\ \'? , ••\ °,.:.?? n tf` 1i?II."?1.. '.E J. ; j .y. O .•+ 1 ?-,` '?
?./ /i'? ? li ? //% y`• ?tl gg t %"\r'\'•?'?? ^?ti "` ,•:?? 'r' / °Er ? c` ? _ ` I 09? \ t // ••-
/? i \r?`-i, - - sy ? 1 Y-. ?} 1' .?...? ''? `?^s?.??2?'``:•?_? ?} ???r 1 .?1?? ??(,? ? u.« ?r? ?'_l \){ , ?_ i
11 l ? ?`??? - i % ( ;' f? ? 3 ++••, .^ I``''r!? .? ,'` y1 ? fy"'`"" ^^.\ t '"'• ?!"'• ? ? . ? 1 ? I ? i k \ 1./ r ?,•? .?.• • .?M ? I . ?? ???i
tl .. ??JI ? •:? )Y l- .^r .:/.--? ?,. ~f ?rJ i?kr ,i.
II ?' J ? '??? -!• 'f? .? /? ? 1. J_1' M ?°?i?\{, ?, ? ?, sw_- ,I, T•. I __?:
rll /? •? r =?., ? ?\ ? •?.,,.
:4 ' KK ?"'•s > r+^ „r , r , ))??, " ? :w. J7., ru / •?../-_'-?
'
t `1)
I t O ( t I
f N r a `? 61L AY w :'j ?? r7?.r PA
a r
/ ^J II ??11 ) # 1 r? • .? 11?' ?- t' . ? ? ' ? r I /r° r a
'? '•1/,?\ III I• (-r;l f' ` \?ed - ''> -:t= /. •?MP v t' .1 ?'` : f• l' ' Gab Vt -?r^:•. • _ I -?- ?/?
-„?? •)'` , \ 1 1 `)'1 : t _ 1?a}l?il' ,N rrJ' ! .':" ?r??j `y,.T ) ?E { y.y, \.y?.,...?'. , O i?, ..I a$.•- f,...?-'-1, ;
II l i. _ _-_ „ ` I,, ; ,,\ , #rrli .t: ?' '•v1ti. .:?Qt ?.\ j,\ 1c. z, ?..+} •r 11• '{'- 9ZZ„".
_ji .-\?I 11 ti.^+ 1 ,?j?/-• \ \.? ,t?/.•?' 1, R. ?u'?• 3', 'l. ;\?=tr "1'er '°J / ?? ?. ??Y?.
II 1\ 10/zl` ,?), ? ?V 1 ~ ?R u i? ? .F? •C"- ."vw'<,;•. '?,,7{;?' er./• 5??.*?"? P? ?6 j. r .\?.? ? I. 1?'1'`,'-? ?/
u ?? )? r, ( .,/?y3 - -1_ t,; 1. ```i ,?'.?y'a.`? re°A ?f^?z -, r r •-/O..nl ?, ? ? 'IF ??
0pZ a l' '?'-, .:=.. .-?,? t ? ? ? ? w? i y?^"`_,•.,? ?? ? ?7
D
n t 7 [ ll 7i l` o ti r 5 3 +5? i .? rye- ?? ??v ( ?1?'?a el1
n ifc_ 'j \ ` ^r I .. tl ?., ,\'? '? !' 1:• , t ?'?Y^•"., ? ?, t y-;'j t?, r r;
???'^ _ =--`-O? `a` ? ??/'. \ y `., `'. \"? ? n w J 1 a Z.. }u'? -`$;• 11 .?•a ? . \ s +-a'. ?: ? \ '\\
- ? ? `` ,''• p '- -- '? ` 'ter ? ' ??, _ ,? //r-''l ? `_
T_ a11e1 ) + ?~ ? ?tb \? 't \ ~ ti'?'? his • f• L f:? '. ?'?/ ?' /i r -.y, r
71,
1 cl
190
11 _ 250
d
200
t 0
?(L t
_ 0 L' E
r- i N'?' 150.
c7 I 1J{
11
/ 4 ?.l t In /77?' ? `ttto
• / r t 1 /i
1t //
?J t O tll /% y94
11 1 ? It ii1 O
I /70 `I O
1
..t
Z
•• ? ZIO fis?
•raile
Park cf o
/ . q
P q
160
_ +Traile
Par g
ss'
b-
4
sewage Q ?. N ) r...
p
BM Sal
.164 165
hel
1,0
+
t 15 • U 11 7 ` ??.
1 OY: 1\ .i -a
.. anc a
iler
10
Land
° - a .4 Stri 11 / Zp?
'• a 00 a ? • :' so
1 Z a ? I ? ? • pJ
1 w ? ? tl ~ ?Z I _4 `
S
13 ?l i'' r
'? /• i A,•
/g0 O n = ?a lO P
/ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
r Wetland Sites
J NC 210
•r ?• Cumberland/Harnett Counties
R-2230
?? ,. .?h_ ? _ f ?':, ~??{. ?' ?i. ' ` .??''ti;..• ? ;, Figure B:1
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
(Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential
if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds,
(Exterior) active sports areas, parks, residences,
motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities
(Exterior) not included in Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting
(Interior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries,
hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) Part 772, U. S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA.from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: N. C. Dept. of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines
TABLE N4
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITER!" SUMMARY
Spring Lake, Improvements to NC 210, Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121),
Cumberland-Harnett Counties, Federal-Aid Project RS-3214(3),
State Project 6,441037, R-2230
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels' Distances' Receptors According to
(dBA) (Maximum) Title 23 CFP, Part 772
Section 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
Holland Drive to SR 1601
SR 1601 to SR 1451
SR 1451 to SR 1121 (Harnett County)
71 67 61 45' 105'
71 fit 61_, 40' 100'
69 65 59 26' 77'
0 4 2 0 0
0 32 4 0 0
0 27 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 63 6 0 0
