19950324 Ver 1_Complete File_19950327

- 'D?m?g532y - _
? 4 3
6 YS i (G95
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JP. R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 13, 1995
District Engineer \
US Army Corps of Engineers `•'i
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Sampson County, Widening of SR 1311 (North Boulevard) in Clinton,
Federal Aid No. STP-1311(2), State Project No. 8.2280701, TIP
Project No. U-2514 and COE Action ID. No. 199300258.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve a
one mile section of SR 1311 from US 421 to SR 1838 in Clinton. The
improvements consist of widening the existing two lane, twenty-four foot
section to a five lane, sixty-four foot curb and gutter section except at the
701 interchange. At this interchange a fifty-nine foot curb and gutter
section that retains-the existing bridge over US 701 is proposed. The project
also includes the construction of a temporary detour at an unnamed tributary
of Williams Old Mill Branch.
Please find enclosed a copy of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115
(b). Therefore,-we-anticipate that this activity will be authorized under
Nationwide Pei it .?33 CFR 330 Appendix A(b)(23). All conditions of this
Nationwide Permit will be followed during the construction of the project.
The enclosed CE indicates that the project will result in 0.76 acres of
wetland impacts. These impacts would occur by crossing two unnamed
tributaries of Williams Old Mill Branch. The document also states that
temporary detours will be necessary at these two crossings resulting in
wetland impacts.
However, since the CE was completed in October 1994 additional measures
have been taken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. The final hydraulics
analysis reduced the impacts associated with the two crossings and determined
that only one detour would be necessary. This temporary detour will be
D
March 13, 1995
Page 2
required for the tributary located 1500 feet east
NCDOT Highway Maintenance Facility (see CE aerial
anticipated wetland impacts as currently proposed
Site 1: Tributary 500 feet east of US 421
Site 2: Tributary 1500 feet east of US 421
Temporary Detour: located At site 2.
Total
of US 421 adjacent to the
photograph). The
are as follows:
0.01 acres
0.14 acres
0.09 acres
0.24 acres
As a result, we anticipate that a 401 General Certification No. 2745
will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
for this project. If you have any questions concerning this project, please
do not hesitate to call Scott P. Gottfried at 919-733-3141.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/so
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Ernie Jahnke, COE Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DEM
Mr. Jimmy Lee, PE, Bridge Maintenance Unit
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics
Mr. John Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. J. Bowers, Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Ellen Lorscheider, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Kelly Barger, Program Development
Clinton, Sampson County,
SR 1311 (North Boulevard)
From US 421 to SR 1838 (Beaman Street)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1311(2)
State Project No. 8.2280101
TIP No. U-2514

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
A,
a e H. Fran in Vic P. E., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
ff
4 't
57
L 44
Date Nic L. Graf, P. E.
wz Divis on Administrator, FHWA
t°
4
2
Clinton, Sampson County,
SR 1311 (North Boulevard)
From US 421 to SR 1838 (Beaman Street)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1311(2)
State Project No. 8.2280701
TIP No. U-2514
0
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
r
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
C
amue Keith Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood tone
Project Planning Unit Head
ss ?r??EESSi?•f?
`e- SEAL
/0 9?= 6944
ic ar B. Davis, P. %?'i•.ENC?NEEQ?.•`,:?.
Richard-
Assistant Manager, Planning and Environmental Bf?Q '••........•• pJ
I
4
Summary of Environmental Commitments
This document calls for the following environmental commitment:
A. Two service stations are located at the western end of the project
with four petroleum storage tanks located on site. The recommended
alternative (symmetric widening) will not require the removal of any
of these storage tanks. If this recommendation is not followed, some
of these tanks may need to be removed.
ppp?
I
I
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................... 1
A. General Description ...................................
1
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements ...................... 1
1. Project Termini .................................. 1
2. Project Length ................................... 1
3. Cross Section.. ............................... 2
4. Right of Way Width ............................... 2
5. Access Control ................................... 2
6. Drainage Structures.. . ......................... 2
7. Design Speed and Speed Zones .............. 3
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control....... 3
9. Railroads ........................................ 3
10. Parking.. ................................. 3
11. Bicycle Provisions ............................... 3
12. Sidewalks ........................................ 3
13. Utilities ........................................ 4
14. Cost Estimate .................................... 4
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................. 4
A. Existing Roadway Inventory ............................ 4
J
1. Cross Section .................................... 4
2. Right of Way.. . ... .................... 4
3. Type of Roadside Development ..................... 4
4. Structures.. .................................. 4
5. Access Control ................................... 4
6. Speed Zones..... ... ....... . ... ......... 4
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control .......... 5
8. Railroads ........................................ 5
9. Sidewalks ........................................ 5
10. Utilities.. .................................... 5
11. Geodetic Markers ................................. 5
12. School Buses ..................................... 5
B. Functional Classification ............................. 5
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .......................... 6
1. Signalized Intersections ......................... 6
2. Unsignalized Intersections ....................... 8
E. Accident History ...................................... 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED....... 9
A. Recommended Improvements.... ........................ 9
B. Other Alternatives Considered ......................... 9
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................... 10
A. Social Environment .................................... 10
1. Neighborhood Characteristics ..................... 10
2. Public Facilities ................................ 10
3. Cultural Resources ............................... 10
a. Architectural Resources ..................... 10
b. Archaeological Resources .................... 10
4. Relocation Impacts ............................... 11
B. Economic Environment .................................. 11
C. Land Use .............................................. it
1. Scope and Status of Planning ..................... 11
2. Existing Zoning .................................. 11
3. Existing Land Use ................................ 11
4. Future Land Use .................................. 12
5. Farmland ......................................... 12
D. Natural Environment ................................... 12
1. Ecological Resources ............................. 12
a. Terrestrial Communities ..................... 13
b. Aquatic Communities.. .... ... ...... 17
C. Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities ..... 19
2. Protected Species ................................ 22
a. Federally Protected Species ................. 22
b. Federal Candidate Species ................... 23
C. State Protected Species ..................... 24
3. Physical Resources ............................... 24
a. Geology, Topography, and Soils .............. 24
b. Water Resources ............................. 25
C. Floodplain Involvement ...................... 26
d. Wetlands .................................... 26

