20090372 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20080825

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 09-0044 County: Cumberland Date Received: 08/19/2008
Due Date: 09/15/2008
Project Description: Proposed improvements to widen NC 210 (Murchison Rd) from NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Blvd) in
Spring Lake to Fayetteville Outer Loop in Cumberland Co TIP No U-4444
is rojec is eing reviewed as maicaiea oetow
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Aquifer Protection Wildlife Environmental Health
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Land Resources Other
Wilmington
? Parks & Recreation
Winston-Salem
Water Quality
? Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
L
Manager Sign-Off/Region Date In-House Reviewer/Agency
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed No Comment
insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail] A JG 1?116
r t 1
T1 1'°?? }z1 ;Tf?AtAw4r?, _
NC 210 (Murchison Road)
From The Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Projects U-2519 & X-0002) to
NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP 210(11)
WBS Element 36492 12
TIP Project U-4444
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
o?>r
w?
?P
y
O
1 ??O
aFIVA
DOCUMENTATION IPAR W N, W. L NER* IN C-, .Axfl

Mian Ear, PE
2
Rr
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
V
es A. McInnis, ]fir., P .
Project Engineer

11
r

I

11
1

PROJECT COMMITMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 6
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................... 11
11 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 11
12 PROJECT HISTORY & CURRENT STATUS 11
13 COST ESTIMATES 13
2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ...................................................................................... 14
21 PURPOSE OF PROJECT 14
22 NEED FOR PROJECT 14
23 BENEFITS OF PROJECT 26
3. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................. 27
31 PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW 27
32 FREEWAY PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 28
33 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES 39
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................. 43
41 ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION AND ALIGNMENT 43
42 RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCESS CONTROL 43
43 DESIGN & POSTED SPEED LIMITS 43
44 ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS 43
45 INTERSECTIONS/INTERCHANGES 43
46 SERVICE & OTHER ROADS 45
47 RAILROAD CROSSINGS 46
48 STRUCTURES 46
49 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES/GREENWAYS 47
410 UTILITIES 47
411 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES 47
4 12 WORK ZONE, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING 47
5. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................ 49
51 NATURAL RESOURCES 49
52 CULTURAL RESOURCES 58
53 SECTION 4(F)/6(F) RESOURCES 60
54 FARMLAND 60
5 5 SOCIAL EFFECTS 60
56 ECONOMIC EFFECTS 63
57 MILITARY IMPACTS 64
58 LAND USE 64
59 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 64
5 10 NOISE ANALYSIS 66
511 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 69
5 12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 71
6. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .......................................................................................... 72
61 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP & OTHER STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 72
62 PUBLIC HEARING 72
63 NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS 72
64 OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION 73
7. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................74

LIST OF TABLES
` Table 1- Alternatives Impact Summary 9
Table 2 - Cost Estimates 13
1 Table 3 - 2005 Mainline Segment & Intersection LOS Data
Table 4 - 2030 Mainline Segment & Intersection LOS Data 17
18
Table 5 - Accident Rate Comparisons 19
Table 6 - 2003 - 2006 Accident Data
Table 7 - Accident Data Bragg Boulevard 20
22
Table 8 - Alternatives Impact Summary 40
Table 9 - Proposed Structures 47
Table 10 - Jurisdictional Wetlands 50
Table 11- Jurisdictional Streams 52
Table 12 - Federally Protected Species in Cumberland County
Table 13 - Federal Species of Concern listed for Cumberland County 55
57
Table 14 - Anticipated Relocations for Project Alternatives 61
Table 15 - Potential Environmental Impacts of the FOL Project 66
'
LIST OF FIGURES
PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE 1 7
-
FIGURE 2 - SPRING LAKE & FORT BRAGG ACCESS, POST FORT BRAGG BLVD CLOSURE 12
r D PROJECTED DAILY 2005 & 2030 PEAK VOLUMES
A 16 & 17
FIGURES 3A TO 3C PRESENT
N
FIGURE 4 - ACCIDENT DATA 21
TIP PROJECTS IN AREA
FIGURE 5 24
-
FIGURES 6A TO 6H RESPECTIVELY 30 - 37
' FIGURE 7
ALTERNATIVE 1 41
-
FIGURE 8 - ALTERNATIVE 2 42
FIGURE 9
TYPICAL SECTION 44
-
FIGURE 10 - PROPOSED INTERCHANGES 45
AL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
E 11
U 51
- NAT
FIGUR
R
FIGURE 12 - LILLIAN BLACK SCHOOL 59
' I
URE 1
LAND USE 65
F
G
3 -
FIGURES 14 & 15 -ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2 DESIGN & AERIALS PO ST 73

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 210 (Murchison Road)
From The Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Projects U-2519 & X-0002) to
NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project STP 210(11)
WBS No 36492 1 2
TIP Project U-4444
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker exists in the project area A biological
assessment (BA) is currently being completed for the red-cockaded woodpecker
Additional coordination will be conducted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Fort
1 Bragg regarding the project's effects on the red-cockaded woodpecker Concurrence
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the project's effect on the red-cockaded
woodpecker will be obtained prior to completion of the final environmental document for
this project
A comprehensive archaeological survey will be conducted prior to completion of the final
environmental document for this project
1 Roadway Design Unit/Traffic Engineering Branch
Traffic signal preemption for emergency vehicles and an emergency vehicle crossover
on Bragg Boulevard at Spring Avenue will be investigated during final design in order to
improve response time for emergency vehicles between downtown Spring Lake and the
eastern side of Bragg Boulevard

Environmental Assessment-U-4444 Page 1 of 1
2008

SUMMARY
Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment
Description of Action
The proposed project involves widening existing NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the
1 proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2) and NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in
Spring Lake to six lanes and upgrading the roadway to a freeway In addition to the
widening, the existing Honeycutt Road intersection will be converted to an interchange
and Randolph Street will be extended to NC 210 and an interchange constructed Work
will also be required along existing NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake
between the NC 210 (Murchison Road) intersection and the NC 210 (Lillington Highway)
' intersection in order to transition from the proposed freeway Figure 1 is a map showing
the project's location The project is identified in the NCDOT's 2009 to 2015
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project U-4444
Summary of Purpose and Need
f NC 210
th
t
ffi
t
ra
c carrying capaci
y o
The purpose of the proposed project is to increase
e
(Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2) and
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) so that this roadway can also accommodate traffic now
using NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) through Fort Bragg, which is to be closed on Fort
Bragg for security reasons
The need for improvements along Murchison Road (NC 210) is demonstrated by the
following summary of existing and projected conditions Detailed discussions of the
' existing and projected conditions and the needs for the proposed action are presented
throughout this document These are the highlighted facts

• Capacity Deficiencies - In 2005, various segments of the project corridor
operated at Level of Service (LOS) C or D, however, by 2030 all segments along
bl
LOS F
t
t
d
t
t
M
h
R
ll b
d
an unaccep
a
e
y an
opera
e a
urc
ison
wi
e over capaci
oa
' National & Base Security - Closure of Bragg Boulevard to civilian traffic
Following the events of September 11, 2001, a decision was made to severely
curtail public access to the largest military facility of its kind in the country
r
r
s
1
T `
c9d

i
i
24 ` -
87
/ SPA\n9 Pie Fort Bn
14lilitary Rcservatieo
G
?-\-
?
s
i
011
t?1 Honeycutt Rd }
\ ?T 00 _
Felt Bragg
AIHttary Rew"t" k _ ?o5e
T
24
87 ?FLd- 210
___. S 1•' .j ? r f
ra r= ? ?t?1J
Legend
Project Study Corridor
C3 Fort Bragg Boundary
N
w E
S
J Miles
0 0 s
InIIIN U511 North Carolina
Department of Transportation
NC 210 Improvement Study
Cumberland County, NC
T.I.P. No. U-4444
WBS No. 36492
Figure 1 Project Vicinity

t
• Accident Reduction - The conversion of Murchison Road to a partially controlled
access facility with dedicated base accesses is expected to reduce the number
and frequency of accidents on this roadway
Alternatives Considered
1 The Travel Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) methodologies as standalone strategies were eliminated because they were
deemed insufficient The problem of congestion was deemed unsolvable by use of mass
transit solutions alone and as such more advanced analysis was not undertaken Due to
cost and environmental considerations, an entirely new location alternative was not
considered
Improving existing Murchison Road to an expressway with a 46-foot median was
1 considered This alternative included at-grade intersections with Honeycutt Road and a
Randolph Street Extension The connection with Butner Road would be provided by an
urban type interchange This expressway alternative was dropped from further
consideration because analysis of the 2030 traffic data indicated failure at all at grade
intersections A freeway with a 22-foot median was also analyzed with several iterations
Design concepts for interchanges were developed for interchanges at Honeycutt Road,
a proposed Randolph Street Extension and Butner Road Two alternatives were studied
in detail Alternative 1 would involve widening Murchison Road to six lanes with a 22 foot
median and providing interchanges at Honeycutt Road, Randolph Street and Butner
Road Alternative 2 would involve widening Murchison Road to six lanes with a 22 foot
median and providing interchanges at Honeycutt Road and Randolph Street No Access
would be provided to Butner Road with this alternative
NCDOT Recommended Alternative
Alternative 2 was chosen as the preferred alternative with the following mayor
1 modification This alternative would remove all access to Butner Road from Murchison
Road At Honeycutt Road, a tight diamond interchange will be provided, with Murchison
Road carried over Honeycutt Road At Randolph Street, a semi-directional interchange
with a loop ramp located in the northeast quadrant will be provided Randolph Street will
be carried over Murchison Road Butner Road traffic would utilize existing Bragg
Boulevard to Randolph Street, and then utilize the Randolph Street Interchange with
1 Murchison Road This alternative requires Bragg Boulevard to remain open between
Randolph Street and Butner Road In addition, access to the State Veterans Cemetery
I would be granted from Bragg Boulevard Removing access to Murchison Road from

Butner Road will prevent the Access Control Point (ACP) generated queues from
affecting the traffic flow on Murchison Road
I Summary of Environmental Effects

The following table summarizes the impacts of the detailed alternatives studied
TABLE IMPACT .-
Construction Costs
Alternative Wetlands Streams Relocations ($ mil)
Alternative 1
(including interchanges at 6 8 Ac 1,107 ft 26 commercial 838
Honeycutt, Randolph &
9 residential
Butner)

Alternative 2 917Ac
(including interchanges at 1,181ft 3 commercial 629
Honeycutt and Randolph) 4 residential
Permits Required
A permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States " Due to expected project
impacts on wetlands and jurisdictional streams, an individual Section 404 permit will
' likely be required The Corps of Engineers will determine final permit requirements
A NC Division of Water Quality Section 401 Major Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit
Coordination
' NCDOT has coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies throughout
the project development study Comments on the project have been requested from the
agencies listed below Agencies contacted include, Town of Spring Lake, US Army
1 Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District), US Army Corps of Engineers (Directorate of
Public Works), US Army Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command,
Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO), North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation Office, US Environmental
Protection Agency

1 9

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Department of Administration - State
Clearinghouse, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), DENR-
NC Division of Water Quality, DENR-NC Wildlife Commission

Contact Information
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement

John F. Sullivan III, PE,
Division Administrator
' Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D.,
' Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mad Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
Telephone [phone]

1

10

1 t. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
' 1.1. General Description
The proposed project involves widening existing NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2) and NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in
Spring Lake to six lanes and upgrading the roadway to a freeway In addition to the
widening, the existing Honeycutt Road intersection will be converted to an interchange
and Randolph Street will be extended to NC 210 and an interchange constructed Work
' will also be required along existing NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake
between the NC 210 (Murchison Road) intersection and the NC 210 (Lillington Highway)
intersection in order to transition from the proposed freeway Figure 1 is a map showing
the project's location The project is identified in the NCDOT's approved 2009 to 2015
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project U-4444 A portion of the project is
funded for right of way acquisition and construction in fiscal 2009
1.2. Project History & Current Status
Following September 11, 2001, Fort Bragg permanently restricted entry onto the base In
November of 2002 the Army requested that Bragg Boulevard from north of the proposed
outer loop to Butner Road be closed to public traffic Traffic now using Bragg Boulevard
would be rerouted to use the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and Murchison Road
' (See Figure 2), both Butner and Honeycutt Roads would become access points for
those with military decals only, and Randolph Street would be a public and military
vehicle entrance (except trucks)
Although Murchison Road also crosses Fort Bragg, civilian traffic represents less of a
security risk because Murchison Road crosses the base in a less sensitive area Very
1 few military facilities are visible from Murchison Road and there is sufficient distance
between the road and the facilities for security
The Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) 2005 recommended the
realignment of Fort Bragg through the various modifications affecting several bases
across the globe As a result of these recommendations, Fort Bragg will gain troops and
two mayor army commands It is expected that Fort Bragg will increase its numbers by
about 20,000 6,772 soldiers, 1,669 civilians, and approximately 12,000 family members
' A small number of personnel will, however, leave Fort Bragg because Pope Air Force
Base will cease to exist as a separate installation These changes are expected to
influence the traffic volumes along Murchison Road and environs
1 11
W'1
R W• ?Gj
c a.
s• I ?'
i
_______Randolph St
3
c
-- i 4
i
m
m
3
e` a
1
Me IVi//e-
Outer
\? - loop
Figure 2 - Fort Bragg & Spring Lake Access Modification from Fayetteville Outer Loop
(FOL) with Bragg Blvd Closure. Access will be via the blue line
12

' The 2002 Congestion Management Plan of the Fayetteville Metropolitan Planning
Agency (FAMPO) listed Bragg Boulevard-Murchison Road from the proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop to northern Bragg Boulevard as priority number 6 within its area
of jurisdiction The 2004 FAMPO Highway Plan listed TIP U-4444 as a Priority One level
project
The project was added to the TIP in 2002, funded for project development studies only
' In 2003, project development studies began on the project
This project has been divided into smaller projects for right of way acquisition and
construction TIP Project U-4444A extends from the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop
to the Fort Bragg boundary and TIP Project U-44446 extends from the Fort Bragg
boundary to the intersection of Bragg Boulevard with NC 210 (Ldlington Highway) Right
' of way acquisition for Project U-4444A and construction for project U4444AA (proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop to north of Honeycutt Road) are scheduled for federal fiscal year
' 2009 in the Draft 2009-2015 TIP Right of way acquisition and construction for Project
U-4444B are currently unfunded in the TIP The entire project is also included in the
FAMPO FY 2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP)

1.3. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate for the project included in the 2009-2015 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program is $69,851,000 Of this total, $4,500,000 is estimated for right of
way acquisition, $931,000 is estimated for wetland and stream mitigation and $62,900,000
is estimated for construction The latest cost estimates for the project are presented
below
Table 2 : Cost Estimates based on Curre
Alternative 1 nt 2008 Prices
Alternative 2
Right of Way Acquisition $ 34,000,000 $ 18,125,000
Wetland/Stream Mitigation $ 973,000 $ 1,188,000
Construction $ 83,800,000 $ 62,900,000
TOTAL $118,773,000 $82,213,000
13

