20090372 Ver 1_Reports_20090109

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
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U S Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N C Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U S C 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED
bM
Date +L-Division John F Sullivan III, P E
Administrator, FHWA
4 4 Spy
D e / Gregory J Thorpe, PhD
w Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT

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
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
' Documentation Prepared By H W Lochner, Inc
L?10?
Brian Eason, P E

1

For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
?? "I"
4 es A McInnis Jr, E
Project Engineer
SEAL
25523
? a
°°°'° V K e o 6 s C, o

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
I TYPE OF ACTION
II DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
III RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
IV SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
V COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
B COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
C PUBLIC HEARING
D NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS
VI REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION AND ALIGNMENT
B IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS
C AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION & MITIGATION
D FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
E ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
F UTILITIES
G CORRECTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
VII BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Alternative 2 Diagram
Figure 3 -Typical Sections
TABLES
Table 1- Alternatives Impact Summary
Table 2 -Jurisdictional Wetlands
Table 3 -Jurisdictional Streams
Table 4 - Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County
Table 5 - Summary of Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Foraging Habitat Analysis
Table 6 - Power Line Option Comparisons
Table 7 - Correction to Table 2 of EA - Cost Estimates
I
1
4
6
8
8
8
13
14
16
16
16
18
20
22
22
23
25
APPENDIX A - Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment

C

7
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 Element 36492 12
TIP Project U-4444
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
' Hydraulics Unit
Drainage for the southbound lanes of Murchison Road between the railroad grade
' separation and Gruber Road will be discharged into a grassed ditch or natural swales on
the west side of Murchsion Road The ditch or swale will provide treatment for
' stormwater before it flows into Little Cross Creek
In the vicinity of RCW Cavity Tree 06542 (located approximately 1,950 feet east of
' Murchison Road), the proposed ditch along the north side of Honeycutt Road will be
reduced to 8 feet
' In the vicinity of RCW Cavity Tree 0777E (located approximately 3,500 feet north of
Honeycutt Road), the proposed ditch along the east side of Murchison Road will be
' reduced to 12 feet
n

' Finding of No Significant Impact-U-4444
December 2008
' 1
Page 1 of 2

Roadway Design Unit
The steepest practicable slopes (3 1 with guardrails) will be used in wetland areas
Between Gruber Road and the railroad grade separation south of Honeycutt Road, the
shoulder width will be reduced to six feet (four feet paved), in order to minimize
impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat, wetlands and streams
Utilities Unit
Additional minimization measures will be examined for the relocation of the power
transmission line which crosses Murchison Road at Honeycutt Road in order to minimize
impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
Finding of No Significant Impact-U-4444
December 2008
Page 2 of 2
11

n

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY THE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI)
The FHWA has determined that this project will have no significant impact on the
human environment This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the August 4,
2008 Environmental Assessment (EA) for TIP Project U-4444, which has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the need, environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project and
appropriate mitigation measures It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required The FHWA
takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental
Assessment
II DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
I

J

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 shows the
project's location
The project is identified in the NCDOT's approved 2009 to 2015 Transportation
' Improvement Program (TIP) as Project U-4444 Project U-4444 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-4444B extends from the Fort Bragg boundary to the intersection of Bragg

1

Boulevard with NC 210 (Lillington Highway) Right of way acquisition for Project
U-4444A and construction for Project U-4444AA (proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to
north of Honeycutt Road) are scheduled for federal fiscal year 2009 Construction for
Project U-4444AB (north of Honeycutt Road to the Fort Bragg boundary) and Right of
way acquisition and construction for Project U-4444B are currently unfunded in the TIP
2

Fo Bragg ?
?_ z1o
?
?
?
l
- ° tie cu --
Y WRd
O
24
I
- -
210

1 -
401,
r
N _
W E -7r S
Miles
0 05 1 -
1*4
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

III. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Two alternatives were studied in detail for the project (see Section 3 3 of the
Environmental Assessment) Both alternatives involve widening existing NC 210
(Murchison Road) to six lanes and upgrading the roadway to a freeway Alternative 1
would provide interchanges at Honeycutt Road, Randolph Street and Butner Road
Alternative 2 would only provide interchanges at Honeycutt Road and Randolph Street
Alternative 2 is the recommended Alternative Alternative 2 was selected because it will
affect fewer homes, fewer businesses, less red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
and will cost substantially less than Alternative 1
As shown in Figure 2, Alternative 2 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 ---------
Figure 2
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 of the interchange while traffic - is
maintained on existing location 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
4

f

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 access control point (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

' 5

IV SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following table summarizes the impacts of the alternatives studied in detail
TABLE IMPACTS SU MMARY
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Recommended)
Wetlands 6 83 acres 7.81 acres
Streams 1,060 feet 1,212 feet
Homes Relocated 9 4
Businesses Relocated 26 3
Receptors Impacted by 17 homes
Recreational Trail 1 motel
Traffic Noise
Recreational Trail
Forested Areas 94 acres 80 acres
RCW Habitat Removals* 21 18 acres 17.5 acres
1,411.34 sq ft pine BA 1,176.26 sq ft pine BA
Right of Way/Utilities
$35,600,000
$19,675,000
Cost
Construction Cost $83,800,000 $62,900,000
Wetland/Stream
$973,000 $1,188,000
Mitigation Cost
Total Cost $120,373,000 $83,763,000
* Suitable and potentially suitable foraging habitat Includes habitat made non-contiguous by project
construction Foraging habitat impacts include roadway construction and utility relocation
6

' 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 Mayor Water Quality Certification will be required
prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit
' The proposed project will require the cutting of trees within foraging habitat for the
federally-protected red-cockaded woodpecker In a letter dated January 5, 2009, the US
' Fish and Wildlife Service concurred on a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely
to Adversely Affect" for the red-cockaded woodpecker (see Section VI-D)

