20000941 Ver 1_Complete File_20000720

DWQ - Water Quality Section
Date:
MEMORANDUM
TO-. Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW) -
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
AUG 1 8 19Y8
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
John Domey (Corps, 401)
Cyndi Bell (DOT)
Eric Fleek (dredging)
0 Eric Galamb (other)
DENR # 9 -0 m,
DWQ # 0o
Bucben (Archdale 9th)
Bftht McDonald (Archdale 12th)
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh 0 Wilmington
0. Winston - Salem
Planning Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
0 Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
0 Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
0 Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
0 Tom Poe (Pretr atmen0 (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: .C4 , Regional It Program Management Coordination Branch, Floor, Archdale
PROJECT:
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
mis:\circmemo - mac version
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
1 can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 565 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
Department bf Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Proj-ect Review Form

Prajea Number: County: Daie Rccrivcd: Due Repay= Due (runt dedline);
I //
S q s' ?? c?? c (t '7 o ff
itus project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional OfTice I Regional OtTice Area I [n-douse Review
? Asheville ? Air ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fis', es
? Fayetteville c Water ? Coastal Manz--c.ncnt.
Mooresville ? C- oundwate- iIdIife?, ? Watcr Resources

? Ralei,-h ? Land Quality E.agine - C Enviror.tncnta(l cel?5
Washi*t.'a ? Re -eational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste M= t
? Wilrnim ton ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem ? Parks & Recreation o Other

i
ate'- Quality
? Groundwater ?
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-O Region: Date
Iqq In-E{ous? Re:ieti?c /A;e:icl:
?W ?14
/
'
Response (clieck- all applicable)
? No objection to proje-.:t as proposad.
? No Comment
El Insufficient information to completa review
O Othtr (specify or nuac:h comments)
RGTURi`i I V:
Melba McGcc
Environmental Coordinator
nn- r'i ^i?lati?c - TntcI,I-!rnn+cntal AlTjirs

NC 59,
From 0.750 km (0.04 miles) South
of Camden Road (SR 1003)
to US 401 Business,
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project # STPNHF-59(1)
State Project # 8.1441202
T.I.P Project No. U-2308
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
APPROVED:
e? I , \ •
?2
Dat4? William D. Gilmore, P. E., M ger
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
6.Z
pate O,,Nich L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Fede Highway Administration

NC 59,
From 0.750 km (0.04 miles) South
of Camden Road (SR 1003)
to US 401 Business,
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project # STPNHF-59(1)
State Project # 8.1441202
T.I.P Project No. U-2308
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
June, 1998
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
K'ae4--'-
?/ ;z-
Marc L. Hamel
Project Planning Engin er
%J?? ij-'*'?
Teresa Hart
Planning and Environmental Branch
?N CAR01 ?y1.
[SS/do.- ,q '
q
r.
SEAL
6944
C,I, •. t NE .•? PJ .•
D BB •
00,1/111111111?%?`•
Project Planning Unit Head
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION ............................................................................................ 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................. 1
III. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS .................................................................... I
IV. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES ............................................ I
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ............................................................. 2
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ........................................ 2
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ........................ 2
C. Public Hearing ........................................................................................ 5
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .......................... 5
VII. WETLAND FINDING ....................................................................................... 5
VIII. FLOODPLAIN FINDING .................................................................................. 5
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................ 6
APPENDIX A
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map .....................................................................................
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic ....................................................................................
APPENDIX B
Comments Received From Review Agencies on the Environmental Assessment
Public Hearing News Release
NC 59,
From 0.750 km (0.04 miles) South
of Camden Road (SR 1003)
to US 401 Business,
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project # STPNHF-59(1)
State Project # 8.1441202
T.I.P Project No. U-2308
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. To minimize impacts to water resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation
Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project.
2. Work in the water in conjunction with construction of bridge #25115 will be confined
to the date window of September 1 to February 15 to avoid obstructions to migrating
anadromous fish.
3. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction regarding
the relocation of survey markers along the project.
4. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the N. C. Cultural Resources certifying that
the removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect on any inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow
source.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on
the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment which
has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility
for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes
to widen NC 59 in Cumberland County from 0.750 km (0.4 miles) south of Camden
Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business (See Appendix, Figure 1). The project is
approximately 7.1 km (4.4 miles) in length and will provide a five-lane, 19.2 m (64-foot)
face to face, roadway with curb and gutter. Improvements will also include
symmetrically widening bridge #25115 (over Little Rockfish Creek) to a five-lane,
19.2 meter (64-foot) clear structure width. The current total estimated cost of this
improvement project is $24,650,000. The estimated cost in the 1998-2004 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) is $15,350,000.
III. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS
The widening of NC 59 is included in the 1998-2004 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 1997. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2000. The current TIP
includes a total funding of $15,350,000 for the project, consisting of $2,850,000 for prior
year costs, $3,200,000 for right-of-way, and $9,300,000 for construction. The project is
currently estimated to cost $24,650,000.
IV. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction
regarding the relocation of survey markers along the project.
NCDOT will apply for a General Permit #31. However, final permit decisions rest
with the Corps of Engineers.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be required prior to the issue of the required permit.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the N. C. Cultural Resources certifying that the
removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer
prior to performing any work.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Division of Highways, on October 30, 1996, and by the Federal
Highway Administration on October 31, 1996. The approved Environmental Assessment
was circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review-and
comments. An asterisk (*) indicates a response was received from that agency. Copies
of the correspondence received are included in the Appendix B of this document.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Forest Resources
*Division of Environmental Health
Region M Council of Governments
Cumberland County Commissioners
Cumberland County Manager
Mayor of Fayetteville
*Mayor of Hope Mills
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) were received from ten
agencies. The following are excerpts of the substantive comments with responses, where
appropriate:
U S Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE)
a. Comment: The proposed project is located in Cumberland County which
participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of
Panel 190 of the February 1982 Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate
Map, the roadway crosses Little Rockfish Creek, a detailed study stream
with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. We
refer you to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures
for `No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways", copies of which have been provided to your office
previously. In addition, we suggest coordination with the county for
compliance with their flood ordinance and any changes, if required, to
their flood insurance map and report.
Response: The hydraulic aspects of the project will be designed so that
the flood elevation levels will not be increased. During the design stage,
Cumberland County and FEMA will be contacted for their concurrence
with these recommendations.
b. Comment: "An additional bridge span will also be constructed at Rockfish
Creek resulting in the filling of approximately 0.1 acres of wetlands. We
are pleased that the NCDOT has committed to an in-stream moratorium on
work associated with bridge No. 25115 over Rockfish Creek. However,
this moratorium should be revised to more accurately reflect the peak
spawning or migration activity that generally occurs between April 1 and
September 1. We recommend you consult with the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission regarding specific moratorium windows.
Response: Consultation was made with the WRC. The WRC
recommended that work in the water be confined to the period between
September 1 and February 15`. The is to protect the overlapping
h
Anadromous Fish and Resident Fish Spawns. They also recommended
that further consultation about this window could result in construction
flexibility if specific construction techniques are known.
c. Comment: "Although the proposed work may qualify for a nationwide
permit (NWP) or General Permit authorization, it is incumbent upon
NCDOT to avoid and minimize all impacts to waters and wetlands. When
final design has been completed, you should contact Mr. McLendon for a
final determination of Department of the Army (DA) permit requirements
for this project.
Response: Consultation with Mr. McLendon for final permit requirements
for this project will be made at the appropriate time. NCDOT will
minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands. NCDOT will apply for a
Nationwide or General Permit. Final permit decisions rest with the Corps
of Engineers.
2. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
a. Comment: The EA suggests that compensatory mitigation may not be
required for this project. While permanent wetland losses are relatively
small, we believe that the cumulative loss of wetlands in the project area
has been significant. These cumulative losses have given added
significance to the few wetlands that remain. While the remaining
wetlands may provide marginal wildlife habitat, they provide benefits to
society in the form of flood control and water quality improvement.
Therefore, the Service recommends that NCDOT vigorously seek to
compensate for permanent wetland losses on an in-kind, on-site basis.
Response: While NCDOT understands the concern over private
development taking place in Cumberland County, the permitting process
for this project does not indicate compensatory mitigation for wetland
takings.
b. Comment: "We support the NCWRC's recommendations to limit bridge
work to the period from September 1 to January 1 and use a bridge design
which would not obstruct fish movement along the creek."
Response: Consultation was made with the NCWRC. The NCWRC
recommended a moratorium window of February 15th through September
1 covering the overlapping Anadromous Fish and Resident Fish Spawns.
They also recommended that further consultation about this window could
result in construction flexibility is specific construction techniques are
known. The bridge will not be designed so as to obstruct fish movement.
This will minimize impacts to anadromous fish.
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR),Division of
Water Ouality
a. Comment: "DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion
control measures are not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be
incorporated into the construction contract awarded for this project.
Response: NCDOT will ensure that the construction contract stipulates no
erosion or sediment control measures will be allowed in wetlands.
b. Comment: "DWQ asks that NCDOT stipulate that borrow material will be
taken from upland sources in the construction contract award for this
project.
Response: NCDOT will insure that any borrow material associated with
this project will come from upland sources. No fill material will be
allowed to be removed from wetlands to provide fill for this work.
4. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR , Interizovernmental Review - Project Comments.
a. Comment: "Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be
in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520."
Response: NCDOT will insure that any open burning done associated
with this project is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
b. Comment: "Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos
material must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0525 which requires
notification and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control
Group, 919-733-0820.
Response: The Asbestos Control Group will be contacted if demolition or
renovations of buildings containing asbestos is undertaken.
c. Comment: "The Sediment Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be
properly addressed for any land disturbing activity."
Response: An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be filed with
the Land Quality Regional Office section at the appropriate time, 30 dm
before beginning activity.
C. Public Hearing
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a combined location and
design public hearing was held March 13, 1997 (see Appendix for a copy of the public
hearing notice). Approximately 150 citizens and 15 NCDOT personnel attended the
public hearing. All of the questions and concerns raised dealt with individual property
concerns, as well as questions about the typical cross section, alignment, noise abatement,
construction easements, right of way, relocation assistance, and the project schedule. All
these questions and comments were adequately answered at the hearing. Six written
comments were received and answered in the official commenting period following the
hearing. A transcript of the hearing is on file with the N.C. Division of Highways.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The total cost of the project is $24,650,000 including $2,850,000 for prior year
costs, $9,300,000 for construction, and $12,500,000 for right-of-way. The 1998-2004
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a total funding of
$15,350,000 for the project, consisting of $2,850,000 for design, $3,200,000 for right-of-
way, and $9,300,000 for construction. This estimate is $9,300,000 more than the
estimate included in the TIP.
The bridge number 25115 that was originally to be offset widened is now planned
to be symmetrically widened due to the constraints of the existing bridge structure
configuration. The area was analyzed and surveyed in the original natural resources
investigation, and no further survey is required. Quantities of impacted areas will remain
the same. No additional on or off-site detour is required or planned.
Threatened and Endangered Species Update
Subsequent to the submission of the Natural Resources Report for this project, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (May 14, 1998) has added the American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis), small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), and Michaux's
sumac (Rhos michauxii) to the list of federally protected species for Cumberland County.
The following contains a brief description and biological conclusion for each species with
regard to the referenced project.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened due to Similarity
Animal Family: Crocodylidae of Appearance
Date Listed: June 4, 1987
The American alligator is a large roughbacked reptile with a broad rounded snout.
Most adults range in size from 6 to 12 feet. Habitat for the alligator includes river systems,
canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal marshes. The alligator will eat almost anything
of suitable size including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and crustaceans.
7
Species that have the federal classification of Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance are not biologically endangered or threatened and do not receive protection
under Section 7. However, due to its similarity of appearance to other protected
crocodilians, federal regulations, such as hide tagging requirements, are maintained on
the commercial trade to help control illegal taking of the protected species. The NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats contains no record of American alligator
within the study area.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of
Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent
on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete
well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
On April 27, 1998, NCDOT biologist Bruce O. Ellis conducted a plant by plant
survey for Michaux's sumac within the project study area. The project area is largely
composed of maintained/disturbed habitat which consists of urban and highly maintained
landscapes. No Michaux's sumac was observed as a result of this survey. Additionally,
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats was
reviewed and contained no listing of Michaux's sumac within the project study area.
Therefore, project construction will not affect Michaux's sumac.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) Endangered
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long hairy roots and a hollow
stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are
somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end of the stem.
Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
8
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-
coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers
acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage
or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
A survey for small-whorled pogonia was conducted by NCDOT biologist
Bruce O. Ellis on April 27, 1998. The project area is largely composed of
maintained/disturbed habitat which consists of urban and highly maintained landscapes.
Habitat, in the form of "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous forests, with
an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer is not present within the project
area. Additionally, a review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats revealed no listing of small-whorled pogonia within the project area.
Therefore, project construction will not affect the small-whorled pogonia.
VII. WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," established a national policy to
avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect
support of new construction wherever there is a practicable alternative.
The recommended alternative will impact less than 0.1 hectares (0.1 acres) of
wetlands. The impacts on wetlands will be minimized through the use of Best
Management Practices during the design and construction of the project. An effective
erosion and sedimentation control program will be required of the contractor.
It is determined there is no practicable alternative to the proposed widening in
wetlands, and the proposed action includes all practical measures to minimize harm to
wetlands which may result from such use.
VIII. FLOODPLAIN FINDING
Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management," and DOT Order 5650.2,
"Floodplain Management and Protection," were established to avoid adverse impacts due
to the occupancy and alteration of the 100-year floodplain unless that location is the only
practical alternative. It is required that every effort be made to minimize the potential
risks to human safety and property and to minimize negative effects on natural and
beneficial floodplain value. This project will be designed to comply with these orders
and with North Carolina Executive Order 123, "Uniform Floodplain Management
Policy." The project will not create a significant floodplain encroachment.
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments from federal, state, and local agencies, it
is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration the project will not have a significant impact upon the quality of
the human or natural environment. No significant impacts on natural, ecological,
cultural, or scenic resources are expected. Adequate replacement property will be
available for the eight residences and one business which will be relocated. No
significant impact on air or water quality or on ambient noise levels is expected. The
project is consistent with local plans and will not divide or disrupt a community. The
project will have no effect on any historic properties listed in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. No known Section 4 (f) properties will be impacted by the
project. The proposed improvements will have no effect on federally-listed threatened or
endangered species. Therefore, it is determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact
is applicable for this project. An Environmental Impact Statement or further
environmental analysis will not be required.
MH/plr
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
RELOCATION REPORT
El E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1441202 COUNTY Cumberland Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2308 F.A. PROJECT STPNHF-59 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 59 from S. of Camden Rd. to US 401 Business, Hope Mills

ESTIMATED DISPLACEE8 INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
Businesses 1 2 3 0 VALUE OF DWEWNG P" 00EWNO' AVA ML E
Fames Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profd 0-20M 0 $0-160 0 0-20M 4 $ 0-150 0
ANBWE R:ALL ouESTIKI 204001 0 150-250 0 2040M 2 150-250 2
Yes No Explain all 'YE S' answers. 40-70M 1 250400 1 40-70M 16 250400 5
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70400M 0 404M 0 70-10OM 50 40-M 23
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 uP 0 100 uP 35 500 uP 27
displacement? TOTAL 1 1 107 57
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS' Re>s nd Numbe
project? 3. Very little impact on business community, since this
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, area Is highly commercial now.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. A. Southern Belle Crafts -1-2 employees in small
house.
employees, minorities, etc. B. Short Stop Food Mart (Amoco) - 6 pumps and
X 5 . Will relocation cause a housing shortage? convenience mart, 4-6 employees, some minority.
6 . Source for available housing (list). C. Nationwide Insurance agency office - 2-3 employees
X 7 . Will additional housing programs be needed? in small office.
X 8 . Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 6. MLS, newspapers, property managers.
X 9 . Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 8. Due to low house values, this is a definite possibility.
families? Low incomes are predicted.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 8. This is always possible.
X 11 . Is public housing available? 11. Fayetteville area has several.
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. Hope Mills/Fayetteville area has a huge market that is
housing available during relocation period? very active.
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 13. See a#8
financial means? 14. Commercial brokers have many listings.
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
MOCATIOM? 12

A.M. Simpson 5-12-97 -
Relocation Age nt Date Approved b Date
Forth 15.4 ReviwW 02195 d Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
//ar,? /ha,"? J
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO March 26, 1997
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Q?I,
0
r
M4iQ 3
aV? ,
This is in response to your letter of January 13, 1997, requesting our comments
on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 59, From 0.750 km (0.04 miles)
South of Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business, Cumberland County, Federal
Aid Project #STPNHF-59(1), State Project Number 8.1441202, T.I.P. Number U-2308"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199704288).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
te• 1
1
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
-2-

Copies Furnished (with copy of
incoming correspondence):
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. David Cox, Highway Projects Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1141 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
March 26, 1997
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 59, From 0.750 km (0.04 miles) South of
Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project
#STPNHF-59(1), State Project Number 8.1441202, T.I.P. Number U-2308" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199704288)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County which participates in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panel 190 of the February 1982
Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the roadway crosses Little Rockfish
Creek, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined. We refer you to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
"Procedures for 'No Rise Certification For Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways," copies of which have been provided to your office previously. In addition,
we suggest coordination with the county for compliance with their flood ordinance and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
According to information provided in the Environmental Assessment (EA), the
proposed improvements involve the widening of NC Highway 59 from south of Camden
Road (SR 1003) to US Highway 401 Business to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. An
additional bridge span will also be constructed at Rockfish Creek resulting in the filling
of approximately 0.1 acres of wetlands.
We are pleased that the North Carolina Department of Transportation has
committed to an in-stream moratorium on work associated with bridge No. 25115 over
Rockfish Creek. However, this moratorium should be revised to more accurately reflect
the peak spawning or migration activity that generally occurs between April 1 and
September 1. We recommend you consult with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission regarding specific moratorium windows.
Although the proposed work may qualify for nationwide permit (NWP) or General
Permit authorization, it is incumbent upon the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid and minimize all impacts to waters and wetlands.
When final design has been completed, you should contact Mr. McLendon for a final
determination of Department of the Army (DA) permit requirements for this project.
7 .L yn .3 ?1
<M HT United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 98726
M?gCH 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27696-9726
February 3, 1997 G E??
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch FEg u ??iQ97
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201 ?%?=
ve v,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 A
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of January 13, 1997, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
Environmental Assessment (EA), dated October 1996, for the
Widening of NC 59, Cumberland County,•North Carolina (TIP No. U-
2308). This report is provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen the existing two-lane
roadway of NC 59 to a five-lane, curb-and-gutter roadway from 0.4
miles south of Camden Road (SR 1003) north to the intersection
with US 401 business. The project would require the widening of
the existing bridge over Little Rockfish Creek. The total length
of the proposed project would be approximately 4.4 miles.
Purpose and Need Statement
The EA states (p. 1) that "the purpose of the proposed project is
to increase the traffic capacity and safety on NC 59 by widening
the existing two-lane facility to a five-lane roadway with curb
and gutter." The Service believes that this statement extends
beyond a need and purpose to include a specific solution. A need
statement should mention specific problems such as traffic
exceeding the existing infrastructure and a high level of traffic
accidents. The purpose statement should reflect a desire to
alleviate traffic congestion and reduce traffic accidents. The
need and purpose statement should allow for a range of possible
solutions to be considered and not be so narrowly focused as to
practically dictate the selection of a single alternative. The
data presented in the EA (pp. 2-5) do indicate that there is a
need to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety in the
project area.
Alternatives Analysis
Section V of the EA (pp. 11-12) considers alternatives for the
project. The Service is pleased that the purpose of the project
can be achieved by improvements to the existing roadway. We feel
that the analysis of alternatives is adequate.
Wetlands and Aquatic Communities
The EA considers (pp. 21-22) project impacts on jurisdictional
wetlands. Preliminary plans indicate that wetland impacts would
be minimal and consist of approximately 0.1 acres. Based on data
in the EA, the Service believes that the NCDOT has endeavored to
avoid and minimize wetland impacts associated with this project.
The EA suggests (p. 22) that compensatory mitigation may not be
required for this project. While permanent wetland losses are
relatively small, we believe that the cumulative loss of wetlands
in the project area (City of Fayetteville) has been significant.
These cumulative losses have given added significance to the few
wetlands that remain. While the remaining wetlands may provide
marginal wildlife habitat, they provide benefits to society in the
form of flood control and water quality improvement. Therefore,
the Service recommends that the NCDOT vigorously seek to
compensate for permanent wetland losses on an in-kind, on-site
basis.
The proposed project would require work at Little Rockfish Creek
to improve the existing bridge. The Service supports the
recommendation of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), given in their letter of August 22, 1994, to conduct the
bridge widening in a manner which minimizes wetland impacts. We
also support the NCWRC's recommendations to: (1) unit use wor k a bridge
to the period from September 1 to January 1 and, the creek.
design which would not obstruct fish movement along
These measures would minimize impacts to anadromous fish.
Federally Protected Species
The EA evaluates (pp. 23-27) potential project impacts to species
protected by the ESA. Cumberland County is known to contain five
species protected by the ESA. These are the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia),
rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), American
chaff seed (Schwalbea americans), and Mitchell satyr (Neonympha
mitchelli francisci). The NCDOT has concluded that the project
will not affect any of these species. These conclusions are based
primarily on the absence of suitable habitat in the project area.
While the EA does provide a brief basis for each conclusion, we
believe that these supporting remarks would benefit from
additional details. We assume that these determinations are
based, completely or in part, on the field survey conducted by
Lane Sauls of the NCDOT on October 6, 1994 (p. 15). However, this
is not stated in the section on federally-protected species.
While the support for each effect determination is minimal, we
believe it is adequate for the proposed project. Based on the
information supplied by the NCDOT, the Service concurs that this
project is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed
endangered and threatened species, their formally designated
critical habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal
listing under the ESA, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; and/or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified
action.
Summary
The Service believes that the EA presents data which indicate that
a problem exists with the present roadway infrastructure in the
project area. The EA also presents adequate information on the
alternatives evaluated and the environmental impacts of the
project. Based on information contained in the EA and a
confidence that the NCDOT will consider the recommendations
contained in this letter, the Service anticipates no objections to
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project at
this time.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. Please continue to advise us of the progress made in the
planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If our office can supply any additional
information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall at (919)-
856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely,
John M. efner
Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:2/3/97:WP:A:cumu2308.297
TOWN OF HOPE MILLS y?n>
nc 3701 SOUTH MAIN STREET • HOPE MILLS, NORTH CAROLINA 28348-9998 • TELEPHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
04
90
January 28, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
N- C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
re: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 59, from 0.750 km
(0.04 mile) South of Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401
Business, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project #STPNHF-
59(1), State Project Number 8.1441202,'T.I.P. Number U-2308;
Comments
Dear Mr. Vick:
Mayor Edwin Deaver has referred review of the above referenced to
me since its January 23, 1997, date of receipt.
After review and representing the Town of Hope Mills we support
your anticipated "Finding of No Significant Impact" and
additionally support any acceleration of this project.
I, however, do offer one substantive comment that being the
minimal comment or discussion in the assessment concerning area
storm water runoff. Currently, the Town and the NCDOT have
agreed in written form to construct additional storm water
structures through the Wiggins Drive area (southeast of the
Cumberland Road intersection with Hope Mills Road. Preliminary
Supplemental findings concerning runoff from a ten year storm in
this area indicate substantial structures will now be required to
alleviate historic volumes and potential increases resulting from
this project.
While the Town is proceeding with this localized storm water
project un-associated with the subject project, we anticipate
generating additional future data that will augment this
assessment.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
?-Cx_ ^-` C
Steven L. Routh
SLR: Town Manager
cc: Edwin S. Deaver, Mayor
Phyllis Register,-Town Clerk JaN 3 a E
Hope Mills Road widening project file 19p
Z
pdVl^!C ;, .. r,
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF NC 59
FROM SOUTH OF CAMDEN ROAD TO US 401 BUSINESS
Project 8.1441202 U-2308 Cumberland County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
hold the above Public Hearing on Thursday, March 13, 1997 at
7:00-p.m. in the Douglas Byrd High School Auditorium located
at 1624 Ireland Drive in Fayetteville.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the
proposed location and design, right of way requirements and
procedures, and relocation advisory assistance. The hearing
will.be open to those present for statements, questions,
comments and/or submittal of material pertaining to the
proposed project. Additional material may be submitted for a
period of 10 days from the date of the hearing to: NCDOT,
L. L. Hendricks, Citizens Participation Unit, P.O. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC 27611.
This project proposes to widen NC 59 to a five-lane
roadway with curb and gutter from approximately 0.4 mile
south of Camden Road (SR 1003) to US.401 Business. The
existing bridge at Little Rockfish Creek will be widened.
A sidewalk is planned along one side of the entire project.
Outside lanes throughout the project will be designed to
accommodate bicycle traffic. The project length is
approximately 4.4 miles. Additional right of way and the
relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this
project.
A map setting forth-the location and design and a copy
of the environmental document - Environmental Assessment -
are available for public review at the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's Division office located at
558 Gillespie Street in Fayetteville.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending the public hearing. Anyone desiring additional
information concerning the public hearing may contact
Mr. Hendricks at the above mailing address, by FAX at
[phone], or by telephone at [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
hearing.
NC DEPT ADMIN Fax:[phone] Apr 4 '97 8:40 P.01/08 v
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor February 26, 1997
Mr. Whit Webb
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC
Dear Mr. Webb:
TIP a 2308o NC 59 from 0.04
SCH He * 97-E-4220-0464; Environmental Assessment Proposed e Improvements
Miles South of Camden Road (SR 1003) to US
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
d(Ow R+y s$W
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region M
116 West Jones Street Raleigh. oNoro un C roliinnafiZ X603 8003 Telephone, 919-733-7232
TWOWN
An EqW

MEMORANDUM
Apr 4 '97 8:40 P.02/08
??
TO: Chryff Baooett
State Clearinghouse
PROM: Melba McGee le
Environmental Review Coordin&tor
RE: 97-0464 EA for NC 59 South of Camden Road to US 401 Business,
Cumberland County
DATE: February 24, 1997
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for this applicant's
consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
FEB 2 5 1991
N.C. STATE CLEARNCNOf teF.
N,O. Box 276V, ???`? i nx 716 3060
R01901. North CtfrolinU 2/G 11 I4$7 N r? Ar Ec]un1 Opportunity/ntHrrnative Action Fmolovor
919-715-4148 50% recycled/ 10% post-cor7sunier PUpar
NC DEPT ADMIN Fax:[phone]
State of North 'Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Naturai Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers. Jr., Acting Director
NC DEPT ADMIN Fax:[phone]
Sia-te of;North• Carolina
Department>of Environment,
Health a0d,Natur-al Resources
Divi§16h.of' Wiier.,Quality
Ja-.mes Q ,Hi nt, Jr., -.1 ove mor
JQtiathan B Ho we4'.'Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1-ebntftry 13, I'M
Apr 4 '97. 8:41 P.03/08
4?
Flk
fT -11
Mi?.b1i?RANt?TMf
To: Melha McGee 1
Thmuph: 3afin Dorn j
From: Cyndi Bell.
Subject: Elivirorsiental Assessment for NC 39 from 0.75: kart (MA mile) South of Camden
Rmid, (SR 1033) to US 401 Bumness
Cumbodiand C'nunry
State Project ITT No. R.1441?02, T.LP. No. U-1109
13HNR # 97.0464,1`MQ # l 1497
The snbjwt 41ocu6tml hae been reviewed by this nftice. The Division of Watxr Quality DWQ) i8
reslxtnsible for issuiantx of the St;cdon 401 Wuw.r (,duality Carttf>,cRdun r(.ir activities which Impact wtatem'
or the ttata including wetlands: The project will impact up to 0.10 ltcCWA (0.25 acre) of wetlands.
impacts to s t rface, waierfi tit a single perenni:i! ,tjwon crossing wcxc not quantified. DWQ offers the
following c owet% Il s 4 an the document revie .1%
A) NCDOT pr('p(ises wirtcning of 7.1 lam (4.4 miles) of NC 59 wltiitn all urbanized area, Buses
upon the 8c+ ign r6ttic don; within We irnatedlate project vicinity and cc wmdcring the pro.1w's
rninhnal effects on wedrnds, nWQ endursr• + D07"s selected alternative.
B) DNVQ mks NMOT to ensure that the sed luent raid eroM oil L"ontro; measures are not Placed
in wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction cnntrfnct awarded for
trig project
0 . UWQ aaks'thAt. Tti("'p(;'(' .fipot:tt.e th2t h mow• material will be Liken firm ulAxId st,urcts in tf,,,
construction crr,tniN atwirded for this ;1mject.
D) A new bridge Ls to b c cOustrucrcd ai:mgside the existing bridge arlAnIt Rtx:kf i?!t (:reek. No
t><fler crossf:tgs, culvrrt ealcnaioos nr chantic+l cbanyCn will he rrquirCd. If thin detail
,cy?gee clsring thedesign phase ?,tf the rrc?icct. sL"e? mitiy?tirt: nt:!>' ? neyttira;d in sreccrrtlan,:e
with cunetitDWQ WedwlJ Rules l 15r? NC??C 2'RO506(b)(6) i which wem not is effect at the
time the EA wins PtgIrtItt
Based upon the woilond tmraets dolt rIbed iu the ZA, Gecicrat Cerdiicati nn 27.43 will txly bo applicable
to thi% project Pmal permit authc6zation will Mini- rdrm;a application by NCDU7' and written
concurrence fmin DWQ. Ple:lse be aware that tL•:s .-pl-roval ME be contingent upon evidence of
I voi(leti(x and rnhtitit ;tsdon of wethind and mmwn intpcu;ts to the cattrnt practical, and provL:ton of
wetland and xaualn wItAgatton where uececeary.
Environmentat 3clano" Branch 4401 Heed/ craok Rcnd Ra)plgh, Notti; Catolina 27507
FAAp 733.9959
Talaphone 010-733-OWO rc%JWYIWWWNPWA01 6u INP81 "
An Eglwa c..ponunlY Af mlie "Arson tl*ora
NC DEPT ADMIN Fax:[phone] Apr 4 '97 8:41 P.04/08
Ms.-Melba-Make Memo
February 13.1x))7
Page 2
DWQ appreciates Cbe opixtriunity w provide comments on the Environmental Assessment. N)T iS
reniiiided`that ivsutu?ce of a 401 Water Quality C'ertifiention regnires satidArtirm of mater gnelity
dweerns, to ensure that whier quality standards are met and no uses, are lost. Questions regarding the 401
CertlCicadon should,be.'directed ai Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DNVQ's Water Quality Euvironnlcnwl
Svienco Bunch,
cc: loott Mcl4ndon, POA, WiImingtoa
Marc Hnrncl, NCDOt, PNt1?
Michelle Suverkmbbe, DWQ
IJZ108EA.DOC
i
Nc DEPT ADMIN
P. 05/08
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comnzission_?td
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
(-,harles R. Pullwomi, Executive Director
MEMORANI)t 1M
1?) Alrlha McUee
(-)ffice of legislative and Tntergovernmontal Affairs, DEHNR
F Itt )M: David Cox, gighway Project C tnator /
Habitat Conservation ProgratG
D AI f-,; T'chruary 21. 1997 /
SIJBJLC'1': Nertlt Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDVT) rnvirunsttcatal Assessment
(;A) for the NC 59 widening, froth Just south or SR 1003 to US 401 Business,
C: umbcrland County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-2308. SCH Project No. 97-0464.
Staff biologists with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission have rtvieNvrd the subject EA and
are fanultar with habitat vatuts in the prqjcct area. The purpose of this review w;ts :c, assess prtlieut.
?Mpactsto fish and wildlife msourees. Our comments are provided in accutdanur with verlain 1•?T<wiciOfII
f the National. H.nviromnentnl Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 43i2(2)(c)) find the Fish and \Vildlife Cocadination
Act (48 St.at. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
N(T)OT propo.--,c; to widen exiting N(' S9 from rwn•latles to a live lame t;urb and gultor section
from 0.4 milcs south i.)f Sit 1003 to US 401 Business. 1*6 project Itnigd) is npproxinlnlcly •1•4 mllc•s. It
is anticipated that v Oland impacts-will be covered under nationwide permits.
The suhicet dncnment adedttately describes nnticihated impacts to wildlife and fishery restxtrCeF i»
the project area to liplit ofthe environmentnl commitments included in the Frt. we fetal th, t im f„icts to
the natural environment. vvill he minimal, N(` o'T should ctmtinuc efforh to minisnixc• vvolaod 4tgl;i -,
to the maximum extent practicable. At this time, we C•onCur with the EA for tliir project and anticipate
concurrence with the upcoming funding of No Significant Impact,
Thank vuu 1'tir the tippurtunity to t ommum va this EA. 11' wc; can be of any furthur assistancu pica ;e
call mc' stl ((;I c;) 'MV)S*86.
cc: IJ.S. Fist, and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Fax:919=133-9571 Apr 4 '97 8:41
NC DEPT ADMIN Fax:[phone] Apr 4 '97 8:42 P.06/08
State of North Carolina Reviewing Otte: y1
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Project N bar: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS 617 _ V S -? ..?-o - 17
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permll(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtainod in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
..r .r,e rnrm
Ouestions regarding these permits should too eoaressea to the nvgitnrui ?„moo ••???•?- - - -- -
lines relative to these plans and permits are available from the some
id
d
i
Norrttal Process
gu
e
on an
All applications, informat
Regional Office. Time
time
t
r
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (sta
uto
y
limit)
PERMITS
Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
? facilities, sewer system extensions, 6 sewer construction contracts On-silo inspection. Post-application Igp day61
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual
NPDES • permit to discharge Into surface water andlor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site In&Wtion. 90.120 days

? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
te
s
f Pre-applicatlon conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply
(NIA)
r
ace wa
discnargin0 into state sur time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever 16 later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Prc-application technical conference usually necessary (N/A)
7 days
? Welt Construction Permit CC
prior to hcpinstallion mus of abw r esived and permit issued (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre•applicatlon conference usual. Filling
(90 days)
may require Easement to Rill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
-- Permit to construct 6 operate Air Pollution Abatement 00 days
(90 days)
?
LJ facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA
Any open burning associated witn subject proposal
j must bu in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing fi0 deYS
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A

NCAC 20,0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group (90 days)
919-733-0920,
n Complex source Permit required under i5A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erasion 6 sedimantatio
Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at least 30
i
bed
b
0 days
2
.
e d
stur
control plan will be required it one or more acres to
A I of S30 for th tlrsl acre and for allph additi n I r or art must accompany to fan.
t
i i
0
F vi
y.
-days before a innin act
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance
(30 days)
On-site inspection usual, Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
30 days
Mining Permit
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area
reater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond
i
d
(W gays
ne
g
m
must be received before the permit can be issued.
inspection by N.C. Division forest Resources it permit
On-Sits 1 day
f 1
LJ North Carolina Burning permit ,
exceeds L days (NIA)
n Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 on-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "it more
n five acres of ground clearing activities am involved. Inspections
h 1 day
(NIA)
IJ Counties in Coastal N.C. with organic soils e
t
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90120 days

?
Oil Melining Facilities NIA (NIA)
if permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

Applicant must hue N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 day:
? it
P Inspoct construction, certify construction is according to EHNR opprov.
s)
160 Cla
erm
Dam Safely td plans. May also requlro permit under mosquito control program. And y
a 404 Permit from Corp* of Engineers. An inspection of site ix nucnn.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
rk,wrientap: or fnc tot+ri project eodif will be inquired vr"!ri Cemr,leffon.