2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
2.1. Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity of NC 210
' (Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Protect X-2) and
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) so that this roadway can also accommodate traffic now
using NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) through Fort Bragg, which is to be closed on Fort
' Bragg for security reasons
2.2. Need for Project
2.2 1 Description of Existing Conditions
' 2.2.1.1. Functional Classification
Existing NC 210 (Murchison Road) is classified as a principal arterial in the North
Carolina Functional Classification system
i
2 2.1.2 Physical Description of Existing Facility
Murchison Road is a primary north-south arterial within northern Cumberland County
and serves as a gateway for the City of Fayetteville and the Town of Spring Lake South
of the project area, Murchison Road begins at Rowan Street (NC 24) near downtown
Fayetteville Murchison Road ends at Bragg Boulevard in Spring Lake NC 210
continues concurrent with NC 24-87 on Bragg Boulevard and then separates on the
north side of Spring Lake and follows Lillington Highway The concurrent NC 24-87
' continues as Bragg Boulevard leading to Sanford
2.2.1.3. Roadway Cross-section
Existing Murchison Road between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and Bragg
Boulevard has four 12-foot lanes with a 44-foot grassed median Existing Bragg
Boulevard between Murchison Road and Ldlington Highway has six 12-foot lanes with a
30-foot raised median
2.2.1.4. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
' The horizontal and vertical alignment of Murchison Road between the proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop and Bragg Boulevard meets a 60 mph design speed except for
one location south of Honeycutt Road A horizontal curve in this area does not meet a
60 mph design speed

14

' 2.2.1.5. Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way along Murchison Road between the proposed Fayetteville
Outer Loop and Bragg Boulevard varies between 200 and 270 feet wide Partial Control
' of access exists for this portion of Murchison Road Existing right of way along Bragg
Boulevard between Murchison Road and Ldiington Highway in Spring Lake is 150-160
feet wide No control of access exists along this portion of Bragg Boulevard
2.2.1.6. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along Murchison Road within the project limits is 55 mph The
posted speed limit along Bragg Boulevard between Murchison Road and Ldlington
Highway is 35 mph
' 2.2.1.7. Intersections/Interchanges
There are currently no interchanges along the project limits There are 15 intersections
between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop interchange and the North Main Street
intersection with NC 24/87 Of those 15 intersections, 6 are signalized

2.2.1.8. Railroad Crossings
There is one railroad crossing on Murchison Road within the project limits Tracks
owned by CSX Corporation are carried over Murchison Road on a bridge approximately
0 5 mile south of the current Honeycutt Road intersection Honeycutt Road crosses this
same rail line at an at-grade crossing approximately 420 feet west of Murchison Road
' This rail line runs on the west side of Murchison Road from south of Honeycutt Road to
north of Randolph Street

2.2.1.9. Structures
' There is one structure, Bridge Number 76 carries the rail line owned by CSX
Transportation over Murchison Road This structure was built in 1969 and last
inspected in 2007 The bridge is 298 feet long and has a horizontal clearance
underneath of approximately 48 feet and a minimum vertical clearance of 15 feet 8
' inches The NCDOT bridge rating sheet does not provide a sufficiency rating for this
bridge

2.2.1.10. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
There are no bicycle facilities or greenways along the project limits Pedestrian facilities
in the form of sidewalks are found along the northern limits of the project within the
municipal limits of Spring Lake

2.2111. Utilities
Field Inspection indicated the presence of electricity, telephone, water, and sewer
infrastructure within the planned construction area of the proposed roadway and
' 15
it

corollary structures There was no evidence of gas cable television or other facilities It is
anticipated that electricity, telephone, water, and sewer facilities will have to be relocated
as a result of this project
2.2 2. School Bus Usage
There are five schools within or in close proximity to the study area and they are served
' by 24 buses Each school has at least one bus using the project corridor in the morning
and evening
' 2.2.3 Traffic Carrying Capacity
Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles capable of traveling along a
' section of roadway during the peak travel period based on physical and operational
conditions relative to the road When traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacity of
the roadway, operating levels of service (LOS) are diminished and congestion results
Simply defined, level of service is a qualitative measure which describes operational
conditions of a traffic stream along a roadway or at an intersection of two roadways Six
' levels of service are defined from A to F, with Level of Service A being the best and
Level of Service F being the worst
2.2.4. Existing Traffic Volumes & Levels of Service
' In 2005, 45,400 vehicles used Murchison Road within the project limits while Bragg
Boulevard between Murchison Road and Ldlington Highway carried 54,400 vehicles per
day Figures 3A - 3C present 2005 and 2030 traffic volumes for the project area Table
3 shows the 2005 level of service data for existing mainline and intersections

Figure 3A - 3C
Present &
Projected Daily
' 2005 & 2030
Peak Volumes (`000)

TRAFFIC DMGRAM
XONEYCUTT RD 31600
50600

10300 /2500 NC 210
!6900 2N00MURCIHSON RD.
NC 210 42800
72600
MUROUSON RD
37200
63400 r
70800
4000 5800
20200 HONEYCUTT RD
29200 2005 ADT
2030 ADT
16

I

r.

a

0

TRAFFIC DIAGRAM
RANDOLPH ST. 46000
81000
15700 30300
27200 53800
42800 57400
72600 NC 210 99200
MURCHISON RD.
7800
SPRING AVE g$?
6200 1600
7000 /800
00 36000
00 69000
NC 24-87
20300 6100 MUGG BLVD
29000 6400
26400
N ?p 35400 2005 ADT
r n-UAFTpN HWY 2030 ADT
Table 3 : 2005 Mainline Segment & Intersection LOS dat
Segments a
LOS
Fayetteville Outer Loop - Honeycutt Road C
Honeycutt Road - SR 2580 (McCormick Road) D
SR 2580 (McCormick Road) - Butner Road D
Butner Road/ NC 210 (Lillington Road)
Signalized Intersections C
Overall LOS
NC 210 (Murchison Road)/Honeycutt Road F
NC 210 (Murchison Road)/Butner Road E
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)/ Butner Road C
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)/ NC 87-210 (Murchison Road) B
NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) / Main Street Wilson Road E
NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd )/Spring Avenue/NC 210 (Lillington Highway) F
17

2.2.5. Future No Build Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service
In the design year (2030) Murchison Road is projected to have an ADT of 77,000, up
70% from 2005 Bragg Boulevard between Murchison Road and Lillington Highway will
carry a protected 99,200 vehicles per day Protected traffic volumes for the year 2030
are shown on Figures 3A - 3C These numbers are based on a no build scenario in
which no modifications are made to the current configuration of the road network, other
' than the closing of Bragg Boulevard on Fort Bragg
' As indicated in Table 4, of the four mainline segments four will perform at LOS F and
one at D in 2030 This table also shows data for the intersections in the same year
1 The Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAG) 2005 recommended the
realignment of Fort Bragg through the various modifications affecting several bases
across the globe As a result of these recommendations, Fort Bragg will gain troops and
' two major army commands It is expected that Fort Bragg will increase its numbers by
about 20,000 6,772 soldiers, 1,669 civilians, and approximately 12,000 family members
' A small number of personnel will, however, leave Fort Bragg because Pope Air Force
Base will cease to exist as a separate installation These changes are expected to
influence the traffic volumes along Murchison Road and environs

11

Table 2030 Segment Mainline ..
Segments
LOS
Fayetteville Outer Loop - Honeycutt Road F
Honeycutt Road - SR 2580 (McCormick Road) F
SR 2580 (McCormick Road) - Butner Road F
Butner Road/ NC 210 (Ldlington Road)
Signalized Intersections D
Overall LOS
NC 210 (Murchison Road)/Honeycutt Road F
NC 210 (Murchison Road)/SR 2580 McCormick Road F
NC 210 (Murchison Road)/Butner Road F
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)/ Butner Road C
NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard)/ NC 87-210 (Murchison Road) B
NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) / Main Street /Wilson Road F
NC 24-87 (Bragg Blvd )/Spring Avenue / NC 210 (Ldlington Highway) F
18

2.2 6 Accident Data & Safety
Accident data was obtained for Murchison Road within the project area for the time
period between 2003 and 2006 Table 5 below presents the crash rate for Murchison
Road within the project area and compares it to the statewide rate and the critical rate
1

Table Accident Comparisons
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate Non Fatal Injury Rate
(ACC/100MVM) (ACC/100MVM) (ACC/100MVM)
NC 210 (Murchison Road)
between Gigi Road and Spring 605.76 00 139.74
Avenue (5/03 to4/06)
1999-2001 Statewide Four-Lane
Urban Undivided NC Routes in 319.75 0 73 136.2
Division 6
Urban North Carolina Routes 4
or more Lanes undivided 2003 - 435.58 1 12 147.03
2005

' As Table 5 shows, the total accident rate along the subject section of Murchison Road
exceeds the NCDOT division and statewide averages for four-lane undivided NC routes
The fatal accident rate is however below that of the division and state while the non-fatal
injury rate supersedes the division's but is below that of the state
Figure 4, Tables 6 and 7 provide the details of the crashes within the project limits
between 2003 and 2006 Between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop interchange
and along Murchison Road to Bragg Boulevard almost half of the crashes were slow
speed and stationary rear ends Along Murchison Road, between the planned Outer
' Loop and its junction with Bragg Boulevard, rear end accidents accounted for 48% of the
crashes over the time period Between Butner Road and Spring Avenue along Bragg
' Boulevard this type of accident also dominated the statistics, accounting for almost 52%
of the accidents The segments with the most crashes are along Bragg Boulevard
between Spring and Lake Avenues followed by the section between Main Street and
I Lake Avenue The ADT volumes for these sections are both 49,000

19

I
1 1
1
11,
11

I?
I?

I
TABLE 6: 2003-2006 ACCIDE NT DATA - MURCHISON RD ( FOL TO BRAGG BLVD)
Accident Type Number Percent of Total
Rear End - slow or stop 41 4824
Angle 11 12 94
Right turn - different roadway 7 8 24
Sideswipe - same direction 6 7 06
Left Turn - same roadway 5 5 88
Left Turn - different roadways 4 4 71
Right turn - same roadway 3 3 53
Ran Off Road - right 2 2 35
Collision - Animal 1 1 18
Backing up 1 1 18
Ran Off Road - Left 1 1 18
Rear End - turning 1 1 18
Other Collision with Vehicle 1 1 18
Unknown 1 1 18
Total 85 100 00
20
i
1
t

e

i
i
t
TABLE 7:2003-2006 ACCIDE NT DATA- BRAGG BLVD (BU TNER RD TO SPRING AVE)
Accident Type Number Percent of Total
Rear End - slow or stop 154 51 85
Angle 34 11 45
Sideswipe - same direction 31 10 44
Left Turn - same roadway 29 9 76
Left Turn - different roadways 15 5 05
Right turn - different roadway 6 2 02
Other Collision with Vehicle 6 2 02
Right turn - same roadway 5 1 68
Sideswipe - opposite direction 4 1 35
Backing up 3 1 01
Head on 2 0 67
Ran Off Road - Left 2 0 67
Collision - fixed object 1 0 34
Overtu m/rol lover 1 0 34
Parked vehicle 1 0 34
Pedestrian 1 0 34
Rear End -turning 1 0 34
Unknown 1 0 34
Total 297 100 00
22

2.2.7. Airports
Simmons Army Airfield is located adjacent to Murchison Road, southeast of the
Honeycutt Road intersection with Murchison Road Its primary access points are along
' Murchison and Honeycutt Roads, but outside of the project limits The protect is not
located within the flight path for the runway at Simmons, but any changes in the grade of
Murchison Road will consider height restrictions required for the air field
2.2.8. Other Highway Projects in the Area
' Other TIP protects located in the general vicinity of the proposed improvements to
Murchison Road are shown in Figure 5 and listed below
Project X-0002/U-2519 is a proposed new location multi-lane freeway (Fayetteville
Outer Loop) Construction for these two projects is scheduled to begin in state fiscal
' year 2009
Project U-3423 will widen NC 24/87 (Bragg Boulevard) to 6 lanes from US 401 Bypass
' to north of SR 1437 (Santa Fe Drive/Shaw Road) Construction is scheduled for FY
2010
1 Project U-3465 NCDOT proposes to widen Ray Road (SR 1121) from NC 210 to
Overhdls Road (SR 1120) with possible intersection improvements at Ray Road and
Overhills Road The project is located just north of Spring Lake and the Fort Bragg
Military Reservation Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in FY 2011 and
construction in FY 2013