1501, 100' and 200' distances are measured from the center of nearest travel lane.
212 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Spring Lake, Improvements to NC 210, Holland Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121),
Cumberland-Harnett Counties, Federal-Aid Project RS -3214( 3),
State Project 6,441037, R-2230
Receptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Substantial
Noise Level
Section <=0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20'21-22 23-24 >=25 Increases'
Holland Drive to SR 1601 0 0 0 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1601 to SR 1451 0 0 0 69 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1451 to SR 1121 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 126 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'As defined in Table N2.
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
NC 210
Cumberland County
TIP # R-2230
State Project Number 6.441037
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Foraging Habitat Survey
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
Cynthia Bell, Wildlife Ecologist
May, 1991
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
NC 210 from Holland Drive in Cumberland County to SR 1121 in Harnett
County. The existing two to three lane facility is to be widened to a
five lane, 64-foot curb and gutter section. The project corridor lies
within a rural area with scattered residential, commercial, agricultural
and undeveloped properties bordering the roadway. Portions of the Fort
Bragg Military Reservation are located approximately one half mile to the
east of NC 210.
During the course of federally protected species surveys conducted as
part of the Environmental Assessment for this project, pine-dominated
habitat, potentially suitable for the Federally Endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis) (RCW), was observed. This necessitated a
colony survey of one-half mile to both sides of the proposed impact area.
A single, active cavity tree representing a previously undocumented colony
was found approximately 1300 feet east of NC 210 on a privately owned
parcel. Four additional cavity trees, observed within this half mile
study area, were previously documented by Fort Bragg wildlife biologists.
These trees are associated with colonies located on Fort Bragg and are
currently monitored and managed by Fort Bragg biologists.
This report details efforts to characterize and quantify anticipated
impacts to a colony's foraging habitat by the proposed highway
construction.
METHODOLOGY
Foraging habitat survey methodology followed the Guidelines for
Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (USFWS, 1989). Ground truthing and sampling efforts were
conducted during March and April of 1991. Cavity trees observed during
colony surveys were mapped on a V=500' scale aerial photograph. Locations
and activity status records of cavity trees monitored by Fort Bragg were
obtained from base staff biologists. These records include recent (fall
1990) data since Fort Bragg maintains an ongoing monitoring and management
program on the military reservation. Cavity tree locations on Fort Bragg
were verified empirically and noted on the above-referenced aerial. This
consultation confirmed that the newly discovered cavity tree was isolated
from the closest cavity tree by over 1700 feet. This single tree is
currently the sole active representative of Colony A.
A foraging circle of one half mile radius was drawn around this
cavity tree to delineate the potential foraging range of this colony
(Colony A). Similarly, foraging circles were drawn around the centroids
of the four Fort Bragg colonies (Colonies 131, 367, 371 and 132) whose
foraging circles overlap Circle A. Only the centroid of Colony A was
located within one half mile of the proposed impact area. Although