NC DEPT ADMIN Fax:[phone] Apr 4 '97 8:43 P.07i08
Normal Process
Time
(slalulory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REWIREMENTS limit)
File surely bond of S5,000 with EHNR running to Otate of N.C. 10 Cays
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. (NIA)

? Geophysical Explcration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of permit
plication form
dard a
t
N 10 days
(NIA)
,
p
an
o s
Application by Wier.
Mole Lakes Construction Permit Application foe based on structure sire Is charged. Must include 15.20 days
(NIA)
? descriptions i3 drawings of structure & proof of owners;Hp
of riparian property. ,
60 days
11D?
3A? 401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for 1AAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 daysl
22 day*
CAMA Permit for MINOR development =00 lee must accompany application (25 days)
Sovoral peotlotie monuments are laeatCd in or near the projeet area. 11 any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please nollfy:
? N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C, 27611
Absnoonment of any wells, if required, muet be in aceordanet with Tillo 15A, Subehaplar 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation,
45 OayC
Compliance With 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwata Rules) is required. (NIA)
« Other comments (allach additional pages as necessary, being Certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
questions retarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovis Building
Asheville, NO 28801 Fayetteville, NO 26301
[phone] [phone]
U fAoorosville Regional office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
1,looresvillo, NO 28116
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washin ton, NC 27880
[phone]
l.J Row h Regional Office
Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh. NO 27009
^1(919) 7332314
J Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Exluneion
Wilmin ton, NC 20405
(919) 39.3900
!J instoNOSalern Regional Office
$025 rth Point vd.
suite 100
Winsion•Salem. NC 27106
NC DEPT ADMIN Fax:[phone] Apr 4 '97 8:43 P.08/08
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Barley
clearinghouse Coordinator
Cultural Resources
Archives-History Bldg.
Raleigh NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Cultural Resources
DRXNR
Department of Agriculture
Emerg. Mgt. - NFIP
Mid-Carolina COO
PROJECT INFORMATION

TypE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Environmental Assessment
DESC: Proposed Improvements to NC 59 from 0.04 Miles South of Camden Road (SR 1003) to
US 401 Business; TIP #U-2308
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER: 95-E-4220-0030
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. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW TIM FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED SY t t /: /?" '' K .r t. •. C t i. C f C.. /',.•C.l .c
DATE:
WAN 2 8 1991
STATE XMMZkt 97-5-0000-0464 F02
DATE RECEIVEDi 01/14/1997

AGENCY RESPONSEt ,q
02/19/1997 CUGU-
?
xMEN CLOSBD: 02/24/1.997

CEC? ?u
FEB z 1 1997
N.C. STATT CLEAVJGHoLfBF.

Official Public Hearing Transcript
OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
Combined Public Hearing For
Proposed Widening And Improvements
To NC 59 From Camden Road To
Us 401 Business In Cumberland County
Tip # U-2308
March 13, 1997
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome each of you to
tonight's public hearing on the proposed widening and improvements to NC 59
(Hope Mills Road) beginning on the north end of US 401 Business and
terminating at the south end approximately a half mile to the south of Camden
(Camden Road). Its around Butler Street. But as I said, I want to welcome you to
this hearing. The map in front of you does represent the project from US =+u' ; .;
end back of me, to south of Camden Road to the far end. Basically it would be a
five-lane roadway with curb and gutter for a distance of approximately 4.5 miles.
My name is Len Hendricks, I'm a Public Hearing Officer with the Department of
Transportation, and I will be the Moderator for tonight's proceeding. In addition to
myself, we have several other DOT personnel in attendance tonight that I would
like to take just a moment to introduce to you. Some of these people you will
need to know as the project progresses. From our Division Office in Fayetteville
we have the Division Engineer, Mr. Steve Varnedoe; the Division Traffic Engineer,
Mr. Ray Goff; the Division Construction Engineer, Ms. Tracey Conrad. From our
Right of Way office in Fayetteville we have Mr. Pate Hodges. From our Locations
& Surveys office we have Mr. Mike Plummer. From our Raleigh office we have
the Project Engineer, Mr. John Taylor (he just walked in) and Mr. Bob May, the
Project Design Engineer. From our Planning & Environmental Branch we have
Mr. Mark Hammel and from our Citizens Participation Unit, we have Mr. Todd
Dudley who is here with me. He's a Public Hearing Officer-in-Training. And
future projects in the Fayetteville area, you may very well have Mr. Dudley
moderating those meetings.
At this point let me ask you, does everyone have a handout? They are in the
chair by the door. Todd, you may want to get a couple and ... Raise your hand
if you don't have one because we will be going over that in just a second.
Unidentified Male: What is the local phone number of the people of Cumberland
County?
Moderator: I don't know the phone number. We could get that for you.
We have the Board Member, we can certainly get those phone numbers for you.
Most of them will be at the Division Office here on Gillespie Street.
Okay, we'll go over the handout. The purpose of the project: the
primary purpose is to increase the capacity of the Hope Mills Road; make it a
safer facility than what it is at the present time, and hopefully be able to handle
U-2309 1 July 17, 1997
the high-traffic volumes that are projected along this route during the coming
years. At the present time, those traffic-counts between Wingate and Cumberland
Road; I believe that's Cumberland in there and Wingate is right here, so that
stretch in there is at the present time the low-point of traffic along the route--
11,500 at the present time--and projected to go to 17,900 over the next 20 years.
The segment around George Owen Road, which is further to this end, I'm not
exactly sure from this distance, but its in that area. That's the high point. At the
present time, a traffic-count of approximately 16,000 vehicles a day going through
that area and projected to go to 27,800 within the next 20 years.
In addition the accident rate through this whole segment is 67%
higher than what we would expect on similar type roads across the State of North
Carolina. I had someone tell me maybe that area had worse drivers. I don't know
what the reason is why the high-accident rate, but certainly a lot of them are year-
end collisions. At least 60% of the accidents that occur along this route are year-
end collisions and those associated with making left-hand turns. And that's one of
the high priority items of putting a left-turn lane in this particular project.
The purpose of a public hearing, it is one step in the Department of
Transportation's planning process. It gives us an opportunity to determine the
public opinion of the project; it gives us an opportunity to go back based on
comments that we hear at this meeting, to go back and reevaluate, reassess and
see if changes can be made to the design that's being presented to you this
evening. I want to emphasize to you that this particular design, it is preliminary.
Changes can be made to it. A lot of that will depend upon what we hear in the
meeting tonight.
For about the last month, I guess, we have had a copy of the map,
we've had a copy of the Environmental Document available in our Division Office
on Gillepsie Street for you to come by and take a look at prior to the meeting
tonight. And we hope that many of you had an opportunity to do that. That's the
process that we use on all of our projects across the State. We do try to put the
information out and give you ample time to get prepared for a public hearing.
You can participate in the hearing in one of three ways: number one
you can make a verbal statement in the room tonight; you can make a written
statement and mail it to the address shown in the handout, or you can make a
written statement and leave it with me before you leave tonight if you want to save
yourself 32 cents. I will be glad to take it. All of those written comments, as well
as the transcript that's prepared of these proceedings, would become the Official
Public Record for the widening of Hope Mills Road.
Now this is a public hearing and I simply ask all of you to respect
each other's opinions. There are certainly differing viewpoints on a project of this
magnitude. It's not a debate. I'm not here to debate any one in this room. I'm
here to listen to what you have to say and it gives us, as I said, the chance to go
back and reassess and reevaluate some of the comments and concerns that you
have regarding this particular project.
U-2909 2 July 17, 1997
Just as it is not a debate, it is not a vote. We are not here to vote to
do this or not to do it. It's simply an open-forum. It gives you the opportunity to
express your viewpoints and it gives us the opportunity to hear what you have to
say and reassess or reevaluate those comments and see if some can be
incorporated into the design of the project. All comments that we hear or receive
in writing will be reviewed and considered by the Engineering staff of the DOT
and the Administrative staff. So each comment that you have to make will be
reviewed by decision-makers within the Department.
The next page is a copy of the Thoroughfare Plan for the City and
County. This was approved in 1992. The dashed-lines indicates Hope Mills
Road or NC 59. The next page is a location map pretty similar to the
Thoroughfare Plan that we just showed. It shows the dashed,lines and the
parameters of this particular project--the beginning and ending points.
We'll go over some of the Project Information. The Length of the
project is 4.58 miles, close to 4.6 miles. Typical Section, we are looking to
construct a five-lane roadway. We would have curb and gutter and there would
be a berm behind that curb and gutter. A berm is simply a flat piece of land
behind the curb that can be used for utility placement. It can be used for
sidewalks, depending on the request and negotiations that are involved. At this
point we have had requests from the City for sidewalks on one side of this road. I
don't think a decision has been made at this point as to which side this particular
sidewalk would be placed. But with three elementary schools in the area, we feel
like the sidewalk will somewhat be warranted through that particular area. And as
I said, the request has been made to do that.
In addition, there has been a request for bicycle-lanes to go through
this particular segment of highway. Again I don't know that the decision has been
made at this point but if that comes to be, then the outside lanes will be two feet
wider than the inside lanes and it would be striped and it would be used for
bicycle traffic. So we are considering it at this point and as I said, I'm not positive
that a final decision has been made, but we certainly are looking at those
features.
When we look at the amount of Right of Way required, we're looking
at 80 feet plus easements to construct what's before you this evening. At the
present time you have 60 feet. So there's 20 additional feet that would have to be
acquired in Right of Way to construct the project. And because its symmetrical in
nature, its basically 10 feet off of each side of the road at this point to make that
80, we are going to do everything that we can; that's the minimum for a five-lane
curb and gutter section, and we're doing what we can to keep everything within
that 80 feet. 'However there are easements that will be required behind that right
of way that we have to buy. Some of those are temporary. In fact, probably most
would be temporary, but its a segment of land that allows us to put our equipment
and man-power onto the land during construction. There's some monetary
compensation involved to do this and generally at the completion, of the project,
U.2308 3 July 17, 1997
that easement would revert back to the property owner because that's the nature
of a temporary construction easement. But there could be points along there, it
could be a permanent type easement. That decision would have to be made as
we get a little further into the design. But that's basically how highway projects
are done across the State.
When you look at the Relocatees, we are looking at seven homes
that possibly would be displaced as a result of widening the road. We are looking
to as many as three businesses that may have to be displaced. This is subject to
vary. This is what we have at this point. Basically from counting the Brown
rectangles and squares that you see, which represents homes and businesses
along the route; and those that fall within the right of way that we need to build a
road, is how we arrive at those numbers. I do not have a list of names that I can
give you at this point but if you have those concerns, we will dertainly go to the
map at the completion of the hearing and make as good a determination as we
can based on the preliminary data that's being placed before you this evening
When we look at the Estimated Cost. The project itself would be
completed in two phases. Part A would go from south of Camden Road to
Cumberland Road. So we would be moving in this area for Part A. We are
looking for Right of Way for that to be in the range of $2.3 million; Construction,
$4.2 million, for a total of about $6.5 million for Right of Way and Construction of
that segment from south of Camden Road to Cumberland Road. The second
phase would go from Cumberland Road and would go all the way to 401 through
this segment. We are looking at Right of Way to cost $3.2 million; Construction to
be $5.1 million, for a total cost there of $8.3 million, roughly just rounding these
numbers off. We add the two together you get a total cost for the entire segment
from south of Camden Road all the way to 401 and you're looking at $5.5 million
for Right of Way, $9.3 million for Construction, for a total cost of $14.8 million to
do the project as it is being presented this evening.
When we look at the Schedule, again the A part from south of
Camden Road to Cumberland Road, we are looking to go to Right of Way in
September of 1997, we're looking to go to Construction in August of 2000. And
on the B part, from Cumberland Road to 401 Business, we are looking to go to
Right of Way in June of 1998 and again going to Construction in August of 2000.
So both pieces will begin at about the same time as far as Construction is
concerned. There is some variation in Right of Way dates as to when the actual
land would be acquired through each of those sections. And that's what-those
dates indicate. That's the beginning date, its not the ending date. That's when
we project at this point of when we would begin this process.
This is a State-Federal type relationship. It simply means that 80%
of the funds would be Federal funds and 20% would be State funds to construct
this particular highway improvement.
The next page is a Typical Section. The actual dimensions may
vary. The overall 80 feet is what we are looking at to try everything within it. But
U-2308 4 July 17, 1997
the lane widths that we are showing may change somewhat from what we are
showing here. The outside lanes may 13 feet rather than 14 with some reduction
to the inside lanes to make those 11 feet rather than 12 feet in order to keep
everything. If we have bicycle-lanes, keep it within that 80 feet that we are talking
about this evening. And you can see there is an eight-foot berm; that's the berm
on either side of this particular road, that would be used for utility placement or
sidewalk placement.
The next page is a page that we have been told to include in all of
our public meetings around the State. It simply shows you the steps involved in a
highway project. Projects, for the most part, begin at the local leveltlocal
government level. There is a Thoroughfare Plan created for cities and counties
across the State. Those areas that they feel are going to need improvement
through this coming year based on growth factors and development and so forth
that's projected, and so a thoroughfare plan is put together in Roman numeral I.
In Roman numeral II, that's the Transportation Improvement Program. That's
simply the Department of Transportation's seven-year planning document. It
includes all of the projects across the State of North Carolina by county of which
DOT is expected to look at within a seven-year time-frame. There are public
hearings across the State dealing with the TIP Program; it's where projects are
identified and enter this document, and there are hearings across the State to do
that.
Roman numeral III. You are looking at where the environmental documents
begin, the public hearings, public contacts, begin. We have what we call citizens
informational workshops, and I believe this one was held in September of 1994. 1
think that's correct, at Sherwood Park Elementary School over off of Hope Mills
Road. So about three years ago, or two and a half years ago, that meeting was
conducted. The document was prepared, the preliminary design was prepared,
and finally we are at the last Black dot in the second column where we have a
public hearing on this work that has been done to this point on the designs and
the environmental documents. And that's where we are this evening.
The next page is simply a flow-chart. As I say across the State, it probably
doesn't do justice to the process because it doesn't indicate time. But an average
project that we undertake across the State would take approximately six years.
That's just an average project. Some take much longer than that and some get on
a fast-track and can be done quicker than that. But the average is about six years
from the time the project is identified, the Thoroughfare Plan gets into our TIP
Document, and then until we come out and present it at a public hearing such as
this. So we're looking at about six years.
The last page in the hand-out is a Comment Sheet. Its one that I encourage each
of you if you have comments you wish to make and don't want to verbalize them,
to certainly write your concerns. We will consider those equally with any verbal
statements that are made in the room tonight. There will be a post-hearing
meeting to go over these comments and concerns probably within the next six
year weeks. It has not been set as I talk, but generally on most project within a
U-2308 5 July 17, 1997
six-week time-frame, we do meet internally to discuss what we heard at this
meeting, what written comments we received, and evaluate each one to make a
determination if we can incorporate that into the final design. And as I said, I want
to emphasize that this is preliminary at this point. Changes can be made to it.
But based on the information that we have, the best information we have at this
point, this is at least the first step or the beginning point of this particular project.
Okay at this point I'm going to take just a moment to go to the map. I'll begin at
the 401 end and walk through the actual project. Its important, I feel, for three
reasons: 1) it gives you an overview of the entire project as we perceive it this
evening; 2) it gives you an opportunity to see how your property is affected by this
overall project; and 3) we hope that it gives you the opportunity to get your
thoughts together to either make a verbal statement or a written statement to send
back in to us for us to evaluate. I
I'll go over some of the colors, first of all, that you're seeing. I know many of you
all have been to the map already and possibly already know what these colors
are, but I'll briefly go over the major ones. And I know in the rear of the room you
can't see all of this, but possibly when the meeting is adjourned and you'll have
time to come forward to take a look at it, it may make a little more sense to you.
The Orange that you see represents the existing Hope Mills Road. That's the
pavement that's there at the present time. The Yellow that you see represents
new pavement that will be placed on the ground to make this a five-land roadway.
Along each side of this road there is a Red strip that represents the curb and
gutter that would be placed in there and the cost of that would be incorporated
into the construction of the highway. You would not come back and be assessed
for this particular feature.
The Dark Green that you see along many of the intersecting streets represents
right of way that the State already owns. The Solid Light Green that you see
along either side of this particular roadway represents right of way that the State
will have to buy in order to complete this project. And as I said, that's the
information I have. We have 60 feet at the present time. So if you went to the
center-line it would be 30 feet either side of that center-line at the present time.
The project itself will require 80 feet. So that's the 10 additional feet off of each
side that would have to be acquired in order to construct this.
The Light Green with Black Cross-Hatching that you see along the entire project
represents a construction easement. As we have talked about earlier, I would say
the majority are temporary. It gives us an opportunity to place our equipment and
man-power during construction. There is some financial compensation for that
right and when the project is completed, that generally reverts back to the
property owner.
The Brown that you see along the route represents buildings. It could be
churches, manufacturing plants, schools, homes. But its some type of business
along that particular route.
U-2308 6 July 17, 1997
I wanted to talk just briefly on the bridge. Its all the way at this end, Little Rockfish
Creek. At the present time the bridge would be widened. We are showing it to
the West, as I talk to you this evening. That may or may not hold in the end
because the final decision hasn't been made yet. It possibly will have to be some
off of each side, it depends on the environmental issues that we get into and the
construction characteristics of this particular area and whether or not we are able
to put all of it to one side. But that bridge right now is planned to be widened. It
would be 76 feet wide; I believe its 40 feet at the present time, and it would be 76
at the completion of the project. The bridge itself, I believe, is 121 feet long.
Unidentified Female: (Inaudible)
Moderator: I'm not ... This is the only one that I'm aware of that we are
widening at this time. I'm not sure where it is, if we can .. .
Unidentified Female: Camden Road.
Moderator: Camden Road?
Unidentified Female: Yes.
Moderator: That would be along this road somewhere.
Unidentified Female: Would you widen that out?
Moderator: I don't believe that would be widened. We would only widen
Camden Road to this point where you see the Orange. Well actually that's
existing pavement. There is a tum-lane that's being placed in there. Down here?
Unidentified Male: Down here?
Moderator: Down here?
Unidentified Male: The bridge down there?
Unidentified Female: Right, there's a little bridge down there.
Moderator: We're not showing doing anything to that side of Camden
Road. So everything, I guess, we're not going to do that.
Unidentified Female: Its part of this.
Moderator: Its part of this?
Unidentified Female: I believe it is.
Unidentified Male: Its a separate (inaudible).
U_2908 7 July 17.1997
Moderator: It may be a separate project, but I don't ...
Unidentified Female: (Inaudible)
Moderator: Okay, well that may be, but it won't be as part of what we're
talking about this evening.
But this section from just north of Cumberland Road to the existing, I
believe its four-lane with curb and gutter around Butler Street, that would be
where this particular project would ultimately end. There's three lanes here now
and like I said, it would be five lanes when its completed. But a lot of the segment
at this end are two lanes with shoulders at the present time. And this would go
from like 24 feet of pavement to 60 in that range. So...
At this point I want to take just a moment to touch on some Right of
Way Procedures that we go through as a Department. As 1 go through them, I
want to emphasize now, I usually forget to tell you, but we do have brochures up
at the front that will better go into more detail on this than anything I can tell you
this evening. And certainly we have the Right of Way Agent in attendance who
you may want to talk with to get a little more clarification on some of these
procedures.
But once the route is selected and the final design is approved, the
right of way that we need for this project will be staked in the ground so that you
as a property owner will be able to see exactly how your property is affected, how
much is being affected. Each property owner will be contacted by a Right of Way
Agent who will be working on this. He is going to ask you questions about your
property. All we're trying to do is to determine the fair-market value of the
property. You would have the opportunity to ask him questions about the
particular project. In the end, we will make an appraisal of the land to determine
that fair-market value and that will become the basis of negotiations on the
settlements along the route.
As a Department, we have certain responsibilities that we have to
accept: we treat all owners and tenants equally, fully explain an owner's rights to
him, we pay just compensation in exchange for any property that we have to
acquire in order to construct the project. And for those homes who find
themselves having to be relocated because of the project, we offer Relocation
Advisory Assistance also in that light. So in addition to homeowners that are
being removed or being displaced, you would be contacted by a Relocation Agent
as well as a Right of Way Agent in that process. He would explain the location of
comparable housing within this area, try to keep things within the same driving
distance to shopping centers and a few places of work or school, he would explain
the procedures that you would have to abide by and follow in order to take
advantage of this assistance, and he would explain Moving Assistance
Procedures to you. And if certain qualifications are met, certainly moving
expenses would be paid for in most cases.
U-2309 6 -- -July 17, 1997
There is additional money involved over and above the settlement of
the house itself in those cases to help in the relocation process. Funds would
vary from property owner to property owner, depending on the circumstances that
you find yourself in. But there is some financial assistance for not only
homeowners, but for tenants and those who are renting. There is some
assistance to help you in finding another home in which live. And that extra
money can be used in closing costs, for any mortgage increases that you may
incur, and in some cases we can't find a house in the same value in which you
live now and we have to move you up to another level or whatever, and that
money can be used in that light also.
You have to be occupying the house at the time we start the
appraisal process for you to take advantage of this. We have also assistance for
businesses that find themselves in that type of situation. And certainly those
questions, the Right of Way personnel can answer much better than I can at this
point. But I'm just here to basically let you know that there is assistance available,
there's help, and you don't necessarily have to panic and say I've got to move
tomorrow. In fact, you just need to wait until you are contacted by an Agent and
all of these transactions will take care of themselves.
Okay at this point I'm going to open the floor for your comments. All
I ask you to do is to be sure to use the microphone, it's the only way I can
guarantee that what you are saying will be recorded. I would like for you to
identify yourself; give your name and address in case we need to get back in
touch with you. But for the most part, if you have individual questions about your
property; how many feet is my house from the right of way line, that type thing, it
would probably be better to answer that individually when the formal part of the
meeting is completed. And we will be here a while to do that. We don't want you
to leave without you getting answers to your question, that's the purpose of the
meeting, and certainly we will be here to do that. So it would just be better for
everyone if those types of questions wait until the end. But if you have general
statements or general questions about the project itself, we certainly welcome
those and at this point, I will open it for your comments. And I would appreciate it
maybe even if you would come and use the podium because I am not sure that
this wireless mike is going to function well here this evening.
So who would be first. I'm not sure, did we have anybody on the
sign-up sheet.
Paul Grooms: I have a question.
Moderator: Yes sir.
Paul Grooms: Do I come there?
Moderator. Yes sir.
U-2308 9 July 17,1997
Paul Grooms: My name is Paul Grooms. My current address is 754
Galloway Drive, Fayetteville, NC 28303. We have property on Hope Mills Road.
I might add that I have no children going to the school--Hope Mills Road--
whatsoever, but my background involves a lot of safety concerns for the public.
As I understand from the comments made that there are proposals to take 10 feet
on both sides of this existing highway to satisfy this project. And according to the
indications made, the City of Fayetteville has requested a sidewalk to be made
one side. And that decision has not been made. But I would like to share with
you my concern of a two-way highway versus a five-lane highway.
As you know, we have three elementary schools on Hope
Mills Road. One in Lafayette Village, one in Ashton Forest, and one at
Cumberland Mills. Two schools are existing on one side of the road and one
school on the other side of the road. My concern is we have school guards at
certain locations at each school. If you have a sidewalk in Lafayette Village area
on one side of the road and not the other side of the road, when you have your
children or other children trying to cross a five-lane highway in order to go down
the highway to the appropriate school, those children will be facing a terrible
situation. Nothing has been said any additional traffic-lights whatsoever. We
have a traffic-light at Redwood Drive and a traffic light, I think, down beyond
Ashton Forest. That's the only two traffic-lights in the whole Hope Mills Road until
you get to Cumberland Mills. Now those children in Cumberland Mills going down
to that school, if you have a side-walk all the way down Hope Mills Road on one
side, all these side-streets, the children will probably be crossing the side-roads
into the areas where the side-walk exist consequently endangering, in my opinion,
their safety. The only way they can get to appropriate cross-walks is at the
stoplight or where you have a security guard. I assume the 10 feet additional
space on both sides of the road will accommodate one sidewalk. And they are
talking about a bicycle-path or a utility use or other some feet on each side.
Because the elementary schools are located on both sides of
the highway between the Raeford Road and the Camden Road, I see no
alternative but having a sidewalk on both sides of the road to satisfy the children
in the first grade through the fifth or sixth grade because if not, they come out
these side-streets and they are going to go across that road to the other side
where the side-walk exists or constructed and those children crossing a five-lane
highway needs our attention. A decision needs to be made now for their safety
and not later on. I think this project should include sidewalks on both sides of the
road to satisfy that need. Thank you.
Moderator: I appreciate it. The request, as I said, came from I believe
Fayetteville and Hope Mills. I believe there was some type of conversation
between the two for that request for one. There is a cost-sharing agreement that
has to be reached, and so there is some money involved that the cities have to
incorporate or give to us in order to construct a sidewalk, and at this point, the
request was for one side versus two. I can understand exactly where you are
coming from. The traffic signals, there is one additional one planned at George
Owen Road. Of course that's at the other end. That's up front tonight. But there
U-2308 10 July 17, 1997
will be additional studies made all along this route prior to construction to make
actual determinations as to where lights would be needed, if any more are
needed, those types of things. But we don't have that this evening that we can
answer that.
Who would be next? Yes sir. You will be next. I was telling him
that he would be next.
Walt Pickal: Good evening. My name is Walt Pickal. I'm located at 1000
Hope Mills Road. I have been running an accounting and financial planning
practice at 1000 since August 1981. 1 have a couple of comments of things I have
observed over the last 16-17 years, and some of these are comments and some
of these are thoughts maybe for some other ones, somebody else's comments.
Granted we need some improvement of Hope Mills Road, it is
a major thoroughfare, I know this now. Every night I leave out it's just waiting a
long time to get out on the road. But I have some concern when the road is
widened, what is going to happen to the value of the property owners property on
all the way down to the Camden Road. And I bring out a couple of things,
problems that I am encountering right now, that I think other people have
encountered and probably more people will encounter once we get that traffic up
higher and once the road goes closer and closer to the building.
One thing, these buildings were never really made, I think, to
withstand the noise that comes from a major thoroughfare like Hope Mills Road
and what it will become. As we start tearing, or adding to the size of the road, we
are going to be taking down more trees and we are going to have more noise
problems. Now that may seem very immaterial to a lot of you, but sitting in my
office and a number of other offices on Hope Mills Road, I have four panes of
glass in there. I have a double-insulated window and I have actually just put in
last year, a special window made out of two-panes of auto glass that we picked up
trying to find something to buffet the noise. (If this is too loud, I will keep it down.)
So there's a noise problem that a lot of you don't really realize right now but a lot
of businesses will realize or understand or experience it as we get expanding this
road. Now it is a little better in the summertime because the dampness of the air
kind of buffets it, but in the wintertime it is very heavy. So its something to
consider. And that noise is going to affect the value of our properties later down
the road when we want to sell those things. It is one thing to consider and it's a
cost that's going to have to be experienced or undertaken when the road expands,
someone is going to have to increase the insulation in your homes, the brick
buffeting there, and the glass to keep the noise down. So that's one thing I
wanted you to consider.
Also, parking. I'm somewhat fortunate. 1 have parking in the
back of my office so when they cut the front off of *the office, we will have some
areas where people can drop off stuff but our parking is going to be very limited
but still we will probably be able to survive. The daycare centers next to me, the
two of those/the three of those buildings, they are going to experience quite a
U-7308 11 Juty 17, 1997
problem because they don't have any access to the back of their building. And of
course as you access more traffic to the back of your building, then you've got
only one way out and you're going to have a problem getting out into Hope Mills
Road. A number of people have proposed to me; and just another idea, really
what needs to be done since they are taking the front of this road is to and the
noise is going to move forward not only from our property but to the line of
properties right behind us, some people have suggested that why don't you
consider just taking--also picking up the houses--the line of house behind us and
allowing us to have access from Hope Mills Road. You come in from Hope Mills
Road, you go through the office, and you go out on Eucalyptus Road and the road
in the back, which would give you some more access, it would definitely be a
safety thing because you wouldn't have people coming in but they would access
out another way. I have to agree a difficulty would be the fact that Eucalyptus, I
think that's the name of the street, would have an increasela little bit of an
increase in volume there, but the possibility if those houses were taken, we on
Hope Mills Road would on that side of the street; and there must be a similar
parallel street on the other side, would have enough parking to not decrease the
value of our buildings and also to increase safety because we would have another
access route. Right now it's going to be in one way, out one way, and it's going to
be a lot more difficult to get onto a five-lane than it is to get on a two-lane.
I have been there at 1000 since 1981. We have seen a lot of
accidents, those are rear-end type accidents, and I would believe in our section of
the road--at least where I am--all of that problem would have been resolved with a
three-lane road, a tuming-lane. That's really, at our end, the only problem that I
really see. Now it may not be as simple as just looking at my section, but a
turning-lane would allow us to hold/prevent any stoppages of traffic that you have,
and I think a turning-lane would probably allow us to survive there for the next 15
or 20 years. Its a thought which, to me, that's all I think they need in my section.
Up the road a little further, they may need five lanes completely. And of course it
doesn't address the problem with the children walking on Hope Mills Road. I
recognize that's a real problem. Fortunately, I'm right down from J. W. Coon
Elementary. There has never been an accident there that I can recall with a child
in all the years that I've been there, but the potential is there each and every day.
So I realize that.
I guess also when we are looking down the road there is
going to be traffic coming in from Cliffdale. I would assume that Hope Mills Road
is not just going to stay here--I'm assuming, and 1 stand to be corrected-that
down the road they will take Cook in from Cliffdale Road, right across and into
Hope Mills Road, and that would of course expand the traffic that we are going to
have which will, of course even though we have a five-lane, we are going to have
expanded traffic in that will complicate our problem there. These are just ...
thoughts, and I think one other point here. I would like to bring out maybe two
other points.
Our experience, when we had the highway coming closer to
our home in Rayconda, was that there was a lot of information being thrown
U-2308 12 July 17, 1997
around all the time. There is a lot of people trying to get information. Some times
it doesn't come out from a single source. What I have done, I have brought with
me this evening, some sheets of Blue paper which I will put off to the side here,
and it's up to you entirely, but I think a Hope Mills Road Property Owners/Property
User's Association should be formed here to kind of guide this thing, but to keep
people aware of what is happening and possibly to, if there is a point we need to
express, we have more power in terms of numbers than we do individually going
against the system. And I compliment the people for what they've done here this
evening, but this will affect all of us sitting here for the next 20 years, for our
lifetime. I see a little bit of Gray hair out there. Its going to affect us selling these
buildings down the road--the noise, the parking, the traffic--I don't see where
necessarily the widening is going to help the traffic-flow, but its definitely going to
have a negative--in my opinion--significant/negative impact on our properties on
both sides of the road.
This is what makes it so tough. If you have a neighborhood
they're going through, it's a little bit different. But here we are affecting, there's
only so much land, so its going to affect one side or the other but it might be good
to have an organization, informal as it is, to keep track of everything; and I say put
out information, as we go along. And I'm volunteering, not necessarily to head
that organization, but to start up a list of leaving the names here or the sheets of
paper here with your name, address, and telephone number and a fax number
and as information becomes available, we can provide that to you as we go along.
I guess that's it. Thank you very much for your time, and these again are
comments. Thank you.
Moderator: We had one to sign up that I failed to... Oh that was you.
I'm sorry. So you have spoken. Okay, you sir.
Paul Mallett: I'm Paul Mallett. I live at 1014 Hope Mills Road for about 20
some years. My daughter lives there now. I have a lawn-mower repair shop
there. There is definitely a need to widen Hope Mills Road. As far as the
accidents are concerned, I've had two dogs run over and killed in front of my
house and I know of two children going to that Quik Stop right across from my
house that have been hit by cars. Widening the road wouldn't change it. The
cars come down through there at 65 miles an hour, that's the problem.
I want to remind you of something that: happened over on
McPherson Church Road between Cliffdale and Morganton. The Highway
Department went in there, widened it to five-lanes, and its a mess. Its been a
mess every time since it happened. People cannot get out of.their driveways. I
just hope and pray that what they are doing on Hope Mills Road would be much
better. I don't know if the speed-limit is going to stay the same, 35, that don't
mean too much. But, let me reiterate. If you have ever driven to Hope Mills in the
evenings, say 4:30 or 5:00 o'clock, it takes you 30 minutes. So we do need a
wider, a better system than we have right now. I thank you for your time.
U-2308 13 July 17, 1997
Moderator: I appreciate it. Thank you for those comments. Are there
others that wish to speak for the Record. Yes sir.
Unidentified Male: I just have a question.
Moderator: Come up here. I can't guarantee it that it's on the tape
recorder from back there.
Allen Boykins: My name is Allen Boykins. I own Country Time Real Estate
on Hope Mills Road. I've just got a question. In this, I don't see any thing on here
for sewer. Is sewer going to go in and we're going to have taps and all that?
Because every house on Hope Mills Road has got a septic tank.
Moderator: Yes sewer is, that's a City/Local government type thing.
Allen Boykins: Is that going to go in under your road or not?
Moderator: I have no idea. 1 am not aware at this point.
Allen Boykins: How do we find out?
Moderator: . We have to let somebody from the City possibly answer that
or County about sewer systems.
Unidentified Male: In that area, the Year 2002. That's what they told me last
year.
Moderator: Okay, the book... Hope Mills already has it? Okay as I
understand then, Hope Mills already has the sewer lines through there. So we
will work around that, or work with that, in terms of moving it. But this project will
be done in conjunction with what's there now. And if utilities have to be moved,
then we will have to move them.
Allen Boykins: Are you going to carry it into the cemetery (inaudible).
Moderator: Well we hope not. We hope that we have it planned to the
extent that you wouldn't have to do that. Certainly we are going through there and
see what's there. He said they are already there. So we may have to move
those, might have to relocate them. But hopefully it will be done before it's paved.
That would be ideally. Yes ma'am, if you would come up.
Teresa Steele: My name is Teresa Steele and I live at 5217 Butternut Drive,
which is at a signal light across from Sherwood Park School and I'm the next
house that's not shown. I'm a sole parent. I searched for many months to find my
house which I moved in less than a year ago. I didn't know anything about this
until a letter came to my neighbor, and that's why I came tonight. I spent very
many nights out on my porch listening to the noise, watching the traffic, checking
out the neighborhoods, checking out the schools, fire department right down the
U-2308 14 July 17,1997
street. I understand that Hope Mills Road does need to be expanded. When I
talked to the realtors and the information that they had, they were talking about
the City was saying about a three-lane with possible side-roads for pulling in at
the schools, the fire department, and everything else. I have an 8-year old, first
grader who walks across that road every day, and no, no accidents have been
happened, but there has been many close calls. I drive up and down the road
myself. I just don't think, like I said, I'm not on the line I'm right off the line but that
affects our neighborhood also. I agree with the problem about the noise. Right
now it is peaceful and it's quiet, it's beautiful. I have dogs, I listen to the traffic,
the fire station is up there, my children and I expect to live there for the next 20
years. So that's going to change property values if I have to sell.
Concerning my children and everything else, I agree it should
be three-lanes and possible four in some certain areas and parking facilities
because I have trouble pulling out too. And the business that comes up there and
where all the businesses that go up Hope Mills, which I go into. Well if you put a
five-lane you're not going to get into them anyway. So. I just want to say that.
Thank you.
Moderator: I appreciate. Are there other statements or comments? Yes
sir.
George Tilley: My name is George Tilley. I live at 3069 North Main Street.
At the present time, when I start out of my driveway I think I'm on the Indy 500.
The road in front of our house is three lanes now with a turn-lane in the center. In
order for us to make a left-turn from our home, we have to pull across one lane,
get in the center-lane before we can ever get over into the right-hand lane to go to
Hope Mills. You are taking your life on your own hands. To widen this road to
four-lanes; two each direction with a turn-lane in the center, you just have another
car to dodge. It will mean that we will have to come out of our home, make a
right-turn, go to the shopping center, get in the turning-lane, make a loop in the
shopping center to make a left-turn. The traffic right now is funneling from one
lane coming out of Hope Mills by our house and its bumper-to-bumper.
Going in to Hope Mills there's two lanes and a turn-lane. We
are talking about stuffing four-lanes of traffic going into downtown Hope Mills.
The gentleman said that you can take 30 minutes to get through the City of Hope
Mills. He is not exaggerating. When you expand this road and you put two other
lanes, another lane going in there, it's not going to alleviate the problem its going
to complicate it. The road itself, it's three lane, gives you an opportunity to make
your turns and to do it in a safe manner. By no means do we want to stand in the
way of progress, but progress is not create more of a problem than the land-
owners on that street already. And we do have a traffic problem.
The speed-limit in front of our house is 45, three-lanes, and a
congested area. You will not see a radar set up or a car stopped there more than
once a month. They never work the traffic there. You see the police, but you do
not see them actively working traffic on that road. When this road is widened, 45
U-2308 15 July 17, 1997
miles per hour and the cars in that off-lane, it's going to be next to impossible to
get across the street--for an automobile, for a child, for an elderly person. It's just
going to be another nightmare. We are going funnel all of the traffic to downtown
Hope Mills on two lanes to go under the underpass, go by the lake, and
throughout beautiful city--and its just mass confusion. You can come into Hope
Mills now when you gel to whore the drugstore is, right at the church, half of the
people make a left-turn, go the back-streets, come up Trade Street, come all the
way around and come out at the shopping center to try to get through two lanes.
Those people are people that are commuting from the east side of Hope Mills
trying to get to the west side of Hope Mills.
What we need is a loop around Hope Mills, not five lanes
going down into two lanes. We have not accomplished anything. If we are going
to spend all of this money, let's spend it to improve our city and to make it a better
place to live and make it a better place for people to get in and out of the City. It
is not going to affect the commercial value of the property along there that all of
us hope to sell one of these days because its there, its going to stay there. The
loop is going to provide the access for people to get in and out of Hope Mills in
order to come there to trade, to live there, but also to be able to do it in a safe
manner.
We have a house that is about, our front porch is 30 feet from
the right of way. I haven't looked at the map but I dare say that when they get
through we are going to probably loose our front house. It's a house that our son
lives in. Our home is approximately 200 feet back off of Hope Mills Road. If you
are in the front room of our home, which is my study, I can hear a boom-box when
it goes down the road. So I can imagine what is going to happen to these folks
when it is five lane wide and they're within 25-30 feet of this highway. It's going to
be more noise than they ever had before. It's going to be excessive.
We talk about environmental issues. I am sure that the State
will run the most extensive environmental assessment study that's possible. We
are looking at an estuary, the Rockfish Creek which feeds into Hope Mills Lake.
WE are going to put more off of this street into that creek. At times of extreme
amounts of rain, that creek gets out of the bank. The little golf-course over there
is sometimes as much as two feet of water. When we put five lanes of highway
there all we have done is move the water three times to five times as fast it would
move coming off the highway that was not curbed and guttered going through the
natural vegetation that filters out all of the dirt and the other things that are going
to go into the stream.
We need progress, but we do not need five lanes. What we
need is this proposed loop around Fayetteville and around Hope Mills where all of
this traffic can get in and out and not come down and dump through downtown
Hope Mills just to get to the west side of Hope Mills to go home. We need relief,
but not in this manner. Thank you.
Moderator: I appreciate it. Who would be next? Yes sir.
U-2308 16 July 17, 1997
John Henley: I'm John Henley, 216 Lake Shore Drive, Hope Mills. In
regards to the last gentleman that spoke, exactly what I'm here for, I think we have
made a mistake as far as the media is concerned. May I first say though, I wish
the next hearing you have, please have some directions to get to the hearing. I
took my exercise, I'm about an hour getting here. And also, I think you should
have some air-conditioning when it gets to going. Anyway, I think the bypass at
Hope, of course I don't remember where it is on the TIP Program; as far as the
Transportation Improvement Program, as far beginning or end. Does anyone
know? I think it should be furnished to the media as soon as possible because I
think there is a real misunderstanding as far as what's what. At Camden Road, if
you put five lanes at Camden Road and going in to Hope Mills, you are going to
have chaos. It is going to be extremely chaos. Why? Because we have the
underpass, we know we're going to have a bypass. And I think that the Town
Officials of Hope Mills is ready to bite a bullet once the Department of
Transportation lets us know which is the priority route as far as the bypass is
concerned. But if you go from 401 to Camden Road and stop there with a five-
lane and come into Hope Mills under the existing circumstances, the same road,
we are going to have chaos. So I hope that the timing, I understanding that the
TIP Program for a bypass is 2000 also, the Year 2000.
Unidentified Male: 2001.
John Henley: 2001. Well I hope, I tried to get a hold of Mr. Tippett today.
But I think that it should be moved at the same coordinating time that the
construction of both begins at the same time. I think it is extremely important.
And if we don't... of course you have got Camden Road but it shows going to the
left, which is where its got to go to get to the bypass, but no one knows exact
location. And I think it is only fair to let the citizens know who own property there
what's going to be taken because in 1979, a bypass was on the number one
priority in Cumberland County on the TIP Program for a bypass in Hope Mills
What happened to it I don't know. But in 1979, it was there. So I hope you would
get some information as soon as possible to the citizens of Hope Mills in
particular because to get the traffic through... its on the TIP Program, but we
don't know what year. But I think its got to be coordinated. I don't think you can
stop traffic at Camden Road one year unless you go ahead and do the bypass
and overhead. I think it would be a serious mistake. Thank you very much.
Moderator: Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. Who would be next? Yes
sir. Okay. Come forward and speak.
Lisa Stanolla: I'm Lisa Stanolla and I live on George Owen Road. I do not
live on Hope Mills Road, our road leads into Hope Mills Road. And talking about
bypass. The, I don't know if it has been approved yet. It is supposed to go from
Elk Road through Legion Road and then go through Camden Road into George
Owen Road over Raeford Road into Bunns Road into Ciiffdale. Now I don't know
if that has been approved yet. I think that is the loop the gentleman was talking
about that's supposed to connect 301 and 401.
U-2308 17 July 17.1997
Moderator: Talk into the mike.
Lisa Stanolla: Do you understand me?
Moderator: You have got to get closer to it.
Lisa Stanolla: Its supposed to go to George Owen Road. Its supposed to
come from Elk Road, through over Legion Road, down to Camden Road, then
through George Owen Road, meet at Cumberland Road going to Bingham, across
Raeford Road, Bunns Road into Cliffdale Road. That is the loop I believe the
gentleman that just spoke was talking about that's supposed to take some of the
traffic that is now on Hope Mills Road. Highway 59, this Highway 59, is that
approved yet? Is that solid approved?
Moderator: It's not finalized but its approved as far as doing the widening,
yes.