I

1
1
7

V COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following federal, state
and local agencies for review and comments Copies of the comments received are
included in the Appendix of this document (note An asterisk indicates those agencies
that provided comments on the approved EA)
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
US Department of the Army - Fort Bragg Directorate of Public Works
*US Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Environmental Protection Agency
*NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Administration - Division of Veterans Affairs
*NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
*NC Wildlife Resources Commission
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Cumberland County
Town of Spring Lake
B Comments on the Environmental Assessment
US Department of the Interior - Fish & Wildlife Service
COMMENT- "There are six federally endangered species listed for Cumberland County
which require consideration under section 7 of the ESA NCDOT has determined
that the proposed project will have no effect on all species except the RCW
While Table 12 on Page 55 states that the biological conclusion for the RCW is
"unresolved" The Service is concerned that this project may have potentially
serious adverse effects on the RCW "
NCDOT RESPONSE Since completion of the Environmental Assessment, a foraging
habitat analysis was prepared for the two detailed study alternatives and a
biological assessment was prepared for the selected alternative, Alternative 2
In a letter dated January 5, 2009, the US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred on a
8

' biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the
federally-protected red-cockaded woodpecker (see Section VI-D)
COMMENT "Page 56 of the FEA states that a foraging analysis was conducted in early
2008 The Service has yet to see this analysis, and we question why this
important information was not presented in the FEA Page 56 also states that a
biological assessment is being prepared for the RCW At this time, an
' alternatives analysis (i a foraging habitat analysis for both alternatives) is
needed so as to compare the two alternatives being studied in detail "
NCDOT RESPONSE A copy of the alternative analysis has been provided to the Fish and
Wildlife Service since completion of the Environmental Assessment Section VI-D
of this document presents the results of the foraging habitat analysis conducted
for the two alternatives being studied in detail
COMMENT "With regard to cumulative effects (as defined by NEPA) and considering
TIP projects X-2 and U-2519, page 66 of the FEA states "it is not expected the
three projects will have a synergistic effect which would increase the overall
cumulative effect beyond each project's direct effects " With regard to the RCW,
the Service does not believe that the FEA presents enough information to
support that statement "
' NCDOT RESPONSE The alternative analysis conducted for this project took into account
foraging habitat which would be affected by Projects X-2 and U-2519 The
analysis showed that sufficient foraging habitat would be available for RCW
following construction of the proposed project and these two adjacent projects
(see Section VI-D)
COMMENT. "The U-4444 project, combined with U-2519, could potentially lower the
' effectiveness of the Greenbelt HMU/Northeast Area HMU connection and its
ability to maintain genetic exchange between the two HMUs The FEA fails to
analyze this "
1
NCDOT RESPONSE Since sufficient foraging habitat will remain within all of the RCW
' clusters the project affects, it can be concluded the project will not diminish the
effectiveness of the Greenbelt HMU and Northeast Area HMU connection In
order to minimize impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat and
' dispersal corridors, project construction limits have been limited to less than 200
1 9

feet wide within the 0 5 mile radius cluster partition for RCW Cluster FB 207 and
within 200-250 feet within partitions FB 165, 264 and 375, with the exception of
the Honeycutt Road interchange The project is not likely to impact juvenile
female dispersal
COMMENT- "The FEA does not adequately address the effects to the RCW Since the
RCWs in this area are of heightened significance due to their being designated as
part of a Primary Core Population within the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan, the FEA
should have provided more information and included some of the data from the
aforementioned foraging analysis While the Service does not believe that
Section 7 of the ESA needed to be completed prior to release of the FEA, more
information is needed before the Service can take an informed position on the
project "
NCDOT RESPONSE- Section VI-D of this document provides additional information and
analysis regarding project impacts on red-cockaded woodpecker
US Environmental Protection Agency
COMMENT. "EPA notes that the Environmental Assessment (EA) was not co-signed by
the DOD Fort Bragg representative Furthermore, EPA and other Merger team
agencies understood from the CP 1 Merger meeting that DOD was also providing
funding for this roadway project DOD is not indicated as a Cooperating Agency
in the EA "
NCDOT RESPONSE- The Department of Defense funding for the project is being
provided through the Defense Access Roads (DAR) Program FHWA is
responsible for project development, including NEPA documentation The
Department of Defense will prepare its own environmental documentation
regarding the transfer of land to NCDOT for the project The Environmental
Assessment lists the US Army Military Surface Deployment and Distribution
Command among the agencies coordinated with during the project study The
Defense Access Roads program is a part of this Command
COMMENT. "The primary 'need' for this proposed project was concurred upon by
Merger team agencies based upon DOD security issues at Fort Bragg and the
closure of through traffic on Bragg Boulevard The EA did not fully address the
security issues associated with the closure of Bragg Boulevard The traffic
10

1

17

1

carrying capacity issue along NC 210 (Murchison Road) was predicated on the
DOD's road closure decision "
NCDOT RESPONSE As explained in Section 12 of the Environmental Assessment,
' although Murchison Road also crosses Fort Bragg, civilian traffic represents less
of a security risk on that facility because Murchison Road crosses the base in a

t
J
t

17

less sensitive area Very few military facilities are visible from Murchison Road
and there is sufficient distance between the road and the facilities for security
In contrast, Bragg Boulevard does present a security risk because base housing
and other military facilities are close to and visible from the road Fort Bragg's
security issues are beyond the scope of this project The need this project is
intended to address is capacity issues on Murchison Road, not the security issues
on Fort Bragg It is possible Bragg Boulevard will be closed regardless of whether
or not Murchison Road is improved
COMMENT "EPA notes that the summary table of impacts on Page 9, Table 1, only
includes wetland, stream, and relocation impacts and costs for Alternatives 1
and 2 From Chapter 5 of the EA, there are also potential impacts to noise
receptors, terrestrial forests and endangered species EPA recommends that all
environmental impacts from the proposed project be included in a summary
table for the future CP 3 meeting and in the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) document "
NCDOT RESPONSE Table 1 of this document presents a summary of environmental
impacts of the two alternatives studied in detail, including impacts to forested
areas, noise receptors and the total amount of RCW foraging habitat affected
COMMENT: "EPA acknowledges that there are potentially 277 8 acres of terrestrial
forests in the project study area However, this estimated impact is not specific
to either Alternatives 1 or 2 and should be detailed in future documents "
NCDOT RESPONSE- Table 1 of this document compares the impacts of the two detailed
study alternatives, including impacts to terrestrial forests
11

NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
COMMENT "Cross Creek, Little Cross Creek and their tributaries 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 "
NCDOT RESPONSE NCDOT will implement appropriate sedimentation and erosion
control best management practices during project design and construction
COMMENT "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 the NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices "
NCDOT RESPONSE Appropriate stormwater treatment methods have been examined
and will continue to be examined as project design progresses A proposed
treatment method at Little Cross Creek is that drainage for the southbound lanes
of Murchison Road in the vicinity of Little Cross Creek will be discharged into a
grassed ditch or natural swales on the west side of Murchison Road instead of
into a pipe system These ditches and swales will provide some treatment of
stormwater before it reaches the creek In addition, existing concrete ditches
along the entire project will be replaced with grassed ditches
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
COMMENT "Potential Impacts to the federally Endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) have not been assessed, therefore NCWRC has not selected a
preferred alternative at this time We will continue to assess the impacts
associated with the remaining alternatives in preparation for the selection of the
LEDPA and further avoidance and minimization measures "
NCDOT RESPONSE: Potential project impacts on the federally protected red-cockaded
woodpecker are discussed in Section VI-D of this document
12

f

L
t

C Public Hearing
In accordance with 23 U S C 128, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
certifies that a public hearing for the subject project has been held and the social,
economic, and environmental impacts, consistency with local community planning goals
and objectives, and comments from individuals have been considered in the selection of
the recommended alternative for the project
A public hearing was held for the project on October 21, 2008 at Spring Lake Town Hall
Approximately 106 persons attended the hearing The hearing was conducted as an
open house workshop followed by a formal hearing A transcript was prepared of the
formal hearing Alternatives 1 and 2 were both presented at the hearing
Public Comments
A number of verbal comments were received at the hearing Those stating a preference
preferred Alternative 2 over Alternative 1 The majority of those commenting verbally
expressed concerns regarding the effect the proposed control of access with
Alternative 2 will have on businesses along Bragg Boulevard in Spring Lake Several
expressed concern the proposed project will split Spring Lake, separating properties east
of Bragg Boulevard from downtown Spring Lake Some commenting at the hearing
asked that NCDOT consider a Spring Lake Bypass Sixteen speakers made verbal
comments during the formal part of the hearing
Seven citizens submitted written comments following the hearing These comments
echoed the verbal comments All of those providing written comments asked that
NCDOT consider a Spring Lake bypass Several of the written comments expressed
concerns regarding the effect the proposed control of access and the elimination of
driveways will have on businesses in Spring Lake
NCDOT Response
A Spring Lake bypass is beyond the scope of the subject project A previous TIP project,
R-2629, studied multiple new location alternatives for a Spring Lake Bypass Shallow
bypasses using Town streets and one-way pairs using Main Street were also considered
A draft environmental assessment was prepared for Project R-2629, but the project lost
funding because of local opposition, potential environmental impacts and potential
13

impacts to Fort Bragg training areas In addition, the bypass, as proposed at that time,
did not reduce traffic in Spring Lake
The purpose of this project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity of NC 210
(Murchison Road) so that it can accommodate traffic now using Bragg Boulevard on Fort
Bragg The project is not intended to address traffic problems within Spring Lake,
although improvements proposed in Spring Lake will improve traffic flow Section 3 12
of the Environmental Assessment explains that a new location alternative was not '
considered due to cost and environmental considerations
A
d
d
S
f
h
E
l A
dd
l
s
iscusse
in
ection 6 1 o
nvironmenta
ssessment, a
itiona
access points
t
e
were provided on Bragg Boulevard in response to comments made at the February 2008
citizens informational workshop This revised design was presented at the October 2008
public hearing Driveways onto Bragg Boulevard will be eliminated for all of the
properties with other access between Murchison Road and Lillington Highway in Spring
Lake Driveways onto Bragg Boulevard will remain for properties with no other access
Alternative access will be provided to all of the businesses within the project limits The
majority of the proposed project will be constructed on existing NC 210 on Fort Bragg
The proposed work in Spring Lake along existing Bragg Boulevard is required to tie the
proposed freeway into existing Bragg Boulevard The proposed control of access along
Bragg Boulevard will eliminate most driveways between Murchison Road and Lillington
Highway This is necessary to insure the proposed Randolph Street interchange will
operate safely In addition, the extremely high traffic volumes expected in the year
2030 on Bragg Boulevard would make it extremely difficult to enter Bragg Boulevard
from driveways
D. 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, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation 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
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
14

s
0
1
1
1
1
The NEPA/404 merger team concurred with the selection of Alternative 2 as the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (Concurrence Point 3) at a meeting
held on December 16, 2008 The merger team also agreed on avoidance and
minimization measures for the project (Concurrence Point 4A) at the same meeting

15
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A Roadway Cross-section and Alignment
The typical cross-section for the project is a six-lane roadway with 12-foot lanes, a 22-
foot median and 12-foot grassed shoulders (10-foot paved) Between Gruber Road and
the railroad grade separation south of Honeycutt Road, the shoulder width will be
reduced to six feet (four feet paved), in order to minimize impacts to red-cockaded
woodpecker foraging habitat, wetlands and streams Proposed typical sections for the
project are shown on Figure 3
B. _Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
The design of Alternative 2 has been modified in order to reduce wetland and stream
impacts Tables 2 and 3 below present current anticipated impacts to wetlands and
streams, respectively

Wetland ID TABLE 2: J
Cowardin
*
Classification URISDICTIONAL
NCDWQ
Wetland Rating
Score WETLANDS
Riverine or Non-

Riverine

Impacts
AER PF01C 29 Non-Riverine 0 06
BER PF01B/C 44 Riverine 0 45
CER PF01B/C 48 Riverine 0 88
EER PF01B/C 82 Riverine 6 07
FTB PEM1H/PF01H 28 Non-Riverine 0 27
GTB PEM1H/PF01H 45 Non-Riverine 0 03
HER PEM1G 24 Non-Riverine 0 05
TOTAL 781
- uowarain et ai 19/9
PFO (Palustnne forested) - forested wetlands
PSS (Palustnne scrub-shrub) - dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall
PEM (Palustnne emergent) - dominated by herbaceous and hydrophytic plants
16

0 6 TIP PROJECT U-4444
4 -L-
EXISTING 22 EXISTING
15 12 24 12 it 11 12 24 12 15 6 10
15 W/GR 1
10
l
J J 15 W/GR
10
:
VC FDPS
T FDPS
U RIGINAL

