20020400 Ver 1_Complete File_20020315

Cumberland County
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2)
State Project No. 8.2441701
T.I.P. Project No. U-2520
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
APPROVED:
9 x4Q61LS.161
Villiam D. Gilmore, P. E., Managels
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
•? s/??
-
AJ,
ate Nicholas L. f, P. E., Di ision Admini
Federal Hia wav Administration
0
• a
Cumberland County
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2)
State Project No. 8.2441701
T.I.P. Project No. U-2520
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
May, 1999
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Y e G. Goldblatt
P sect Development Engineer

Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Engineer, Unit Head
`e,eaenUeeoe
?H CARO( A'of
,y
?FtScl??•-,'?
SEAL
6944
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cumberland County
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2)
State Project No. 8.2441701
T.I.P. Project No. U-2520

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
The water access point on Cliffdale Road, which is used by the area fire
department, will remain accessible during and following construction of the
proposed facility.
2. 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
Department 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 on the proposed borrow source.
3. To ensure that all borrow and waste activities occur on high ground, NCDOT
shall require its contractors and/or agents to identify all areas to be used to borrow
material or to dispose of dredged, fill, or waste material. Documentation of the
location and characteristics of all borrow and disposal sites associated with this
project shall be available to the Corps upon request.
4. It is recommended that fish spawning time be considered when staging
construction. In stream activities will be minimized by the contractor during the
spring migration period of anadromous fish (February 15 to June 15).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ............................... 1
II. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENTS. 2
" A. Permits Required ...................................................................................... 2
B. Floodway Modifications .......................................................................... 2
C. Sidewalks ................................................................................................. 2
III. NEED FOR ACTION ........................................................................................ 2
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................... 3
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ....... 3
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................... 3
B. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................... 4
C. N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality ........................................................................................... 5
D. N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of
Environmental Health .............................................................................. 5
E. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission .................................................... 6
F. Cumberland County Joint Planning Board .............................................. 7
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ................ 7
A. First Public Hearing ................................................................................. 7
B. Second Public Hearing ............................................................................. 9
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...................... 10
A. Cost Estimate ........................................................................................... 10
B. Proposed Cross Section ............................................................................ 1 l
C. Sidewalks ................................................................................................. 12
D. Structures ................................................................................................. 12
E. Additional Changes .................................................................................. 12
VIII. WETLAND FINDING ....................................................................................... 13
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................ 13
TABLES
Table 1: Wetland Communities Located In The Study Area ..........................................13
FIGURES
Figure l: Vicinity Map
Figure 2A: Proposed 4-Lane Cross-Section
Figure 213: Proposed 5-Lane Cross-Section
Figure 3: Existing Alignment At Hoke Loop Road/Hopper Road
Figure 4: Proposed Alignment At Hoke Loop Road/Hopper Road
Figure 5: Wetland Locations
APPENDIX A
Comments Received From Review Agencies on the Environmental Assessment
Public Hearing News Release
Cumberland County
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2)
State Project No. 8.2441701
T.I.P. Project No. U-2520
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) in Cumberland County, from Reilly Road
(SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road) (see Figure 1 for project location), to a multi-lane
facility with a short segment on new location. The proposed improvement will widen the
existing Cliffdale Road to a four-lane curb and gutter section with a 4.8 m (16 ft) raised
median (See Figure 2A). Cliffdale Road from Beaver Run Drive (SR 3492) to
Branchwood Circle is proposed as a five-lane curb and gutter cross-section due to a
concentration of intersecting roads and residential driveways (see Figure 2A and 2B for
proposed 4-lane and 5-lane cross-sections, respectively). The total proposed project
length is approximately 7.7 km (4.8 mi). This project will involve constructing a section
of Cliffdale Road on new location from approximately 0.3 km (1000 ft) west of Reilly
Road, continuing on new location for approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi), tying back into
Cliffdale Road approximately 300 m (984 ft) east of Town Creek Drive. Median breaks
will be provided where warranted and turnarounds will be provided for potential U-turn
traffic. The location of these facilities will be determined during the final design phase.
Hoke Loop (SR 1593)/Hopper Road (SR 1401), which intersects Cliffdale Road
at 80.0 m (262.4 ft) north of Chelsea Drive (SR 3512) and again at Dearhorn Court (see
Figure 3 for existing alignment), will be reconstructed to improve safety and traffic flow.
The two existing skewed intersections will be realigned to form perpendicular
intersections with better sight distance. Access will be provided to Cliffdale West and
Woodmark Subdivisions from these two points, while the middle portion of the loop will
be eliminated due to extremely poor horizontal curve and sight distance (see Figure 4 for
proposed alignment).
The current total estimated cost of the project is $23,825,000, consisting of
$11,625,000 for right of way and $12,200,000 for construction. The estimated project
cost in both the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 2000-2006
Draft TIP is $11,625,000 for right of way and $11,400,000 for construction, totaling
$23,025,000.
II. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENTS
A. Permits Required
NCDOT will apply for a Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) in
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Final permit
decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers (COE).
Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is also required prior to
issue of federal permits.
B. Floodway Modifications
Cumberland County is currently a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Bones Creek is in a designated flood hazard zone
and is included in the detailed study. The proposed roadway widening and
associated drainage improvements will not have any significant adverse effect on
existing floodplains and floodways, nor on the associated flood hazard zone.
C. Sidewalks
A 1.5-m (5-ft) sidewalk has been requested for the north side of the
proposed widening from Hoke Loop Road to Rim Road (SR 1402) and on the
south side from Rim Road to Prestige Boulevard. This request, made by the
Cumberland County Joint Planning Board, along with the City of Fayetteville,
was requested in accordance with NCDOT Pedestrian Policy.
This request will be honored provided an eligible government entity will
enter an agreement for cost sharing and maintenance with the NCDOT, as
outlined in the NCDOT Interim Pedestrian Policy. The policy currently outlines a
share matching schedule covering the cost of pedestrian facilities, under which
NCDOT will be responsible for 50% of incidental pedestrian facility construction
costs up to a cap of 5% of the construction cost, with the area municipality
covering the remaining 50%. Construction cost used to determine the 5% cap
includes only those improvements located within the city limits and adjacent to
potential sidewalks. Bridge construction costs are not included in this figure. The
NCDOT will further coordinate with the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland
County to arrive at a municipal agreement to finalize details.
III. NEED FOR ACTION
The proposed project will improve the traveling conditions along Cliffdale Road
by increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Currently, Cliffdale Road is
heavily congested and has higher than average accident rates for similar facilities
throughout the state. Additional travel lanes will reduce congestion while the exclusive
left turn lanes will reduce the potential for rear end accidents.
Hoke Loop Road and Hopper Road will also be improved as a part of this project.
This short loop is used as access to residences in the Cliffdale West and Woodmark
Subdivisions from Cliffdale Road. The existing alignment begins at a skewed
intersection, just south of an extreme curve on Cliffdale Road with poor sight distance to
the north. Hoke Loop/Hopper Road then extends from Cliffdale Road north, to a 90°
curve, and ties back into Cliffdale Road at another skewed intersection with poor sight
distance to the south (see Figure 3 for existing conditions). This area will be realigned to
improve safety on Hoke Loop/Hopper Road and at both intersections with Cliffdale
Road. The improved alignment will maintain efficient access to the area residences (see
Figure 4 for proposed alignment).
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Division of Highways, on August 18, 1997, and by the Federal
Highway Administration on August 19, 1997. 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 Appendix A of this document.
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Defense
U. S. Department of the Interior
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
* N. C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Region M Council of Governments
Cumberland County Commissioner
* Cumberland County Joint Planning Board
* Cumberland County Schools
Mayor of Fayetteville
* Fayetteville City Council
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment: "For the Bones Creek crossing, we refer you to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's `Procedures for No
Rise Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways'... The project should be designed to meet the
requirements of the NFIP [National Flood Insurance Program] and
be in compliance with all local ordinances."
Response: The Bones Creek crossing will be designed in
compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency's
`Procedures for No Rise Certification for Proposed Developments
in Regulatory Floodways' and NFIP. This drainage improvement
will not have any significant adverse effect on existing floodplains
and floodways, nor on the associated flood hazard.
2. Comment: "...the new location section of this road may impact a
coastal plain, small stream swamp. We strongly recommend that
you avoid this impact by tying the new location segment of the
road back into the existing road further east than is presently
proposed."
Response: This new location alignment was chosen to avoid the
danger zone associated with the military ammunition bunker
located on Fort Bragg property while minimizing wetland and
stream impacts to the extent practicable. Impacting the
ammunition bunker danger zone would result in potential
destruction of the facility upon unfortunate detonation of any
stored ammunition. Any actual bunkers impacted would require
replacement with comparable facilities complying with current
standards for military ammunition bunkers. Wetland and stream
impacts have been approximated (see section VIII) and will be
minimized by decreasing right of way requirements and fill slopes
where practicable.
B. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "Any Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for
the project should state the construction methods which would be
employed in installing culverts. Specifically, there should be a
discussion of any temporary wetland fill required during
construction."
Response: The Hydraulics Department of the NCDOT will
provide appropriate plans for construction methods to be used
during culvert installation upon completion of final design plans.
All recommendations will avoid any unnecessary fill of wetlands.
Any information regarding fill in wetlands will be included in our
nationwide permit application.
C. N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division
of Water Quality
Comment: "If culvert placement/extensions and/or channel
changes exceed 150 feet linear distance of perennial stream
impacts at any crossing, stream mitigation will be required in
accordance with current DWQ (Division of Water Quality)
Wetland Rules 115A NCAC 21-1.0506(b)(6)). If necessary, said
stream mitigation proposal should be included with the permit
application. In accordance with our rules, the Wetland Restoration
Program will be available to use for stream mitigation for this
project."
Response: Stream impacts will exceed 150 feet. Exact impact
lengths will be quantified during the final design and permitting
phases. Mitigation will be addressed during the permit application
process.
2. Comment: "DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material
will be taken from upland sources in the construction contract
awarded for this project."
Response: To ensure that all borrow and waste activities occur on
high ground, NCDOT shall require its contractors and/or agents to
identify all areas to be used to borrow material, or to dispose of
dredged, fill, or waste material. Documentation of the location and
characteristics of all borrow and disposal sites associated with this
project shall be available to the Corps upon request.
3. Comment: "We encourage NCDOT to investigate whether or not
temporary fill will be required to build haul roads and place
culverts. We suggest that NCDOT include this information in the
FONSI and with the permit application. NCDOT is advised that
full restoration of any temporary fill areas will be required in
accordance with Condition #4 of General Certification 3114
(Nationwide Permit 33)."
Response: See section V.B.1.Response.
D. N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division
of Land Resources
1. Comments: This project will impact one (1) geodetic survey
marker. NC Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to
construction..."
Response: N. C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted at
[phone] prior to construction of the project regarding any
impacts to geodetic survey markers.
E. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comments: "Projected wetland impacts total [0.94 hectares]
2.5 acres."
Response: The projected wetland impacts, as listed in Table 7,
page 35 of the EA, totaled 0.3 hectares (0.8 acres).
2. Comments: "...the document does not specifically discuss the need
for stream channel modification. This information should be
included in the Finding Of No Significant Impact."
Response: It is anticipated that Bones Creek crossing, below
headwaters, will require channel widening for approximately 20 m
(70 ft) upstream and 20 m (70 ft) downstream to accommodate the
proposed culvert.
3. Comments: "The issues associated with anadromous fish should
be further examined. We would prefer that the bridge over Bones
Creek be replaced with a spanning structure. We will also likely
request that in-water work be prohibited from February 15 to June
15 as described in the adopted NCDOT document `Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage"'
Response: Selection of the recommended culvert was based on the
hydrologic needs at this crossing, as determined by the Hydraulics
Unit and Structure Design Unit of NCDOT. NCDOT determined
the proposed culvert will provide equivalent or improved
conveyance compared to that of the existing structure. NCDOT
will install the culvert providing the most hospitable aquatic biota
passage. The Hydraulics Unit of NCDOT will investigate
installing bottom-sunk culverts at this crossing. Final decisions on
culvert design will be made during the final design phase, when
definitive substrate and structural considerations will be evaluated.
Fish spawning times will be considered when staging construction
on the project, as stated in section VII.E.3.c, page 34 of the EA.
4. Comments: "We recommend that wetland impacts be covered
under a single Individual 404 Permit."
Response: Comment is noted. See section II.A.
F. Cumberland County Joint Planning Board
Comments: "...we are requesting that the sidewalk from Rim Road
(SR 1402) to Prestige Blvd. (SR 3465) be placed on the south side
of Cliffdale Road. The remaining sidewalk from Rim Road to
Hoke Loop Road should remain on the north side..."
Response: This request will be honored provided an eligible
government entity will enter an agreement for cost sharing and
maintenance with the NCDOT, as outlined in the NCDOT
Pedestrian Policy. Please see subsequent section VII.D of this
document for further explanation of sidewalks as part of this
project.
2. Comments: "The Board unanimously endorsed a four-lane divided
boulevard with grass median... design instead of a five-lane curb
and gutter section."
Response: A four-lane, median divided cross-section has been
investigated as a result of comments made during and in response
to the public hearing, held January 26, 1998. A second public
hearing was held on October 22, 1998 to present the four-lane
median alternative and other minor changes to the five-lane curb
and gutter alternative previously shown to the public. See
subsequent section VII.B for further discussion of cross-section
issues raised at the hearing.
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING
A. First Public Hearing
On January 26, 1998, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
held a formal public hearing for the project at Seventy-First High School near the
proposed project. The hearing was advertised in the local media prior to its being
held. Approximately 70 people attended the hearing including representatives
from Cumberland County, the Fayetteville area MPO, and NCDOT. Comments
during and subsequent to the hearing focused on the following issues:
Comment: Please investigate the use of a four-lane curb and gutter section
with a center median for this project.
Response: See sections V.F.2 and VII.B of this document.
Comment: Please re-evaluate the traffic in the area of Hoke Loop Road
and Woodmark Road and the means of accessing Cliffdale Road.
Response: Hoke Loop Road and Hopper Road have been re-evaluated in
an attempt to improve safety and traffic flow in the area. Please see section VILE
of this document for a description of the proposed changes to the recommended
alternative.
Comment: Please investigate constructing the proposed sidewalk from
Rim Road to Prestige Blvd. on the south side of Cliffdale Road.
Response: The inclusion of sidewalks in this project and the appropriate
location has been further investigated. Please see section II.C of this document
for the treatment of sidewalks as part of this project.
Comment: Will the project be split into phases with Phase I being from
Reilly Road to Rim Road and Phase II being from Rim Road to US 401?
Response: This project is scheduled to be built in one (1) phase. It was
not designed in phases, but may be constructed in phases. The construction
phasing will be at the discretion of the contractor.
Comment: Please investigate moving the road alignment between
Rivendale Drive and Loxley Drive to the west, minimizing impacts to the William
R. Barefoot property while taking advantage of existing property on the west side,
owned by Mr. Barefoot and set aside for the widening of Cliffdale Road.
Response: Alternative alignments were investigated as part of the review
of the proposed project. It has been determined that the alignment proposed in the
EA (signed August 19, 1997) is the most economical alternative. No engineering
improvements were found through alternative investigation. For these reasons,
the originally proposed alignment will remain the recommended alignment.
Comment: Please consider shifting the proposed alignment to the west at
the Thomas F. Newton property to allow the homeowner to maintain some
clearance from the road.
Response: See previous response.
Comment: Please erect a sign on Old US 401 (Old Raeford Road)
showing it as an alternate route to Fort Bragg.
Response: The need for additional signing to Ft. Bragg will be determined
by the Division Engineer (Division 6) in conjunction with county officials.
s
Comment: Please investigate having the gate to Fort Bragg, located at the
back of Montebello Subdivision, opened to traffic during peak traffic hours.
Response: Fort Bragg is a federally owned military post. Control of this
facility is not in the jurisdiction of NCDOT.
B. Second Public Hearing
On October 22, 1998, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
held a second formal public hearing for the project at E. E. Miller Elementary
School, located on the proposed project. The hearing was advertised in the local
media prior to its being held. Approximately 75 people attended the hearing,
including representatives from NCDOT, Cumberland County, and the Fayetteville
area MPO. Comments during and subsequent to the hearing focused on similar
issues as those raised during the first public hearing, the following comments
summarize those made:
Comment: Was symmetrical widening considered following the first
public hearing? If so, why was it not recommended?
Response: Alternative alignments were investigated as part of the review
of the proposed project, including symmetrical widening. It has been determined
that the recommended alignment is the most economical, and no engineering
improvements were found through alternative investigation. For these reasons,
the originally proposed alignment will remain the recommended alignment.
Comment: Please include sidewalks on the south side of Cliffdale Road
from Rim Road to Prestige Blvd.
Response: Please see section II.C of this document for the treatment of
sidewalks as part of this project.
Comment: Drainage is currently a problem near the intersection of
Cliffdale Road and Raeford Road. Will this be corrected with the proposed
project?
Response: Proper drainage is addressed during the design process. The
installation of a curb and gutter facility, along with properly sized drainage outlets
will accommodate run-off from the project area. Additionally, the Hydraulics
Unit of NCDOT will design adequate facilities to handle drainage needs outside
the proposed road, while within NCDOT right of way.
Comment: Will the proposed facility maintain access to the water point
[water line access point used by area fire department to replenish water supply]
located at the existing Bones Creek crossing off Cliffdale Road? This water point
is used by the area fire department.
Response: Access to the water point will be maintained. See `Summary
of Environmental and Special Project Commitments.'
Comment: A traffic signal is needed at the proposed intersection of Hoke
Loop Road and Cliffdale Road.
Response: This intersection, along with the intersection of Buttermere
Court and Cliffdale Road, will be monitored by the Area Traffic Engineer to
determine when conditions warrant signalization.
Comment: Will Alternative 2 (recommended) influence access to private
driveways directly accessing Cliffdale Road?
Response: Alternative 2 (recommended) will affect driveway access from
Cliffdale Road. Driveways directly accessing Cliffdale Road will have `right in
right out' access. Median breaks will not be provided for private driveways.
Comment: There are seven (7) relocatees noted on each alternative. Are
the relocatees the same for both Alternatives?
Response: Seven (7) residential relocatees are the same on each
alternative. Those residents requiring relocation will be contacted during the right
of way acquisition phase of the project (currently proposed to begin February
2000).
Comment: The inclusion of the median in the proposed project will
increase safety on the proposed project.
Response: Comment is noted.
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Cost Estimate
The total estimated cost shown in the EA for the proposed project was
$23,125,000, including $11,500,000 for construction and $11,625,000 for right of
way. The EA noted a proposed sidewalk with a cost of $78,000. The revised
total project cost for the project is as follows:
10
Construction $12,200,000
Right of Way $11,625,000
Total $23,825,000
Should an agreement concerning sidewalk construction be reached
between NCDOT and an eligible governmental entity, the total project cost may
increase. In such a case, the previous cost estimate to provide sidewalks remains
valid.
B. Proposed Cross-Section
The recommended cross-section for the project has changed since the
Environmental Assessment was completed. The EA recommended providing a
five-lane, 20.4-m (68-ft) face to face curb and gutter roadway. This cross-section
provided one (1) 4.2-m (14-ft) outside travel lane in each direction, one (1) 3.6-m
(12-ft) inside travel lane in each direction, and one (1) 3.6-m (12-ft) center two-
way left turn lane. The wide outside travel lanes accommodated the `share the
road' policy for bicyclists.
Cumberland County and the NCDOT Division 6 Engineer requested a
four-lane median divided cross-section during the first public hearing. In
response to this request the project was re-evaluated, and a combination of five-
lane and four-lane median divided cross-sections will replace the original five-
lane recommendation. The anticipated face to face of curb width of the four-lane
cross-section is 21.6 m (72 ft). This includes one (1) 4.2-m (14-ft) outside travel
lane in each direction, one (1) 3.6-m (12-ft) inside travel lane in each direction,
and a 4.8-m (16-ft) raised median (see Figure 2A for a sketch of this proposed
cross-section). The 4.2-m (14-ft) outside lanes provide width for bicycle traffic to
`share the road' with automobiles, buses, and trucks.
From US 401 to Beaver Run Drive, a four-lane median divided cross-
section is recommended. Median breaks are provided at all intersecting roads
except Gallant Ridge Drive and Dearhorn Court. These roads will be right-in
right-out.
From Beaver Run Drive to Branchwood Drive, a five-lane curb and gutter
cross-section is being recommended to accommodate the four (4) intersecting
roads in this 400-m (1300-ft) length of Cliffdale Road. The cross-section will
maintain the dimensions of the original five-lane recommendation (see Figure 2B
for a sketch of this proposed cross-section).
From Branchwood Drive to Wayland Road (just south of Reilly Road), a
four-lane median divided cross-section is recommended. Median breaks are
provided at all intersecting roads. The median width and pavement width will
vary at the intersecting streets to provide for added turn lanes and paved turn-
arounds.
C. Sidewalks
Sidewalks have been requested from Hoke Loop Road to Rim Road, on
the north side of Cliffdale Road, and from Rim Road to Prestige Boulevard on the
south side. The funding participation, according to the NCDOT Interim
Pedestrian Policy, states that NCDOT will be responsible for 50 percent of the
construction cost of sidewalks up to a maximum of 5 percent of the total project
construction cost, the governing municipality will be responsible for the
remaining 50 percent.
The Cumberland County Joint Planning Board made the original request
for sidewalks for this project. Since the original request was submitted, the City
of Fayetteville stated that they will not be participating in the proposed sidewalk
construction because it is located outside the Fayetteville corporate limits.
The NCDOT Interim Pedestrian Policy currently states that sidewalk
construction and cost sharing agreements must be made with a local municipality.
The local municipality must also agree to maintain the pedestrian facility after
completion. Counties are not currently considered eligible partners in such
arrangements. The policy is currently under review. Should the policy change to
include counties as eligible participants in cost sharing or if Cumberland County
and the City of Fayetteville can reach an agreement regarding this matter, the
sidewalks on this project will be reevaluated.
D. Structures
Two stream crossings were proposed as part of the Environmental Assessment
(EA). Bones Creek will be crossed by a 3.7 m x 2.4 m (12.0 ft x 8.0 ft), triple
barrel, reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). This culvert will be
approximately 57 m (187 ft) long. The unnamed tributary to Bones Creek will be
crossed by a 47 m (179 ft) long, single barrel RCBC. The size of this culvert will
be determined during final design. These lengths are approximate. Final lengths
will be established during final hydraulic design.
E. Alignment Changes
The Hoke Loop Road/Hopper Road area has been redesigned since the EA
was signed. The EA recommended that both Hoke Loop Road and Hopper Road
intersections with Cliffdale Road be removed. Woodmark Road, a road
intersecting Hopper Road, was extended to intersect with Cliffdale Road at a
signalized intersection approximately 100 m (330 ft) southwest of the Dearhorn
12
Court intersection. Woodmark Road would provide access to the residential
developments in the area.
As a result of comments received through the public hearing process, this
area has been redesigned to provide more efficient access to the residential
developments while maintaining safety along Cliffdale Road. Hoke Loop Road
and Hopper Road intersections with Cliffdale Road will be removed. Hoke Loop
Road will be extended to form a `T' intersection with Cliffdale Road. Buttermere
Drive, a road intersecting Hopper Road, will be extended to form a 'T'
intersection with Cliffdale Road. Both intersections will be stop-sign controlled
(see Figure 3 and 4 for existing and proposed area alignments, respectively).
Projected traffic does not warrant signalization for the design year (2025).
VIII. WETLAND FINDING
Roadway widening, replacement of existing culverts and bridge rehabilitation may
involve discharge of excavated or fill material into the waters of one or all the creeks
which cross the project area. Approximately 0.3 ha (0.8 ac) of jurisdictional wetlands
will be impacted. A wetland delineation was not conducted during the site investigation,
therefore the impacts given are only approximations. Wetland delineation will be
completed during the hydraulic phase of final design, prior to permitting. Table 1 gives
the Cowardin et al classifications, DEM wetland ratings and estimated impacts for each
wetland in the study area. See Figure 5 for the location of each of the wetlands.
TABLE 1. WETLAND COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE STUDY AREA
Site Classification DEM Rating Impacts
W1 PF04B 86 0.2(0.5)
Bones Creek PFO 1 B 56 0.04(0.1)
W2 PF04B 50 0.01(0.02)
W3 PF01 B 52 0.02(0.05)
W4 PF04B 48 0.02(0.05)
W5 PF04/l B 52 0.04(0.1)
Total 0.3(0.8)
Notes:
• Values cited are in hectares (acres).
• PF04B denotes Palustrine(P) Forested(FO) Needle-Leaved Evergreen(4)
Saturated(B).
• PF01B denotes Palustrine(P) Forested(FO) Broad-Leaved Deciduous(1)
Saturated(B).
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Federal
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state, and local
agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the human
or natural environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be
required.
13
?