that going to go through our neighborhood in the back roads?
Moderator: That was part...
Lisa Stanolla: You don't know?
Moderator: That was part of this project, its not.
Lisa Stanolla: This is also that's going to come up next because if you are
going to build this five lanes on Hope Mills Road, that's going to be too much for
anyone else from the side-streets to get through Hope Mills Road. to 301 and 401.
Do you understand what I am talking about?
I'm a little bit embarrassed, but I thought I-would bring-it up.
And we were talking about it in a meeting in Hope Mills Road and the
neighborhood that I live in is George Owen Road, leaving from Camden Road to
Bingham Road, and the people there live very close to the road now. And if our
roads are being widened, which was proposed, then we are going to be either
sitting right at the curb or we're going to have to relocate. Now from what I have
seen, I have lived in my area for 30 years. Lafayette Village used to be a real
pretty neighborhood, but it has now become mainly business. So will all of Hope
Mills Road eventually become commercial if you build this?
Moderator:
Lisa Stanolla:
That's a local government issue, that's not a State issue.
How do I find this out?
U-2308 18 July 17, 1997
Moderator: 1 would work with your local government on that to find out
what the zoning of that particular segment would be.
Lisa Stanolla: I see. Okay, that answers my question. Thank you.
Moderator: Now when it comes to building highways, we do build them
but when it comes to zoning issues, that's strictly a local government issue and
would be decided by the local government in the area as to what the zoning would
be through this particular area. Our primary responsibility is to plan and design
and construct roads. And one other issue that keeps coming up is the ease of
entry into a five-lane road. Most studies that I have seen indicate it is easier to
get into that five-lane road than it is a two-lane road. Although I have some
problems too, and I know exactly what you are talking about, but there is more of
a gap when you have two lanes moving traffic through that allows some
opportunity to enter that road over and above what you've got, maybe even with a
two-lane road because you are at the mercy of somebody being courteous or
doing you a favor to let you in in those cases. So studies do indicate that the five-
lane is not as difficult as the perception would lead you to believe that it would be.
Who would be next? Someone...
Robert Harris: My name is Robert Harris, I'm at 3127 North Main Street in
Hope Mills, and I live at 108 Gales Street in Hope Mills. I have been there for 20
years. I just want to say that the things that Mr. Henley was talking about with
coordinating the bypass with this road is the most important thing, I think, that has
been said tonight as far as Hope Mills is concerned because all its going to do is,
just like he said, is throw all of that traffic right into the heart of town and where
there is two lanes, or three or a turning-lane and some of it. And I'd like to call on
our "City Fathers" to use all of their influence possible to help do that. Thank you
very much.
Moderator: I appreciate it. Yes sir, if you would like...
Paul Grooms: I thank you again for the second time to speak with you.
Again I'm Paul Grooms. I would like for clarification to be made in regards to Mr.
Henley's comments about the bypass. As I understand, the bypass he was
referring to is the bypass of the extension of NC 13 from north of Fayetteville and
1-95 through Fort Bragg and into Hope Mills, bypass Hope Mills to the south of I-
95. Is that the bypass we are talking about?
John Henley: That's what I'm talking about.
Paul Grooms: That's my understanding, and I certainly share the concerns
with Hope Mills because I am a graduate from Hope Mills High School and this
traffic, Hope Mills, is a terrible situation. But I have a little concern about trying to
identify the additional traffic on this improvement about impacting the two-lane
road at Hope Mills. I don't think that by expanding this road from a two-lane to a
five-lane will necessarily decrease or increase the traffic through Hope Mills.
U-2309 19 July 17, 1997
Bear with me. I know that it takes longer than 30 minutes to
get through Hope Mills on a two-lane road once you go into Hope Mills on the
existing road. We are talking about making a major improvement from Camden
Road to the 401 highway which is the Raeford Road. And that improvement is
significant. But I also share the concern about this bypass Mr. Henley made
reference to. It is a most needed thing and should be concerned by the State as a
coordinated effort because it would cost probably more money to expand the road
through Hope Mills than this entire project because from the 401 highway to
Camden Road. So Hope Mills need the bypass.
If we are talking about NC 13 coming in, again from north of
Fayetteviulle on 1-95 through Fort Bragg into the western part of the
Fayetteville/Cumberland County area, bypassing Hope Mills and winding up on I-
95 South, I think that is the answer to the Hope Mills traffic on the main street
through Hope Mills. At least it would eliminate the tremendous amount of traffic
through that area. I shared Mr. Henley's concern. If you do one and not the other
one, we haven't helped Hope Mills at all. You've got a terrible problem there and
it won't decrease until that bypass is completed, and it should be a joint venture.
Thank you again.
Moderator: I appreciate it. If that's the project that I'm thinking, it's the
one we had problems with the Red-Cockaded woodpecker, and it slowed it down
significantly. So I believe that bypass, hopefully we are resolving some of those
issues and maybe we can do what you are asking here. Yes sir.
Lindell Jenkins: Hello, I'm Lindell Jenkins and I have a place on 1111 Hope
Mills Road that I currently rent. I'm not sure how many people in there has my
problem, I know my septic tank and drainage and everything is in the front yard,
and I'm concerned about when they're coming in how this will affect the septic
tanks that are in the front. Is that going to be more expense for the
residence/owners or whatever or will the State take care of this problerri'if A runs
into their drainage?
And the second question is, of course I rent out my building
there to real estate office and with all this construction going for the people the
other side of the property and they rent it, will there any kind of compensation if
the people just get tired of the mess and decide to, move out or just, you know, get
away from all of the construction?
Moderator: The first question about the septic tanks and sewage lines
and that type thing. If they are in the front and would be affected by the widening
of the road, we have to supply you as, as a State agency, with a septic tank and
water. We can't cut you off from either one of those two services. WE have to
provide it in some way. Hopefully if the lot is big enough, we try to relocate a
septic tank on the lot. At times we try to tie it into the City system or local
government system if that's possible, but we have to supply you with those
services.
U-2308 20 July 17, 1997
And the second question about the rental. There is help for tenants,
and that's about as much as I could say. Now if they decided to leave while
construction is going on; hopefully we would have dealings with them before we
get to that stage, but if they are still in there while .. . You're saying they're upset
with the project and noise and so forth? I don't know about that. You will need to
talk with a Right of Way Agent, I think, about that. I don't think there would be, it's
kind of speculation and so forth, but it's a business loss and so you have to deal
with that. Yes sir.
Unidentified Male: Do you have an estimated time? I'm like him. I have a
business there. Do you have an estimated time and how long our business will
close down because of this?
Moderator: Well hopefully they won't be closed. We would provide
access while construction is going on. There are no plans for a detour route. We
are planning to keep it open during construction.
Unidentified Male: (Inaudible).
Moderator: Yes sir. And we are widening to either side of it and then
we'll come back in the end and re-pave what's there so it would be a consistent
surface all'the way across. But the existing road would remain while these
improvements are going on.
Who would be next?
Edwin Deaver: I'm Edwin Deaver and I reside at 3604 Gold View Road at
Hope Mills, and I just wanted to comment that this is one of many projects that's
going to be taken place in and around Hope Mills. And, you know, some projects
have to be first and we need relief so bad that we'll take whatever project we can
get that will help us.
This project, and I've heard the concerns and I'm sure they
will be recorded, but this will be a help for Hope Mills. Also, the loop will be a
great help for Hope Mills, and the Town Board has requested DOT to begin that
project at our end of the loop if at all possible, just.speed it up you know. And
another project that is coming in our area is widening of the Camden Road and
also Legion Road. So I know anytime we have a project, once you get some
progress, its going to be inconvenient for a while. But I think that when you have
this whole project's puzzle put together and completed, it's going to be a great
relief for our area. And the area continues to grow, there is other development;
homes being developed in and around Hope Mills so the traffic is going to
increase regardless. And so anything they can do to accelerate these projects
would be great. Thank you.
Moderator: Thank you. Will there be other comments for the record? If
not, we will be here a while to answer individual question about properties along
U-2308 21 Juty 17, 1997
the route. I'll ask one more time is there anyone that would like to speak? Okay
at this point I declare the meeting adjourned. I appreciate your coming and good
luck to you.
LLH:cdh
July 16, 1997
Hearing adjourned,
L. L. Hendricks
Moderator
Citizens Participation Unit
U-2309 22 July 17. 1997
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
LT1.9;TA
4 o 2J
D E N R
August 20, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Cyndi Bell (` L 13
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for NC 59 from 0.750 km (0,04 mile) South of
Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business
Cumberland County
State Project No. 9. 1441202, T.I.P. No. U-2308
DENR # 99-0115, DWQ # 12190
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. Construction of the Preferred
Alternative will involve 0.25 acre of fill in wetlands and a single stream crossing. DWQ
appreciates the efforts made by DOT to address our concerns with the EA. Based upon the
commitments made by DOT in the FONSI, DWQ concurs with proposed work.
Based upon the project description provided in the FONSI, a General 401 Water Quality
Certification should be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization will require formal
application by NCDOT and written concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval
will be contingent upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts
to the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality
concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification Program should be directed to Cyndi Bell at (919) 733-
1786 or (yndi F3e1(,. )h2o.ennstate...tlcc:..us in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences
Branch.
Cc: Dave Timpy, COE, Wilmington
Tom McCartney, FWS
David Cox, WRC
Ken Averitte, FRO
U2308FON
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
?A41 0
r
C) F-= F=1
February 13, 1997
FAXED
MEMORANDUM FEB 13 1997
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Cyndi Bell C YJ
Subject: Environmental Assessment for NC 59 from 0.750 kin (0.(4 mile) South of Camden
Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business
Cumberland Comity
State Project DOT No. 8.1441202, T.I.P. No. U-2308
EHNR # 97-0464, DWQ # 11497
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact waters
of the state including wetlands. The project will impact up to 0.10 hectare (0.25 acre) of wetlands.
Impacts to surface waters at a single perennial stream crossing were not quantified. DWQ offers the
following continents based on the document review:
A) NCDOT proposes widening of 7.1 km (4.4 miles) of NC 59 within an urbanized area. Based
upon the design restrictions within the immediate project vicinity and considering the project's
minimal effects on wetlands, DWQ endorses DOT's selected alternative.
B) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures are not placed
in wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction contract awarded for
this project.
C) DWQ arks that NCDOT stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland sources in the
construction contract awarded for this project.
D) A new bridge is to be constructed alongside the existing bridge at Little Rockfish Creek. No
other stream crossings, culvert extensions or channel changes will be required. If this detail
changes during the design phase of the project, strewn mitigation may be required in accordance
with current DWQ Wetland Rules { 15A NCAC 211.0506(b)(6)) which were not in effect at the
time the EA was prepared.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, General Certification 2735 will likely be applicable
to this project. Final permit authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of
avoidance and minimization of wetland and strewn impacts to the extent practical, wid provision of
wetland and stream mitigation where necessary.
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper
A ?
Ms. Melba McGee Memo
February 13, 1997
Page 2
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Assessment. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality
concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met and no uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Scott McLendon, DOA, Wilmington
Marc Hamel, NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U2308EA.DOC
3?
-'D 6
\ U
QPP?MENT OF ryF United States Department of the Interior
o?" - ym
'-' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
?4gCH `aa Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 3, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
clk
i
RECEIVED
FE B 1 0 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
This responds to your letter of January 13, 1997, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
Environmental Assessment zfdated October 1996, for the
•r ' f ' "-e» rir1 r??ax?t ? NOrtM Carol r4 Ili Im.- iJ, „.
8). This report is provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen the existing two-lane
roadway of NC 59 to a five-lane, curb-and-gutter roadway from 0.4
miles south of Camden Road (SR 1003) north to the intersection
with US 401 business. The project would require the widening of
the existing bridge over Little Rockfish Creek. The total length
of the proposed project would be approximately 4.4 miles.
Purpose and Need Statement
The EA states (p. 1) that "the purpose of the proposed project is
to increase the traffic capacity and safety on NC 59 by widening
the existing two-lane facility to a five-lane roadway with curb
and gutter." The Service believes that this statement extends
beyond a need and purpose to include a specific solution. A need
statement should mention specific problems such as traffic
exceeding the existing infrastructure and a high level of traffic
accidents. The purpose statement should reflect a desire to
alleviate traffic congestion and reduce traffic accidents. The
need and purpose statement should allow for a range of possible
solutions to be considered and not be so narrowly focused as to
practically dictate the selection of a single alternative. The
data presented in the EA (pp. 2-5) do indicate that there is a
need to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety in the
project area.
Alternatives Analysis
Section V of the EA (pp. 11-12) considers alternatives for the
project. The Service is pleased that the purpose of the project
can be achieved by improvements to the existing roadway. We feel
that the analysis of alternatives is adequate.
Wetlands and Aquatic Communities
The EA considers (pp. 21-22) project impacts on jurisdictional
wetlands. Preliminary plans indicate that wetland impacts would
be minimal and consist of approximately 0.1 acres. Based on data
in the EA, the Service believes that the NCDOT has endeavored to
avoid and minimize wetland impacts associated with this project.
The EA suggests (p. 22) that compensatory mitigation may not be
required for this project. While permanent wetland losses are
relatively small, we believe that the cumulative loss of wetlands
in the project area (City of Fayetteville) has been significant.
These cumulative losses have given added significance to the few
wetlands that remain. While the remaining wetlands may provide
marginal wildlife habitat, they provide benefits to society in the
form of flood control and water quality improvement. Therefore,
the Service recommends that the NCDOT vigorously seek to
compensate for permanent wetland losses on an in-kind, on-site
basis.
The proposed project would require work at Little Rockfish Creek
to improve the existing bridge. The Service supports the
recommendation of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), given in their letter of August 22, 1994, to conduct the
bridge widening in a manner which minimizes wetland impacts. We
also support the NCWRC's recommendations to: (1) limit bridge work
to the period from September 1 to January 1 and, (2) use a bridge
design which would not obstruct fish movement along the creek.
These measures would minimize impacts to anadromous fish.
Federally Protected Species
The EA evaluates (pp. 23-27) potential project impacts to species
protected by the ESA. Cumberland County is known to contain five
species protected by the ESA. These are the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia),
rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), American
chaff seed (Schwalbea americana), and Mitchell satyr (Neonympha
mitchelli francisci). The NCDOT has concluded that the project
will not affect any of these species. These conclusions are based
primarily on the absence of suitable habitat in the project area.
While the EA does provide a brief basis for each conclusion, we
believe that these supporting remarks would benefit from
additional details. We assume that these determinations are
01
based, completely or in part, on the field survey conducted by
Lane Sauls of the NCDOT on October 6, 1994 (p. 15). However, this
is not stated in the section on federally-protected species.
While the support for each effect determination is minimal, we
believe it is adequate for the proposed project. Based on the
information supplied by the NCDOT, the Service concurs that this
project is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed
endangered and threatened species, their formally designated
critical habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal
listing under the ESA, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; and/or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified
action.
Summary
The Service believes that the EA presents data which indicate that
a problem exists with the present roadway infrastructure in the
project area. The EA also presents adequate information on the
alternatives evaluated and the environmental impacts of the
project. Based on information contained in the EA and a
confidence that the NCDOT will consider the recommendations
contained in this letter, the Service anticipates no objections to
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project at
this time.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. Please continue to advise us of the progress made in the
planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If our office can supply any additional
information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall at (919)-
856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely,
John M. efner
Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:2/3/97:WP:A:cumu2308.297

NC 59
From 0.750 km (0.04 miles) South
of Camden Road (SR 1003)
to US 401 Business
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project # STPNHF-59(1)
State Project Number 8.1441202
T.I.P. Number U-2308
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved:
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
ate H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
/0L3 19k
Date ich L. Graf, P.E.
M-givision of Administration, FHWA
NC 59
From 0.750 km (0.04 miles)
South of Camden Road (SR 1003)
to US 401 Business
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project # STPNHF-59(1)
State Project Number 8.1441202
T.I.P. Number U-2308
Environmental Assessment
September, 1996
Marc Hamel
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Unit
Richard B. Davis, P.E. Rs-sistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
.?`??N C;r.v ,
• SC AL
6944 =
B
Draft 10-30-96
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
II
Environmental Commitments
Summary
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .............................................. I
A. General Description ...................................................................1
B. Historical Resume ...................................................................1
NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................1
A. Purpose of Project ...................................................................1
B. Thoroughfare Plan 2
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ..........................................2
1. Projected Traffic Volumes .................................................2
2. Capacity Analysis ...............................................................2
D. Anticipated Safety Benefits ............................................................4
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community .....................................5
111. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY ...................................................6