3 004 0 2 002 004 004 002 002
0
02 004 O ROUND

?
d
61 - - - - - - - - - -
-
- - 1
ORIGINAL

' ._?_GROUND
VIABLE
VARIABLE
SLOPE 15 SLOPE
ORIGINAL GRADE TO THIS INE
GROUND
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
(USED FOR MAJORITY OF PROJECT)
Ct -L-
EXISTING 22 EXISTING
VARIES 2 VAR 18 TO 21 6 24 12 11 11 12 24 6 VAR 18 TO 22 92 2 VARIES
GR
I I I I I W/G
ORIGINAL
GROUND FOPS
DPS
q p p2
0 0 002
4\ - - - - - - - - - - - - ORIGINAL
0 4 GROUND
41 •?\
15 I 15
GRADE TO THIS LINE
MINIMIZED CROSS-SECTION
(USED GRUBER ROAD TO RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION)
i
FIGURE 3

Stream
ID TABL

NCDWQ Stream
Identification E 3: JURISDICT
NCDWQ
Stream
Classification
Score IONAL STREAMS
USACE Stream
Quality
Assessment
Score

Stream
Determination

Impact
(If)
1ER Little Cross Creek ** 51 Perennial 0
2ER UT Little Cross Creek ** 58 Perennial 63
3ER UT Cross Creek ** 60 Perennial 222
4ER UT Cross Creek 265 57 Perennial 0
6TB Cross Creek 225 42 Intermittent 40
6ER Cross Creek ** 70 Perennial 466
7T6 UT Cross Creek 19 28 Intermittent 71
8ER UT Cross Creek 25 75 53 Intermittent 22
9ER UT Cross Creek 29 75 65 Perennial 193
10ER UT Cross Creek 255 49 Intermittent 9
11ER UT Cross Creek 22 25 53 Intermittent 126
TOTAL 1,212
UT = Unnamed tributary
" NCDWQ Stream Classification Form was not completed due to strong evidence indicating that these streams are
perennial
C Avoidance, Minimization & Mitigation
Avoidance

t

t

1

Efforts have been made to avoid impacts to wetlands and streams as much as possible ,
However, in some areas along the project, impacts to wetlands and streams have been
unavoidable due to other constraints, such as the railroad adjacent to Murchison Road,
two cemeteries and foraging habitat for the federally-protected red-cockaded
woodpecker

18 1

Minimization
The following minimization efforts are proposed for this project
' • Widening into the median and providing only a 22-foot median is proposed in
order to minimize impacts to wetlands, streams and foraging habitat for the
I federally-protected red-cockaded woodpecker
• A loop is proposed in the southeast quadrant of the Honeycutt Road interchange
in order to avoid wetlands and red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
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
• The radius of the ramp in the northeast quadrant of the proposed Randolph
Street interchange has been reduced in order to reduce wetland and stream
impacts
• Between Gruber Road and the railroad grade separation south of Honeycutt
Road, the shoulder width will be reduced to six feet (four feet paved), in order to
minimize impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat, wetlands and
streams (see Figure 3)
t

• Additional minimization measures will be examined for the relocation of the
power transmission line which crosses Murchison Road at Honeycutt Road in
order to minimize impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
• Drainage for the southbound lanes of Murchison Road between the railroad
grade separation and Gruber Road will be discharged into a grassed ditch or
natural swales on the west side of Murchsion Road The ditch or swale will
provide treatment for stormwater before it flows into Little Cross Creek, which is
included on the 303(d) list of impaired streams
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation will likely be required for project impacts to wetlands and
streams Many of the sites identified during environmental surveys and listed in the
Natural Resources Technical Report as potential areas for on-site wetland and stream
19

mitigation will either be affected by project construction or are located within
endangered species habitat Additional efforts will be made to locate other on-site
mitigation opportunities Any mitigation requirements beyond what can be provided
on-site will be met utilizing the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
D. Federally Protected Species
As of November 18, 2008, seven federally-protected species are listed for Cumberland
County
TABLE 4: FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Biological Conclusion
Status
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A) Not Applicable
Red-cockaded May Affect, Not Likely to
woodpecker Picoides borealis E Adversely Affect
Invertebrates
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchelh E No Effect
francisci
Vascular Plants
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E No Effect
Rough-leaved
loosestnfe Lysimachia asperu/aefolia E No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxn E No Effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E No Effect
E - Endangered, T - Threatened, T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
No biological conclusion was presented in the Environmental Assessment for the
project's effects on the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) Since completion of the
Environmental Assessment, additional foraging habitat analyses have been conducted
for both detailed study alternatives and a biological assessment has been prepared for
the selected alternative (Alternative 2)
20

Murchison Road crosses foraging habitat of four RCW clusters The standard for
managed stability outlined in the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Plan for
1 red-cockaded woodpecker requires each cluster have available 75 acres of suitable or
potentially suitable foraging habit and 3,000 square feet basal area of pine trees greater
' than 10 inches in diameter All of the clusters in the project area will have sufficient
foraging habitat following construction of either of the detailed study alternatives It is
anticipated the recommended alternative, Alternative 2, will affect less RCW foraging
habitat than Alternative 1 The results of these analyses are shown in Table 5 below

I

TABL E 5: SUMMARY OF RED-COCKADED WOODPECKE R FORAGING HABI TAT ANALYSIS
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2
Pre-Project
Habitat Habitat Post-Project Post-Project
l Foraging Habitat* Removals* Removals* Foraging Habitat* Foraging Habitat
uster
C
Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
1569 12,2967 152 1,0895 129 9236 1416 11,207 1 1440 11,3730
165
8 1 9 9 2 9 9 2 6 2
1055 105 3 105 3
207 6,48131 0 23 21 52 0 23 21 52 6,45979 6,45979
4 1 1
- 10
7
264 81 58 4,46819 2 11 105 35 2 19 2 79 47 4,36284 79 39 4,36545