PR E T
i ¦j
1\! ` 100 `iildoW
103
A •
• 1
FORD 01
LAKE 147
O
G
4?1 POND
J 3 's F,P
f?U
C ? 100
59
{?' ?+. ear
Cumb¦iand
NOTE MILLS
POP. 5.,17,
11

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD)
FROM REILLY ROAD TO US 401
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U-2520
0 miles 2 FIG.1
L ----L I
O
U
W
W
U
l
W
1
?n
i?
W
^O^
O
a
3
L
0
v:
O
0
G
C
O
O
M
? o
M ^
N ^, O
?t
a .?
O L
W
U
W
U
w '
N
N
?p I ^l
M
N
CO
0
a?
N
CC
E cn .
oC
v OJ
E
L
M
N ?
O
?o
M ^
O
CD
u
O
LL
O ?
p- U
0
N
N
F-'
U
W
ti
p..

N
W
Li,
O
H?
U
'V 11
U
H
W
i
n?
h?
W
O
h-?
E o
M ^'
tt

Q
3
v E CA
o

z w
w
C

?-
r. E
?
rq E
E
O
M
N - E
O
E o
N
CD
ti CZ
o CZ
oc
R U
f-.
N
O
bA
.? ..O
N o3
O
C1.
? U

0
N
N
U
W
ti

m
N
(il
EXISTING ALIGNMENT
HOKE LOOP ROAD/HOPPER ROAD
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
HOKE LOOP ROAD/HOPPER ROAD
® PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
PROPOSED WIDENING OF SR ?400
ICLIFFDALE ROADI
FROM SR 1403 (REILLY ROAD) TO US 401
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
U•2520
? EXISTING PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED I NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 4 1

J
'
!; i?5
dr"r ? s

t

o { a

.•'
'? l
.Y J
,
. ,
t
4

V)
W
a. -Glllllllljjjjjjjjjjj???
0 Z
E
U a,
r?
m
c 19 c
•0. CL
L) al
r.. C d W_
L
m
: <
i5 cc e 2 1?v
.54
w w a CL c a)
o D `°
cu -0 5F E E? ?? OL
? OO C 'PU rO C a) Cl p0) a 0 7 L
3: 1:
'3? a pufOC?` U) 5
ICJ m a
Op g p
fum t=?f?c?c?nctn 3 0=0'a 0 maii0d???
-se
CA p?p UPI 11111111

y i
c
o
cY
O

V T
w
T
^^o
?.. -
'
I
U) cc
U (n
L
F- C
.f
o lMU
T
°
a)
E
LiJ 1
z 0
? (}U Dom ?
Y
E 2 0 N
cyj E 0Ci? N
;,o u-g0
?'> OCCZ
3 C
{ d• W n
W T M F- '_
_C -0 U^)ZD
V/
L_ o2 lLU N

U c O r
L '2 c 0
•f.LC
o.> Z co
Z D a. w o

• N 2
O

s,
r _
,^ ? `• t :t':1 ?. s ' ?!? l?t 1 v? ./?,.. ?•• •?^..? l.F??', ?T,5?'? l , ?i?.fl 1!.1 1 t'?y? / •-•.
......................
...........
r?
"?'t ?? I:....1. \ ?,,-` ,? i ,yam.... _.? !% ? ?l.r. ?•` ?' j
........1....
04
!;: l f \ 1
l
04
.t..I i1 ?, ,.., ?, ................:?'
• r r 1
n 1 f; .? m J i 1'` l\ ........ J.
1 !•
LL
{ sou ,.8
Ll y,
41
1 c? r !1 I
?l
?. ....
,c
01
`. ` •_ / \ 0 1? - -_' it
APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 9, 1998
Planning 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:
t V
gb
This is in response to your letter of August 28, 1997, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400), From Reilly
Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, T.I.P. Project No. U-2520"
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199504979).
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,
1
C. E. Shufor , Jr., P.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
February 9, 199
Page 1 of
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400), From Reilly Road
(SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, T.I.P. Project No. U-2520"
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199504979)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Planning Services Section, at
(91 J 251-472 1
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County, which participates in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Based on a review of Panels 110 and 150
of the February 1982 Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the
roadway crosses Bones Creek, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. This crossing is noted in the Flood Hazard
Evaluation on page 46 of the Environmental Assessment. (Floodways for Cumberland
County streams are shown on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps, rather than the
FIRMs.) Two other stream crossings include Bones Creek Tributary A, above the
detailed study limit, and an unnamed tributary to Bones Creek. Neither of these
crossings is shown in an identified flood hazard area on the FIRM. However, from a
review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topo map of the area, it
appears that the unnamed tributary, at the location of the crossing, may have sufficient
drainage area to produce flooding.
For the Bones Creek crossing, 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
previously to your office. The project should be designed to meet the requirements of
the NFIP and be in compliance with all local ordinances.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Division, at [phone]
Our previous comments regarding this project were forwarded to you by letter
dated July 31, 1995. The proposed project involves the upgrading of Cliffdale Road
(SR 1400) to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. A small section of the road will be built
on a new location.
February 9, 1998
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400), From Reilly Road
(SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, T.I.P. Project No. U-2520
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199504979)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
According to the Environmental Assessment, the new location section of this road
may impact a coastal plain, small stream swamp. We strongly recommend that you
avoid this impact by tying the new location segment of the road back into the existing
road further east than is presently proposed.
Although we may authorize this project pursuant to Nationwide Permit(s) 14, we
will evaluate the amount of impact to wetlands over the entire project after all
avoidance and minimization measures have been explored. If impacts are greater than
minimal, compensatory mitigation may be required.
We would appreciate a copy of the FONSI, when it is approved. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide our comments during this phase of planning for this project.
If you have any questions, they should be addressed to Mr. McLendon.
FEB-10-1998 11:10 USRCE WILMINGTON P.01/
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL HEADER SHEET
For use of flit form, see AR 25-11; tha pmponant agency to 0[NSG
COMMAND(
OFFICE NAME/
OFFICE OFFICE TELEPHONE
NO. FAX NO
SY
MBOL AMVON/Comta . (AUTOVONiCprnm.).
FROM:
1 ,
3o88? W II ..11
IL*`7'
1? /S/,

TO:
o
R•??? GJe?wr??Z r 14[ 7 33- 775

CLASSIFICATION PRECEDENCE NO. PAGES DATE-TIME MONTH YEAR RELEASER'S SIGNATURE
(including iris
H"do
r) 4 p? r
?
-J
REMARKS C-LI /t m Gr" f .) ©tJ ?.[ 6A LP6;- I-,CO ???`r ? G , -r -O ?Cr(-b
s
Spaea By/ow For Communications Center Use Only
DA FORM 3918-R, JUL 90
DA FORM 301 G-R, AUG 72 IS OBSOLETE u3AM D V7-11

FEB-10-1999 11:11 USACE WILMINGTON P,02i04
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1690
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROUNA28402-1890
IN RMV REFER o February 9, 1998
Planning 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 27611-5241
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of August 28, 1997, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400), From Reilly
Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, T.I.P. Project No. U-2520"
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199504979).
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. Shufor , Jr., P. .
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
FE3-10-1999 11:11 USACE WILMINGTON P.03i04
February 9, 1998
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400), From Reilly Road
(SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, T.I.P. Project No. U-2520"
(Regulatory Division Action 1.D. No. 199504979)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis Planning Services Sect,lon at
[phone]
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County, which participates in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Based on a review of Panels 110 and 150
of the February 1982 Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the
roadway crosses Bones Creek, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. This crossing is noted in the Flood Hazard
Evaluation on page 45 of the Environmental Assessment. (Floodways for Cumberland
County streams are shown on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps, rather than the
FIRMs.) Two other stream crossings Include Bones Creek Tributary A, above the
detailed study limit, and an unnamed tributary to Bones Creek. Neither of these
crossings is shown in an identified flood hazard area on the FIRM. However, from a
review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topo map of the area, it
appears that the unnamed tributary, at the location of the crossing, may have sufficient
drainage area to produce flooding.
For the Bones Creek crossing, 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
previously to your office. The project should be designed to meet the requirements of
the NFIP and be in compliance with all local ordinances.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: C - Mr. Scott McLendon Wilmin ton Field
Office, Reaulatory Division, at [phone]
Our previous comments regarding this project were forwarded to you by letter
dated July 31, 1995. The proposed project involves the upgrading of Cliffdale Road
(SR 1400) to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. A small section of the road will be built
on a new location.
FEB-10-1998 11:11 USRCE WILIINGTON P.04/04
February 9, 1998
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON,.
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400), From Reilly Road
(SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, T.I.P. Project No. U-2520
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199504979)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
According to the Environmental Assessment, the new location section of this road
may impact a coastal plain, small stream swamp. We strongly recommend that you
avoid this impact by tying the new location segment of the road back into the existing
road further east than is presently proposed.
Although we may authorize this project pursuant to Nationwide Permit(s) 14, we
will evaluate the amount of impact to wetlands over the entire project after all
avoidance and minimization measures have been explored. If impacts are greater than
minimal, compensatory mitigation may be required.
We would appreciate a copy of the FONSI, when it is approved. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide our comments during this phase of planning for this project.
If you have any questions, they should be addressed to Mr. McLendon.
TOTRL P.04

tMENT OF f
rP ? tiF
W s? 1s
o. _ n
/ a
N ?
?A&CH
United States Department of the Inte
FISH AND \NILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Boa 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
October 8, 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:
o r
? QCj ? 3 1997
D?v'`'`dN ?F
This responds to your letter of August 28, 1997, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on th
Environmental Assessment (EA), dated August 1997, for the
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) widening and partial realignment,
Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2520). 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 Cliffdale Road to a
five-lane, curb-and-gutter facility. A short segn.ent would be
realigned on new location. The total length of tY.e proposed
project would be 4.8 miles.
Purpose and Need/Alternatives Analysis
The EA states (p. 2) that the project is required to alleviate
increasing traffic demand on the existing road. We find the
project justification to be adequate.
The EA considers (pp. 8-9) alternatives for the project. The
Service is pleased that the required transportation improvements
can be made primarily by widening the existing road. We considE
the analysis of alternatives to be adequate.
Wetlands and Waterways
The EA indicates that wetland impacts would be minimal and
consist of approximately 0.8 acres. The Service is pleased that
the planned alignment was shifted to minimized wei:land impacts.
2
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 proposed project would cross five streams (p. 25). The
existing bridge over Bones Creek would be replaced with a triple,
reinforced concrete box culvert. The project would replace a
concrete pipe with a single box culvert at a tributary of Bones
Creek. Any Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
project should state the construction methods which would be
employed in installing culverts. Specifically, there should be a
discussion of any temporary wetland fill required during
construction.
Federally Protected Species
The EA evaluates (pp. 38-43) potential project impacts to species
protected by the ESA. Cumberland County contains eight species
protected by the ESA. These species are the Saint Frances' satyr
(Neonympha mitchell francisci), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), American chaffseed
(Schwalbea americana), American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis), small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides),
and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
The Service is pleased that field surveys were made for those
species which were most likely to occur in the project area. The
EA concludes that the project would not affect any of the listed
species. Based on the information supplied by the NCDOT and the
assumption that stringent water quality and erosion control
procedures will be employed during construction, 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 urder 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 adequately describes the purpose
and need for the project, the alternatives considered, and the
environmental impacts of the project. Based on information
contained in the EA and an assumption that impacts to waterways
will be minimized and/or mitigated, 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,
l
)John M. fner
Field Supervisor
cc:
Frank McBride, NCWRC, Northside, NC
John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Scott McLendon, USA Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Melgaard, US EPA, Atlanta, GA
Charles Bruton, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
FWS/R4:HHall:10/8/97:WP:A:cumu2520
r?
s` s
SEP - 9
Program Development Branch
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. Whit Webb
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27603
Dear Mr. Webb:
Katie G. Dorsett. Secretary
September 5, 1997
C -1 ----------- -7
EE ?,7 [5
r,
Subject: Environmental Assessment - Proposed Widending of Cliffdale Rd. (SR 1400) in
Fayetteville, NC from Reilly Rd. (1403) to US 401 (Raeford Rd.) to a Multi-Lane
Facility, With a Short Segment on New Location; TIP;TU-2520
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 98-E-4220-0199. Please use this number %vith
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 10/05/1997 . Should you have any
questions. please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Furnev
Administrative Assistant
GEI??O
.ry
t ! i 997
116 West Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00

North Carolina

Department of Administration
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
October 7, 1997
NIr. Whit Webb
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27603
Dear Mr. Webb:
. C
10,x"
Re: SCH File r 93-E-4220-0199; Environmental Assessment Proposed Widending of Cliffdale Rd.
(SR 1400) in Fayetteville, NC from Reilly Rd. (1403) to US 401 (Raeford Rd.) to a Nlulti-Lane
Facility, With a Short Segment on Nex Location; TIP,=U-2520
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made b%- agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely.
Mrs. Chr}-s Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region M
Melba McGee, DEHNR
I ? CC1 1 4 1997 z
DIVISION OF ?Q
HIGHWAYS
?Qy
cam'
FNVIR0
Katie G. Dorsett. Secretan-
1 16 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-3003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal ")ppon-- r.o^: / ARrname Action Emplo%•er
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee AL--
Environmenta? Review Coordinator
RE: 98-0199 EA for Cliffdale Road from Reilly Road to US 401 in
Fayetteville, Cumberland County
DATE: September 11, 1997
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the proposed
information. The attached comments are for the applicant's information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