A. Length ............................................... .
................... 6
B. Project Terminals ................................................................... 6
C. Route Classification ................................................................... 6
D. Roadway Cross Section ................................................................. 6
E. Right-of-Way Access Control .......................................
F. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ................................................. 6
G. Speed Limit ................................................................... 7
H. Intersection and Type of Control ................................................... 7
1. Railroad Crossing ................................................................... 7
J. Structures .................................................................. .7
K. Type of Roadside Development .................................................... .7
L. Utilities .................................................................. .7
M. Sidewalks .................................................................. .7
N. Bicycles .................................................................. .8
0. School Bus Data 8
P. Degree of Roadside Interference ................................................... .8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................8
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
General Location ...........................................8
Length of Proposed Project ...........................................................8
Design Speed ...................................................................8
Proposed Cross Section .................................................................8
Right-of-Way ...................................................................8
Access Control ...................................................................9
Intersection Treatment ...................................................................9
Structures ...................................................................9
1. Roadway Structures ...........................................................9
2. Drainage Structures .........................................................10
1. Parking .................................................................10
J Sidewalks .................................................................10
K. Bicycle Facilities .................................................................10
L. Landscaping .................................................................10
M. Special Permits Required .............................................................10
N. Noise Barriers .................................................................11
0. Maintenance of Traffic ................................................................11
P Estimated Project Cost ................................................................11
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Widening on Existing Alignment (Recommended) .......................11
B. New Location Alternative ............................................................ I I
C. Public Transportation Alternative ................................................12
D. No-Build Alternative .................................................................12
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, and ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................12
A. Land Use and Planning ................................................................12
B. Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................13
J
C. Natural Resources .................................................................15
D. Air and Noise Quality .................................................................28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
E. Construction Effects ............................................ .....................38
F. Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins ...... .....................39
G. Hazardous Materials Involvement ........................... .....................40
' H. Comments and Coordination .................................. .....................41
1. Basis for Environmental Assessment ....................... .....................41
Figures
Appendix
NC 59
From 0.750 km (0.04 miles)
South of Camden Road (SR 1003)
to US 401 Business
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project # STPNHF-59(1)
State Project Number 8.1441202
T.I.P. Number U-2308
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. To minimize impacts to water resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation
Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project.
2. Work in the water in conjunction with construction of bridge #25115 and
approaches will be confined to the date window of September 1 to January 1 to
avoid obstructions to migrating anadromous fish.
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
proposes to widen NC 59 in Cumberland County from 0.750 km (0.4 miles) south
of Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business (See Appendix, Figure 1 and 2).
The project is approximately 7.1 km (4.4 miles) in length and will provide a five-
lane, 19.2 m (64-ft.) face to face, roadway with curb and gutter. Improvements
will also include widening bridge #25115 to a five-lane, 22.8 meter (76-foot) clear
structure width offset west to accommodate this cross section. The current total
estimated cost of this improvement project is $ 13,925,000. The estimated cost in
the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is $13,950,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed action will have a positive overall impact on the area
involved by providing improved access to the existing and future development
along the project corridor and in Hope Mills. The project will also reduce
congestion and the potential for accidents along the currently heavily traveled
existing NC 59. One business relocation is anticipated due to the proposed
improvements. There may be some erosion and siltation during construction,
however this will be minimized by adherence to Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines. There will
also be some delay and inconvenience to motorists during construction, though
this will be short-term in nature. No substantial effects to animal or plant life are
expected, and no recreational facilities, historic sites or archaeological sites eligible
for the National Register will be involved. Traffic noise abatement is not
recommended and no abatement measures are proposed. The project encroaches
upon less than 0.1 ha (0.1 ac) of wetlands at the Little Rockfish Creek crossing.
n
3. Alternatives Considered
Due to existing development along NC 59 from US 401 Business to
0.750 km south of Camden Road (SR 1003) only one widening alternative was
considered feasible for this project. The proposed improvement is to widen the
existing facility to a five-lane, 19.2 m (64-ft.), face to face, curb and gutter
roadway. The existing bridge at Little Rockfish Creek will be widened off-set to
the west, as off-site detours are not feasible. Offset widening to the west was
chosen at this location as impacts to the natural systems were roughly equivalent
with either offset, while impacts to existing development would be less when offset
to the west. The total bridge length will be approximately 36.9 m (121-ft.). The
bridge will be widened by constructing a new structure beside the existing facility,
and routing traffic onto it while a tie-in is made to the existing structure. A 12.2 m
(40-ft.) clear structure roadway width is recommended for the expansion of the
existing bridge. Other options considered and rejected were new location
alignments, mass transit, and "Do-Nothing" alternatives. New location alternatives
were deemed unfeasible due to the dense commercial and residential development
surrounding and paralleling NC 59. Any new location alternative would be as, or
more, disruptive and costly to surrounding development. A mass transit
alternative was considered and discarded due to no projected or existing mass
transit serving this area. The "Do-Nothing" alternative was likewise considered
and discounted due to the need to improve safety, capacity, and driver convenience
in this rapidly growing area.
4. Coordination
The following Federal , State, and Local agencies were consulted during
the preparation of this environmental assessment.:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
Environmental Review Branch, U.S. E.P.A. Region IV
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Environmental Service
Geological Survey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region `M' Council of Governments
Mayor of Hope Mills
Cumberland County Commissioners
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*Division of Archives and History, DCR
*Auxiliary Services, Public Instruction
*DEM-DEHNR
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Denotes agencies from which input was received.
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies
It is anticipated a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) General Permit
#31 will be applicable for this project. This permit authorizes the discharge of
dredged or fill material in water/wetlands associated with the maintenance, repair,
and construction of bridges spanning navigable waters and waters of the United
States. Also, a Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for
any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is
required.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes to
widen NC 59 from 0.750 km (0.4 miles) south of Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401
Business in Cumberland County (See Appendix, Figures l and 2). The project is
approximately 7.1 km (4.4 miles) in length and will provide a five-lane, 19.2 m (64-ft.)
face to face, roadway with curb and gutter. Bridge # 25115 will be retained and widened
off-set to the west to accommodate this proposed cross section. The current total
estimated cost of this project is $13,925,000. The estimated cost in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is $13,950,000.
B. Historical Resume
A feasibility study for the project was completed by NCDOT in July, 1988. The
feasibility study recommended widening NC 59 to a five-lane, 19.2m (64-ft.) face to face,
curb and gutter facility.
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held in Cumberland County by NCDOT
representatives to present the proposed project to the public and obtain comments and/or
suggestions about the anticipated improvement. The workshop was held on
September 15, 1994 at the Sherwood Park Elementary School. Approximately 30 people
attended this meeting to express their interest in the improvement.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the traffic capacity and safety
on NC 59 by widening the existing two-lane facility to a five-lane roadway with curb and
gutter. This will increase traffic mobility and enhance safety by providing a center turn
lane for left turns and two additional through lanes in each direction. The existing route is
currently used by motorist traveling north/south through Cumberland County, and from
Fayetteville to the Hope Mills area. Due to development along this route and rapid new
residential development in Hope Mills, the amount of traffic has exceeded the design
capacity for the existing road. Therefore, improvements are immediately warranted to
accommodate traffic growth and to insure safety.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 59 is designated as an Other Major Thoroughfare on the mutually adopted
Fayetteville Thoroughfare Plan (adopted January 10, 1992, See Figures, Figure 3). The
proposed five-lane curb and gutter facility conforms with this plan and the construction of
this project will be a step towards its implementation. The existing NC 59 also appears on
the County Functional Classification System as an Urban Other Principal Arterial.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
Projected Traffic Volumes
The current traffic volumes on NC 59 for 1995 range from a low of
approximately 11,500 vehicles per day (vpd) near Butternut Road to a high
of 16,000 vpd near George Owen Road.. Corresponding projected low
and high traffic volumes on the project for the year 2020 are estimated to
be 17,900 vpd near Cumberland Road and 27,800 vpd near George Owen
Road. The 1995-2020 traffic volumes along the project, design hour data
and truck percentages, are shown on Figures P-1 and P-2 in the Figure
section at the back of the document.
2. Capacity Analysis
The concept of levels of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their
perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service (LOS)
definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as
speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort
and convenience, and safety.
Six levels-of-service are defined for each type of facility for which
analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations, from
A to F, with level-of-service A representing the best operation conditions
and level-of-service F the worst. In general, the various levels-of-service
are defined as follows for uninterrupted flow facilities:
Level-of-service A represents free flow. Individual users are
virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream
is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided
to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent.
Level-of-service B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of
other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select
desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in
freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of
comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A,
because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect
individual behavior.
Level-of-service C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the
beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users
become significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic
stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of others,
and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on
the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines
noticeably at this level.
Level-of-service D represents high-density, but stable, flow. Speed
and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver and
pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
Small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems at this
level.
Level-of-service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform
value. Freedom to maneuver in the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and
it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give
way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels
are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high.
Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow
of minor perturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.
Level-of-service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow.
This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point
exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such
locations. Operations within the queue are characterized by stop and go
waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at
reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, the be required to stop
in cyclic fashion. Level-of-service F is used to describe the operating
conditions within the queue, as well as the point of breakdown. It should
be noted, however, that in many cases operating conditions of vehicles or
pedestrians discharged from the queue may be quite good. Nevertheless, it
is the point at which arrival flow exceeds discharge flow which causes the
queue to form, and level-of-service F is an appropriate designation for such
points.
A capacity analysis was performed for the intersections along
NC 59 based upon projected traffic volumes for the years 1995 and 2020
(see Capacity Table below).
CAPACITY TABLE
INTERSECTIONS CURRENT OPENING DESIGN DESIGN
YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR
(BUILD) LOS (NO BUILD) (BUILD)
1995 (BUILD) 2020 2020
2001
US 401 Business and NC 59 E C F E
Redwood Drive (SR 1276)
and NC 59 D B F D
Wingate Road (SR 1136)
and NC 59 E B F D
Cumberland Road (SR 1141)
and NC 59 F C F E
George Owen Road (SR
1133) E C F E
and NC 59
Camden Road (SR 1003) and
NC 59 F C F E
These capacity analyses indicate that while the projected
improvements will serve at acceptable levels-of-service until well into the
planning period, additional improvements should also be studied before the
planning period is completed. Immediate attention to improving NC 59 is
warranted, however construction to accommodate all of the future
projected traffic growth is not considered feasible. Widening NC 59 to any
cross section wider than 5-lanes is impractical as it would relocate at least
one half of the existing development along the route. Likewise, alternative
routes on new alignments are not feasible, and are discussed in the section
`Alternatives' below.
D. Anticipated Safety Benefits
The widening of NC 59 to a five-lane, face to face roadway, with curb and gutter
will allow for safer operations. Extra capacity is obtained by the additional lanes which
decreases vehicle density and increases average headway. The frequency and length of
acceptable gaps is increased, thereby making it safer to enter NC 59 from side streets and
driveways. The continuous center turn lane has proven to be a safety enhancement for
4
accident-prone streets that at one time did not provide protected turning areas. This lane
provides a safe area for turning vehicles by moving them out of the through traffic stream.
The frequency of rear-end accidents will be reduced with through traffic no longer
stopping and starting as turning vehicles are making their maneuver.
The Accident Table below presents a comparison between accident rates along the
project and the statewide rates for all similar urban NC routes. The rates for NC 59 were
obtained from studies conducted between July, 1991 and June, 1994. The average
statewide rates were obtained from studies conducted during the same period.
ACCIDENT TABLE
Accidents Rates per 100 MVK
Accident Types Rates along NC 59 Average Statewide Rates
Total Rate 420.88 251.40
Fatal 0.87 0.80
Non-Fatal 203.03 103.90
Night-Time 81.04 48.70
Wet Conditions 108.05 54.6
These figures show the rates for all types of accidents along the project corridor
are much higher than the corresponding statewide rates.
Ten percent of accidents recorded involved left turns across traffic, eleven percent
involved angle collisions, while fifty nine percent involved rear-end collisions. The
remaining accidents were spread over a wide variety of types of collisions. Accidents
were clustered mainly at the intersections of Camden Road (SR 1003), Cumberland Road
(SR 1141), and Spruce Drive to US 401 Business. As stated before, the proposed
improvements to NC 59 are anticipated to dramatically enhance safety along the project,
especially in the frequency of rear-end collisions..
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The widening of NC 59 will improve traffic movement, reduce accidents, reduce
travel times, and provide increased access to the Hope Mills area. The improvement in the
ease and convenience of travel will benefit the state and region as well as the local
communities (such as Hope Mills) south and west of Fayetteville.
5
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length
The project length is approximately 7.1 kilometers (4.4 miles).
B. Project Terminals
The northern terminus is at the tee intersection of NC 59 and US 401 Business.
The existing cross section of NC 59 at this location is a three-lane, 11.9 meter curb and
gutter roadway (39-foot face to face).
The southern terminus is located 0.750 km (.04 miles) south of Camden Road
(SR 1003). At this location NC 59 is a multi-lane facility consisting of
four-lanes with curb and gutter 15.9 meter (52-foot face to face).
C. Route Classification
NC 59 is functionally classified as an Other Urban Principal Arterial throughout
the entire length of the project.
D. Roadway Cross Section
The basic existing cross section for NC 59, from US 401 Business to just north of
Cumberland Road (SR 1141), is a two-lane, 7.2 meter (24-foot) facility with a 1.2 meter
(4-foot) unpaved shoulder width. There are additional turn lanes at the intersection of
NC 59 with US 401, Wingate Road (SR 1136), and Redwood Drive (SR 1267). From
Cumberland Road (SR 1141) to 0.750 km south of Camden Road (SR 1003) the cross
section is a three-lane, 10.8 meter (36-foot) facility with a continuous center turn lane and
a 1.8 meter (6-foot) shoulder width. Random sections of curb and gutter exist mainly
along the northern half of the project as installed by various developers.
E. Right-of-Way and Access Control
Existing right-of-way along NC 59 is 18.3 m (60-foot), symmetrical about the
center-line. No control of access exist along the project corridor.
F. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal alignment for existing NC 59 is good, and is predominantly free of
curvature. The vertical alignment of the subject section of NC 59 is flat. There are no
grades over 5% along the project.
6
G. Sneed Limit
Speed limit along the project is predominantly 35 mph, increasing to 45 mph from
George Owen Road (SR 1133) to the southern terminus of the project. School zones are
posted at or near existing schools on the project.
H. Intersection and Type of Control
Many residential streets and drive-ways intersect NC 59 along the project. All
roads intersecting the project are at grade. Signals exist at the following intersections:
US 401 Business, Redwood Drive (SR 1267), Butternut Drive (SR 1136), Cumberland
Road (SR 1141), and Camden Road (SR 1003).
I. Railroad Crossinu
There are no railroads crossing this project.
J. Structures
NC 59 crosses Little Rockfish Creek approximately 274 m (900-ft) north of the
intersection with Camden Road (SR 1003). The total length of Bridge #25115 is 36.9 m
(121-ft. ), the width is 12.2 m (40-ft), and has a sufficiency rating of 92 out of a scale of 0
to 100.
K. Tyne of Roadside Development
From US 401 Business to George Owen Road (SR 1133) the dense existing
development is primarily small commercial businesses, with limited residential and
institutional development. The remainder of the project is lightly developed, primarily
with scattered residential and small businesses. Near the southern terminus, there is
modern strip development set back from the roadway.
L. Utilities
Utility conflicts along this project are considered to be high. The following utilities
are located within the project corridor: underground water and gas, underground
telephone conduit, aerial power, cable TV, and phone cables.
M. Sidewalks
Presently there are no sidewalks along the project. The City of Fayetteville is
planning to annex the area along NC 59 that is outside of their limits by the year 2000,
and has expressed interest in entering into an agreement with NCDOT to have a sidewalk
7
installed along the project on a cost-sharing basis. The Town of Hope Mills also concurs
a sidewalk is needed, and requests a sidewalk be installed along the remainder of the
project, which they will participate in on a cost sharing basis.
N. Bicycles
No exclusive bicycle lanes or trails exist along the studied section of NC 59. It is
not currently designated as a bicycle route.
0. School Bus Data
Approximately 30 school buses travel the studied section of NC 59 daily. These
buses travel NC 59 both in the morning and afternoon.
P. Degree of Roadside Interference
The degree of roadside interference is heavy with signs, telephone poles, mail
boxes, guy wires, and plants predominating.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
A. General Location
TIP project U-2308 is located in south-western Cumberland County (See Figure 1,
under Figures at the rear of the document).
B. Length of Proposed Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 7.1 km (4.4 miles).
C. Design Speed
The project will be designed for a minimum design speed of 80 kph (50 mph).
Design speed is a correlation of the physical features of a highway which influence vehicle
operation and reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired along a highway. Design
speed is not to be interpreted as the recommended or posted speed.
D. Proposed Cross Section
The proposed cross section is a five-lane, 19.2 m (64-ft.), face to face of curbs
roadway, with curb and gutter.
8
E. Right-of-Way
Proposed right-of-way for the project is 24.4 meters (80-feet) with 3 meter
(10-foot) temporary construction easements on each side of the right-of-way limits. One
business relocation is anticipated in conjunction with the project.
F. Access Control
No control of access is planned along the project corridor.
G. Intersection Treatment
All intersections with existing roads will be maintained at-grade.
Additional exclusive right turn lanes will be added on NC 59 at its intersection
with the following roadways (see Figures 7 through 9 for Intersection Configurations):
Camden Road (SR 1003)
George Owen Road (SR 1133)
Cumberland Road (SR 1141)
The following intersections are proposed to be signal controlled in conjunction
with this project (see Figures 4 through 9 for Intersection Configurations):
Camden Road (SR 1003)
George Owen Road (SRI] 3 3)
Cumberland Road (SR 1141)
Butternut Drive/Wingate Road (SRI 136)
Redwood Drive (SR 1267)
US 401 Business
All other intersections on the project are to be maintained with stop sign control.
Y-line improvements are proposed for the following intersecting roadways (see
Figures 4, 7, and 9 for Intersection Configurations):
Camden Road (SR 1003)
Cumberland Road (SR 1141)
US 401 Business
9
H. Structures
1. RoaAwy Structure
The widening of NC 59 to a five-lane facility will require the widening of
existing bridge #25115. The existing bridge at Little Rockfish Creek will be
widened off-set to the west, thus maintaining traffic on-site. Offset widening to
the east or west would result in approximately equivalent natural systems impacts.
Existing development would not be affected by offset widening west, therefore this
alternative was chosen. A new structure will be constructed alongside the existing
bridge. Once constructed, traffic will be routed onto this structure and the existing
bridge will then be tied into the new structure. Off-site detour options are not
possible on this project due to surrounding roadway layout. The total proposed
bridge length will be 36.9 meters (121-foot). A 22.8 meter (76-foot) clear
structure width section is recommended for the expansion of the existing bridge.
This will provide a cross section which is consistent with the proposed roadway
approach cross section.
2. Drainage Structures
There are no drainage structures planned in conjunction with this project.
Parking
Parking is not to be provided for or allowed along the project corridor.
Sidewalks
The City of Fayetteville is planning to annex to the town limits of Hope Mills by
the year 2000, and is concerned about the number of schools along the route with no
sidewalks. Therefore, the City of Fayetteville and the Town of Hope Mills will enter into
an agreement to have a sidewalk provided along one side of the entire project on a cost
sharing basis.
K. Bicycle Facility
The City of Fayetteville has requested that provision be made for bicycles along
this section of NC 59 due to numerous schools and corresponding youth bicycle traffic.
Consultation with the NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
determined that this accommodation is best made through 3.9 meter (13-foot) outside, and
3.3 meter (11-foot) inside travel lanes striped on the 64-foot total face-to-face cross
section. A widened cross section was investigated and discarded due to extremely tight
right-of-way constraints. NC 59 is not currently a designated bicycle route. Provision for
bicycle safe railings will be made when widening bridge #25115.
10
L. Landscaping
No special landscaping is proposed by NCDOT in conjunction with this project.
M. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated that the project will be applicable for a General Permit #31. This
permit authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill material in water/wetlands associated
with the maintenance, repair, and construction of bridges spanning navigable waters and
waters of the United States. Also, a section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is
required.
N. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as part of the subject project.
0. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will maintained at all times during project construction. All traffic control
devices used on this project shall conform to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD).
P. Estimated Project Cost
Current
Right-of-Way: $ 5,510,000**
Construction: $ 8,400,000*
Prior Year Planning: $ 15,000
Total Cost: $13,925,000
*Construction cost includes engineering and contingencies.
**Right-of-way cost includes acquisition and utility cost.
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Widening on Existing Alignment (Recommended)
T.I.P. Estimate
$ 5,510,000
$ 8,400,000
$ 40.000
$13,950,000
Due to the dense residential and commercial development along and surrounding
NC 59 on the project length, only one alternative was considered feasible for this project.
The proposed improvement is to widen symmetrically the existing two-lane roadway to a
five-lane, 19.2 m (644), face to face of curbs, curb and gutter roadway. The existing
bridge at Little Rockfish Creek will be retained and off-set widened to the west. The total
bridge length will be 36.9 m (1214). A 12.2 m (404) structure width expansion is
11
recommended for the existing bridge, resulting in an ultimate 22.8 meter (76 foot) overall
bridge width.
B. New Location Alternative
The option of construction on new location was considered and discarded due to
the potential for extreme disruption of existing development, greater overall right-of-way
and construction costs, and greater impacts to the natural environment.
Dense residential and commercial properties exist in the areas to the east and west
of the studied length of NC 59. Any new-location alternative would therefore force
numerous relocations, and have a greater negative impact on any remaining undisturbed
area. This would also result in greater corresponding costs and damage to the
environment. Therefore, this alternative was not considered a feasible alternative to
widening on existing location.
C. Public Transportation Alternative
This alternative was considered, but rejected as no public transit service is
proposed to serve in this area of Cumberland County. A Countywide Transit Plan for
Cumberland County was generated and is on file in the county offices, and notes that
NC 59 would be a desirable route on which to have mass transit in the future. However,
this plan is not approved or funded at this time. Therefore, the Public Transportation
Alternative is not a viable alternative at this time, nor does it address the need to increase
safety along the route.
D. No-Build Alternative
The "no-build" alternative was considered, but rejected since the project will
provide a safe, more efficient route in this area. The "no-build" alternative does serve as a
basis of comparison for the other studied alternatives.
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use and Planning
1. Status of Local Plarmnrg Activities
The proposed improvement is located within the jurisdictions of
Cumberland County and the Town of Hope Mills. Cumberland County and its
municipalities have established a Joint Planning Board for conducting planning
12
functions throughout the county. The Cumberland County Planning Commission
developed a 2010 Land Use Plan which was adopted in 1995. Zoning ordinances
and subdivision regulations are still in effect.
2. Existing Ladd Use
The project area is urbanized, with a variety of land uses fronting the
roadway. Land use within the general area is predominantly residential. Three
elementary schools are located along NC 59: 1 W. Coon Elementary, Sherwood
Park Elementary, and Cumberland Mills Elementary. None have recreational
facilities near the roadway, and none are being encroached upon.
Commercial uses are scattered throughout the length of the project, but are
particularly concentrated near Raeford Road and Cumberland Road, where two
small shopping centers and three grocery stores are located. Two churches also
front the roadway.
3. Future Land Use
The proposed improvement is located near the county's two highest
growth areas, the areas immediately west and south of Fayetteville. The 1978
Land Use Plan designates the general project area for residential development,
with two community shopping centers along the corridor. The zoning districts in
the area generally reflect the existing land use pattern, with heavy commercial
districts fronting the NC 59, and medium density residential districts beyond the
frontage lots.
The roadway has been designated a "primary business street", indicating
that heavy commercial uses will be permitted throughout the corridor.
Wal-Mart Corporation is planning to construct a Distribution Center near
the intersection of NC 59 and I-95, just beyond the limits of this project. the
center is expected to employ up to 600 people when fully operational. Access to
the site will be via SR 2220.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction activities on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are designated by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service. Land which has been developed, or is committed to urban
development by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements of the
Act. As previously discussed, the proposed improvement is located in an
13
urbanized area dominated by commercial uses along the roadway and residential
development beyond the commercial frontage. Therefore, no further consideration
of potential farmland impacts is required.
B. Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic Architecture
This project is subject to compliance with section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with section 106,
codified by 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
A survey of historic architectural resources in the area of potential effect
(APE) was performed. This survey was documented in a report which is a
technical addendum to this Environmental Assessment and is on file at NCDOT.
All structures over fifty years of age (5 houses) were surveyed within the APE.
Based on the historical information available and the field survey of each property,
it appears that none of the properties are eligible for listing in the National
Register.
The properties located within the APE were also evaluated for any possible
historic districts. The existing historic architectural resources do not represent a
significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, building, structures, or
objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. For
these reasons, and those outlined herein, the historic architectural resources
located within the APE are not considered eligible for listing as a district in the
National Register.
In addition, the APE was considered, under the guidelines established by
the National Park Service (NPS), as a cultural landscape. NPS defines a cultural
landscape as those areas which "clearly represent or reflect the patterns of
settlement or use of the landscape, as well as the continuum and evolution of
cultural attitudes, norms, and values towards the land". As opposed to natural
landscapes (the other category recognized by NPS), cultural landscapes are
"clearly human-influenced and manipulated" although formed by "the same fabric
and materials which make up a natural sub-category of the cultural landscape,
strongly associated with a particular person or event of historical significance"
(Melnick 1980:1-2). The APE displays none of these characteristics.
14
The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with these findings in a
letter dated March 27, 1995 (see concurrence letter in the Appendix). No further
compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or section
4f of the Department of Transportation Act is required.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. A review
of the site files and maps of the project area indicate that it is unlikely any
archaeological resources which may a eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction. The SHPO has
reviewed the project scope and recommends no further archaeological
investigation be conducted (see letter dated August 18, 1994 in Appendix).
C. Natural Resources
Inlroduclion
a. Slydy Area
The U-2308 study area is predominantly urbanized with residential
and commercial buildings. Small stands of timber are interspersed
throughout the project area. Little Rockfish Creek is crossed just north of
the SR 1003 intersection. It is one of the many tributaries that feed the Cape
Fear River, which is located approximately 12.9 km (8.0 mile) east of the
project.
b. MelhodoloPy
Research was conducted prior to the site visit. Information sources
used in the pre-field investigation of the study area include: U. S. Geological
Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Fayetteville), NCDOT aerial photograph
of project area (1:2400) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of
Cumberland and Hoke Counties. Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of
Cumberland County, 1992). Information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate species and
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats.
A site visit was made on October 6, 1994 by NCDOT biologist Lane
Sauls to determine natural resource conditions and to confirm published
information available concerning the site. General field surveys were
15
conducted along the proposed alignment. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using a one or more observation techniques including: active
searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
Organisms captured during these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
2. Physical Resources
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed
below. The availability of water and soil composition directly influence composition
and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
a. Water Resources
Project U-2308 is located within the Cape Fear River Basin. The
Cape Fear River flows southward through Fayetteville and ultimately
empties into the Atlantic Ocean south of Wilmington. Little Rockfish Creek
intersects the project and ultimately converges with the Cape Fear River
approximately 12.9 km (8.0 mile) to the east.
At the project site, Little Rockfish Creek exhibited slow flow rates.
Water clarity was stained and the substrate varies between cobble, pebble,
sand and silt. Refer to Table 1 for a complete listing of stream
characteristics.
Drainage canals are located along NC 59. These are classified as
intermittent since no water was observed in these areas during the site visit.
However, as a result of precipitation, runoff diverted from the roadway
would provide flow throughout these canals.
CHARACTERISTIC
SUBSTRATE
CURRENT
STREAM GRADIENT
CHANNEL WIDTH
BANK HEIGHT
WATER DEPTH
WATER COLOR
AQUATIC VEGETATION
LITTLE ROCKFISH CREEK
Cobble/Pebble/Sand/Silt
slow to very slow
nearly level
7.6 m (25.0 ft)
0.3 m (2.0 ft)
>92.0 cm (>36.0 in)
stained
none
RUIZ: Measurements were averaged from a point 30.5 m (100.0 ft) upstream and
downstream from the proposed crossing.
16
1.) Best Usage Classification
Most streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Little
Rockfish Creek is designated as Class "C". Class C waters denote
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture.
Neither Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), High Quality
Waters (HQW) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
2.) Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
is managed by DEM and part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
Benthic Macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality, thus, the species richness and overall biomass are reflections
of water quality. BMAN surveys were conducted in 1990 at two
locations along Little Rockfish Creek: (1) Plank Road, which is
approximately 15.5 km (9.6 mile) upstream from the project is rated
as FAIR; and (2) SR 1131 which crosses approximately 6.5 km (4.0
mile) downstream is rated as GOOD-FAIR.
Point source discharges located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for
a permit. The NPDES lists no discharges within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of
the proposed project.
3.) Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major
anticipated impacts to water quality. Scouring of the stream bed, soil
compaction and loss of shading due to vegetation removal are also
potential impacts. Increased sedimentation from lateral flows is also
expected.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control
17
guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of
the project.
b. Soils and Topography
Several soil series are located within the project area. The Wagram
Series is dominant. This series consists of well- drained soils that formed in
loamy sediment on uplands. The sandy surface layer is 51.0 to 102.0 cm
(20.0 to 40.0 in) thick over the loamy subsoil. Reaction is very strongly acid
or strongly acid, except where the surface has been limed. Refer to Table 2
for a complete listing of soil mapping units located along the project site.
TA11L Snell. M!I?IEN N. tl?
fbl
T:IJ l'll°I
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydnc
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
CaB Candor sand 1-8 -
GdB Gilead loamy sand 2-8 -
JT Johnston loam A
Ra Rains sandy loam A
Ur Urban land -
VaD Vaucluse loamy sand 8-15 -
WgB Wagram-urban land 0-8 -
complex
NOTES: "A" denotes map units that arc all hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major
component.
Cumberland County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Providence. The topography of Cumberland County is characterized with
areas dominated by excessively drained to moderately well-drained soils on
highly dissected uplands.
3. Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife
communities that occur in the U-2308 project area. It also discusses potential
impacts affecting these communities as a result of the proposed actions.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area: (1) Disturbed Cypress/Gum Swamp and (2) Urbanized/Roadside
Community. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the
entire range of the two terrestrial communities discussed.
18
All species are cited with their common names accompanied by their
scientific names. Subsequent references to the same species will include
common names only. Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted
with an asterisk (*).
1.) Disturbed CypresslGtan SH?amp
The disturbed cypress/gum swamp occurs in the lower parts
of a floodplain, where few plant species are able to tolerate extended
periods of flooding. Braided channels occur throughout this
community.
As a result of disturbance, an original canopy consisting
primarily of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo
(Nyssa aaquatica), now incorporates additional hardwood species
such as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak ( uercus
niura) and black tupelo (Nyssa s vatica). The understory is
composed of red maple (Acer rubrum), ironwood (Carpinus
carolinana) and saplings of the canopy trees. The shrub and vine
layers are quite sparse with species such as swamp dogwood (Cornus
ammomum), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) and greenbrier (Smilax
spp.). Herbs are also few, with lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus) being
the most typical. Other herbs include false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindric a), arrow arum (Peltandra vir_ginica), clearweed
(Pilga pumila) and polygonum (Polystonum spp.).
This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of
many faunal species which are adapted to hydric moisture regimes.
Species such as the northern cardinal (ardinali cardinalis*),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis*), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus*) and beaver (Castor canadensis*) are
found throughout this community. Reptiles and amphibians that are
found in cypress/gum swamps include yellow bellied slider
(Psudemys sc>pta*), painted turtle (C s m s pig t4), marbled
salamander (Amb, stoma o acum) and the southern leopard frog
(Rana snhenocephala). Major predators include the cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus) and barred owl (Strix vari a).
2.) Urbanized/Roadside Community
The urbanized/roadside community is dominated by both
woody and herbaceous weeds that are regularly controlled by
mowing. In addition, a few remnant canopy trees Street Species
such as sweetgum, loblolly pine (Pings taeda), longleaf pine (Pings
alp ustris), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and willow oak ( uercus
19
phellos) are commonly found throughout this community. Other
dominant species include fescue (Festuca spp.), barnyard grass
(Echinochloa crusgalli), throughwort (Eupatorium spp.) and
goldenrod (Solidasto spp.) which are found commonly in open areas
receiving direct sunlight. The drainage canals adjacent to the
roadway support species adapted to hydric conditions such as spike
rush (Juncus spp.).
This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of
many faunal species related to urban settings. Species such as the
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis*), mourning dove (Zenaidura
macroura*), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis*) and house
sparrow (Passer domesticus) are found throughout this community.
The gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), eastern box turtle and black racer (Coluber constrictor)
also find foraging opportunities and shelter in this community. Major
predators include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis*), red fox
(Vulpes vulpes) and common barn-owl (Tyto alba).
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, the coastal plain brown water stream,
will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical and chemical
characteristics of the water body dictate faunal composition of the aquatic
community. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also
greatly influence aquatic communities and vice versa.
The coastal plain brown water stream includes fish native to warmer
water temperatures. Little Rockfish creek is likely utilized by anadromous
fish such as alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis), American shad (Alosa sapidissim a) and striped bass
(Morone saxatilis) for spawning activities.
C. SSymTM of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction-related activities in or near
these resources will impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here
as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
20
communities. Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24.4 meters
(80 feet) with two, 3.0 meter (10 foot) easements. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE-3. ESTIMATED.:IMPAM T"O]IIO'IT1<,C C.04. I;J'ob'.tllu,
Community Impact
Disturbed Cypress/Gum Swamp <0.1 (0.1)
Urbanized/Roadside Community 14.2 (35.1)
Total <14.3 (35.2)
NOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres).
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented, relatively little
impact will occur to species that live along the edges and open areas.
However, ground dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in
numbers. The mobile species will be permanently displaced. Increased
predation will occur as a result of habitat reduction.
Impacts to aquatic communities will occur as increased
sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation
covers benthic organisms, which inhibits feeding and respiration. Increased
light penetration from removal of stream side vegetation may increase
ambient water temperature, and may lead to complex perturbations.
Recommendations regarding anadromous fish include construction to
the bridge and approaches be confined to a window from September 1 to
January 1 and the resulting bridge should not pose any obstructions to fish
migrating upstream (Keith Ashley, WRC fisheries biologist, pers. comm.).
4. Special Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent
to two sensitive issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
a Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
• Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life
21
in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
One particular wetland system located within the disturbed
cypress/gum swamp will be impacted by the proposed project. It is briefly
described as the Little Rockfish Creek crossing. Wetlands are located on
both sides of the bridge. Impacts to this ecosystem are estimated to be <0.1
ha (0.1 ac). This wetland exhibits soils with extremely low chroma values
(10 YR 3/1-4/1), oxidized rhizospheres and high water marks on all
vegetation. DEM Rating 83.5.
1.) Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to wetlands are estimated to be <0.1 ha (0.1 ac). Fill
is planned for portions of this wetland, which will both reduce its size
and function.
2.) Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under
jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A General
Permit #31 is applicable to the project (the project is not applicable
under a Nationwide Permit). This permit authorizes the discharge of
dredged or fill material in waters/wetlands associated with the
maintenance, repair and construction of bridges spanning navigable
waters and waters of the United States. General permits do not
require mitigation. However, final permit/mitigation decisions will be
made by the COE during the permit phase.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required
for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
federal permit is required. State permits are administered through
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR).
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in,
the process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to
coexist with man. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any
action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
22
protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
1.) 1%ederally-Prolecled Species
Plants and animals with Federal Classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed
Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As
of August 23, 1996, the FWS lists the following federally-protected
species for Cumberland County (Table 4). A brief description of
each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Scientific Name
Picoides borealis
Lindera mclissifolia
Lysimachia asoerulaefolia
Schwalbea americana
Neonympha mitchelli francisci
Common Name Classification
red-cockaded woodpecker E
pondberry E
rough-leaved loosestrife E
American chaffseed E
Mitchell satyr butterfly E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range).
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus,
Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates,
Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston,
Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.

The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the
sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and
white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large
white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
23
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting
habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick
understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are
>60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of
age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart
disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft)
above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can
be identified by a large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the
tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not
exist. Pines located within the urbanized/roadside community do not
account for 50% of total stand, lack a thick understory and are
geographically isolated. Thus, no habitat for foraging and nesting.
No adverse impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker are expected as
a result of project construction.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) E
Plant Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
Distribution in N.C.: Bladen, Cumberland, Sampson.
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub that has a distinct
sassafras-like odor. Leaves in the pondberry are arranged alternately,
have rounded bases, and droop downward. It has small pale yellow
flowers that appear in early spring before the leaves. The fruit which
matures in August or September is a bright red drupe.
This plant grows in lowland habitats with hydric soils. These
sites are generally flooded at some time during the growing season.
It is associated with the margins of sinks, ponds, and other like
depressions. The soils present are sandy with a high peat content in
the subsurface. Areas inhabited by this species show signs of past
24
fire maintenance and now have shrubby conditions. The plants
generally grow in shady areas but may also be found in areas that
receive full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat does not exist for pondberry. Soils at the
project site do not match the high peat content required for
pondberry. Therefore, no impacts are expected to pondberry as a
result of project construction.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bladen, Brunswick, Carteret,
Columbus, Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Onslow,
Pamlico, Pender, Richmond, Scotland.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender
stems and whorled leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers
which usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits are present from July
through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and
sandhills of North and South Carolina. This species occurs in the
ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine
pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet,
peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands and
on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to
occur on deep peat in the low shrub community of large Carolina
bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown
origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained. Rough-leaved
loosestrife rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands and
prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No ecotones between pine uplands and pine pocosins or fire
maintained communities exists for rough-leaved loosestrife in the
project area. Therefore, no impacts are expected to rough-leaved
loosestrife as a result of project construction.
25
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) E
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
Distribution in N.C.: Bladen, Cumberland, Hoke, Moore,
Pender, Scotland.
The American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch
only at the base (if at all). The entire plant is pubescent, with
upwardly curving hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate, lance-
shaped to elliptic and stalkless. The leaves are three veined and
become progressively smaller towards the top. It bears solitary
flowers in the axils of the upper most leaves. The purplish-yellow
flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a long narrow
capsule, enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
American chaffseed occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire
maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peat wetlands and open
grass-sedge systems. Soils are generally sandy, acidic, and seasonally
moist to dry. Fire is important in the maintenance of open habitat for
the American chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the urbanized/roadside
community or the cypress/gum swamp for American chaffseed.
Therefore, no impacts are expected to American chaffseed as a result
of project construction.
Neonympha mitchellii francisci (Saint Francis' satyr) E
Animal Family: Nymphalidae
Federally Listed: Emergency listed April 18, 1994
Distribution in NC: Cumberland
The Saint Francis' satyr is a small, dark brown butterfly with
conspicuous eyespots on the lower wing surface of the fore and hind
legs. The eyespots are round to oval shaped with a dark maroon
brown center and a straw yellow border. These spots are
accentuated with two bright orange bands along the posterior wings
and by two darker brown bands along the central portion of each
wing.
The Saint Francis' satyr is known to inhabit wide, wet
meadows dominated by sedges and other wetland graminoids. These
wetlands are often relicts of beaver activity and are boggy areas that
26
are acidic and ephemeral. Succession of these sites often leads to
either a pocosin or swamp dominated for Street The larval host of
the Saint Francis' satyr is thought to be grasses, sedges and rushes.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of wide, wet meadows dominated
by sedges and other wetland graminoids is not present at the project
site. Therefore, no impacts to Saint Francis' satyr will occur as a
result of project construction.
2.) Federal Candidate/Slate Protected Species
There are 22 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Cumberland County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2
species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction
although no sufficient data currently exists to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E)
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species 1993 are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
Table 5 lists federal candidate species, the species' state status
(if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for
each species in the study area. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded
in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site
visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the
database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare Species and
Unique Habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or
protected species in or near the project study area.