1498 1283 1462 1476
375 6,64336 3 55 194 88 2 16 6,44848 6,51505
1 1 6 5
*Suitable and Potentially Suitable Habitat Removals include habitat made non-contiguous by project construction
Impacts include roadway construction and utility relocations
Active cavity tree number 06542 and possibly active cavity tree number 0777E are
within 200 feet of proposed construction In the vicinity of these cavity trees, the
project design has been changed In the vicinity of Cavity Tree 06542 (located
approximately 1,950 feet east of Murchison Road), the proposed ditch along the north
side of Honeycutt Road will be reduced to 8 feet In the vicinity of Cavity Tree 0777E
(located approximately 3,500 feet north of Honeycutt Road), the proposed ditch along
the east side of Murchison Road will be reduced to 12 feet
Because the proposed project will not reduce available foraging habitat below the
standard for managed stability, a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" is appropriate for the red-cockaded woodpecker The US Fish and

21

Wildlife Service concurred with this biological conclusion in a letter dated January 5, 1
2009 (see Appendix A)
E Archaeological Resources
In a letter dated October 17, 2006 (see Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment), i
the State Historic Preservation Office stated previously recorded archaeological sites
exist in the project area The Environmental Assessment included a commitment that a
comprehensive archaeological survey would be conducted prior to completion of the
final environmental document
Extensive archaeological surveys have been conducted in the project area on Fort Bragg
by or on behalf of the Fort Bragg Cultural Resource Program (FBCRP) In addition, the
Spring Lake portion of the proposed project is completely urbanized
The FBCRP surveys identified three archaeological sites and one isolated find (Sites '
31CD957, 31CD960, 31CD1401 and 31CD1491), none of which were recommended as
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places As a result of consultation with the
Office of State Archaeology, it was determined no further archaeological surveys will be
necessary for the proposed project unless design plans changed prior to construction
The State Historic Preservation Office confirmed this finding in a letter dated August 28, I
2008 (see Appendix A of this document)
F Utilities ,
As discussed in Section 4 10 of the environmental assessment, power lines owned by ,
Progress Energy will be relocated by the proposed project These power lines are large
transmission lines located near Honeycutt Road The existing lines cross Murchison
Road just north of Honeycutt Road Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat exists
in this area
Two alternatives for relocating the power lines were investigated Option A would '
involve relocating the transmission line to cross Murchison Road approximately 350 feet
north of its current location This alternative would require removing three towers and
placing three new transmission towers Option B would relocate the line to cross
Murchison Road south of Honeycutt Road Option B would require removing three
transmission towers and placing six new towers Table 6 below presents a comparison
of the impacts and costs of the two power line options

22 1

TABLE 6 : POWER LINE OPTION COMPA RISONS
Power Line Option A Power Line Option B
RCW Foraging Habitat*

(acres) 15 0 02
RCW Foraging Habitat*

(Square Feet Pine BA) 105 15 140
Clearing in Wetlands 0** 0
Cost $522,000 $2,000,000
* Suitable and potentially suitable foraging habitat
** Small amount of tree trimming will be required in'wetlands (would affect approximately 100 square
foot area of wetlands)
As Table 6 shows, Power Line Option B will have less impact on RCW foraging habitat
than Option A However, Option B costs nearly 15 million dollars more than Option A
Sufficient suitable and potentially suitable foraging habitat would remain with either
power line option Due to the large difference in cost between the two options, Option
A has been selected for the power line relocation However, additional minimization
measures will be examined for Power Line Option A in an effort to reduce impacts to
RCW foraging habitat
G. Corrections to Environmental Assessment
Table 2 of Environmental Assessment
Table 2 on page 13 of the Environmental Assessment presented project cost estimates
The right of way costs presented in that table did not include utility relocation costs
Table 7 below presents the correct project costs
23

TABLE 7: CORRE CTION TO TABLE 2 OF EA - C OST ESTIMATES
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Right of Way/Utilities

Cost
$35,600,000
$19,675,000
Construction Cost $83,800,000 $62,900,000
Wetland/Stream

Mitigation Cost
$973,000
$1,188,000
Total Cost $120,373,000 $83,763,000
24

IJ
t

1
1
1
1
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal, state and
local agencies, it is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no significant
impact upon the quality of the human environment Therefore, an environmental
impact statement will not be required
The following persons may be contacted for additional information regarding 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 , Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N C Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
Telephone [phone]

25

1

APPENDIX
Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment

r?

<M?"'OFrti United States Department of the Interior '
` o I ISII A\D WILDLIFE' }FAViCF
Raleigh Field Office
host Officc Box 33726
9RCH Ralcisuh 1t)rtli Carohna'7636-37'6
January 5, 2009 ,
Gregoi y J Thorpe, Ph D '
"orth Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Di Thorpe
This letter is in response to your lettei of December 31, 2008 and attached Biological
Assessment, which provided the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological
determination of the Nortln Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) that the widening
of NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and NC 24-87
(Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lane to six lanes (Cumberland County, TIP No U-4444) may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker
(Pt(oides boteahs, RCW) These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangeied Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1.531-1543)
According to information piovided the widening of Muichison Road and the associated Progress
Energy powei line relocation will remove foraging habitat associated with four existing RCW
partitions (FB 165, 207, 264 and 375) the road widening vv ill remove a total of 24 18 acres of
foraging habitat, and the povv ei line relocation will remove a total of 0 84 acre of foraging, I ,
habitat Counting suitable and potentially suitable foraging habitat, all four RCW partitions will
still meet the Standard for Managed Stability guidelines post-project, thcrcfoic, no take will
occur No RCW cavity trees will be removed, although the project vv ill occur within 200 feet of
four cavity trees (t active, 1 possibly active, I inactive and 1 relic)
Based on the information provided and other available information the Service concurs with
your deterimation that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
RCW We believe that the tequirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for
this species We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be ieconsidered
it (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this ieview, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this icview, of (3) a new species is
listed of critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action ,

The Service appreciates the opportunity to ievlew this project If you have any duestmons
regarding our response, please contact Mr Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext 32)
' Sincerely
Pete BenJamm
1 Field Supervisor
' cc Richard Spencer, USAGE, Wilmington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Crcedmoor, NC
Chris Mihtscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Tohn Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 4, 2008
Gregory J Thorpe, PhD
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr Thorpe

RECEIVED
,)IVlSIOP of Fllohways
SOH 0 0 7008
PFeG0W1- -i '
Project I)evelopmont and
Ewrogrnenialk lysis Branch ,