4
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise .................... 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
E. Contaminated Properties ............................... 33
F. Construction Impacts .................................. 34
G. Permits ............................................... 35
H. Mitigation ............................................ 36
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................. 36
A. Comments Received... . ......................... 36
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ....................... 36
C. Public Hearing ........................................ 37
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic - Symmetric Widening (Recommended)
Figure 3a - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 3b - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4a - Proposed Intersection Geometrics at US 421
Figure 4b - Proposed Intersection Geometrics at SR 1838
Figure 4c - Existing Intersection Geometrics at US 421
Figure 5a - Roadway Typical Section
Figure 5b - Proposed Bridge (US 701) Typical Section
Figure 6 - Clinton Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 7 - Wetland Locations
Figure 8 - 100-Year Flood Zones
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Agency Comments
Appendix B - Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data
r
I
4
Clinton, Sampson County,
SR 1311 (North Boulevard)
From US 421 to SR 1838 (Beaman Street)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1311(2)
State Project No. 8.2280701
TIP No. U-2514
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to improve a one-mile section of SR 1311 (North
Boulevard) from US 421 to SR 1838 (Beaman Street) in Clinton, Sampson
County (see Figures 1 & 2 for project location). The improvements consist
of widening the existing two-lane, 24-foot section to a five-lane, 64-foot
curb and gutter section except at the US 701 interchange. At the
interchange, the proposed cross section is a five-lane, 59-foot curb and
gutter section that retains the existing bridge over US 701. This section
will consist of two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center
turn lane.
The proposed widening is symmetrical about the centerline of SR 1311
and requires the acquisition of approximately 20 feet of right of way.
Temporary construction easements are necessary in addition to required
right of way.
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with the total cost estimated at $2,290,000. This estimate
includes $240,000 for right of way, $1,850,000 for construction, and
$200,000 for prior funding. The current estimated cost of this project is
$1,921,900, which includes $1,500,000 for construction and $421,900 for
right of way acquisition. The project is scheduled in the TIP for right
of way acquisition in Federal Fiscal Year 1995 (FFY 1995) and construction
in FFY 1996.
No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed
improvements. The project has been coordinated with the appropriate state
and regional review agencies, federal permit agencies, and local
government officials.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
1. Project Termini
The project's western terminus is US 421 and its eastern
terminus is SR 1838 (Beaman Street) (see Figures 1 & 2).
2. Project Length
The length of the proposed improvements to SR 1311 total 1.0
mile.
2
3. Cross Section
The proposed cross section provides a five-lane, 64-foot curb
and gutter section with two 12-foot wide travel lanes in each
direction and a 12-foot wide continuous center turn lane except at
the US 701 interchange. The proposed cross section across the bridge
at the US 701 interchange is a five-lane, 59-foot curb and gutter
section containing two 11-foot travel lanes in each direction and an
11-foot continuous center turn lane. A center turn lane is necessary
across the bridge in order to allow left turns onto the ramps at each
end of the bridge. This cross section uses the existing 59-foot
bridge at this interchange. The NCDOT Structure Design Unit analyzed
the bridge and determined that widening the bridge an additional two
feet on each side would overstress the exterior girders. Due to
these overstresses, and the fact that there is no reasonable design
or retrofit method that will correct the potential overstresses,
bridge widening is not recommended as a part of this project. The
widening will be symmetric about the centerline of existing SR 1311
(North Boulevard).
4. Right of Way Width
A right of way width of 80 feet is needed to contain the
proposed five lane curb and gutter section. In addition to this
right of way, temporary construction easements will be necessary.
5. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project, except in the
area of the US 701 interchange. No additional control of access is
proposed as a part of project U-2514.
6. Drainage Structures
There are two large drainage structures along this project. The
first structure, located approximately 1500 feet east of the west
terminus, is a 60-inch corrugated metal pipe on an unnamed tributary
to Old Mill Creek. A preliminary hydraulic analysis indicates that
this structure is slightly undersized and should be replaced with a
10-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at the same
location with approximately the existing roadway grade. Due to the
high traffic volume on SR 1311 and the absence of a suitable detour,
a temporary detour is recommended. The recommended drainage
structure for this detour is a 48-inch diameter pipe. A minor
channel change may be required in conjunction with this culvert
replacement.
The second major drainage structure involved is a 72-inch
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) approximately 1500 feet from the east
project terminus. A preliminary hydraulic analysis indicates that it
is also undersized; therefore it is recommended that the existing
72-inch pipe be removed and replaced with a 9-foot by 6-foot
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at the same location and with
approximately the existing roadway grade. This culvert replacement
will also require a temporary detour. The recommended structure for
the detour is a 36-inch pipe.
1
4
7. Design Speed and Speed Zones
The proposed roadway section will have a design speed of 50
miles per hour (mph). The posted speed limit is 45 mph from US 421
to the US 701 interchange and 35 mph from the US 701 interchange to
SR 1838 (Beaman Street). The posted speed limits of 45 mph and
35 mph will be retained.
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All roadway intersections will be at-grade with the exception of
the US 701 interchange. A sketch of the proposed intersection
treatments are shown in Figures 4a and 4b.
9. Railroads
This project does not affect a railroad or rail corridor.
10. Parking
Parking is presently not permitted and will not be provided for
or permitted along the project.
11. Bicycle Provisions
This section of SR 1311 in Clinton is not included in the TIP
for bicycle improvements nor is it a part of the Bicycling Highway
Program. For these reasons, no special accommodations for bicycles
are recommended as a part of this project.
12. Sidewalks
Currently, there are no sidewalks along this section of SR 1311.
The City of Clinton has asked that sidewalks be constructed along the
north side of SR 1311 from the Northside Plaza shopping center to
SR 1838 (see letter in Appendix). A sidewalk is justified along this
portion of SR 1311 because of the pedestrian traffic generated by the
shopping center and the residences in the neighborhood adjacent to
SR 1311. The total construction cost for the sidewalk is $19,200.
NCDOT will participate in 80 percent ($15,360) of the cost and the
city of Clinton will be responsible for the remaining 20 percent
($3,840) as outlined in the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines. An
8-foot berm will be constructed behind the curb along the remainder
of the project to allow future sidewalk construction.
13. Utilities
Overhead electric lines exist along the project. Telephone,
cable television, gas, water, and sanitary sewer lines exist
underground along the project. Utility conflicts are expected to be
moderate.
4
A.
14. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost for the recommended symmetric widening
alternative is $1,921,900 which includes $1,500,000 for construction
and $421,900 for right of way acquisition.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Cross Section
The existing roadway consists of a two-lane, 24-foot, shoulder
section.
2. Right of Way
The existing right of way width is approximately 60 feet.
3. Type of Roadside Development
Roadside development is mainly commercial, light commercial, and
residential.
4. Structures
Bridge number 52 over US 701 was built in 1972 as part of State
Project Number 8.1273003. This bridge is 59 feet wide from rail to
rail and has a sufficiency rating of 95.4 out of a possible 100.
There are two large drainage structures within the project
limits. The first, located approximately 1500 feet from the west
terminus, is a 60-inch corrugated metal pipe on an unnamed tributary
to Old Mill Branch. The second major drainage structure is a 72-inch
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) located approximately 1500 feet from
the east project terminus (See Section I. B. 6. for recommended
structure improvements).
5. Access Control
Control of access exists along the project only in the area of
the US 701 interchange.
6. Speed Zones
The posted speed limit is 45 mph from the west project limit
(US 421) to the US 701 interchange and 35 mph from the interchange to
the east project limit (SR 1838).
5
7. Intersecting Roads
The following eight roadways intersect SR 1311 (North
Boulevard):
1. US 421
2. SR 1834 (Industrial Drive)
3. US 701 Bypass
4. Lakeview Drive
5. Jasper Street
6. Connie Court
7. Lloyd Street
8. SR 1838 (Beaman Street)
All streets intersect SR 1311 at grade except US 701 which has
an interchange. US 421 is a signalized intersection. All other
intersections along the project are unsignalized and stop sign
controlled.
8. Railroads
No rail corridors are located in the project area.
9. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist along either side of SR 1311.
10. Utilities
Overhead electric lines exist along the proposed project.
Telephone, cable television, gas, water, and sanitary sewer lines
exist underground along the project. Utility conflicts are expected
to be moderate.
11. Geodetic Markers
No geodetic survey markers are located within the project area.
12. School Buses
Four school buses make two trips each per day for a total of
eight bus trips per day along the project. The Clinton City Schools
administrative staff and Board of Education reviewed the proposed
improvements and support the project.
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
SR 1311 is designated a major thoroughfare on the mutually adopted
Clinton Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and is classified as a rural major
collector. The route is not part of the Federal-Aid system. Figure 6
shows a portion of the current adopted thoroughfare plan. The proposed
improvements are in conformance with the thoroughfare plan and will be a
step towards its implementation.
6
C. Traffic and Capacity Analysis
The current (1992) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along SR 1311
range from 5400 vehicles per day (vpd) to 9600 vpd. Projected design year
volumes (2016) range from 11400 vpd to 22,400 vpd. These estimates of the
daily traffic include 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailers and 2 percent
dual tired vehicles.
The traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is described by levels of
service (LOS) which range from A to F. Level of service A, the highest
level of service, is characterized by very low delay in which most
vehicles do not stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and
turns are made freely. In level of service B, traffic operation is stable
but more vehicles stop and cause higher levels of delay. Level of service
C is characterized by stable operation, with drivers occasionally waiting
through more than one cycle length at a traffic signal. At level of
service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay for
approaching vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the peak
hour. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable
delay and represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of
service F represents over saturated or jammed conditions which are
considered unacceptable to most drivers.
1. Signalized Intersections
The intersection of US 421 and SR 1311 is the only signalized
intersection along the project. At this intersection, US 421 is 64
feet wide. Both the northbound and southbound intersection
approaches consist of one exclusive left turn lane, one through lane,
and one through/right turn lane. At the westbound approach to the
intersection, SR 1311 has a pavement width of 64 feet and has an
exclusive right turn lane, a through lane, and an exclusive left turn
lane. At the eastbound approach to the intersection, SR 1311 has a
pavement width of 36 feet and has an exclusive left turn lane and a
through/right turn lane.
This intersection is one of the controlling factors for the
traffic carrying capacity of SR 1311. A capacity analysis was
performed for the existing and projected traffic volumes at this
intersection. The analysis was performed for the " do nothing"
alternative and the proposed widening alternative to provide a basis
of comparison between the alternatives. The results of the analysis
are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
7
Table 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
No Build Alternative
Existing Construction Year Design Year
Traffic Traffic Traffic
(1992) (1996) (2016)
Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Capacity
Intersection (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (Year)
US 421 6.6 B 15.9 C * F 2009
NOTE: *Denotes an average intersection delay greater than 60 seconds
per vehicle
Table 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Proposed Widening Alternative
Existing Construction Year Design Year
Traffic Traffic Traffic
(1992) (1996) (2016)
Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Capacity
Intersection (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (Year)
US 421 N/A N/A 11.6 B 34.1 D N/A
r
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, the existing
signalized intersection of SR 1311 and US 421 (see Figure 4d) is
currently operating at an acceptable level of service (level of
service D or better). The existing intersection will reach a level
of service E in the year 2009 and level of service F in the year
2010. With the proposed improvements, this intersection will operate
at a level of Service D in the year 2016.
8
2. Unsignalized Intersections
An analysis was performed for the unsignalized intersection of
SR 1311 and SR 1838 to determine the effects of the proposed widening
and predicted future traffic volumes. If this intersection remains
unsignalized, left turn movements from SR 1311 onto SR 1838 will
reach level of service F in the year 1998. As the projected traffic
volumes develop, the Area Traffic Engineering Staff will reevaluate
this intersection and determine if signalization is warranted.
The intersection of US 701 Bypass and SR 1311 is a standard
diamond interchange. A capacity analysis was also performed for this
interchange to determine the impacts of the projected traffic
increase at the interchange ramp terminals. The results of the
capacity analysis indicate these intersections do not warrant
signalization as a a part of this project. Additional analysis of
these intersections will be needed as projected traffic volumes
develop to determine if signalization is warranted.
D. Accident History
A total of 41 accidents were reported along the studied portion of
SR 1311 between April 1, 1987 and February 29, 1992. The primary types of
accidents were rear-end collisions (36.6%), accidents involving left turn
movements (26.8%), and accidents involving angle or sideswipe collisions
(24.4%). These three types of accidents combine to account for 87.84 of
all accidents on SR 1311. Forty six percent of the accidents occurred at
the intersection of SR 1311 and US 421.
The total accident rate for the studied section of SR 1311 is 263.0
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100 mvm) compared to the
state average of 199.2 acc/100 mvm for similar routes. This accident rate
is substantially higher than the statewide average for similar routes.
The proposed widening improvements will reduce the potential for the types
of accidents which presently occur along the project. The proposed
project will improve the overall safety and convenience for motorists
using SR 1311.
17
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
1
r
A. Recommended Improvements
The recommended alternative consists of widening the existing
facility to a five-lane curb and gutter section (see Figure 5a). The
proposed cross section is a 64-foot curb and gutter section, except at the
US 701 interchange where a 59-foot curb and gutter section is recommended
across the existing bridge over US 701. The roadway will be striped to
provide five, 12-foot lanes. In the interchange area, the roadway will be
striped to provide five 11-foot lanes (see Figure 5b). Proposed widening
will be symmetric about the centerline of the existing roadway. Existing
right of way claimed along the project is 60 feet, and the proposed
construction will require 80 feet of right of way. Temporary construction
easements beyond the right of way limits will be necessary. Symmetric
widening uses the existing right of way in the project area and will not
require relocating residences, non-profit organizations, or businesses.
B. Other Alternatives Considered
Since the project calls for widening an existing segment of roadway,
no other corridor alternatives were considered. However, other alignment
alternatives were considered including: (1) asymmetric widening on the
north side of SR 1311, and (2) asymmetric widening on the south side of SR
1311. The estimated cost for the asymmetric widening to the north side of
SR 1311 is $2,211,700 which includes $1,569,200 for construction and
$642,500 for right of way acquisition. The estimated cost for asymmetric
widening to the south side of SR 1311 is $2,219,000 which includes
$1,519,200 for construction and $699,800 for right of way acquisition.
Both of the asymmetric widening alternatives are more expensive than the
symmetric alternative ($1,921,900) because they require relocations
resulting in a higher right of way cost. Asymmetric widening on the north
side would result in five relocatees and asymmetric widening on the south
side would result in three relocatees. The displacement of residences and
businesses would also have an undesirable impact on the local community.
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer environment to accommodate the
current and projected traffic volumes.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Sampson County is located in eastern North Carolina, and is
bounded by Wayne, Duplin, Pender, Bladen, Cumberland, Harnett, and
Johnston Counties. The county seat of Sampson County is Clinton.
According to the 1992 Updated Census Estimates furnished by the North
Carolina State Data Center, Sampson County has a population of
489428. The 1990 Census Report indicated that Clinton has a
population of 8,204. The County's population density (persons per
10
square mile) for 1990 was 50.02. The immediate neighborhood of the
project area is characterized by commercial, institutional, and
residential development (the names of the businesses and the
institutions along the project are shown in Figure 2). The proposed
action is not expected to disrupt social cohesion, nor will it
interfere with the operation of existing facilities and services.
2. Public Facilities
Public facilities in the area consist of a Highway Patrol
Station, NCDOT County Maintenance Yard and District Engineers Office,
and the North Carolina Department of Corrections Sampson County Unit.
None of these facilities will be adversely impacted by the proposed
action.
3. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in a letter
dated September 30, 1992 (see letter in the Appendix),
recommended that an architectural historian from the Department
of Transportation examine structures over 50 years old and
report the findings to SHPO for concurrence. Two structures
over 50 years of age exist in the area of potential effect. It
was determined that the two structures are not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
In a letter dated September 27, 1993 (a copy of the letter
is included in the Appendix), SHPO concurred with the findings
of the NCDOT architectural historian.
b. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the project
area. It is unlikely that any archaeological resources which
may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
The SHPO has reviewed the project scope and recommends no
further archaeological investigation be conducted (see letter
dated September 30, 1992 in Appendix).
4. Relocation Impacts
The proposed project will result in no relocations of residents,
non-profit organizations, or businesses.
11
B. Economic Environment
The North Carolina Employment Security Commission indicated that
during the month of February 1994, Sampson County had a total labor force
of 22,980. Of this number, 21,250 persons were employed and 1730 (1.5
percent) were unemployed.
The proposed improvement will enhance and improve the economic growth
and development potential along SR 1311. Businesses along the proposed
project route will be enhanced by increased visibility and accessibility.
In addition, the proposed widening will eliminate some of the traffic
impediments caused by traffic congestion, thereby saving energy and fuel
costs.
C. Land Use
1. Scone and Status of Plannin
The proposed improvement is located in the planning and zoning
jurisdiction of the City of Clinton. The City adopted its Land
Development Plan in 1982. It also enforces a zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations. The City's Thoroughfare Plan was completed
in 1980.
2. Existing Zoning
For the most part, the zoning districts established along
SR 1311 (North Boulevard) reflect the existing land uses, such as the
residential district, which includes the Lakeview subdivision. Two
Highway Commercial districts are located on the north side of
SR 1311, one near US 421, the other midway between US 701 and SR 1838
(Beaman Street), which includes a shopping center. A Neighborhood
Shopping district is located in the southeast quadrant of the
US 421/SR 1838 intersection. A large Planned Industrial District
comprises the northwest quadrant of the North Boulevard and US 701
interchange. A Light Industrial district is located at the
interchange's northeast quadrant.
3. Existing Land Use
Several institutional land uses are located between US 421 and
the US 701 Bypass, including a NCDOT District Engineer's Office,
NCDOT Maintenance Facility, and a North Carolina Department of
Corrections Facility. In addition, an animal hospital, single family
homes, and the Sampson Southeast Business Campus are located west of
the US 701 Bypass. A North Carolina Highway Patrol office is located
just east of the US 701 Bypass. Other land uses between US 701
Bypass and SR 1838 (Beaman Street) include the Northside Plaza
shopping center, the Lakeview subdivision, a restaurant, and a
Hospice Care facility.
12
D.
4. Future Land Use
The 1982 Land Development Plan provides a set of goals and
objectives develope to guide tie character and placement of new
development within the Clinton planning area. No "future land use
plan" is provided that specifies precisely which type of land use
should occupy the various sections of the city. However, some
locations are identified for commercial, residential, and industrial
development. Low density residential development was designated for
the area south of North Boulevard. Industrial development is planned
for the US 701 and North Boulevard area, as well as on US 421 north
of North Boulevard. No significant commercial development is
anticipated along North Boulevard. The plan does not address
specific transportation issues or needs. It does state the City's
support for the implementation of the thoroughfare plan.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils.
These soils are determined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service,
based on potential crop yield and the required expenditure of energy
and economic resources. Land which has been converted to
non-agricultural uses, either through development or the planning
activities of the local government, is exempt from consideration
under the Act. Virtually all of the land along North Boulevard
supports non-agricultural uses, or has been designated for some other
use through the zoning ordinance. Therefore, no further
consideration of potential farmland impacts is required.
Natural Environment
1. Ecological Resources
The study area is defined by a corridor width of 150 feet. An
ecological survey was conducted on September 23, 1992 and June 18,
1993 to identify vegetative communities and wildlife species
contained in the project area. Vegetative communities and wildlife
were inventoried and mapped during on-site surveys. Wetlands were
identified using methods in the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual" (1987). Preliminary resource information was
gathered and reviewed prior to the site visit. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Clinton North), Soil Conservation
Services (SCS) Soils Map of Sampson County, and National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) maps were studied to identify potential wetland
sites. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the
Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin" (N. C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources) was consulted to
determine best usage classifications for water resources. The Fish
and Wildlife Service list of protected species and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of uncommon and protected
species and unique habitats were researched to identify any protected
species which may exist along the project.
1