27

Scientific Name
.._. _
..... _ .........
Common Name NC Status

Suitable Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Y
Eller marsuoiobesa Cape Fear spike T Y
Fusconaia m oni Atlantic pigtoe * T Y
Y
1109ria di go Diana fritillary -
butterfly
Amoraha seorQiana Georgia leadplant E Y
georciana
Doinaea muscioula
Venus flytrap
SC 1,
Eupatorium resinosum Pine barrens bonesct - Y
Kalmia cuneata White-wicky E-SC N
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E Y
Litsca aestivalis Pondspice - Y
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia - N
Nestronia umbellula Nestronia - Y
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane - Y
N
Partheni im radf rdii Wavyleaf wild quinine -
Ptero flossaspis False c oco * E N
ecristata
Pyxi nthera
Well's sandhill
E Y
barbulata var. pixie-moss
brevifoli
Rhexia aristosa
Awned meadowbeauty *
T
N
olida o verna Spring-flowering E N
goldenrod
S lisma P. var. Pickering's E Y
pickeringii morning-glory
Tofieldia glabra Smooth bog-asphodel - N
hvllum laxum
Mvriop Loose watermilfoil T N
_
Potamoaeton Conferva pondweed T N
confervoides
NOTES: Species not attoraea stare protecuou vu< IMVU as wr•w•
No specimen from Cumberland County in at least 20 years
D
Air and Noise Quality
Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions.
The traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway
facility or the improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HQ, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide

0
(S02),Fand lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the
analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
t highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The
local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
l near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of
emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local
sources. "
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background
concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where
they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive emissions of HC
and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However, regarding area-wide
emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of cars
on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are
regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of
all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight,
the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles,
California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter
emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
29
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide
from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will
cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning of
regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is
added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic
converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of
leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.54 grams per
liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 grams per liter. In the future,
lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the
sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31,
1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to
the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted
of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission
factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the
annual average daily traffic projections and the highest volume along the project was used in
the CAL3QHC modeling. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for
the completion year of 2000 and the design year of 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile
Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts
per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural
areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor used in the analysis was a point on the right-of-
way line at a distance of 13.7 meters from the proposed centerline of the project. The
"build" and "no- build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for
the years of 2000 and 2020 are shown in the following table.
f
1
30
One:vOur CO Coacrst,ra onx ( '11 : :
Build No-Build
Nearest Sensitive Receptor 2000 2020 2000 2020
RIW Line 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.6
U
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum
permitted for ]-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case ]-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al through A4 for input data and output.
The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process,
and no additional reports are necessary.
2. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of NC 59 from SR 1003 to US 401 Business in Cumberland County on
noise levels in the immediate project area (Figure NI). This investigation includes
an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway
traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the
noise impacts must be considered.
31
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, effective
June 15, 1996, the Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for
providing noise abatement measures for new development which building permits
are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of
Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed
highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, RODs or the Design
Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this `
public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise
compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
a Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a
composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used
to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales
(A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz).
Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often
expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be
expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go
about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and
the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
32
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note
that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother
some more than others and some individuals become upset if an unwanted
noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's
judgement of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example, noises
occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more
offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from
other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night
when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally
be more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon
when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities
of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be
possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities requiring high levels
of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises while activities
requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and
are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their
lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises
including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic
noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Ambient Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria
and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title
23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is
the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has
the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady
noise level with the same energy content.
13
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing noise levels. The purpose of this noise
level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to
provide a base, for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The
existing Leq noise levels along NC 59 as measured at 15 meters from the
roadway ranged from 66 to 67 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and
measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and Table
N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing
noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The
calculated existing noise levels were within 0.1 to 2.6 dBA of the measured
noise levels for the locations where noise measurements were obtained.
Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low
traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-
spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
d. Procedures For Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds through a
continual changing highway configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to
the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications
must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-
RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number and
type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground
elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the
existing 2-lane shoulder section to a 5-lane curb and gutter section. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the
model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to
be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst- case"
34
topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year
being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used
with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this
report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted
during the peak hour of the design year 2020. A land use is considered to
be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the
FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as
7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic
lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these
receptors were determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes
and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of
this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this
grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of listings
of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and
predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table
N5. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience
traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772,
there are 109 residential and 20 commercial impacted receptors due to
highway traffic noise in the project area. Other information included in
Table N5 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level
contours. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land
use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway
within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on
noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
35
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level
increases for this project range from +3 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises
are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by
most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
e. Tragic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a) approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
1.) Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as
to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance
between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental
parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is
primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from
noise sensitive areas. Here, changing the highway alignment is not
a viable alternative for noise abatement.
2.) Traffic System Ma?ragement Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures
are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed
roadway.
3.) Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
36
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access,
meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a
small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways,
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An
access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its
noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND
ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No.
FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2,
page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for
traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities,
and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
f. "Do Nothing Alteniative "
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
24 residential receptors would experience traffic noise impact by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of
+0 to +5 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily
noticed.
37
h. 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 passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly
from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature
of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours,
these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
sunimary
Based on these preliminary studies, 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, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
E. Construction Effects
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of proposed project,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be enforced during the
construction phase:
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's health and
safety will not be compromised during the movement of any materials to
and from construction sites along the project and that any inconveniences
imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
2. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering the safety
and general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the value,
utility, or appearance of any public or private properties.
3. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees, including those of the N.C.
State Board of Health, regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid
waste will be disposed of in accordance with the standard specifications of
the Division of Highways. These specifications have been reviewed and
approved by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of
Health Services, N.C. Department of Human Resources.
38
4. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or
special provisions or unless disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by
the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of
the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
5. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before
construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the
contractor, pertinent local officials and the Division of Highways will be
held to discuss various steps to be taken during the time of construction
that will minimize interruptions of service.
6. Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to
relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A determination
of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this
work will be made at that time.
7. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation
Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at
the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
performed under constant surveillance.
8. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor before work
is started. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases of
the work which must be coordinated to reduce erosion control measures
which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the erosion
control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those provisions
of the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and siltation. These
contract provisions are in accordance with the strict erosion control
measures as outlined in the Department of Transportation's FAPG, section
23 CFR 650 Subpart B. Temporary erosion control measures such as the
use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
9. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material
from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the
39
National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
10. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to
insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.
F. Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvement projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations in based on concentrated truck usage areas such as, parking sites at rest areas
weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close proximity to
particularly sensitive waters such as; outstanding resource waters and water supply
sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management practices to protect receiving
waters in accordance to the general policies and criteria presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" are not
recommended for this project due to lack of sensitive water resources.
G. Hazardous Material Involvement
An investigation of the project area was conducted to determine if any hazards
such as underground storage tanks (UST), hazardous waste sites, dumps, landfills, or
other similar sites which may impact construction of the project, cause delays, or create
liabilities. As a result of this study the NCDOT identified eighteen properties which may
contain UST's. They are detailed as follows:
1. Quick Stop Food Mart- NE quadrant of NC 59/SR 1003 (Camden Road),
5 UST's.
2. Short Stop Food Mart- SE quadrant NC 59/SR l l33 (George Owen
Road), 3 UST's.
3. Jackson's Auto Parts- SW quadrant of NC 59/SR 1133 (George Owen
Road), 2 UST's.
4. Al Service- NW of intersection of NC 59 and SR 1133 (George Owen
Road), 5 UST's.
40
5. Mobile Electronics- East side of NC 59 between SR 1133 and SR 1141, 2
UST's.
6. Cumberland Mills Elementary School- SW quadrant of NC 59/SR 1141, 2
UST's.
7. Quick Stop Food Mart- SE quadrant of NC 59/SR 1141, 3 UST's.
8. Scotchman's- East side of NC 59 at Westgate Drive, 4 UST's.
9. Franklin Baking- East side of NC 59, 1 USTREET
10. The Pantry- East side of NC 59 south of Spears Road, 2 UST's.
11. LaFayette Shell- SE quadrant of NC 59/Spears Road, 4 UST's.
12. The Pantry- NE quadrant of NC 59/SR 1270 (South Sumac Circle), 3
UST's.
13. Short Stop Food Mart- SE quadrant of NC 59/Keyboard Lane, 3 UST's.
14. Davis Auto Service- NW quadrant of NC 59/Birch Road, 4 UST's.
15. Speedway Service Port- NE quadrant of NC 59/ Watauga Road, 5 UST's.
16. Able Plumbing and Pipe Co.- 301 Hope Mills Road, 2 UST's.
17. LaFayette Exxon- SW quadrant of NC 59/US 401 Bus., 4 UST's.
18. Five Day Flea Market- SE quadrant of NC 59/US 401 Bus., 3 UST's.
Additional right-of-way acquisition should minimize any encroachment
upon the properties with UST's. Purchasing property containing UST's may
expose the NCDOT to liabilities associated with soil and groundwater
contamination arising from leakage and spillage from the tank systems.
For other potential hazards the files of the Division of Solid Waste
Management's Solid Waste (DSWM), Hazardous Waste and Superfund Sections
were consulted in order to identify any reported contamination sources or events
within the project limits. Based on a field investigation and DSWM records, no
additional environmental hazards are expected to affect this project.
H. Comments and Coordination
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment were requested
from appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies in preparation for this Environmental
Assessment. Listed below are the agencies which were contacted:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
Environmental Review Branch, U.S. E.P.A. Region IV
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Environmental Service
Geological Survey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region `M' Council of Governments
Mayor of Hope Mills
Cumberland County Commissioners
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
41
*Division of Archives and History, DCR
*Auxiliary Services, Public Instruction
*DEM-DEHNR
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* Denotes agencies from which input was received.
Basis For Environmental Assessment
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it is
determined the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects upon the human
or natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Assessment is applicable for this
project.
MH/plr
42
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 59, From 0.75 Ian (0.04 miles) South
of Camden Road (SR 1003)to US 401 Business,
Cumberland County,
TIP Project # U-2308
Figure 1
..;
? a' r t
w,
r w
J-A
r •?
41
r
r ; l? •Fb r T'.!?
V
_ ? .?.y„ ?., 11 •? *a-?t, psi
f,
&
S ? I ? ?.?L t., S 62
1
IRE
AA a I )
1
-r
D
f
MATCH LINE B
41
s i a ?,? n t
! y -
-AL.,
wry
.i
JOHN BRADY ROAD (SR 1246)
b }
? w
%-
I ? - •- ? a
- a e
= IM A ?. •. t t .
jivil
kip
..a T
12 t' y
- R
a
.
? Y 4s G
o i l it 11
-
1 -
-
r - w
too /
M
r Ji? 1
r
.? / .:
:t
/ -
- ti
-
.
t : S F = a
y _ a
.
-F

1
f
y1_.
M )
1 4
`t
?•
it

,z
n ..
Owli,
_ -- f -
jr4
um , "'• '' {bE us) 133a1S SSOllo
400
O
14
= r n Mfr
co
o: WOO'.
olot, '?y
.. y z rn
4 _ Y w i
woo
1 -
•, a
41
s
c
i
i '
- few
_ R
- 1
t I.ih
top
e'
emu
?Alj
•
MATCH LINE C
I?
V
06L L ,
? r
r
r
r
.M'r•P r
t =
r
j a
1? 9 w
a
r,
r

r ri
-
r
. I> ?
r
r

r
r
}

r;
A
t
}
r I
kA

otw:
4
r
e
&Af
t

.a
a• ?
/ PROJECT LIMIT - ?i
f Y ? A•p
rm¢nAi • r ? ??
F -? "b \ t'oN --
w p
? f r ' ? CR Y1 Tel / rO ?•/
Noel tN48
'it
%
\ . d? o
c PROJECT LIMIT
OEN gyp. •?OG?
.?. ? N
THOROUGHFARE PUN - *#
FAYETTEVILLE
SOM ? -
URBAN AREA
CY-SEIRANO, MAIINETT, "am[. room[ AND
ROSESON COYNTIES \AMO
NORTH CAROLINA •
v?
/ NORTH UROWA OPARTM" Of TRMIS/ORTATK>H
¦ F T p•?--\/J' ?,
.
O-AON OF M*"~,- STATSYIIOE PLANKV O SRANCN
Y S grAnWM d IOU+fIO.tMMIM \? 0
Ifq.M wONw•I •pwStAMgN __

R
M \ •? TNA,
JAIA-
T,
M

SEPTEMBER 23. 1991 FIGURE 3
F ? \' wl.• w
?
•' I yt
` \ I-jE NN

4
? PA
111
PA
E-7-E--,,P- -E7-E-7-E E-TE z MAr7E
EUCALYPTUS RD 77 PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
M/ vv
II I
PA PA 0
G I
PA ;Z-
ISBLK
BUS I t I
ISBK I
I
BUS
O
o PA
? z
g ISBK
NC 59
`-" LE-G-E-LE E
E E -E
BUS ------ PA
PA ISBK
? © BUS c
PA
PA
=BK
---
PA
------------
G
PA
PA
T R
KARR DRIVE
US
I
I,
PA
PA
tN 6==
cro BUS
7? r -
P?
-M-
ESB FIGU
RE 4 .
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
ISBKD
JUNIPER DRIVE 82 m BST
n ISBKD
-1
G
• G
ISBKD
? 1
G
ISBKD Q
ISBKD
E'r- rs?T-ET-E
OWN -
ISBKD ISBKD ISBKD
G
1 ?ISBKD JE

sC Z'
?ISBK LgJ ISBK
BUS X BUS
-,,-E-E- ,X--
NC 59-
E E E
X CHRISTIAN
ISBK VICTOR ISBK
LUTHERAN
CHURCH
I I d
PA G
\\\ PA
-?L
ISBKD [FI ISBKD
ISBK ISBK
BUS I BUS
7Z - E/- 4
NC 59 t
? t_
E-L E S
H ISBK(
L _ l

BKD
C
c-

ISBKD
ISBKD
I

"I c-
ID
j
X,J

BARWIN ROAD 82 m BST
`FI GORE 5

?\v ? I
/ PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
ISBKD
S G
v ISM L
iBKD
S O ISBKD ?
ISBKD SBKD r
ISBKD ` ISBKD
S S ?
X
S
S ?!L?!ti ?`ti- ?" S
S 5 w -,?,, ?` • ` - ,'? S
ISF
LfKD S ISBKD I I B
US PA I x ISBK ISBK
ISBKD 10 4m BUS BUS
I I I K
E E E E E - E E E / B E E
1?. 4. E
NC 59 N mom ii;
a
ISBLK
BUS
tit e t E-?E
PA HTR
PA US
ISBK
BUS
11??
¢O
?CGO ISM
tE-- -E E E-
i v,
i

PA
FIGURE 6
1 ?
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
Di
HTR
if
F
F B?B HTR I
F\ ? i l

s
A
x
X
%Fp X
Olt
A ^ ^
"y l ?\
'I \
?t/? FIGURE

PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
' S0
L1
x
ISF D ISF D 2SBLK
> D PRI ----- BUS G
E BUS
J E E E E
a?Of E E- P -
D 10.2 NC 59 -----
Go mom
N
E E "'? -
a I? ti E f ,
BUS
KD ISFD N G PA E E E
AS/ RTANKS E E E AEA
LC. . O 9--
B ISF
PA
? 2Sg?K BUS
BUS
o
wog'
Ell
G 1SFD ?.
POOL
F ?
off' ' /
o
? / FIGURE 8
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
pP /
0 ?o
P F ? \?
pp"
PP
?gvS
PP
PP

- .E
61S
PP 0
PP
59
MILL ROAD BST
NC 59 HOPE
E-'-E
o'
I?
FIGURE 9

RAEFORD RD 29000
36000 pm 7000 3000 42000
60 (5.3) -
` 1000
J 2000
`
REDWOOD DR. 200 3000
1500 pm 300
60
10 (-00 m _60
IO
(? 0) (110)
$
H

BUTTERNUT RD. 5001 `000 400 WINGATE RD.
1100 200 (-800 10 Pm? 4200
60
g
ti (1,0)
ti
m
so (21) 1100 Soot `20o CU161BEMAND RD.
11700 16200
2001 000
to
\(?O) 60
¢fOp?
300 k900
800
3000?I r00
°o

65 «) 1 5.5o!) `300
6200
12200 so0) 3000
NC 59, HOPE MILLS ROAD
FROM US 401 BUS (RAEFORD RD.) TO
0.4 MILES SOUTH SR 1003 (CAMDEN RD.)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U-2308
1995 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
LEGEND
GEORGE OWEN RD.
2200 0000 = LPd
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
--? DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST (%)
10 ?5?? +60
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES: DHV & D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
TTIE OPPOSING LEG
CA, DEN RD.
9500
Figure P-1

a °
N I
130 13300
RAEFORD RD. 23700 33500
27100
60 (--?9 2100

a r6500

N
4500
J 1000
REDWOOD DR. 500 sloo
7300 pm
60
9 2300) 600
(2,1)
BUTTERNUT RD. 1009 L000 Boo WINGATE RD.
1400 600 l
I 000 9 m 60 6800
(zJ)
60 m 9
(3 Z)
340 + 116000
18700
1000) 9500
A o0
1
h
CUMBERLAND RD.
29800
m
3800 9 (1.1) 60
-lk
20
4600 39oo GEORGE OWEN RD.
SOU) x600 10300
9 ( m 60
200 1200
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _5700 _ HOPE MILLS BYPASS
11700 5800) V (1100 7000
N
60 (3,?) 9 95002 160012600 CAMDEN
18100
23100 1000) (4900
NC 59, HOPE MILLS ROAD
FROM US 401 BUS (RAEFORD RD.) TO
0.4 MILES SOUTH SR 1003 (CAMDEN RD.)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U-2308
2020 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AMTM = AM OR PM PEAK
DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST (%)
10 fpm 60
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES. DHV & D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG
Figure P-2

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGeeil-/
• Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0030 Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 59
DATE: September 13, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
tzt

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

August 29, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, `Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart?-, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0030; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 59, TIP U-2308
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
Melba McGee
August 29, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate.the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting cdverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
1068ler.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
j!HCP,FALLS
10:32 No.003 P.03
F
North Carolina W ldlife Resources Commission
-?-?- 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.1188, 919-7333391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
office of policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo nator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 22, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Deandtmcnt
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish wildlife concerns for NC 59, from SR 1003 (Camden
Road) at Hope Mills to US 401 Busness,Carolina,
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North TIP No. U-2308, SCH Project No. 95-0030.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick fande iNCDOT ldlifeoresourcesCresultingrfrom the
impacts on n fish
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided accordance with provisions of te S.C. 4332(2)(ch) andithelFishlandmWildlife
661-
Policy Act (42 U. amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing NC 59 from two lanes
to a five lane curb and gutter facility. The project will
begin at the existing four Camden Road andeexsection tend toaUSr401 Business4at
miles south of f C C sh Creek Fayetteville. TheThebridge
project over
lengtheis approximately 414
also be widened.
miles.
NCDOT should widen the bridge over Little Rockfish
Creek to the side which has the least wetlan acts. Best
Management Practices should be strictly en Voluntary Stream
channel modifications are necessary, NCWRC Relocation Guidelines should be used.
LAKE TEL:[phone] Sep 09'94
, CP,FRLLS LAKE
Memo
TEL:[phone]
Page 2
In addition to specific
regarding this project, our
outlined below:
Sep 09'94 10:32 No.003 P.04
August 22, 1994
recommendations or concerns
general informational needs are
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,ential
endangered, or special concern species, Potential
borrow areas to be used for prof
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge Additional eincharge for formation maypbeer
time is
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
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 filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
CP, FALLS LRKE TEL: 9 1 y-5ltt-yb ,y r„ F' V 7 :J~ 1 V • llu. uV V I W'd
Page 3 August 22, 1994
Memo
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.
5. The extent to which the project willofesult ife
loss, degradation, or fragmentation
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 road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
your office, contac Cox, Highway
assist
Project
cc: Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
.swi.
g? r
3
W
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
lames B. Hunt. Jr„ Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
August 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
Willis n S. Price. Jr.. Director
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trans ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State is is Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen NC 59 from SR 1003 to US 401, Cumberland
County, U-2308, 8.1441202, STPNHF-59(1), 95-E-
4220-0030
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory of Cumberland County has
never been conducted, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area. Thus, we recommend that a qualified architectural
historian survey the area of potential effect to identify the presence and
significance of any historic structures, buildings, or districts.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Cardin' 276012807

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 27, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for
Improvements to NC 59 from 0.4 mile south of SR
1003 to US 401 Business, Cumberland County, U-
2308, Federal Aid STPNHF-59(1), State Project
8.1441202, ER 95-8506
Dear Mr. Graf:
AE
F
2 #4?
?9
X9
9
S
?F tiiw v of
. NWNTA?-T3
Thank you for your letter of February 28, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Ed Davis concerning the above project.
We concur that buildings #1-5 are not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places because they lack special historical or architectural significance.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
G'David Brook
+? f
. Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: "H. F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director

ORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building BOB ETHERIDGE
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 Scare Sape'wmn u
August 2, 1994
MEMORANDUM
• TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H.
Assistant S at perintendent
Auxiliary Services
GEI VF
-? pu6 1994
L
y? 1)1,41 SIGN $ OF `?
HI G
G` FNORONI`?'' y
RE: Fayetteville, NC 59, SR 1003 (Camden Road) at Hope Mills to US 401
Business, Widen to a Multi-Lane Facility, Federal-Aid Project No.
STPNHF-59(1), State Project 8.1441202, U-2308
Please find attached communication from Thomas M. Bell, Jr., Supervisor of
Buildings and Grounds, Cumberland County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
Cumberland County Schools
P.O. Box 2357
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302
910-678-2300
MICHAEL C. BOOSB, OtAmMAN
MACKY HALL, v10 cmmmm
MAUREEN H. CLARK
THOMAS COUNCIL
KAREN S. DAVENPORT
JOHN R. C;RUM, JR., %MmNrDMM
JOHN K. LANCASTER
MARY EMILY ROYAL
SARA VANDERCLUTE
MILTON J. YARBORO
July 25, 1994
Dr. Charles H. Weaver, Assistant State Superintendent
Auidliary Services
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
.
I ? ? II
UI
AUXIN AR ",' SI" VI S
Re: Fayetteville, NC59, Widen to Multi-Lane
State Project 8.1441202,U-2308
Dear Dr. Weaver:
We see this road improvement to NC59 to be something that is
desperately needed. There will be two (2) school sites involved: J. W. Coon
Elementary and Sherwood Park Elementary. both located on Hope Mills Road
(NC59).
There should be no real concern at J. W. Coon as the school is located
back from the road. However, at Sherwood Park, there is not a lot of distance
from the road to the building. We will probably lose some of the bus parking
lot. This lot is already very small. Consideration of this is the only concern we
have.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
e, Az?7,t?lf
Thomas M. Bell, Jr.
Supervisor Buildings and Grounds
TMB:msw
Equity and Excellence in Education
Noise and Air Quality Tables

TABLE N1
BEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
110 Shotgun blast, ]et 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic Jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper Press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 60 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: world Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
,

TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
8
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Sources Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (M)
I Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> SO > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.

TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Laq)
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
Cumberland County, Project 1 8'.1441202, TIP 1 U-2308
NOISE
LEVEL
LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
SITE
Grassy 66
1. NC 59, 360 Meters North of SA 1003
(Camden Road)
2. NC 59, 70 Meters North of SR 11]] Grassy 66
(George Owens Road)
Grassy 67
3. NC 59, 253 Meters North of SR 1141
(Cumberland Road)
67
4. NC 59, 200 Meters South of US 401-Bus. Grassy
(Raeford Road)
Notes The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 motors from
the center of the nearest lane of traffic.
r

1/8
- TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
Cumberland County, Project t 8.1441202, TIP R U-2308
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
LEVEL
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME ....... ................ INCREASE
...............+? ..... ......s..........
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Road) to SR 1133 (George Owen Road)
_ 65 + 7
1 Business C NC 59 46.0 R 58 NC 59 46.0 R - 68 + 7
2 Business C " 30.0 A 61 •. 34.0 A -
_ - + 7
•• 34.0 L 68
•• 34.0 L 61
3 Business C ..
4 Residence B 72.0 R - - 61 + 7
.• 72.0 R 54 _ 62 + 7
0 A 55 63.0 A -
S Business C to 63.
6 Residence 8 .31.0 L - to 68 + 7
to
31.0 L 61 + 6
5d to 73.0 L - - 60
7 Residence 8 to 73.0 L
30.0 L 62 " 30.0 L _ - • 69 * 7
8 Residence B 69.0 L _ _ 61 + 7
9 Residence 8 of 69.0 L 54 - " 66 + 7
•• 40.0 R 59 " 40.0 R _
10 Residence H „ 40.0 A _ - 66 + 7
11 Business C it 40.0 R 59
12 Residence B - to 73 + 8
" 17.0 L 65 .0 17.0 L - •• 15.0 R 66 •. 15.0 R _ _ • 73 + 7
13 Business C
to 32.0 R 61 to 32.0 A _ - to 68 * 7
ld Residence B ?. 30.0 R - - to 69 + 7
1S Residence B •• 30.0 R 62
•• 52.0 R 57 " 52.0 R _ - 64 * 7
16 Residents B
•• 15.0 L 66 " 15.0 L _ _ to 73 + 7
17 Business C
'• 17.0 L 65 '. 17.0 L _ - to 73 ' 8
18 Residence B • " ]0.0 R - - 69 + 7
19 Residence H to 30.0 R 62 .. 17.0 L - • 7] + 8
20 Residence B " 17.0 L 65
21 Residence B - • 71 + 7
•• 22.0 R 64 " 22.0 R - •• 68.0 R 55 " 68.0 A _ _ 61 + 6
22 Residence H 19.0 R - - to 72 + 7
••
23 Residence B 19.0 R 65
24 18.0 R _ - • 72 + 7
•' Residence H 18.0 R 65 to .. 2].0 R _ - • 71 + 8
25 Residence H " 23.0 R 63
•• 35.0 R 60 " 35.0 R -
26 Residence B _ • 67 + 7
- to 72 + 8
•• 20.0 R 64 20.0 R
27 Business C
NC 59, From SA 1133 (George Owen Road) to SR 1134 (Cross Street)
_ 67 + 6
28 Business C HC 59 34.0 R 61 NC 59 34.0 R _
it 28.0 L 63 to 28.0 L - - 69 + 6
29 Business C 26.0 R - 69 + 6
30 Business C is 26.0 R 63
31 Residence B Go 26.0 R 63 " 26.0 R 32 Business C of 23.0 L 64 23.0 L - 70 + 6
32.0 R - - • 68 + 6
33 Residence B of 32.0 R 62 .• 31.0 R - • 68 + 6
34 Residence B of 31.0 A 62 33.0 L - • 67 + 5
35 Residence B of 33.0 L 62 .. 48.0 L 64 + 6
36 Residence B
to 48.0 L 58 ntribution NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. _Y--> prNoise oposedvroadway's noise level conq roadways. other
All noise levels are hourly 1?-weighted noise levels. to ?? Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Category 9 noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
v
TABLE N4 2/8
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
Cumberland County, Project 1 8.1461202, TIP Y U-2308
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
•
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
- ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) -`-........ . .-..
NC 59, From SA 1133 (George Owen Road) to SA 1134 (Cross Street) Cont'd
61 NC 59 34.0 L - - • 67 + 6
37 Residence B NC 59 34.0 L
37.0 R 61 10 37.0 R - - " 66 + 5
38 Residence H
39 Residence H , 67 + 6
•? 35.0 A 61 " 35.0 R - - 40 Business C 63 + 6
'• 55.0 R 57 " 55.0 R - -
, 67 + 5
33.0 R 62 •' 33.0 A - -
41 Residence B
•' 31.0 R - - ' 68 + 6
42 Residence B to 31.0 R - 62
" 19.0 L - - It 71 + 6
43 Residence H •' 19.0 L 65
44 Residence B " 35.0 L 61
" 29.0 A - - to 68 + 5
LS Residence B " 29.0 R 63
33.0 L - - to 67 + 5
46 Residence H " 33.0 L 62
31.0 R - 68 + 6
47 Business C " 31.0 R 62 "
48 Residence B to 50.0 R 58 of 50.0 R - - 64 + 6 " 53.0 R 58 " 53.0 R - - 63 + 5
49 Residence H * 67 + 6
50 Residence B " 35.0 L 61 " 35.0 L -
34.0 L 61 34.0 L - - 67 + 6
51 Business C " .
35.0 L 61 " 35.0 L - -
52 Residence B 67 + 6
+ 6
to 23.0 A 64 " 23.0 R - - 70
S] Business C
" 45.0 R 59 " 45.0 A - - 65 + 6
Sd Residence H
" 35.0 L 61 " 35.0 L - - • 67 + 6
55 Residence B
56 Business C 25.0 R 64 to 25.0 R - - 69 + 5
"
•' 35.0 L 61 to 35.0 L - -
57 Residence H to 67 + 6
to 67 + 6
" 35.0 L 61 to 35.0 L - -
58 Residence B
'• 36.0 L 61 of 36.0 L - - 67 + 6
59 Business C
•'
60 Church E 29.0 R 63/00 to 29.0 R - - 66/43 + 5 61 Business + 6
•' 35.0 L 61 to 35.0 L - - 67
C . ag + 6
31.0 R 62 " 31.0 A -
62. Residence B
to 50.0 A 58 " 50.0 A - - 64 + 6
63• Residence H
NC 59, From SR 1134 (Cross Street) to SR 1141 (Cumberland Road)
_ - to 66 + 4
64 Residence B NC 59 33.0 A 62 NC 59 33.0 R
•' 47.0 A 59 to 47.0 R - - 63 + 4
65 Residence H
49.0 R 59 it 49.0 R - - 62 + 3
66 Residence B
67 Residence a to 51.0 R 59 to 51.0 R - - 62 + 3
+ 3
to 85.0 R 54 It 85.0 A - - 57
68 Business C
69 Residence C to 26.0 R 64 to 26.0 R - - 68 + 4
s
of 27.0 R 64 .9 27.0 R - - 67 + 3
70 Business C
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
-Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
It .> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Category i seise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48).
.. . . - . , . - - . . - .. .
3/6--
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden R oad) to
Cumberland C ounty, Project 1 8.1461202, TIP I U-2308
NOISE
AMBIENT NEAREST
OISE
PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED _
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE N
DISTANCE (m) LE ? INCREASE
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m)
.H/.M..HH/.H. LEVEL
...H NAME
..
YHHHHH......
........
........
SR 1134 (Cross Street). to SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) Cont'd
NC 59, From
_ 70/45 + 4/4
E NC 59 19.0 L 66/41 NC 59 19.0 L - " 70 + 4
71 Church
66 -
to 20.0 R

72 Residence B to
20.0 R
., 22.0 R -
" 69
+ d
73 Residence B 1. 22.0 R 65 -
0 A -
to 20 " 70 + 4
74 Residence H •• 20.0 R 66 .
21.0 R _ -
to " 69 + 4
75 Residence B " 21.0 R 65 - -
0 R
9. 20 " 70 + 4
76 Residence B •? 20.0 R 66 .
_
0 R - -
.. 65 60 + 4
77 Residence B to 65.0 R 56 .
-
0 R -
to 65 60 + 4
76 Residence H •• 65.0 R 56 .
6d.0 A - - 60 + 3
79 Residence 8 " 64.0 R 57
_
0 L -
" 22
69
+ 4
80 Business C •• 22.0 L 65 .
0 L _ -
" 30 67 + 4
81 Business C •• 30.0 L 63 .
_ -
0 R
64
•'
60
+ 3
82 Business C 64.0 R
•? 57 .
.
_ -
0 R
" 46 62 + 3
83 Residence 8
•? 48.0 R
59
.
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) to SR 1136 (Wingate Road)
PC 59, From