Project U-4414 will add one lane to SR 1007 (All-American Freeway) from SR 1151
(Owen Drive) to Gruber Road Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in FY 2011
and construction in FY 2012
Project U-4900 will construct a raised median and resurface existing NC 210
(Murchison Road) from US 401 Bypass to Bernadine Street Right of way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in FY 2014 and construction in unfunded
i
2.2.9. Transportation and Land Use Plans
2.2.9.1. Land Use Plans
This project is compatible with the general directions of the following plans the
Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan, the 2010 Transportation Plan, and the
Cumberland County 2010 Economic Development Plan, which are a part of the
Cumberland County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Additionally, the Joint Land Use Study
(JLUS) in 2003 conducted for Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base exhibits compatibility
with the proposed project
i1 23
200
za
e?
U-3465
stee R , -
Va?S Rd far y?,
ore l
I
1451
/Spring Lake
CS \\ 11 ZZ,
Q
24
n
Yapk?n Ro• x
U-2519 ?
i)u I ?'s
U-4414
Cry: ..•
X-2
U-4900
67
U-3423 210 ao1
Fayetteville
Legend
6 ? Project Study Corridor
Project Study Area
Road Widening / Improvements
® Bridge Project
Fayetteville Outer Loop
N
W E
S
Miles
0 0.75 1.5
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
NC 210 Improvement Study
Cumberland County, NC
T.I.P. No. U-4444
WBS No. 36492
Fig-ru a TIP Projects in Project Area
3utner °i

h

The reason for this project, as is outlined in the document's introduction, is the planned
closure to the public of a section of Bragg Boulevard which traverses Fort Bragg This
project is therefore compatible with the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan in that
it is supportive of military participation in the planning efforts in the County while
considering military designated sensitive areas
Most of the project lies within property owned by the Department of Defense (DoD) and
operated as Fort Bragg and within NCDOT right of way The Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force
Base Regional Land Use Advisory Commission (RLUAC), made up of members
representing 7 counties, 11 municipalities, Fort Bragg, and Pope Air Force Base,
completed a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) in 2003 The goal of the project was to
identify the levels of development protection or impediments to development needed for
a one-mile area surrounding Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base property This
included development of a Future Land Use Map for the area The portion of the
Murchison Road project study area outside Fort Bragg is included in this one-mile area
The map designates this portion of the project study area, which is within the Town of
Spring Lake, for Urban Density Development compatible with military land uses The
changes proposed are in keeping with this desire
The Cumberland County Joint Planning Board has also prepared the Spnng Lake Area
Detailed Land Use Plan (2002) to develop more specific recommendations for the
unique conditions of the Town of Spring Lake and its surrounding area, which includes
the northern portion of the project study area
2.2.10. Local Transportation Plans
The Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) prepared its 2030
Long Range Transportation Plan in 2004 The FAMPO Highway Plan, a component of
the LRTP, is the thoroughfare plan for the Fayetteville area This plan identifies the
widening of Murchison Road to six lanes within the project study area as a Priority One
project in the FAMPO FY 2004-2010 MTIP
2.2.11. System Linkage/Travel Time
Currently, NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) and NC 210 (Murchison Road) serve local traffic
between Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Spring Lake and regional traffic traveling beyond
Fayetteville and Spring Lake The closure of Bragg Boulevard on Fort Bragg will
eliminate an important part of the area roadway network Without improvements to
Murchison Road, this will reduce available traffic carrying capacity and increase travel
time for north/south traffic between Fayetteville and Spring Lake
25
2.2 12. Modal Interrelationships
Bus service between Fayetteville and Spring Lake is currently provided by the
Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) FAST Route 40 is located within the project
area, running along Bragg Boulevard and crosses the intersections at Butner Road and
Murchison Road
The Seaboard Coastline Railroad is a one train per day, low speed branch line that
extends from downtown Fayetteville to Fort Bragg along Murchison Road Once in Fort
Bragg, the Seaboard Coastline Railroad exchanges freight with the Cape Fear Railroad
This uses US Army locomotives and track to move freight throughout the military
reservation
1 Amtrak serves Fayetteville with two passenger trains, the Silver Meteor and the
Palmetto The Silver Meteor runs from New York City south to Miami, Florida The
Palmetto follows the same route, but terminates in Savannah, Georgia The Amtrak
trains operate on CSX Transportation's mainline track which runs through central
Fayetteville, southeast of the project area, and is the primary north-south freight rail line
in the area This service does not cross the project site
Fayetteville Regional Airport is located approximately 15 miles south southeast of the
project study area It provides commercial air passenger and airfreight service and also
has corporate and charter aircraft facilities available
2.3. Benefits of Project
The proposed project will provide enough traffic carrying capacity on NC 210 to make it
feasible for the Army to close NC 24-87 on Fort Bragg Closing NC 87 will increase
security for Fort Bragg by moving civilian traffic further away from sensitive areas of the
base
The proposed project will mitigate the effects of closing NC 24-87 on Fort Bragg
Without the proposed project, NC 210 within the project area would operate at a level of
service F in the design year (2030) with the closure of NC 24-87 With the project, NC
210 will operate at level of service C or D with the closure of NC 24-87
The proposed project will reduce traffic congestion on a portion of Bragg Boulevard north
of Fort Bragg in the Town of Spring Lake
The upgrading of NC 210 to a freeway is expected to improve safety along the upgraded
portion of the roadway by eliminating at-grade intersections Typically, crash rates are
lower for freeways than for other types of facilities
I?
i1 26

1 3. ALTERNATIVES
3.1. Preliminary Study Alternatives Overview
3.1.1 Alternative Modes of Transportation
Travel Demand Management (TDM) methodologies were deemed not to be of practical
value in this protect and as such were not analyzed beyond initial consideration
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) efforts were also deemed to be insufficient
to singularly solve the traffic congestion issues in the current and design years As a
' standalone effort they will not be undertaken They will be used, particularly ITS
solutions, in coordination with the facility being designed The problems of congestion
' were deemed unsolvable by use of mass transit solutions alone and as such more
advanced analysis was not undertaken
' 3 1.2 New Location Alternative
Due to cost and environmental considerations, a new location alternative for the
' proposed protect was not considered Existing Murchison Road within the protect limits
is bordered by Fort Bragg and habitat for the federally listed endangered Red Cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW) In addition, the Central Business District of Spring Lake is located
' east and west of the northern protect limits
3.1.3 Improve Existing Facility
Expressway with 46-foot Median
Widening existing Murchison Road to six lanes with a 46-foot median was an alternative
initially considered The alternative would widen the existing median from 40 feet to a
' proposed width of 46 feet In addition, one extra lane would be constructed for both
northbound and southbound directions The 46-foot median would include a median
ditch along with a median cable guardrail to help prevent cross median accidents This
alternative would include at-grade intersections with Honeycutt Road and the Randolph
Street Extension, for the expressway portion The connection with Butner Road would be
provided by an urban type interchange
Traffic capacity analyses for this alternative indicated that all of the proposed at-grade
intersections would operate at level of service F in the design year 2030 Therefore, the
' expressway alternative was dropped from further consideration
27
I
i
Freeway with 22-foot Median
The traffic capacity analysis indicated that simply widening Murchison Road would not
accommodate projected future traffic volumes, interchanges would also be required
' along Murchison Road In order to reduce impacts to wetlands and protected species
habitat, widening into the median was the only widening alternative considered for a
freeway A 22-foot median with a concrete barrier would be provided between opposing
' travel lanes
i
3.2. Freeway Preliminary Alternative Concept Development
Design concepts for interchanges were developed for interchanges at Honeycutt Road,
' a proposed Randolph Street Extension and Butner Road The following options were
considered for each location
' Interchange with Honeycutt Road
Honeycutt Road over Murchison Road
' Murchison Road over Honeycutt Road
Interchange with Randolph Street
Tight diamond interchange
Tight Diamond Interchange Shifted North with Braided Ramps
' Free-Flow Interchange with Loop (Murchison Road over Randolph Street)
Free-Flow Interchange with Loop (Randolph Street over Murchison Road)
Free-Flow Interchange with Loop and Collector-Distributor
' Semi-Directional Interchange with Dual Loops and Collector-Distributor (Murchison
Road Over Randolph Street)
Semi-Directional Interchange with Dual Loops and Collector-Distributor (Randolph
' Street Over Murchison Road)
Semi-Directional Interchange with Dual Loops and Collector-Distributor (Shifted
Away From Railroad)
' No Randolph Street Interchange
Interchange with Butner Road
Southbound Murchison Flyover
Tight diamond interchange
Single-point urban interchange
No Butner Road access from Murchison Road (tie Butner Road into existing Bragg
Boulevard south of Murchison Road)
Conceptual designs and traffic capacity analyses were prepared for all of these different
' options Several meetings were held between NCDOT, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville MPO
and Lochner to discuss the different designs Wetland impacts, protected species and
' 28
' relocation impacts were considered in the selection of the concepts to be studied in
detail Two alternative preliminary designs were prepared for the project
i
3.2.1. Honeycutt Road Interchange Concepts
' 3.2.1.1. Honeycutt Road over Murchison Road
This interchange concept has a loop and a ramp in the southeast quadrant and two
' ramps west of Murchison Road Honeycutt Road would be carried over Murchison Road
on a bridge The loop and ramp east of Murchison Road will minimize impacts to a
wetland located north of Honeycutt Road This interchange configuration will operate at
' an acceptable level of service This concept was carried forward as a part of Detailed
Study Alternative 1
' 32.1.2. Murchison Road over Honeycutt Road
This interchange concept also has a loop and a ramp in the southeast quadrant and two
' ramps west of Murchison Road Murchison Road would be carried over Honeycutt Road
on a bridge with this concept, however The loop and ramp in the southeast quadrant
' was used to avoid the wetlands in the northeast quadrant of the interchange The
preliminary traffic analysis results indicate this interchange concept operates at an
acceptable level of service This concept was carried forward as a part of Detailed
Study Alternative 2
' 3.2.2. Randolph Street Interchange Concepts
Nine design concepts were developed for the proposed Randolph Street Extension
interchange
' 3.2.2.1. Tight Diamond Interchange
A tight diamond interchange was considered for the proposed Randolph Street
Extension in conjunction with an interchange at Butner Road A tight diamond
interchange would not accommodate traffic diverted from Butner if an interchange was
not provided at Butner Road
' Murchison Road would be carried over proposed Randolph Street Extension with this
concept The ramp termini on Randolph Street for the eastern ramps would be
signalized The ramp termini on Randolph Street for the western ramps would be free
flowing, however, the western ramps would intersect Randolph Street very close to the
' at-grade railroad crossing In addition, operational problems may result due to the
proximity of the Butner Road interchange This concept was dropped from further
consideration due to safety concerns over the proximity of the at grade railroad crossing
and the potential weaving problem between the northern Randolph Street ramps and the
southern Butner Road ramps This concept is shown in Figure 6A.
i
I
' 29
i

i

NC 2447 (BRAGG BLVD)
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
CEMETERY
tti1TFx'1'V. 4f '?M
RAILROAD `•: i''
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
RANDOLPH ST f
•
CEMETERY
NC 210 (M HISON ROAD)
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 6A Tight Diamond interchange
3.2.2.2 Tight Diamond Interchange Shifted North with Braided Ramps
Shifting the proposed Randolph Street interchange northward would provide additional
distance between the railroad and the ramp termini on the west side of Murchison Road,
but would decrease the distance between the Randolph Street interchange and the
Butner Road interchange In order to avoid weaving problems, a braided ramp
configuration for the northern Randolph Street and southern Butner Road ramps was
also investigated
Shifting the interchange north would reduce impacts to RCW foraging habitat but would
increase wetland impacts The tight diamond interchange with braided ramps would
operate well without the operational concerns of the other tight diamond interchange
configuration For this reason, this concept was carried forward as part of Detailed
Study Alternative 1 This interchange configuration would not carry the additional traffic
diverted from Butner Road if an interchange was not provided at Butner Road This is
shown in Figure 6B
30

BLVD) M
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
CEMETERY
f NC 24-87 (BRA
ro
RAILROAD
.0
RANDOLPH ST
CEMETERY
RCw FORAGING HABITAT
NC 21OWURCHISON ROAD)
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 66 Tight Diamond Interchange Shifted North
3.2.2.3 Free-Flow Interchange with Loop (Murchison Road over Randolph
Street)
In order to increase the weaving distance between the Butner Road and Randolph
Street interchanges, the tight diamond concept was modified and the ramps on the
eastern side of Murchison Road were replaced with a free flowing loop and ramp in the
southeast quadrant of the interchange Murchison Road would be carried over
Randolph Street with this concept This configuration would operate better than the tight
diamond interchange, but the loop and ramp would have more effect on red-cockaded
woodpecker foraging habitat than the tight diamond interchange In addition, the railroad
crossing would still present concerns for the western ramps Operational problems
might still result from the proximity of the western Randolph Street and Butner Road
31

ramps For these reasons, this interchange concept was dropped from further
consideration This is shown in Figure 6C.
NC 24-87 (BRAG G BLVD)
6•
RAILROAD
_ 041, ?*
•
#i.
•* RCW FORAGING HABITAT
RANDOLPH SST •r « ???????``
NOT TO SCALE
CEMETERY
I M
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
NC 210 (MURCHISON ROAD)
? I
Figure 6C Free Flow Interchange with Loop
3.2 2.4 Free-Flow Interchange with Loop (Randolph Street over Murchison
Road)
This free-flow interchange concept would have a free flowing loop and ramp in the
southeast quadrant of the interchange Randolph Street would be carried over
Murchison Road and the railroad with this concept The western ramps would be carried
over the railroad on individual bridges The loop and ramp would have more effect on
red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat than the tight diamond interchange
Operational problems might result from the proximity of the western Randolph Street and
Butner Road ramps, as well For this reason, this interchange concept was dropped
from further consideration This is shown in Figure 61).
32
1
1
1
RANDOLPH ST
CEKETERY
NOT TO SCALE
NC 24-87 (BRAGG BLVD)
RCW FORAGING HABITAT I
wt l?Pii i >4 ?s ?e
RAILROAD
ii?
:&_ % RCW FORAGING HAHrrAT
NC 210 (MURCHISON ROAD)
V.
Figure 6D Free Flow Interchange with Loop (Randolph St. over Murchison Road)
3.2.2.5 Free-Flow Interchange with Loop and Collector-Distributor
This free-flow interchange concept is similar to the previously discussed concept, except
a collector-distributor would be provided between the western Randolph Street and
Butner Road ramps The proximity of the western ramps at Randolph Street to the
railroad crossing would be a concern In addition, the proposed collector-distributor
would take more property from the Sandhills State Veterans Cemetery than not
providing the collector-distributor This is shown in Figure 6E.
33

f

1l
NC 26-87 (BRAGG BLVD)
RCw FORAGING HABITAT
CEMETERY
II!-yJK;? ? P
W#tY7', r >
RAILROAD
# At
RCw FORAGING HABITAT
RANDOLPH ST 'F
CEMETERY
NC 210 IMURCHISON ROAD)
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 6E Free Flow Interchange with Loop and Collector-Distributor
3.2.2.6 Semi-Directional Interchange with Dual Loops and Collector-
Distributor (Murchison Road Over Randolph Street)
This interchange concept would involve providing a ramp and loop in the southeast
quadrant and a ramp and loop in the northwest quadrant of the interchange In addition,
a collector-distributor would be provided between the western Randolph Street and
Butner Road ramps Murchison Road would be carried over Randolph Street This
concept was dropped from further consideration because the ramp and loop in the
northwest quadrant of the interchange would cross the railroad at-grade and the ramp
and loop in the southeast quadrant would affect RCW foraging habitat
3.2.2.7 Semi-Directional Interchange with Dual Loops and Collector-
Distributor (Randolph Street Over Murchison Road)
This interchange concept would involve providing a ramp and loop in the southeast
quadrant and a ramp and loop in the northwest quadrant of the interchange In addition,
a collector-distributor would be provided between the western Randolph Street and
34

Butner Road ramps Randolph Street would be carried over Murchison Road This
concept was dropped from further consideration because the ramp and loop in the
southeast quadrant would affect RCW foraging habitat This is shown in Figure 6F.
NC 2447 (BRAGG BLVD)
ro
RAILROAD
_44*
1 *4
RANDOLPH ST
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
ll-r yka}4t' '1?+? ?4a;j¢; `,,i1jcJy
.i
sxi Y?} 1+
a S`?
?? RCW FORAGING HABITAT
CEMETERY
NOT TO SCALE
NC 210 (MURCHISON ROAD)
Figure 6F Semi-Directional Interchange with Dual Loops and Collector-Distributor
3.2.2.8 Semi-Directional Interchange with Dual Loops and Collector-
Distributor (Shifted Away From Railroad)
This interchange concept would involve providing a ramp and loop in the southeast
quadrant and a ramp and loop in the northwest quadrant of the interchange In addition,
a collector-distributor would be provided between the western Randolph Street and
Butner Road ramps Murchison Road would be carried over Randolph Street and the
railroad Randolph Street would be shifted northward from earlier similar concepts,
allowing the western ramps to tie into Randolph Street dust before the railroad allowing
one wider bridge instead of three narrower bridges at the railroad This concept was
dropped from further consideration because the ramp and loop in the southeast
35