13
1
Biotic Resources
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the
relationships between floral and faunal components within Terrestrial
and Aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of the Terrestrial systems are
subordinated into floral community classifications.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these
habitats are cited along with brief descriptions of their role within
that community. Animals that were observed during the site visit are
denoted by (*) in the text.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Five distinct vegetative community types occur along the
alignment; however, there is some degree of overlap between
communities, particularly with the faunal components. Numerous
terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and populate a variety
of habitats, therefore many of the species mentioned occur
throughout the alignment. Specific community types may occur
numerous times throughout the alignment, with slight variations
from location to location. All community types have had some
degree of human impact.
Floodplaiin Forest
This hardwood-dominated community type is associated with
three small tributaries of Williams Old Mill Branch crossed by
the alignment. Little of this habitat type remains due to
development. Water oak ( uercus n), bee ch (Fagus
randifolia), black willow a ix , and willow oak
uercus ellos) form thick, mature, streamside canopies.
F 00 p ain areas adjacent to the streams are composed mainly of
red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera),
sweet gum Li uiaambar styrac i f l ua) , black gum -Ny-ssa
sylvatica), an water oak. T ei se areas are semi permanently to
permanently flooded. Thick patches of cane (Arundinaria
iggantea) and blackberry (Rubus sp.) are common. ru s and
small trees such as American holly (Ilex opaca), ironwood
(C?arpi_.n_us caroliniana), sweet bay (Manoia virainia?na), and
blueberry Vaccinium elliottii), comprise the sub canopy.
0
Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and Christmas fern
(Polystic?hum acrostic o? es occur along the stream banks.
Netted chain ern Woo war is areolata), lizards tail (Saururus
cernuus), and arum Pe tan ra vii r iiinca) are some herbaceous
species observed in t e periodic' ally inundated overflow areas.
Cat brier (Smilax rotundifolia) and (S. larualfolia), grape
(Vitis sp.), poison ivy Toxicodendrori radicans , an Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinque o is comprise a thick vine
layer.
The majority of this community type is classified as a
"wetland" community.
14
This community, characterized by a mature canopy, provides
a large amount of nesting habitat (between limbs, in cavities,
etc.), cover, and food supply for a wide variety of animals.
Birds are the primary group of animals which utilize the
canopy component of the community. Summer (S), winter (W) and
permanent (P) residents are cited, including: downy woodpecker
(Picoides ubescens)*P, yellow-bellied sapsucker (S h ra icus
varius , white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis * ,
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polio tila caeruTea) , to to titmouse
(Parus bicolor)*P, an Caro ina Fic_cadee (Parus
caoTinensis T. Insects are the primary dietary items of these
species, owever many will also consume seeds and berries.
The predatory barred owl (Strix varia)P inhabits wet
bottomland hardwood forests, nest ni g in tree cavities and
hunting from tree limbs. Rodents, frogs, insects and small
birds are the primary prey items. Forest edges near clearings
such as fields, cutovers, and roadways are preferred nesting
sites for the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)*P and summer
tanager (Piranga rubra)*S.
Other inhabitants which utilize the canopy component of
this community include: the grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis)*, the nests of which are a familiar sig rt igh in
t e canopy in most forested habitats of North Carolina; Virginia
opossum (Didel his vviiryini?ana)*; green treefrog (H la cinerea);
grey tree rog H. c rh soscelis and H. versicolor ; an?t?ie
Carolina anole TAno is caro inensis), a common izard of
forested habitats in tFie coastal pain. The anole, along with
the treefrog, camouflages itself with the leaves and bark of the
trees to avoid predation. The evening bat (N cticticeius humeralis)
is a common spring-summer resident in this ha_bitat type,
roosting in hollow trees or crevices under tree bark.
The numerous shrubs of the sub-canopy provide a food source
(berries) and offer shelter and nesting habitats to a large
number of birds: yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata)W,
solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius)S, gray cat it Dumete la
carolinensis)S, and Nort ern cardinal (Cardinalis car ina is *P.
Ground nesting birds found in this type of habitat include,
American woodcock (Scolo ax minor)*, which prefers very wet
areas, black-and-white waraxbler Mniotilta varia)P, and rufous
sided towhee (Pi er thro hthalmus . Animas such as southern
toad (Bufo terrestris *, mar a sa amander (Amb toma o acum),
ground Min cince la lateralis), southeastersshrew Sorex
lon irostris), and cotton mouse (Perom scus gossin?us), are
common ere, living under the litter layer and in hollow logs.
Because of their secretive nature, many of these species are
rarely seen. The diet of these organisms includes beetles, ants
and other insects, and herbaceous material. A population of
Mabee's salamander (Ambystoma mabeei)* was found in this
C

15
habitat, particularly in the overflow areas of the unnamed
tributary of Mill Creek near the NC Department of Corrections
Sampson County facility. Several southern dusky salamanders
(Desmo nathus auriculatus)* were also observed near the streams
at a three crossings.
Other species which are associated with the forest floor
are the golden mouse (Ochrotom ss nuttalli), which builds its
nests several feet off t eh ground, in vines, or shrubs, and the
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), a common species
feeding on plant materiTeal, fungi' inests, and small animals.
Because of its sluggish pace, it is often killed trying to cross
roadways between habitats.
Fragmented Urban Forest
Large tracts of this community type do not exist in the
project area; however, numerous small patches occur scattered
throughout the alignment, serving as narrow buffer zones between
residential developments and the roadway.
The canopy, dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
sweetgum, red maple, and water oak (uercus n1Fa), s
relatively thin, consisting of trees with comparatively small
trunk diameters for their height. Flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and American ho y are
t e ominant mid-canopy components, along with shrubs that
include wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), white bay (Magnolia
vir iniana), winged sumac (R ?F s co alina), and sassafras
assa ras albidum). Herbaceous species observed include bracken
fern (Pteridium a uilinium), goldenrod (Solids oo sp.), and
white-topper aster Aster aternus). Longleaf pine (Pinus
alustris) is a dominant canopy species in one very smaf7t-ract
o this community type along the existing roadway, just east of
the US 101 overpass.
Many of the faunal species found in the Floodplain Forest,
may occur here as well. However, the number of resident
organisms and community diversity are expected to be low in the
Fragmented Urban Forests, as foraging and nesting habitat is
limited.
Some animals are able to adapt to an urban existence, using
the limited forested habitat for shelter and nesting, often
finding food in residential and business areas, around feeders,
garbage cans, and roadways (roadkills). These species are
generally opportunistic feeders, able to consume whatever is
available. Raccoons, grey squirrels, rodents, and some birds,
including American robin (Turdus americanus)*P, Carolina wren
(Thr othorus 1udovicianus) *?, an Wort ern mockingbird (Mimus
po yg ottos * , are common species found here.
16
Fallow Field
These are small plowed crop fields which had been left
unneeded during the spring-summer (1992) growing season.
Consequently various rank vegetation has populated these fields
in varying densities. These species include dog fennel
(Eu atorium ca illifolium), black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta),
blackberry Ru us spp. , goldenrod, and sericea Lespedeza
cuneata).
Numerous rodents such as the eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontom ss humulis) and Norway rat (Rattus norve icus),
occupy ield habitats because of the cover- oo source
(seeds, roots, insects). The eastern kingsnake (Lam ro eltis
etulus), and eastern milk snake (L. trian ulum), ee on
rodents, as do birds of prey such as the red-shoulder hawk,
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaciacensis)P* and American kestrel
(Falco s arveriusj . The eastern cottontail (S lvila us
f on anus , an small birds, are also consumed by the hawks.
These s are attracted to the open field habitat because they
rely on sight to hunt. Hawks usually soar above the open fields
to spot their prey, and the kestrel hunts from a perch
(powerline, tree limb).
Ground-nesting birds such as the rufous-sided towhee,
mourning dove (Zenaida asiatica)*P, and bobwhite (Colinus
vir inianus)P use tFe thi'covergrowth to nest and feed on weed
sees an insects. The brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater)P
is a common resident of the coastal plain, whic ee s i`n old
fields on grains, seeds, and insects. This species does not
construct nests, but it lays its eggs (usually one at a time) in
nests of other birds such as the rufous-sided towhee and
solitary vireo, and then removes one of the hosts' eggs. The
host bird broods the foreign egg until the young bird leaves the
nest shortly after hatching.
Roadside Habitat
The flat, broad, routinely maintained roadside shoulder is
composed predominantly of coastal Bermuda grass, with closely
cropped herbaceous plants such as chickweed (Stellaria media
butter cup (Ranunculus sp.), dandelion (Taraxacumicina e ,
and wild onion A ium canadense) scattere t roughout. On the
edges of the mowed area are other species which are common in
disturbed areas or "waste places". These include pokeweed
(Ph tolacca americana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), nig ha de (Solanum sp.), broomstraw An ropogon
'-
sp. , and dog fennel.
Many of the birds which occur in the other habitats
mentioned will forage along roadsides on weed seeds, berries,
and the many insects found in this habitat. Many animals,
including snakes, turtles, raccoons, opossums, and rabbits are
hit by automobiles.

?7
17
i
These become food for scavenger species such as turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura)*P and common crow (Corvus
brachyrhync os * , domestic dogs, and cats.
Because of the limited size,
nature of a roadside environment,
expected to reside along the road.
musculus) will construct nests out
along the roadway. The five-lined
small lizard common throughout the
cardboard, tires, and other debris
diversity, and the precarious
few vertebrate species are
Occasionally, house mice (Mus
of and under discarded tras-Fi
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), a
state, is men found under
along roadside environments.
Business/Residential Lawn
A major portion of the communities impacted by this project
are commercial and residential landscapes ranging from the
sparsely vegetated (mostly asphalt) business parking lots, to
well manicured decorative residential lawns. Turf grasses are
the dominant plants growing here. These species include coastal
Bermuda (C ny odon dactylon) and fescue (Festuca sp.). Growth is
kept low y regu ar mowing, thus very ew of er plant species
are found here. Herbaceous species such as red clover
(Trifolium prate??nse), dandelion, and wild onion were observed
scattered throughout. Flower beds containing ornamental species
and varieties are present throughout these habitats as are
various ornamental trees and shrubs used for landscaping
purposes. These species include bradford pear (P rus calleryana
'Bradford'), crepe myrtle (La erstroemia indica , mimosa
A izia 'ulibrissin), hollies I ex spp. , o ive bush
SE-laeagnus un ens , hydrangea (H?rangea), gardenia (Gardenia
p.), and-several azalea species R o o endron spp.).
Several animals previously mentioned are able to survive
with human development and use this habitat type as foraging and
nesting areas. Many of these species are birds, which are
frequent visitors to bird feeders.
b. Aquatic Communities
Two types of aquatic communities will be impacted by the
proposed project. Descriptions of vegetation and vertebrate
species residing in or in close association with the water
bodies are provided. Many terrestrial animals are integral
components of aquatic ecosystems and will be considered in this
discussion.
Small Coastal Plain Stream
Because of the sluggish flow and high biological demand,
dissolved oxygen levels are generally very low in these types of
streams. Consequently, fish occurring in these waters are well
adapted to low oxygen levels, and many, like the eastern
mudminnow (Umbrea mea)*, are able to use atmospheric oxygen,
by gulping ai- at t e surface.
18
Cursory surveys of the stream, using a fine mesh dip net,
yielded very few species. Redfin pickeral (Esox americana)* and
the "live-bearing" eastern mosquitofish (Gambia a inis * were
captured during site visits along with numerous crayfish
(Cambarus sp. or Procambarus sp.). The apparent low diversity
may ??ue to overall- w water levels and relatively sparse
floating and submerged vegetation, which attract food supply and
offer shelter.
During the June 18, 1993 site visit, hundreds of eastern
mudminnows were observed in the floodplain pools. This unusual
occurrence was probably a result of abnormally high waters
during the spring, and these fish were able to populate pools
not normally containing fish. It was evident during the site
visit that these pools were beginning to dry up. Although these
fish can survive for several days in muddy pools with almost no
water, they become easy prey for opportunistic foragers such as
raccoon, eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), eastern
garter snake (T. sirtalis)*, Norway rat, a?tton mouse
(Peromyscus gossypinus .
Normally, these pools do not contain fish, and they are
used as breeding pools by a variety of amphibians such as
Mabee's salamander, spotted salamander (Amb stoma maculatum),
brimleys chorus frog (Pseudacris brimleyi , an sout erg n cricket
frog (Acris rg?yllus). Mating for most of these species usually
takes p? in early spring, following rains. The larvae
undergo developmental stages in these ponds before transforming
into adults.
Several southern leopard frogs (Rana s henoce hala)* were
observed near the stream banks. These-Trogs often venture far
from water to feed on a variety of insects and other
invertebrates. These ventures from the safety of the stream
leave them susceptible to predation, particularly from barred
owls, which consume a large amount of frogs during summer
months.
Small Residential Development Lake
This man made impoundment is fed by a small stream crossed
by the alignment, eventually flowing out of the pond and into
Mill Branch. Lakeview subdivision is developed around the
approximately 2.4-hectare (6-acre) lake. These lakes are
usually stocked with gamefish, including largemouth bass
(Micro terus salmoides)*, bluegill (Le omis macrochirus), and
black crappie Pomoxis ni romaculatus , shortly ter
construction and are popular fishing spots.
Emergent vegetation along the shallow banks includes
smartweed (Pol onum sp.), green arum (Peltandra vir inica), and
marsh pennywort H drocot le umbel lata . T is c umpsilky
strand algae (S ro ra sp. an s en er pondweed (Potamogeton
pusillus) occur near the banks and out into the open waters. A
19
large number of aquatic insects congregate around these mats and
are fed upon by various sunfish (Le omis spp.) and young
largemouth bass. Bowfin (Amia Galva), older largemouth bass and
brown bullhead (catfish) Icta uTrus nebulosus) are the primary
predators in small coastal plain lakes. The diet of these
predators includes smaller fish, frogs, and large insects. The
presence of these predators controls population sizes of the
prey fish. An abundant fish observed here is the carp (C rinus
carpio)*, which was introduced to the United States in 1832 from
Europe because of its popularity as a food fish. Today few
people will eat this abundant and widespread species, as it is
considered a "trash" fish of inferior quality. This assumption
is erroneous, for food quality of this species is highly
dependent on water quality and diet.
Duckweed (Lemna sp.) occur in dense floating mats near the
lake edge. Sever ducks were observed during the site visit
including mallard (Anal lat rh nchos)*, wood duck (Aix
sponsa)*, and domestic kite ucc*.
Frogs likely inhabiting this pond include pickeral frog
(Rana alustris)*, green frog (R. clamitans melanota), and
bu Mrog R. catesbeiana).
The snapping turtle (Chel dra ser entina), a large
aggressive turtle common in most fres water a itats of North
Carolina, feeds on fish, invertebrates, small ducks, and plant
material. This turtle often wanders from one water body to
another and is most aggressive when encountered on land.
Other turtles likely to occur in this pond are the yellow-
bellied slider (Trachem s scri to scri ta)* and the spotted
turtle (Clemmys utg tats .
Burrows of the semiaquatic muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)*
were evident along the shore banks. They have fi storMc? aTTy been
common occupants of river and lake bank habitats throughout the
state. This mammal has been extensively trapped for fur, which
resulted in diminished populations. Recent regulatory measures
and development of commercial rearing operations have reduced
trapping pressures, helping to restore populations in some
areas.
Birds such as the belted kingfisher (Me aceraceryle aallcyonn)*,
green heron (Butorides striatus)* and the great blue heron
(Ardea herodias * were o s- near the lake during site
visits. The major portion of their diet consists of small fish
and aquatic invertebrates.
C. Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Construction of this project will have various impacts on
the biotic communities described. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts on these resources in terms of the area
impacted (cleared/modified) and ecosystem effects. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here.
20
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of the five plant community types
described. The estimated acreage loss to these communities is
listed in Table 1. It should be noted that estimated impacts
were derived using a 150-foot corridor. Project construction
will not require the use a 150-foot corridor; therefore, actual
impacts will be considerably less.
Table 1
ESTIMATED TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Community Acres
Floodplain Forest 1-
Fragmented Urban Forest 2.0
Fallow Field 1.9
Roadside 1.5
Residential/Business Lawn 8.7
15.4
The plant communities found along the project alignment
serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife. Loss of habitat is likely to reduce the
number of faunal organisms and concentrate them into a smaller
area, causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease, predation, and starvation. Individual mortalities are
likely to occur to animals closely associated with the ground
(snakes, small mammals, etc.) because of construction machinery
used during clearing and grading activities.
Displacement of faunal organisms will occur during
construction activity. These animals may return to the area
following construction, but the amount of forested habitat will
be reduced. The five-lane roadway will further dissect the
forested communities, causing habitat reduction. This will
likely isolate populations on both sides of the roadway, because
many animals will be unable to cross the widened road. The
project, however, will not adversely affect these terrestrial
communities as a whole.
Aquatic Community Impacts
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for
many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various species of
snakes, birds, turtles, and amphibians. It also serves as a
means of predator avoidance for amphibians (frogs and
salamanders), reptiles (snakes and turtles), and mammals
(muskrats, mink and beavers).