This letter is in response to your August 18, 2008 letter which requested comments from the U S
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the
improvements to NC 210 (Murchison Road) from the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC
24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake, Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No U-
4444) These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U S C 4332(2)(c)) and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531-1543)
The Service has been involved in the combined NEPA/Section 404 Merger 01 Process After
concurrence was obtained from Merger Team members at Concurrence Point 2, two alternatives
(Alternatives 1 and 2) were carried forward and have been studied in detail within the FEA
Alternative 2 is the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) preferred
alternative Although Alternative 2 has higher wetland impacts than Alternative 1 (9 17 acres
versus 6 8 acres), Alternative 2 has substantially fewer commercial and residential relocations, as
well as a substantially lower overall cost
There are six federally endangered species listed for Cumberland County which require
consideration under section 7 of the ESA red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Pzcozdes borealis),
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mztchellu franciscz), pondberry (Lzndera melzsszfoha), rough-
leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxu), and
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) NCDOT has determined that the proposed project
will have no effect on all species except the RCW Table 12 on page 55 states that the biological
conclusion for the RCW is "unresolved"
The Service is concerned that this project may have potentially serious adverse effects on the
RCW The foraging partitions (i a half-mile radius from the center of the cluster of cavity trees)
of four RCW clusters overlap with the project (FB 0207, FB 0264, FB 0165, FB 0375)
Currently, all the clusters are active except for FB 0264 These clusters are located on Fort
Bragg property and are being monitored and managed as part of the North Carolina Sandhills

1

1

' East Primary Core Population of the Sandhills Recovery Unit This population is one of only 13
designated Primary Core Populations, thus indicating its importance Fort Bragg manages its
portion of this Primary Core Population within Habitat Management Units (HMU) FB 0207
' falls within the Greenbelt HMU, while FB 0264, FB 0165 and FB 0375 fall within the Northeast
Area HMU The juxtaposition of these clusters is critical to connecting the two HMUs and
maintaining dispersal and immigration between the two HM-Us The loss of this connection
' would seriously hamper RCW management at Fort Bragg The removal of any pine trees greater
than 30 years old could potentially cause an adverse affect to the RCW
If any pine trees greater than 30 years old are removed, a foraging habitat analysis using the
guidelines in the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan - Standard for Managed Stability (USFWS 2003)
will be required in order to fully assess the effects on the RCW The Standard for Managed
Stability requires a minimum of 3,000 square feet of pine basal area in stems > 10 inches dbh
(diameter at breast height) on at least 75 acres of suitable habitat as defined in the 2003 RCW
Recovery Plan for each foraging partition Should habitat removals lower one or more RCW
' foraging partitions below this threshold, the Service will consider this a "take" of the species and
formal section 7 consultation will be required This process requires up to 135 days to complete
once a complete initiation package is received from the Federal Highway Administration It is
' extremely important that this project be designed to remove the least amount of RCW habitat
possible
1

Page 56 of the FEA states that a foraging analysis was conducted in early 2008 The Service has
yet to see this analysis, and we question why this important information was not presented in the
FEA Page 56 also states that a biological assessment is being prepared for the RCW At this
time, an alternatives analysis (i a foraging habitat analysis for both alternatives) is needed so as
to compare the two alternatives being studied in detail From a cursory review of maps with
preliminary plans superimposed on the four RCW partitions, it appears that Alternative 2 may
have less impact on the RCW than Alternative 1, however, until we have the foraging habitat
analysis data we cannot know this definitively
With regard to cumulative effects (as defined by NEPA) and considering TIP protects X-2 and
U-2519, page 66 of the FEA states "It is not expected the three projects will have a synergistic
effect which would increase the overall cumulative effect beyond each project's direct effects "
With regard to the RCW, the Service does not believe that the FEA presents enough information
to support that statement In a previous section 7 consultation, it was demonstrated that the U-
2519 project will have adverse effects to the RCW and the habitat within the Greenbelt HMU
The U-4444 project, combined with U-2519, could potentially lower the effectiveness of the
Greenbelt HMU/Northeast Area HMU connection and its ability to maintain genetic exchange
between the two HMUs The FEA fails to analyze this
The FEA does not adequately address the effects to the RCW Since the RCWs in this area are
of heightened significance due to their being designated as part of a Primary Core Population
within the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan, the FEA should have provided more information and
included some of the data from the aforementioned foraging analysis An agency field day is
being planned for the near future It would have been helpful to have held the field day prior to
the release of this FEA While the Service does not believe that section 7 of the ESA needed to
1
be completed prior to release of the FEA, more information is needed before the Service can take
an informed position on the project
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project If a Finding of No Significant
Impact is developed, we would like to receive a copy If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr Gary Jordan at [phone], ext 32
Sincerely,
bavt ?
qlp- Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Literature cited
U S Fish and Wildlife Service 2003 Recovery Plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Pzcoades
borealis) second revision U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 296 pp
cc Chris Mnlntscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
r Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC

US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 RALEIGH OFFICE
' TERRY SANFROD FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
310 NEW BERN AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
Date- October 16, 2008
' Dr Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
' SUBJECT: EPA Review Comments of the Federal Environmental Assessment for
U-4444, NC 210 (Murchmson Road) from the proposed Fayetteville Outer
Loop to NC-24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard), Cumberland County
Dear Dr Thorpe-

?7

t

it

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) are proposing to close
Bragg Boulevard (NC 24-87) for security reasons, widen existing NC 210 to six lanes,
and construct two new interchanges and an extension of Randolph Street.
The proposed project was requested to be placed in the Section 404/NEPA
Merger 01 process by resource agencies. EPA notes the following concurrence point
(CP) milestones: CP 1 Purpose and Need signed 4/22/2008 and CP 2 Alternatives to be
Carried Forward for Detailed Study also signed 4/22/08. A CP 2A Bridging and
Alignment Review field meeting was scheduled and completed on October 14, 2008
EPA notes that the Environmental Assessment (EA) was not co-signed by the
DOD Fort Bragg representative. Furthermore, EPA and other Merger team agencies
understood from the CP 1 Merger meeting that DOD was also providing funding for this
roadway project. DOD is not indicated as a Cooperating Agency in the EA. The primary
beed for this proposed project was concurred upon by Merger team agencies based upon
DOD security issues at Fort Bragg and the closure of through traffic on Bragg Boulevard
The EA did not fully address the security issues associated with the closure of Bragg
Boulevard. The traffic carrying capacity issue along NC 210 (Murchinson Road) was
predicated on the DOD's road closure decision
EPA also notes that the proposed project is only partially funded. The U-4444A
portion is funded and the U-4444B section is unfunded per the discussion in the EA.