individual trees in the Fort Bragg colonies were within one half mile of
the proposed construction, the centroids of these colonies were in excess
of one half mile east of the project. Thus, a foraging habitat survey was
conducted only for Colony A.
A-2
Vegetative cover types were identified on the aerial photograph,
followed by ground-truthing of tree stands. Specific pine and
pine-hardwood habitat types were isolated in order to define stands of
generally uniform type and quality. Stands of suitable foraging habitat
contiguous to Colony A were selected for sampling. This included pine-
dominated (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older, and
isolated from other suitable habitat by less than 330 feet. The densities
of mid-story and under-story vegetation were not used as determining
factors in this foraging habitat classification.
Eight north-south transect lines were drawn at 660 foot intervals in
Circle A. Plots were situated at 330 foot intervals on each transect line.
In the field, data.were recorded at every other plot in suitable habitat.
All plots occurring in unsuitable habitat were omitted. Additional plots
were placed in suitable habitat in order to average one plot per 660 feet
on each compass line. Forty-nine plots were included in the survey effort.
Ground truthing and sampling efforts were conducted during March and April
of 1991.
Further ground-truthing was accomplished during field surveys. When
a plot fell in an isolated area of unsuitable habitat, this area was drawn
on the aerial and removed from consideration as foraging habitat. In
these cases, plot locations were adjusted to the nearest suitable habitat.
Each 66 foot square (1/10 acre) plot was flagged and labeled. Information
recorded at each plot included basal area, number and diameter of pine
trees greater than or equal to ten inches diameter at breast height (dbh),
and qualitative notes on canopy, mid-and under-story composition and
density. Stands which averaged greater than 60 feet of pine basal area
per acre and 24 or more pines >10"dbh were identified as "well-stocked",
as defined in the USFWS Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. The
average ages of pine trees >10"dbh in the well-stocked stands were derived
by increment boring of representative pines in plots falling in these
stands. A representative tree was selected for each of these plots by
finding the median dbh of all trees >10" dbh in each plot.
Acreages of stands were determined through use of a dot grid overlay.
Plot data were averaged for each stand. Stands were divided into sections
according to overlap areas with other colonies. Information for each
section was obtained by multiplying its acreage by the average number of
pine stems >10"dbh/acre and basal area/acre. In overlap areas, this
product was divided by the number of colonies involved. Similarly,
acreages of 60+ year-old stands and well-stocked stands were equally
apportioned among the five colonies.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The attached map illustrates the location of Circle A in relation to
NC 210 and the foraging circles of the Fort Bragg colonies. Foraging
habitat types occurring within Circle A included xeric sandhill scrub
(224.93 acres), mesic pine flatwoods (11.05 acres), mixed pine/hardwood
uplands (4.86 acres), mesic pine flatwoods (112.32 acres), and mixed
pine/hardwood wetlands (20.90 acres).
A-3
Colony A (single cavity tree) occurs within a longleaf pine/turkey
oak-stand of approximately 60.84 acres. This stand is contiguous with wet
pine flatwoods bordering NC 210. These results show the amount of foraging
habitat currently available to Colony A, assuming equal division of
habitat occurring in overlap areas. Within the 502 acres located in the
half mile foraging range, approximately 370.62 acres are suitable for