i
21
The existing pipes at the stream crossings will be replaced
by box culverts. There will be some habitat loss in terms of
permanent fill as a result of construction. Although the lake
will not be directly impacted by construction, impacts may still
occur from fill and modified areas. The tributary feeding the
lake is crossed by the alignment, and any sediment or pollutants
reaching the stream are likely to reach the lake as well. The
potential for erosion into the lake is also a strong possibility
since the road is approximately 100 feet upslope from the pond.
Other ensuing impacts to the aquatic communities can be
attributed to construction related sedimentation and erosion.
Although sedimentation and erosion may be temporary processes
during the construction phase of this project, environmental
impacts from these processes may be long-lived or irreversible.
Potential impacts to aquatic systems from project
construction include disturbance of benthic habitat and increase
of sediment load.
Benthic non-mobile organisms such as filter and deposit
feeders and macro and micro alga are particularly sensitive to
construction activities such as dredging, filling, pile driving
operations, and slope stabilization. These construction
activities physically disturb the attachment substrate,
resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of these
aquatic organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an area,
because they require a stabilized substrate which may take a
long time to develop. Therefore, changes in community
composition are likely as a result of substrate disturbance.
Light penetration, essential for photosynthetic species
which are the primary producers in the food chain, will be
reduced as a result of siltation. Clogging of feeding apparati
of suspension feeders and burial of newly settled larvae of
these organisms, are other effects of siltation. These species
are often primary consumers in the food chain, and are a major
step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these organisms may
directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as game
fish, raccoons and mink.
Mobile aquatic organisms are generally not directly as
sensitive to siltation, however gills of fish, crustaceans,
larval amphibians, and insect forms can become clogged and
dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation.
Additionally if measures are not taken to reduce the amount
of probable increased concentrations of toxic compounds
(gasoline, oil, etc.) in the stream, mortalities to numerous
types of aquatic organisms are likely.
22
2.
Since erosion and sedimentation are extremely detrimental
to aquatic ecosystems, strict adherence to Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters will be
observed to ensure the biological integrity of the water
resources impacted by this project.
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. As of July 09, 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) and the pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) for ampson
County. The project area does not support suitable habitat for
the red-cockaded woodpecker. However, suitable habitat for the
pondberry exists in the stream floodplains. A brief description
of these species characteristics and habitat requirements are
provided below.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
taE
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red cockaded woodpecker's (RCW) plumage is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the
sides of the nape in the male. The back is black and white with
horizontal stripes, and the breast and underside are white with
streaked flanks. There is a large white cheek patch surrounded
by the black cap, nape, and throat.
RCW's use open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. A
forested stand must contain at least 50 percent pine. These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are over 60 years old and
are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The
foraging range of the RCW reaches 500 acres, and this acreage
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12 to
100 feet above the ground and average 30 to 50 feet in height.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap
that surrounds the tree, which is referred to as
"candle-sticking". This is arguably used as a defense against
possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of
one breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The
eggs
-qq

23
are laid in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days later.
Clutch size is from three to five eggs. All members of the clan
share in raising the young.
RCWs feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild
fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No large mature pine stands occur within one half mile of
the project area. Construction of this project will have no
effect on this species.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry)
Status: -E -
Family: Lauraceae
Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers: March - early April
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub with a distinct
sassafras-like odor, approximately 2 meters tall and spreading
through stolons. The very thin alternate leaves are between six
and sixteen centimeters long and two to six centimeters wide,
with rounded bases. It has small pale yellow flowers that appear
in early spring before the leaves. The fruit which matures in
August or September is a bright red drupe.
This plant grows in lowland habitats with hydric soils,
which are generally flooded at some time during the growing
season. It is associated with the margins of sinks, ponds, and
other like depressions. The soils present are sandy with a high
peat content in the subsurface. These areas show signs of past
fire maintenance and now have shrubby conditions. The plants
generally grow in shady areas but may also be found in areas
that receive full sunlight.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The flooded lowland areas associated with the streams
crossed in the project area offer marginally suitable habitat
for this species. This area is not prime habitat because there
does not appear to have been a fire regime associated with this
habitat. Plant by plant surveys were conducted in these areas,
within the project right of way. No plants were observed.
Construction of this project will not adversely impact this
species.
b. Federal Candidate Species
There are a total of seven federal candidate (C2) species
and one federal candidate (Cl) species listed for Sampson County
(Table 2). Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for
which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which
24
there are not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this
time. Candidate 1 (Cl) species are defined as taxon for which
USFWS has on file enough substantial information to list as
Endangered or Threatened. Listing is "warranted but precluded by
other pending proposals of higher priority." The USFWS is
"directed to make prompt use of the emergency listing provisions
if the well-being of any such species is at significant risk."
The North Carolina status of these species are listed also.
These species are mentioned here for information purposes,
should they become protected in the future. Surveys for these
species were not conducted during site visits, nor were any of
these species observed.
Table 2
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES SAMPSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC Status
Aimophila aestivalis
Rana areolata-cp to
Din ro-coTea andersoni'
Dionaea muscci ul?a
Lit a aestiM is
Mac rides caro iniana
oro o us tereti o ius
o i aqo verna
Bachman's sparrow No
Carolina crawfish frog No SC
none No C
Venus flytrap No C-SC
Pondspice Yes C
Carolina bogmint No C
wireleaf dropseed No T
spring-flowering No E
goldenrod
SC
denotes Federal Candidate species
NC Status: SC, C, T, and E denote Special Concern, Candidate,
Threatened and Endangered respectively. Candidate species are not
afforded state protection.

C. State Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are given
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C.
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and
the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
A search of the NCNHP data base of rare plants and animals
revealed no current or historical records of North Carolina rare
and/or protected species occurring near the project area.
25
3. Physical Resources
a. Geology, Topography, and Soils
Sampson County is in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The county is drained by the Cape Fear River Drainage
System. The topography of the area is characterized as broad,
gently undulating to nearly flat plains, but includes some side
slopes along the dissected, shallow stream valleys. Elevation
in the project area ranges from 125 feet above mean sea level
(msl) to 150 feet above msl. The smooth plains have low local
relief, with the exception of the moderately sloping stream
banks.
Sediments are marine and alluvial in nature from the early
to late Pleistocene epoch (less than 2.8 million years old).
The mineralogic soil classes vary from kaolinitic to a mixed
mineralogy (more than 10 percent expanding 2:1 clay mineral).
The soils of the area are generally moderate to well drained
loams and sands (Norfolk Loamy Sand, Marvyn Loamy Sand, and
Wagram Loamy Sand units). The frequently flooded Bibb and
Johnston soils are frequently associated with creeks. Much of
the soils along the alignment are classified as Norfolk Urban
Land Complex, consisting of soils of the Norfolk Loamy Sand Unit
and impervious materials (asphalt, concrete etc).
b. Water Resources
The proposed alignment crosses three unnamed tributaries of
Williams Old Mill Branch, which flows into the Great Coharrie
Creek. The Great Coharrie Creek flows into the Black River
approximately 20 miles downstream of the project crossings.
Unnamed tributaries are assigned the classification of
their respective tributaries as designated by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR),
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The
Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin, 1993. Williams Old Mill
Branch is designated as Class C Sw. Class C designates waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The supplemental
classification Sw denotes Swamp Waters, which are waters that
have low velocities and characteristics which are different from
adjacent streams.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), nor Water Supplies (WS I or
WS II) occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project area.
26
Water Resource Impacts
Potential impacts to the waters affected by the proposed
project caused by construction-related sedimentation and
turbidity include decreases of dissolved oxygen and changes in
temperature. This is due to vegetation loss (covered with
sediment) and reduction of water clarity.
Alterations of water level, due to interruptions or
restrictions to surface water flow are also likely, because the
replacement structures will have a different surface area for
the stream to flow through (i.e. extension of the culvert). The
proposed culverts should allow for normal flows, however extreme
flows may create some problems with obstruction from accumulated
debris. An increase in the concentration of toxic compound
(gasoline, oil, etc.) concentrations in the stream is also
likely, coming from construction related machinery and road
paving activities as well as increased roadway surface area.
C. Floodplain Involvement
Sampson County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate
Map, which shows the approximate limits of the 100-year
floodplain in the vicinity of the two drainage crossings, is
included in the Appendix. These crossings are in moderately
developed areas, but the immediate floodplain at each crossing
is undeveloped and wooded. There are no buildings with floor
elevations below the 100-year flood level at either of the two
crossings. The proposed widening will have no adverse impact on
the existing floodplains.
d. Wetlands
Surface waters and their associated wetlands fall under the
broad category of "Waters of the United States as defined in 33
CFR 328.3. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) claims
jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill material into
these waters as authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria
specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
the following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of
hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of
hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology or
hydrological indicators including saturated soils, stained,
matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree
bases, and surface roots.

1
27
Construction of the proposed project will fill surface
waters from an unnamed stream and ditches. The project will
impact approximately 0.76 acre of Palustrine forested deciduous
wetlands at two sites. Wetland impacts along the project
corridor are unavoidable because wetlands are located along the
stream banks on both sides of the existing alignment. Strict
adherence to Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be observed
to ensure the biological integrity of the water resources
impacted by this project (see sections IV. G and IV. H of this
report for permit and mitigation requirements).
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
Air pollution is produced in many different ways. Emissions
from industrial and internal combustion engines are the most
prevalent sources. Other sources of common outdoor air pollution are
solid waste disposal, forest fires, and burning in general. 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 analysis presented
is 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. 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.
28
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not 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 grams 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. "The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 makes the sale,
supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful
after December 31, 1995." Because of these reasons, it is not
expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consist of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and "worst
case" meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on
the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the construction year
1996 and for the design 2016 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source
Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer
model.
1
1
29
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.
The "worst case" air quality receptor resulting from the
widening project was determined to be receptor number 14. The
receptor is located 50 feet from the proposed centerline of the
median. The "build" and "no build" one hour CO concentrations for
years 1996 and 2016 for this receptor are as follows:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
"Build" "No Build"
Receptor 1996 2016 1996 2016
R-14 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.7
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 the building of the project
will not adversely effect air quality conditions in the area. Refer
to Appendix B for input data.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Fayetteville Regional Office of the NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The ambient air quality
for Sampson County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed widening of SR 1311 in Sampson County 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
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.
30
Noise is 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 is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). 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. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1 of Appendix B.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: 1)
the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship
between the background noise and the intruding noise, 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 individual's 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.
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.
L

31
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives, particularly if noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise,
factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In
relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
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). A summary of the noise abatement
criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with
the same energy content.
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. 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 level increases. The existing Leq noise level along SR 1311
as measured at 50 feet from the roadway ranged from 64.9 to 67.2 dBA.
The ambient noise measurement sites and measured exterior Leq noise
levels are presented in Figure N2 and Table N3, respectively.
Existing roadway and traffic conditions along SR 1311 were
incorporated in the most current traffic noise prediction model to
compute existing Leq noise levels. These computed values were
compared with existing Leq noise levels which were measured at three
locations along the proposed project. The computed existing Leq noise
levels were within 1.0 and 6.6 dBA of the measured noise levels for
both measurement sites. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed
to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle
speeds versus the computer's "even-speed" vehicles and single
vehicular speed.
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 continually 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
is 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
32
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.
This noise analysis is based on preliminary roadway alignments.
The proposed project is to widen the existing two-lane highway to a
multi-lane facility (five-lane curb and gutter) from US 421 to
SR 1838. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers which
could be modeled 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.
Peak hour design and level of service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in
this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was used to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the design year
2016, 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, 100, 200, 400, 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
changes 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.
The Leq traffic noise exposures for each design alternative are
listed in Table N4. Information included in these tables consists of
listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their
ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level
increase for each.
The total number of impacted receptors, whether by approaching
or exceeding the noise abatement criteria or by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels are given in Table N5. Under Title
23 CFR Part 772, ten residential receptors were impacted by highway
traffic noise in the project area.
Other information included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of
the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information should
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway in local
jurisdiction and to prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses.