There are two build alternatives currently under consideration NCDOT
considered other preliminary study alternatives and designs to meet the purpose and need '
and to avoid and other minimize impacts to the human and naturalenvironment. EPA, as
well as other Merger team agencies, requested that these preliminary study alternatives be
shown and documented in the EA. Many of these preliminary study alternatives had ,
been eliminated by NCDOT prior to the CP 1 meeting These alternatives are detailed in
Section 3 of the EA with a general description of why they were eliminated from further
study However, during the October 14, 2008, field meeting several agencies asked if '
NCDOT has considered different design changes between Alternatives 1 and 2 (e.g, A
hybrid design). This idea might be considered and explored by NCDOT prior to the CP 3
LEDPA meeting. ,
Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts
Alternative I has approximately 6 85 acres of impact to wetlands and Alternative
2 has approximately 9.22 acres of impacts to wetlands. At the October 14, 2008, field
meeting, NCDOT explored moving a ramp closer in at the Randolph Street interchange '
location and it is estimated that approximately an acre of wetland impacts can be reduced
for Alternative 2 (NCDOTs preferred alternative). EPA has continued environmental
concerns for the potential impacts to Wetland `EEK a high quality, palustrine forested, ,
nverine system. Even with a revised ramp design for Alternative 2, approximately 6
acres of this high quality system would be filled. According to the EA, this system
scored a NCDWQ score of 82. 1
Alternative 1 has an estimated 1,107 linear feet of stream impacts and Alternative
2 has an estimated 1,181 linear feet of stream impacts Jurisdictional streams include '
Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek and their tributaries. Both Cross Creek and Little
Cross Creek are designated as biologically impaired water bodies under Section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act. Urban runoff is cited in the EA (Page 52) as the potential cause for ,
its impaired status. EPA has environmental concerns that other resource constraints (i.e.,
RCW habitat) will allow for full stormwater control measures within the project study
area to prevent the further degradation of these impacted jurisdictional streams
EPA plans to work with NCDOT and other Merger team agencies on these
unportant jurisdictional issues. As discussed during the October 10 field meeting, '
additional comprehensive planning and coordination with Fort Bragg may be needed to
address these environmental issues. The EA references that there are potential on-site
stream and wetland mitigation sites available in the project study area. NCDOT referred ,
to the Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR). However, during the field review
meeting observations it does not appear likely that there are any viable on-site mitigation
opportunities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed protect. ,
Other Environmental Impacts and General EA Comments

EPA notes that the summary table of impacts on Page 9, Table 1, only includes
wetland, stream, and relocation impacts and costs for Alternatives 1 and 2. From Chapter
S of the EA, there are also potential impacts to noise receptors, terrestrial forests and
' endangered species EPA recommends that all environmental impacts from the proposed
project be included in a summary table for the future CP 3 meeting and in the Finding of

' No Significant Impact (]~ONSI) document
EPA acknowledges that there are potentially 277 8 acres of terrestrial forests in
the project study area. However, this estimated impact is not specific to either
Alternatives 1 or 2 and should be detailed in future documents. EPA notes Table 13
regarding the Federal Species of Concern (FSC) in the project study area. The footnotes
below the table do not appear to correspond with the information in the actual table.
Furthermore, two of the FSC include migratory birds (i.e., Bachman's Sparrow and Black-
throated Green Warbler) that are potentially protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA). As with the unresolved issues involving the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
' (RCW), NCDOT should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
concerning potential META issues and include relevant information in the FONSI
In summary, EPA has not identified an environmentally-preferred alternative
(LEDPA) at this time. There are still potentially unresolved issues involving potential
impacts to RCW foraging habitat and active clusters that could alter the current design
' and alignment of both Alternatives 1 and 2. ?PA defers to FWS and the N C Wildlife
Resources Commission on these issues. One?the realignment considerations could
potentially increase jurisdictional impacts to streams and wetlands. EPA also requests
' that NCDOT consider further planning with Fort Bragg regarding comprehensive
stormwater management controls to prevent further degradation to Section 303(d) listed
Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek. EPA will continue to stay active in the Merger 01
process for this proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

t

cc. Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
Richard Spencer, USACE
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Sincerely,
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
Merger Team Representative
NEPA Program Office
For. Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
EPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office

I a,s SU71: v
RE-CEIVED
. Division of hilOways
North Carolina SEP 2 4 2008 ,
Department of Administration Proco7struction
protect L),ivc, bPmnnt and
Envii,nn snbl Atlaly3is Branch
Michael F Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
September 22, 2008 '
Mr Gregory Thorpe
NCDOT ,
Project Dev & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534 '
Re: SCH File # 09-E-4220-0044; EA; 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
Dear Mr Thorpe
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
i under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act According to G S 113A-10, when a '
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this
l
t
f
e
ter
or your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review '
,If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review ,
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
Sincerely,

Valerie W McMillan, Director
State Environmental Policy Act ,
Attachments
cc Region M ,

Mailing Address
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
State Courier #51-01-00
e-mail valerre iv mcmillan@doa nc gov
Location Address ,
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

'1 Tr i
d ST
RECEIVED
Division of 1-Ilrhways
North Carolina AUG 2 12008
IJrecott,-t ,1 o
' Department of Administration Project Qevelopm,ntand
Environmental Anai ris Branch
Michael F Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
' August 19, 2008
Mr Gregory Thorpe
NCDOT
Project Dev & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1534
Dear Mr Thorpe
' Subject Environmental Assessment -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
' The N C State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review This
project has been assigned State Application Number 09-E-4220-0044 Please use this number with
' all inquiries or correspondence with this office
Review of this project should be completed on or before 09/19/2008 Should you have any
' questions, please call [phone]
Sincerely,
' Valerie W McMillan, Director
State Environmental Policy Act
' cc Jay McInnis, Project Development Engineer
Mailing Address Telephone [phone] Location Address
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
' Raleigh NC 27699-1301 State Courier 1151-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail valerie w mcmillan©doa nc gov
qual Opportunrty/Affinnative Action Employer
An Equal:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
MID CAROLINA COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
STATE NUMBER 09-E-4220-0044
DATE RECEIVED 08/19/2008
AGENCY RESPONSE 09/15/2008
REVIEW CLOSED 09/19/2008
l Yir i? r0. ?t
c
P? ? sFA
?. ?? Op9sp?l1
?c?1JQ7