foraging. This foraging habitat provides approximately 11,167 square feet
of pine basal area and 8,907 pine stems >10"dbh. The red-cockaded
woodpecker recovery plan calls for 8,490 square feet of pine basal area
and 6,350 pine stems >10" dbh. Under the existing (pre-project)
conditions, surpluses of 2677 square feet of basal area and 2557 pine
stems >10" dbh are available.
Approximately 210.16 acres of the existing foraging habitat would be
considered well-stocked, with about 99.98 acres of this apportioned to
Colony A. The recovery plan stipulates 125 well-stocked acres per colony.
It is likely that the deficit in well-stocked acres is compensated by the
fact that the quality of the well-stocked habitat exceeds the stocking
values stated in the recovery plan. The well- stocked areas located in
Circle A average 72.55 square feet of pine basal area per acre and 51
pines >10" dbh per acre, as compared to the quantities of 60 square feet
of pine basal area per acre and 24 or more pines >10"dbh per acre
suggested in the recovery plan.
Projected construction impacts would require deforestation of 6.02
acres of foraging habitat in Circle A, based upon a proposed right-of-way
width of 100 feet. About 2.23 acres of this area is currently developed
or is otherwise unsuitable as red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat.
The remaining 3.79 acres is suitable foraging habitat and is used
exclusively by Colony A. Loss of this foraging habitat would leave 370.62
acres of foraging habitat contiguous to and within one half mile of the
colony site. The remaining (post-project) habitat would provide
approximately 10,929 square feet of basal area and 8798 pine stems >10"
dbh to Colony A. These figures represent 129% and 138% of the suggested
basal area and dbh values, respectively. Approximately 2.39 acres of
well-stocked foraging habitat is to be cleared, leaving Colony A with
97.59 acres. Again, the deficit in well-stocked acreage is compensated by
the site-specific habitat quality.
The age criteria suggested in the recovery plan can also be applied
to Colony A. Well-stocked stands within the foraging circle will provide
approximately 77.58 acres over 60 years old to Colony A, after overlap
areas are divided among colonies. Thus, potential nest trees are
available for colony expansion.
Without extended field observations and banding of the red-cockaded
woodpeckers occurring locally, it is possible only to speculate on the
behavior of birds utilizing Circle A. Thus, it is not known how many
birds are present in Colony A, or how extensively they may be inter-acting
with overlapping colonies. The activity status of Colony A was confirmed
during plot sampling. A red-cockaded woodpecker was observed sitting just
inside the cavity while a second bird foraged on an adjacent pine. Around
fifteen minutes later, the site was revisited and two birds were observed
A-4
foraging within 100 yards of the cavity tree. Throughout the foraging
surveys, red-cockaded woodpeckers were heard and/or seen on several
occasions within areas exclusive to Circle A and in the overlap areas. It
is possible that more than one clan was observed.
In summary, the proposed construction will not involve the taking of
any existing cavity trees or any trees within the 200 foot buffer zone.
The clearing necessary for roadway expansion will have only minimal impact
on the locally abundant foraging habitat currently used by Colony A.
Since all trees within the longleaf pine/turkey oak stand containing the
colony are to be preserved, Colony A is not likely to be adversely
affected by the proposed project. Given the considerable distance between
the proposed impact area and the colony site, no special limitations on
construction times or equipment noise levels should be necessary.
A-5
app
Z-
fO Z C.
N n A
°o
s 0