NC 59 27.0 R
63 _
NC 59 27.0 R _ 69 + 6

+ 6
64 Business C -
0 L -
of 20 " 71
85 Business C to 20.0 L 65 .
_ _ ¦ 69 + 6
86 Residence 8 •• 29.0 L 63 of 29.0 L
? 6S + 6
87 Residence H 46.0 L
? 59 46.0 L
- -
So 71
+ 7
Business C
ae 22.0 L
•• 64 of
22.0 L
-
61
+ S
89 Residence C to 65.0 L 56 65.0 L
- - 65 + 6
C to 45.0 R 59 to
45.0 R
+ 6
90 Business .. 24.0 L - 70
Business C
91 24.0 L
•• 66
0 L - -
It 30
BB
"
+ 6

92 Residence a
30.0 L
••
62
.
L - -
" 67
+ 6
93 Residence B " 34.0 L 61 to 34.0
-
-
69
+ 6
94f Residence 8 •• 27.0 L 63 so 27.0 L
- -
69
"
+ 6

95 Residence 8
27.0 L
••
63
of 27.0 L
- -
62
* 6

96 Residence 8
64.0 L
••
56
of
64.0 L
_
6S
+ 6

97 Residence H
45.0 L
••
59
It
45.0 L
- -

68

+ 6
98 Business C to 32.0 R 62 32.0 R
64
+ 6
99 Residence a of 49.0 L 58 49.0 L
- - 63 + 6

100 Business C
to 57.0 R
57 57.0 R
"
- -
63
+ 6
101 Business C of 57.0 R 57 57.0 R
-
_ 67 + 6
102 Business C •' 37.0 R 61 to 37.0 R
- -
68
+ 6
C of 30.0 L 62 30.0 L + 6
103 Business to
0 L -
30 68
104 Business C of 30.0 L 62 .
R - - 68 + 6
105 Business C of 32.0 R 62 to
]2.0
- - 70 ? 6
it 25.0 L 64 to
25.0 L
106 Business C
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways' -L--:- Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
- > Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly 1?-weighted noise levels. s .> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Category X Doi" levels sham es exterior/interior (58/46).
i
4/E
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EaOSURES
NC 59, From SA 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
Cumberland County, Project 1 5.1441202, TIP / U-2308
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
•• ID t LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL .......
... ...... Y......
NC 59, From SA 1141 (Cumberland Road) to SA 1136 (Wingate Road) Cont'd
- 66 ? 6
107 Business C NC 59 38.0 L 60 NC 59 38.0 L _ 66 + 6
" 30.0 A - -
108 Business C " 30.0 R 62 _ • 66 + 6
.• 60 " 40.0 L _
109 Residence B 40.0 L - • 66 + 6
.• 40.0 L 60 to 40.0 L _
110 Residence B - • 73 + 6
?• 16.0 L
111 Residence B 16.0 L 67 .. 30.0 L - * 68 + 6
•112 Residence B " .30.0 L 62 - -
? 52.0 L 58 " 52.0 L 63 + S
113 Residence B .. 22.0 L - - • 71 + 7
114 Residence B '• 22.0 L 64 - to 71 + 6
"
115 Residence H 21.0 L 65 21.0 L -
?20.0 L - to 71 + 6
116 Residence B 20.0 L 65 _ -
21.0 L to 71 + 6
21.0 L 65 •'
117 Residence B
„
118 Residence B 27.0 L 63 27.0 L _ - * 69 + 6
58.0 L _ - 62 + 5
119 Residence B 58.0 L 57 ?? .. 25.0 L - ' 69 + 6
120 Residence B " 28.0 L 63 - to 69 + 6
B .' 28.0 L 63 to 28.0 L -
121 Residence 30.0 L - ? 68 + 6
- -
122 Residence B " 30.0 L 62 of
30.0 L 62 to 30.0 L ? 68 + 6
123 Residence B - • 69 + 6
124 Residence B " 26.0 L 63 to 28.0 L _ 69 + 6
125 Business C " 27.0 R 63 0. 27.0 R - - + S
"
126 Residence B " 47.0 R 59 47.0 R - - 64 6
127 Business C " 36.0 R 61 36.0 R - - 67 +
128 - to 69 + 6
28.0 L 63 to 28.0 L
Residence 8
129 Residence 8 54.0 L 57 to 54.0 L - 63 + 6
.. 28.0 L _ - to 69 + 6
130 Residence B " 28.0 L 67
70 + 6
131 Business C " 23.0 R 64 23.0 R - - + 6
"
172 Business C " 27.0 R 63 27.0 A - - 69 + 6
"
133 Business C •' 23.0 L 64 23.0 L - _ 70
„ 70 + 6
134 Business C " 23.0 L 64 23.0 L - - - - + 5
to 59.0 L 62
59.0 L 57
135 Residence H
NC 59, From SR 1136 (Wingate Road) to SR 1276 (Redwood Drive)
_ - 60 + S
136 Residence B NC 59 72.0 L SS NC 59 72.0 L - - 70 + 5
25.0 L 64 " 25.0 L
137 Business C
138 Business C 25.0 L 64 25.0 L _ - 70 + 6
„
.•
139 Residence B 24.0 L 64 24.0 L - _ to 70 + 6
•?
? 64 + 6
51.0 R 58 51.0 R
140 Business C
' NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
-Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are dourly 11-weighted noise levels. Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
category z noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). to .>

RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID f LAND USE CATEGORY
--------------o-o-e
- TABLE N4 5/8
.Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
Cumberland County, project i 8.1441202, TIP / U-2308
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL ,
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
-----Y--YYY- ----- --H--Y---oo--- --A.--.-----o-----. .... .--
RC 59, From SA 1136 (Wingate Road) to SR 1276 (Redwood Drive) Cont'd

141
142
143

144

145

146
147
148

149

150

151
152
153

154

155
156

157

158
I59
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
Residence
Residence
Residence

Business

Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Accidence
-Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Business
Res idence
Business
Residence
Residence
Residence
B
B
B

C

B

8
B
B

B

H

H
B
B

B

B
B

B

B
B
B
B
B
B
B
8
B
8
8
B
B
B
B
8
C
H
C
H
B
H
NC 59 36.0
" 26.0

54.0

25.0
?r
55.0
to 27.0
" 26.0
" 26.0

" 23.0

28.0
"
26.0

" 25.0

25.0
"
25.0

It
26.0
28.0

25.0

70.0
26.0
27.0
25.0
to 27.0
24.0
22.0
28.0
71.0
it 25.0
24.0
60.0
26.0
25.0
It 22.0
- 42.0
of 39.0
40.0
of 26.0
51.0
'• 45.0
" 50.0
L
L

L

R
L
L

L .
R

A

L

L

R

R

L
L

R

R

R
L
L
R
L
R
L
R
R
L
A
R
L
R
L
L
R
L
L
R
L
L
61 NC 59
63 .,

57 of

64 to
57 It
63 "

63 "
63

"
64
63 "
63 "

64 to

64 to

64 ,.
63 of

63 It

64 to

55 .,
63 if
63 to
64 '.
63 "
64 "
64 "
63 "
55 N
,
64 to
64 to
57 of
63 to
64 to
64 to
60 of
60 N
60 of
63 "
58 to
59 It
56 of
36.0
28.0

54.0

25.0
55.0
27.0

26.0

26.0

23.0
28.0

26.0

25.0

25.0

25.0
26.0

26.0

25.0

70.0
26.0
27.0
25.0
27.0
24.0
22.0
28.0
71.0
25.0
,
24.0
60.0
26.0
25.0
22.0
42.0
39.0
40.0
26.0
51.0
45.0
50.0
L
L

L

A
L
L

L

R

A
L

L

R

R

L
L

R

R

R
L
L
R
L
R
L
R
R
L
R
A
L
A
L
L
R
L
L
R
L
L _ - • 67
" 69
-

- - 63

- - 70
- - 63
. 69
-
" 69
- -
- - " 69

- - " 70
- - " 69

- • 69
* 70
- -

- - " 70

- - " 70
- _ " 69
" 69

- -

- - " 70

- _ 61
- - " 69
- - " 69
" 70
-
- - " 69
- - to 70
- - " 71
- - " 69
- - 60
- - • 70
- - It 70
- - 62
" 69
- -
- - • 70
" 71
-
- - 65
- - 66
- - to 66
- - 69
- - 64
- - 65
- - 64 +
+

+

+
+
+
+ -

+

+
+

+
+

+

+
+
+

+

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ 6
6

6

6
6
6
6

6

6
6

6
6

6

6
6
6

6

6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
S
6
6
5
6
6
7
5
6
6
6
6
6 .
6
NOTE% Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.

to -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48).

/ 6/8
TABLE N4
i
Laq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 59, prom SA 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
Cumberland County, Project 0 5.1441202, TIP / U-2308
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY L" -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
ID / LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -
to -H------------ to to A ....................
NC 59, From SR 1136 (Wingate Road) to SR 1276 (Redwood Drive) Cont'd

C
NC 59 20.0 A
65 NC 59
20.0 R - * 71
- ? 6
180 Business
••
0 R
47 -
- 64
? 5

181
Residence
B •• 47.0 R 59
.
- 70
? 6
C •' 23.0 R 64
" 23.0 R
182 Business '•
0 L
52
- -
63 ? 5
163 Residence B " 52.0 L 58 .
-
68 ? 6
C to 32.0 L ••
62 32.0 L -
+
5
184 Business " 60.0 L -
- 62
185 Residence 8 to . 60.0 L 57
to
0 R
d0 - -
66
+ 6
186 Residence B " 40.0 R 60 .
-
• 68 + 6

B
•' 32.0 R
'•
62
32.0 R -
167 Residence
0 A
50
_
64 ? 6
188 Residence B " 50.0 R 58 . -
64
+ 6
189 Residence C of 49.0 L •.
S8 49.0 L -
- • 69
+ 6
B It 26.0 R ••
63 26.0 A -
190 Residence •• 0 A
49 - - 64 + 6
191 Business C " 49.0 R 58 .

-
, 71
+ 6
192 Business C " 21.0 R ••
65 21.0 R -
-
66/41 + 6
E •' 38.0 R 60/00 •• 38.0 R -
193 Church •'
0 L
23
- "
, 70 + 6
194 Residence 8 23.0 L 64 . -
• 71
? 7
195 Business C " 22'0 L
••
64
22.0 L
-
NC 59, From SR 1276 (Redwood Drive) to US 40 1 Business

196
Business
C
NC 59 22.0 L 64 NC 59 22.0 L - • 71

- 64 + 7

+
5
197 Residence B 47.0 L 59 to 47.0 L -
71
"
+ 7
198 Business C •• 22.0 R 64 •• 22.0 R " 62 ? g
199 Residence B " 56.0 A 57 of 58.0 R -
.
" 71
? 7
200 Business C •• 22.0 L 64 It 22.0 L ,
" 69
? 6
201 Residence B '• 26.0 R 63 to 26.0 R -
,
" 71
? 5
202 Business C •• 20.0 L 65 '• 20.0 L
" 69
? 6
203 Business C •• 28.0 R 63 " 28.0 R -
" 70
+ 6
204 Business C •• 23.0 L 64 It 23.0 L
" 59
? 5
205 Residence H •• 60.0 L 54 of 80.0 L -
•
" 69
? 6
206 Residence B •• 26.0 L 63 to 26.0 L -
,
- 72
? 7
207 Business C •• 19.0 L 65 " 19.0 L -
" 69
? 6
C '• 26.0 R 63 " 28.0 A -
208 Business to 0 A
100 " 57 ? 6
209 Residence B •• 100.0 R 51 .
- 69
+ 6
210 Business C •' 27.0 R 63 of 27.0 R -
,
71
+ 7
211 Residence 8 •• 22.0 L 64 It 22.0 L -
64
? 6
212 Residence B •• 50.0 L 56 to 50.0 L -
70
? 6
213 Business C •' 25.0 R 64 '. 25.0 R -
,
71
+ 6
214 Residence B to 20.0 L 65 of 20.0 L -
64 ? 6
215 Residence B
It 48.0 L
58 of
48.0 L
-
of the existing or proposed roadways'
el contribution.
P
y's noise
roposed roadw
NOT E: Distances a re fro m canter Y--> nq
a
level
contr
Nois roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. It ?? Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Pa rt 772).
Category B noise levels sham as exterior/interior (58/48).
i

RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID f LAND USE CATEGORY
.....¦...¦.¦Y........
7/8
TABLE N4
Lsq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
Cumberland County, Project / 8.1441202, TIP f U-2308
NOISE
AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
.... o.. w........ ........ ¦... Y Y Y.. Y .. .......
SR 1276 (Redwood Drive) to US 401 Business (Cont'd )
NC 59, From

RC 59
36.0 R
61 NC 59
34.0 R _ 67 + 6
+ 6
216 Business C
0

23.0 L - -

* 70
217 Rpidenes B •• 23.0 L 64
"
25.0 L _ _ " 70 + 6
9.
218 Residence 8 25.0 L 64
"
73.0 R _ - 60 + 5
••
219 Residence H 73.0 R SS
24.0 A _ • 70
_ + 6
to
220 Residence B 24.0 R 64
to
30.0 R - _ 68 + 6
•?
221 Business C 30.0 R 62

..

28.0 L _
- - 69
+ '6
•?
222 Residence C 25.0 L 63
it
23.0 A _ _ 70 + 6
22] Business C 23.0 A 64
It 23.0 A - - " 70 + 6
224 Residence B ¦ 23.0 R 64
to
20.0 R - - " 71 + 6
to
225 Hwinees C 20.0 R 65
it
39.0 R
- - 66
+ 6
'
226 Business C 39.0 R 60 0 L
87 - - 58 + S
227 Residence H to 67.0 L 53 ?. .
0 L
24 - - " 70 + 6
228 Residence 8 to 24.0 L 64 .
0 L
82 - _
59
+ 6

229 Residence H 82.0 L 53

of
.
23.0 L

- - • TO

+ 6
230 Residence 8 23.0 L 64
of 23.0 R - - " 7D + 6
a
231 Residence H
23.0 R
64
10
23.0 R
- - " 70
+ 6
232 Residence H 23.0 R 64
It 0 L
23 - - 70 + 6
2]] Business C 23.0 L 64 It .
0 R
2] - - " 70 + 6
234 Residence H to 23.0 A 64
1. .
0 L
83 - -
59 + 6
of •
2]S Residence B 83.0 L 53
it
.
0 R
69
- - 61
+ 6
236 Business C go 69.0 R 55

of .

0 L
22
_ _ • 71
+ 7
.9
Z37 Business C 22.0 L 64 . _ _ 64 + 6

238 Residence B 50.0 L 58 to 50.0 L
- - 64
+ 6
B 50.0 L ..
58 50.0 L + 6
239 Residence of 0 L
24 - - 70
240 Business C to 24.0 L 64 .
22.0 R - - • 71 + 7
241. Business C 1' 22.0 R 64
"
0 A
22 _ _ • 71 + 7
242 Business C 22.0 R 64
" .
0 R
23 _ - 70 + 6
of
243 Business C 23.0 R 64
" .
0 L
47
_ - 64
+ 5
to
244 Residence B 47.0 L 59
to .
23.0 L
_ - 70
+ 6
1#
24S Business C 23.0 L 64
to
0 R
23
- - 70
+ 6
246 Business C to 23.0 R 64
.0 .
0 L
]8 - - 66 + 6
247 Business C 38.0 L 60
O .
23.0 L - - 70 + 6
248 Business C to 23.0 L 64
of
0 R
22 - " 71
_ + 7
to
249 Business C 22.0 R 64
to .
0 L
63 - - 62 + 6
250 Residence B to 63.0 L 56 .
0 A
32 - -
68
+ 6
of
251 Business C 32.0 R 62

of
.
0 L
25

- - TO

+ 6
252 Business C is 25.0 L 64
of .
31.0 L - - 68 + 6
253 Residence C to 31.0 L 62
it
0 R
25 - 70
_ + 6
254 Business C 25.0 R 64 .
-L-'> Pro posed roadway's noise level c ontribution.
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. other contributing roadways.
l -Y--> Noi se level from
All noise levels are hourly s.
11-weighted noise leve
• ffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
hown as exterior/interior (58/48) ->
Tra
.
Category E noise levels s
•
8/8
TABLE N4

I.oq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 401 Business (Raeford Road),
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Road) to
Cumberland County, Project t 6.1441202, TIP / U-2308
NOISE
AMBIENT NEAREST
PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
RECE PTOR INFORMAT ION WAY
NEAREST ?? NOISE
E DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE,
ID LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (ID) NAM
LII' .?wwww......w ......w....ww w.•w?• ........
SA 1276 (Redwood Drive) to US 401 Business (Cont'd)
RC 59, From

C NC 59 45.0 L
_
59 NC 59 45.0 L -
65

.
* 6

+ 6
2SS Residence 11 _ -
23.0 R 70
256 Residence B " 23.0 R 61
- -
•• 25.0 R
* 70
+ 6
257 Residence B " 25.0 R 64 _

40.0 L _
•• „ 66 + 6
258 Residence B " 40.0 L 60
-
" 50.0 L - 6d . 6
259 Residence a •• 0 L
50. 58
0 A - -
63 62/00 + 6

260
Church
E ., 63.0 A .
56/<40
.. 31.0 L - -
* 68
+ 6
261 Residence B " 31.0 L 62
•' 35.0 R 67 + 6
262 Business C •• 35.0 R 61
.• 67.0 R - 61 + 6
263 Residence B " 67.0 R SS - -
25.0 L
??
70
+ 6
264 Business C " 25.0 L 64
- -
62.0 L
62
? 6

265
Residence
B •• 62.0 L 56
.• 25.0 L -
70
? 6
266 Business C " 25.0 L 64
34.0 R - - " 67 + 6
267 Business C " .34.0 R 61
- - 69 ? 6
268 Business C •' 29.0 R 63 29.0 A
-
_ • 73 + 6
C •' 15.0 L 67 " 15.0 L + 6
269 Business 0 L
.. 25 70
270 Business C " 25.0 L .
64
- _
69
+ 6
C •' 27.0 R ••
63 27.0 R + 6
271 Business
25.0 L - -
"
70
272 Business C '• 25.0 L 64
-
70
+
6

C
" 25.0 L
64 25.0 L _
••
+ 6
273 Business
0 R - -
28
••
69
274 Business C " 28.0 A .
63
- 67 + 6
275 Business C " 37.0 L 61 37.0 L -
••
- _ 69 ? 6
C " 27.0 R ••
63 27.0 R + 6
276 Business - _
0 L
•• 24 70
277 Business C •• 24.0 L .
64 69 ? 6
C •' 25.0 R .. 28.0 R
63
+ 6
276 Business 0 R - -
•'
35 67
279 Business C " 35.0 R .
61
- _ 70 + 6
C " 23.0 R •'
64 23.0 R + 6
280 Business - _
0 R
•• 21
IN 71

281
, Business C •• 21.0 A
.
65
_ _

62

+ 5

60.0 L
••
57 60.0 L
282 Business C 0 R -
28 69 + 6

283
Business
C
26.0 A
'• .
63 _
_
66
+ 6
284 Business C •• 40.0 L 60 " 40.0 L
_ 62 ? 6
0 R
•• 64 56 64.0 A '•
285 Business C
.
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. .> Noise P00d level roadway's noise level contribution.
roadways.
t
All noise levels an hourly A-wighted noise levels. Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Pert 772).
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
a

TABLE N5
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business (Raeford Road ),
Cumberland County, project f 8.1441202, TIP 1 U-2308
Maximum Predicted Contour App roximate Number of Impac ted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
15M 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
Description
1. NC 59, From SR 1003 to SR 1133 72 67 62 20.2m 38.7m 0 14 3 0 0
2. NC 59, •From SR 1133 to SR 1134 71 67 61 18.6m 36.6m 0 19 0 0 0
3. NC 59, From SR 1134 to SR 1141 70 65 60 14.7m 30.1m 0 6 0 0 0
4. NC 59, From SR 1141 to SR 1136 71 67 62 19.5m 37.9m 0 21 2 0 0
5. NC 59, From SR 1136 to SR 1276 71 67 62 19.5m 37.9m 0 32 3 0 0
6. NC 59, From SR 1276 to US 401-Bus 71 67 62 19.5m 37.9m 0 17 12 0 0

Total 0 109 20 0 0
NOTES - 1. 7.5m, 15m, and 30m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
M

TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Nc 59, From SR 1003 (Camden Read) to US 401 Bus iness (Raeford Road),
Cumberland County, Project t 8.1441202, TIP 1 U- 2308
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

1.
From SR 1003 to SR 1133
0
0 27 0 0
p
p _ p 0
2. From SR 1133 to SA 1134 0
p
0 36 0
0
0
0
0
3. From SR 1134 to SR 1141 0
0
20 0 0
p
p
p
0
4. From SR 1141 to SR 1136 0
0
0 52 0
p
p
p
0
S. From SR 1136 to SR 1276 0 0 60 0 0
0
0
0
0
6. From SR 1276 to US 401-Bus 0 0 90 0 0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS 0 20 265 0 0 0 0 0 0
t
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (Bee bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.

TABLE Al
PAGE 1
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
RUN:.NC 59, year 2000, Build
JOB: V-2308: NC 59, Cumberland Co.
DATE: 07/27/95 TIME: 14:04 '
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---
----------------------------
VS . 0.0 CM/S VD . 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM 10
HIXH ' 00. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
V - 1.0 M/S CLAS 4 (D) ATIM . 60. MINUTES
LINK VARIABLES
-------------- • LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
LINK DESCRIPTION- " LINK COORDINATES (M) M (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
Y2 "
* Xl Yl X2 (
)
------- ---
-----------------------
•--------------------- ---
_
-----------
•
1610
360. AG
826. 14.0
0.0 13.2

• 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0
Far Lane Link
"
.
1610
180. AG
826. 14.0
0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link • 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 .
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M) '
"
RECEPTOR X y y
-------------------------"-------------------------------------•

" -8.3 0.0 1.8 '
1. A/W, 13.7m From CL
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE • (PPM)
(DEGR)• REC1
MAX • 2.8
DEGR. * 11
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 11 DEGREES FROM RECI
a

TABLE A2
PACE 2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
RUN:-NC 59, Year 2020, Build
JOB: U-2308: NC 59, Cumberland Co.
DATE: 07/27/95 TIME: 14104
- SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--
----------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S -----
VD - --
0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
M AMB - 1.
IXH ` 1000
8 PPM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES M .
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
•
LINK COORDINATES (M) •
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH
EF
R W V/C QUEUE
LINK DESCRIPTION •
2
(M) (DEC)
(G/MI)
(M) (M) (VEH)
* X1 Y1 X2 Y --------------------
------------------ ------- ---
8 605.0 10.8 805.0
10 1610. 360. AC 1251. 10.7 0.0 13.2
1. Far Lane Link .
0 "
0 -805
0 1610. 180. AG 1251. 10.7 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link • .
.
0.0 805.0
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
COORDINATES (M) '
RECEPTOR ' X Y Z •
--------------- --'-- ------------------------------'----•
--------
1. R/W, 13.7m From CL
•
-8.3 0.0 1.6 •
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with sams maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE " (PPM)
(DECR)' REC1
MAX " 3.0
DEGR. • 10
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.00 PPM AT 10 DEGREES FROM REC1 .

TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
JOB: U-2308: NC 59, Cumberland Co. RUN:,NC 59, Year 2000, No-Build
DATE: 07/27/95 TIME: 16:03
*
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--------
-------°--------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
0 M/S CLAS ` 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES
. 1 MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
.
U
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION • LINK COORDINATES (M) •
LENGTH 'BRG TYPE
VPB EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
• X1 Yl X2 Y2 ' (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
---------- -------------- •---------------------------------------- •-----:----------------------------- -----------------------
1. Far Lane Link • 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 626. 17.9 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link • 0.0 805.0 0.0 -605.0 " 1610. 180. AG 826. 17.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M) •
RECEPTOR • X Y Z •
------------------------- '-------------------------------------"
1. R/w, 13.7m from CL " -11.9 0.0 1.8 "
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
------•------
MAX * 2.7
DEGR. • 3
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.70 PPM AT 3 DEGREES FROM REC1
K
11
TABLE A4
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 4
JOB: U-2306: NC 59, Cumberland Co. RUN:.NC 59, Year 2020, No-Build
DATE: 07/27/95 TIME: 14:03
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MUM . 1000. M AMB ` 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
------------
LINK DESCRIPTION • 'LINK -COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H w V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 ' (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------- ----- "---------------------------------------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link • 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 • 1610. 360. AG 1251. 22.7 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link • 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 ' 1610. 180. AG 1251. 22.7 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M) •
RECEPTOR ' X Y Z
---------- ---"-------- -------------------------------------
1. R/w, 13.7m from CL • -11.9 0.0 1.8 •
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
AN= ' (PPM)
(DEGR)• REM
MAX • 3.6
DEGR. ' 6
1
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION 13 3.60 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
?„ ? ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs `
Project Review Form Nil-
Project {?Number: Cou/nntty:: Date: ?y Date Response Due (firm deadline): Lld ? ;? ?Y Y?

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Fa
etteville I;rAir ?Coastal Management ?Water Planning
y L-Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville
ktroundwaler
Wildlife ? Solid waste management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
El Wilmington
?Others ';
?+'?nvironmental Management R[f f.IVED
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart '
04N
' jy91
ENVIRONMFNIAL sCIE
NCES
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency-
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
El Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
U Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistencv Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
VS 1014
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

SEATE
lt? ( I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 29, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Marc L. Hamel Crime
Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Minutes of Scoping Meeting U-2308, NC 59, Cumberland
County, from SR 1003 in Hope Mills to US 401 Business
(Raeford Road), Project Number 8.1441202, F. A. Number
STPNHF-59(1)
The following were in attendance at the June 24, 1994 scoping meeting at
9:00 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental Conference Room (470):
John Taylor Roadway Design
John Taylor Location and surveys
Dale Privette Traffic Engineering
Hubert Thaggard Roadway Design
David Cox NCWRC
Betty Yancey Right-of-Way
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Bill Watson Program Development
Danny Rogers Program Development
Teresa Hart Planning and Environmental
Ray Moore Structure Design
Wanda James Traffic Control
Steve Burris Geotech
Laura Rice Statewide Planning
--Eric Galamb DEM
Richard Davis Planning and Environmental
Ray Goff Division 6
Rick Heicksen Cumberland County
Tracey Conrad Division 6
Marc Hamel Planning and Environmental
The following narrative presents the highlights of scoping items
pertaining to the project:
1. Robin Stancil called and noted that there are no National Register
sites existing, however, a survey for eligible sites should be
completed. There is a mill site in the vicinity of the project,
but it does not appear to be on the project. There are no recorded
archaeological sites, and no survey is requested.
R-%;
June 29, 1994
Page 2
2. SR 1141 (Cumberland Road) which crosses the project is being
upgraded under project U-2304A.
3. Danny Rogers concurred that the project limits could be extended
south to the existing four lanes approximately 0.4 mile south of
SR 1003.
4. It is estimated that the project can be constructed on 80 feet of
right-of-way with easements.
5. There are 5 churches, and 3 elementary schools located on the
project.
6. Eric Galamb requests that we look at asymmetrical widening over the
creek, on whatever side has the least impacts.
7. The US 401 and Cumberland Road intersections will need intersection
improvements, and possibly double left turns.
8. Consideration should be made towards acquiring right-of-way across
US 401 Business for future expansion.
9. The existing bridge on the project has a sufficiency of 92, is 40
feet wide, and may be widened.
10. There are many pedestrian crossings at SR 1136 near Sherwood Park.
11. Contact should be made with local officials regarding sidewalks.
12. There was the question raised that the cost estimate for railroad
work should be for traffic signals.
13. The county requests the use of non-mountable concrete islands where
possible.
14. There are two leaking storage tanks near US 401, and 14 total tanks
on the project.
15. The revised planning schedule for completion of the EA is July
1995. Completion of the FONSI is scheduled for November 1995.
16. There are possible utility conflicts if sidewalks are used.
MLH/rfm

??YY M nATt' o
dYe?n,?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27011-5201
June 1, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SFO 1ARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Hope Mills, NC 59, From
SR 1003 (Camden Road) to US 401 Business, Widen to a
multi-lane facility, State Project No. 8.1441202,
Federal-Aid Project No. STPNHF-59(1), U-2308
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for Friday, June 24, 1994 at 9:00 A. M. in the
Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may
provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to
that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Marc Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MLH/plr
Attachment
[LM ?ak?sh (k I? . t- 2?f-C?1
JL-
'rwdt w 'S c re w
w k (,?V
f
Ma

lit, ?1 it.
TIP # U--2308
Project # 8,1441202
F.A. Project # STPNTF 59(
i.ivision F
County Cumberland
Route NC 59
Functional C iassif. icat:i_on Urban (Ala- A; .' ;
Length 4.0 Miles
Purpose of Project: Widen i Si j T V 1
facility for contlnui ! y, ir;::ryi i , . , K,
(five lane C&G).
Description of project (in(A uC
elements of work: Hobe Mills, K 5q I nu P,
to US 401 Business, widen to mu l i ,_ iV y.
Type of environmental document Y Vc i o :, ;A y' )N,
Environmental study schedule : ;A A py 'w Ox
Will there be special funding i-?i:r. tv
developers, or other? Yes
If yes, by whom and amount : ($) ? ?! (?')
How and when will this be paid'.'
I
PROJECT SC°OP.ING SIIEE'l'
i to of Facility: 271ane existing, 57lane C&G },lvt?x?S?1 64'
pare
Type of Access Control : lit l l - -, Partial M: a X
Typo of Roadway : Five-lane _C&G_ proposed, existing 21dnc;
'i 11 u 1 de,l: section
i-ui rn c-hal Iqu's Grade Separations - Sty-am YAM ?c ckion of Roadway : Exlstirig 14-foot ti uven n! r m) t
1r)u.1 n rs>. Proposed 5 lar,.e, 64-fool. C.(,.
i'a r 7 Ci.c,: Currant. 13,900 ypd Design Year
On ;,tarn, "ds T,np1 icahle : AASHTO X V,
). !:: isIri :=lj?? ?'-O: 50 MPH
"1i0,-1,_ ?, I es? facing Design:
imi.naiy Pavement Design:
',;,_rent. MA Estimate:
Cost (including engineering
and cMingencles) . . . . . . . . . . . $ ?? `?C?(1 ?,:)i 1
,
AgIM of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Pn Cn MUM Items . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iTel imirAi_y Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . $ i : ,non
Mai Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1. n°` ,ur.
P Cost. Estimate:
construct Jon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1), 00-
t? i qhn of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OM
Prelimi.nh±:-; t;ugi.neer.ing. . . . . . . . . . . $ 15,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.: n a
Page 2

a

PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
I,ist arty such. as railroad involver*mt, which
cou]_d af.fec!-- cot o- -.c-hedule of project: 5-1ane C&G section
I'IEWS, REQUI '[-I) ( .- ) COMMENTS COST

:: Pavetn?,nl.
-tit . . . . . . . . . $ 1,371,_840
I':is;, . . . . . . . . . . $
M-i 1; Irt< .;tirfacing) . . $ _ 2.15 680
. . . . . . . . . . . . . $
. . . . . . . . . . . . $ ---- -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .3.21,000

ul'?<rt ?, ,,rtti:m. . . . . . . . . $ _ 400,750
.•. I) t atl-?;_,.?_??.; t. ,., i , , l _ .: uy .i I_c;ms) 684,000
- -
t.rUCi..uri1. ?. ; W i dLh x Length
337::idlw. P.'h,,lwi il_a-ion x $
Nevi Tar L"h-
Wi( ?.>> .5 x 121
- - $ .166_61.7

NE?ti•? C ? ? t????_? ? I ::: ?, ,_.;c? 1 t:r,c?ii-h _ $
i JA ]_ Ili-.

Reta:J i.r?cl W0.1, Ht..
-- -- $
- -
akew
No i.; ,e [Ala ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ -- -
.
Any 0, ;?e; i u_E3c . . (1?tructi_1res .
Conm..ol-.e Cu .1.) F< Gut.tor.. . . . . . . . . . . $ 335,426
Concrete ;;;i dt v i'l t- . . . . . . . . . . . $
(uar. d-.-a i.I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ - -- --
a.t,?3 /car C.
ti: i ;: -osioi 1 ("otit.l-o l . . . . . . . . . . $ - -- 56,00
rlds,c.i}x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
ght)_,)(. r. . . . . . . . $
------ ---------
I'raf f i.r. COI i ; c l $ -6$.1.400
S??_zni nor : TZc?w . . . . . . . . . . $
(1lxlradim!. . . . . . . . . . . $ -----
`I .afii.i, -
si ill _115: New
$
Revise''d
x RR Sl.gil?'Js . New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
?.:. Rc,,,, 1.se,1 4, ---7-2,000
-
Wit.)1 or t?'i.thout Arm.-7). $
If 3R: 1>ra_i_nag ;?a7:ety '?nhancFmorit. $ --
Road<: de ",afet- E.,Aiancem:,nt. $
Reali_ar,,ment for "afety Upgrade $ _--

x y
Paveme'?n c Paint-, 1-lermo
$
_ 04,880
-
Marker.
P-Icge
Of I

Delineators . .
Other . . ` C31, 407
COIF i'RAC 1' C 0:1'J' (Stiht.ot?.tl) : ! , 628 , 000
Contingencies & Eng i ut eri rtc; . . . . . . . . . . 11 i.'/ 2, 000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h
`;'300. 000
-- -
--x-- Right of May:
W].].1. r071t.aa.p J'I(iri:_ Y( No
Exist-Arne Riati.t of Wa-v V1 ?1!.t
New <?)" t:
Easemont.,,. Tyr,., tr;,?;_t.? ;t . Cc,cz t. ,?.