33
Table N6 indicates the exterior noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. Noise level increases
are predicted to range from +1 to +5 dBA. When real-life noises are
heard, level changes of 2-3 dBA are barely perceptible. A 5 dBA
change is more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA change is judged by
most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: 1) approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or 2) substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is also shown in Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category. There are ten impacted receptors in
the project area.
Alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts
and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise
abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of
locating the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative
for noise abatement.
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures are
not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on
the capacity and level of service on the proposed roadway.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success using solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and
reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable
measures may include earthen berms or artificial abatement walls.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small
noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
would normally be 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 (Fundamentals and Abatement of
Highway Traffic Noise, USDOT, chapter
34
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located
along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise
abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities and, thus, would
not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. Based on the
above factors, no physical abatement measures are feasible, and none
are recommended for this project.
The traffic noise impact for the "Do Nothing" alternative was
also considered. Four residences would experience traffic noise
impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC). No receptors will be impacted by substantial
increases in exterior noise levels, since these increases ranged from
+0 to +3 dBA.
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and the
earth moving equipment during grading operations. However,
considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise
and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts
are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures
are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
No traffic noise abatement measures are proposed for this
project. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional reports are required for this project.
E. Contaminated Properties
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified two active
facilities which have the potential for underground storage tanks (USTs)
or hazardous materials involvement. In a subsequent records search of the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Groundwater Section, the
following information was obtained.
The Best Way Amoco Station is located at the intersection of SR 1311
and US 421 in the southeast quadrant of the intersection. A site
investigation revealed three gasoline USTs and one kerosene UST. The four
USTs are located are found 90 to 110 feet south of the centerline of
SR 1311 and 150 to 170 east of the centerline of US 421.
A BP Service Station is located directly across SR 1311 from the Best
Way Amoco in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. All of the four
petroleum tanks at this station are above ground storage tanks (AST's) and
found 120 feet north of the centerline of SR 1311 and 220 feet east of the
centerline of US 421.
35
A files search of the Division
conducted to determine whether any
potentially contaminated sites were
these files and the DEM groundwater
within the Sampson County area we
corridor.
of Solid Waste Management was also
known regulated dumps or other
within the corridor. After reviewing
incident list, none of the known sites
re identified within the project
The Geotechnical Unit recommends that the right of way not exceed
70 feet north or south of the existing centerline of SR 1311 at the
beginning of the project. This would allow NCDOT to avoid purchasing any
USTs or associated pump islands. After approximately 300 feet from the
beginning of the project widening could occur with no known involvement
with potentially contaminated properties.
Table 3
Potential Storage Tank Impacts
Facility Location UST's
Best Way Amoco Southeast quadrant of US 421 4
and SR 1311
AST's
BP Service Station Northeast quadrant of US 421 4
SR 1311
F. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with highway
construction. These are generally of short term duration and measures
will be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be
removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the
contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with the applicable
laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the
greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
done under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-3 of Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures ,
which is entitled "Contro?of Erosion, Siltation, ana -Pollution". The
N.C. Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation
36
Control Program which has been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control
Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements to
minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard
Specifications together with the policies of the Division of Highways
regarding the control of accelerated erosion on work performed by State
Forces.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of
way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans
or special provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is
permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by
the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of
the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding
areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block
existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in the services of any of the utilities serving the area.
Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to
relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A
determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be
responsible for this will be made at this time. In all cases, the
contractor is required to notify the owner of the utility in advance as to
when this work will occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for
any damages to water lines incurred during the construction process. This
procedure will insure that water lines, as well as other utilities, are
relocated with a minimum of disruption to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made
to insure the transportation needs of the public are met both during and
after construction.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near
the project can be expected, particularly for paving operations and from
earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering
the relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts are
not expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
G. Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5
(A) 26 is likely to be applicable. This permit applies to wetlands that
are adjacent to surface waters, are above headwaters (with annual flow
less than 5 cubic feet per second (cfs)) and the impacts are less than one
acre. A Pre-discharge Notification to the COE is required.

37
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is also required, prior to
issuance of the Nationwide permit. Final permit decisions lie with the
Army Corps of Engineers.
H. Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Army.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
Comments on the proposed improvements to SR 1311 were requested from
the following federal, state, and local agencies. An asterisk indicates
that a written response was received. Responses are included in the
appendix.
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U.S. Department of Transportation - FHWA
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region M Planning Agency
*City of Clinton
Mayor of Clinton
Sampson County Commissioners
*Clinton City Schools
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held on November 10, 1992 at
the District 2 (Division 3) Highway Maintenance Facility to discuss the
proposed improvements. The NCDOT Office of Public Affairs advertised the
workshop in the major local media prior to its being held. Approximately
15 people (not including NCDOT representatives) attended the informational
workshop.
All of the people who attended the informational workshop live or
work along the project. Although concern was expressed over the project's
impacts to their properties, the project was strongly supported. Peak
hour congestion and intersection safety were among the existing problems
pointed out by workshop attendees. Both residents and business owners in
the project area favored the symmetric widening alternative.
38
Representatives from the Sampson County Correctional Center indicated
widening asymmetrically toward the Correctional Center could involve
moving the existing fenceline and two guntowers. They also emphasized the
importance of maintaining a safety barrier between the guntowers and the
road. Representatives from Week's Animal Clinic, located directly across
the road from the Correctional Center, also attended the workshop. They
maintained asymmetric northside widening could extensively damage their
parking lot. Relocating the parking lot to the opposite side of the
clinic would adversely alter entry conditions for customers. Both parties
agreed symmetric widening appeared to be a fairer alternative than
asymmetric widening.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this
document. The public hearing will provide more detailed information to
the public about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to
make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project.

FIGURES
r
r
I
I
r
II
I
I
m
r aYes`s:.
tI
r a> jig l?j,l
f?t y
>? ,k A
'h, t.?i?t ?, ? ;f yes < ?a• a f >
ot.

XJ I q

[ O ! ?aPA
C7 Ju
CD --j
N CO p x
- z
tr
Z mow,. ,' y ?. , y
0 Aft
ci) (n
;U)?<t `
1.S 83dSer
m?3mm+ k
o??? * }, a
O V) Z
m5az
Z 2 z ?.'?
;
NC) KA
• ??t
;I, o
mmm ,soy 10 31NNOJ b v l ?''
} e
xz o 41L
m - 1SQ ?.

r 7N
N 0 0)
Ur
?c _
O
Uy
O
d `?.o
aco0
N
N
l?
ca 'cr
V
D

c
O
Eo
cc¢
mm?
L ? lQ N
? oED
O'-'• v`
N
AWL
t?
T O T C
C'J
OC ? c
?
aotm
co m CO 0
1 -

E CD
O co

xE
?0
co D

4
OR
.d d
R
?1
1 IR

Lb

Z
_
0
co
bb r4 cr)
?Nd
c/JZ
V 4 %?C
?
z?
89 cc
lP 6l
N? 99 t,
` l£ z T

'
1 ca

l_l
l 9 _
O
T m
s 8z ?r
1 T?
NZ

f&ww
5l 6 L
.14
I
4 ?
? ez
r-too
N? -z

Z ol 9

T O
CD
1
T

n 0
?

^ Z
?I N
- ?C
? o
NIA C0
D
?CD
a
!M!
cc
/m
0
M

rn A
? o
N U 1- •- NI

D c m
: U) to
to 4-

p
fn^
it
p

+
p-?
O O T -
0
B
N1?
,0
d 0 O
CD
c
O?-
m Q
m_ -
CO
LM
0 Cam
Em
or
Z? y 7
T?wL
T 0(0
c
M q„I T v
T r ?
CV
N??
N
T
O

M
U 4--
NFa?
c -'?
c
O rky
U
m 42
CD
M
C
Q
co ? r
7
m
U w
Q 0 -?
co w
O .?. ????
r c
WC-3
4--
We- -+
-.Icon
1
JU t
06 Z
14
-l LS
.? 1
1 it
KLJU z
Zl bb t
1
6L Cl
Nn
t
.uim
1
I
t L9
I
4- ^T
r
_
N v m
m
~ Go
?V?o c
c
m
"
to
Av CD CC
Co U

U
CD

48 o
m
CD m
•+ w
4-
co
SIN C C
U U
r

ca
w
T M
M C
cr- o
CD Z
Mhc)
m

4
`
-? m
Q
CJN?

;AQ
4--
NN
(o r
Id
pT?
SLY Y
Z bb l
Lojkl)
r
Zl ££ 4
?o 0
V
FApN
N

m
D
m
Y
9
M
W
U.

North Boulevard (SR 1311)
at US 421
Proposed
Intersection
Geometrics

br-
r
N
SR 1311
North
Boulevard
Figure 4a
K-
North Boulevard (SR 1311)
at Beaman Street (SR 1838)
Proposed
Intersection
Geometrics

SR 1311
North
Boulevard

00
c?
3
CD
CD
CD
CO
CO
CIO
CO
Figure 4b
y
North Boulevard (SR 1311)
at US 421

Existing
Intersection
Geometrics
;

SR 1311
North
Boulevard
Figure 4c

W
i
co
LL

Z
O
f-
V
W
N
W
L7
O
2
Q
m
V
W
Z
g
iD
a
LO
d
CD
LL

1-

T
T
to
CO)
o? a
W m
r
0 N
z
Q m
m w
m >
:) o
V W
W
z
m
0m
m
W
N W
oz
o°
I-
M v
W
U)
N
V
1
421
N
1314
C
y 111111 Clllllllll? III;
iIIIIIIIIII11111111111111 v.?1111111? Vs
a O V
?11111111111n?n???n1111 i O
U-2514 c
C a
174 9
a -
C ?
14?? ^E S' \\<? I
1849
. RP,
I :I e
Q E E
W-L
i3 nrE gap;: 1k
18 o ~ d? GRG E ;b' _L%GC
n `\4 PARK ..PT ?rE C-E
J sl
cAnv?Ew
O
_ 4,E p11??L??838
1839 =I
? EE« 5
t EMETFIR , a 'Cpr•r
In' a '~v r^ s
1 II? , `' Q ' E 2 i v
m
TAR
MEMOPIA?
\ \ .a/ r y ao` fq HO SPiTA?
5. .. P?5,0 SAM: c
6? 5 3OgN #_ 4ON " n
.rM
?'E C
y, ?o~9a i S`•?' P
AESc v`r ?a ?O? Cq ?C?
1 e?« ° iNST 6a- CHy s.
D
f• ?
\ / O s ?y .BET
\ O <? r VENT- - ?`
43 \ l 'p«DEps << WApDL, V ?1
3AW
t I S t 9 ~fq ff. . C ..
':)GAP 5T \ N'
1344 \ 9f F;PST
-' 'IAA AA i METH O
/J\ f CAA ? y
\ CH. OF GOO
11312 \ `°qfs, FIGURE 6
1313 ?\ '0•, Portion of Thoroughfare
134.1 421 Plan
// qq CJC q' ? C A
\ fq (q ?\
1339 `\?i?? cL^NroN ??.\.. ^?°c ;. ..?., ?•
•• `
SM 170 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
1842 0 - _ TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
?,? ? ?- - ?? Cam="• I i Q? ?? BRANCH
SR 1311
US 421 TO SR 1838
??, /""? ? \' SAMPSON COUNTY
U-2514
Browns
1827 "_ i ??? ??-. 1 Chapel; _
? \ ?-- o ?\ ? • \\ ? ? ;? Wetland Locations FIGURE 7
A
,50"
-r , u ) I ?? "
153
1 n vso
104 -
ras • - - %"fending Strip
rn7 \ _ I /' • \ r 1742
PROJECT -
ISO
- - 52 LIMIT , 1751.
Radio Tower
PROJECT
LIMIT) =E +- i? ??• 1 E = ,`F
354 vl
- ? A•e rP f __ dl ? ? • ' r?
:Cem
3 TE 2-'
_.-BITE
? ... ???`?: ? I. "'•?? ? "-moo 1y (t/"?..-. \?` V : ? n r ?- 1 1 ? \
Su r Q ? ?\ N U 11
A o I 1 403
% \a
tel T p
!d ?, " tta' I/ off- .. ' ?i'" . ..? Theater
:?, Sew' •" '1 ?? , - CI.
Royal Mi
Br
lo _- _ _ ? ` r 1 '} ?_ a ?,FrBher \ i ?? •??\?
Tcw&r
c.
} N .W
Q
Q
w X _
W