199i

PO Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 • Telephone: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / AfirmaCie Acion Employer • 50% Recycled 1 o% Post-Consumer Paper
State o North Carolina
Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Qucllty
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne MctDevit, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
D FE F1,
September 19, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: John Dorne; P
From: Cyndi Bell 6C.?3
Subject: Environmental Assessment
Reilly Road (SR 1403) to
Cumberland County
for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from
US 401 (Raeford Road) in Fayetteville
State Project DOT No. 8.2441701. T.I.P. No. U-2520: EHNR n 98-0199
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. The proposed work would involve up to 0.8 acre of fill in wetlands at
six locations. Extensions of six existing perennial stream crossings will be
required. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document review:
A) NCDOT has sufficiently addressed avoidance and minimization of wetland
impacts up to this point, so that DWQ can concur with NCDOT's Preferred
Alternative. The estimated 0.8 acres of wetland fill is based upon the
estimated right-of-way footprint. We encourage NCDOT to further
minimize wetland impacts during the design stage.
B) This project will involve one bridge widening, one new culvert in place
of an existing bridge, and four culvert extensions. The potential linear
distances of these stream impacts were not quantified in the E.A. If
culvert placement/extensions and/or channel changes exceed 150 feet
linear distance of perennial stream impacts at any crossing, stream
mitigation will be reouired in accordance with current DWQ Wetland
Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}. If necessary, said stream mitigation
proposal should be included with the permit application. In accordance
with our rules, the Wetland Restoration Program will be available to use
for stream mitigation for this project.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken
from upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this
project.
E`lvircrrrer-t1 Sc:ercees ;crc? c" 1 lisc-t/ :es- k I'cccc r<c:e yh. Ncr-th C :rclir-c 27607
7Ee^hc,.e 919-730-5960 FAX T 733-95 9
rr, c? c; Cexrrtr:`?A,°r' .e:.c:cr c-? cer ???; iLA x ' =rzurw rc-,er
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
September 19, 1997
Page 2 of 2
D) We encourage NCDOT to investigate whether or not temporary fill will
be required to build haul roads and place culverts. We sugges: that
NCDOT include this information in the FONSI and with the permit
application. NCDOT is advised that full restoration of any temporary fill
areas will be required in accordance with Condition :?-i of General
Certification 3114 (Nationwide Permit 33). On May 27, 1997, D\%'Q
submitted a draft restoration policy for temporary impact areas to
NCDOT. We anticipate finalization of this policy prior to the
construction of this project.
Based upon the wetland and stream impacts described in the FONSI, either
General Certification No. 3103 or an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
will be applicable to this project, depending upon final design. Final permit
authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from D«-Q. Please be aware that this approval will be contin2?at
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 EA. NCDOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification reouires
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 should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Scott McLendon, COE. Wilmington
David Cox, WRC
Howard Hall, FWS
U2520EA.DOC
11
;ca r?-
RE North CarolinaWildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-7.13-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba Mcclee
Office of Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, DEJ-J NR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Cam, ?? ?.
DATE: October 2. 1997
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) F.nvirotuncntal
Assessment (EA) for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400), from Reilly Road (SR 1403) to
US 401 (Raeford Road) in Fayetteville, Cumberland Coltnty, North Carolina. TIP
No. U-2520, SCH Project No. 98-E-0199.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA cued are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review Wvas to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from Reilly Road (SR 1='J3)
to Raeford Road JJS 401) from two-lanes to a five-lane, curb an6 glitter section with a small
relocation fi-om approximately 1000 feet west of Reilly Road and rejoining existing Cliffdal;
Road just east of Town Creek Drive The project length is approximately 4.8 miles. Projected
wetland impacts total 2.5 acres.
We support NC'DOT in the decision to improve existing facilities rather that. to construct
new roadways. Improving existing roadways avoids new stream and wetland crossings, does not
further fraement wildlife habitat, and does not promote secondary development. The EA
provides adequate information regarding the environmental impacts of the build alternatives.
However, the do,.;umcnt does not specifically discuss the need for stream chaiulel modification.
This information should be included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

(dCl?'?' Hi_F ,FALL C TEL _'1'?-c_. -. ? fli t -' . r.
- f .. . _
Memo
2
October 2. 1997
The issues associates] with anadromous fish should be further examined. We would prefer
that the bridge over Bones Creek be replaced with a spanning structure. We will also likely
request that in-water work be prohibited from February 15 to June 15 as described in the adopted
NCDOT document "Strcan1 Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". In addition to
the tithing restriction, NCDOT should implement all recommended measures included in the
above mentioned document, We recommend that wetland impacts be covered under a single
individual '404' Permit.
We concur with the EA for this project. NCDOT should minimize wetland impacts to the
maximum extent practicable. NCDOT Best Management Practices and sedimentation and
erosion control measures should be strictly enforced.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this E.A. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Howard Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary 1 V
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
PROJECT REVIEW COD4flrNTS
(' A
Project Number: County: C I A, I`,l
Project Na : e : I i #?:?C??` ?,'L/ I u :? if}r.Y l '1? ?, r ;/J ?? i i,,J? ; , 1 ?l ?`• i
NC Offirze of State Planning - Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
pox 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a ceodatic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no 1-pact on ceedetlc survey I:arkers.
Gt'er (co=_.^.ts attac ed)
Fcr r..cre in:ormatzc. contact the N.C. Office of State
Flanni-o, Geode`_iC'1SurVcV_ OfIiCe at 919/733-3836.
Reviewer f Date
rosion and Sedicentaticn Control-
'
i.0 CC "e.^.t
This project will re??ire a::roval of an erosion and Se-LMent_t- or
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an envirc mental document is required-to satisfy Env'__onrental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be sub.:itted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of. the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (QW), as classified by the Division cf Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to t.e Division cf
Fichways from the north Carolina Sedimentation Ccntrol Ccm.-,iission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
Geolo,iccl Survey Sep cn`e?ne- Lcnd 9udi y Section Date Geoc- c Survey Se(
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: (919) 733.NOD FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P n
?- i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources R sewing Office:
a.... 20
C
C
C
I
C
r
L
r
L
C
r
L
I
r
L
F
Probe Number Due Date.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS , g _ E q? 9 1G - 5?
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtainer in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Cuestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Proce<<-s
Regional Office. mo
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Acolicanon 9o days before begin construction cr award of 22 days
facilities. sewer system extensions. 8 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Fos: application
s,stems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual : days)
NPDES permit to discharge into surface water anc:or Applicaoon 180 days before begin activity On site nsoection t2n days
cermlt to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre acp!ication conference usual Additionally octain permit to
c.scnarging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facilily granted a+ter NPDES Rep lyA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue c' NPDES
permit .vhichever is later.
nays
.a._
'. ?r Use Permit
Pre-acu cation technical conference usually necessary

N Al
-al;
::2!I ('.dn$trUdtipn Permit I Ccmp'.e:e application must be received arc c -,t Issuec
pr'or to fire installation of a well. days)
Adoiica;icn dopy must oe on ecc croon-, Gays
., ___e and Fill Permit O::ne• Cn-sife insoechon Fre a=pica;.en cc: a a:.c= us..aF,ni-.s
may r2duire Easement to Fill from N C. Deca=en1 of cavs)
Acminis.rahon and Federal Drecge and Fill Pe•r-•it,
Fe mu to construct 3 ocera!e Air Pcilution A_a e rent ' cat's
acart:es and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.':bC NIA _
da,s)
Any oven burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D-C_2'. _
_=mcwion or renovations of structures containing
t-pestes material must be in compliance with 15A ca,s
C'C 2 525 nhicn requires notification and ernoial NIA
prier to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
c•9.723.0820 daysf

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
-ne Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity Ar? erosion 3 secimen;a_ c
-I
:n,rol plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Flan filed with proper Regional Office (La-c Cuallty Sec: ) at lets; 2- dais
:ars oeip'e becinnino ac!ivity A fee of 530 for the first acre and S20^0 for eacn additional acre or part mcs: -Cpomoarv me cta- davsi
_I Tne Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Crd nance: says)
On-size inspection usual. Surety bond filed vim EHNR. Bond amount
ir.ing Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. Tne apprc:riate bond days)
must b eceivecl before the permit can be iss_ed
_
Norm Carolina Burning permit Cn ;ite Inspection by N.C. Division Forest RE;]crccs if permit dzy
I exceeds a days 1:A)
- Sdecaal Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 Cn site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Pescurces required "if more t cay
_ :unties in coastal N C. with organic soils lean five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections .N.-A)
<_rxu!c ce recuested at least ten days before ac::zl burn is planned. '
.20 days
- Cil Relining Facilities NIA du A,
11 permit required. application 80 days before :e- ,in construction.
_ Applicant must hire N C qualified engineer ic: prepare plans. 3J rays
_ Dim Solely Permit inspect construction. certify construction is a_cprding to EHNR adorer
ec plans May also require permit under mcsccitc control program. A7 c _::ays)
a eqe cermit from Corps of Engineers. An inscection of site is neces
sary to verify Hazard Classihc3Lon A minimum, 'ee of 520000 must ac
company the application An additional processrg fee based on a
ce-:e^iar•e or the total pfclecl cost 'mil be uoor cpmpie!lon

North Carolina Department of Crime
Di-vision of Emergency
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Dept of Crime Control & Public Safety
Division of Emer2encv 'IManagement
National Flood Insurance Program
STATE \U1\1BER:98-E-42120-0199
APPLICANT: NC Dept. Of Transportation
Control and Public Safety
Management
Richard H. Moore. Secretary
DESC: Proposed Widening of Cliffdale Rd. (SR 1400) in Favetteyille. NC from Reilly Rd.
(1403) to US 401 (Raeford Rd.) to a Multi-lane Facilitv. with a Short Segment on New Location:
TIP r U-2'-520
Any portion of the proposed project that affects the regulator` 100 year floodplain as shown on
the published Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) must be constructed in accordance with the
Local Flood Dama2e Prevention Ordinance.
Any portion of the proposed project that affects the floodwav as determined by firm maps for anN
specific area should obtain a "No Impact Certification" or a "Conditional Letter of Map
Revision" (CLOMR) or must fully comply with part 65.7 of 44 CFR. All CLOMR or LOMR
requests must approved by the local officials prior to being submitted to FEMA.
Division of Emergency ivlanaaement - NFIP
(919) 71 5-9707
IS / ? 7
Date
1'.5 Wes, Jr,nes Strec,, o ? \orth Carolina 276^.3-1333 • Te!.pnone [phone]
\n I:c .. Op ?>r:.:r.;ty
?1? of c uMBfr
R1H CApO?
JOE W. MULLNAX COUNTY Of CUMBERLAND
CHAIRMAN
Cumberland County, Joint Planning Board
January 29, 1998
MEMO TO: DERRICK WEAVER, P.E.
PROJECT MANAGER
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
FROM: RICK HEICKSEN, PLANNER IlrV,-41--
SUBJECT: PROJECT U-2520 - SIDEWALK
At present, a sidewalk is to be installed on one side of the proposed widening
from Hoke Loop Road to Prestige Blvd.
Based upon information received from Cumberland County Schools (see
attached), we are requesting that the sidewalk from Rim Road (SR 1402) to
Prestige Blvd. (SR 3465) be placed on the south side of Cliffdale Road.
The remaining sidewalk from Rim Road to Hoke Loop Road should remain on
the north side as shown on the corridor map.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
cc: L. T. Dudley, P.E. Public Information
Darrell Hensdale P.E. Area Coordinator SWPB
H. Mark Whitley, Planner, Cumberland County Schools
GEORGE VACGIIAN
PLANNING DIRECTOR
130 Gillespie Street • P0. Box 1829 • Fmcite rille. Noah Carolina '5.+0?-l ?'9 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
Cl I11; 1--'r.11 1 N111 T- I ... C . 1,. 11 1 f;11. I ('. 1.,. II'. ; ('()I IN 71,
Cumberland County Schools
P.O. Box 2357
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302
910-678-2300
RICHARD B. GLAZIER, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM C. HARRISON, Ed. D.
HENRY MOLDEN, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN SUPERINTENDENT
MICHAEL C. BOOSE
KENNETH EDGE
MACKY HALL January 27, 1998
Mr. Rick Heicksen
Transportation Supervisor
Cumberland County Planning Board
P.O. Drawer 1829
Fayetteville, NC 28302
Dear Mr. Heicksen:
LARR
MAR)
DIAN
MILT(
I am responding to your request for information on the walking pattern of children
the E.E. Miller and Hefner Elementary School districts. I am aware that a sidewalk
being considered for Cliffdale Road between Prestige Boulevard and Rim Road.
It should be taken into consideration that the only children who would walk alo:
Cliffdale Road to the Rim Road intersection, would be those children who live on t
south side of Cliffdale Road. These children walk along Cliffdale Road and then to
south along Rim Road to reach E.E. Miller Elementary. All children in the Cliffdi
West, Middle Creek, Montibello, Bone Creek, and Beaver Run subdivisions attend schc
at Hefner Elementary off Calamar Drive. There should be very few students who w?
along the north side of Cliffdale Road.
I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have further questions, please c
me at 678-2342.
Sincerely,
NIvf-q
H. Mark Whitley, Planner
HMW:es
Equity and Excellence in Education

?ECE/
0
March 18, 1998
Mr. Franklin Vick, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
y MAR 9 1998 ?;-
HIGHWAYS qQ?
%RONN?'??
The Fayetteville City Council voted not to participate on the proposed sidewalk
installation as part of the widening of Cliffdale Road, TIP Project U-2520.
The reason the City Council chose not to participate was the location of the proposed
sidewalk. The sidewalk location is outside the corporate limits of Fayetteville and outside
our current annexation plan.
However, discussions are taking place between the City and Cumberland County on the
possibility of the County funding the City's share for both the sidewalk and median
maintenance cost.
In your letter of February 24th, the City was given the deadline of March 18th to respond.
Since the discussions between the City and County on this matter are in the preliminary
stages, the City Council could not commit to the funding at this time. However, I request
that DOT keep the options open on this matter. It may be a situation in which the City
and County develop an agreement in which in turn the City could then agree to
participate in the sidewalk and median project.
I understand your time constraints and the need to have decisions at the appropriate time.
I estimate the process between the City and County to take roughly three months. I will
follow-up on the progress on these negotiations.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
)J'immy Teal
Assistant City Manager

1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM
NCDENR
To: Melba McGee

Through:
From: John Dorne
John Henness
Subject: Comments on the FONSI for the for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from Reilly Road (SR
1403) to US 401(Raeford Road) in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-
1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, TIP Project No. U-2520, DENR Project Number
99E-0788.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the FONSI, will
result in impacts to 0.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and an undermined length of streams. The DWQ
offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) The DWQ agrees with the "Finding of No Significant Impact". Our decision is predicated on the
fact that the preferred alternative is a widening of existing infrastructure. The document itself
lacks important information about the nature and magnitude of stream impacts. This information
can and has been supplied in other documents and should have been supplied here, as well. We
realize that an exact calculation of potential impacts is not always possible at this stage of the
project. However, a reasonable estimate of projected impacts is not impossible, nor
unprecedented. Please be advised that future documents should include this important information
so that we can make an informed decision. To avoid a delay in processing, the permit application
should include a complete listing of wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
B) In section V.E.3, the DOT indicates the crossing of Bones Creek used a culvert in lieu of a
spanning structure due to "hydrologic needs at the crossing". The reality of the situation is that a
culvert was elected for economic needs, not hydrologic needs. Surely DOT did not to mean to
intentionally argue that a culvert is better for maintaining historic stream hydraulics than a bridge.
The DWQ respectfully requests that the DOT reevaluate this crossing. It should be noted that the
DWQ is not necessarily opposed to the placement of a culvert in this crossing. Rather, that all the
appropriate information be presented to justify the desire for a culvert. Where streams must be
crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that economic
considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas
where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When
applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.

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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/13/99
Page 2
C) Prior to issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that
they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams)
to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland
mitigation may not be required for this project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules ( 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
D) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the
Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
E) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
F) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation. -
G) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
H) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical,
it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be
required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
1) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no
wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any
approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream
impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Regional Office
Central Files
Personal Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-2520\comments\ U-2520 comments.doc
SfAT[ °
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHALL, F. EASLIA -, _ LYNDO TIPPE F
60 VERNOR SECRETARY
July 12, 2001
`;..__ 3
Mr. Ron Ferrell fl
Wetland Restoration Program
Division of Water Quality
Mail Service Center 1619
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Subject: Mitigation for improvements to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Rd.) from US 421 to SR 1403
(Reilly Rd.) in Cumberland County; TIP No. U-2520; State Project No.
8.2441701; Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2).
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requests that the Wetland
Restoration Program (WRP) perform wetland and stream mitigation for the proposed
improvements to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Rd.). The project is located in the Cape Fear Basin
(Hydrologic Unit 03030004).
Wetland impacts are 2.37 acres of PFO1 B riverine wetlands. These impacts will most likely
require 2:1 restoration. The project will also impact 753.3 tt of Bones Creek and several
tributaries to Bones Creek, each of which are perennial streams. Upon receipt of the 401 Water
Quality Certification from DWQ for this project, NCDOT will transfer funds to WRP to
compensate for wetland and stream mitigation performed to cover the costs of planning and
implementation.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed, the DWQ requires a
formal letter from the WRP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation
work requested by NCDOT. This letter should be addressed to Mr. John Dorney of DWQ, with
copies submitted to NCDOT and Mr. Dave Timpy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE).
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Rivenbark at
[phone]. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Willia D. Gilmore, P.h..., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

cc: Mr. Dave Timpy, USACE
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. T. R. Gibson, P.E., NCDOT Division 6
-.11
Mwn
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH I, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
August 31, 1999
MEMORANDUM

DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
TO: John Hennessy
NCDENR- Division of Water Quality
FROM: Yvonne Goldblatt, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
SUBJECT: Comments on the FONSI for the widening of Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
from Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road), Cumberland
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2), State Project No.
8.2441701, TIP Project No. U-2520, DENR Project No. 99E-0788
In response to comments dated July 7, 1999, I would like to clarify some specific points
of your memorandum.
Memorandum dated July 7, 1999 stated: "The document itself lacks important
information about the nature and magnitude of stream impacts... [A] reasonable estimate
of projected impacts is not impossible, nor unprecedented."
As found in FONSI section VII.D:

"Two stream crossings were proposed as part of the Environmental
Assessment (EA). Bones Creek will be crossed by a 3.7 m x 2.4 m (12.0 ft x
8.0 ft), triple barrel, reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). This culvert will be
approximately 57 m (187 ft) long. The unnamed tributary to Bones Creek will be
crossed by a 47 m (179 ft) long, single barrel RCBC. The size of this culvert will
be determined during final design. These lengths are approximate. Final lengths
will be established during final hydraulic design."
The existing crossing of Bones Creek is a bridge (#73); therefore stream impacts at this
location total the approximate culvert length of 57 m (187 ft). The unnamed tributary to
Bones Creek is currently conveyed by a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) approximately
i
7.6 in (25 ft) in length. This stream will experience approximately 39.4 in (154 ft) of
stream impacts. These lengths are approximate. Final lengths will be established during
final hydraulic design.
Memorandum dated July 7, 1999 stated: "In section V.E.3, the DOT indicates the
crossing of Bones Creek used a culvert in lieu of a spanning structure due to `hydrologic
needs at the crossing.' The reality of the situation is that a culvert was elected for
economic needs, not hydrologic needs. Surely DOT did not... mean to intentionally
argue that a culvert is better for maintaining historic stream hydraulics that a bridge. The
DWQ respectfully requests that the DOT reevaluate this crossing. It should be noted that
the appropriate information be presented to justify the desire for a culvert... Please be
advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and
other aquatic organisms."
Document wording may have incorrectly conveyed necessary information in this case. In
stating that a culvert is being proposed in lieu of a spanning structure due to `hydrologic
needs at the crossing,' what was meant was: through hydraulic investigation, it has been
determined that a culvert will acceptably convey this stream with minimal disturbance to
the natural environment. A bridge is not necessary to properly convey this stream. This
determination was made in light of the hydrologic findings and reinforced by the cost
savings apparent through culvert versus bridge.
It is standard NCDOT practice to countersink culverts to minimize disturbance of passage
of fish and other aquatic organisms.
I hope that these comments clarify any confusion regarding the FONSI for TIP Project
No. U-2520. Please contact Yvonne Goldblatt, Project Development Engineer at
1919 733 7844, ext. 223 with any further comments or questions.
YGG/
? I . I?D\11?
o?PP??ENT F ry?ym United States Department of the Interior
h o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
7 0
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
M4RCH 3 ?0 A Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 8, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick CO-) -0
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways y ?> ?r
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of August 28, 1997, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)-on the
Environmental Assessment (EA), dated August 1997, for the
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) widening and partial realignment,
Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2520). 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 Cliffdale Road to a
five-lane, curb-and-gutter facility. A short segment would be
realigned on new location. The total length of the proposed
project would be 4.8 miles.
Purpose and Need/Alternatives Analysis
The EA states (p. 2) that the project is required to alleviate
increasing traffic demand on the existing road. We find the
project justification to be adequate.
The EA considers (pp. 8-9) alternatives for the project. The
Service is pleased that the required transportation improvements
can be made primarily by widening the existing road. We consider
the analysis of alternatives to be adequate.
Wetlands and Waterways
The EA indicates that wetland impacts would be minimal and
consist of approximately 0.8 acres. The Service is pleased that
the planned alignment was shifted to minimized wetland impacts.
2
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 proposed project would cross five streams (p. 25). The
existing bridge over Bones Creek would be replaced with a triple,
reinforced concrete box culvert. The project would replace a
concrete pipe with a single box culvert at a tributary of Bones
Creek. Any Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
project should state the construction methods which would be
employed in installing culverts. Specifically, there should be a
discussion of any temporary wetland fill required during
construction.
Federally Protected Species
The EA evaluates (pp. 38-43) potential project impacts to species
protected by the ESA. Cumberland County contains eight species
protected by the ESA. These species are the Saint Frances' satyr
(Neonympha mitchell francisci), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), American chaffseed
(Schwalbea americana), American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis), small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides),
and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
The Service is pleased that field surveys were made for those
species which were most likely to occur in the project area. The
EA concludes that the project would not affect any of the listed
species. Based on the information supplied by the NCDOT and the
assumption that stringent water gyality and erosion control
procedures will be employed during construction, 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 am*4nded.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have
been satisfied. We remind you that obligations urder Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new infcbr'mation 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.
I.
3
summary
The Service believes that the EA adequately describes the purpose
and need for the project, the alternatives considered, and the
environmental impacts of the project. Based on information
contained in the EA and an assumption that impacts to waterways
will be minimized and/or mitigated, 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. fner
5-?l
Field Supervisor
cc:
Frank McBride, NCWRC, Northside, NC
John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Scott McLendon, USA Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Melgaard, US EPA, Atlanta, GA
Charles Bruton, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
FWS/R4:HHall:10/8/97:WP:A:cumu2520
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
LT.V?FA
[D EHNR
September 19, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Suver-k?rubbc
Through: John Dorne0
From: Cyndi Bell 6L-? 3
Subject: Environmental Assessment
Reilly Road (SR 1403) to
Cumberland County
for Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from
US 401 (Raeford Road) in Fayetteville
State Project. DOT No. 8.2441701, T.I.P. No. U-2520; EHNR # 98-0199
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. The proposed work would involve up to 0.8 acre of fill in wetlands at
six locations. Extensions of six existing perennial stream crossings will be
required. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document review:
A) NCDOT has sufficiently addressed avoidance and minimization of wetland
impacts up to this point, so that DWQ can concur with NCDOT's Preferred
Alternative. The estimated 0.8 acres of wetland fill is based upon the
estimated right-of-way footprint. We encourage NCDOT to further
minimize wetland impacts during the design stage.
B) This project will involve one bridge widening, one new culvert in place
of an existing bridge, and four culvert extensions. The potential linear
distances of these stream impacts were not quantified in the EA. If
culvert placement/extensions and/or channel changes exceed 150 feet
linear distance of perennial stream impacts at any crossing, stream
mitigation will be required in accordance with current DWQ Wetland
Rules f 15A NCAC 21-1.0506(b)(6)}. If necessary, said stream mitigation
proposal should be included with the permit application. In accordance
with our rules, the Wetland Restoration Program will be available to use
for stream mitigation for this project.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken
from upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this
project.
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Oppodu-ity Atft n itN* Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
September 19, 1997
Page 2 of 2
D) We encourage NCDOT to investigate whether or not temporary fill will
be required to build haul roads and place culverts. We suggest that
NCDOT include this information in the FONSI and with the permit
application. NCDOT is advised that full restoration of any temporary fill
areas will be required in accordance with Condition #4 of General
Certification 3114 (Nationwide Permit 33). On May 27, 1997, DWQ
submitted a draft restoration policy for temporary impact areas to
NCDOT. We anticipate finalization of this policy prior to the
construction of this project.
Based upon the wetland and stream impacts described in the FONSI, either
General Certification No. 3103 or an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
will be applicable to this project, depending upon final design. 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 EA. NCDOT 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 should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Scott McLendon, COE, Wilmington
David Cox, WRC
Howard Hall, FWS
U2520EA. DOC

Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water
MEMORANDUM
TO. Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
* Wetlands
John Dorney
Cyndi Bell (Dar)
O Eric Galamb (others)
O
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
O Trish MacPherson
O Kathy Herring (forest/oRwixQw)
O
* Toxicology
O Larry Ausley
O
Planning Branch (Archdale - 6th)
O
Section
* ,e s 9I
Technical Support Branch (Archdale 9th) ms`s
O Coleen Sullins, P&E
O Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
O Kim Colson, P&E, State
O Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
O Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
O Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
O
Operations Branch (Archdale 7th)
O Kent Wiggins, Facility Assessment
O Tom Poe, Pretreatment
O Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville - O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston-Salem
FROM& Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
$E: g?) -(Mg C,II dt-b a .EA
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.
RESPONSE .DEADLINE.
,-. ??.,•,
NO-"COMMENT ` COMMENTS' ;ATTACHED
' r' } j4• ",t2aT t .,AC`S"?L t k 3 x ..
v ' tom{ a+ Name Y : g ?*_°
},,Q!_%r
Date.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are greatly
appreciated !
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmemo - mac version

6, c 3 ) L)
o(T / ?
5+eo,4-1
4 42_-f

T- ? 6 - ?S- 6 S--(,4-)

Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road)
Fayetteville
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2)
State Project No. 8.241701
T.I.P Project No. U-2520

S.3`Iti1?01
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
a
Date
wv i ?srcr c-.X." • ?L.arec.L
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
,f^ cholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road)
Fayetteville
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2)
State Project No. 8.241701
T.I.P Project No. U-2520
If
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
August 1997
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Derrick G. Weaver 6
Project Planning Engineer
a-,, .
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

Richard B. Davis, P. E., Asst. Manager'
6944
Planning and Environmental Branch
10, N
r U ? •s
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road)
Fayetteville
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2)
State Project No. 8.241701
T.I.P Project No. U-2520

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will use the highest design criteria
for sedimentation control, and High Quality Water Best Management Practices, to
avoid and/or minimize non-point source discharges of toxic and harmful materials.
This will significantly minimize sediment-related impacts to area streams.
2. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction regarding
the relocation of survey markers along the project.
3. 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 on the proposed borrow source.
4. It is recommended that fish spawning times be considered when staging construction.
In stream activities should be minimized during the spring migration period of
anadromous fish.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A. General Description
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
II. NEE D FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of the Proposed Project
B. Thoroughfare Plan
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
D. Anticipated Safety Benefits
E. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Project Terminals
B. Existing Cross Section
C. Route Classification
D. Right-of-Way and Access Control
E. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
F. Speed Limit
G. Intersections Type and Control
H. Railroad Involvement
1. Structures
J. Degree of Roadside Interference
K. Utilities
L. Sidewalks
M. Bicycles
N. School Bus Data
IV. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
A. Length of the Proposed Project
B. Design Speed
C. Cross Section
D. Right-of-Way
E. Access Control
F. Bicycles
1)
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS

V
VI
VII
G. Landscape Planting 6
H. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control 7
1. Sidewalks 7
J. Bridge and Culvert Work Required 7
K. Special Permits 7
L. Maintenance of Traffic 8
M. Noise Barriers 8
N Estimate of Cost 8
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 8
A. Five Lane Facility (Recommended) 8
B. Four Lane Facility 8
C. Public Transportation 8
D. "No-Build" Alternative 9
LAND USE PLANNING 9
A. Scope and Status of Planning 9
B. Existing Land Use 9
C. Current Zoning 10
D. Future Land Use 10
E. Farmland 10
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 10
A. Social Effects 10
1. Neighborhood Characteristics 10
2. Economic Assessment 11
3. Community Impacts 11
B. Cultural Resources 13
C. Air Quality Analysis 14
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis 17
E. Natural Resources 23
1. Methodology 23
2. Physical Resources 24
a. Soils 24
b. Water Resources 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. Biotic Resources 28
a. Terrestrial Communities 28
b. Aquatic Communities 31
C. Anticipated Impacts to the Biotic Resources 32
4. Special Topics 34
a. Waters of the United States 34
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 35
C. Permits 35
d. Mitigation 36
e. Rare and Protected Species 38
F. Flood Hazard Evaluation 46
G. Geological Impact 46
1. Hazardous Materials/Underground Storage Tanks 46
H. Geodetic Markers 46
1. Construction Impacts 47
VIII. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS 48
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
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) in Fayetteville from Reilly
Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road) (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2) to a
multi-lane facility, with a short segment on new location. The proposed improvement
will widen the existing Cliffdale Road to a five-lane 20.4-meter (68-foot), face to face,
curb and gutter facility. The total proposed project length is approximately 7.7 km
(4.8 miles) and will involve constructing a section of Cliffdale Road on new location
from approximately 0.3 kilometers (1000 feet) west of Reilly Road continuing on new
location for approximately 1.8 kilometers (1.1 miles), tying back into Cliffdale Road
approximately 300 meters east of Town Creek Drive. The current total estimated cost
of the project is $23,125,000, consisting of $11,500,000 for right of way and
$11,625,000 for construction. The estimated project cost in the 1997-2003 TIP is
$12,200,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will complete a link, in the
Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan (see Appendix A, Figure 3). The proposed
project will not impact any prime or important farmlands, nor will it adversely impact
the economic growth of the area. The proposed widening will relocate six families and
no businesses. No properties are listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places and no recreational facilities will be involved. There may be some erosion and
siltation during construction, however strict adherence to Best Management Practices
will be used to minimize the damage. Approximately 0.3 hectares (0.8 acres) of
wetlands will be impacted, approximately 13.0 hectares (34.0 acres) of the
Maintained/Disturbed community will be impacted, and approximately 3.5 hectares
(9.0 acres) of various woodland community will be impacted by the project. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +3 dBA to +8 dBA.
3. Alternatives Considered - Both a five-lane curb and gutter section and a four-lane
divided section were considered at the onset of this project. However, Cliffdale Road
is heavily developed residentially and has some commercial uses. Due to the extent
and type of the existing development, a four-lane divided section was not
recommended. (see Appendix A, Figure 2). Public transportation was not considered a
-feasible alternative because the City of Fayetteville's public transportation system does
not
serve the project area. Expanding the present public transportation system is not
considered to be a prudent alternative. The "do nothing" alternative was considered,
but rejected because of the future projected traffic demand and safety concerns along
the project.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. Comments from the following were
received and considered during the preparation of this assessment:
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N. C. Department of Administration, N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Cumberland County Engineering Department
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation is cognizant that both wetlands and surface water impacts are
anticipated from construction of the proposed project. The North Carolina Department
of Transportation will consult with appropriate agencies in accordance with the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401). Best Management Practices such as
sedimentation control measures will be utilized during construction to reduce erosion
and sedimentation. A 401 Water Quality Certification will be required prior to
construction.
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]
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road)
Fayetteville
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1400(2)
State Project No. 8.241701
T.I.P Project No. U-2520
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to widen Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) to a multi-lane facility, with a short segment on
new location, from Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road) in Fayetteville. The
proposed improvement is to widen the existing Cliffdale Road to a five-lane, 20.4 meter
(68-foot), face to face, curb and gutter facility (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). This
section will provide a continuous center left turn lane and two through travel lanes in each
direction with wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. The total project length is
approximately 7.7 km (4.8 miles). This project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 2000 and construction to begin in FFY 2002. The estimated project cost in
the 1997-2003 TIP is $12,200,000. The project is currently estimated to cost $23,125,000.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
A feasibility study of the proposed improvements was completed by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation in June, 1990. This feasibility study recommended a
five-lane, 19.2 meter (64-foot), face-to-face, curb and gutter section, with a short segment of
roadway on new location. The new location portion of roadway is proposed in the area of the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop. This realignment will improve safety and accommodate an
interchange with the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop.
This project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2000 and
construction scheduled to begin in FFY 2002.
A Citizens' Informational workshop was held in Fayetteville by NCDOT
representatives to present the proposed project to the public and to obtain comments and/or
suggestions about the anticipated improvement. The workshop was held on April 16, 1996 at
the Cliffdale Elementary School (see Appendix B). Approximately 25 people attended this
meeting to express their interest in the improvement.
2
H. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of the Proposed Project
The existing facility is not adequate to handle the increasing traffic demand. Currently
Cliffdale Road is heavily congested and has a higher than average accident rate than other
similar facilities throughout the state. The purpose of this project is to improve the traveling
conditions along Cliffdale Road through increasing the LOS and safety of the roadway. The
additional lanes will reduce congestion and the center turn lane will reduce rear end accidents,
thereby improving the safety and increasing the traffic carrying capacity of the facility.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
The mutually adopted March 8, 1996 Fayetteville Urban Area (FUA) Thoroughfare
Plan designates Cliffdale Road as a major thoroughfare (see Appendix A, Figure 3). Cliffdale
Road serves as a collector, for many land locked neighborhoods, providing access to Reilly
Road and US 401. Both Reilly Road and US 401 service Fayetteville and Fort Bragg which
are the major destination points for residence's in the area. The FUA plan also shows the
relocation of Cliffdale Road at the proposed interchange with the Fayetteville Outer Loop.
The proposed improvements are in conformance with this plan. Construction of the
proposed project will be a step toward the implementation of this plan.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Cliffdale Road has critical capacity and safety problems, and will have more severe
problems in the future that can only be addressed with the provision of additional lanes to
reduce congestion and increase safety.
The 1995 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes range from a low of 6,300 vehicles
per day (vpd) near the US 401 intersection, and to a high of 23,900 vpd near the Reilly Road
intersection (see Appendix A, Figure 4). These volumes are expected to increase to 14,000
vpd and 28,700 vpd respectively by the year 2020 (see Appendix A, Figure 5).
The level of service of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability. Levels of
service change from LOS A to LOS F. Level of service A represents unrestricted
maneuverability and operating speeds. Level of Service B represents reduced maneuverability
and normal operating speeds. Level of Service C represents restricted maneuvering and
operating speeds close to the speed limit. Level of service D represents severely restricted
maneuvering and unstable, low operating speeds. This condition is considered acceptable in
densely developed urban areas. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near
the capacity level. Breakdown conditions which are characterized by stop and go travel occur
with level of service F.
D. Anticipated Safety Benefits
Listed below are the accident rates for the proposed project. A comparison between
the accident rates along Cliffdale Road and the average statewide accident rates for the period
of 1992 through 1994 is shown in Table 1. All rates are listed by accidents per 100 million
vehicle miles (mvm).
TABLE 1. Comparison of Accident Rates with Statewide Average
Accident Types Statewide Average for
Cliffdale Road Rural Secondary Routes
Total Accident Rate 418.9 344.2
Fatal Accident Rate 2.4 3.5
Non-Fatal with Injury Rate 220.7 164.9
Nighttime Accident Rate 123.4 111.4
Wet Accident Rate 103.2 74.6
A total of 353 accidents were recorded along Cliffdale Road during the analysis
period. Thirty two (32) percent of these accidents were rear-end accidents, 23 percent
involved left turning movements, and 16 percent were ran off road accidents. The estimated
property damage resulting from these accidents was $1,263,597.
The proposed improvements to Cliffdale Road will improve safety. The proposed
cross section will provide five 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes; two through lanes in each direction
and a center turn lane. Adding the center turn lane will reduce rear end accidents, the leading
cause of accidents along the project, and it will reduce left turning movement accidents.
Improvements in the alignment will reduce the running off the road accidents.
E. Benefits to the State Region, and Community
The area along the proposed project is already heavily developed and there are two
schools located around Rim Road. Therefore adding a center turning lane will aid in access to
the existing development and improve conditions for school bus traffic. The improved access
in the area, savings in operating costs, reduced accident potential, reduced travel time, and the
general improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local community,
as well as the State
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Project Terminals
The western project terminus is at the intersection of Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) and
Reilly Road (SR 1403). West of this intersection Cliffdale Road is a six lane facility.
4
The eastern project terminus is at the intersection of Cliffdale Road and US 401
(Raeford Road). East of this intersection Cliffdale Road is a five lane facility.
B. Existing Cross Section
Beginning at Reilly Road, Cliffdale Road is a six lane facility that quickly transitions
to predominantly a two-lane, 6.6 meter (22 foot), roadway with variable grassed shoulder
widths. There are several sections along the project where center left turn lanes or exclusive
right turn lanes have been added to accommodate high turning volumes. However, the
through movements are constrained to two lanes throughout the project. The project ends at
the US 401 intersection, where Cliffdale Road is three lanes.
C. Route Classification
Cliffdale Road is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
D. Right-of-Way and Access Control
The right-of-way (ROW) along Cliffdale Road is generally 18.0 meters (60.0 feet)
with the exception of the last 336.0 meters (1100 feet) approaching US 401 where it becomes
24.0 meters (80 feet). There is no control of access along this section of Cliffdale Road.
E. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal alignment along the studied section of Cliffdale Road is poor. The
vertical alignment along this section of Cliffdale Road is rolling.
F. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along Cliffdale Road is 55 mph from Reilly Road to Prestige
Boulevard (SR 3465). From Prestige Boulevard to US 401 the existing speed limit along
Cliffdale Road is 45 mph.
G. Intersections and Type of Control
There are many roads, residential driveways, and commercial entrances which
intersect Cliffdale Road along the subject section. All of these roads and driveways intersect
Cliffdale Road at grade. Signals exist at the following intersections: Reilly Road (1403),
Prestige Boulevard (SR 3465), Rim Road (SR 1402), and US 401 (Raeford Road). All other
intersections along the studied section are stop sign controlled.
H. Railroad Involvement
No railroads cross the studied section of Cliffdale Road.
I. Structures
Cliffdale Road crosses one structure along the studied section of the proposed project.
Approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles) west of Reilly Road (SR 1403), Bridge Number 73 crosses
over Bones Creek. Constructed in 1968, this bridge has a very low sufficiency rating of 16.5,
compared to a rating of 100.0 for a new bridge
Degree of Roadside Interference
The area along the proposed project is heavily developed. Development is primarily
residential with some commercial areas at the Rim Road intersection and near each end of the
project.
K. Utilities
Utility conflicts along the studied section are considered high in severity. Aerial
power and cable lines are located along Cliffdale Road throughout the project corridor.
Underground water, phone, cable, power, sanitary sewer, and natural gas lines are also present
in the project corridor.
L. Sidewalks
Presently no sidewalks exist along the studied section.
M. Bicycles
The subject section of Cliffdale Road is not currently a designated bicycle route.
There are no exclusive bicycle lanes or trails along the existing roadway. However, this
section is proposed as a bicycle route once improvements are made.
N. School Bus Data
A total of 25 school buses travel along Cliffdale Road, which creates 50 trips per day.
The generators of these buses are the E. E. Miller and Bill Hefner Elementary Schools located
in the area of the Rim Road intersection.
IV. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
A. Length of the Proposed Project
The proposed project is approximately 7.7 km (4.8 miles) in length.
6
B. Design Speed
The design speed will be a minimum of 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.
C. Cross Section
The recommended cross section is a five-lane, 20.4 meter (68.0 foot), face to face curb
and gutter roadway. This section will provide a continuous center left turn lane and two
through travel lanes in each direction with wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. The
recommended pavement marking is for a 3.6 meter (12.0 foot) center turn lane, 3.6 meter
(12.0 foot) inside travel lanes, and 4.2 meter (14.0 foot) outside travel lanes.
D. Right-of-Way
It is recommended that the proposed improvement be constructed on 30.5 meters
(100.0 feet) of right-of-way. Temporary construction easements will be required at some
locations to contain construction.
E. Access Control
Control of access is proposed along Cliffdale Road in the vicinity of the proposed
interchange with the Fayetteville Outer Loop. However, no additional control of access is
recommended for the project.
F. Bicycles
The NCDOT Bicycle Program has recommended special accommodations for bicycles
on this project. Cliffdale Road is listed in the incidental needs section of the NCDOT Bicycle
TIP as needing wide outside lanes for bicycle safety. Due to the speed and number of vehicles
per day along Cliffdale Road it is recommended that the AASHTO standard 4.2 meter (14-
foot) curb lanes be provided within a 20.4 meter (68-foot) curb and gutter section.
G. Landscape Planting
In accordance with the NCDOT Highway Landscape Planting policy, funding for
landscaping is included in the construction cost estimate for this project; no special
landscaping is proposed as a part of this project.
H. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections are at grade except for the proposed grade separation at the proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop. The intersections of Reilly Road, Prestige Boulevard, Rim Road,
and US 401 with Cliffdale Road will remain signalized. All other intersections will remain
stop sign controlled.
1. Sidewalks
The City of Fayetteville has requested that sidewalks be installed on one side of the
proposed widening from Hoke Loop Road to Prestige Boulevard. This request was
considered under the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy. According to the policy, the NCDOT may
share the incremental cost of constructing the pedestrian facilities if the "intent of the criteria"
are met. The NCDOT will pay a matching share (in this case 60%) of incidental pedestrian
facility total construction costs up to a cap of no more than 2 percent of the total project
construction cost.
This project does meet the "need" criteria according to the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy
Guidelines. Based on this policy, the maximum funding allowed by NCDOT is 2 percent of
the total construction cost. The revised total construction cost of the project is $11,500,000,
giving a funding cap of $230,000. The total cost of the proposed sidewalk is approximately
$78,000. NCDOT's portion of the cost is 60%, or $46,800; the City of Fayetteville is
responsible for 40%, or $31,200.
Bridge and Culvert Work Required
Two major streams will be crossed by the proposed widening of Cliffdale Road to a
five lane curb and gutter facility. The first will require the replacement of Bridge Number 73.
It is recommended the existing bridge located at Bones Creek (2.4 km (1.5 miles) west of
Reilly Road) be replaced with a triple 3.7 m x 2.4 m (12.0 ft. x 8.0 ft.) reinforced concrete box
culvert (RCBC) at the existing location and with the same roadway elevation. Construction of
a temporary on site detour will likely be required to maintain traffic during construction.
The second stream crossing occurs at an unnamed tributary to Bones Creek
approximately 0.9 km (0.57 miles) west of the Cliffdale Road and Rim Road intersection.
The existing drainage structure, a reinforced concrete pipe, is proposed to be replaced with a
single barrel RCBC.
K. Special Permits
It is anticipated that the proposed project will be authorized under a Nationwide Permit
33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
8
L. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be 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).
M. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as part of the this widening project.
N. Estimate of Cost
Construction $11,500,000.00*
Right-of-Way $11,625,000.00**
Total Cost $23,125,000.00
* Includes engineering and contingencies.
** Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Five Lane Facility (Recommended)
The recommended alignment consists of widening Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) to a five-
lane facility from Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road). The recommended cross
section is a five-lane, 20.4 meter (68.0 foot), face to face, curb and gutter roadway. This
section will provide a continuous center left turn lane and two through travel lanes in each
direction with wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycles. The recommended pavement
marking is for a 3.6 meter (12.0 foot) center lane, 3.6 meter (12.0 foot) inside travel lanes, and
4.2 meter (14.0 foot) outside travel lanes. The proposed widening on existing alignment is
part of the Fayetteville Urban Area thoroughfare plan. The current total estimated cost of the
project is $23,125,000.
B. Four Lane Facility
Cliffdale Road is heavily developed residentially and has some commercial uses.
Therefore, due to the extent and type of the existing development, a 4-lane divided section
would not be considered a prudent or feasible alternative.
C. Public Transportation
The City of Fayetteville's public transportation system, Fayetteville Area System of
Transit (FAST Buses), does not serve the area of the project. Expanding the present public
transportation system could temporarily relieve some congestion and increase the level of
9
service along Cliffdale Road. However, as traffic increases in the future the current rate of
accidents will also increase and the level of service of the facility will decrease. Therefore,
public transportation is not considered to be a prudent alternative.
D. "No-Build"
The Fayetteville Urban Area (FUA) thoroughfare plan classifies Cliffdale Road as a
major thoroughfare. Construction of the proposed project will complete a link in the FUA
thoroughfare plan. Currently there is a high accident rate along the proposed project, which
causes a definite safety concern. The current accident rate will only continue to rise as traffic
increases. The "do nothing" alternative is not considered reasonable or feasible and is not
recommended. Therefore, the "no build" was rejected since construction of this project will
provide a safe, more efficient route in this area.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located within the jurisdictions of both Cumberland
County and the City of Fayetteville. A joint City-County Planning Commission is responsible
for long range planning and land use controls for both jurisdictions. The Planning
Commission is currently working to complete the County's first comprehensive plan, which
has been underway for some time. The plan is expected to be completed and adopted by the
County and all of its municipalities sometime in 1997. Until then, the 1978 Land Use Plan
serves as the area's primary land use guidance tool, along with the city and county zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations.
B. Existing Land Use
The project area is a mix of multiple land uses. Where the project begins at Reilly
Road (SR 1403), the land use is primarily composed of heavy commercial with some single
family and multi family residential and office\institutional uses mixed in. Continuing east,
towards Town Creek Drive (SR 3530), the land use is divided into large areas of agriculture
on the south side of the corridor and then becomes heavily wooded and undeveloped with
areas of mobile homes and other scattered residential uses.
From Town Creek Drive to the Rim Road (SR 1402) intersection, the project is
composed of undeveloped areas with single family residential uses on the north side of the
corridor. There is a BP service station, a Pantry convenience store, and a Food Lion at the
intersection of Rim Road. From Rim Road to Buhmann Drive (SR 2690) project area
becomes wooded and undeveloped with scattered residential, commercial, and
office\institutional uses.
10
From Buhmann Drive to the end of the project the land use is also a mixture with some
small wooded areas interspersed along the corridor. The area is primarily residential with
pockets of commercial and office\institutional uses, as well as an agricultural plot north of
Lowell Harris Road (SR 2749) on the east side of the corridor.
Approaching US 401, the project terminus, the land use is concentrated with single
family residential off of Rivendale and Loxley Drives on the west side, and Heartland Avenue
on the east side of the project corridor. At the intersection of US 401 there is more
commercial uses.
C. Current Zoning
The current zoning map for the project area indicates that the entire project area is
zoned for residential uses with commercial and office\institutional uses possible.
D. Future Land Use
According to the 1978 Land Use Plan, medium to high density residential
development is the predominant land use designated for the project area. Some agricultural
uses may continue in the short term, but development is anticipated to bring more urbanized
land uses into the project area in the future. The Fayetteville Outer Loop is expected to
connect with the project corridor near Reilly Road where an interchange is to be constructed.
Highway commercial uses are expected to grow from this interchange.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
and important farmland soils. The Act exempts from consideration land which has been
developed or is.committed to urban development by the local governing body. The area of the
proposed widening is currently being uses for agricultural uses in area, but as stated above, the
project area is rapidly being developed and growth in urbanized land uses is expected to
continue. Therefore, no further consideration of impacts to farmland soils is required.
VII. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Social Effects
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County. Cumberland County is
located in the southeastern section of the state and is bounded by Sampson, Bladen,
Robeson, Hoke, Harnett, and Johnston Counties.
II
According to the 1990 Census Data, Cumberland County has a total population
of 274,556. The largest urban area in the county is the City of Fayetteville, North
Carolina. Fayetteville, according to the corrected version of the 1990 Census Data has
a total population of 75,850.
The neighborhood along the project corridor is characterized by a mixture of
residential and commercial uses with some office\institutional development. Some of
the development appears to be close to Cliffdale Road. A survey of the proposed
project made during mid evening, revealed traffic within the proposed project corridor
was extremely heavy.
2. Economic Assessment
The estimated preliminary data for September 1992 from the North Carolina
Preliminary Civilian Labor Force, indicated Cumberland County had a labor force of
103,700. Out of that number, 97,190 persons were employed. This left an
unemployment total for Cumberland County of 6,510 or 6.3 percent.
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford
Road) is predominately a residential area, and it appears to be moving more in that
direction. Commercial development is concentrated at the beginning and ending of the
project as well as around Rim Road. Because of the existing traffic during peak hours
of the day, motorists find it somewhat difficult getting in and out of the various
subdivisions and commercial centers along this section. The proposed widening will
improve both the accessibility and visibility to the subdivision entrances and the
businesses along Cliffdale Road. Therefore businesses of every variety located along
the project corridor stand to benefit from the proposed widening. It will have a
positive impact on the environment by eliminating some of the impediments of travel
caused by traffic jams. There will be improved efficiency for motorists in reaching
their destinations along the project corridor.
Community Impacts
The proposed project will not split any neighborhoods, it will not disrupt
community cohesion or interfere with any public facilities. There are no public
facilities located along the project corridor. However, the Cliffdale Day Care and
Preschool and the Middle Creek Creative School are both located along the middle of
the proposed project.
Based on the right-of-way report prepared by the NCDOT, it is estimated that
the recommended alternative will impact six residences and no businesses. One of the
relocation's involves a minority. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any
adverse affects or disproportional impacts on any social groups in the project area.
12
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing
will be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects.
Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs.
The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner
or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to
provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to
live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project
for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation
assistance advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to
displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written
notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be
offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial
means of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to
their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
13
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive
an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement
housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving
existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer
will also supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering
assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys,
appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to
owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and
incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250,
to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental
expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based
upon what the state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state
or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement
housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of
time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as
income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of
determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the
Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and
the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
B. Cultural Resources
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 at 36 CFR Part 800.
14
Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) on properties for this was determined, and the area
was reviewed by a NCDOT staff person. The North Carolina State Preservation Office
(SHPO) was consulted as part of the process for identifying historic architectural and
archaeological resources located in the APE. Based on a search of the SHPO's files they are
aware of no structures of historical or architectural importance or any known archaeological
sites. Based on the SHPO's knowledge of the APE, 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. Therefore, the SHPO recommended that no surveys of
historic architectural resources nor any archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project (see Appendix B).
C. Air Oualitv 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 (HC), particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and 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
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
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).
15
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,
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 gasoline's. 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
16
annual average daily traffic projections and the highest volume along the project was used in
the CAUQHC 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 was determined to be the receptor #70 at a distance
of 15.0 meters from the proposed centerline of the median. The "build" and "no-build" one-
hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 2000 and 2020 are
shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2. Worst-case CO concentration receptor
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Sensitive Build No Build
Receptor 2000 2020 2000 2020
R-70 2.9 3.1 2.5 2.6
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum permitted
for I -hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no
violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less
than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See
Appendix A, Tables A 1 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
17
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.
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from US 401 (Raeford Road) to Reilly Road (SR 1403) in
Cumberland County on noise levels in the immediate project area (see Appendix A, Figure
N 1). 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.
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. See Appendix A, Table N 1 for examples of
noise pressure levels listed in dBA.
Review of Table N 1 (see Appendix A) 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:
18
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.
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 judgment 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.
2. Noise Abatement 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). See Appendix A, Table
N2, summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented. 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.
19
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level
information 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
Cliffdale Road measured at 15 meters from the roadway ranged from 60 to 67 dBA
respectively. See Appendix A, Figure N 1 and Table N3 for the ambient measurement
sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels.
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
1.1 to 3.3 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.
4. Procedure 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 Cliffdale
Road from a two-lane section to a five-lane curb and gutter section from US 401 to
Reilly Road. 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" topographical
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
20
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 (see Appendix A). 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.
5. Traffic 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 (see Appendix A. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be
given to receptors which fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, 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
CE's, FONSI's, ROD'S, 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.
21
See Appendix A, Table N5 for the maximum number of receptors in each
activity category that are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown
in. 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 39 impacted receptors
due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the 72 and
67 dBA noise level contours are 18 and 36 meters, respectively, from the center of the
proposed roadway. 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.
Table N6 (see Appendix A) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. There are no receptors predicted
to be impacted by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. The predicted noise
level increases for this project range from 3 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are
heard, it is possible barely to 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.
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors. There are 39 impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project
area.
a. Highway Ali ng_ment
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. Changing the highway alignment is not a
viable alternative for noise abatement.
b. Traffic System Management 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
22
abatement due to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the
proposed roadway.
C. 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 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.
7. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were
also considered. If the proposed project is not constructed there will be 11 impacted
receptors due to highway traffic noise. Future traffic noise levels will increase in the
range of 2 to +6 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. This small increase to the present noise level would be barely
noticeable to the people working and living in the area.
23
8. 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.
9. Summary
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. Natural Resources
Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used
in this pre-field investigation of the study area include: US Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Cliffdale), NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area
(1:2000), and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map of
Cumberland county. Water resource information was obtained from publications of
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and
from the Environmental Sensitivity Base map of Cumberland County (NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis 1992). Information concerning the occurrence
of federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate species and the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT biologists Logan Williams and Jim Hauser on August 30, 1995. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation techniques: 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).
24
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area are discussed below.
Soils types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of
flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Cumberland County occurs in two physiographic regions- the coastal plain and
the sandhills. The proposed project is located in the coastal plain physiographic region.
This system is described as having a gently undulating topography. Stream systems
here are less extensive and more shallow than in the sandhills region. Collectively,
these factors result in an area that is more poorly drained than the nearby sandhills
region. The average elevation throughout the project area ranges from 60 m (200 ft) to
75 m (240 ft) above mean sea level.
a. Soils
Table 3 provides an inventory of specific soil types which occur in the
project area.
TABLE 3. County Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Symbol Mapping Unit Name Percent Slope Hydric Classification
Ly sandy loam nearly level B
NoA Norfolk loamy sand 0-2 -
BaD Blaney loamy sand 8-15 -
FaB Faceviulle loamy sand 2-6 -
WaB Wagram loamy sand 0-6 -
VaD Vaucluse loamy sand 8-15 -
Ud Udorthents, loamy none -
JT Johnston loam A A
Notes: 1. "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as major components.
2. "B" denotes hydric soils or soils that have wet spots.
3 ...... denotes nonhydric soils.
The eight specific soil types found in the project vicinity are listed below. A brief
description of each soil type is also given:
Lynchburg sandy loam- A nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil found on broad,
smooth flats of uplands.
Norfolk loamy sand- A well drained soil on broad smooth flats of uplands.
Blaney loamy sand- A well drained soil found on side slopes and narrow ridges of
uplands.
25
Faceville loamy sand- A well drained soil found on convex ridges and smooth side
slopes of uplands.
Wagram loamy sand- A well drained soil on broad, smooth flats and side slopes of
uplands.
Vaucluse loamy sand- A well drained soil on side slopes of uplands.
Udorthents, loamy- Areas where the soil has been removed.
Johnston loam- A nearly level, very poorly drained soil along major
drainageways.
Table 4 compares the ranges of potential forest productivity for the
soils in the project area. The forest productivity for soils in the project area is
fair to good.
Table 4. Potential Forest Productivity of Soils in the Project Area
Site index
Soil Series loblolly longleaf
Lynchburg sandy loam 86 74
Norfolk loamy sand 86 68
Blaney loamy sand 76 66
Faceville loamy sand 82 65
Wagram loamy sand 82 67
Vaucluse loamy sand 76 -
Johnston loam 96 -
Note: Site Index is defined as the expected average height in feet of dominant trees in an
even aged stand at 50 years of age.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources
likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses
physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best
Usage Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these
water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
There are five stream crossings within the proposed project area (see
Appendix A, Figure 5). The streams are located in the Cape Fear River Basin.
A brief description of each stream is given below. Specific information on the
water resources in the project area is summarized in Table 5.
26
• Tributary 1 is identified as a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (NHP
data Base). This stream arises near Cliffdale Road south of the Fort
Bragg Military Reservation. It flows in a southwesterly direction
approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) to its confluence with Bones Creek.
• Bones Creek originates approximately 26 km (16 mi) northwest of the
project study area. It flows in a southeasterly direction to its confluence
with Little Rockfish Creek. Lake Rim, a stocked lake, is located
approximately 3 km (2 mi) downstream from the project study area.
• Tributary 3 arises northwest of Cliffdale Road and flows approximately
1.6 km (1 mi) in a southeasterly direction to its confluence with Bones
Creek. This tributary has been channelized and occurs in a heavily
disturbed area.
• Tributary 4 arises approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) north of the project
Lynchburg study area. It flows in a southeasterly direction
approximately 5 km (3 mi) to its confluence with Lake Rim and Bones
Creek.
• Tributary 5 arises northwest of the project study area and flows
approximately 2 km (1 mi) to its confluence with Tributary 4. This
stream flows in a southeasterly direction.
• Tributary 6 arises northwest of SR 1400 and flows approximately 3 km
(2 mi) in an easterly direction to its confluence with Lake Rim.
TABLE 5. Water Resources Characteristics
Stream Width Depth Substrate Flow Clarity
Tributary 1 0.9(3.0) 0.3(1.0) sa slow fair
Bones Creek 4.3(15.0) 1.2(4.0) sa slow fair
Tributary 3 1.2(4.0) 3.0(0.9) sa slow fair
Tributary 4 1.5(5.0) 0.9(3.0) sa mod fair
Tributary 5 0.9(3.0) 0.3(1.0) sa slow fair
Tributary 6 0.6(2.0) 0.3(1.0) sa slow fair
Notes: Values are given in meters (feet).
The abbreviations sa denotes sand.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division
of Environmental Management (DEM). Any unnamed stream which is not
named in the schedule of stream classifications carries the same classification
as that assigned to the stream segment to which it is tributary. All streams
27
crossed by the proposed project are tributaries to Bones Creek. The DEM
classification of Bones Creek (Index Number 18-31-24-2) is "C" from its
source to its confluence with Little Rockfish Creek. Class "C" uses include
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-1 or WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed
by the DEM and is 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
of these organisms are reflections of water quality. A BMAN sample was
collected from an unnamed tributary to Bones Creek on Cliffdale Road in
January 1989. The BMAN classification for the unnamed tributary to Bones
Creek is currently recorded as Good-Fair.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Service
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There
are no registered dischargers for Bones Creek in the project vicinity.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Quality
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to water
resources such as:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions
to surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction and toxic spills.
Recommendations:
• Best Management Practices are recommended and should be
implemented prior to construction and maintained throughout the
life of the project.
28
• Non-point sediment sources should be identified and efforts made
to control sediment runoff.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study areas as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution
between biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography,
hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each
community are described and discussed. Fauna observed during the site visit are
denoted with an asterisk (*). For a complete listing of flora and fauna known to occur
in the study area the references in section 5.0 should be consulted.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism
will include the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Community descriptions are based on observations of the general
vegetation in or near the project right of way. Four distinct terrestrial
communities were identified in the project study area: maintained/disturbed,
mixed pine/hardwood forest, mesic pine forest, and bottomland hardwood
forest. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire
range of terrestrial communities discussed and may not be mentioned for each
community located in the project study area.
Maintained/Disturbed Community
Maintained/disturbed lands are intensively managed where human
structures or activities preclude natural plant succession. Roadside shoulders,
agricultural fields, powerline easements, residential and commercial
developments comprise this community
Roadside shoulders, maintained by mowing, give rise to a rich
assemblage of herbaceous plants. Lawn grass (Festuca spp.) and bermuda
grass (Cynodon dactylon) are prevalent with some encroachment of annual
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Queen Anne's lace (Dauca carota) and
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). In some areas there is intrusion of sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens), and mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) into the
29
roadside habitat. Some of these same plants are found adjacent to agricultural
fields and along powerline easements. In addition, goldenrod (Solidago
altissima), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), buttonweed (Diodia teres),
and Richardia (Richardia brasiliensis) are abundant. In more disturbed areas
around an old home site and vacant lots, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
iaaponica), privet (Lig_ustrum sinense), spirea (S irea sp.) and/or blackberry
(Rubus sp.) form dense thickets. Chinaberry (Melia azebarach) and southern
red oak ( uercus rubra) are also common around the abandoned home site.
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide
rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover.
Common mammals associated with ecotones are least shrew (Crypototis
parva), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), hispid cottonrat
(Sigmodon his idus), and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Agricultural fields and other open areas adjacent to forested
communities support a myriad of bird life. European starling (Sternus
vu_ lgaris), *Carolina wren (Thaothorus ludovicianus), *robin (Turdus
migratorious), *mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), *northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), *common grackle ( uiscula ui? scula), *eastern phoebe
(Sayornis h? eobe), and *turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) were observed in the
project study area. In addition, eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and
eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) may utilize this community by perching on
telephone wires or fences adjacent to the maintained community where they
forage for insects. The *red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) is an important
predator known to forage in this community preying on rats, mice and other
rodents.
The eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), inhabits open, sunny
situations such as building sites and fence rows usually in close proximity to
trees. The southern toad (Bufo terrestris) is an example of an amphibian that
may inhabit disturbed areas.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Small tracts of mesic mixed hardwood forest are found in the study
area. Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) and white oak ( uercus alba) share
the canopy with mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa) and water oak (Q.
ni a). The understory consists of red maple (Acer rubrum) and black cherry
(Prunus serotina). The dominant shrubs in this community include horse sugar
(Symplocus tinctoria), sweet pepperbush and privet. The herbaceous, and vine
layer supports cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera 'ate op nica).
30
Upland forests of the area are fragmented and are adjacent to disturbed
areas, thus the faunal composition is similar to that occurring in the
maintained/disturbed community. Species more commonly associated with
upland forest include white-footed mouse (Perom. sscus leucopus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and *gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis).
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
These mesic (nonwetland) sites are flat to gently rolling coastal plain
sediments. The open canopy consists primarily of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
The midstory and understory are comprised of Spanish oak ( uercus falcata
var. falcata), water oak, willow oak (Q. p hellos), black cherry, mockernut
hickory. Saplings of these same trees comprise the shrub layer. Also present
are flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), blackgum (Nyssa s lv}% atiea), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), and dwarf post oak (Q. stellata var. mar ag_retta). Poison
oak (Toxicodendron toxicodendron) is common in this community.
The fauna of pine forested communities may consist of many of the
same species listed for the other communities in the study area. In addition,
brown creeper (Certhia familiaris), pine warbler (Dendroica Rings), and red-
headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) are common in pine forests.
White-tailed deer, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoar eg nteus) and Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginian a) are also frequently found in this community type.
In addition, the mesic pine forest may support the southern toad, pine
woods treefrog (Hula femoralis), and the scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis
trian ug lum). The scarlet kingsnake is often found in pine flatwoods of the
coastal plain hiding under loose bark or in logs and stumps.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Narrow strips of bottomland forest border the banks of Bones Creek
and its tributaries throughout the study area. Dominant canopy species found
here include loblolly pine, tulip poplar and blackgum (Nyssa aquatics). The
mid-story and shrub layer is comprised mainly of sapling species from the
canopy. Honeysuckle, red maple, possumhaw (Viburnum dentatum), American
holly (Ilex o acs), dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata) are also commonly found.
The bottomland forest provides excellent habitat for an assortment of
birds and mammals. Birds often associated with these communities include,
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), song sparrow (Melospiza
georgiana), and northern cardinal. Yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica
coronata), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), Prothonotary warbler
31
(Prothonotaria citrea) and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) may also
be found in this community during certain seasons of the year. A bird of prey
commonly found in bottomlands and alluvial forests is the barred owl (Strix
varia). The barred owl preys on rodents, insects, small birds, frogs and
sometimes fish.
Mammals which may frequent the bottomland forest include white-
footed mouse and raccoon. In addition, *white-tailed deer and gray squirrel
may also forage in or near this community. The Virginia opossum is likely to
be found in wooded bottomlands adjacent to streams and swamps which are
located near meadows and fields, where they find shelter in hollow trees or
similar dry refuges.
Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the
bottomland forest. Spring peeper (Hula crucifer) and little grass frog
(Limnaoedus ocularis) are frequently found in bottomland hardwood forests
and swamps. The spring peeper breeds in semipermanent pools during the
spring and the little grass frog breeds in association with spring and summer,
rains. The spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) and the slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosa) are common in bottomland forest which are
not subject to frequent flooding. The rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), worm snake
(Carphophis amoenus), and ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) are found
throughout the state especially in moist forested communities. Snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina) and box turtle (Terrapene caroling) may also occur in
this community. Copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix), which are important
predators of small mammals, may occur in the project vicinity.
b. Aquatic Community
The primary water body in the project area is Bones Creek and its
tributaries. Physical characteristics of the water bodies and conditions of the
water resource affect faunal composition of the aquatic communities.
Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence
aquatic communities.
A variety of biological organisms utilize typical coastal plain stream
communities. The redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), prefers slow streams with
submerged vegetation similar to those found in the project vicinity. The redfin
pickerel is known to leave the stream and enter a flooded swamp to forage for
fish, frogs and amphibians in waters as shallow as 25-50 mm (1-2 in). A
number of species of sunfish may also utilize the aquatic communities in the
project area. The mud sunfish (Acantharchus op mitus), banded sunfish
(Enneacanthus obesus), redbreast sunfish (Le omis auritus) and bluegill
(L.macrochirus) are common in the Cape Fear River drainage. These sunfish
generally feed on scuds, crustaceans and the larvae of aquatic insects. In
32
addition, the yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), johnny darter (Etheostoma
ni rum), and sawcheek darter (E.serriferum) may be common in streams
located in project vicinity. Two anadromous fish species, alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) may utilize the shallow
tributaries of Bones Creek as spawning habitat.
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water dependent for completion of
larval stages in their life cycle. Some species are totally aquatic. Some water
dependent salamanders likely to occur in the project area are two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata) and southern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus auriculatus). Lesser siren (Siren intermedia) and dwarf
mudpuppy (Necturus punctatus) may also be found in some of the small
streams in the project area. Green frog (Rana clamitans)and pickerel frog
(Rana palustris) likely inhabit some of the grassy areas along the streams.
Habitat for the redbellied water snake (Nerodia erythro ag ster) and
banded water snake (N. fasciata) occurs in the aquatic communities of the
project study area. Both species of Nerodia are known to feed on fish and
amphibians.
The spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata)and the eastern musk turtle
(Sternotherus odoratus) may be locally abundant in some of the shallow
sluggish streams of the area, although none were observed during the site visit.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
qualifies and quantifies 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 communities. Table 6
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire
proposed right-of-way of 30 m (100 ft). Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
33
TABLE 6. Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY APPROXIMATE IMPACTS
Maintained/Disturbed 13.0(34.0)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood 1.5(4.0)
Mesic Pine 1.0(2.5)
Bottomland Forest 1.0(2.5)
TOTAL 16.0(40.0)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Both permanent and temporary impacts to terrestrial communities will
occur in the form of habitat reduction in the process of clearing, grading and
surfacing during construction. Portions of the maintained/disturbed roadside
community will be completely destroyed during construction, but will
eventually re-establish itself after construction. The edges of the other
communities will be taken, thus reducing a small part of the total natural
habitat of these types in the project area.
There will be some loss of habitat for small animal species, predators
and scavengers that utilize open areas. There will be a reduction in the
available habitat for animals that require forest and early successional habitats.
Rabbits and many other small animals, as well as some large animals,
frequent roadsides. Some animals such as rabbits and birds build their nests in
roadside cover. Road construction will destroy foraging and nesting habitat for
some species, while actually improving habitat for others, especially grass
eating rodents like voles (Microtus sp.) and hispid cottonrat. Ground dwellers
and slow moving organisms will temporarily decrease in numbers in the wake
of highway construction.
Potential exists for construction to damage forested land outside the
ROW and construction limits. This damage could potentially include:
• soil compaction and root exposure and injury
• placing fill dirt over tree root systems
• spillage of harmful substances
• skinning of trees by machinery.
Precautions need to be taken in order to avoid these potential impacts.
Extension of culverts and other in-stream activities are potential sources
of serious stream modifications. Extreme care must be exercised during these
activities. It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic
communities will occur from increased sedimentation and loss of habitat.
Sedimentation covers benthic organisms inhibiting their abilities to feed and
34
obtain oxygen. Filter feeders may be covered by the sedimentation, thus
preventing their ability to feed. Increased sediment loads and suspended
particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light
penetration in the water column, reduction of dissolved oxygen and alterations
in water temperature. Increased light penetration from removal of streamside
vegetation may also increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less
oxygen and results in a reduction of aquatic life dependent on high oxygen
concentrations.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity
and runoff pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can
seriously reduce water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally extremely
sensitive to these inputs. It is recommended that fish spawning times be
considered when staging construction. In stream activities should be
minimized during the spring migration period of anadromous fish. Some
stream crossing structures, particularly culverts, have been demonstrated
to impede normal upstream migrations of various fish species and thus
keeping them from reaching spawning habitat. Bridges and other
spanning structures are preferred where practical. Stringent employment
of Best Management Practices is highly advocated during the construction
phase of this project to lessen impacts to aquatic organisms.
4. Special Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
a. Waters of the United States
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 in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the US
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria
specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For
an area to be considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must be
met; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of
35
hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including; saturated
soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water
marks on trees, buttressed tree bases, and surface roots.
Five jurisdictional wetland communities occur along Bones Creek and
its tributaries. The greatest wetland impacts will occur to the wetlands located
on the new location section of the project. The Division of Environmental
Management(DEM)has instituted a numerical rating system from 0-100 to
gauge wetland quality. The fourth version of the rating system assesses
wetlands on the basis of water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant
removal, aquatic life, recreational and educational values of a wetland
community. Table 7 gives the Cowardin et al classifications, DEM wetland
ratings and estimated impacts for each wetland in the study area. See
Appendix A, Figure 2 for the location of each of the wetlands.
TABLE 7. Wetland Communities located in the study area
Site Classification DEM Rating Impacts
W1 PF04B 86 0.2(0.5)
Bones Creek PFO1 B 56 0.04(0.1)
W2 PF04B 50 0.01(0.02)
W3 PF01B 52 0.02(0.05)
W4 PF04B 48 0.02(0.05)
W5 PF04/1B 52 0.04(0.1)
Total 0.3(0.8)
Notes:
• Values cited are in hectares (acres).
• PF04B denotes Palustrine(P)Forested(FO)Needle-Leaved Evergreen(4)Saturated(B).
• PF01 B denotes Palustrine(P)Forested(FO)Broad-Leaved Deciduous(1)Saturated(B).
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Roadway widening, replacement of existing culverts and bridge
rehabilitation may involve discharge of excavated or fill material into the
waters of one or all the creeks which cross the project area. Approximately 0.3
ha (0.8 ac) of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted. A wetland delineation
was not conducted during the site investigation, therefore the impacts
given are only approximations.
C. Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) may be applicable at most
stream crossings found in the project study area. This permit authorizes
construction provided the following conditions are met:
36
1. the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing.
2. the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited to a filled area no
more than 0.1 ha (1 /3 ac).
3. no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill for the roadway
can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
4. the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and
movement of aquatic organisms, and;
5. the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project for crossing of a
Water of the United States.
The final permit decision rests with the COE.
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).
d. Miti ag tion
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss
of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: Avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing
impacts, rectifying impact-, (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a
1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practical in terms of
cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Some impacts to Waters of the United States will occur as a result
of the proposed project. A reasonable effort should be made to avoid
wetland areas. Since these wetlands occur in heavily developed
37
agricultural and residential areas, these wetlands likely serve an
important function in pollutant removal from the surrounding landscape,
thus buffering Bones Creek.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.
Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications
and permit conditions.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters and
wetlands impacted by the proposed project include:
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of median width, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths.
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary
ground cover during construction.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMP's for
the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to
water bodies.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such
actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge
site.
Authorizations under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the EPA and the
COE. Final decisions concerning compensatory mitigation rests with the COE.
38
e. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been 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-protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state
laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 2, 1997, the FWS lists 5
federally-protected species for Cumberland County. Table 8 lists the protected
species and their status.
TABLE 8. Federally-Protected Species for Cumberland County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Neonympha mitchelli francisci Saint Frances' Satyr E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Lindera melissifolia pondberry E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia rough-leaved loosestrife E
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E
Alligator Mississippiensis American Alligator T(S/A)
Isotria Medeoloides Small-Whorled Pogonia T
Rhus Mihauxii Mis iaux's Sumac E
Note: "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 that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" Denotes 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).
Neonympha mitchelli francisci (Saint Francis' satyr) E
Animal Family: Nymphalidae
Federally Listed: Emergency listed April 18, 1994
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
39
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 are acidic and ephemeral.
Succession of these sites often leads to either a pocosin or swamp dominated
forest. The larval host of the Saint Francis' satyr is thought to be grasses,
sedges and rushes.
The annual life cycle of the saint Francis' Satyr consists of two adult
flights or generations. The first broods emerge around May 5 and are gone by
June 6. The second flight period begins approximately July 26 and lasts until
around August 21. Weather may influence these dates by delaying the
emergence by as much as a month during unseasonably cool temperatures.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Saint Francis' satyr requires wide, wet meadows dominated by
sedges and other wetland graminoids. Habitat of this type is not located within
the project study area. There are no records of the Saint Francis' satyr in the
NHP data base listings of rare species and unique habitats for the project study
area. Therefore, no impacts to this species will occur as a result of project
construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
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.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine (Pinus alp ustris), 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
200.0 hectares (500.0 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
40
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
incrustation 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
A field survey of the project study area was conducted by Logan
Williams and Chris Murray (NCDOT Biologists) on February 14, 1997.
Survey methodology involved the examination of aerial mapping to locate
suitable habitat. In addition, the project was surveyed by driving the length of
the project to look for habitat. Once habitat was located, it was surveyed on
foot by the above mentioned biologists. The only suitable habitat in the form
of forested stands containing 50% pine, lacking a thick understory, and
contiguous with other stands found on the proposed project is located on the
new location portion of the project adjacent to agricultural lands. No RCWs or
nesting cavities were found during the survey. A review of the Natural
Heritage Program database of rare plants and unique habitats was conducted.
The database contains records of RCW on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation,
within (1 mi) 1.6 km of the project area. In a personal communication with
Fort Bragg representative (Terry Myers, Senior Wildlife Biologist) on March 6,
1997, he indicated that extensive surveys of the military base have been
conducted and that no known cavity trees are located within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of
the proposed project. A review of the NHP database of unique and protected
species revealed no federally-protected species n or near the project study area.
Given the results of the survey it can be concluded that RCW will not be
impacted by project construction. This information is valid only under current
design criterion, if the design is changed then this issue will need to be
reevaluated.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) E
Plant Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
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.
41
Pondberry 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 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
Habitat for pondberry exists in the project study area in some of the
lowland habitats. There are no records of pondberry in the NHP data base
listings of rare species and unique habitats for the project study area. Logan
Williams conducted a plant by plant survey on September 13, 1996 of all
habitat in the project study area. No Pondberry were found, therefore, it can be
concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
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
Habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is not present in the project study
area. There are no longleaf pine uplands adjacent to pond pine pocosins or
large Carolina bays in the project vicinity. In addition, there are no records of
rough-leaved loosestrife in the NHP data base listings of rare species and
unique habitats for the project study area. Therefore, impacts to this species
will not result from project construction.
42
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) E
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
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
Habitat for American Chaffseed does not exists within the project area.
There are no moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained savannas or ecotonal areas
between peat wetlands and open grass sedge systems within the project study
area. In addition, there are no records of American chaffseed in the NHP data
base listings of rare species and unique habitats for the project study area.
Therefore, impacts to this species will not result from project construction.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) T
Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 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.
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.
43
Bioloical Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the small-whorled pogoniz in the form of "second
growth deciduous-coniferous forests, does not exist 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.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacaridaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June to early July
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases
of the leaflets are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The
flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color and are present in
June. 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 does not compete well with other species, such as
Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the Michaux's sumac exist in the project study area along
roadside shoulders, sandy open woods, right-of-ways, ecotones of forest and
disturbed areas as well as along irregularly disturbed areas. There are no
records of Michaux's sumac in the NHP data base listings of rare species and
unique habitats for the project study area. BIOLOGIST conducted a plant by
plant survey on DATE of all habitat in the project study area. No Michaux's
sumac were found, therefore, it can be concluded that construction of this
project will not impact this species.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 23 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. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently exists to warrant a
44
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 or Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 9 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 lists is provided for information purposes as the
as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future. Surveys for the
species listed in Table 9 were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any
of these species observed.
45
TABLE 9. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species for Cumberland County
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat
Bachman's sparrow
Atlantic pigtoe
Diana fritillary
awned Meadowbeauty
bog spicebush
Boykin's lobelia
conferva pondweed
Georgia leadplant
false coco
loose watermilfoil
panhandle lily
Pickering's morning
glory
pine barrens boneset
pondspice
roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass
sandhills milkvetch
savanna cowbane
smooth bog asphodel
spring-flowering
goldenrod
Venus flytrap
wavy-leaf wild quinine
Well's sandhill pixie-
Aimgphila aestivalis
Fusconaia masoni
Sneyeria diana
Rhexia aristosa*
Linderasubcoriacea
Lobelia boykinii
Potamogeton confervoides
Amorpha georgiana georgiana
Ptero lg_ossaspis ecristata*
Myrioph ly lum laxum
Lilium iridollae
Stylisma p. var. pickeringii
Eupatorium resinosum
Litsea aestivalis
Xris scrabrifolia
Astragalus michauxii
Oxypolis ternata
Tofieldia lg abra
Solidago verna
SC
T
SR
T
E
C
C
E
E
T
C/PT
E
T-SC
C
C
C
W1
C
E-PT
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dionaea muscipula C-SC Yes
Parthenium radfordii W2 No
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. E No
moss brevifolia
white-wicky Kalmia cuneata E-SC No
A review of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare Species and
Unique Habitats reveals that a number of rare plants and animals are located over 1.6
km (1.0 mi) to the north of the proposed project on Fort Bragg Military Reservation.
The most abundant species listed is the red cockaded woodpecker. In addition, several
plant and animal species are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area (Figure
2). These include, Galactia mollis, Tridens carolinianus, Astragalus michauxii and one
record of RCW. Each of the three plants have a North Carolina Status of candidate
"C". A coastal plain small stream swamp (black water subtype) is listed as a natural
community and will be impacted by the proposed new location portion of the project.
46
F. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cumberland County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The Bones Creek is in a designated flood hazard zone and is included in the
detailed study. The tributary crossing and minor stream crossing are not in a designated flood
hazard and are not included in the detailed flood study. Figure 6 (Appendix A) delineates the
established limits of the 100-year floodplain for Bones Creek; however, the floodway limits
are not shown. Figure 7 (Appendix A) delineates the approximate limits of the 100-year
floodplain. The proposed roadway widening and associated drainage improvements will not
have any significant adverse effect on existing floodplains and floodways, nor on the
associated flood hazard.
G. Geological Impact
1. Hazardous Materials/Underground Storaize Tanks
An investigation of the project area was conducted to determine if any hazards
such as underground storage tanks (UST's), hazardous waste sites, dumps, landfills or
other similar sites that may impact construction of the project, cause delays, or create
liabilities. As a result of this study, four facilities with the potential for UST's were
discovered in the project area. A description of these facilities is as follows:
There are three UST's located at the Quick Stop # 102, 7910 Raeford Road,
Fayetteville, NC.
2. There are three UST's located at the Quick Stop #81, 8215 Cliffdale Road,
Fayetteville, NC.
3. There are four UST's located at The Pantry #456, 8191 Cliffdale Road,
Fayetteville, NC.
If acquisition of any of these properties cannot be avoided, a preliminary site
assessment should be performed.
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. Based on reconnaissance and a records search no regulated or unregulated
landfills dumpsites or Superfund sites were identified within the project area.
H. Geodetic Markers
It is anticipated this project will not impact any geodetic markers. However, the N. C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to project construction.
47
Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of the 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.
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. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas
will not be permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval
will not be permitted whey, 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 construction
procedures, including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the
time of construction that will minimize interruption 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.
48
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 and shall describe
construction practices and temporary 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 Federal Aid Program Guide (FAPG), Part 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 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.
VIII. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state and federal
agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental input were sent to the
following agencies and replies were received from those marked with an asterisk (*):
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Defense
U. S. Department of the Interior
49
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Human Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
*N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
Region M Council of Governments
*Cumberland County Commissioner
Mayor of Fayetteville
A citizens informational workshop was held on April 16, 1996 in Fayetteville, N. C. to
inform citizens about the project and to receive any input. Approximately 25 persons attended
the meeting and the majority of them supported the project.
DW/plr
APPENDIX A
• I Srl.
• -m 7111 13p
.26 IM or
0
t
d', ° 71E1
2a"T0
_
! .63
I ) 0 1!I 1
7711
10 134
1441
.11
7711 , L4Z