Prepared Jay:
The above scoj-)inu I) i`. J )F?'?."9Jl 1 1, A-? q

Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Sei'viCe s
Geotechn'Jcal
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photograintnetr. y
Prel. Est. Engr. DI4C'
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
--
Traffic Engineering
Project Mana-,ment -
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others .
J \TIT . DATE
of
- --- --- ----- --
`?l`11_?1.
Cl i i ?s Ellf
?c?ot,o; ?.ry Roy td Of - -- --
Cc;i
-
?'-O i :1 ;l Cl? tti17V 1 rG ?[llE?'I tt,a. .
rii=cnn ; ice Jar. ai. ic:i
is r?` •??tc JkIJ nt<?zt?rt,tce
13LCVC_tt'. Ccoi_d',?tl.ator
Y7: o.;fr aut Dovelopnient. __-
L Res. --
Dept . of 1"11 &. NIX"
Scope Sheet for lc,: al of-ficic1 -. L::J 1. J spniv- to Di.v.`:.si.on
Engineer i or
Comments or Remarks:
*Tf you are not in arjreeraeiit v,,.ith pro X)sed proj(?ct or scoping,
note your proposed revisions -in Conuaent?, or Section and
initial arid date aJ-t,-: co!wne; cs.

"de
Godwih

Sprin ake to
c U M 6
Fayettevill
°s ;r

? s
59

,'?mberl>! R '' t ?
/Van Ae/
/ ` I Stedman
J
40pe MII ??
d '?, Ceda, CI
I i
Ih ?IPIIT
97 I.
,;I

12r? ???

SCJDPl-N G MEETING
U-2308
NC 59, Cumberland County,
from SR 1003 in Hope Mills to US 401 Business
Project Number 8.1441202
Federal Aid Number STPNHF-59 (1)
AGENDA
1. Introductions (sign in)
2. Project Overview
Notes:
3. Input from Contributing Agencies and Branches
Notes:
4. Design Alternatives
Notes:
5. Scheduling
Notes:
6. Open Discussion
7. Summ. y
b?
1

U-2308 Scoping Meeting
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
Informational Workshop - 7/94 (tentative)
Environmental Assessment - 4/95
Public Hearing - 6/95
FONSI - 8/95
RIGHT-OF-WAY - FFY 97-99
CONSTRUCTION - FFY 01 ->
COST ESTIMATE:
Right-of-Way
Construction '
Total
-Page 2
r-1
---------------

/ i
I %
n ^'` SWI,q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I
SECREIARY
July 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Fayetteville, NC 59, SR 1003 (Camden Road) at Hope Mills
to US 401 Business, Widen to a Multi-Lane Facility,
Federal-Aid Project No. STPNHF-59(1), State Project
8.1441202, U-2308
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 59 in Cumberland County. The
project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1997 and
construction in fiscal year 2001.
The project proposes to improve NC 59 from an existing two-lane cross
section to a five-lane section with curb and gutter.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by September 8, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Marc L. Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
R, *Olt
# • a
? ndeq
I B
910 1 17 y Godwjh
2 / 5
cnester t
e ? ??
"
ke • 401 ?-?
?WedeC 4 82
y
3u
Sarin a
?
CUBA AN
3 , .
710N `
'
% sus
et?e'r?fi e? ?
Fa
2
y
i r
r n.

59

r?Tberl,d 0 4 3
3Vander
edrrnn-
\
9 \
3
\ ?
yoape II Cedar Creek 18

/ Lena L
IS
'
87
r ;I Lil/Iv ?.\.
,4.
August 29, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0030; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 591, TIP U-2308
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
, i
Melba McGee
August 29, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10681er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
a #
/
19g/1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO March 26, 1997
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

FNS NIP or I 40
?oNMFN?q< < v9,
This is in response to your letter of January 13, 1997, requesting our comments
on the "Federal "From 0.750 km (0.04 miles)
South of Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business, fi N 1111111111W.0 Federal
Aid Project #STPNHF-59(1), State Project Number 8.1441202, #91111111P=9
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199704288).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
C
0
I0
7
G
n
cn
R
F1
0
9
C
0
Fj
1<
Enclosure
-2-
Copies Furnished (with copy of
incoming correspondence):
/Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. David Cox, Highway Projects Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1141 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
March 26, 1997
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 59, From 0.750 km (0.04 miles) South of
Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business, Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project
#STPNHF-59(1), State Project Number 8.1441202, T.I.P. Number U-2308" (Regulatory
Branch Action I. D. No. 199704288)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County which participates in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panel 190 of the February 1982
Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the roadway crosses Little Rockfish
Creek, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined. We refer you to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
"Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification For Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways," copies of which have been provided to your office previously. In addition,
we suggest coordination with the county for compliance with their flood ordinance and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
According to information provided in the Environmental Assessment (EA), the
proposed improvements involve the widening of NC Highway 59 from south of Camden
Road (SR 1003) to US Highway 401 Business to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. Ar
additional bridge span will also be constructed at Rockfish Creek resulting in the filling
of approximately 0.1 acres of wetlands.
We are pleased that the North Carolina Department of Transportation has
committed to an in-stream moratorium on work associated with bridge No. 25115 over
Rockfish Creek. However, this moratorium should be revised to more accurately reflect
the peak spawning or migration activity that generally occurs between April 1 and
September 1. We recommend you consult with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission regarding specific moratorium windows.
Although the proposed work may qualify for nationwide permit (NWP) or General
Permit authorization, it is incumbent upon the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid and minimize all impacts to waters and wetlands.
When final design has been completed, you should contact Mr. McLendon for a final
determination of Department of the Army (DA) permit requirements for this project.
i•
e a STAR
y? n•o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 13, 1997
Mr. Coleman Long
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Long:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 59, From 0.750 km (0.04 miles)
South of Camden Road (SR 1003) to US 401 Business, Cumberland County,
Federal Aid Project #STPNHF-59(1), State Project Number 8.1441202,
T.I.P. Number U-2308
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment for the subject proposed highway
improvement. It is anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant
Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental Assessment or at the public
hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement you will be
contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide
planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as
discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded
to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
NO

.
2
Your comments should be received by February 26, 1997. If no comments are received
by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of No Significant
Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
*0 1CL--,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
r
---?? a o °
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 8, 2000
Cumberland County
DWQ Project No. 000941
TIP No. U-2308
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC, 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
material in 0.42 acres and perform mechanized clearing in 0.04 acres of wetlands. The purpose of project is
to construct improvements to Hope Mills Road (NC59) from the existing multi-lanes south of SR 1003
(Camden Road) to SR 1141. The project should be constructed in accordance with your application dated
18 August 2000. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3289. This certification corresponds to the Nationwide Permit Number
14 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits
before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404
permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified
below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby
responsible for complying with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, or of total impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to
remain valid, you must adhere to the conditions listed in the attached certification.
1.) When written concurrence is required, the applicant is required to use the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify D`'VQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed.
The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the
Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleieh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50`,7o recycled/IOSb post consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
4
4
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely,
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
c:\ncdot\U-2308\wqc\000941 wgc.doc
,Rem .Stevens
:T
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Hail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5017o recycled/1017b post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Kerr T. Stevens, Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ROAD CROSSING CERTIFICATION GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS
ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER 14 (ROAD
CROSSINGS), REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT 198200031 AND NEUSE/TAR-
PANILICO/RANDLEAIAN BUFFER RULES
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section.0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 for the discharge of fill material to
waters and wetland areas as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (14) of the Corps of Engineers
regulations (i.e., Nationwide Permit No. 14 and Regional General Permit 198200031) and for the Neuse,
Tar-Pamlico and Randleman Buffer
Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233,.0259 and .0250). The category of activities shall include any fill activity for
road crossing and is limited to fill less than one-third of an acre. This Certification replaces Water Quality
Certification Number 2177 issued on November 5, 1987, Water Quality Certification Number 2666 issued
on January 21, 1992, Water Quality Certification Number 2732 issued on May 1, 1992 and Water Quality
Certification Number 3103 issued on February 11, 1997. This WQC is rescinded when the Corps of
Engineers re-authorizes Nationwide
Permit 14 or Regional General Permit 198200031 when deemed appropriate by the Director of the DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate applicable
portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of wetlands or waters (including streams) under this General
Certification requires application to and prior written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality;
2. In accordance with North Carolina General Statute Section 143-215.3D(e), any application for a 401
Water Quality Certification must include the appropriate fee. If a project also requires a CAMA Permit,
one payment to both agencies shall be submitted and will be the higher of the two fees;
3. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) compensatory mitigation may be required for impacts to
streams and/or wetlands. In addition, buffer mitigation may be required for any project with Buffer
Rules in effect at the time of application. A determination of buffer, wetland and stream mitigation
requirements shall be made for any Certification for this Nationwide Permit. The most current design
and monitoring protocols from DWQ shall be followed and written plans submitted for DWQ approval
as required in those protocols;
4. For any project involving a stream re-alignment, a stream relocation plan must be included with the 401
application for written DWQ approval. Relocated stream designs should include the same dimensions,
patterns and profiles as the existing channel, to the maximum extent practical. The new channel should
be constructed in the dry and water shall not be turned into the new channel until the banks are
stabilized. Vegetation used for bank stabilization shall be limited to native woody species, and should
include establishment of a 30 foot wide wooded and an adjacent 20 foot wide vegetated buffer on both
sides of the relocated channel to the maximum extent practical. A transitional phase incorporating coir

Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
4 a
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
fiber and seedling establishment is allowable. Also, rip-rap may be allowed if it is necessary to maintain
the physical integrity of the stream, but the applicant must provide written justification and any
calculations used to determine the extent of rip-rap coverage requested. If suitable stream mitigation is
not practical on-site, then stream impact will need to be mitigated elsewhere;
Impacts to any stream length in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Randleman River Basins requires written
concurrence from DWQ in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0233, 15A NCAC 2B .0259 and .0250 and
15A NCAC 2H .0500. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas
(whether jurisdictional wetlands or not) within the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Randleman River Basins
shall be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233,
15A NCAC 2B .0259 and .0250. All new development shall be located, designed, constructed, and
maintained to have minimal disturbance to protect water quality to the maximum extent practicable
through the use of best management practices. Activities listed as "exempt" from these rules do not need
to apply for written concurrence under this Certification;
Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands must be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life unless it can be shown to
DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. 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 stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. Additionally, when roadways, causeways or other fill
projects are constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or wetlands, openings such as culverts or
bridges must be provided to maintain the natural hydrology of the system as well as prevent constriction
of the floodway that may result in destabilization of streams or wetlands;
7. If this Certification is used to access building sites, all lots owned by the applicant must be buildable
without additional fill beyond that allowed under other General Certifications. Deed restrictions must be
placed on the remaining wetlands and streams on these lots to restrict future wetland and stream fill.
DWQ shall be sent copies of all deed restrictions applied to these lots;
That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the
most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual"
or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual" whichever is more appropriate (available from the
Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central Offices) shall be in full
compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard;
9. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be removed and the natural
grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
10. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters of the
state until the concrete has hardened;
:1
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/1017o post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
10 0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
11. This Certification shall be utilized for roads from natural high -round to natural high ground. The
Certification for Nationwide Permit 18 may not be used in conjunction with this Certification to create
high ground for road access;
12. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by the State Clearinghouse. All water quality-
related conditions of the FONSI or ROD shall become conditions of this Certification;
13. That additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects proposed under this Certification in
order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent standards;
14. When written concurrence is required, the applicant is required to use the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed;
15. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project shall expire three years
from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the
corresponding Nationwide Permit 14 and Regional General Permit 198200031 whichever is sooner.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific fill project may result in
revocation of this Certification for the project and may also result in criminal and/or civil penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a formal
application for individual certification for any project in this category of activity, if it is determined that the
project is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existin-
uses of the wetland, stream or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a Certification
decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality.
Effective date: 1 June 2000
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Kerr T. Stevens
Director
WQC # 3289

Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5VIo recycled/107'o post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
a
Lu a TN?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
County:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1621. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the
project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Agent's Certification
Date:
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
Date:
I, as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of
the project,for the Perm ittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in

Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAY 733-9959
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5017o recycled/101/'o post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
4
41 o
1
CID
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature
Date
Registration No.

Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5017o recycled/l017o post consumer paper
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone]
Aug 18 '00 10:01 P.02
.? StKi-
STATE OF NORTu r " ^ ^, T*1A
DEPARTMENT OF. TRANSPORTATION
J.ANiEs B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
August 18; 2000 1
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Caroluia'28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cumberland County, NC 59 (Hope;Mills Rd)1
1003 (Camden. Rd) in Hope Mills,to SR 1141
STP-59(1), State Project No. 81441202; T.I.P.
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
i
rom Existing Multi-Lanes South of SR
,timberland Rd), Federal Aid Project
Yo. U-2308 A.
The North Carolina Depwtmctit d. Transporta for (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 59 in
Cumberland County from existing multi=lanes south.ul 0: avu3 (Camden Road) in Hope Mills to
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road). The project is:approximat ly 1.94 miles in length and will provide
a five-lane roadway with curb and gutter. hiiprovement will also include symmetrically
widening bridge #25115 over Little Rockfish Creek.
On July 12, 2000 a Nationwide 14 permit A41.ica 'on was submitted of the subject project.
On August 1, 2000 we were notified that the. Project exI a ds impacts fova.nationwide and that
impacts must -be reduced by 0.2 acres toqualify for a :Nat onwide permit 14'. In addition, on
August 8, 2000 you requested addition information regarding bridge demolition and use of offsite
detours. This letter provides the tequestedinformution. I
1. Acreage Decrease: We.have decieasedthe.i acts from mechanized clearing by 0.20
acres as shown in Table 1. The result of this a tion will be to reduce the cumulative
wetland impacts of project U-2308A to.0..47, a res. The enclosed revised drawings
depict the change in design. The chang* e was. accomplished by first, decreasing the area
of Mechanized Clearing from:ten feet to five fget from the edge of the fill slope; and
second, showing Mechanized ?Clearing, only: in those areas that will have trees cleared
and grubbed. Areas that are not forested.will n t need to be grubbed and any clearing
will be accomplished by hand clearing (brush- og or chainsaw as appropriate).
2. Bridge Demolition: The bridge will be widen d. The existing bridge will not be closed
nor will it be removed. The widening will be 4ccomplished by removing the concrete
rails and a small area of concrete overhand - ', material which will not exceed 53
square meters (570 square feet) in,volume wi! be removed by sawing or other non
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax : [phone] I Aug 18 '00 10:02 P.03
li
shattering methods. No material will be alloyved to be dropped into the stream, The
material will be removed from the site. Any t will•be contained as required by
standard construction specifications.
3. Off-site detours: No detours onoroff-site I be required.
TABLE L IMPACTS O1 ,b-2308A
Site Station Streain Structure: : rmanent Mechanized Revised
Drainage etland Clearing Mechanized
} ill (ac) (7/12/00 Clearing
Application) (ac)
1 21+20 to 22+00 Little 'Bridge ;0.08 0.06 0
Rock Creek .
#18-31-2444): :.
2 22+20 to 22+60 418-31-24-(4) N/A.; . 10.04 0.03 0.02
3 24+60 to 25+00 #18-31-24-(4), N/A 10.05 0.03 0
4 25+80 to 27+40 Buckhead N/A.. X0.25 0.12 0.02
Creek - I
#18-31-24-6.
TOTAL 0.42 0.24 0.04
If you have any questions.or..nerd additiouat.infoj 'ion please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at [phone] extension 288.'
• I
jl
ccicly,,,•
?,n) William D: Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Developmeiit'&:E ironmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmin ton Field Office
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
.Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FH WA
Mr. John Domey, NCDENR, Division of Water. iWity
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Progran.fDeuelopnient ranch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.F., Highway Design Br ch
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit LL--
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design 'Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Road I way::Design Unit
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division b Engineer
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] ! Aug 18 '00 10:02 P.04
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION I
9
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONFIDE PERMIT #):14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION:NOTIF-CATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PE=TS TFIAT REQU I,
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE.,CORPS.OF GINEERS.
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION'401 C;IITIFICATION
3) COORDINATION..WITH!:THE NC DIVZ ION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL'AND (1).COPY:.OF::THIS:' OMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS'OF FNGINEERS".PEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO'--- ^.IVISION•OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)'.I•jPLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept. of Trans ortation; Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch.'
4
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 154& Mail Service Center
SUB?IIVISION NAME:
CITY: Ralciah STATE:. NC I; ZIP CODE:
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, 'INCLUDING-SOB
27699-1548
ISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME)::.'
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESP
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
(WORK): 919-733-3141
LE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
acre
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE,: A 'MAP,.: FREF 'RAWLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ?qI ;H SCALE):
COUNTY: Cumberland NEAREST'TOWN R CITY: Hope Mills
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone]

Aug 18 '00 1003 P.05
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE'ROAD-.N .UMBERSd LANDMARKS, ETC.) : NC 59 Hope
Mills Rd) From Existing Multi-Lanes Smith of SK 100 (Camden Rd) in Hope Mills to SR 11
t
(Cumberland Rd)
S. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Li?itle Rockfish Creek and Buckhead
Creek
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear.
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED. NEAR .WATER.CLASSI?IIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS'(HQW),- OUT`5TANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)'? 'YES [ J ;ENO [XI IF YES, EXPLAIN:
i
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED.,TnMITHIN A NORT" CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN!(AEC)?YES( J NO[x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT-IS LOCATED'WITI... I-'"." ,L COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT:IS.THE'L{IWD USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
i
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS_BEEN.P EVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES ( ] NO. jx]. TF YE ; PROVIDE ACTION I. D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFOR ATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS.'.EXPE TED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES,.DESCRI E ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF.ACRES:IN RACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES'OF: ETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
_There will be a total 0.47 acres of permanent wetland ' pacts
2
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Aug 18 '00 10:03 P.06
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACtSD BY THE-PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
li
FILLING: 0.42 acres EXCAVATION 0
FLOODING: OTHER::: 0.0.4.acres of mechanized clearing and grubbing
• 1
I
DRAINAGE : TOTAL.-': _'( .. BE IMPACTED : 0.46
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO..B.EIMPACTED (' THE PROPOSED-PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH. BEFORE' NO AFTER RELOCATION)
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFT R: F'r
WIDTH. BEFORE (based on norrzial; high . water, 'Contours) : FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
i
RVERP?GE DEPTH BEFORE: FT I'AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILD RESULT'FkOM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
i
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: " DLAC9MM OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: `CONSTRUCTIO !OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A-POND IS'.?PROPOSE WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? k
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?' I—
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK I17CT..-."," " SCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE.USEr? (ATT;?CH JLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : i I
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC OTZproposes to widen NC 59 in
letter.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK::.'P
r imF telv.1.94 miles in lengthy ar
l-ments will also includes mmetri
ached rawin s and information i
ic•TzInsvortation
3
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] + Aug 18 '00 10:04 P.07
i.
14. STATE REASONS-WHY IT IS BELIEVED TIJAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES AKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): See attached cover.letter,
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE Or PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] ' NO [) (IF NO, GO TO I8
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT-REQUIR PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT•TO THE:•R QUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY'ACT?
YES [xJ NO [ J
i
b. IF YES, HAS THE.DOCUMENT.BEEN. R MEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINJSTRATI.ON'ST TE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x) NO
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THE23 SUBMIT.APP46PRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION."OF MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH'CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE.•CLEARINGHO SE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGET.T;:DIRECTOR TATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION';-1:6 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEP90NE .(91 ) 733-6369.
4
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax-919-733-9794 ..w? 18 100 10:04 P.08
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD B., INCL?DED WITH THIS }APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARG `OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
i
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWIN
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY.-(FOR NATI
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMIT
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP'.
MAP
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS.100 FEET OR,TH
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE P
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. YF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED---B
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT -OFTHE
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE:STORMWATE.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF.SURROUNDINi
development and residential.
ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
WIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
NT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
CALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
R EQUIVALENT.
TOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
;A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
DELINEATION LINE.
;MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
{PROPERTY? Small commercial
•i
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT-.IS-TROPOSELi!METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
NA
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZPATION'LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE r T ETLANDS OR - WATERS- -•OF • THE l - S .
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION°4Q4:CC
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE.-OR 7AIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER.,QUA1
-3) (XN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUN1
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION-OF .:COASTAT, `DC
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH.: THE . NORI
PROGRAM.
MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
FS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
Off' A 401 DzVi$ION OF
TY) CERTIFX CATION, AND
ES C=Y), A LETTER FROM THE
? GEMENT-STATING THE PROPOSED
(CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGMZNT
OWNER'S/AGENT'S IGNATURE;
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.) )
r7 0-0
ATE
5 .
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax : [phone] Aug 18 '00 10:05 P.09
? a
00
? r
} ,?? r y 1 ax o? ??? A
?? LV71. ° ?! z U o r" c
'i. • s' ...:.. i 3 1 f ?? A ? p D
ti 3 F .? .? w
k? C)
- ? ZO g C;
? • ? 1 `'? ?'. ^ ? '? ?1 ? ° ? cad
174
01
d I r
?I I CL
Q1 • •
r
c\j
c .1 co
L!J ;
NC
&E BRANCH Fax%919-733-9794 I Aug 18 '00 10%05 P.10

frri
?_ a _?
Nil
G w
0 -4
L) z o W
.N a
T, i
G ?.
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Aug 18 '00 10:06 P.11
LEGEND
-WLB---- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
IGc:ClILLa DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
L'!I!_LI?.LJ DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
-?---- a FLOW DIRECTION
T-B? TOP- OF BANK
WE--EDGE OF WATER
- -c PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- ?F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-- PROP. RIGHT. OF WAY
- -NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE' "
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED ..
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE
LIVE STAKES
(- BOULDER
N./ CORE FIBER ROLLS
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
on rnnCEL NUMBER
?I
I
it
?. i
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
ROOTWAO .
VORTEX ROCK WEIR
RIP RAP ENERGY
OISSIPATOR BASIN

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DI1'1510N OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PT10JL'C:'1': tl.1 1a12U2 <V-2SOd.?)
NC' 59 OiOPE MILLS RD)
FROrl 5.O Sit 1005 (C:1DIDEN RD)
TO N.OF SR 1141 (CI?MRFRl--%- ND
?/RD)
SHEET -OF_._. D.-VI-2 .011=100
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
Fax : [phone] ?ry 18 '00 10 : 07 P.12
I I z c? $
>? 1 0c
I (I F ? Azz ?
s l I i 1 -? y, a C
Z
F I I °
P x 0 o a d a
? I I '1 ?x A ? oa
Z aov
? O o
?{ t o 0 Z w cn
-i- I F o ?; r. a
60-4
w ti c
I N. i 9z v C z o o

-7 . l
q
I ? I
I . i
I
I I
o
I I ti
I J. ?fi
S t i ''?'I
i :Wt? I
( LO ..r
v
to zz

H
a
z
H ?
N
? o
G F7
D O
U
O
b
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
I
M I
KU I .
I I
I I
?• >> I I r
I ? I
I ? I
? I I
I
I I .S
I
I I
I
I I
I Q I
I ?I
I
I I
I I
I I p I
I ? I
I ?d
L I
I ?
Z?t?
I I
I I
I I
I
IC
IN
I I
I l
.? I I
Fax:[phone]

Aug 18 '00 10:07 P.13
z o? 8
I i

Qzz

° :5 a b A
Z
? aoU

?
O
?
aGi O
?

Gw a O UWw E
U P .
&
, 4
Z 0
z 0
?o
z
a
z
.a
d
U c?
O
A Q
W
?-a
U
0
0
Ln
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax s 919-733-9794 Aug 18 '00 10:08 P.14
^A 8
' z
\ 1 Cr- \ 1 E? E, M a o a F
w\ 1 ` t z c+
\ \O ?1 ` axe avm °
z
\ \ \ \ W c
A c
(Z. Z
a,
0-1 0
;5 -4
CL- V 0 C,
\ \\ a U U5 E?
? c H ? z c?
1 ? ? ?t ? c v a ?° m
\ \ v \ x ?xq o
\ ? 1 ? 1
WLB
' f r-
1
1
. 11 \
\ 1
\ li \
41
CfI)
a
J
0
x
Q

w
U
b
O
fi
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax : [phone] Aug 18 '00 10:08 P.15
z
auI!gO DUJ o A
o Azz
I II ( !I Z? U cv ?V?
M
I II I 'I I ~? ? LL Z ? ?? U
u.. i ? tL cz. a °° y Wei O
( I I ..?
?I I I I C I F N o d
a. c ti cn
I
( II ( ;+ o > o o v?? F
I I l .I o v a ZOO w
I I? f I o z
z c.?..o
I ? I
I
I ?
.. I ?I I r z
x z
I fl I I ? a
(ill ??i ? ? Q o
II i W
I I? p
I II Ln I = !I
I I I I. f _.I 4l
41
III ? I -? ? ? ,. \
M III I j l ?`j p
? I III i ! I. ?z
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax s 919-733-9794 1 Aug 18 '00 10:09 P.16
! z
o
X z
it z v ?+ NV
leip o
a a as o U
04 4
C4 Z
4 -t4
LL. >
(700
1 "11 1 v ca U a z o
4173 k,
9?z/ b%S f! ? I 1 ? z ? z ?
t f
) 1.
z
1 IN . I H • ?
1 i ? w z
1 I f ... ? ? a
t t 1 ?? z
3 1 . • t. z x
H H
-?7?t I t ; .. ® z °
31 -N
I I
I I ?
Lij I 1 , b
4. ! !I
I•
I V I I ? ,
l Z-- I i
C? t I .
Q) L)
-IT
41 C\?(j I Q
GUI
0
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] ' Aug 18 '00 10:09 P.17
N d I
N C
L v I °

U
W
°
? I
c? c E I a
w o
U
? f
c )

F-
N r O
O

4
x
Cl
LL v E
6

v
Fes- E

U ..
11 -2 c
V
Q
'
I
C d
N
n I i
cn 7 h I

C ? v
O
O

I

I O

p
Z

v QI - I
cu C)

,'U
o
0
o
d I o
o
.. i
co 0

~ Q ?c
•I
o
Z ? ? o
i
i

? C
cC .+
O
E rJ ?C O
H v o

N
C c..
?
°
O
(D
?C/
N
Q
0
I
I
.
?
-
t
Z °? O
O O
O p r
p
?
I r
O

m ?
o

V N
i co
d

z
¢
¢
?
n E z
U) to
CO i
8 •D o
LO
O O O O

U3 d o O C3
N N
+ co
t 00
+
N r
y
N N N t/)
J
(n Z ^ N M 'vr

z
O
?¢zNx
?O p
a-
Z
ZION
T
? 0
U, r O
0 Y
Lt.
CD
U
w >
_
?QUOZ
U Z
a
z
t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment A
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor M ?
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
August 21, 2000
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Re: Permit Application for Widening of Hope Mills Road in Cumberland County
DWQ No. 000941; T.I.P. No. U-2308A.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in'the following areas:
Communications with the NCDOT indicate that the impacts presented in the permit application have
changed. As a result, the NCDOT has agreed to submit a new application with the correct information.
Pending receipt of the new information, the application is considered insufficient to allow for an informed
decision.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 211 .0507(a)(4), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
rely,
_3V
?_A
R. Dorney
r Quality Certificay on Program
cc: Ken Averitte, DWQ Regional Office
Dave Timpy, USACE
Central Files
C:\ncdot\U-2308\correspondence\000941 hld.doc
Wedands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Ralei,h, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affumative Action Employer 50% recycled/1017o post consumer paper
U-2308, Widening of Hope Millis Road, F'Ville
Subject: U-2308, Widening of Hope Millis Road, F'Ville
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:05:22 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
FYI. Dave Schiller has informed me that the wetland impacts for the proposed
project will be revised to reflect reduced mechanized clearing method III limits
(includes clearing & grubbing). The permit application dated July 14, 2000
proposed 0.68 acres of wetland impacts. A revised application and PCN will be
submitted that reduces these impacts to about 0.45 - 0.47 acres of impacts. The
reduction in impacts are due to revised estimates of mechanized clearing method
III limits. We we go out with the PCN following reciept of the new application,
probably next week.
1 of 1 08/17/2000 2:10 PM

s••s'e 0 0 0 9 "1
't iry Effr STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JANIEs B. HuNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. DAVID MCCOY
27611-5201
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 12, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers PAYMENT
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office RECEIVED
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cumberland County, NC 59 (Hope Mills Rd) From Existing Multi-Lanes South of SR
1003 (Camden Rd) in Hope Mills to SR 1141 (Cumberland Rd), Federal Aid Project
STP-59(1), State Project No. 81441202, T.I.P. No. U-2308 A.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 59 in
Cumberland County from existing multi-lanes south of SR 1003 (Camden Road) in Hope Mills to
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road). The project is approximately 1.94 miles in length and will provide
a five-lane roadway with curb and gutter. Improvements will also include symmetrically
widening bridge 25115 over Little Rockfish Creek. The project will not impact any Designated
Wild and Scenic Rivers or any rivers included in the list of study rivers (Public Law 90-542, as
amended). There are four small jurisdictional wetland sites impacted by the project but no
jurisdictional streams. The NEPA documents prepared for this project address section B as well
as Section A as described in detail below. There are no jurisdictional Waters of the United States
on the Section B; therefore, no permits will be required.
Summary of Impacts: There will be a total 0.68 acres of permanent wetland impacts
which consist of 0.43 acres of fill and 0.25 acres of mechanized clearing and grubbing at four
separate sites (Sheet 9 of 9).
Summary of Mitigation: The project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to
the wetlands to the greatest extent possible. We will provide 0.68 credits of wetland mitigation
from the Barra Farms Wetland Mitigation Bank in compliance with the requirements of the
Nationwide regulations that went into effect on June 7, 2000 (FR: March 9, 2000, Volume 65,
Number 47, pages 12817-12899).
3
emergent wetland associated with a small depression in a cutover dominated by soft rush
(Juncus effusus), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and paspalum grass (Paspalum laeve).
(4) Site 4 has a DWQ rating of 29. The wetland has predominantly mineral soil [Rains
according to the NRCS soil survey of Cumberland County]. The site is a hardwood flat
associated with a roadside ditch. The dominant vegetation is wool grass, black willow,
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
TABLE 1. IMPACTS ON U-2308A
Site Station Structure Permanent
Wetland
Impacts
(ac)*
1 21+20 to 22+00 Bridge 0.16
2 22+20 to 22+60 N/A 0.07
3 24+60 to 25+00 N/A 0.08
4 25+80 to 27+40 N/A 0.36
TOTAL 0.67
* Includes fill, and mechanized clearing.
Endangered Species: Plants and animals with Federal classification of Endangered (E) or
Threatened (T) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 20, 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) lists eight federally protected species for Cumberland County (Table 2).
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Lindera melissi olio pondberry E
L simachia as erulae olia rough-leaved loosestrife E*
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Aleonvin ha mitchellii ancisci Saint Francis' satyr E
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled o onia T*
Alligator ntississi iensls American alligator T S/A
Schivalbea americana American chaffseed E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T(S/A) -Threatened due to similarity of appearance, a species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than
50 years ago.
1
4. Bridge Construction: No causeway will be needed for the construction of the bridge
therefore, no temporary fill in the waters of Little Rockfish Creek will be required.
COMPENSATION: The 0.68 acres of impacts will be compensated by debiting 0.68
credits from the Barra Farms Wetland Mitigation Bank.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Nationwide 14 Permit as
required for the above-described activities. We are also hereby requesting a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Division of Water Quality. In compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) of
the NCAA we have enclosed a check for $475.00 to act as payment for processing the Section 401
permit application. We are providing seven copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at [phone] extension 288.
incerely,
C-4) William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. Garland Pardue, USF`VS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer

1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): NC 59 (Hope
Mills Rd) From Existin, Multi-Lanes South of SR 1003 (Camden Rd) in Hope Mills to SR 1141
(Cumberland Rd)
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Little Rockfish Creek
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x]- IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN-A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
-There will be a total 0.68 acres of permanent wetland impacts
2

14. STATE REASONS
OUT IN WETLANDS.
IMPACTS): See
WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
(INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
attached cover letter
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO []
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
.4
7 a w
Q ... N
- R E-
C w
E E
w-o - qJ Imo` 4 r., ? =' ? 1? ? Q
?4? ? ,? ?? , ? ? '? `?.?-•c `moo ? ? z ? ? ? ? ?? ? o
0
Q
\1 V` ( YlJ
lul 0 1 / ? ,
?q ? G?4 ?
u /
03
? o
C13
q C5,?
w
.