Z
Z O NO
O N
N

WC
ZX
O

iS ?ol Business `-
o
.° I

0
..N

Q
W
Z
O
N
9,8- ;PoT

W
2 \
Ln
\ .000'
1 L~
:::.. a
? M=ooh v b e ? ? ,:;:.
',?,?q 400
W zr`
CO)
? z
N O
`= Q u
a z
?F O
N
H
V ?
7
Q J
a
CV)
?I
O
W
m
.
O'
w
O _
E
J
'1638
X
W
Z
O
N
I
I
I
'I
L-9•ZL
3NOZ ,
I
I
I
F
G
X
V i
m I
'C
C "' I
C
of V .
a o .
. 'I
I

X
w
Z
O
N
co
Y.
V
LL.
A
DW
-- Z X
O
N C
X
APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
SEP 116 WEST JONES STREET
DCKNOWLEDGEMENT NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
D1OF RECEIPT
MAILSO TO: FROM:
`1C DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANETTE FURNEY
L.J. ',LARD ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
PLANNING E ENVIRON. BRANCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
OROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 1311 (NORTH 3LVD.) FROM
US 421 TO SR 1838 (BEAMAN STREET) IN CLINTON, SAMPSON COUNTY
TIP rU-2514
TYPE - SCOPING
THE "N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTEA:;OVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS SEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 93E422001639 PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 11/01/92.
SHCULO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone],
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
=M208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
% 116 WEST JONES STREET ,.
11-02-92 r RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-80
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS NpV 0 3 192
MAILED T0. FROM.
Z p?VISIG'`? GF `
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. H?GNWAYQ?.
CHRYS BAGGETT
L-J- WARD DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENVIRON- BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 1311 (NORTH BLVD-) FROM
US 421 TO SR 1838 (BEAMAN STREET) IN CLINTONI SAMPSON COUNTY
TIP #U-2514
SAI NO 93E42200163 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
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 QUESTIONS9 PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C-C- REGION M
NT OF Ty?'ym
fN
5
X
a
?q'9CH 3 ?0s

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERME
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 1. 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
` Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
a
Y
SEC 0 2 1992
u, ?lvtis??'' r
Subject: SR 1311 (North Boulevard). from US 421 to SR 1838 (Beaman Street).
Clinton; Sampson County; Federal Aid Project No. STP-1311(2).
State Project No. 8.2280701. TIP No. U-2514
Dear Mr. Ward:
For your information, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is providing an
updated listing of Federally listed species for the subject project.
The attached page identifies 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 area of influence of this action. 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.
There is no Federally-listed critical habitat in the project impact area for
any of the above referenced species.
Your concern for endangered species is appreciated, and we look forward to
working with you on endangered species matters in the future.
Sincerely yours.
Debbie Mi ogno
Endangered Species Coordinator
Enclosure
REVISED JANUARY 1, 1992
Sampson County
- Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississipviensis) - T S/A+
Pondberry (L de a melissifolia) -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.
These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) 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 candidate 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.
Carolina crawfish frog (Rana areolata caoito) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna) - C2
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - C2
Bachman's sparrow (Aimoohila aestivalis) - C2
American sandburrowing mayfly (Do ani americana) - C2
Cylindrocolea andersoni - Cl
Pondspice ( tsea aestivalis) - C2
Carolina bogmint (Macbridea caroliniana) - C2*
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
+Threatened/Similarity of Aoeearance
. STATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources =
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
September 30, 1992
\ MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives? and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tnat ion
FROM: David Brook lv?40f Deputy State toric Preservation cer
SUBJECT: SR 1311 (North Boulevard) from US 421 to SR 1838
(Beaman Street), Clinton, Sampson County, U-2514,
STP-1311(2), 8.2280701, CH 93-E-4220-0163
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a survey of our survey site files which do not identify any
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project. However, at an early scoping meeting for the project, we discovered that
structures over fifty years of age may be located in the area of potential effect.
We recommend that an architectural historian for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation examine the area of potential effect and report the findings to us.
Please submit photographs of any structures over fifty years of age, keyed to a
map, along with a location description. Also include a brief statement about the
structure's history and explain which National Register criteria it does or does not
meet. Without this information we are unable to determine if the structure is
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
September 30, 1992, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: `State Clearinghouse
B. Church

µ ..
t,.
`C-
r

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 29, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: SR 1311 from US 421 to SR 1838, Clinton, Sampson
County, U-2514, 8.2280701, STP-1311121, ER 93-
8437
Dear Mr. Graf:
GEI VF
APR 0 2 1993 z
U
222 DIVISION OF Q?
G' HIGHWAYS ?,?
"§4`i'/RONN?P
Thank you for your letter of March 11, 1993, concerning the above project. We have
reviewed the documentation provided to us regarding historic structures over fifty years of
age and determined that additional information is needed to complete our review.
As requested in our letter of September 30, 1992, to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), we need the photographs of the structures over fifty years of age
within the area of potential effect keyed to a map showing the project area. A brief
statement about each structure's history and an explanation concerning which National
Register criteria they meet or why they are not eligible for listing should also be provided.
without this information we are unable to determine whether the structures are eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
For further guidance on the kinds of information helpful to us, the NCDOT staff
architectural historian may want to review our guidelines for report preparation. As we
have outlined in the past, we need information about the general character of the area as
well as information on older properties which may or may not be eligible for listing in the
register.
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 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
r t 'c
" David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw/
cc: V L. J. Ward
B. Church
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
QP

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 27, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
RE: SR 1311 (North Boulevard) from US 421 to SR
1838 (Beamont Street), Clinton, Sampson County,
U-2514, 8.2280701, STP-1311(2), ER 94-7365.
Q`?C+
r ?[
Division of A0644.1
William S. Price,
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the phase I historic architectural resources report prepared by
Kitty Houston for the North Carolina Department of Transporation concerning the
project. Based upon the information in the report, we concur with the Federal
Highway Administration's determination that the two structures over fifty years of
age in the area of potential effect are not eligible for the National Register. We
agree the two structures have little historical or architectural significance.
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 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: .,C.J. Ward
B. Church
!7
0.
?n
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?P
O S7
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
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:

Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
,r
Chrys Baggett ?. .
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
93-0163 - Scoping Proposed Improvements to
SR 1311 (North Blvd.), Sampson County
October 6, 1992
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our divisions if additional assistance is
needed.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 227611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal OnnortUmrv Affirmative Action Fmnlover

9 North Carolina 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.. Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Bennis St wart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: -6ctober 5, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for proposed improvements to SR 1311 (North
Boulevard) from US 421 to SR 1838, Clinton, Sampson
County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2514,,DPA Project No.
93-0163.
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J.
Ward of the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the proposed roadway improvements. The N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
project, and a site inspection was conducted on September 25,
1992. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the N. C. 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. 661-667d).
The proposed project involves widening of existing alignment
in an area of extensive urban and residential development, and
impacts to fish and wildlife habitat are expected to be minimal.
While no specific concerns are anticipated, the following
information is suggested for inclusion in the environmental
document.
Habitat types occurring on the construction site should be
described and fish and wildlife species potentially impacted
should be inventoried as in past NCDOT environmental documents.
To the extent possible, borrow areas and construction easements
should be included in the study area. Information on State- and
Federally listed fish and wildlife species may be obtained by
Memo Page 2 October 5, 1992
contacting Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered Species Program
Manager, at [phone].
Cover type maps showing wetland and upland acreages impacted
by the project will facilitate comprehensive assessment and
review of project impacts. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a
result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project
construction. The need for channelizing or relocating portions
of streams crossed and the extent of such activities should also
• be addressed. Mitigation for unavoidable loss of wetland and
stream habitat should be discussed in the environmental document,
and degradation of habitat quality as well as quantitative losses
should be considered.
If we can further assist your office, please call David Yow,
Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project.
cc Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered Species Program Manager
David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
DLS/DLY

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
r
L_
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: I Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process I
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
J Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
ili
f Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
ac
ties, 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•sile inspection. 90.120 days
J 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
Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)

Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
owner. 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

J facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06
N/A 60 days
(90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.

Demolition or renovations of structures containing Or%T
,9
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 92 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A

prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group ,
919.733.0820.
(90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D
0800
.
.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity: An erosion & s entalio
'
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality.. `.
at least 30 20 days
days before be mnin activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the Plan. (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
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 five 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)
II permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 aays
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv•
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 Bays)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application.-An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will-be required upon completion
""`' Continued on reverse
y J ?\.
IIt =? j'?j el
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
hdNatural Resources s,
Division
t_and Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: County:
Project Name: i
Geodetic Survey
I This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)

For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office a x(919) 7.?,3-36
n ?
C.
Reviewer? Date