1
1
quadrant would affect both RCW foraging habitat and wetlands This is shown in Figure
6G.
KC 2"7 (BRAGG BLVD.)
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
CEMETERY
f?tY ?.i?N <?C 1 Elifr<Yfiisi?flxlK
1
x Pl5NY3?6 Yi? i 4 3?4 L flit
w
RAILIUM
00
##
RANDOLPH ST *#+
# RCW FORAGING HABITAT
•
CEMETERY
NC 210 MKIRCHISON ROAD)
NOT To SCALE
Figure 615 Semi Directional Interchange with Dual Loops and Collector Distributor
(Shifted away from Railroad)
3.2.2.9 Free-Flow Interchange with Loop in Northeast Quadrant
This interchange concept was developed to accommodate traffic diverted from Butner
Road if no access was provided from Butner to Murchison Road Traffic from Butner
Road would use existing Bragg Boulevard to Randolph Street and would access
Murchison Road from the proposed Randolph Street interchange
A loop and ramp would be provided in the northeast quadrant of the interchange This
configuration would operate better than placing the loop and ramp in the southeast
quadrant due to the high traffic volumes accessing northbound Murchison Road from
36

t

1

n

L
It was found that due to the large amount of traffic projected for Murchison Road in 2030,
any option that would cause the mainline to stop would not achieve an acceptable level
of service The option would require a signalized intersection for the traffic turning left
from Butner Road to Murchison Road northbound towards Spring Lake This option
resulted in a Level of Service "F" for the overall signalized intersection
3.2.3.2. Tight Diamond Interchange
A tight diamond interchange would operate at an acceptable level of service with the
2030 traffic Due to the proximity of the proposed Randolph Street interchange, the
southern Butner Road interchange ramps would be braided with the northern Randolph
Street interchange ramps The tight diamond interchange was carried forward as a part
of Detailed Study Alternative 1 because it would operate better than a single-point urban
interchange
3.2.3.3. Single-Point Urban Interchange Option
A single-point urban interchange was also investigated for Butner Road It was found
that a tight diamond interchange would operate better, so this concept was dropped from
further consideration
3.2.3.4. No Access
This concept would involve not providing access to Butner Road from Murchison Road
Butner Road would be realigned to tie into existing Bragg Boulevard Existing Bragg
Boulevard would be left in place between Butner Road and Randolph Street Traffic
wishing to access Fort Bragg from Butner Road would utilize the Randolph Street
interchange This concept would reduce project impacts to Sandhills State Veterans
Cemetery and to businesses along Bragg Boulevard in Spring Lake For this reason,
this concept was carried forward as a part of Detailed Study Alternative 2
3.1.4 "No-Build" Alternative
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts anticipated to occur as a result of
the project However, based on 2030 projected Level of Service (LOS) as shown in
Table 3 (Section 2 2 5) with seven of the nine intersections exhibiting LOS F ratings it
was determined that this option would not meet the purpose and need
3.3. Detailed Study Alternatives
Two alternatives were studied in detail for this project Table 8 below presents the
anticipated effects of the alternatives
39

TABLE IMPACT SU MMARY
Construction Costs
Alternative Wetlands Streams Relocations ($ mil)
Alternative 1
(including interchanges at 6 8 Ac 1,107 ft 26 commercial 838
Honeycutt, Randolph & 9 residential
Butner)

Alternative 2 3 commercial
(including interchanges at 9 17Ac 1,181ft
4 residential 62 9
Honeycutt and Randolph)
1 3.3.1. Alternative 1 (Interchanges at Honeycutt, Randolph and Butner)
Alternative 1, as shown in Figures 7 and 14, would involve widening Murchison Road to
six lanes with a 22-foot median and providing interchanges at Honeycutt Road,
Randolph Street and Butner Road
A partial tight diamond interchange would be provided at Honeycutt Road, with
Honeycutt Road carried over Murchison Road A loop and ramp in the southeast
quadrant were utilized in order to minimize the impacts to the wetland system located
just north of this location A design exception would be required for the vertical
alignment of this alternative This would be required immediately east of the Honeycutt
Road access control point, where a grade tie-down would be needed at the existing at-
grade railroad crossing on Honeycutt Road
At the proposed Randolph Street Extension, a tight diamond interchange, with Randolph
Street carried over Murchison Road would be provided The northern ramps of this
interchange would be braided with the southern ramps for the Butner Road interchange
in order to eliminate weaving traffic between the interchanges Randolph Street would
cross the Fort Bragg Railroad at-grade A service road would be constructed to provide
access from Randolph Street for the old Fort Bragg Post Cemetery and the Sandhills
State Veterans Cemetery
1

1 40

e
1

N
To To
Fayetteville { AftA*JSWRa Spring Lake
Alternative 1 Lane Diagram
Figure 7
At Butner Road, Alternative 1 would involve constructing a tight diamond interchange,
with Butner Road carried over Murchison Road Full control of access would be required
along northbound existing Bragg Boulevard from Murchison Road to Lillington Highway
and along southbound existing Bragg Boulevard from Murchison Road to Lake Avenue
In order to provide access to properties on the east side of Murchison Road and Bragg
Boulevard in Spring Lake, Butner Road would be extended across Murchison Road,
connecting with McCormick Road, Fourth Street and Fifth Street Fifth Street would be
improved between Lillington Highway and Spring Avenue, as well
This alternative was presented to the NEPA/404 merger team at a meeting held on April
22, 2008 The merger team agreed this alternative should be studied in detail This
alternative will be presented at the public hearing to be held for the project following
completion of this document
3.3 2. Alternative 2 (Interchanges at Honeycutt and Randolph Only)
(NCDOT Recommended)
Alternative 2, as shown in Figures 8 and 15, involves widening Murchison Road to six
lanes with a 22-foot median and providing interchanges at Honeycutt Road and
Randolph Street This alternative would remove all access to Butner Road from
Murchison Road
At Honeycutt Road, a tight diamond interchange will be provided, with Murchison Road
carried over Honeycutt Road The interchange has a tight diamond configuration west of
Murchison Road and minimizes impacts to the adjacent CSX Railroad, parallel to
Murchison Road A loop and ramp in the southeast quadrant minimize the impacts to
the wetland system located dust north of this location Murchison Road will be shifted to
the east This facilitates the construction on the interchange while traffic is maintained
on existing location
41

1?

1

It a°
N a
To To
Fayettevll Spring Lake
Alternative 2 Lane Diagram
Figure 8
At Randolph Street, a semi-directional interchange with a loop ramp located in the
northeast quadrant will be provided Randolph Street will be carried over Murchison
Road This interchange incorporates free flowing ramps in the northwest and southwest
quadrants, a free-flowing loop onto Randolph from northbound Murchison and a free-
flowing low speed ramp onto Murchison from Randolph
As discussed previously, all access to Butner Road from Murchison Road will be
eliminated with this alternative Butner Road traffic will utilize existing Bragg Boulevard
to Randolph Street, and then utilize the Randolph Street Interchange with Murchison
Road This alternative requires Bragg Boulevard to remain open between Randolph
Street and Butner Road In addition, access to the State Veterans Cemetery will be
granted from Bragg Boulevard An advantage of this alternative is that it allows traffic
entering Fort Bragg's ACP at Butner Road to queue along existing Bragg Boulevard
This will prevent the ACP generated queues from affecting the traffic flow on Murchison
Road
This alternative was originally designed with complete control of access between the
Randolph Street Interchange and the Llllington Highway intersection This alternative
was presented to the public at the February 4, 2008 citizens informational workshop for
the project (see Section 6 1) The controlled access has been modified based on public
input This modified alternative is NCDOT's preferred alternative because it will require
relocating fewer businesses than Alternative 1
This alternative was presented to the NEPA/404 merger team meeting held on April 22,
2008 The merger team agreed this alternative should be studied in detail This
alternative will be presented at the public hearing to be held for the project following
completion of this document
42

r
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1. Roadway Cross-section and Alignment
The typical cross-section for the proposed alternative, as shown in Figure 9 is a six lane
' roadway with 12-foot lanes, a 22-foot median, and 10-foot paved shoulders for a total
width of 114 feet
4.2. Right of Way and Access Control
The typical right of way will range between 200 and 350 feet with the interchange areas
' having typical rights of way of about 1,300 feet Full control of access is proposed along
the project between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and Olive Street in Spring
Lake North of Olive Street, partial control of access is proposed Access onto Bragg
Boulevard between Olive Street and Lillington Highway will only be allowed at select
public streets Driveways will not be allowed onto Bragg Boulevard in this area except
for properties with no other access
4.3. Design & Posted Speed Limits
' Murchison Road will be designed for 60 mph, it is anticipated the posted speed limit will
be 55 mph south of the Randolph Street Extension North of this point, the design speed
will be 50 mph, it is anticipated the speed limit will remain 35 mph in this area
Honeycutt Road, Randolph Street and Butner Road will be designed for 40 mph, it is
anticipated the posted speed limit for these roads will be 35 mph

4.4. Anticipated Design Exceptions
1 A design exception will be required for a horizontal curve on Murchison Road between
the,railroad bridge and the proposed Honeycutt Road interchange This curve does not
meet a 60 mph design speed, but it does meet a 55 mph design speed This sharper
curve is required in order to tie the proposed alignment back to existing Murchison Road
in order to fit Murchison Road under the railroad bridge

4.5. Intersections/Interchanges
There are two planned interchanges proceeding northbound from the start of the project
' The first interchange at Honeycutt Road and Murchison will be a partial clover with two
signals and multiple turn lanes Randolph Street over Murchison Road will be a partial
trumpet interchange and it will be a half tight diamond with one signal It will be the
access point for those wishing to enter and leave Fort Bragg via either Randolph or
Butner Road See Figure 10.
r
1 43
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b
m

va
4
m
? o

30 ?!
i j
ii

W

o
J ?
----
-- ---- ----- N y
o0

?z
J

CL

U ?
NQ
WN ?

ii
ii
Qa
$
tr Q+n?

P Q'

J?

av
0
3
LL
v
v
1

L
N?
To To
reyettemlle Spring Laka
Proposed Interchanges
Figure 10
4.6. Service & Other Roads
Though not meeting the classical engineering definition of a service road, Third Street in
Spring Lake will be upgraded to meet the increased commercial traffic flow expected
with the access modifications on Bragg Boulevard Third Street will also be extended
southward to meet McCormick Road and will become the access route for the WT
Brown Elementary School The intersection of Fifth Street with NC 210 (Llllington
Highway) in Spring Lake will also be improved and signalized as part of this project This
intersection will provide additional access for properties east of Fort Bragg between
McCormick Road and Llllington Highway, including WT Brown Elementary School
' Other improvements proposed include
a) Petit Street access to Bragg Boulevard will be removed but it will serve as an
1 access road to several commercial establishments via its connection with the
extended Third Street
' b) Olive Street will be extended to intersect Bragg Boulevard Olive Street will have
right-in/right-out access to northbound Bragg Boulevard
' c) Wilson Avenue will have right-in/right-out access to northbound Bragg Boulevard
d) Poe Avenue access to Bragg Boulevard will be eliminated
' e) Lake Avenue (on the eastern side of Bragg Boulevard) will have right-in/right-out
access to northbound Bragg Boulevard
f) Spring Avenue (on the eastern side of Bragg Boulevard) will be closed This
creates a four leg intersection where a five leg intersection currently exists,
' thereby improving traffic flow
ll b
d
e one way away
wi
g) Spring Avenue on the western side of Bragg Boulevar
45

L
' from Bragg Boulevard
h) Lake Avenue west of Bragg Boulevard will have right-in/right-out access to
southbound Bragg Boulevard
i) South Main Street will have right-in/right-out access to southbound Bragg
Boulevard
4.7. Railroad Crossings
' A new at-grade railroad crossing will be required for the realignment and extension of
Randolph Street to Murchison Road The rail line crossed by proposed Randolph Street
' is owned by the Army and is used by one train a day The exposure index for this
crossing will be 81,000 in the year 2030
' Gates and signals will be provided at both at-grade crossings on the project Although
the exposure index for both of these crossings is very high, providing grade separation
at these locations is not practical due to the proximity of this rail line to Murchison Road
Also, Fort Bragg is the only facility served by this rail line This track is typically only used
at off-peak traffic times
' The widening of Honeycutt Road to accommodate future traffic conditions around the
anticipated 5 lane ACP will mean a widening of the railroad crossing which currently
' exists This is the same rail line proposed Randolph Street will cross, but the tracks at
Honeycutt Road are owned by CSX Transportation One train a day currently uses this
crossing The exposure index for the crossing will be 50,600 in the year 2030
Existing Murchison Road will be widened underneath the current bridge carrying the
' CSX rail line over Murchison Road south of Honeycutt Road
' 4.8 Structures
As part of the proposed facility two new bridges will be built, one each as part of the
Honeycutt and Randolph interchanges There are 5 proposed retaining walls No noise
' walls are proposed (see Section 5.10 1) Table 9 below presents information regarding
proposed bridge structures for the project
fl

1
46

TAB LE 9: PROPOSED STRUCTU
Honeycutt Interchange RES
Randolph Interchange
Spans 2 2
Length 183 5 feet 250 feet
Clear Roadway width 130 feet 78 5 feet
Carries/Crosses Murchison Rd/Honeycutt Rd Randolph St/Murchison Rd
4.9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
No exclusive bicycle or pedestrian facilities are recommended for this facility The
majority of the project involves upgrading an existing roadway to a freeway Bicycle and
pedestrian use of a freeway facility is discouraged for safety reasons Any existing
sidewalks in areas where no control of access is proposed which have to be removed
will be replaced
4.10. Utilities
The Progress Energy power lines crossing Murchison Road will be moved north by
approximately one half mile and will involve the movement of at least 10 poles in 5
locations