N
14
s
tm
0
H
i
c?
H
r
H
1-3
;U
1•C
[r!
En
L=7
7d
C
? H
H
.008 .17 $ O 10
.13.03.10
b V
I. OA ob
>` Ic IS
n?
co
m
D Tm
-O 00
a OM
C: 0 aid z o
z 0 xr•c
x M?v xox
In D m F- o C o
90
w z 0° o zx?r01
° 0> mooz
-jO ?*zo
z M- a o ai a
?m0 J
N H z
1 9 .j
r o
Y
H
W
N

1

.37 ;
06

-IOUNDA

t1?? ?\y
/ i8 - a?
.
/
V ° g

::f:ty?• ?::E:
. '.b? i

?I
z i
a
I
-. I
Ug.
? 's I
IN I? YO s
i 'P N
N
N
61 '0
E ?, I
N
W
J a ` I J
W ` i
v -4
col
.08
:l\ i

Appendix B
IN REPLY REFER TO
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
November 28, 1990
Planning Division Poole Distrib s t0:
Dvdeck Vick O'Quinn
Net;mam Pre a , __._ 6ruton
Shu(}et"--
tJortvcod Dav"- Elliott
Mcdlin= Web
j TeweilElmore Spnnger
Grimes
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of October 19,
information for "Spring Lake, Improvements to NC
Drive to Ray Road (SR 1121), Cumberland-Harnett
Aid Project RS-3274(3); State Project 6.441037,
the following comments.
X414"
1990, requesting
210, from Holland
Counties, Federal-
R-2230" and offer
Little River and Jumping Run Creek are both crossed by this
proposal. In order to comply with the local flood plain management
regulations and the Flood Insurance Program, the hydraulic structures
on these streams should be designed so as not to cause an increase in
the 100-year-frequency flood elevations.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Jeff Richter, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
EAT Oo United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
v ^
a
Raleigh Field Office
" Post Office Box 33726
?,..a Raleigh, North -Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N
11
.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
October 24, 1990
wz?
I C\ o i?
65 y v 0
;.4 TIC,
.a 0
O_ O
,VCH
Subject: Scoping Comments for improvements to NC 210, from Holland Drive,
in Spring Lake, to Ray Road (SR 1121), Cumberland and Harnett
Counties; Federal-Aid Project RS-3274(3), State Project 6.441037,
R-2230.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your letter of October 19, 1990, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments'are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. At least three stream and/or
wetland crossings are present in the study corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and implementation of all stream crossing
structures.
The enclosed pages identify the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of
age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2
mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed
within the project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and you should
contact this office for further information.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours,
j j
L4Q- .6a%AItL
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Enclosures
REVISED APRIL 5, 1990
Cumberland County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Act, and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of status review species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - SR
Pine barren's treefrog (Hsla andersonii) - SR
Cape Fear spike pearly mussel (Elliptio marsupiobesa) - SR
Riverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis) - SR
False coco (Pteroglossaspis ecristata) -
Lewis' heartleaf (Hexastz-1is lewisii) - SR
Sandhills chub (Semotilus lumbee) - SR
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - SR
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - SR
Well's pixie-moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia) - SR
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - SR
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna) - SR
REVISED APRIL 5, 1990
Harnett County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - E
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) - E (Neal's Creek)
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Act, and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of status review species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Riverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis) - SR
Barratt's sedge (Carexbarrattii) - SR
Lewis' heartleaf (Hexastylis lewisii) - SR
Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier) - SR
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - SR
Well's pixie-moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata var brevifolia) - SR .
Sun-facing coneflower (Rudbeckia heliopsidis) - SR
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Soli o versa) - SR
Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersoni) - SR
Resinous thoroughwort (Eupatorium resinosum) - SR
Long-tailed shrew (Sorex dispar) - SR
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
United States Soil Raleigh, NC 27609
?a Department of Conservation Telephone: [phone]
Agriculture Sevce 5
October 23, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Spring Lake, Improvements to NC 210, from Holland Drive to
Ray Road (SR 1121), Cumberland-Harnett Counties, Federal-Aid
Project RS-3274(3), State Project 6.441037, R-2230
Dear Mr. Ward:

This is in response to your request for Important Farmland Information on
State Project R-2230. This project will not affect any farmland as defined by
"Farmland Protection Policy Act." This is due to the urban setting.
Sincerely.
Stag C,bnsey*atik(nist
cc: John M. Ray, Jr.
It, GEI
4z* O
.? OCT 2 6 1990 r
DIVISION OF
2,L HIGHWAYS
G'4 RESEARG?
The Sol conservation suvice
is an agency of the
v Department of Agriculhw
M208-
MAR 1 u 1991
t:_ DIVISION OF
HIGHLVAY.ss
INTERG¢
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 NEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611
NMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO ma"""r FROM
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
BILL GOODWIN DIRECTOR
HIGHWAY BUILDING N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
RALE IGH- INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING SPRING LAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 210 FROM HOLLAND DR
TO RAY ROAD ISR 1121) R-2230
SA I NO 91E 422002 83 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPI NG
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION M
,. STATr
S 1'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM DEC 1990
RECEIVED
SE,.Ra E7oA OfFtC1: C.
TO: Chrys Baggett ?-
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee-p--"'
Project Review Coordinator
RE: Scoping for the Proposed Widening of NC 210 from
Holland Drive to Ray Road in Cumberland and Harnett
County
DATE : November 30, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed document. Comments from our divisions
have been attached for consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments
cc: David Foster
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Fn „I nn..n -in. Aik, vi- A-inn F-1-
its
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
November 2, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Unit
, /
FROM: Don H. Robbins n?
Staff Forester pJ'/?

Dec
19
99
?
C CF,
DOA ?

Harry F. Layman
Director

SUBJECT: EA Scoping for the Proposed Widening of NC 210 from Holland Drive to
Ray Road in Cumberland and Harnett County
PROJECT #91-0283
DUE DATE 11-23-90
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed
project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following information
concerning the proposed widening for the possible right-of-way purchases for
the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
and/or timber types such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber,
' and fully stocked stands of very productive timber within the new
right-of-way purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed. ,
P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Melba McGee
PROJECT #91-0283
Page 2
5. The impact both present and future to any greenways within the area
of the proposed project.
6. With woodland involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
7. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits. Trees outside of construction limits need
to be protected from construction activities such as--
a. Skinning of tree trunks from heavy equipment operations.
b. Exposure and injury to feeder roots from heavy equipment
operations,
c. Placing of fill dirt around the base of trees which would have
a smothering affect which could eventually cause tree mortality.
d. Accidentally spilling of petroleum products near the base of
trees which could cause mortality.
We would hope that the widening would have the least impact to forest and
related resources in that area.
DHR: la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
County Ranger Joe Johnson - Cumberland County
File
E174
9 North Carolina Wilcllife Resources Corru
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3* UED 1990
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director REDT-1VED
a -WQE AAW A nFFICE
MEMORANDUM c'
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Fred A. Harris. Chief -- a. 4V4?
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries

DATE: November 8, 1990
SUBJECT: NCDOT: Improvements to NC 210, Spring Lake,
Cumberland and Harnett Counties., N.C.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
has reviewed the project description. Our comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 25) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). We are
especially concerned about potential adverse impacts to the
Little River, tributary streams, and associated wetlands
within the project corridor. The WRC requests that the
following information be provided in the environmental
assessment of the proposed improvements to NC 210.
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species.
2. Description of stream and wetland habitat types
within the project corridor.
3. Project map identifying wetland areas.

Memo Page 2 November 8, 1990
4. Description*of project activities that-will occur
in wetlands, including fill activities, and any
alteration to stream channels.
5. Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts
of the project or to mitigate for unavoidable
habitat losses.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment during the
planning stage of this project.
FAH/lp
cc: Mr. Kent Nelson