F02 ,

? bL =??-33
V\j

v
APPLICANT NCDOT
TYPE National Environmental Policy Act ?y
ERD Environmental Assessment
DESC Proposed improvements to widen NC 210 (Murchison Rd) from NC 24-87-210 (Bragg o
Blvd ) in Spring Lake to Fayetteville Outer Loop in Cumberland Co TIP No U-4444
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER 07-E-4220-0086
The attached project has been submitted to the N C State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone]
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED
J NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY
DATE l o? D

FAUG 22 2008

1

as STATg a
Michael F Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 28, 2008
MEMORANDUM

Office of Arcluves and History
Division of Historical Resource,
David Brook, Director
TO Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
North Carolina Department of /Transportation
FROM Peter Sandbeck &C
SUBJECT NC 210 From NC 24-87-210 to Fayetteville Outer Loop, U-4444, Cumberland County,
ER 06-2433
Thank you for providing us a copy of the above ieferenced report For purposes of compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that no further archaeological investigations are
necessary and that no significant archaeological properties will be adversely affected
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Hlstoilc 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 919 807 6579 In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number
1
1
Location. 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address. 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax [phone] 6599
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B Sandbeck, Administrator
Afflii?
RCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F Easley, Govemor 11- 1U] 810 , William G Ross Jr, Secretary
?FC?P 20pg
MEMORANDUM
?a ?rys FD
?p.4 08*
TO: Valerie McMillan
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 09-0044 EA for the Proposed Improvements to NC 210 from the
Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC 24-87-210 in Spring
Lake, Cumberland County
DATE: September 17, 2008
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NOne Carolina
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet www enr state nc us/ENR/ Naturally
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
09/15/2008 14 4a 9195289839
1
1
1
1
E2 North. Carolina Wildlife Resources C
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM.
DATE
?Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergoveixamental Affairs. DEINTR
PAGE 03
K
4 c
S` oti^
Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Coiservation Program
September 15, 2008
' SUBJECT. Noith Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed improvements to NC 210 flotn the proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC 24-87-210 in Spring Lake, Cumberland County,
North Carolina TIP No U-4444, SCH Project No 09-0044
Staff biologists with the N C Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are farwhar with habitat values in the prolect area The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources Our comments are provided in accordance
-with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 US C 4332(2)(c)) and the
' Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as aTneuded 16 U S C 661-667d)
NCDOT proposes to widen existing I TC 210 bem eon the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop
' and NC 24-87 in Spring Lake The project would widen the existing facility to six lanes, in
addition two existing intersections would be converted to interchanges Two alternatives are
being considered Alternative 1 impacts 6 8 acres of wetlands and 1.107 linear feet of stream, and
Alternative 2 impacts 9 17 acres of wetlands and 1,181 1wear feet of stream
Potential impacts to the federally Endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker (Prcoides
' borealis) bave not beelz assessed, therefore NCWRC has not selected a preferred alternative at
this time We will continue to assess the impacts associated with the remaining alternatives m
preparation for the selection of the LEDPA and for furthrr avoidance and minimization
' measures 'thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA If we can be of any further
assistance please call moat (919) 528-98$6
Malting Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mafl Service Center e Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
' Telephone: [phone] a Farr: [phone]

`o?OF vv F,9QG
MEMORANDUM
tvnutact r c"Wvy, VuvCtnut
William G Ross Jr , Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources '
Coleen Sullins, Director
?1a i5161)?8?o Division of Water Quality
R I - 2008
04
August 29, 2008

To Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
From Rob Ridings, Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed improvements to NC
- 210 from Fayetteville Outer Loops to NC 27/87, Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No STP-210(11), State Project No 36492 12, TIP No U-4444, DENR
Clearinghouse No 09-0044
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated received August 25, 2008 The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Waters of the U S , including wetlands It is our understanding that the project as
presented will result in impacts to junsdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters The DWQ
offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document-
Project Specific Comments.
This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process As a participating team
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team
2 Cross Creek, Little Cross Creek, and their tributaries are class WS-IV, 303(d) waters of the State
DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project
DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to
reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters DWQ requests that road design plans provide
treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most
recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices
General Comments:
2 The environmental document shall 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) rmtigation plan
with the environmental documentation Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
3 Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff These alternatives shall 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
N?AhCarolma
Transportation Permitting Unit d0warQily
1650 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto //h2o enr state nc us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

1

1
1

? l I r
4 After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
' Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC 2H 0506(h)),
' mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands hi 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
5 In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC
2H 0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation
6 Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping
7 DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project NC
' DOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts
8 An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of tlus project is required
The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004
9 NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
' or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application
r 10 Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts Please be advised that
culverts shall be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
' extent practicable
11 Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams
12 Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
' precipitate compensatory mitigation
13 The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
' methods for stormwater management More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters

11

,
14 Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality '
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ Please be '
aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate ,
15 Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible
16 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
17 Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream Stormwater shall be directed across '
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc ) before entering the stream Please refer to the most current version of NC
DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices '
18 If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall

not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and '
fish kills
19 If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction ,
contours and elevations Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted When using temporary structures the area shall
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
20 Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed 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 streambds 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 '
21 If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where ,
appropriate Widening the stream channel shall be avoided Stream channel widening at the inlet or

P

1

outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires
increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage
22 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
23 All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area 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 shall be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water
24 While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsnte wetland delineations prior to permit
approval
25 Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
nummnze 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
26 Rnprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage Bnoengineernng boulders or structures shall be properly designed,
sized and installed
27 Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible
' Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction hmrts of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction
' The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project Shall you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at [phone]
1

1
ii

cc Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office ??
w
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration '?1' 'd1
'
Gregory J Thorpe, Ph D, NCDOT PDEA d
E` "?-
??
Jim Rerko, Division 6 Environmental Officer <';•? ?O `;
?

Chris Mnlmtscher, Environmental Protection Agency
c0 ?
?
®"s' ?'
Q
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission g
File Copy `F,