1
4.11. Noise Abatement Measures
No noise walls or other noise abatement is proposed as part of this project (see Section
5.101)
4.12. Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction Phasing
This project is divided into two phases for construction The first extends from the
Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to north of Honeycutt Road (U-4444AA) The second,
extends from north of Honeycutt Road to NC 210 (Lillington Highway) (U-4444AB and U-
444413)
Traffic will be primarily maintained on-site during construction of both of these phases
Temporary lane closures will be necessary, however Temporary pavement and shoring
47

will be necessary, as well Existing Bragg Boulevard on Fort Bragg should be available
as an alternate route during construction of this project
' Traffic control plans for this protect will be coordinated with plans for the Proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2), which will be under construction at the same
time as the portion of this project from the Proposed Outer Loop to dust north of
' Honeycutt Road
1
11

n

1
11

1
48

1

I
5. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
5.1. Natural Resources
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed project route between
January and May 2005 Water resources were identified and their physical
characteristics were recorded For the purposes of this study, a habitat assessment was
performed within the project area Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified using a variety of observation techniques Biotic communities were mapped
using aerial photography of the project site Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing biotic
communities
5.1.1 Terrestrial Communities
Seven plant communities occur within the study area Xeric Sandhill Scrub (Sandhills
Variant), Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill (Blackjack-Mixed Oak and Clay Hilltop Variants),
Mesic Pine Flatwoods, Streamhead Pocosin, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
(Blackwater Subtype), Sandhill Seep, and Disturbed-Maintained Communities
5.1 2. Aquatic Communities
' Eleven jurisdictional streams or stream segments and two (2) non jurisdictional streams
are located within the project study area No distinct areas containing significant
amounts of aquatic vegetation were observed in the channels during the field
' assessment A visual survey of the stream banks within the project study area was
conducted to document the aquatic community
' 5.1.3. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Plant communities located within the study area total 277 8 acres These areas are
' based on the corridor widths of approximately 1,000 feet wide and centered on the
existing road centerline Actual impacts are calculated based on the preliminary design
' outer limits
Water resource impacts may also result from the physical disturbance of the forested
' stream buffers that adjoin most of the streams within the study area The removal of the
riparian buffer may also increase the amount of sediment released into the stream
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from this increased
t sedimentation Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in
several ways, including the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces,
' affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water chemistry,
and smothering different life stages Increased sedimentation may cause decreased
light penetration through an increase in turbidity
' 49

NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced to reduce impacts during all construction phases
5.1.4. Waters of the United States
' The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-06-15 of the Cape Fear River
Basin, and is part of the USGS hydrologic unit code 03030004 for the Cape Fear River
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional
' consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U S C 1344) Wetlands are
also classified as Waters of the United States and are themselves subject to
jurisdictional consideration
5.1 5 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
' Seven areas meeting the federal criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are located within the
project study area The locations of these wetlands are shown on Figure 11 Table 10
lists information about the jurisdictional wetlands within the project corridor under study
' and highlights the impacts caused by each alternative Jurisdictional wetlands in the
project study area are palustrine in nature Most of the wetlands are palustrine forested,
with some areas of palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub-shrub also present

Wetland ID TABLE i JUR
Cowardm
Classification* ISDICTIONAL
NCDWQ
Wetland Rating
Score
Rroenne or Non-
Rivenne
Impacts of
Alternate 1
Impacts of
Alternate 2
AER PF01 C 29 Non-Riverine 0 08 0 04
BER PF01 B/C 44 Rlverine' 0 26 0 49
CER PF01 B/C 48 Rlverine' 0 59 1 05
EER PF01 B/C 82 Rivenne 4 72 7 24
FTB PEM1 H/PF01 H 28 Non-Rivenne 0 27 0 27
GTB PEM1 H/PF01 H 45 Non-Rlverine 0 88 0 08
HER T -PEM1G 24 Non-Rivenne 0 05 0 05
TOTAL 6 85 9 22
* Cowardin et al 1979
' "* As verified by Richard Spencer, USACE, on May 31, 2005
# Impacts derived from preliminary design extents
PFO (Palustnne forested) - forested wetlands
PEM (Palustnne emergent) - dominated by herbaceous and hydrophytic plants
50

17
t?

?e
210

24 Ff f

t 210 if
1451
pnl?Cr_ee - 6

Sprin ake ,

Wetland EER
r
Wetland HER i,
tl
nd CER /
W
e
a
Wetland GTB ? ?

Wetland FTB Wetland BER _
Honeycutt Rd?

Wetland AER - f

{ r
24 87
CEO

' Fayetteville 401
Legend
Protect Study Corridor
" North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Protect Study Area w E

100-Year Floodplaln NC 210 Improvement Study
Cumberland County, NC
Wetland Area S
T I P No U-4444
Mlles WBS No 36492
O Red-cockaded Woodpecker 0 05 1 Figure l l Environmental Features in Project Area
Foraging Area

r
The project corridor consists of existing maintained right-of-way including fill slopes,
commercial, and forested areas Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics (determined by field survey), best usage classifications, and water quality
r aspects of the water resources The physical characteristics of each of these streams
are shown on Table 11 There are six perennial streams or stream segments, five
Intermittent streams or stream segments, and two ephemeral, non Jurisdictional streams
The NCDWQ classified all streams in the project study area with a Best Usage
Classification of Water Supply (WS) - IV A Best Usage Classification of WS-IV Indicates
waters used as sources of potable water where a WS-I, II, or III classification is not
feasible WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or
Protected Areas, and involve no categorical restrictions on discharges
No water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQWs), WS I or II, or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) are located within one mile of the project study
area (NCDENR 2005) No streams within the study area are designated as North
Carolina Natural and Scenic Rivers, or as National Wild and Scenic Rivers

Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek are designated as biologically impaired water bodies
regulated under the statutory provisions of CWA §303(d) Both streams were listed in
1998 due to impaired biological integrity, potentially caused by urban runoff (NCDWQ
2006)
TABLE 11: J URISDICTIONA L STREAMS

NCDWQ Stream
NCDWQ Stream USACE Stream

Quality

Stream
Impacts"
Impacts"
Stream ID
Identification Classification
Score
Assessment
Determination (it)
Alternate 1 (f)
Alternate 2
Score
1 ER Little Cross Creek ** 51 Perennial 0 0
2ER UT Little Cross Creek ** 58 Perennial 110 0
3ER UT Cross Creek ** 60 Perennial 154 254
4ER UT Cross Creek 265 57 Perennial 0 0
6TB Cross Creek 225 42 Intermittent 55 40
6ER Cross Creek ** 70 Perennial 466 466
7TB UT Cross Creek 19 28 Intermittent 71 71
8ER UT Cross Creek 25 75 53 Intermittent 22 22
9ER UT Cross Creek 2975 65 Perennial 193 193
10ER UT Cross Creek 255 49 Intermittent 9 9
11 ER UT Cross Creek 2225 53 Intermittent 27 126
TOTAL 1,107 1 181
UT = Unnamed tributary
** NCDWQ Stream Classification Form was not completed due to strong evidence indicating that these streams are
perennial
# Impacts derived from preliminary design extents
52

1
5.1.6. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
Temporary impacts include those impacts from temporary structures, work, and
discharges (including cofferdams) necessary for construction activities, access fills, or
1 dewatering of construction sites Temporary detours could also temporarily impact
Waters of the United States Erosion and sediment will be controlled by implementing
a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Waters of the United States that are temporarily
impacted will be restored to their original condition following completion of the
disturbance activity
Permanent impacts to Waters of the United States are generally those impacts that
occur in areas within the final construction limits and/or the final right-of-way As shown
on Tables 10 & 11, the proposed Alternative 1 will impact 6 85 acres of wetlands and
1,107 linear feet of streams and Alternative 2 will impact 9 22 acres of wetlands and
1,181 linear feet of streams
5.1.7. Avoidance, Minimization & Mitigation
Mitigation has been defined in the NEPA regulations to include efforts which a) avoid,
b) minimize, c) rectify, d) reduce or eliminate, or e) compensate for adverse impacts to
the environment [40 CFR §1508 20] Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in
accordance with Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR Part 230), Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) step-down procedures (23 CFR §777 et seq ),
1 mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/USEPA Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961, May 1977), and USFWS
mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7656, February 1981)
Avoidance
Efforts have been made to avoid impacts to wetlands and streams as much as possible
However, in some areas along the protect, impacts to wetlands and streams have been
unavoidable due to other constraints, such as the railroad adjacent to Murchison Road,
' two cemeteries and endangered species habitat
Minimization
' Widening into the median and providing only a 22-foot wide median is proposed for this
protect in order to minimize impacts to wetlands, streams and protected species habitat
A loop is proposed in the southeast quadrant of the proposed Honeycutt Road
interchange in order to avoid wetlands located in the northeast quadrant of the
interchange The steepest practicable slopes (3 1 with guardrails) will be used in
' wetland areas in order to reduce impacts
Mitigation
' Compensatory mitigation will likely be required for protect impacts to wetlands and
streams Efforts will be made to provide on-site mitigation as much as possible Any
, 53

mitigation requirements beyond what can be provided on-site will be met utilizing the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Several sites with potential to be used for on-
site mitigation were identified during project field work See NRTR Final report
5.1.8. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be
required from the US Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States "
Due to expected project impacts on wetlands and jurisdictional streams, an individual
Section 404 permit will likely be required The Corps of Engineers will determine final
permit requirements A NC Division of Water Quality Section 401 Major Water Quality
Certification will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit
5.1.9 Rare and Protected Species
Rare and protected species listed for Cumberland County and any likely impacts to
these species as a result of the proposed project construction are discussed in the
following sections
1 5.1.9.1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or Proposed
(P) for such listing are protected under Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531 et seq ) As shown below in Table 12, as
of March 25, 2008, there are seven federally threatened and endangered species listed
for Cumberland County

C!

1 54

t

t
TABLE 12: FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Biological
Status* Conclusion
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator miss/ss/ppiensis T(S/A) Not Applicable
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E Unresolved
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchelli francisci E F No Effect
Vascular Plants
Pondberry Lmdera mellsslfolia E No Effect
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxu E No Effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea amencana E No Effect
` E - Endangered, T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed protect route between
January and May 2005 No suitable habitat was found for rough-leaved loosestrife or
American chaffseed Therefore, it is anticipated the protect will have "no effect" on these
species No biological conclusion is required for the American Alligator as it is listed as
threatened due to similarity of appearance with the federally-listed American crocodile
1 Suitable habitat for red cockaded woodpecker, pondberry, and Michaux's sumac exists
in the protect study area Additional surveys were conducted in November 2005 and low
quality habitat for Saint Francis' satyr was found in the study area All suitable habitat in
the study area was surveyed for all listed species
Plant-by-plant surveys for pondberry were conducted in March 2005 Pondberry was not
observed in any of the wetland areas surveyed No occurrences of pondberry within one
1 mile of the protect area are recorded in the NC Natural Heritage Program database
Therefore, it is anticipated the protect will have "No Effect" on pondberry
' Surveys for Michaux's sumac were conducted in May 2005 Other species of sumac,
such as smooth sumac and winged sumac were observed, but no Michaux's sumac was
' found No occurrences of Michaux's sumac within one mile of the protect area are
1 55

' recorded in the NC Natural Heritage Program database Therefore, it is anticipated the
project will have "No Effect" on Michaux's sumac
' Surveys for Saint Francis' satyr were conducted in May and July of 2006 during the first
and second flight periods for the species No Saint Francis' satyrs were observed No
occurrences of Saint Francis' satyr within one mile of the project area are recorded in the
NC Natural Heritage Program database Therefore, it is anticipated the protect will have
"No Effect" on Saint Francis' satyr
' Red-cockaded woodpeckers are present in the protect area The protect is located
within two of Fort Bragg's habitat management units (HMU) for the red-cockaded
1 woodpecker, the Fort Bragg Green Belt and the Northeast Area HMU Eight foraging
partitions exist in the project area or within one-half mile of the project
Cursory field surveys for red-cockaded woodpecker roosting and foraging habitat were
performed from January to May of 2005 A survey for cavity trees within a one-half mile
i radius of the project was conducted in November 2005 A foraging analysis was
conducted in early 2008 A biological assessment (BA) is currently being completed for
the red-cockaded woodpecker Additional coordination will be conducted with the US
' Fish and Wildlife Service and Fort Bragg regarding the project's effects on the red-
cockaded woodpecker Concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the
project's effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker will be obtained prior to completion of
the final environmental document for this project
1 5.1.9.2. Federal Species of Concern & State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species that may or may
not be listed in the future These species are not legally protected under the ESA and
' are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as threatened or endangered As of March 25, 2008 the USFWS
' website (updated 01-31-2008) lists 29 FSC species for Cumberland County Table 13
lists these 29 species, as well as their North Carolina status, and whether species
habitat occurs in the project study area Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E),
' Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the North Carolina State Endangered Species Act of 1987 and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 However, state listed species are not
protected from NCDOT activities
No FSC species were observed during project field investigations The NC Natural
Heritage Program database was consulted on March 25, 2008 Two FSC species,
56

1
?J

t

1

Table 13: Federal Species of Concern listed for Cumberland County
Vertebrate:
American eel Anguilla rostrata FSC Current
Bachman's sparrow A?moph?la aest?val?s FSC Current
Black-throated green
warbler Dendro?ca v?rens wayne? FSC Current
Broadtail madtom Noturus sp cf leptacanthus FSC Current
Carolina crawfish frog Rana cap?to cap?to FSC Current
Northern pine snake P?tuoph?s melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC Obscure
Sandhills chub Semot?lus lumbee FSC Current
Southern hognose snake Heterodon s?mus FSC Obscure
Invertebrate:
Atlantic pigtoe Fuscona?a mason? FSC Historic
Yellow lampmussel Lampsihs canosa FSC Current
Vascular Plant:
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia anstosa FSC Historic
Bog oatgrass Danthon?a ep?1?s FSC Current
Bog spicebush L?ndera subconacea FSC Current
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boyk?n?? FSC Current
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnass?a carohn?ana FSC Current
Cuthbert turtlehead Chelone cuthbert?? FSC Current
False coco Pteroglossasp?s ecr?stata FSC Historic
Georgia lead-plant Amorpha georg?ana var georg?ana FSC Current
Loose watermilfoil Mynophyllum laxum FSC Current
Pickering's dawnflower Styl?sma p?ckenngn var p?ckenng?? FSC Current
Pondspice L?tsea aest?val?s FSC Current
Roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass Xyns scabnfol?a FSC Current
Sandhllls bog lily bhum pyroph?lum FSC Current
Sandhllls milk-vetch Astragalus m?chaux?? FSC Current
Small-leaved meadow-rue Thal?ctrum macrostylum FSC Current
Spring-flowering goldenrod Sol?dago verna FSC Current
Venus' fly-trap D?onaea musc?pula FSC Current
Well's sandhill pixie-moss Pyx?danthera barbulata var brev?fol?a FSC Current
Nonvascular Plant:
Savanna campylopus Campylopus carohnae FSC Current
E- Endangered, T- Threatened, PE- Proposed Endangered, SR- Significantly Rare, SU- Special Uoncem, - I - rare
throughout its range, -L-The range of the species is limited to NC and adjacent states
- Obscure record (the date the element was last observed in the county is uncertain)
^ - Listed by USFWS, but not tracked by NCNHP
+- Listed by USFWS, tracked by NCNHP, but no occurrences have been reported in this county
# - Listed by USFWS as FSC, tracked by NCNHP as a state-listed species
57