J.
? . .?? X23456
I I. DEC 1990
State of North Carolina fous%'%?,?
Department of Environment l , Health, and Natural Reso 512 North Salisbury Street WRaleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor John N. Moms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary November 27, 1990 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba. McGee
FROM: John Sutherlan
SUBJECT: 91-0283, Improvements to NC 210, Cumberland-Harnett Counties
We have the following comments on the above project:
1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize bridges whenever possible
to minimize habitat losses and floodplain encroachment.
2. Minimize the loss of timber and prime farmland.
3. Provide vegetation buffers when highway passes close to residential
areas.
4. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
5. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize the use of porous
pavement and grass swales.
6. Involve local landowners in gathering data on impacts; be flexible
on location of alternatives - adjust them to meet local concerns.
7. At bridge crossings of navigable rivers, e.g. Little River, work with
local governments to provide public access if such access is needed.
.
8. Outside of the Town of Spring Lake, provide left hand turn lanes only
at major road crossings; otherwise have a four-lane highway with a
vegetated median.
P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
DMsion of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor 4 6 Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Z X89 Director
DEC 1990
N
KOE1VED
MEMORANDUM ' S( MARYS Of
,r 001
Date: November 5, 1990 F??j,, a\t???
To: Melba McGee
From: Gary Thompson
Subject: 91-0283, Cumberland-Harnett Counties, Spring Lake,
N.C., Improvements to NC 210, from Holland Dr. to
Ray Road (SR 1121), Federal Aid Project RS-3274(3)
State Project No. 6.441037, TIP No. R-2230
We have reviewed the.above referenced project and find
that 2 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT

01! t °q?

ii
_i7l
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity A lmative Action Employer

i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: (f Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be -addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same

Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
? Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer . construction contracts On-site Inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.

?
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)

?
Well Construction Permit
N/A 7 days
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit On-site Inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

? Permit to*construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources NIA (90 days)
?.:
® Any open burning associated with subject proposal
I
must be
n compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520.
1:3 See comments reference asbestos ` 30 days
on back of form.
NIA
(90 da
s)
y
? Complex Source Permit required under. 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erdsion 3 sedimentation control plan
ill b
w
e required If one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
(J The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site Inspection usual, Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permlted. :
'AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit. Less than 5 acres S 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
?
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A 90.120 days
(N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
insoect.construction. certifv construction is according. to EHNR,approv-

Norma, ocess
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statuto,y time
limit)
Fife surely bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to Stale of N.C. 10 days
? Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)

? Stale Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include 15.20 days
descriptions b drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
ED 60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)

? 55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application. (180 days)

? 22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 210.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)

? Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N
C
G
i
7687
i
d
S
B
R
C
.
.
eo
et
c
urvey,
ox 2
gh, N.
,
ale
. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be In accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
Renovations of structures containing asbestos material and demolitions of both
non-asbestos containing structures and asbestos containing structures must be
in accordance with NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notifications and removal prior to
demolition.

Should subject project propose any major in-stream construction, it will be necessary for
this project to demonstrate compliance with Section 401 and Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
reviewer signature f agency date

Z54 5REGIONAL OFFI CES
? Asheville Regional Office b? ?`9 ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
ll
NC 288
1 j
DEC 1990
i Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Ashevi
e,
0 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] ro RECEIVE
D [phone]

? Mooreeville Regional Office w
CTAD?ACE
? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street N. Box 27687
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone] Raleigh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]

? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28403
(919) 9466481 (919) 2564161
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Nr 771na
Project Name
DEPART10C 07, ENVIR0RIM, HEALTH Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES 0
DIVISION OF :NVIROMMqrAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Type of Project
The following are our cam?ents on the above referenced subject.
The appl icant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements
must be approved by the Division of Enriroameatal Health prior to the award of a contract or the
initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC 10D .0900 et. seq.). For information, contact
the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
Several water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project.
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water
system officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
should be taken to prevent contamination of the waters' hed and stream by oil or other harmful substances.
Additional information is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
Back flow preveators should be installed on all incoming potable water lines. Additional information
is available uy _ontacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
This project will be classified as a commmity 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 rid closure of feet of adjacent
canters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program,
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements
for septic tank installations (as required under 10 NCAC 10A .1900 et. seq. anc/a sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable. For information concerning septic tank and other
on-site. waste disposal methods, contact the Ou-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures,
an extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
• For informaiion concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact
the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
????123456?
DFC 1890 0
naJ=,? `r ETA
cnCj `,??
ie?slle
State of North Carolina Y'l 91 L?°'??
.yettev Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
100res Division of Parks and Recreation
"'w'A 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
W asn James G. Martin, Governor November 29, 1990 Dr. Philip K. McKnel I
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Directc
3 W iln
DWil
MEi!SORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Ma
FROM: Susan Regier!qn
SUBJECT: Scoping - NC 210 Improvements, Cumberland County
REFERENCE: 91-0283
Our Natural Heritage Program has checked their database and found
records for the red-cockaded woodpecker in the vicinity of the
project. The red-cockaded woodpecker is a federally endangered
species and the Department of Transportation is obligated by the
Federal Endangered Species Act to protect it.
If any woodlands are to be disturbed by this project a biologist
knowledgeable of the red-cockaded woodpecker needs to check the
area for active colony sites and/or forage habitat and
appropriate mitigation measures need to be taken. There are
known active colony sites within one half mile of the project.
Sedimentation control measures need to be taken during the bridge
replacement at the Lower Little River to protect the water
quality of the river.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
S/13
„a St/1Tg°
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
October 29, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Ca rZ_Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0283
N.C. DOT - Spring Lake improvements to NC 210
from Holland Dr. to Ray Rd. (Sr 1121).
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 249 19909 Governor Martin signed Executive Order 123,
a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.
C
An Equal Opprrunity I Affirmative Action Employer
North Carolina Department of
James G. Martin, .Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
May. 17, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
^J j
Resources

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer /
NC 210 Improvements, #6.441037,
Cumberland and Harnett Counties, ER 90-8176

Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1990, concerning the above project.
Based upon the information at hand, we concur with.the assessment that
potentially significant archaeological sites will not be affected by the
proposed project. Therefore, we do not recommend that an archaeological
survey be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CPR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' DB:slw
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
R E L-O C A T I ON RC PORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. __CORRIDOR _^DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.441037 COUNTY: Harnett- umb rland - Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO., R-2230 F.A. PROJECT: RS-3274(3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Spring Lake improvements to NC 210 from Holland Drive to Ray Road
(SR 112t)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
'Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Individuals
families 1 2 3 3 0 2 1 0 0
Businesses 2 0 2 1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms
( Owners Tenants For Sale For Ren t
Non-Pro Fit 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M -10 $ 0-150 2
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M 0 150-250 2 20-40M 30 150-250 5
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1 250-400 . 0 40-70M 100 250-400 20
f X 1. Will special relocation
i 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 200 400-600 100

X serv
ces be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
affected by displacement
100 UP
0
600 UP
0
100 UP
100
600.UP
50

- 3. Will business services still
b
il
b TOTAL 1 2 440 177
e ava
a
le after project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
i placed. If so, indicate size
X type, estimated number of 3. Fayetteville has all kinds of businesses.
- employees, minorities, etc. r -

- X 5. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage 4. (a) Brown's Auto Paint - 5-7 employees.
1/3 minority.
X 6. Source for available hous-
i
li (b) Scotchman's Conv. Store - 5-7 employees.
ng (
st) 1/2 minority.
i X 7. Will additional housing

programs be needed 6. MLS listing.
X S. Should Last Resort Housing
b
i
i
i E
A e cons
dered
9. Are there large, disabled, B. Last resort housing may be needed for tenants.
ld
l
e
er
y, etc. families
Sn F
ANS
E
OR DESIGN
W
R THESE A
10. Will public housing be
d
nee
ed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
bl
a
e
I 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
? equate DDS housing available
d
i
l
ur
ng re
ocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
-
means
14. Are suitable business sites
il
bl
ava
a
e (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
romp e RELOCATION

Y

6-11-91
Relocation Agent Date Approved / Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File