Erosion and Sedimentation Control -Z

No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
?0j1? ? .yam' .... •.. J `\ ..'\ _ // ,; i or
•,.?1 7 r r I.S Ip1 r .V .:::ITT
ANp
1 1.3 1 - ???.:) 1 1p1 , p ,S . 's ' _ !?? f.3 1 Irll ?I 1 ?t?
•1 It. 46' - ('y , S s Irlr V 17MC ` ?? .SU ? X11 • ?'
N..O...e I,3 .9!1 . 1.? ?t 1rn r.J? it]! \\'!?
I I .fl T or ` r.1 UNKEY ?s IIy ?`? . `\
111. .1 _ IOI. it? LL 1 / :?7
l?\\y _-?' NuN \, f. I?Ir TURKEY
`07: ?! 1.0 r-'ICI] ly I0 ITLo
t
/3 `?\_ $ 111 !. 1? S tii r
1
• ?' 1024 4 t ! f Ci
111
,.1 f•3 17••1 _J?' - 110 [N Y E LLIO TT
---1
I?IILbly AEr
I!1 1.1 1!1! 7 CHICKEN
? `? 11.1!
Mn ?Ir•I 111A .9
`} ?J 1T11 /ROtINtON SNIP t(K J.EL 190.E p
`.I!•1 <? d iR o B ?JN t Sol (
Lt 51 OMi
T ` Jf rr3
1 7 VOLT Mu ZI 7.1
//9,11 , rv . o L 10 U&
J. 7 ., xtA-84 ra ?° y 1.44! 1tL1
11.1 t I :e Lt1i 1)71 •
?t 1.111 POLLY LW .
17.9 1770 • • `•'? '(, rf ?]
u - / 1711 loft 17 it ! nu ?' Y lfiZ 3 1 1!
J )11
IAY/t0 1.0 ? .p !11 .9
` COR ~ 1.1 1.111 f u • ?J
1110 •'Iv A rw3 t•Mon7 uAE J NYIN[ NGStY ! 1147 Ll14! 1L'.
•.. 1
1 T JUNK 1731 ? 1 1) l Jul foN ITN4!\ OLNTON '[•IJJ/ 1.15E
] I !] \P TWIN '`? 1t11 r LL4
/ 1213 12
SA-b R . L• ,03 waRl _L .]
171• E SA- 4 // ,• / V7 -• ?Rf
E71 .• `' !'? [• t YOMV[ -7 ` R NINlp? YATTNII 11
190^I
ROES,fv
11 p7?A ¦AT OR
'.I 54 IjRA11N \ /? 0..d Nill•
,t •? "'! SA-1 NOLT ORO Yt / a ,111 rON NtCR ) 31
i / I 17 ?AINCLOT ].] U NON[ T.71.r
I 1 \ /
?1' 11 rp L r•] .
II 1 , CLINTON COUNTY LAUNDRY T TNOL yll Lt LE
• I 1 }? 1 CLI ON Ny CLIFTON J llrp •,7 • _I.1 J-114
ET DICK
1 '17 ?c. .aG?( ,6Q d4 .y I A lPr
CL LL. LANK ?
1 If tC
I LO E1 111
CCC?___9?•`QgT ?f N 111
'Cbl j3 C!) / T ?(C ?E/R-f 0 U.S AO r
CC ? I-EARS 't 114 9 GHk
IM UEA ' t MN[ER ]
1 1!?i
*? • CLIN ON 9•31 rRFt R v \\ I146 i13
111 ?j, PO?. 7.461 / 1 .g !rli .? i
1Ll // 10?[ N
5 O9 71 -219 tw1.11 SUN." C -d Vit .6
Ny I I r .1 } [ PwoR ?N Crowwdl 1.9 , ,3•
f 1120 112- 4a TECH ?iyT RidO• v turef, 1119 LLAL 'r G.ay 1!11
r GRIFFIN 44•1., CLINIPMr AZ NN ti J TILL
/ Ya Lug ) rATE0. .Q 1 \I ?P m1 LL1 1
111E 1114 / SA 17 CL IM}ORr ILL. .il u) treArott 11AL ., 1
. !12) •? I?Iio NL 7 n JA!! 1
`1 1111) ? j1t! r11i4 ! 1LSTTAART CNAPSI. ? 1144 111 1..
7
7 h LL1 13
d .• 11 •OMN?1'..1?r 1111 Lui ?' •? ? NARANN ) 1441 I 1
Iu 112 lL11 v 1141 .1 ?? A•-II 1115 'T7 1114• •? ,7
% ?` 114E _ ° .1 \R No NIr .?
1211 ].] lilt \nORt.O[ f
' 1111 1L `? ry 2!! JtAN Nr /tra IJ11_ c LLIX
7•I 1799 •0 121 A7iY"
LL1 !lV 1111 L c 2 CONCORD `? '• Cred1 L L &A, 610a1d , 1445
!. \ P FlwwlN r 114 121[ 'Y u i ` r f
9f.n11n 1.14! f ?? Ch t ?? tl ° 1?2 ^ 11Q! ) JUL
1]411?L 1141 • ?.• d 121! Lul 111.1 Irp1 r'0
1111 1m !? - ?• Ira Cul
?s
111 -11
•• r
J
`1 ? 1.1 1711,
uu 1, Lu1 LL1A 1L4L
1144 1911 1L C7wR
1
a
,Y v 1141Q? fL41- Y•11 0 12n L till 111
1141
7U .rW le 111 1.
1111 1.0 , 6 l ,o
1717 1707 Ilr?
1171 `? 1701
AAL no 0 \ 1111 R-Y _ 'li (,oA.nf D 221 ??
RN 111! Ldrif 'e E 21
1 / 13-0 r 't. \ '1141 [L? IL19 A4Dolri}! d r 0 221
1 c i2,.
LAKE 000 1 _ I,Ir Irlr A 22 ISMt )] 2.1 L aAN S' Im.
u1 !UI T Vy ??LNN N 717 SAN )41 1 qo1 n07
:1En11U1G a 2, )? )f ) 71 1 '? • K 356 SI?IOIN 156
•O•. )09 LITTLE ?DUCRANAII Ifl• ` / / -
;, 1.3! • 3rr•w f n 1111 l7 2 220 L 156 22
?.,_,_ 911[N\CN 1r•p '1r
loot 5' CARROLI M1WM1 ' 111, N?~O ?.r M NiOAwRiM MM120 171.
3 O Il ?rll 2? K 223 , N 156 PAIKERSIUIG` ' U
IuARO 9 3Ct0R0 [ 15 N?• \.7 +1917 N L.6 •O• 1f 1! III ?/?
\6 is 2Y.• 1 V 220 undo p Irl1?® 'R 17or ?'?l? J- -1,
IL]r r0 , 1.13 111
Iwl , I.07 Irl Ally D(1c FKn9n r \' 1
4Nr e
1
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 V41. Cobey, Jr., Secretary September 28, 1992 Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne c
-Monica Swihart07
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Proposed Improvements to SR 1331 from US 421 to SR 1838 in Clinton
Sampson County
State Project DOT No. 8.2280701, TIP #U-2514
EHNR # 93-0163, DEM WQ # 6818
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed:
A. Please identify the borrow locations.
B. Two streams and one pond will be impacted by this project. The stream
classifications are C-Sw. Efforts should be made to minimize the impacts to
these water bodies through sedimentation and eutrophication.
C. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations.
D. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Total impacts of wetlands.
vii) List the 401 Water Quality General Certification numbers to cover the
project.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251.6208 919/486.1541 704/663-1699 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 Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Please be aware that written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
i.
. " ' G? WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
0
IN REPLY REFER TO October 30, 1992
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, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
G E
O
NOV 0 S 1992
s
C'
D?VISIC!V OF t?
HIGHIWAY?
IN, e'
This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1992, requesting
our comments on the initiation of a study of the project, "SR 1311
(North Boulevard), from US 421 to SR 1838 (Beaman Street), Clinton,
Sampson County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1311(2), State Project
No. 8.2280701, TIP No. U-2514" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D.
No. 199300258).
From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) perspective, our comments
involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and other environmental
aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed project would not
involve any constructed COE navigation or flood control projects.
The proposed project is sited in the city of Clinton and Sampson
County, which participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. From
a review of the July 1991 Sampson County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the
proposed project appears to cross streams which have been mapped by
approximate methods. All drainage structures should be designed so as
not to produce more than a 1.0-foot flood surcharge above the 100-year
flood level and addressed in future environmental impact statements.
The hydraulic effect of the project should be coordinated with the city
of Clinton and Sampson County for compliance with their flood plain
ordinances. Executive Order 11988 should also be reviewed and complied
with.
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, including construction debris,
into waters of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands.
Please provide sufficient information for our evaluation of environmental
impacts for all construction corridors which you are considering. Included
should be wetland and soils mapping, indicating wetland and soils types,
and data regarding endangered species, cultural resources, and fish and
-2-
wildlife habitat. Adverse environmental impacts should be avoided and
then minimized. Mitigation must be provided to compensate for unavoidable
impacts. Our comments will be provided in response to such information.
Because of this early review and evaluation, we would expect a most ,
expeditious processing of your application for the specific activity
requiring Federal authorization. Questions or comments related to the
permit may be directed to Mr. Rudolf Schiener, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, telephone [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.
S Lace
Lawrencq W./Saunders
Chief, P nning Division
i
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
R4-NT September 16, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
RE: City of Clinton and Sampson County, North Carolina
SR 1311, from US 421 to SR 1838 extension
State Project 8.2280701, TIP No. U-2514
Dear Mr. Ward:
a
Q
SEP 211992
S
?v IyVISION OF .Z
HIGHWAYS
RESEP?'?
This is in response to your letter dated August 31, 1992,
requesting information in evaluating potential environmental
impacts for the above-referenced project as it pertains to the
National Flood Insurance Program.
The City of Clinton and Sampson County North Carolina are
participating in the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). Any encroachments into the floodplains or
regulatory floodways must be in compliance with the NFIP
regulations.
The agency in charge must ensure compliance with the floodplain
management regulations enacted by the State of North Carolina. In
this regard, it is imperative that the agency coordinate closely
with the appropriate staff in the Floodplain Management Section of
the Division of Emergency Management.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ms. Bel Marquez
at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Lyle, Chie
Risk Assessment Secti , NTHD
Mr. Eddie Keith, Project Engineer
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
124 Division Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
S,r,tQ1nber 29, 1994
OHIes 01 City M,,099f
Dear Mr. Keith:
This letter is to advise you that we have reviewed the need for
sidewalks along North Boulevard. We request that the State include
sidewalks along the north side of Vorth Boulevard from Beaman
Street to the Highway Patrol Station. It is our understandings
that the. City's cost will be $3,840. We are prepared to pay this
amount and forward it to the State.
It there are any further details that, need to be worked out, please
advise.
F q?99'
CIrY OF CLINTON
P.O. BOX 199
CLINTON, NOn'H CAROLINA 711378.0199
Sincerely,
Tommy M. Combs
City Manager

.w STATE o
9 - -NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
116 West Edenton Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27603-1712

October 12, 1992
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent
VF16
ACS 1 5 1992 =
MEMOR ANDUM ? z
Q
F
22 V1S10^10
?Q
N' AN S
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E. r. mot,
??
Manager of Planning and Research '"`
NC Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H
/
Assistant uperintendent
P

Auxiliary
ervices
RE: SR 1311 (North Boulevard), from US 421 to SR 1838 (Beaman
Street), Clinton, Sampson County, Federal Aid Project
1311(2), State Project No. 8.2280701, TIP No. U-2514 No. STP-
Please find attached communication from Charles R. Gainey, Superintendent for
Clinton City Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment(s)
an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer
CLINTON CITY SCHOOLS
P.O. BOX 646
CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28328
[phone]
CHARLES R. GAINEY, SUPERINTENDENT
GLENDA PHILLIPS, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
RONALD MONTGOMERY, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
CLYDE LOCKLEAR, JR., FINANCE OFFICER
October 7, 1992
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DWIGHT HORNE, CHAIRMAN
VICTOR FRYAR, VICE-CHAIRMAN
HAZEL COLWELL
QUINCY EDGERTON
PAMELA YOUNG
WARREN JOE BELL

Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
Department of Public Instruction
116 West Edenton Street
Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27603-1712
Dear Dr. Weaver:
OCT 1 2692
The Clinton City Schools Administrative Staff and Board of Education
have reviewed the improvement project TIP No. U-2514. We have no
negative reaction to the proposal. We believe the improvement will have a
positive impact on the area.
Yo truly,
Charles R. Gainey, Ed.D.
Superintendent
CRG:ca

L1 T
ITY
SCHOOLS
... Providing A Future For Our Children
.d
Appendix B
Air Quality and Traffic Noise

FIGURE N1 - PROJECT LOCATION
SR 1311 Sampson County
US 421 to SR 1838
TIP n U-2514 State Project n 8.2280701
11BEGIN PROJECT
¦
r
11133'
11 .27 a 1G
?::•:? :. ...t:t :• • ? 1i?i
ty;r.
1L
•
t7??
7N
M /
Jy•.
END PROJECT
0
'Oy
Mu
1
Fo
i
s?
o•

?1
O
1
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 fat away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. H. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)

TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
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 extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) 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, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 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: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
FIGURE N2 - NOISE MEASURMENT SITES
SR 1311 Sampson County
US 421 to SR 1838
TIP Y U-2514 State Project n 8.2280701
a1 Noise Measurement Sites

• 421,:? f • :' 1 N
•'r'f:Vi' is iii: ? ? 7?•
• r:i+r::.; :•r,. - :;::? 1 1111 •JA
's GI
aus.
BEGIN PROJECT 70t
U ?
O `
a
11 •?0 'all A3.
b 10 .
` L1L 1 ??
t.;;;. ? gfa Q" "Ch PROJECT
?•:f
.?v G ? iarr
701
t? f m
1!1 ?`f fr u6Z J!1!
„o v

O
1

TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Le9)
SR 1311, From US 421 to SR 1838, Sampson County
TIP# U-2514 Project# 8.2280701
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. SR 1311, .13 Mile West of US 701 Grassy 64
2. SR 1311, .08 Mile West of Jasper Street Grassy 67
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the center
of the nearest lane of traffic.

TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1311, From U8 421 to SR 1838, Sampson County
TIP# U-2514 Project# 8.2280701
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
Beginning of Project to West of US 701 Bypass
1 Business C SR 1311 90 L 61 SR 1311 90 L
2 Business C " 110 R 60 " 110 R
3 Residence B 100 R 61 " 100 R
4 Residence B " 80 R 62 " 80 R
5 Business C " 90 R 61 •' 90 R
6 Business C " 95 R 61 " 95 R
7 Business C " 100 R 61 •' 100 R
8 Business C " 90 L 61 " 90 L
9 Residence B " 150 L 57 " 150 L
10 Residence B " 65 L 63 " 65 L
11 Residence B " 65 L 63 " 65 L
12 Residence B 65 L 63 " 65 L
13 Residence B " 62 L 64 " 62 L
14 Business C " 50 R 65 " 50 R
15 Business C " 50 R 65 " 50 R
16 Business C " 100 R 61 " 100 R
17 Business C " 250 L 52 •' 250 L
From East of US 701 Bypass to West of Lloyd Street
18 Business C SR 1311 90 L 63 SR 1311 90 L
19 Business C " 390 L 50 " 390 L
20 Residence B " 125 R 61 " 125 R
21 Residence B " 115 R 62 " 115 R
22 Residence B " 110 R 62 " 110 R
23 Residence B " 65 R 66 " 65 R
24 Residence B " 60 R 66 " 60 R
25 Residence B " 70 R 65 " 70 R
26 Residence B " 60 L 64 " 80 L
27 Residence B " 80 L 64 " 60 L
28 Residence B " 90 L 63 " 90 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - 66 + 5
- - 64 + 4
- - 65 + 4
- - " 67 + 5
- - 66 + 5
- - 65 + 4
- - 65 + 4
- - 66 + 5
- - 61 + 4
- - " 68 + 5
- - * 68 + 5
- - * 68 + 5
- - * 68 + 4
- - 69 + 4
- - 69 + 4
- - 65 + 4
- - 56 + 4
- - 65 + 2
- - 51 + 1
- - 62 + 1
- - 63 + 1
- - 63 + 1
- - * 67 + 1
- - * 68 + 2
- - * 67 + 2
- - * 66 + 2
- - * 66 + 2
- - 65 + 2
1/1
A

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2514: SR 1311 Sampson County
DATE: 04/10/1994 TIME: 22:11:27.31
RUN: SR 1311 1996, NO BUILD 45 MPH
k
SITE G METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - .0 CM/S 20 108. CM
CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRO TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (C/MI) (M) (M) (VF-4)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 310. 17.2 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AC 310. 17.2 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R14, 50' RT. CL RES -13.4 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2514: SR 1311 Sampson County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEAR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.4
1
RUN: SR 1311 1996, NO BUILD 45 MPH
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2514: OR 1311 Sampson County
DATE: 04/10/1994 TIME: 22:10:43.10
R
RUN: SR 1311 2016, BUILD 45 MPH
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD .0 CM/S 20 . 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 YI X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) 'i\'1:"j
1. Far Lane Link 7.3 -804.7 7.3 804.7 1609. 360. AG 680. 10.4 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 680. 10.4 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R14, 50' RT. CL RES -7.9 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2514: SR 1311 Sampson County
MODEL RESULTS
RUN: OR 1311 2016, BUILD 45 MPH
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
R concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.7
DOOR. 2
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2514: SR 1311 Sampson County
DATE: 04/10/1994 TIME: 22:10:22.50
RUN: SR 1311 1996, BUILD 45 MPH
3
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BAG TYPE VPH EF H w V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M)
1. Far Lane Link 7.3 -804.7 7.3 804.7 1609. 360. AG 310. 17.2 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 310. 17.2 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R14, 50' RT. CL RES -7.9 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2514: SR 1311 Sampson County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.5
2
RUN: SR 1311 1996, BUILD 45 MPH
A
TABLE N5
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
SR 1311, From US 421 to SR 1838, Sampson County
TIPN U-2514 Project# 8.2280701
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Laq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

1. SR 1311, East to US 701 67 63 58 <49' 80' 0 5 0 0 0
2. SR 1311, East to Lloyd Street 67 62 57 <49, 74' 0 5 0 0 0
3. SR 1311, East to SR 1838 63 59 54 <49' <49' 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 0 10 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 1311, From US 421 to SR 1838, Sampson County
TIPN U-2514 Project# 6.2280701
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

1. SR 1311, East to US 701 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. SR 1311, East to Lloyd St. 0 it 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. SR 1311, East to SR 1838 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 21 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined in Table N2.
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2514: SR 1311 Sampson County
DATE: 04/10/1994 TIME: 22:11:13.64
t
RUN: SR 1311 2016, NO BUILD 45 MPH
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
1
VS = .0 CM/S VD .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U . 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM ' 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/(' QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEA)
1. Far Lane Link
2. Near Lane Link
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 I 1609. 360. AG 680. 10.4 .0 9.8
.0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 680. 10.4 .0 9.8
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R14, 50' RT. CL RES -13.4 .0 1.8
JOB: U-2514: SR 1311 Sampson County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
t
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.7
DEGR. 6
RUN: SR 1311 2016, NO BUILD 45 MPH
? ..__.. .+ STAri a
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 September 28, 1992 Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee 1 t»U?I7
Through: John Dorneq?)
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb f
Subject: Proposed Improvements to SR 1331 from US 421 to SR 1838 in Clinton
Sampson County
State Project DOT No. 8.2280701, TIP #U-2514
EHNR # 93-0163, DEM WQ # 6818
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed:
A. Please identify the borrow locations.
B. Two streams and one pond will be impacted by this project. The stream
classifications are C-Sw. Efforts should be made to minimize the impacts to
these water bodies through sedimentation and eutrophication.
C. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations.
D. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Total impacts of wetlands.
vii) List the 401 Water Quality General Certification numbers to cover the
project.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 9 19/395 -3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Puys
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opporttmity Affirmative Action Employer

Please be aware that written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project.