Sandhdls Pixie moss and Pickering's dawnflower were recorded as occurring within one
mile of the project study area
5.1.10. Soils
The study area is located within the Blaney-Gilead-Lakeland sod association (USDA-
SCS 1984) Sod associations contain one or more mapping units occupying a unique
natural landscape Mapping units are named for the major sod series within the unit, but
may contain minor inclusions of other sod series The Blaney-Gil ead-Lakel and soil
' association is characterized as containing excessively drained to moderately well
drained sods on highly dissected uplands
' Seven soil mapping units are identified within the project study area Only one of these
soils, Johnston loam, is listed as a hydric sod for Cumberland County (USDA 1995)
Along drainages, Johnston loam and Blaney sandy loam are the most common sod
types in the project study area In other areas, Lakeland-Urban land complex, Gilead
loamy sand, and Vaucluse loamy sand are the most common types
r
5.2. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended
5.2.1. Historic Architectural Resources
The Spring Lake Elementary School (now known as Lillian Black Elementary School) in
' Spring Lake is the only budding or property within the project area that is either eligible
for listing or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places The project, as currently
designed, will not impact this property There are expected to be no character changes,
' though access to the school will be modified Access to Bragg Boulevard will be modified
at the Lake Avenue intersection with right in and right outs only Spring Avenue's eastern
access to Bragg Boulevard will be closed Traffic volumes are likely to increase on Lake
' Avenue as it becomes a more important corridor to access commercial facilities Spring
Avenue's traffic is expected to significantly decrease as it becomes a cul-de-sac To
accommodate increased commercial traffic, Third Street from its junction with Lake
Avenue to the new intersection at McCormick Road will be upgraded The portion of
Third Street along the front of the school will not be modified The State Historic
1 Preservation Office concurred the proposed project will have "no effect" on the Lillian
Black Elementary School See concurrence letter from the State Historic Preservation
Office in Appendix A Figure 12 shows the location of the school
5.2.2. Archaeological Resources
According to an October 17, 2006 letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (see
Appendix A), there are previously recorded archaeological sites in the project area and
58
Figure 12
Lillian Black Elementary
School Location and
Photographs

there is a high probability other archaeological sites exist in the area A comprehensive
archaeological survey will be conducted prior to completion of the final environmental
document for this project
5.3. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources
Federal law 49 USC § 303, formerly Section 4(f) of DOT Act of 1966 places restrictions
on the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal,
' State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) State and
local governments often obtain grants through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act to acquire or make improvements to parks and recreation areas Section 6(f) of the
' act prohibits the conversion of property acquired or developed with these grants to a
non-recreational purpose without the approval of the U S Department of the Interior's
(DOT's) National Park Service
One Section 4(f) resource, the National Register eligible Lillian Black School, is located
in the project area The proposed project will not require any land from the school No
Section 6(f) properties are located in the project area
5.4. Farmland
There are no USDA designated prime farmlands within the project study and as such
' there will be no impacts to this category of soils
5.5. Social Effects
The social impacts from the proposed alternative are not expected to negatively impact
social cohesion via physical and psychological means Design modifications made as a
result of stakeholder input seek to facilitate the current social and economic patterns of
existence within the downtown region of Spring Lake The primary change brought about
' by public input was the removal of the proposed complete control access between the
interchange at Randolph and the NC 24-87-210 split in Spring Lake Although several
current access patterns will be changed by project, the changes are not expected to be
' of any negative significance The primary social benefit of the access changes is the
expected reduction in traffic accidents Social impacts and economic impacts along the
portion of the project south of Butner Road are minimal to non existent because of the
' existing land use pattern in this location The current military usage and no planned
changes to this are the reasons for this deduction
' 5.5.1. Neighborhoods/Communities
While there will be improvements in travel time and reduced congestion over the
' planned life of the facility, most commercial establishments will no longer have individual
1 60

access points to Bragg Boulevard but will have to be accessed from the rear via parallel
streets which will be upgraded to accommodate the increased flows
' Travel between the neighborhoods east of Bragg Boulevard and downtown Spring Lake,
which is west of Bragg Boulevard, will be more circuitous than it is now Currently, area
residents can cross Bragg Boulevard at a traffic signal at either Main Street or Spring
' Avenue In order to access downtown following construction of the protect, residents will
have to either make a right onto Bragg Boulevard and then a left at Spring
' Avenue/Lillington Highway or turn onto Lillington Highway from Fifth Street and cross
Bragg Boulevard at the Spring Avenue/Lillington Highway intersection Traveling from
downtown to the neighborhood would require making a right onto Bragg Boulevard and
' then making a u-turn at the proposed Randolph Street interchange or making a right
onto Bragg Boulevard north of Lillington Highway and then making a left onto Lillington
Highway and a right onto Fifth Street
5.5.2 Relocation of Residences and Businesses
' Table 14 below presents the anticipated number of homes and businesses which will be
relocated by either of the two protect alternatives

Table - Anticipated Relocati ons for t he Project Alternatives
Homes Businesses
Alternative 1
(including interchanges at Honeycutt, Randolph & 9 26
Butner
Alternative 2 4 3
(including interchanges at Honeycutt and Randolph)
' All relocations will be carried out in accordance with Federal and State laws and
regulations NCDOT's Relocation Assistance Program will be utilized to assist in finding
replacement housing for residents relocated by the protect Appendix B includes
information on NCDOT's relocation assistance program, as well as the relocation reports
for each alternative
5 5.3. Environmental Justice
' Impacts to individuals are covered through Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which
requires that Federal agencies ensure that no person is excluded from participation in,
denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that
receives Federal financial assistance on the basis of their race, color, national origin,
age, sex, disability, or religion
' 61

This protection is expanded to communities through the Federal-aid Highway Act of
1970 (23 CFR Section 109(h)), which emphasizes the equitable treatment of
' communities being affected by transportation protects This act requires the
consideration of the anticipated effect of proposed transportation protects on residences,
businesses, and accessibility of public facilities, tax base, and other community
' resources
' Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed by
law, to administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect human
health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and
' adverse" effects on minority and low-income populations
The percentage of the population of the protect study area and the Town of Spring Lake
that is minority or low income is higher than the percentages for both the County and the
State
' 5.5 4. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
The current roadways do not have either of these facilities, there are no future municipal
t or regional plans to add them, and the proposed facility is not being developed for such
uses Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not compatible with the type of facility being
' designed The type of facility currently in use has minimal pedestrian usage and no
dedicated bicycle access The effects of the protect on bicycle and pedestrian activities
will therefore be minimal
5.5.5. Other Public Facilities and Services
' Commuting patterns are likely to be altered during construction of the new facility,
however, there will be improvements in regional commuting with the completion of the
protect Though a longer route than using the existing Bragg Boulevard, transit times are
' likely to be reduced with the new facility as congestion will be reduced and travel times
will be improved
Commuting within the Town of Spring Lake will be affected by the road closures and
modifications associated with the access changes While there are no major trip
' generators or source populations on opposite sides of the proposed facility, local traffic
will be required to join the regional flow of vehicles to access points within the local
community This may alter travel patterns for municipal fire, police and sanitation
' services provided by the town These services are concentrated on Ruth Street on the
northwestern side of the town

? 62

U

5.5.5.1. School Bus Routes
There is one planned modification to the access point for WT Brown Elementary School
This is to be caused by the realignment of an intersection to facilitate better traffic flow
Access to the school from Murchison Road along McCormick/Andrews Church Road will
be closed A new access road will be constructed connecting McCormick Road with
Third Street In addition, the intersection of Fifth Street at NC 210 (Lillington Highway)
will be improved and signalized This change will increase the access distance to the
school but will improve safety by allowing access onto a main road at a signal controlled
intersection
55.5.2. Emergency Response Times
The facility being developed will improve access times for emergency vehicles with the
reduction of traffic signals at various intersections and reduction in the number of at
' grade crossings Additionally, the proposed increase in design speeds will also enhance
this capability
The Spring Lake Police and Fire Departments are located west of Bragg Boulevard just
north of downtown Spring Lake The Town has expressed concerns that the proposed
raised median on Bragg Boulevard will increase response time to the eastern side of
Bragg Boulevard, especially for the Fire Department Traffic signal preemption for
emergency vehicles and an emergency vehicle crossover on Bragg Boulevard are being
' considered as options to improve response time to the eastern side of Bragg Boulevard
There may also be short term increases in response time during construction of the
' facility but these can be factored into the construction traffic plans
5.6. Economic Effects
While the current design is unlikely to add any direct economic impetus to the region it is
expected to have a minimal detrimental effect on Spring Lake's economy The economic
r mainstay of the area to be impacted by the project, the restaurants, will have their
accesses modified but not in a manner so as to render their operations infeasible Some
' may be more affected than others but collectively, access should be relatively the same
Traffic safety in and around these business should improve
The types of benefits yielded by this type of large scale roadway project are more likely
to accrue to the wider region and less to the smaller geographies such as Spring Lake
Improved regional travel will be faster due to reduced congestion occasioned by the
' mixing of through and local traffic Travel to and from Fayetteville and the surrounding
regional economic centers in adjoining counties will be a boon for commercial traffic and
' regional commuters travelling on NC 24/87 or 210 One possible benefit that may be felt
in Spring Lake could be the reduced congestion created by having peak hour military
63

' traffic situated on base property, as opposed to local streets The increased desirability
of doing business in a less congested portion of the town may serve as a stimulus to
attracting additional establishments and enhanced patronage
5.7. Military Impacts
' One of the purpose and need elements for the protect is the improvement of safety
Efforts at congestion management are being taken to improve traffic flow to and from the
base and help with safety, both elements of the project's purpose and need The
' proposed solutions seek to separate long ACP-bound queues from the local and through
non-military traffic The proposed interchange at Randolph Street is expected to benefit
both the military and the Town of Spring Lake by reducing congestion within the
immediate vicinity of the food commercial district Long queues associated with
accessing the base will be limited to Fort Bragg property
' 5.8. Land Use
Land use along the majority of the project corridor is likely to remain unchanged as the
property is owned by both the Department of Defense (DoD) (operated as Fort Bragg)
and NCDOT At the southern end of the project, land use will be dominated by an
interchange to be built that will link this section of Murchison Road to the planned 1-295
Fayetteville Outer Loop
At the northern end of the project, where the protect corridor enters the Town of Spring
Lake, land use is not expected to be markedly different The access modifications
planned should do very little to change the current patterns of usage It is expected to
remain commercial for the mid to long term See Figure 13
' 5.9. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The majority of the proposed project is located on the federally owned and operated Fort
' Bragg which negates the possibility of induced growth The remaining section of the
project involves modifying existing Bragg Boulevard through a heavily developed area of
the Town of Spring Lake All areas immediately adjacent to the project are already
developed and it is not expected that there will be additional development spurred by the
project
Potential cumulative effects in the project area include the effects of nearby highway
projects The impacting adjacent project is identified by two TIP numbers X-2 and Ll-
2519 They involve constructing the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop as a multilane
freeway

1 64
Legend
Project Study Corridor ® Commercial
Project Study Area Industrial
Ft. Bragg Military Installation Residential
u Fort Bragg / Governmental Office & Institutional
Activity Node Open Space
w E
S
' I Miles
0 0.5 1
U?71 North Carolina
Department of Transportation
NC 210 Improvement Study
Cumberland County, INC
T.1 P. No. U-4444
WBS No. 36492
Figure 13 Land Use

r
The condensed FEIS presented the following potential effects of the recommended
alternative (Alternate D) Table 15 below presents the potential environmental effects of
the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop

F

n
1
Table 15 Potential Environmental Effects
Resource of the Proposed FOL (TIP X-2 & U-2519)
Effect
Residential Relocations 252 possible with 69 being minority
Business Relocations 8 possible with 3 being minority
Wetlands Affected 63 4 acres
Streams Affected 12,833 linear feet
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Foraging
Habitat Affected Proportion Acreage Lost 0 99 Acres
Proportion Basal Area Lost 0 97 Acres
Agricultural Land Affected 219 8 Acres
' It is expected that the cumulative effects of the subject protect and the proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop will be limited to the sum of each project's individual effects It is
not expected the three protects will have a synergistic effect which would increase the
' overall cumulative effect beyond each project's direct effects Little or very limited land
use changes are expected along corridor or on federal military land Some Fort Bragg
1 property is currently functioning as known RCW habitat with Federal Cooperation
5.10. Noise Analysis
' In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772), each
' Type I highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts Type I
projects are proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway projects for construction of a
highway on new location or improvements to an existing highway which significantly
' changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle capacity Traffic
noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway
66

' traffic noise and construction noise found in Title 23 CFR 772, which also includes
provisions for traffic noise abatement measures When traffic noise impacts are
predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be
considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts A copy of the unabridged version
of the full technical report entitled Noise Study and Evaluation - Murchison Road
Widening can be viewed in the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street,
Raleigh, NC
' The results of the noise study indicate that the proposed Murchison Road Widening
project will increase noise levels at noise sensitive properties in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed facility The proposed improvements will result in design year build levels
I which range from 54 to 72 dB(A), a five dB(A) decrease to a nine dB(A) increase over
existing noise levels
' A comparison of the design year build with the no-build condition indicates the impact of
traffic noise on adjacent development if the existing roadway is improved The build
alternative will result in a 9 dB(A) decrease to a 9 dB(A) increase over no-build noise
levels
' Using the design year (2030) traffic volumes, there will be fourteen residences, one
recreational trail (located on Fort Bragg) and one motel impacted by noise from the
proposed project Present day (2005) noise levels range from 51 dB(A) to 69 dB(A), and
no-build design year (2030) levels will range from 53 dB(A) to 72 dB(A) Budd noise
levels for the design year (2030) range from 55 dB(A) to 72 dB(A)
' For reference purposes, an increase of three decibels is considered barely perceivable,
and an increase of ten decibels is considered to double the loudness A comparison of
' the design year build with the no-build condition indicates the impact of traffic noise on
adjacent development if the existing roadway is improved The build alternative will
result in a 9 dB (A) decrease to a 9 dB (A) increase over no-build noise levels A
' comparison of the design year build noise levels with the applicable NAC reveals that
the recreational trail on Fort Bragg will receive traffic noise levels which approach or
' exceed the NAC No property will experience design year build noise levels which will be
substantially higher than existing levels
' 5.10.1. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all
' impacted receptors in each alternative The primary noise abatement measures
evaluated include highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures,
buffer acquisition and noise barriers For each of these measures, benefits versus
67