LEGEND
- WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY

WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES L IN
® WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND

• DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
•` • ` • CLEARING
• ROOTWAD
??- FLOW DIRECTION
TB? TOP OF BANK
VORTEX ROCK WEIR
WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL RIP RAP ENERGY

RIGHT OF WAY
PROP DISSIPATOR BASIN
.
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
17 PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - WATER SURFACE
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
CORE FIBER ROLLS
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUDIBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1441202 (U-2308A)
NC 59 (HOPE DULLS RD)
FROM S.OF SR 1003 (CADiDEN RD)
TO N.OF SR 1141 (CUDIBERLAND RD)
Z 9
SHEET OF DATE -2L2

z A?
A ?
g ,
-jl
I? I 1`L E
F o ?A ? w
M a H
I o z .?
U
Z ca `?
I I ? x o w°o u
5 I I /- PDE z
o c.
H
/ C O o; p
U- CL 0-4 1 I I ' A z0? O ? Goa
I , I o v a ti0
I I I I PDE U 0 z cxn
I , I z w0
I I I
.4 rA
41
I J I I ?? ? ?.
I S` I _ •'? ? I o 0
?I w z
? J ? i _ ' .yl I ® c o
I L i -7ti ,..
I
t? I I ? I ?'?i C1?
I I I w
I I I ? ,?
u
I
N
(IN I j
I I / o
I I /?
ta

A ?
GUiJLJO- 7D .11 0 .. Q
Az z
V04, co
C w? w
' I II I I a? Z ,'
?3 1 I II I ? I a x ®? dU p ra
II I I z" o ?M 14
x
I II I I ?x c wov
y
II I I F? z '?`?
.? w
o
I"-• i II I I LL z H x
II I
w ?
tn W-0
I. I II I I A? x o
I II I v v z a o z
I I I
?t? I II I i ? z w o
?. I , c? I I I
I. ? I I I
71 I I I I I ?_ ?
I' i I I
I' .: I I I I I d ?
I• 3 I I I I .?
.
I I ? i ? I ?, a
1 .3 I l i Q I I ? z
• I? Cl- I
I I it ? I I ?
I II I I ? ?
I I ? ? o
. ? I II J I
? .I I II i ? I ® :.
?: - 3 I I O I '.
I, Z I
= I it ? i I ?
_ . II Ln I
' I II U I ?? I ?
I II Z I I ??
. I I I I I ?' I -?
I I I? ?
• I I I I i o,? o
II I I \
? II I I o
r I III I I
'a -6
0 c .-. O
O E
u .. CD
°
C
w U
v
o
c
c
E
o
°o
c
o
? U

c c
E
o

U Co
'X L
C:L
o
Q w U E
n

ui a U L

O
O
lL
D C O L
v °
- O
LL
U) n ~
c 2 `4
- i
0
- 0
o
Z ? °

}

Q N
-
to
'i
t-
O
C
C E
c0 L co L
0 O N
O
O
O
O O
?

0 Q) 0 0 0 0 0

H
U N
c

U o
Cl
CL 75 .2 C?
U
Z
LLI c

Lij "C
m °
°
-
CL
E Q)
°
m o
~ C
N
C c COi O N O to
- - s
U- Q) 0 0 0 0 0

w
0
C2
O_
:3 a>
7 'N E Z Z Z
?5 CD
cD
Co
O
O CD O
N N
C N N
'o O
(D 0 0
Cn O
N O
N O
O O
O
+ + + +
LO
N N N N (n
J
Q
O
Z

r

N

7

V

~
Q
0

-CON TRU ION NOTIFICATION P
TIONWIDE 14
TO: NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES/BEAUFORT, NC
FISH & WILDLIrj, ..I° . Y SCE/RALEIGH, NC
NC DIVISION OF WA ER QUALITY/RALEIGH, NC
EPA/ATLANTA, GA
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE/RALEIGH, NC
1. ACTION ID. 199704288
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT T.I... -2308A
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTALS 1 UG ?.000
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE : .5 AUG 2000
5. COMMENT DEADLINE (10 d?ys from response deadline),
6. SEND COMMENTS TO WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
WILMINGTON REGULATORY-FTRTT) OFFICE
ATTN.- DAVE; TIMPY
FAX NO. M-0) 251-4025
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLU IN'G THIS SHEET, _-2,7
9TO/T00'd b£8Z#
N01 +I=14 aaven
9Z05TGZ0T6 GV OT 000Z,TZ'0nV
. NCDOT/P&E BRANDi
Fax=919-7 794 Aug 18 '00
STATE UNORTH CAIN LINA
DEPAR 'OFM ANSPORTAMN
JAmEs B. HUNT JR.
GOVE1tNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1
Al TN.: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cumberland County, NC 59, .
1003 (Camden Rd) in Hopo iv
STP-59(1), State Project No;
The North Carolina Department
C.umbcrlaad County from existing molt
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road. The.proj
a fivo-lane roadway with curb and gutti
widening bridge 025115 over little Roc
.t
;August 18, ;0001
. r
J
8=16 P.02

Davin MCCOY
SECRETARY
EEiope•Mills RO) From Existing Multi-Lanes South of SR
Ons to St2.1.141- (Cumberland Rd), Federal Aid Project
1441202; T,I.P.17o. U-2308 A.
6f°Tratisportatioa; NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 59 in
-ta i&q south of-SR A003 (Camden Road) in Hopo Mills to
;ct is appb;5c atc?y 1,94 miles in length and will provide
r: lrnpi;v nts. will also include symmetrically
tsfish Creek. ,
On July 12, 2000 a Nationwide4permit application was submitted of the subject project.
On August 1, 2000 wo?were notified tk project a?tcecda ' pacts fovauationwi,de and that
impacts mustbe reduced by 0.2 acres to!qualxS?+:foua.Natipnwidc permit 14. In addition, on
..August 8, 2000 you requested aidditi=i formatton..rc?urding bridge demolition and use of offsite
detours. This letter provides the rcqucst?d irifoiYnntion. i'
1. Acrtagc Decrease: We hav ' :det=redscd tlie;im?am from mechanized-clearing by 0.20
acres as shown in Table, 1. a fcsult of twig action will be to reduce the cumulative
wetland impacts of project- -2308AAo* 0.47 .acres. The enclosed revised drawings
depict the change in des, a change;was accomplished b first, decreasing the area
of Mechanized Clearing. fro IClearins.onVinAhose eti feet to five feet from the edge of the fill slope; and
second, showing Mechanizareas that will have trees cleared
and grubbed. Areas that are forestcd'vAfl not need to'be grubbed and any clearing
1- - 74 (biuslz-lion or chainsaw as appropriate).
- Mg
will be accomplished b,
2. Bridge Demolition: The bridge will be wider
nor will it be removed. The -' "dwning will be
rails and a small area of con;tc ovcrhaug. 7
square meters (570 square fe , )in vohe nil
9TO/ZoVa beaz# xoz?,az?:?i1.1 a??rsn
The existing bridge will not be closed
omplishcd by removing the concrete
material which will not exceed 53
removed by sawing or other non
9ZOVTGZOT6 9Z:OT 000Z,TZ'!0nV
. NCDOT/P&E
3.
BRANCH Fax:91" Aug 18 '00 8:17 P.03
2
shattering methods. No mat 'a1 will be allowed to be dropped into the strcam. The
material will be removed fr m the site. Any dust will'be contained as required by
standard construction specifications.
Oi1C stte detoara; No dcto= on or of> site.tivi I be required.
11'. TABLE lfaACTS.ON'U-2308A
-site Station Stream ,-Structure" ',Y&ft anent Mecbanized Revised
Drainage Wotland Clearing Mechanized
ill (ac) (7/12/00 Clearing
b Application) (ac)
1 21+20 to 22+00 ittle Hrit e ' 0. 8 0.06 0
Rock Cre*
#18-31-244
2 22+20 to 2.2+60 #18-31-2a-(4 N/A' 10.04 0:03 0.02
3 24+60 to 25+00 #18-31- 4-( '• • 'N/A •' : 0.05 0.03 0
4 25+80 to 27+40 Buc'2` NZ/A.. • ? 2S 0.12 0.02
Creek
#18-31-24
TOTAL 0.42 0.24 0.
If you have any questions or need addltiotW information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at [phone] extension 288.' ! !
' cctel 11 (' •
William . (lilm'oru,•?'.s.. • anagcr
Project Development.&` itonmcntal Analysis Branch
cc; w/attgcbment
Mr. Aavid Franklin, Corps of ginecrs,,Nilruin?tan Field Office
Mr. Garland Pardue, USM, eigh
.Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. John Domcy, NCDENR,• Division of Wgf. r Quality
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Prograo DcvclopnkAt Rranch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.-Z X- ? ?wn?;L?CSi(Branch
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., I ;;a?zlics Ylitit .
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E.,,;Structure Design Unit
Mx. John Alford, P.E., Roadwa Design U4,
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Divisio'6°Erigincer,
9T0/£00'd b£8Z HOZ`?AIIIIIZM Q3tISA SZObT5ZOT6 9Z?OT OOOZ.TZ'?n?
i
DEM ID: C6RPS ACTION ID:I
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (JROVIDE.NATIO DE PERMIT o):14
AaPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS T REQU 1
1) NO?ZFICATTOtt • TQ HE• COFtP3 ; Op;' E2?GINELRS
2) APPLICATION FOR iCTYlON 401 CZ?TIrir_ATION
3) coonDnukTioa WXTF •.•T.KE NC'DIVZf3?ON OF COASTAL MANA EIMIT
SE11D TUC ORIGINAL AND (I" T111a ;CO?PLETED DORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELDS OFFICE OF THE CORPS, 'O I3Nf?iP?flRS'"E L313 A=;CY , ADDRESSES SHEET) -
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE S T TO'•.THE N?C.. DIVISION -OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADOR SES SHEET).. P,IMXSE PRINT.
i
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept " o ..Trans rtation; Project Development
Environmental Analysis Branc I
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 1548!Mail
I :SUBTVISION NAME:
I
CITY: Raleigh STATE: iC ZIP CODE: 27699-1$48
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, "TN&LUD1NG:• S6aDI?I SION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING•ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME);I ; (WORK): 919-733-3241
4. IF APPLICABLE; ' S .NA. F;• - .
AGENT fJR RE,5P.A11SIIHLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D.
er
' E
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE X.MAP,.•PREF'E'RABLY A COPY
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PH TQGRA$y,W,ITH SCALE):
OF USGS
COUNTT: Cumberland N ST .TDWN•OR CITY:. Hope Mills
910/500'd b£8Z#
I '
u0,l??IILi'IIM Q3KSII
9Z0619Z016 9Z:o1 000Z,1Z'Dt1Vd
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE
(Cumberland Rd)
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STRE /RIVER: .. Lille Rockfish Creek and Buckhead
Croak
RIVER BASIN: Ca 2e Fear.
7a. IS'PROJECT LOCATED NEAR-tATER.'CLAS.SIF{ ED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS'. (H W').;,,.OUTS,TAN NG RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-1 OR HS-11, i YES (,] 0 (x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
Fax:[phone]
Aug 18 100 8:18 P,05
D.NUMBE$$, LANDMARKS, ETC.): NC 59 one
iili of k40 (Camden Rd) in Hope Mills jq_SjJj
?
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED F;,?'gRIN; XIAPRSH CAROLINA DIVXSXON OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONME T;ALICONCR?N (AEC)?YES( ] NO(xl
7c. TF THE PROJECT YS LOCATE 0.'47.TxFi2i3'_A C6=AL COUNTY (SEE P)1GE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES).,.. W T:;IS 'THIP-: LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESxGN=ION?
6u. HAVE ANY SECTION 404,,PE ITS-,BEZN,PR?VIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES ( ) NO zxi I ,YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY X.... IN•FORN? TXON (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Aug 18 100 8:17 P.04
NCD07/P9E RANCH
Fax:919- 794
i
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WE:
FILLING: 0.42 acres
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL'. TO BE. IMPACTED. 9Y THE PROPOSED • PROJECT (IF
RELOCA=D, FROVXDE DSSrANCE BO= BL°FORr AND AFTER RELOCATION)
GTU 13EFORE: FT AFT R: FT
LF,N
T IDTH BEFORE (based on no=41, high water contours) : FT
TTIDTH AFTERS FT
AVERAGE DEPTU BEFORE: aFT AFTERS FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS ILL' RESULT''7FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMEN' OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL. EXCAVATION:. ' C0vS7RUGT.IO OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
L. '
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POg0.:TS.PROPOSE WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE P, ND7-
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED PONDS ? , FACk AREA?,
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED it}E2?2Kc-INCLEIDIN U DISCUSSION OF TYPE Olt
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO 8E i?SE.D' '(AT7ACR P. S: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : - - - - 1 - - -
Cumber And un o i
1141 (Cumberland Rod . , e k ' cf is r

letter.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED
9TO/900'd tsaz#

Ached drawings and bafo
1C. Transportation'
3
I'
I30S ?IILS'IZb1 Q3\fStl
Aug 18 '00 8:18 P.06
'LANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
EXCAVATION; 0
OTHER. =cres of mechanized cletuing and grubbing
TOTI? ,-,.TO Br IMPACTED : 0.46
9Z0tT9Z0T6 9Z:OT 000Z,TZ'0nV
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Aug 18 '00 8:19 P.07
14. STATE REASONS-WHY IT I$ BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVXTY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS.; (INCLUDE Y MEASURES AKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): See attached Cover.-letter
17. 'DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE'AN EXP•$NDIT RE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X]* NO [) (IF NO; : G0 TO '18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE R?04Pm••REQUT RE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUAt3T' TO.-TKS:'RE UIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA $NVIRONMENTAL POLIC? 'ACT? '
YES [XI NO O
b. IF YES, HAS THE .DOCCUMEN.T 'SEEN:. RENEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STA CLEAF?XNGHOUSE?
YES (XI NO ()
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES,' THEP" SUPill T.-APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVI%O9-; OF : p.Nvx'RQp RENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDXNG
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAI.11OLINA'•ENVIRO?IMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ATATE,; CLEA'22?OUS)Z REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS SAGGET.T, FXRFC?OR,3'ATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN',S7RATION•,-,.:11 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-6003, TELEFRONE':(919 733-6369.
i
a.
9TO/9001d b£8Z#
I
i I
uos?.?rk?iia a3?rsn
5Z05T5ZOT6 LZ:OT OOOZ,TZ'!E)ny
. NCDOT/P8E EMCH
C
i
Fax : [phone]
Aug 18 '00 8:19 P.08
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHIULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICA'LION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES ?HE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED QR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATIO MAP SIIOi';34)G ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPER ,Y; (FOR'. NAT,IO IDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STR 3.';(INTERM1,TT NT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY U ST BE SHOWN O m F MAP'.•,'I CALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR I INCH EQUALS'10 FEET ,,O2: ' ',THE R EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPR;. SEOTATIVE°PH TOGRAPH Oe WETLANDS TO SE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.- ?
O. IF DELINEATION WAS';:PPAPgRA1ED,aX A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEME14T QZ?;?••DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OP T t;'STORHWATER''MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
o. . WHAT IS LAND USE OF' SURROUNDING ( PROPERTY? Small commercial
development and residentiali, ' I'
i
t. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PRQPOSEO 14ETHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
NA
q. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT'AU7HOR1Z
110=: WETIJMS OR 1fATZR3,.:G'P:..=1s U L''..5,.%
1) 15SUANCP: OF. A:SaC' 1010' 404-. COL
2) ZITHER T83 288,pADI . QI3. iL11IVL'F
ENVIRONMNTAL I"JJVMG . j(V=Z1:•'bgX L1
3) (Sir TAB TR=rY' C=sT71';j ? C=AITJ
2JOnTTIt'CAROLINA VIVZOZGN vrp'. COASTA.L.•'Iail
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT: UI.?H; ,TH$. 110=E
FROG=.
L;pt?ScLU&JQ
OWNER' VAGENT' S GNATUR "",
i
(AGENT # S SIGNATURE VALI OMLY.'
IF AUTHORIZATION LETT'ER'FROM-
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED ( 6g,))
I• 5
r
I
TION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
MY IIOT BE IMBACTED 2RIOLR TO:
?S OFD` ENGZ1MMRS PERMIT,
OF A 401 DIVISION OF
eY) CEInTIFICATIOLT, Ium
0 ONLY) , A LETTZR ITRCL-1 THI:
TAGEIIENT- STATnfQ TUU PRODOSED
'CAROLINA COASTAL HJ1ITA 'PST
l'7 D a
DATE
9TO/LOO'a VE8Z# NOSJxI147114 aavs1 4ZODTGZOT6 LZ:OT 000Z,TZ'cr1V
9TO/800'a M z# N0141INazrA amn 5Z05T5ZOT6 LZ:OT OOOZ,TZ'OnV
NCDOT/P&E BR"H Fax:[phone]
,
`t

. !Y
.f
?r f /S
N •, Y? ,• ? I \I
iii ¦ i /-
9T0/600'd VM#
Aug 18 ' 00 8:20 P.10
> .•'• r ?'? 4 ozz m
?w < E4
\ _ 4r `xi `? G J ? p 1 ?
a !?
;E v rG
fpl,? oz
?? -' oo U a Zip W
`j-
fi ,
r
x
1
1 ?
?
I?

Alt

0

? .;" ,_' •?• ~ -
• Yid

R
4 t 1t1

a(1 T nIAT T W7 T M amn 5Z05TSZOT6 8Z,
'OT OoOZ
,TZ'Onv
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Rug 18 '00 8:21 P.11
LEGEND
WO WETLAND BOUNDARY

WETLANO
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND r'
DENOTES FILL
lC:Cl11LLd SURFACE WATER R
P7,777,7f,? DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
WOND) i
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
Em DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND ? '. T

• • •
•
' OENOTES MECHANIZED
• •
•
• CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
TB
TOP OF BANK
W?• - EDGE OF WATER
- -C - PROP.LIMIT OF CUT
- --F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROF. RIGHT Or WAY '
-- -NG-- - NATURAL OROUND
"
- -P-L - PROPERTY LINE E
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE'
EASEMENT
-'POE---- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT '
-EAB-. EXIST. ENDANGERED

-- EPB_. EXIST. ENOANGEREO ,
PLANT BOUNDARY
r•-?
\
/
-
- .
y
-• WATER SURFACE 1 ,
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
CORE FIBER ROLLS
ADJACENT
OR PARCEL P NUMBER
N

9T0/OTO'a bEBZ# rloZ?.?IIbi'II.•1 a3Flsn
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
SINGLE TREE
WOOOS LINE
ROOTWAO .
VORTEX ROCK WEIR
RIP RAP ENERGY
OISSIPATOR BASIN
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORT.kTION
DIVISION OF HIGHW.OYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.144 202 A J-2302.,u
NC 59 (HOPE MILLS RD)
FROM S, OF SR 1005 (CAMDEN RD)
TO N.OP SIt 1141 (CC?MBRRI,a ND PD)
SZObTSZOT6 6Z:oT OoOZ.TZ•o:)v
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH

Fax ? 919-'
?I
41
I
9TO/TTO'a b£8Z# HoL9NIL?II.•1 a3'dsn
Aug 18 '00 8:21 P.12
z as b
AWz ?
w

? x
? o
ox c
w ?
c i Q c:

vA z
oz
?
z ?9
w
z
1
. ri
y V
Q
z
Y?
H
n
0 0
0 0
1•x.1
0
O
SZObT9ZOT6 6Z:OT OOOZ,TZ'OnV
NCDOT/KE BRANCH Fax,919-
Aug 18 100 8:22 P.13
10 1 0
E"! H M aAa F
Ad
ryQ M
.J I I ' `• POE w : a« U
I p Z E_; v?
C) L)
I I I (.'? a., a5 a c z?w ?
I I I I UQ U a ?'c x
1 I i -POE 2 y
I I ? z ?o
I I s ?
I cc I
I ?
I ? I 1? w
I J ?( -X, I a o
I
is I • ? •N
i
!? I p
c?3
I
910/ZTO'a VCBZ# Nozo.NIMIM aavsn SZObTGZOT6 6Z:OT 000FITZ'oi1v
NCDQT/P&E BRRNCN

,I
1 1
I `I
w`
9TO/?TO•a b£8Z# rioz ?i zira a3tisn
Fax:919-•
Aug 18 '00 8:22 P.14
z c 8
o
A
Z
?Q ?
a
?
vi C7 ? ? U ? U
N
? w ? r
? W a U
cL
o a ?W
z

C K
? ? ?
? V rri
L .+ A
W
Ci
? w0
1
1
Iw
11
1
1
1 \ ?
1

=cam'
1
1
w
DO

N
A
H
Y
z
A
W
U
O
Q
SZOSTSZOT6 O£:OT OOOZITZ•onv
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
?a
a
41
. ?I
f
f
i
9TO/bTO'd D£az#
Fax:919-
auiIyp+E)I,u
I II I
I II I
i II I
I II I
lu I
( II I
I
I II I r
1j 11
I I
I II I
II I'
I I
I I.
I I? I •
IV
r
I ii ?' i .. .
1
I I ? I
I I?•? 1
1 II I ;LU I
I
I ?v
{ I ??
I I
f jl I ( ?• I
I '
I I I I III
HO,L`.JrIIII''!ZP•i Q3?IS11
Aug 18 '00 8:23 P.15
o ?
2
q w
I a
,x ? ? d? a
I '? x A CO,
°
o U
W
H
I 0. ? ? E
W ?? h

oz

a
?r
p
CL
z
a A
? ?INN
?, .
X
a
U
o
fi
SzO3TSZOT6 O£:OT OOOZ,TZ'Onv
NCDOT/P&E BRACH Fax:[phone] Aug 18 '00 8.23 P.16
p , cT
F
C ?, ?• o a
2
a <w
I'I ? ? 1:C.Y7 pct g U
0 -4 9:4
??? .r :..: I I C A ? rn
• A
i? u1 O Ri
f I
z
U ., O
OUOM7? R w
96?/ cyS. II I I Z Z co
?? f 1
1 Vii' { ? c
N I j• I
I i ir) f {
co
Q
aUa.? DUJ
. I o
9TO/5To'a vs8Z# NOi 3IbIlild a3?fsn 9ZObT5ZOT6 OE:OT OoOZ?TZ'?n?
9
9TO/9T0'a VM# Hol,. Kiwilm aavsn 9ZObT9ZOT6 T£:OT o00Z,TZ'orlV
00 D 9elff
J rSURv?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JANIEs B. HUNT JR. DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 18, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr, David Timpy
NCIDOT Coordinator
WRTEE WETLAP! ": N .;:.'
„?„ ? n! Ir.? r? F? .
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cumberland County, NC 59 (Hope Mills Rd) From Existing Multi-Lanes South of SR
1003 (Camden Rd) in Hope Mills to SR 1141 (Cumberland Rd), Federal Aid Project
STP-59(1), State Project No. 81441202, T.I.P. No. U-2308 A.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 59 in
Cumberland County from existing multi-lanes south of SR 1003 (Camden Road) in Hope Mills to
SR 1 141 (Cumberland Road). The project is approximately 1.94 miles in length and will provide
a five-lane roadway with curb and gutter. Improvements will also include symmetrically
widening bridge #25115 over Little Rockfish Creek.
On July 12, 2000 a Nationwide 14 permit application was submitted of the subject project.
On August 1, 2000 we,were notified that the project exceeds impacts for a nationwide and that
impacts must be reduced by 0.2 acres to qualify for a Nationwide permit 14. In addition, on
August 8, 2000 you requested addition information regarding bridge demolition and use of offsite
detours. This letter provides the requested information.
1. Aereaee Decrease: We have decreased the impacts from mechanized clearing by 0.20
acres as shown in Table 1. The result of this action will be to reduce the cumulative
wetland impacts of project U-2308A to 0.47 acres. The enclosed revised drawings
depict the change in design. The change was accomplished by first, decreasing the area
of Mechanized Clearing from ten feet to five feet from the edge of the fill slope; and
second, showing Mechanized Clearing only in those areas that will have trees cleared
and grubbed. Areas that are not forested will not need to be grubbed and any clearing
will be accomplished by hand clearing (brush-hog or chainsaw as appropriate).
2. Bridge Demolition: The bridge will be widened. The existing bridge will not be closed
nor will it be removed. The widening will be accomplished by removing the concrete
rails and a small area of concrete overhang. This material which will not exceed 53
square meters (570 square feet) in volume will be removed by sawing or other non
2
shattering methods. No material will be allowed to be dropped into the stream. The
material will be removed from the site. Any dust will be contained as required by
standard construction specifications.
3. Off-site detours: No detours on or off-site will be required.
TABLE 1. IMPACTS ON U-2308A
Site Station Stream Structure Permanent Mechanized Revised
Drainage Wetland Clearing Mechanized
Fill (ac) (7/12/00 Clearing
Application) (ac)
1 21+20 to 22+00 Little Bridge 0.08 0.06 0
Rock Creek
# 18-31-24-(4)
2 22+20 to 22+60 418-3 1-24-(4) N/A 0.04 0.03 0.02
3 24+60 to 25+00 #18-31-24-(4) N/A 0.05 0.03 0
4 25+80 to 27+40 Buckhead N/A 0.25 0.12 0.02
Creek
#18-31-24-6
TOTAL 0.42 0.24 0.04
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at [phone] extension 288.
n
QaA..,.,0 cerely, I \
IN - ? cU?
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
T
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT 4):14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept. of Transportation; Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBDIVISION NAME:
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
1548 Mail Service Center
STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27699-1548
CITY: Raleigh
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manaaer
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Cumberland NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Hope Mills

1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): NC 59(Hope
Mills Rd) From Existing Multi-Lanes South of SR 1003 (Camden Rd) in Elope Mills to SR 1 141
(Cumberland Rd)
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER
Creek
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
Little Rockfish Creek and Buckhead
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES ( ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO (x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
-There will be a total 0.47 acres of permanent wetland impacts
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.42 acres EXCAVATION: 0
FLOODING:
OTHER: 0.04 acres of mechanized clearing and grubbing
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.46
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY):
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 59 in
Cumberland County from existiny
, multi-lanes south of SR 1003 (Camden Road) in Hope Mills to
SR 1141 (Cumberland Road). The project is aDDroximately 1.94 miles in length and will provide a
five-lane roadway with curb and gutter. Improvements will also include symmetrically widening
bridge 25115 over Little Rockfish Creek See Attached drawings and information in the cover
letter.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): See attached cover letter
16- vG T TnS nEQUIRS9 T GG?4TAGT- T H- STATG 'H'IST-E,)RTG'-PRESE;RVlT2ZGTVGFFICFR
(SHPG) (SEE AGENGY A99RESSES SHEST-) REGARDING-THE PRESSN^GE; GF r4SzTGRIG
PRGPERTI£E 1?4 THS GRHIT- AREA W# H HAY BE AFFSG-iS9 BY THE-PRGPGSEB
PRGd-SGT. RATS-GG?4TAGTS9
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO []
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Small commercial
development and residential.
NA
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S IGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
/r--?/oD
DATE
5

i
?" p tt -a ?j
s j
4
04
4 01
I el
\ t?
-- ?Qa• f ? c c
? Y
c?
4 ? v
_ Q
O -?
U Q U ? q 2 x
G? O
U
I
CIS
Q
co
0
j
c
Q>
CC)
7 ;

?! 14•,x, •. .`?y?- •?

i.? •- F h 13 ep?lld? Jf
O
co W Q? W
kill
1 0 r,
00
p U O
U a oz x
N I I ?+? { 11 Y I ??\\. GL O
°c'' /•
1` ~V @ ?D a
o
•? 1? E ?1 0
?. o
LO
- WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
i- 1 WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
" I DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
Z TOP OF BANK
WE. - EDGE OF WATER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
- -- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- -NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TOE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUN04RY
- - - - • - - WATER SURFACE
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
CORE FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
?UtNLJ
r ?
ZnJ

PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
ROOTWAD
VORTEX ROCK WEIR
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
N. C. DEPT.OF TRALINSPORT.-MON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBLRL.-?ND COUNTY
PROJECT:8.1441202 (U-2308.-?)
NC 59 (HOPI: MILLS RD)
FRO,IN1 S.OF SIt 1005 (C.aMDEN RD)
TO N.OF Sit 1141 (CUMBERI..-?ND RD)
SHEIiT OF--- DATF.
v
3
0
g
?I
0

•.l
? I
? I
I

q
z z

a x p ? ? -C p °
Z C7 U ca ? U ?
ld?
5
z o U
W
O GL
O -4

H xin? o

z
z ?
?o

??
N
CI
F
t
N a
a ?
z u
t t
F ?
m
3 H
x z
.] J
t C%
N
F F
O O
z z
0 0
U
U
E
0
0
E
Ln
Q 8
? p 1 g ?c
1 L-L ?, ,, Q z z o0
IN I 1 ?? z ? ??? ?
I 1 0
I a x o? ? Q? ca
I x ?, M ?D
1' PDE Z R w o U
J I I ° 00 o
O Z F ., .4
I I I nw o U ct.
I a? ti 0
j ( QQ v zCA
o w
I v
I I I PDE ' a C) Z
I ? ? ? ? z wo
I
I I I ??
I I
I I ?,
I N
z
I I ?? z F
I ?? ? o a
e
J I m
I :ZE I I F
1 ?I o 0
?1 Q, I 41 I ® o 0
I I ? I
I 0')
1 I 41 1
I I I ??\
I 1 I
I I I w
I I I '?
10 I 1 u
I I > ?
? + 1 ti t; o
IN
I I ? , o
I I
I I i U- E
Ln

u.\
\i
11
1
1
1
\\ O Un \ 1
N ? 1 1
\ o\
\ = 11
\ U 1 \
z \
1 \
\O \
1 Vn \\
1
\
41 \
\
41
\\
V \ \
7'1 \
\
\
1
1
1 ?-
1
1
1\
1
I \ ?
\
1
1
ED \ \
7
Q Ga
g

; w
. <C w
Q > i w
Q

z " O
U H

F

o
Z
d wo U

a -4

H
W > o z?'? w
U Q U a O
z
7 ate, o

w
F
?
C I
A
z
d
.a
H
a
z
a
a
G
W
F
O
z
pa

W
.a
Q
U
cn
E
0
0
Ln
z
aUljgO-?DW ° Q
I Ij I I o? z????
?3 ? I I I I ?. ? o ??? q a
? I II I I 7 v v ?, ? v
II I I .? ? a '? o ?
I II I I ^_"' N? z ?? o ?
C3
II I o z r~
I E--? b v ?; w
41
II I I C4 , p U O F
I II I I o Q v a z?? o ?
I II I I ?-' 0 z
?? I I I I i ? z w o
I ? I I
I I I
I ? I
I N
41 I II I I i
I I? I ? ? F z
I II I I z w
I II I I ? a
?? I II Q I I z
x z
I II I I v 'w
I II ? I I a
II I I O o
z z
I II I ? I I
o 0
I I? j ? ? I
? II O I I ?
I I ? I
I II I ? .
? I
I II ?n I
v I
I II I I ?
I 41
? Ip I U
a
I I ? ?
?{ I I I I I m,?? o
II I I \
III I ? . ?.
If=
?? M ? I I o
r I 111 I I
??
044M73 - II
96Zj bs. II
\ II
II
I 11N
I I
I I
? II I
I I
I
I I
- s7M I
. ? I
? I
I
? I
II
? I
? I
D
q
cc Ca
La Q c

? z WoU
I I ?
o T g
I f

I I w
O
Z

x co

F
???

I" A j 0 z "' c: v
0
U
I
U
0z
z
I ?. o
I
N
0
z
N
F q
z
3 ?
? F
W
v 3
z z
C
e ?
W d
N
© z °z
L•7 :A
0 0
C1n
w
w
U
O
0
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I i
I
I
_J I
W I
I
O I
Z I
C I
I
Z I

th c
oc? o 0
C L
w U °

Z
O
d
co C
0 c E O
° H p
p w
} y o
I-
_
o ro .,
N U o
O 0
Q' Q Z Nctf
Q
0 ? »
(n

cm fn 0 0 N _J
Z
CD
'=
C -

Ln C
U
C
E CD
?
U •
•x= °
° o CL
c
a wu E oz
r
u.
O w co m
O
_ - M
- I
rn
>
w U
W w _
Z)
w
w aujL ?VOZ
O
E ;s
F-S
O d
Z
U
Q cn -
C Cl
C
a: o
d W
D = o w
U) LL _
U)

U)
O
Z v O C)

•C
C O ti O co
,
L N
s
O
O
O
O N
p
4
u V o o ° o C;

F- U o
°
U
a
-
'

< '?6
> o
Ol L
3 °

2 O
Z w

N
w c
a O
N L
E o

N
C C
(D L
Cl)
(D
0 N
O
_ O O O
17
>
w

O
o v
U 4
m
Q
Q
Q
cn
E z
z
z

°o c°a °o °
C N N N r
N
'0O 0 0 0 0

O O O O
N
t N
+ CO
+ co
+

N N
N ?
N CV
N

J
in z N M v ~O
I-