,_;::! : i

i) LA.
F
1
:I: F; F.R ' Eirvu'?! ('i :J,
E::.1
'M F'
».. ??
I::: V, i I I:::i:
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .._ .... .... ._ ._..... .... .... .._ ............
._. ,, SEP 9
' G>r
r'?LYF.:.?lC,'f
f.I .1.
NC1 (:1I:r,.1ICI j ow f Ci FIF%(.1._11:::(:; F, F11, F'i:1; f:::I?
:C i`4 ,`.'1.1f`F°:I: (:: :I: F::N_f. NF'C) F<r'iFl I C1 i'•1.
IN 1, 1,4 (:: Y .i.. r?? .I. I :: '•i F. i I i i F::1:?
........
(?1'I'LII_:I?; {,:F'F::(:':I:I?''r' rtt?I? ?,.LLF'?CLI f.;C1i•iF'i?:::i•?I,`.;'?
vCIN1'1F::NI L.. C) (:1 1.. I{I::(:!L_!:I:IiF?:? 1 .1iJI:?F:: F;. f* IA I::,
F'{:(:11r:I:; fd C1!°
F: E:: 'I' L.1 f ; i'.! "I (:1 i • i f :: (... is ; ; `, i"1 C (:; f:" E: , 1- :I. `?? :I ,>' :I: (:1 i'•1 (:1 I:: F' .... ,':; i`.! r ? :I: i ? C; r'?? i ?! i:; ;' ; `' ;!;' i:: ,`. , :' i`4 F:: i'?1..i .
?srnr
6>
? y.
?•rr{.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART MENT OF TRANSPORTATIO c
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201 V\?
JAMES G. MARTIN ,isIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON August 31, 1992 WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRAI OR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: #-Planning L. J. Ward, Jr., P. E., Manager
and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1311 (North Boulevard), from US 421 to SR 1838
(Beaman Street), Clinton, Sampson County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-1311(2), State Project No. 8.2280701,
TIP No. U-2514
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to SR 1311 (North Boulevard).
The project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995
and construction in fiscal year 1996.
The proposed project begins at US 421 and extends eastward along
existing SR 1311 (North Boulevard) to SR 1838 (Beaman Street). The TIP
calls for widening the existing 24-foot, two lane facility to a 64-foot,
face to face curb and gutter section (five 12-foot lanes). The proposed
right of way width is 80 feet, expanding at streams to include all
structures. Also, four-to-one slopes are proposed along the residential
area between US 701 Bypass and Beaman Street for aesthetic purposes. The
project is shown on the attached vicinity map.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be
helpful in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If
applicable, please identify any permits or approvals which may be required
by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a
document evaluating environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable
that your agency respond by November 4, 1992 so that your comments can be
used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Mr. Brian F. Yamamoto, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at (919)
733-7842.
LJW/plr
Attachment
Ar Equal Opporiunity/Affirmative Action Employer

?r
IJ
/rr wfo?
/B.rrll a ?ro??A T
9 \
Lon,9 Spiveys Sut ontown
, Corner 10 11
13 421 ° I y
J Ci
Piney Green , Keener J
403
S A M P 13S O TN
s
7,1 7 II a Ir,
?I Salemburg 101°"+ ,
Autryville •? `-rCllnlo? * ` I- li
\ 4 e , ?sx
12 f 12 I olio t 7 Turk
toseboro? I
\ 1 r
U o1. r
,
111 1D1
\ 7 0 I/
sbur
? ? In?/g(pld ? r
Garland Delwa?
7 ' 471%
-? Harrells
T Tomahellk .n /
Q
Derr
d? Iva,

A, I `? lee

BIBEGIN PROJECT

70 7
Jes]
Tc
iety i

70?

less
701
°us
r 7o3
IelS / f ._
r
Null ;J
o
I
e?
END PROJECT
Tr1 \
!°5] iBJe
1----7 T--T -I'_I ,- -1_;c--`=_-) r
CLINTON
10
V /
O
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVIS10N OIL HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND P.NVIRONMENI'AI,
BRANCH
SR 1311
US 421 TO SR 1838
SAMPSON COUNTY
U-2514
0 mile 0.5
Sul i3il
Z tcL,4
b ( l V
i?r Y I I/ f Z-

I
le A
v1
ACT 1ao ? t 5 ,??-ar,

6
?f
-Wz
r?
Z- 7

7
?c/ /ZC% C
5.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

8 f la?9L
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Q?r,ar a- ey\ 0-}o
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS XFOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
SGO?oInG /?/CC?l?r?e ?/r?(,IT?S

• L
401, ,?. srnt£ n

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART MENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J.HARREL.SON August 10, 1992
SECRETARY

WETLN%!
,NATiT W!. `
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Scoping Meeting Attendants
FROM: Brian F. Yamamoto
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1311 (North Boulevard) from US 421 to SR 1838
(Beaman Street), Clinton, Sampson County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-1311(2), State Project No. 8.2280701,
TIP No. U-2514
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on August 4, 1992.
The following persons were in attendance:
Tom Tarleton Area Locating Engineer
Joe Blair Division 3 Office
Eric Galamb DEM - Wetlands
Wady Williams FHWA
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulic Design
Danny Rogers Program Development
Phil Williamson Photogrammetry
Don Sellers Right of Way
Debbie Barbour Roadway Design
W. S. Cox Roadway Design
Ron Allen Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Robin Stancil SHPO
Linwood Stone Planning and Environmental
Brian Yamamoto Planning and Environmental
John Wright Planning and Environmental
In addition to these participants at the scoping meeting, the
following persons submitted written comments prior to the meeting:
Mike Bruff Statewide Planning
Paul Worley State Rail Division
Curtis Yates Bicycle Coordinator
H. F. Koch Geotechnical Unit
Alan Jones Cost Estimating
An Equal OODortunitvlAftirmative Action Emnlover
a
August 10, 1992
Page 2
The scoping meeting began with a brief project description and Brian
Yamamoto then asked for comments and suggestions. The Statewide Planning
Branch had suggested in earlier correspondence that the east project limit
be extended to US 701 Business. Danny Rogers confirmed that the project
will not be extended to US 701 Business. Mr. Rogers noted that SR 1838
(Beaman Street) is currently a four lane section between North Boulevard
and US 701 Business and would provide adequate access between the two
facilities.
Debbie Barbour acknowledged redesigning the North Boulevard/Beaman
Street intersection, allowing North Boulevard to be the through movement
instead of Beaman Street, had also been suggested by the Statewide Planning
Branch. Joe Blair replied that Beaman Street appears to have the heaviest
traffic movement and the intersection should retain Beaman Street as the
main movement. However, Mr. Blair does anticipate the need to signalize
the intersection in the near future.
The proposed five-lane section identified in the TIP was then
discussed. Mr. Blair commented that a three-lane section should be
considered in lieu of a five-lane section, based on current traffic.
Linwood Stone noted that a five lane section would better accommodate
traffic operations near the North Boulevard/US 701 interchange. Traffic
merging on and off the interchange ramps would interfere less with through
movements if a five-lane section is provided. Mr. Stone stated a capacity
analysis based upon traffic projections from the Traffic Surveys Unit would
help determine which typical section to recommend and whether a signal is
needed at the North Boulevard/Beaman Street intersection.
Mr. Stone asked Danny Rogers if there were any changes in the updated
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the subject project regarding
project limits, cross-section, or cost. Mr. Rogers stated that he was not
aware of any changes and later confirmed this in a telephone conversation
with Mr. Yamamoto. Mr. Stone requested that a right of way abstract be
obtained and the information be shared with Roadway Design.
The North Boulevard crossing of US 701 Bypass was the next topic
discussed. According to Ms. Barbour, preliminary studies of Bridge No. 52,
which carries North Boulevard over US 701 Bypass, indicate it cannot be
widened without replacing the entire structure. Since the bridge has a
high sufficiency rating (95.4 out of 100.0) and should provide reliable
service for 30 years or more, it is recommended that the typical section
near the bridge be reduced to a 59-foot, face to face curb and gutter
section (five, 11 foot lanes with two foot concrete curbs). Ray Moore
agreed with the recommendation to retain the existing structure. Wady
Williams indicated that he had no problem with the recommendation, since
this decision on a non-national highway road rests with the state.
The meeting discussion shifted briefly to hydraulic aspects of the
project. Abdul Rahmani commented there are two stream crossings on the
project. One of the culverts is an undersized corrugated metal pipe and
will likely be replaced with a reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The
second stream crossing will probably require only a culvert extension. Mr.
Rahmani will supply additional information as it is available.
11
August 10, 1992
Page 3
Eric Galamb requested that stream classifications be provided to his
agency as soon as possible. Mr. Yamamoto met with Dave Foster, of DEHNR,
on August 4, 1992 at 2:30 to review the subject project. According to MR.
Foster, both streams are classified as "C-Swamp" (C-SW). Mr. Foster also
noted the potential for a Nationwide Section 404 permit, accompanied by a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. From an environmental standpoint,
Mr. Foster feels this project could be considered a Categorical Exclusion.
Historic/archaeological aspects of the proposed project were addressed
by Robin Stancil. According to Ms. Stancil, no archaeological sites are
listed on the National Register of Historic Places and no further
archaeological investigations are necessary. Ms. Stancil also commented
that no historic structures are recorded within the project limits;
however, she recommended an NCDOT historian photograph structures in the
project area and relay findings to her for SHPO concurrence.
The corridor for the proposed improvements was briefly discussed. Mr.
Yamamoto stated that asymmetric widening should be considered along parts
of the project to utilize state owned property and reduce right of way
expense. Don Sellers recommended that the. fence at the North Carolina
Department of Corrections needs to be a construction limit. He related
that moving the fence could be very expensive.
Mr. Blair and Ms. Barbour suggested that four-to-one slopes be used
along the residential area between US 701 Bypass and Beaman Street. Ms.
Barbour stated that these slopes will be included in right of way cost
estimates. An 80 foot right of way width, expanding at streams to include
any structures, will be used in cost estimates.
The project schedule was the last topic discussed in the scoping
meeting. Ms. Barbour suggested that if Planning would postpone the
completion date of the EA a few months, surveys could be completed and more
accurate cost estimates could be included in the EA. Mr. Stone, Mr.
Yamamoto, and Ms. Barbour agreed to the following schedule change in order
to receive the most accurate cost estimates:
Current Schedule Revised Schedule
Completion Dates Completion Dates
EA May 1993 October 1993
FONSI January 1994 April 1994
The Planning and Environmental Branch will continue with planning
studies and request input from Federal and State agencies.
BFY/rfm
Attachment
I,
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 16, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199300258 and Nationwide Permit No. 23
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Sir:
0 50"
1995
Reference your March 13, 1995, request for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to improve a one mile section of SR 1311 from US 421 to SR 1838,
on Little Coharie Creek, in Clinton, Sampson County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided by Nationwide Permit No. 23 for
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided
you receive, a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) and, if your work is located in
the coastal area, a consistency determination from the North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management (NCDCM). You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone
[phone], regarding water certification, and Mr. Steve Benton, telephone
[phone], regarding consistency determination.
You are reminded that the fill material used to build the temporary
detour should be removed and the ground below it restored to original grade as
soon as traffic is returned to the normal course of SR 1311. In addition, you
are reminded that the inside bottom elevation of new concrete box culverts
should be no higher than the natural stream bed elevation, in order to
facilitate the normal movement of aquatic organisms. This nationwide permit
does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or
local approval.
Printed on IS Recycled Paper
I

This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified,
reissued, or revoked. All nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified,
reissued, or revoked prior to January 21, 1997. It is incumbent upon you to
remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public
notice announcing the changes when they occur. Furthermore, if you commence
or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified, or revoked you will have twelve months from the date of
the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present
terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Matt Flint, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Steve Benton
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
V Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Stephanie Briggs
Supervisor, Permits Section
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
L;