' costs, engineering feasibility, effectiveness and practicability, land use issues, and other
factors were included in the noise abatement considerations
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental
factors Traffic system management measures are not considered viable for noise
abatement due to the negative impact they would have on the capacity and level of
service of the proposed roadway
' In Spring Lake this project will maintain partial control of access, meaning that access
will be permitted from certain side streets These intersections will adjoin the project at
grade Businesses, churches and other related establishments require accessibility and
high visibility Noise barriers do not allow high visibility, and would therefore not be
acceptable abatement measures for this project Based on the Traffic Noise Analysis,
no noise abatement measures are proposed
Barriers were found not to be reasonable based on cost comparison of existing and build
noise levels at twelve impacted properties, on access issues at five impacted residential
properties and one commercial facility
5.10.2. Construction Noise
' The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passersby and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and grading equipment
However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction 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
' 5.10.3 Summary
Based on this study, traffic noise abatement is not recommended and no noise
abatement measures are proposed This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772 No additional noise analysis will be performed
for this project unless warranted by a significant change in the project scope, or
alignment
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which budding permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge
The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date
of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) For development occurring after this
' 68

date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are
utilized along the proposed facility
5.11. Air Quality Analysis
The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality Changing traffic patterns are a
primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the
improvement of an existing highway facility Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
lead (Pb) Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area For
this reason, most of the analysis presented herein is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements "CAL3QHC - A Modeling
Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations near Roadway Intersections" was
used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors Air quality projections
were calculated for the interim year after project completion (2015), and the design year
(2030)
In comparing the projected CO concentration levels with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, no violations of the 1-hour standard (35 ppm) or 8-hour standard
(9 ppm) were expected The 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are not expected to
exceed 7 5 and 5 8 ppm (including background contributions), respectively, at any of the
sites for any of the two years investigated
' 5 11.1. Mobile Source Air Toxics
Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean
' Air Act MSATs are compounds emitted by highway vehicles and non-road equipment
This document includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this
project However, project specific health effects of the emission changes associated
with the project alternatives cannot be predicted with available technical tools
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway
project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion
1 modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated
emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated
concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated
exposure Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain
69

' science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of the
proposed project Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing
For each alternative, the amount of MSATs emitted is proportional to the vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each
alternative The VMT estimated for each of the detailed study alternatives will likely be
' higher than that for the no-build alternative, because the additional capacity increases
the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the
' transportation network The increased VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for
the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in
MSAT emissions along the parallel routes The emissions increase is offset somewhat
' by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds, according to EPA's MOBILE6
emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate
matter decrease as speed increases The extent to which these speed-related
' emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably
projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models
' Because the estimated VMT for each of the alternatives is nearly the same, it is
expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among
' the various alternatives Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions in the
design year will likely be lower than present levels as a result of EPA's national control
programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between
2000 and 2020 Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of
fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures However, the
magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT
' growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in
nearly all cases
Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of
pollutants into the air Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining
' the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility
New highways or the widening of existing highways increase localized levels of vehicle
emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds from
' reductions in congestion and because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where
traffic shifts to the new roadway Significant progress has been made in reducing criteria
pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel
has increased rapidly
' 511.2. Attainment Status
The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been determined to comply with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards The proposed project is located within an
70

' attainment area, therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable This project is
not anticipated to create adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area
5.12. Hazardous Materials
Based on a field reconnaissance survey and database review of the project area, two
' facilities with underground storage tanks (two gas stations) and a property which might
contain hazardous materials (an oil change facility) were found within the project study
area Preliminary site assessments will be conducted for all potentially contaminated
sites within the proposed right of way prior to right of way acquisition
i

1
71

6. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
' 6.1. Citizens Informational Workshop & Other Stakeholder Involvement
Citizens Informational Workshops (CIW) are held to provide the public an opportunity to
' participate in the planning process and update them on the project's status Comments
and information received from the public are taken into consideration as work on the
project continues There have been two CIWs held thus far The first was conducted
' during January 2005 in the Spring Lake Town Hall and was attended by 58 persons The
second was held in February of 2008 in the same location and was attended by
approximately 185 persons
' Other issue specific meetings are often held with interest groups who have unique
concerns related to projects During January 2008 a meeting was convened with some
' of the business owners in Spring Lake who had specific concerns about the proposed
control of access along existing Bragg Boulevard
The majority of comments heard from citizens at the February 2008 CIW related to the
proposed control of access on existing Bragg Boulevard, as well Business owners were
concerned the proposed change in access to their properties would lead to loss of
business
' Changes were made to the project design in response to concerns heard at the
workshop Additional access points were added at Olive Street and Wilson Avenue on
' the east side of Bragg Boulevard and South Main Street on the west side
' 6.2. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held for the project following completion of this document and
prior to right of way acquisition
' 63. NEPA/404 Merger Process
The NEPA/404 Merger process is intended to streamline the project development and
' permitting processes The merger process has been agreed to by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina Department of Environment and
' Natural Resources (NCDENR) (including the Division of Water Quality, DWQ, and the
Division of Coastal Management, DCM), the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) and supported by other stakeholder agencies and local units of
government To this effect, the Merger 01 process provides a forum for appropriate
agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate meeting
' the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the
NEPA/SEPA decision-making phase of transportation projects
' 72

I

f?

11
1

1

The NEPA 404 Merger team concurred on purpose and need (Concurrence Point 1) and
alternatives to be studied in detail (Concurrence point 2) at a meeting held on April 22,
2008
6.4. Other Agency Coordination
NCDOT has coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies throughout
the project development study Comments on the project have been requested from the
agencies listed below Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A
Agencies contacted include
• Town of Spring Lake
• US Army Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
• US Army Corps of Engineers (Directorate of Public Works)
• US Army Military Traffic Management Command
• Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO)
• North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation
Office
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
• NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
• DENR-NC Division of Water Quality
• DENR-NC Wildlife Commission
73

yA
?? M1,? 1"Y7^!4"iQ
?

W
L t

\ ry i?lt
> RE
?
lF ?'i
N)
v/ rlo

•
'4
?
V cr)
?1
v

?
MM
W
O

. //{
??
y,.
VI
?
(a

"
0
\ 4 I?T•. Y
ra tt ` ? TT ?1. `IVY
rk
C O
,,\ Z

@l. i I I CD
`V

L titi F?hF, ti/ a`
fl,

noAOUOH
t
r ;I
ki
M1??? ?? ? a ?
1
?.
? - -
?
'
'
n
?
•? ~
?
1
. '\? ?
F"? ,1 *
R-i,i
1 ? ?
FRti1C?'
V`?r
'?y?-i?'Ar,
S
??
t
?y,?a fn N y

V i ` ?
co
a_

.pLI aauln8 I
1 I

® h?1
J
1
..1 t
III f. 1 1
rn
3 T q m o o 'o 'o 'o
u°i u°? ° m 0
1
n c? m 9 o a o m
s ?
? ?• n. °,
0 3 ?
? ' m 3 3
o m

?

3 o o
m a F

o
m ?
0
`a

3 3

?

N
i
?J ;
O? i
co)
CD `4
9 co
C ? ?.
.p cQ CD CD :
OQ.
o ? N ? Q y
rr
J it . s
J
' y. I I
a
dam,'
Nt,''C
f I
'+'4
f?
F.
f
Y
c?
rr ,
oil
El' 4
661
;, m Sk .

? ? ? i ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? i ? ! ? ? ?
? r9J` t
rn
Y? ? f
?, rah ?
ar
.? w
i
i??d? y r ?,
.,.
? ??Yy ;
o ?
r?? ??,?
s ?, ?' i
v
?J
rr?,??
..

I

I m
FAFY

?I

c
?0, S Fill
tt?. rr?N
l
5 ? ? ?,
4 ?
w f ?J'w ?: yr' ?f
> ^iE f n
r ?. I 'ti
i
? ?, fit'; r t •?
1 rrr _
d 4 n C Ak `
IJO
ar _
46
? m m m m m m r m r m m m r mm m r m I

,
> WI r,U t[ > \? t
,
,
v, ?. -tom W CD
ZAA U3
co
0
v Q)
%.< Q
I

Kati *4[ 0 5,:
' e
r }?",
? C
a CD co.
5

:, ,{ h5 y
M' ? pY ?.#•?'
fl.

N
'
-1? CQ 0

Z
CD

f SM C/)
J ti All zr

•
?j\t*^"?,?``
1 i'vy'

0.
?.. '
`
4 .y
?
j
` ? 1 1
«
L?/????
,
? \i f a?'A•?-q? +•/•"?? ;fit ? 06 "? \`

w r . a1 A ?.
Ijil "I

noAeuoH
0 P ;I

1%% ,: •
%% ° Nv
y t

M1
4.y{. `. ... J
71
01
OPL)e

. ? ud1l
s
,
'?S ? fn'}?aAy x •
?\ '.. . ? x!36. i
.

r:J

9 - O O O 0 O O rn7
° ?
°
?
? (? ? pJ
fj
G C
y n
4 O m v
('1 p
0 m
. Vm a s' s
3 a
' m
0
m
°
m 3
° - 3 $
3
a

m m m m m m m m w=== m= m m= i

. ?ZA
?_ ?? ? ??''' ? `??;-• ?*t:,ti,?R k?;, ?? --?. ? '` .?` ? 'y ?
-Tj N) (gyp ?
a' A _ i O
a ':,mot :{ 3 1 i --?
Io-
di,
lk CD
fw S. o (D
-IN
I j .Var f r , r o O W
IMF
4 a at ? ` ? ` ? o,
yjq?y 4
1
XT, v
Ae A,
.^ •^4 1 "r' _ _ ° A` ? ` ?? ? '!,J Z r r?y?'. - ? - ?, a ,. ;
r_
m m = m m m = = = = = ® ® = m = = = m
0

o y
o z
z a n
?
CD N

?. N

o C) -?
CD

v )
C cn C. ?
co C:zDz 0 CD
C)
q Q ? W
?. CD Q
o 00

a

N '14

4.:k
4 ?,
%
1
V
a
slime
t

i i

= = - I
A7au

ci .IG
l
i
¦
I

F
-•? 1
? ?
?
? ? ? 1
1

f' c-
•
AA ~1

iy
A_ raw
.? 'L",?r yr
'AS&

:t
R
:
A
et M

f

•

`' ~??
?'
?? ??
`
?? l
-
?
a "
i1
?
,
"?,.?Y?r'? 11
•?
we .x -. A
i
.?i
T

7. APPENDICES

s
1
1

it
r

11

11

7
1

Appendix A - Correspondence Received
1 74
K.
ek ?, L n , 4ia ? ?,r Y
F bar `? < F ?.
' 13#P tTM l7` F,,TME ARMY''
MIUTARY SURPotO*EFL'OY.MI 4T?AiD""DIST IBUT10N,,Gt11VIMAND w< F"
? e v, ? 7.? ? ' 206 ??11?1a/s? ?.i+y,^o9tp?<x a'? 'ZF -,ta ??? ?' >?<?>
E At: 1i11DRM4,9A 22332?BOoo "z
,1004 ?F a
06 ?ecial' ,;
?P ssisptlt x s s
`oration ngineeiing
;a f?
" Honorable Mary E. Peters
+ $M' rpi atO; t x'4 4 0- C "> ` m < < w' `y vSN `r a 5 s _ >
} Fdd4Lf fjjhway Afth istrittlo11 mss.
?`??S `TN?f">?'.??t?,"M{,t? t\?j? < b Y ^ #+ _ ~ ... ? ?s-<"SSa •• x $
Wushingt* pC,20S9lU x ro ,
t d 4
! r ti? ? I?eaa' NIB. Peters. ` "? r A ? ?V
In acGOrdanc with°tlt@ Oroyiai©ns o ffitle 2 l rifled tat ode ©n°2 4, and
s
r? latios sued by `e; e to pf'?r?ns 4r?at><on, audkur? erat< #orlty delegated ykthe "
S retay ofbefens , Inhere certify a is ?o t` to 1C3 i"6nal der the f'ollowi?ng,desG ed?
• "°hi n."' s ?`?.. 3,n>` ?. v.<x x f •,
aeq -rdrls to sarve i'tl?ragg, N02?h?jCarofina:
ACeess road begiriiti ; xt the prop osec? interchange af the Fayetteville Cuter
" -04,and MurchkotRoud, thrfixidfth o>;i°Mu,1•c`hisi iikoad ala'tt Bragg Boulevard
to j ing An te, a istaike of a p; xU:44ttel? 3.5 ale"sue
e h
ultm
„?cess ro ad t o the iitteisection of Brsgg B 4Ievaattl<rtd'V s t Ave=6.
f ?
a f het] e3g} vn a x
1ilson Avenue io Monroe Stree]y t,lveri sotuth'?n lsnrgefeet to
t RS 1 y ?F <l ° k - ° '? f7'?i u ?,: R' s? t
k f intersect wi`t?i MtComlC R'q P44 improve P tttt Street, a total di
- ` ' 4pproximatety0miles.
,jgyy i?a {'e -i :..a<t °?e§' .`*" '#^ > ?' R t r ^W : A , " K.=?na <
< x mfr ?? ? . .;: -,.i. '? , d ._ :; t ^ r t .t? < v? ' `-+".
;?. ; Ttt rpr`aject has a defcrisebAtenal praopty, rating of 2. -<`
z a_„ F ° m
iiAfe OSO ?. ?z z P
14 F QthiaGicti's tai pov?Ltznpivment;r totize„aeGei rods as
ctescrib Your 5 i l r 0!°` al tioan u e e ed-by tip aNoJ
"` l?ipY' rttix
Caroline`Department.of`I?ru*drtafiofi. 'T is a fi a tiara ls?nad? vv the 4@rstandftig tW a
na ve -they acGessRroads wilt U the resp sibi ft, fthe 04-mk g bioWay audi6fity. `
„t Y
Fr
E. Dunwoody
g
=a Rfajor Lien , U S. Army
Commadding
1
1
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
j The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
?I during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32
Sincerely,
Od1 Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Literature cited:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Milrtscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC

1i
11
I
11
I ri

?u- i1NyN,
IWL
19
? rs?
44k
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources N oPME% P
State Historic Preservation Office CY8{
Peter B Sandbeck, Adinuustrator
Michael F Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
October 17, 2006
` MEMORANDUM
TO Greg Thorpe, Ph D , Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM Peter Sandbeck ?*+ po?ef --a?
SUBJECT Improvements to NC 210, From NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake to the proposed
- Fayetteville Outer Loop, Cumberland County, ER 06-2433
Thank for your letter of September 5, 2006, concerning the above project Based on the topographic and
I?! hydrological situation that exists within the proposed project area and several previously recorded archaeological
sites, we have determined that there is a very high probability that additional archaeological sites exist in the project
area We therefore recommend that a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of any archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation
of any earth moving activities Please note that our office now requests consultation with the Office of State
li Archaeology prior to the archaeological field investigation
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms, should
be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any earth moving
t activities
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed interest in contract work in North Carolina is
available at www arch dcr state nc us/consults The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologists
may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey
I
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800
Thank you for your cooperation and considerations If you have any questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763 ext 246 In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
Y? RESTORATION 515N Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
REC?.'G
?`Q
11
l ? Y
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office 0
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Number " CD? Due Date ? m oil / orr
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office

t

11
t

r?

'i

U
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
? Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts On-sitejnspection Post-application technical conference usual (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters
? NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters facility-granted after NPDES Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is later
? Water Use Permit Preappiication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well (15 days)
? Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner 55 days
On-site Inspection Preapplication conference usual Filling may require Easement
(? days)
- to Fill from N C Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(20 0100,20 0300,2H 0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D 1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 60 days
15 A NCAC 2D 1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A (90 days)
and removal prior to demolition Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820
? Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D 0800
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion & sedimentation 20 days
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 (30 days)
days before beginning activity A fee of S50 for the first acre or any part of an acre
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance 30 days
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOTs approved program Particular attention should be
given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets
? Mining Permit On-site inspection usual Surety bond filed with DENR Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N C Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
i:
- 1 day
< '(N/A)
1 <
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N C Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five
d 1 day
(N/A)
in coastal N C with organic soils acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be requeste
at least ten days before actual burn is planned'
? Oil Refining Facilities N/A
120 2 days
90 -(N/A)

The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8700 if you have questions or need further information
Sincereiy

Misty Franldin, Botanist
NC Natural Heritage Program
cc Melba McGee

i
i

11

t
1
One
NorthCarohna
Age a 46
NCDENR?
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resourc q?<OPMEw aaa?
8P
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross J ., Y I
September 12, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO Gregory J Thorpe, DOT Project Development add Environmental Analysis
FROM Harry LeGrand!Na ural Heritage Program
SUBJECT Improvements to NC 210, from NC 2497-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake to the
Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop, Cumberland County
I REFERENCE TIP Project U-4444
The Natural Heritage Program has records of several clusters of the Federal and State Endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) from just east of the project area, mainly on lands in Fort
Bragg (see enclosed map) Also, there is a recent (1999) record of the State Endangered and Federal
Species of Concern Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickermgu var pickermga) from both north and
south of Honeycutt Road just east of NC 24-87-210 (see enclosed map and material)
Because of the presence of the woodpecker, and also the presence of a Federal Species of Concern, NC
1 DOT will need to have a formal Section 7 consultation with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service about
potential take of some habitat for these species As there is a railroad track and another road immediately
along the southwestern side of the existing NC 24-87-210, it appears certain that the only area to provide
additional lanes to this highway is to the northeast, where the habitat for these rare species is present It
is hoped that construction for the project minimizes the loss of longleaf pine trees and other habitat
essential for maintaining the populations of the woodpecker and the dawnflower
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www ncnhp org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad
1 map Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further
information
Enclosures
cc John Hammond, U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office

1601 Mail Semce Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 .0 e'
Phone [phone] - FAX [phone] - Internet www enr state nc us oLCarolina
V
A .. C. .1 F...-& A, - A iG.... #h.., Al "... e.....1.. RA 06. ROMFAPd - 10 % PR9} rAMI1- Derma.

11
Michael F Easley, Governor
William G Ross Jr , Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W Klimek, P E Director
Division of Water Quality
September 26, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To Melba McGee, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, NC DENR
From Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
Through John Hennessy, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unite
Subject Scopmg comments on proposed improvements to NC 210 in Cumberland County,
Federal Aid Project No STP-210(11), State Project No 36492, TIP No U-4444,
1 DENR Clearinghouse No 07-0086
Reference your correspondence dated September 11, 2006 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area More specifically, impacts to

11

1
1
1
Stream Name River Basin and
Subbasin Stream
Classifications Stream Index
Number
Cross Creek, Texas
Pond, Smith Lake, CPF 15 WS-IV 18-27-(1)
& UTs
Little Cross Creek, WS-IV
Bonnie Doone Lake, CPF 15 *303(d) Listed 18-27-4-(1)
& UTs
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project
Project Specific Comment:
1 Little Cross Creek and Bonnie Doone Lake are class WS-IV, 303(d) waters of the State DWQ
is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project DWQ
recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce
the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment
of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version
of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices
N r hCarolm
Transportation Permitting Unit Naturally
1650 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet http //h2o enr state nc us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

General Project Comments:
1 The environmental documents and permit applications should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping If
mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H 0506(h), it is preferable to present a
conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation Appropriate
mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
acts to
m
th
t
d
t
th
d
p
uce
e i
a
re
esign cri
eria
2 Environmental assessment alternatives should consider
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc
3 Prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded
that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and
streams) to the maximum extent practical In accordance with the Environmental Management
f
'
1 greater
s Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts o
Commission
than 1 acre to wetlands In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be
designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values The NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation
4 In accordance with the Environmental Management Comnussion's Rules (15A NCAC
2H 0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream In the event that mitigation is required, the nutigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation
5 DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts
6 If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ
believes the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required Please contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers to determine the required permit(s)
7 If an old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification
8 Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible
9 Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters

10 Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream Stormwater should be directed
f
d
orme
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-
scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc ) before entering the stream Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices
11 If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills
12 If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance
13 Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required
14 If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
ll
h
d/
' ere
or si
s w
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation an
appropriate Widening the stream channel should be avoided Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage
15 If foundation test borings are necessary, it should be noted in the document Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No 6 for Survey
Activities
16 Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250
17 All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water

18 Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams
19 Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation
20 While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
1 inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval
21 Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials
22 In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain Approach fills should be removed
and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted
with native tree species Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas
23 Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed
Thank you for requesting our input at this time The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at [phone]
cc Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Dr Gregory Thorpe, NCDOT PDEA
James Rerko, Division 6 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office copy
File Copy
I

1
- --0 - Forth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0 --
MEMORANDUIM Richaid B Ilanulmn, Exec.utrvc Dtrcctar
TO. Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM- Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
BATE. October 3, 2006
SUBJECT. Response to the start of study notification from the N C Depwtrnent of
Transportation. (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the
proposed unprovements to NC 210 from NC 24-87-210 in Spring Lake to
the proposed. Fayetteville Outer Loop, Ciunberland County, North
Carolina. TIP No U-4444, SCH Project No 07-0086.
This memorandum responds to a requou from Gregory J Thorpe of the NCDOT
for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements Our conunents are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U S C
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U S C. 661-667d).
Our records indicate the 1~edezally Endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker
(Pacoides borealis) occurs within the project study area NCDOT should conduct
surveys to determine the presence of cavity trees and foraging habitat within the study
area. Any unavoidable impacts to Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat should be
minimized To help further facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below-
1 Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories A lis.rng of designated
plant species can be, developed through consultation with
The Natural Heritage Program
N C Division of Parks axnd Recreaton
1615 Mail Service Center
ca gnHa 6E868ZSST6 LE TL 908E/E0/PT
Memo 2 October 3, 2006
Raleigh, NT C. 27699-1615
[phone]
WWW nu3parks nethlhn
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Progi am
P Q. Box 27647
Raleigh, N C. 27611
[phone]
r 2 Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may
undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
b
e
filling for project construction Wetland identification may
accomplished through coordination with the U S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) If the COE is not consulted, the person delineating
wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4 Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project Potential borrow sites should be included
r
o
or
l
t
d
d
l
ll
i
n,
oss,
eg
t in
a
a
resu
5. The extent to which the project wi
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands)
6 Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation
8 A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved ioad access
9. If construction of this facility is to be cooidinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified
f
or
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].

Cc. Gary Jordan, USFWS
E
Ricbard Spencer, USAC
Polly Lespinasse, DWQ
t

GFRSR7CATh LE-TT 9992/E9/9T

1
1

1
1
1
1
C.

1

11
1
1
1
Tbe 'Town of
$OA$D OP AIMHUM
JAMES P O'BARRA, MAYOR PRO TEM
RICHARD P. HIGGINS. ALDERMAN
NAPOLEON HOHANS, ALDERMAN
FREDRICKA SUTHERLAND, ALDERWIOMAN
JACK YANNOY, ALDERMAN
March 5, 2008
Secretary Lyndo Tippett
N C Department of Transportation
1503 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1503
Dear Secretary Tippett,
CHARTERRDIN 1951
6pring lake
OMCE OF TM MAYOR
ETHEL T. CLARK, MAYOR
ADMIRISMMOR
FWARD L FAISON. TOWN MANAGER
RNONDA D VIEBB TON41 CLERK
On behalf of the Spring Lake Board of Aldermen, I want to enlist your assistance regardmg
NCDOT's proposed Murchison Corridor Improvements. We do not feel the current proposal balances
the perceived requirements for efficient traffic mobility with Commerce, nor considers Spring Lake's
quality of life There are various examples throughout Cumberland County where these interests have
been balanced in a more favorable manner, such as:
Yadkin Road, Raeford Road, Reilly Road, and Ramsey Street in Fayetteville;
The proposal which was presented in Spring Lake at the NCDOT Community Forum on February 4,
2008, included a limited access provision that will substantially impact our business community
located along Murchison Road, Bragg Blvd and Hwy 210. This particular provision along with the
suggested closure of South Main Street will prevent access to numerous businesses (see attachment).
The elunination of vital and beneficial public access will have a detrimental affect on our business
climate, reduce the business opportunity and choke those businesses out of existence. In addition, the
proposed modifications to this corridor do not integrate pedestrian mobility requirements for our
school age children which must cross multiple travel lanes to reach Lillian Black Elementary School
and Spring Lake Middle School; nor do the proposals facilitate pedestrian movement across Bragg
Blvd, or Hwy 210 between our existing residential neighborhoods and this commercial corridor.
Lastly, the emphasis that the proposed plan has for vehicular movement through Spring Lake will
erode our public safety response rates in terms of fire suppression capability and law enforcement
viability. The reduced crossing points for Bragg Blvd and Hwy 210 will be a direct assault on our
ability to deploy those resources.
However, there was a glimmer of hope, which involved a minor alternative cultivated by Rick
Heicksen, Ml'O. This alternative suggests the addition of a Slip Lane between Murchison Road and
Bragg Blvd. The inclusion of this element is beneficial for those businesses accustomed to access
along this corridor.
I earnestly request your assistance to have these provisions modified in a manner that finds a rightful
balance between moving vehicles and Spring Lakes quality of life, public safety response and
?jl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Commerce. We remain hopeful and will be resilient towards their achievement. Thank you for
c.onsidering this request to assist Spring Lake.
Sincerely,
,?ddl &,tk--
Ethel T. Clark, Mayor
CC.
Representative Marvin Lucas
3318 Hedgemoor Circle, Spring Lake, NC 28390
Senator Tony Rand
2014 Litho Place, Fayetteville, NC 28304
Breeden Blackwell, Chairmen
Cumberland County Board of Commissioners
PO Box 1829, Fayetteville, NC 28302
Mr. Jay McInnis, Project Manager
NC DOT, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC X7699
Mr Terry R Cnbson, P.E Division 6 - Engineer
PO Box 1150, Fayetteville, NC 28302
Mr. Jason Salisbury, Resident Engineer
PO Box 1150, Fayetteville, NC 28302
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
Attachment: Spring Lake Businesses - Murchison Corridor Improvements
Arby's Subway McDonalds
Elizabeth's Pizza Tung Sing Taco Bell
Pantry Gas Station Advance Auto parts Country Fish Fry
Ruby Tuesdays Burger King Checkers
Kentucky Fried Chicken Military Barber Shop Eun Sook Min Dry Cleaners
Donut Connection Baldino's Super 8 Hotel
Gateway Inn Biscuit Kitchen BB&T Bank
Bragg Auto Sales Old Sarge's Surplus Wendy's
El Tucon Peters Jewelry Hardee's
3

f
Appendix B - NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Reports

1

LJ
1

1
1
1
75

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
®EIS.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT 36492.1.2 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
T LP No. U-44448
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 87 Murchison Rd. & NC 24-87 Bragg Blvd From Ft. Bragg Boundary to
NC 24-87/NC 210 Inte rsection in Spring Lake
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees
Owners
Tenants Total
Minonbes
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0
Businesses 3 0 3 0 VALUE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0.150 0 0-201111 25 $ 0-150 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 120 150-250 15
Yes No
X Explain all "YES" answers.
1 Will special relocation services be necessary? 40-70M
70-100M 0 250-100 2
0 400-600 0 40-70m
70-100M 425 260-400
415 400-600 35
175
X 2 Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 600 UP 0 100 uP 1,400 600 up 475
displacement? TOTAL 0 ;w = 2 = u r• 2,385 700
X 3 Will business services still be available REMARKS (Resp ond b N umber
_ after project?
X 4 Will any business be displaced? If so, 4 1 Medium Size Italian Restaurant "Elizabeth Italian Restaurant"
u indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc (12 Employees - 7 Minorities)
X 5 Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 1 Medium Size Military Surplus Store "Old Sarge's"
6 Source for available housing (list) (4 Employees - 2 Minorities)
X 7 Will additional housing programs be
needed')
X 8 Should Last Resort Housing be
considered? 1 Medium Size Convenient Store "Kangaroo"
(4 Employees - 3 Minorities)
X 9 Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc
families? 6 & 14 MLS, Local Realtors, Newspapers, etc
X 10 Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11 Is public housing available? 8 As mandated bylaw
x 12 Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation penod7 11 Cumberland Co & Harnett Co
X 13 Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14 Are suitable business sites available (list
source)
15 Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18-24

° - 6-24-08 `r
x, r

`30 - 02r
R M Abbott, JR Date
Right of Way Agent
1
Relocation Coordinator Date

1
1

1
1

FRM15-E

EIS RELOCATION REPORTJ
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
' ®E I S ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN

WBS ELEMENT 1 36492.12 coUNTY Cumberland Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
T I P No.. U-4444A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. NC 87 Murchison Rd , From The Fayetteville Outer Loop (X-0002B) To The
Ft. Bragg Reservation Boundary.

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees
Owners
Tenants Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE 00 DWELLING OSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0450 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20.40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers 40-70M 0 250.400 0 40-70m 0 250-400 0
1 Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
2 WIII schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 600 UP 0 100 up 0 600 up 0
displacement? TOTAL
r= x`? .
0
0 r
71
0
0
3 Will business services still be available REMARK S (Respond b N umber
after project?
4 Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc
5 Will relocation cause a housing shortage? NEGATIVE REPORT
6 Source for available housing (list)
7 Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8 Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9 Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc
familiesl
10 Will public housing be needed for project?
11 Is public housing available?
12 Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13 Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14 Are suitable business sites available (list
source)
15 Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

6-24-08
130 -0?-
R M Abbott, JR Date

Right of Way Agent
rrw>,t;
'`_ _ Relocabon Coordl ator Date
FRM15-E

' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation
'
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
' • Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
' Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify
' The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
' (GS-133-5 through 133-18) The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose
'
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
' advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities Rent
and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property
' All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible) The relocation officer will also supply
1

' information concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to rmnm ize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location
'
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
' expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision
' A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling The down payment is based upon what the
' state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state of
' federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
' purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law
h
ousing is
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area

1
1

1