i1/
an
17 1 't?
/
J
i ' '
771 .

/ .I I
IY9 28

`1344

p
Z?e)
19
1 ?
'
j
1eJ! 4
1
Zx)f
11LL ??
u
o)
R
2
07 °
? o.

J
.o
304
o 3-11
- o

Jot-

1\ /

-
\ l1t!
Ze
END
PROJECT
111 Ll41
I v.
° Iv
r`
C n U ahe • 1 / wade
f IN
?
4
F
et + A N
ay
; 1
? US
I 4 ?
S -
59 - 4 zi
Wonder ll
• "9
'
?
gope M i l s
.,pel 1 cedar Creew
Lena 9
87
21
_
I .JO
/1l44 up ^ r1ll
,L .w
Y
diedda?
/ o
BEGIN / u1 oe
PROJECT)
31! 1 0> >n}
J 0
2e ,111 L341 ) ]1))°. oS I)o
73SI ? 71? c oe I1.
o X00 oS ?oo JS
12e
to 4j?a)'OLY 7773
0
133] Ui' u ? Fr. ..,, a o
P i le/
e01 6'
^ o) 091'7
y 0)
J at 729
bl t
Fie o! o9 of
1wa
IlL4 lit 11L
Zoe
I
I
i
1 /
c
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FAYETTEVILLE, CLIFFDALE ROAD
(SR 1400)1 FROM REILLY ROAD
(SR 1403) TO US 401 (RAEFORD ROAD),
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1400(2),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.241701,
T.I.P. NO. U-2520
e Suorne?s e
o MILES .a FIGURE 1
r , ??? ?h
Ar') 71,
lie
04
f. i
l
x •'i
Air
Ot.
,? Mme. .? ?• '?' .
, hl.
ly. Vg `
F- M
Ir ,
A llwaYr

oil
i. ? K`i' ? I , ? L.R11)(:1; I)!t. (ti12 aS9y) s
lob
t tit,
a
J _
:
dt ; r
n
L _
Z6
WON
Ilk-
or `le
x
Aoki
,yam 110KE I.()f il•
?a

r.
ee
i
? ? rk
t?
?;

s'
"t I II 1 SEA RU, (SR .1511)
? r
v \ tM
ilk
4 +yx'
e• 1 ?
l
CSR 3470q:
K :
'? ? .. .- fir. _ •. f.-?F
K
.y
4_
- ?_
?` I Z - 1 I. (fin `? .,•,:. f _
Ir + e O O
If w.
r ?
Ile
c ? c? w 1
r
, kk-?-Z
• I 1
` ley Ili
M
°y
tom' " a "';`
J y •
o ?.. Ap
a ? ¦ 1

A!k

K•.
i, -
4
I L ? 1 -
S
CJ
O ?
A
e
F O ?
a
o
i

N .S .
,I

???J
W ? U paON
? O rv

P a
W o? A
E"'
U
G4 W .-i
a O W

... ,??

M?
i

I
!r
t -,

/ o
Polk •

S6 A6.

1

op
.m

I 13SN1480
I ? 1
I
rr, .? w.r ni.._.w„r.. ,? ,. '? marwn ,l6?'R tl36nj147S

---' W r • w. YNIIOOYJ NIDON
v3dv'Nvedn
•..... 31IIA3LL3,kV3
NYL 3tlV i,r(Y,OtlOMl
J'4
O
?? ? ? ? ? / ? ?\ G - - ? `?" Tom-' t ? ° ? ! -,•• r mac; ? ?q
1
otg
-1 CIO Is
.17
.17
_ ? '? 't' .. `ti ` _ I•• ;i t Fy.? 1 r , s 1 1 '-- _- {? '-V'ij v? -- ??b '^ \ -?
-b -. fJF 11w? 3roa r `
dam`'
I ?t '? A? /II TAI' r i} s ?C • ?a f j
r? - - .? ?? ? _ vt ;+ - - lawn lo3road `?>od°? J
r
fl •
----------- - + /
__ . _ _?6?-" ? --- - ? , f',--- _ ? s ?y.^ _ :3 j ? - ?) / • `tea ? • ?
s• / il
I + ^y`?? ?' , 1 ( - I _ _ 1 1 • ? 1 1 _ 1, \
+ ? N
N
O
O o ° P^ 60
o q l
to o9 fD o 700
ID m? y
R 3465 /PRESTIGE BLVD'
4600 v?
65 ,01 ?p,O)
J
O O
° O
O = pm 60
N o vui 9
0 0
-4 ell
N 2500
SR 1402 /RIM RD W °0 6 0
qp0 °` ? N o°
9 CIA
60 1,01- } 0
< om 60
p9 1,0
Q
01-
O1-
r

o
E
N Y
C
> 0 r
i- d
a W

J
0 0
i
V
Z o 0 2
0 W V,
W
LLJ

o

m
O

o
O

4
a

a CY., o

F
JI z y
i I
' ? (,?

rr
0
1
Z
E G W
11 II II ° ?

o y
n _ o
o ? O
10
G-
r-
W
Cn
U-1
U,
U?
:3
M\ v p p
O 0 ?O

O
D G
P
C
IO
N
O
N
IO
N

} a/ ?N
-? $

I J
QCr
V Cl-
N??
Q F- U
AVER R o? `
s ° or' °
Z BE
°
15 g N o
y? •
T
3 o
o rp
o
O O 60? ° u :
(
V ? ' I

uj p
P
P
'
?
J Z 8 00, O
O '
n

d
l
o 10
w 0,
O
{1
N
$
00£9 .0 10
0069 OOL4 04 4 ° °o I j
1) u
V
co e
\ q 00 OOBS OOES

o
C
OOl(
?

o !.
C,
!` V)
O N 1 0

r? 10
10

Y P
? P
I
P
I
J
/1 N Pi C ! ? W
a?
V LL Z F
O a
C
O ?
??C a:
OI
LL
° w

p? O o

o

XI $ N
W C6
co
O
p N O
M o
N
C 00 V) N P

?
P-S N
O
0 1Slc
g
r
?PM ?60
SR 1403 /REILLY RD. 950D, ?8 9 ---t7
22000 N Y
o
0
P
O
n g ^Qry _39900
.? 33900 pm 55
D 4I

? G/ o
Sb o
?4500 ° o
M m

.?
0 r N
O
0
U 000 PJ7 60
V

1101
d
N
c
? O
N
O
O
3465 /PRESTIGE BLVD. 1e0
Qom,
JR
55 9
60 P i
O 00
2 Pm 60
N
N 9
O
O - O
g "2 J1 0 134
r
2800

SR 1402 /RIM RD. 0
? o b o
1100 9
600) < n N
} ® a/N
0 pm 60
g 9--71.01
r- 0
0 TYLER OR'
a
r ?
n RUn %
Z BEAVER
0
0 m 9
0 350
60,
Q:? U
W C)
Z
O Q
v-' L m

.? V v

0 W
--q
'
O
` 4 -
J
?

O In
o ,-
?q? ?o
G
9 `o
b"
N O
W ? G
2
P
O
N
g? 4$1
o0s °
U
0
0
cr)
F-
Q
O
O
N
a?
d ?
F t; ?
n7
> `
.O O V s (?

w
r
= c
2
L
~
o

)i

' W
O
U
J
•°? d
0
0
n r
0
a 0 0
EE o
u u u c ?
o ) o
o 0 0
p o
O
O
N N N
T pC
hQ
N=

O EE

P m P
O
O
?Z C?
N 6 _wc 9
9 O
. O
V
Oovu
-?
00811
$ $ 008Z1 -L OO?o
o OOOZI OO' Z O
0
1
ehM
O
N

EP
a c Cr P
O P
S
q
LY ?C
? "C
Z O 0
7 O
r LL
? $
fu
7
0
J
O
00 ao O
O
cc p
N ?- N
O`
r
LLJ
LU
u
W
Q
f?
f
h
o
0
?+Y
h? ftl)

Z?
Y a 1
0 i
? N c
N
?14 ? "9? . J 0 5 of l SAN
++ k,..,

toy
k 6 y
S
t f}
? '
r
A

a Z
Z -MORK
v?
E
c1wq
nu '111"MIJ
•F: kZ?::?':='MD? X11111111
?
W
a ?
C
cad ? ?7
L r W
{.l. N
V 0

0
m r

E
m 5 R

E
`C SN
U
I

tV
a c t
••.??
•V .-
3 c
z
wo

OW
co .
rm?
.
? cn:)
U
c?dp LL
O N
Uc?

•/
? 0

co
_ _
Z Q 0. Z
0
0

ST-i
I%
i J
F
MH TIM,
???
i
¢ r # i `?
f t ?
m all
.
f

LL
v, U t
•`? 1 J '?9'?+ SBV
}Z al ,
Pub,
(1

\
a
...s y?

s`
e\l1 p,? ? ., M SStJIJ zeta' .y.
,Oil
•? ?`
4VI
• • "?? - }
Nt,

Or'

r
SITE I
ZONE B
60-10
ZONE B
ZONEA4
-ZONE B
no BM
FIGURE, 7
? 272
276
'.? 111 I ` ? __'+ ? -'M1T/^ `'
Fab IN
.I V 1 _ ? ? 1 Y I \ f ? I ? O_af
'No
?? II
` i 11 I
i' II
/ 14 -
480
284
• 126
? .:? . \ i PJf
' ? I ?,r ? • . .., . 1. 1101
r r 1
SITE 2 _
255
s C?.I ? ?++ -+rr. +. +a ?•1p? ?k:PE•
1 112
?r---
I Roo
p 1 '+ ;: 4 a '? i+•+s.
230
1\ M`r > / _ = Jam' `/ @n
L zze : C .?" .
1
00
n ' ^ II N
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF'
YEAR FLOODPLAIN ?.
10.
1 ????? i .ill 1(?'??1?'???`' \?\?;?•. ,;,``?? ?f- ? ? '?( ? su
225FIGURE 8
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2520: SR 1400 Cumberland County RUN: SR 1400 2000 BUILD 75 KME
DATE: 10/21/96 TIME: 11:03
SITE 6 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 MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH HRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Zr Lane Link 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 1610. 360. AG 774. 14.0 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 1610. 180. AG 774. 14.0 0.0 13.2
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
LINK DESCRIPTION CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-70,15.Om Rt.CLRES -6.0 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.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.9
DEGR. 4
TABLE A2
CAL3QSC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2520: SR 1400 Cumberland County RUN: SR.1400 2020 BUILD 75 KMH
DATE: 10/21/96 TIME: 11:00
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS 0.0 CM/S VD a 0.0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION I V' LINK COORDINATES (M)
vI Y7 V2
MIXH . 1000. M AMB . 1.8 PPM
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPS EF S W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 I 1610. 360. AG 1224. 10.6 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 1610. 180. AG 1224. 10.6 0.0 13.2
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
LINK DESCRIPTION CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPS) (VPH) (gm/hr)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-70,15.Om Rt.CLRES -6.0 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.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
3.1
5
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2520: SR 1400 Cumberland County RUN: SR 1400 2000 No Build 75KMH
DATE: 10/21/96 TIME: 11:19
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
vs - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES
LINK COORDINATES (M)
MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 1610. 360. AG 774. 14.0 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 1610. 180. AG 774. 14.0 0.0 9.6
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
LINK DESCRIPTION CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-70,15.0m Rt.CLRES -13.2 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.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.5
9
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2520: SR 1400 Cumberland County RUN: SR 1400 2020 No BUILD 75 KMH
DATE: 10/21/96 TIME: 11:20
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 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) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 1610. 360. AG 1224. 10.6 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 1610. 180. AG 1224. 10.6 0.0 9.6
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
LINK DESCRIPTION CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-70,15.Om Rt.CLRES -13.2 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.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.6
9
FIGURE N1
I
PROJECT LOCATION 8; AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE ROAD)
From REILLY ROAD TO US 401
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP# U-2520 State Project # 8.2441701
A11M
IVINI,
?
^
i OO
• OAF
1
, IAU
y
u
(;UNvIUJI G
1
]. ,.u,
d 194 FA,
J
(
#sells
All
1
` 14 '- EI ND ..... '" `? ,,",jFAYETTEVILLE
rbr. 37 7 "o
.
3 .v IuANV,r
/ % ? WL
. • ' r..s
_ , ,.
.1
.l ] PAP \ 11.1
"Jo • BEGIS JAlfi
1.1f ?rl• ?•? / 1?
C,wl
1 ' J•l
4 U-IL
1t CUMSMAND CO

TABLE N1
BEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 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 BO Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car SO 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 I 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.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, Churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)

Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Lsq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)
From Reilly Road to US 401
Cumberland County
TIP N U-2520 State Project N 8.2441701
SITE LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA)
1. SR 1400, 400 meters North of Heartland Dr. Grassy 60
2. SR 1400, Near Substation Gravel 63
3. SR 1400, 80 meters North of S. Entrance of Grassy 67
SR 1401
4. SR 1400, 25 meters East of Buhmann Drive Grassy 63
5. SR 1400, 40 meters South of SR 3530 Grassy 70
6. SR 1400, 570 meters West of Wayland Drive Sandy 66
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic. Sites N3 6 M5 were measured at
7.5 meters from the center of the nearest lane of traffic.

TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1400 (Cliffdals Road) From Reilly Road to US 401
Cumberland County State Project N 8.2441701, TIP R U-2520
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID 0 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m)
From Beginning--US 401 to Lowell-Barris Road
1 Business C SR 1400 55.0 L 50 SR 1400 55.0 L
2 Residence B 11 40.0 L 53 " 40.0 L
3 Residence B It 27.0 L 56 " 27.0 L
4 Residence B It 37.0 L 53 " 37.0 L
5 Residence B It 37.0 L 53 37.0 L
6 Residence B " 24.0 R 57 " 24.0 R
7 Residence B " 35.0 L 54 " 35.0 L
8 Residence B " 34.0 R 54 " 34.0 R
9 Residence B " 38.0 L 53 " 38.0 L
10 Residence B " 36.0 R 54 " 36.0 R
11 Residence B " 38.0 L 53 " 38.0 L
12 Residence B '• 40.0 R 53 " 40.0 R
13 Residence B " 39.0 L 53 " 39.0 L
14 Residence B " 35.0 R 54 35.0 R
15 Residence B " 30.0 L 55 " 30.0 L
16 Residence B " 35.0 R 54 " 35.0 R
17 Residence B " 24.0 L 57 24.0 L
18 Residence B " 20.0 R 58 " 20.0 R
19 Residence B " 27.0 L 56 " 27.0 L
20 Resdence B " 31.0 L 55 " 31.0 L
21 Residence B " 44.0 R 52 44.0 R
22 Residence B " 30.0 L 55 " 30.0 L
23 Residence B 46.0 R 52 " 46.0 R
24 Residence B 30.0 L 55 " 30.0 L
25 Residence B " 55.0 R 50 " 55.0 R
26 Residence B " 30.0 L 55 " 30.0 L
27 Residence B 30.0 L 55 " 30.0 L
28 Residence B 30.0 R 55 30.0 R
29 Residence B " 31.0 L 55 " 31.0 L
30 Residence B " 31.0 L 55 " 31.0 L
31 Residence B " 30.0 L 55 " 30.0 L
32 Residence B " 30.0 L 55 30.0 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
1/6
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - 57 + 7
- - 60 + 7
- - 63 + 7
- - 61 + 8
- - 61 + 8
- - 64 + 7
- - 61 + 7
- - 61 + 7
- - 60 + 7
- - 61 + 7
- - 60 + 7
- - 60 + 7
- - 60 + 7
- - 61 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 61 + 7
- - 64 + 7
- - 65 + 7
- - 63 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 59 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 58 + 6
- - 62 + 7
- - 57 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 62 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). ' -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 2/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) From Reilly Road to US 401
Cumberland County State Project N 8.2441701, TIP N U-2520
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
........................ ........
From Beginning--US 401 to Lowell-Barris Road (Cont'd
33 Residence B SR 1400 30.0 L 55 SR 1400 30.0 L - - 62 + 7
34 Residence B " 30.0 L 55 " 30.0 L - - 62 + 7
35 Residence B to 30.0 L 55 " 30.0 L - - 62 + 7
36 Residence B If 43.0 R 52 " 43.0 R - - 59 + 7
37 Residence B to 32.0 L 55 " 32.0 L - - 62 + 7
38 Residence B " 25.0 L 56 " 25.0 L - - 64 + 8
39 Residence B " 25.0 L 56 " 25.0 L - - 64 + 8
40 Residence B •' 24.0 L 57 " 24.0 L - - 64 + 7
41 Residence B 29.0 L 55 " 29.0 L - - 62 + 7
42 Residence B " 40.0 R 53 " 40.0 R - - 60 + 7
43 Residence B " 30.0 R 55 " 30.0 R - - 62 + 7
44 Residence B " 34.0 L 54 " 34.0 L - - 61 + 7
45 Residence B " 24.0 L 57 •' 24.0 L - - 64 + 7
46 Residence B " 44.0 R 52 " 44.0 R - - 59 + 7
47 Residence B " 30.0 L 55 30.0 L - - 62 + 7
48 Residence B 46.0 R 52 " 46.0 R - - 58 + 6
49 Residence B " 32.0 L 55 " 32.0 L - - 62 + 7
50 Residence B " 46.0 R 52 " 46.0 R - - 58 + 6
51 Residence B " 35.0 L 54 " 35.0 L - - 61 + 7
52 Residence B " 48.0 R 51 " 48.0 R - - 58 + 7
53 Residence B " 50.0 R 51 " 50.0 R - - 58 + 7
54 Residence B " 38.0 L 53 " 38.0 L - - 60 + 7
55 Residence B " 53.0 R 50 " 53.0 R - - 57 + 7
56 Residence B " 34.0 L 54 " 34.0 L - - 61 + 7
57 Residence B " 53.0 R 50 " 53.0 R - - 57 + 7
58 Residence B " 34.0 L 54 " 34.0 L - - 61 + 7
59 Residence B " 58.0 R 50 " 58.0 R - - 56 + 6
60 Residence B " 39.0 L 53 " 39.0 L - - 60 + 7
61 Residence B " 61.0 R 49 " 61.0 R - - 56 + 7
62 Residence B " 39.0 L 53 " 39.0 L - - 60 + 7
63 Residence B " 67.0 L 48 " 67.0 L - - 55 + 7
63A Residence B " 20.0 L 58 " 20.0 L - - 65 + 7
NOME: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). " -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 3/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) From Reilly Road to US 401
Cumberland County State Project N 8.2441701, TIP N U-2520
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
....................... INCREASE
From Lowell-Barris to Christina
64 Residence B SR 1400 22.0 L 60 SR 1400 22.0 L - - 65 + 5
65 Residence B " 37.0 L 56 It 37.0 L - - 61 + 5
66 Residence B " 24.0 L 60 " 24.0 L - - 65 + 5
67 Residence B " 28.0 L 59 " 28.0 L - - 63 + 4
68 Residence B " 22.0 R 60 " 22.0 R - - 65 + 5
69 Residence B " 28.0 L 59 " 28.0 L - - 63 + 4
70 Residence B " 15.0 R 62 " 15.0 R - - * 68 + 6
71 Residence B " 27.0 L 59 " 27.0 L - - 64 + 5
72 Residence B 20.0 R 61 " 20.0 R - - * 66 + 5
73 Residence B " 25.0 L 59 " 25.0 L - - 64 + 5
74 Residence B " 25.0 R 59 " 25.0 R - - 64 + 5
75 Residence B " 22.0 L 60 '• 22.0 L - - 65 + 5
76 Residence B 42.0 R 55 " 42.0 R - - 60 + 5
77 Residence B " 58.0 R 53 " 58.0 R - - 57 + 4
78 Residence B 28.0 L 59 " 28.0 L - - 63 + 4
79 Residence B " 47.0 R 54 " 47.0 R - - 59 + 5
80 Residece B " 27.0 L 59 " 27.0 L - - 64 + 5
81 Residence B " 41.0 R 56 " 41.0 R - - 60 + 4
82 Residence B " 40.0 R 56 •' 40.0 R - - 61 + 5
83 Residence B " 37.0 R 56 " 37.0 R - - 61 + 5
84 Residence B " 37.0 L 56 " 37.0 L - - 61 + 5
85 Residence B " 38.0 R 56 " 38.0 R - - 61 + 5
86 Residence B " 26.0 L 59 " 26.0 L - - 64 + 5
87 Residence B " 40.0 R 56 " 40.0 R - - 61 + 5
From Christina to North Entrance of SR 1 401
88 Residence B SR 1400 39.0 R 57 SR 1400 39.0 R - - 61 + 4
89 Residence B " 37.0 R 56 " 37.0 R - - 61 + 3
90 Residence B " 36.0 L 58 " 36.0 L - - 62 + 4
91 Residence B " 40.0 R 57 " 40.0 R - - 61 + 4
92 Residence B 36.0 L 58 •' 36.0 L - - 62 + 4
93 Residence B " 36.0 R 58 " 36.0 R - - 62 + 4
94 Residence B " 40.0 L 57 " 40.0 L - - 61 + 4
95 Residence B " 33.0 R 59 " 33.0 R - - 62 + 3
96 Residence B " 40.0 L 57 " 40.0 L - - 61 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L --> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y --> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/46). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 4/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) From Reilly Road to US 401
Cumberland County State Project M 8.2441701, TIP M U-2520
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................ INCREASE
........
From Christina to No rth Entrance of SR 140 1 (Cont'd)
97 Residence B SR 1400 40.0 R 57 SR 1400 40.0 R - - 61 + 4
98 Residence B •' 36.0 L 58 " 36.0 L - - 62 + 4
99 Residence B " 40.0 R 57 40.0 R - - 61 + 4
100 Residence B " 32.0 L 59 " 32.0 L - - 63 + 4
101 Residence B " 27.0 L 60 " 27.0 L - - 64 + 4
102 Residence B •' 39.0 R 57 " 39.0 R - - 61 + 4
103 Residence B " 25.0 L 61 " 25.0 L - - 64 + 3
104 Residence B " 44.0 R 56 " 44.0 R - - 60 + 4
105 Residence B " 45.0 R 56 " 45.0 R - - 60 + 4
106 Residence B " 46.0 R 56 " 46.0 R - - 59 + 3
107 Residence B '• 33.0 R 59 33.0 R - - 62 + 3
108 Residence B " 48.0 R 56 " 48.0 R - - 59 + 3
109 Residence B " 21.0 L 62 21.0 L - - * 66 + 4
110 Residence B " 32.0 R 59 " 32.0 R - - 63 + 4
111 Residence B " 20.0 R 62 " 20.0 R - - " 66 + 4
112 Business C '• 97.0 L 49 " 97.0 L - - 52 + 3
113 Residence B " 61.0 R 54 " 61.0 R - - 57 + 3
114 Business C " 22.0 L 62 " 22.0 L - - 66 + 4
115 Residence B " 42.0 R 57 " 42.0 R - - 60 + 3
116 Residence B " 35.0 L 58 " 35.0 L - - 62 + 4
From North Ent rance of SR 1401 to SR 1402 (Rim Road)
117 Residence B SR 1400 35.0 L 58 SR 1400 35.0 L - - 64 + 6
118 Residence B " 56.0 R 54 " 56.0 R - - 60 + 6
119 Residence B •' 26.0 R 60 •' 26.0 R - - * 66 + 6
120 Residence B " 20.0 R 62 " 20.0 R - - " 68 + 6
121 Residence B " 60.0 L 53 " 60.0 L - - 59 + 6
122 Residence B " 22.0 R 61 " 22.0 R - - " 68 + 7
123 Residence B " 37.0 R 57 " 37.0 R - - 64 + 7
124 Residence B " 35.0 R 58 " 35.0 R - - 64 + 6
125 Residence B " 30.0 R 59 " 30.0 R - - 65 + 6
126 Residence B " 25.0 L 60 " 25.0 L - - * 67 + 7
127 Residence B " 40.0 R 57 " 40.0 R - - 63 + 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.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (56/48). " -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) From Reilly Road to US 401
Cumberland County State Project N 6.2441701, TIP N U-2520
5/6
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................ INCREASE
........
` From North Entrance of SR 1401 to SR 1402 (Cont'd)
128 Residence B SR 1400 36.0 L 58 SR 1400 36.0 L - - 64 + 6
129 Residence B " 51.0 L 55 " 51.0 L - - 61 + 6
130 Residence B " 16.0 R 63 " 16.0 R - - * 70 + 7
131 Residence B 27.0 L 60 " 27.0 L - - * 66 + 6
132 Residence B 17.0 L 63 " 17.0 L - - * 69 + 6
133 Business C " 32.0 R 59 " 32.0 R - - 65 + 6
134 School E 102.0 L 48/<40 " 102.0 L - - 53/<40 + 5/ 0
From SR 1402 (Rim Road) to SR 3530 (Town Creek Drive )
135 Business C SR 1400 22.0 R 65 SR 1400 22.0 R - - 70 + 5
136 Business C " 90.0 L 53 " 90.0 L - - 57 + 4
137 Business C " 27.0 L 64 " 27.0 L - - 69 + 5
138 Business C " 133.0 R 48 " 133.0 R - - 53 + 5
139 Residence B " 34.0 R 62 " 34.0 R - - * 67 + 5
140 Residence B " 41.0 R 60 " 41.0 R - - 65 + 5
141 Residence B " 37.0 R 61 " 37.0 R - - * 66 + 5
142 Residence B " 37.0 R 61 " 37.0 R - - * 66 + 5
143 Residence B " 39.0 R 61 " 39.0 R - - * 66 + 5
144 Residence B " 39.0 R 61 " 39.0 R - - * 66 + 5
145 Residence B " 39.0 R 61 " 39.0 R - - * 66 + 5
146 Residence B " 32.0 R 63 " 32.0 R - - * 67 + 4
147 Residence B " 27.0 L 64 " 27.0 L - - * 69 + 5
148 Residence B " 33.0 L 62 " 33.0 L - - * 67 + 5
149 Residence B " 36.0 R 61 " 36.0 R - - * 66 + 5
150 Residence B " 33.0 L 62 " 33.0 L - - * 67 + 5
151 Residence B " 35.0 R 62 " 35.0 R - - * 67 + 5
152 Residence B " 30.0 L 63 " 30.0 L - - * 68 + 5
153 Residence B " 34.0 R 62 " 34.0 R - - * 67 + 5
• 154 Residence B " 32.0 L 63 " 32.0 L - - * 67 + 4
155 Residence B " 32.0 R 63 32.0 R - - * 67 + 4
156 Residence B 29.0 L 63 29.0 L - - * 68 + 5
157 Residence B " 30.0 R 63 " 30.0 R - - * 68 + 5
158 Residence B " 43.0 L 60 " 43.0 L - - 65 + 5
159 Residence B " 38.0 L 61 " 38.0 L - - * 66 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y- Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category 9 noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) From Reilly Road to US 401
Cumberland County State Project N 8.2441701, TIP N U-2520
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY
...................a. NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
..................
From SR 3530 (Town Creek Drive) to outer Loop
160 Residence B SR 1400 33.0 L 61 SR 1400 33.0 L
161 Residence B " 30.0 L 62 " 30.0 L
162 Business C " 26.0 L 63 " 26.0 L
163 Business C " 26.0 L 63 26.0 L
164 Residence B " 36.0 L 61 " 36.0 L
165 Residence B " 24.0 L 63 " 24.0 L
166 Residence B " 23.0 L 64 " 23.0 L
167 Residence B " 21.0 L 64 " 21.0 L
168 Residence B " 24.0 L 63 " 24.0 L
169 Residence B " 24.0 L 63 " 24.0 L
170 Residence B " 20.0 L 65 " 20.0 L
171 Residence B " 101.0 R 51 " 101.0 R
From Outer L oop to SR 1403 (Reilly Road)
172 Business C SR 1400 21.0 R 64 SR 1400 21.0 R
173 Business C 11 25.0 R 63 " 25.0 R
174 Business C It 30.0 R 62 " 30.0 R
175 Business C " 83.0 R 53 " 83.0 R
176 Business C " 36.0 R 61 " 36.0 R
177 Business C 26.0 L 63 26.0 L
178 Business C " 72.0 R 54 " 72.0 R
179 Business C " 122.0 R 49 " 122.0 R
180 Business C " 27.0 L 63 " 27.0 L
6/6
Noll
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVI
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCR]
.................... .... ....
* 67 +
- - * 68 +
- - 69 +
- - 69 +
- - * 67 +
- - * 70 +
- - * 70 +
- - * 71 +
- - * 70 +
- - * 70 +
- - * 71 +
- - 56 +
- - 70 +
- - 69 +
- - 67 +
- - 58 +
- - 66 +
- - 68 +
- - 59 +
- - 54 +
- - 68 +
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribu
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-a> Noise level from other contributing roa
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 7
TABLE N5
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road)
From Reilly Road to US 401, Cumberland County
TIP N U-2520 State Project M 8.2441701
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. From US 401 to Lowell-Harris Rd 65 61 56 <15 m 16 m 0 0 0 0 0
2. From Lowell-Harris to Christina 66 62 56 <15 m 18 m 0 2 0 0 0
3. From Christina to N. ant. of SR 1401 66 62 56 <15 m 19 m 0 2 0 0 0
4. From N. ant. of SR 1401 to SR 1402 68 64 59 <15 m 26 m 0 7 0 0 0
5. From SR 1402 to SR 3530 71 67 61 18 m 35 m 0 19 0 0 0
6. From SR 3530 to outer Loop 71 67 61 18 m 36 m 0 9 0 0 0
7. From Outer Loop to SR 1403 70 66 61 17 m 33 m 0 0 0 0 0
0 39 0 0 0
•
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 1400 (Cllffdale Road)
From Reilly Road to US 401, Cumberland County
TIP M U-2520 State Project M 8.2441701
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts I
Noise Level to Botl
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 increases(1) Criterial
1. From US 401 to Lowell-Harris 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. From Low.-Harris to Christina 0 5 19 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. From Chris. to N. Ent.SR 1401 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. From N. Ent.SR 1401 to SR 1402 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. From SR 1402 to SR 3530 0 4 21 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. From SR 3530 to Outer Loop 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. From Outer Loop to SR 1403 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 38 143 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
APPENDIX B
RELOCATION REPORT 11
? E.I.S. M CORRIDOR M DESIGN
MANAGER OF
RIGHT OF WAY BRANCH
North Carolina Depa?? T rtation
XWOFFICE

PROJECT:
8.2441701
COUNTY
Cumberland Met. NOW* NFMIP 1 41
Altemate o "I" I4 l ri to
I.D. NO.: U-2520 F.A. PROJECT STP-1400 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Cliffdale Rd. from Reilly Road to US 401, Fayetteville
, Mi. M
wj
W
F..STUATED DISPIACEES 1N OME LEVEL
Type of
Dis acees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP
Residential 6 0 6 1 1 1 2 2 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE of MELLIM DSa DINEL ING AYAN ASIX
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0.20M 1 $ 0-150 0 0-M 0 $ 0460 0
ANS VIO R AILL:QUESTiONl4 20-40M 1 160-250 0 204M 2 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES' answers. 40-70m 2 260400 0 40-70M 13 260.400 4
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 2 400400 0 70-100M 50+ 400800 6
X 2 . Will schools or churches be affect by 100 uP 0 No up 0 100 UP 50+ 800 UP 26+
displacement? TOTAL 6 0 115+ 37+
X 3 . Will business services still be available after RPAARKS Rss rid b Nurnba
project? 3. No businesses to be displaced.
X 4 . Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 6. MLS, newspapers, property managers.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5 . Will relocation cause a housing shortage? S. Lower value houses usually mean large RHPs,
6 . Source for available housing (list). therefore Last Resort is possible.
X 7 . Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8 . Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 9. This is quite possible, though unknown for sure.
X 9 . Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
I
families? 'll. Fayetteville has Public Housing, but it is rarely chosen
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? by displacees.
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. Fayetteville is a large and active market.
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 13. This is possible on any project.
financial means?
na 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 15

23? 0,?
- "9l
A. M. Simps on
<?"
0
Relocat on A en Date '. '.: Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Rsvised 02/96 d
original s 1 copy: state Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
B-1
NT Or rti??ym United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
qCH 7 ,eat Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 27, 1995 d t-. C
J 'AUl Mr. H. Franklin Vick Z 2 8 1995
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways v/s/
P.O. Box 25201 C / OF
yWAY$ \ ?Q?
Raleigh, NC 27611 '9
Subject: Fayetteville, Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from US 401 O P oad
(SR 1403), Cumberland County, North Carolina, Federal-Aid Project
#STP-1400(2), State Project #8.2441701, TIP #U-2520
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your June 14, 1995, letter requesting information from the U.
S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential environmental
impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides scoping
information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for widening of Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) to a 64-foot, five-lane roadway
with curb and gutter. Near Reilly Road (SR 1403), a section of (SR 1400) will
be relocated to accommodate a future interchange with the Fayetteville Outer
Loop.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly facilitated
if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list and acreage of habitat, by cover type, that will :,a impacted.
Wetland types should follow the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of
each wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing any
wetland crossings, relocating stream channels, or for creating
replacement wetlands.
4. The environmental impacts, both secondary and cumulative, that are
likely to occur after construction as a direct result of the proposed
project and an assessment of the extent to which the proposed project
will have secondary impacts and add to cumulative impacts.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable
wetland losses.
B-2
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Cumberland County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species should contain the following
information:
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection.
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative
effects area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action
and depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential
effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed rule.
These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened
or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a candidate
species. This change would place the species under the full protection of the
Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its status in the project
corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for the project to avoid any
adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species under State
protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project.
Sincerely yours,
?'d
v )f t,.?, L, -t
John E. Ellis
B-3 Fish and Wildlife Biologist
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Cumberland County
Birds
Red-cockaded woodpecker JPicoides borealis) - E
Insects
St. Francis' satyr (Neonvmoha mi h Ili francisci) - E
Plants
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - E
Pondberry (Lin era melissifolia) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Clams
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2"
Birds
Bachman's sparrow (Aimoghila aestivalis) - C2
Insects
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speveria ian ) - C2
Plants
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia ris a) - C2"
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - C2
Boykin's lobelia (Lobelia bovkinii) - C2
Conferva pondweed (Potamogeton confervoides) - C2
Georgia leadplant (Amorpha aeorgiana georgiana) - C2
False coco (Pteroalossasois cri ata) -C2"
Loose watermilfoil (Mvrioohvllum laxum) - C2
Panhandle lily (Lilium iri oll ) - C2
Pickering's morning glory (Stvlisma 2. var. pickeringii) - C2
Pine barrens boneset (Eupatorium resinosum) - C2
Pondspice (Litsea aestivalis) - C2
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass (Xvris scabrifolia) - C2
Sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii) - C2
Savanna cowbane (Oxyoolis t re natal - C2
Smooth bog-asphodel (Tofieldia Ig abra) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod 1 oli a o vernal - C2
Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - C2
Wavyleaf wild quinine (Parthenium radfordii) - C2
Well's sandhill pixie-moss (Pixidanthera barbulata
var.brevifolia) - C2
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2
"Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
B-4
County of Cumberland
Engineering Department
P.O. BOX 1829
FAYETTEWLLE, NC 28302
[phone]
FAX [phone]
ROBERT N. STANGER, P.E.
COUNTY ENGINEER
June 23, 1995
Mr. Marc Hamel, Project Planning Engineer
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
RE: Proposed Improvements to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400)
Dear Mr. Hamel:
In reference to your letter requesting information pertaining to any required
permits and approvals for the above referenced project, we have reviewed this
area and determined that only one permit would be required by our department.
The area of Cliffdale Road that crosses Bones Creek is within our 100 year
flood zone area as shown on the attached map.
In order to further construct or improve this area a Eloodplain Development
Permit through our office would be required before any construction can begin.
To receive this permit, we need to receive a completed application (available
from our office).
Should you require additional information, please contact me at
[phone].
Si cerely,
Robert N. Stanger, P.
County Engineer
B-5
\ ? p
' rA 1 0 ` ` I • ? ..
T, a --•_? -_ --
Sri ?.'• iy. .?,??? u ??
r? 1
B-6
NUK 1 M LAKUILInA a i A 1 L ?.LGARII?V l1VV'L
FM203 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
07-18-95
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FRCM
NC DOT MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
MARC HAMEL DIRECTOR
DCT, PL4NNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BUILDING
P., CGJECT DESCRIPTION
SCONING-CLIF?CALE ROAD FROM US 401 TO REILLY ROAD IN FAYETTEVILLE
TIP4 U-C52C
SAI NO 95E42ZOC915 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE A30VE PROJECT HAS -=EN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CARCLINA
I?TER.GCV_Rh'".EvTAL REVIEW PRCC-SS- AS A RESULT CF THE REVIEW THE FOLLCWING
Ia- SUBMITTED ( ) NC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHCUL0 YOU HAVIE 4NY CUESTIONS? PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C-C- ? SIO\ m
B-7
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
hir 5 ?
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary pEHN tR
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM

TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee le",
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0915 Scoping Proposed Improvements to Cliff dale Road,
Cumberland County
DATE: July 12, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
. I l l l_ 13 1993
KC. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
B-8
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone [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 Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
10
[D FE F=1
July 7, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Le islative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica SwiharWater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0915; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to Cliffdale Road, TIP No. R-2520
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.
B-9
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
July 7, 1995
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.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
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.
10982.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
B-10
NUWKU P ells , r hLL? LMNM
ICL•717-JLC-70)7 Jul LL. J. v -- I - . - I .-
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordj?nt? - /
Habitat Conservation Program C??f
DATE: July 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1400 (Cliffdalc
Road) widening, from US 401 to SR 1403 (Reilly Road) in Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-2520, SCH Project No.
95-0915.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing Cliffdale Road to a five-lane curb and gutter
facility with a minor relocation to accommodate a future interchange with the Fayetteville
Outer Loop.
At this time, we have no specific recommendations or concerns regarding the
subject project. However, to aid in document preparation, our general informational
needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
B-11
NCWRC,HCPPFRLLS LRKt ItL;yly-DZu-ya,)y .,ui 14 V.J v-... 11W -- .
Memo
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
July 12, 1995
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The reed
for channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
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 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 will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the
environmental effects of highway construction and quantifies the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will
result from secondary development facilitated by the improved 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 assist your office, please me at [phone].
cc: Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
R.undy Wilson, Nongame/Endanbered Species Program Mgr.
Howard Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
B-12
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS 17j ^ ?S 915-
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same FN 7.rmal. Process
o ....:......1 r11(irn -
PERM SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct 8 operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities andlor Emissiun Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.08 N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 8 sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before be innin activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the fan 30 da sl
1 The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance.
J (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic sods than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
" (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.
90.120 days
J Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac.
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion

C
C
C
C

C
C
C
C
C
C
M o. B-13 Continued on reverse
No,mai Pro:.^ss
Time
F
c
c
c
c
C
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (N/A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by-letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
Slate Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 1520 days
descriptions 8 drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification N/A (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. (NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone] B-14
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]

er?o?
?~ s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
July 12, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tran nation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State ist is Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from US 401 to
Reilly Road (SR 1403) in Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, U-2520, Federal Aid
Project STP-1400(2), State Project
8.2441701, 95-E-4220-0915
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. No survey of
historic architectural resources is recommended for this project.
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 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 Carolina 27601-2807
B-15
b
e "`Ap l£°?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
September 3, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Distribution Recipients
H. Franklin Vick, P. E.. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
GARI AN D B. GARUTT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Cliffdale Road (SR
1400). From Reilly Road (SR 1403) to US 401 (Raeford Road),
Favetteville. Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-
1400(2). State Project No. 8.2441701. T.I.P. Project No. U-2 2C
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment for the subject project.
Please be advised that the State Project Number (8.241701) has been erroneously printed
throughout the attached document. including the figures in the appendix. The correct
State Project No. is 8.2441701.
Please make note of this correction and check that all future correspondence
reflects the correct State Project Number.
Sincerely.
i
r
III Franklin Vick. P. E.. anager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/dgw
mw
?• or
?OM nA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. I)IVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UM RNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALI:IG11. N.C. 27611-5201
April 19, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
RF-0e,1V
,4p
61
ANT ??SC?F??FS
It. SAMUIiI. HUNT I II
S1 (Al fARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road),
From SR 1403 (Reilly Road) to US 401, Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, TIP #U-2520, State Project
#8.2441701, Federal Aid Project STP-1400(2)
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 May 23, 1995 at 2:00 p.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.
MH/plr
Attachment
(f.l `.
r I l ??
r..
7 3 ?(04-J
s1? ?/I
?> - k/

/Ak-
9
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 3/20/95
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning _FY_96
Design _FY_98
TIP # U-2520
Project # 8.2441701
F.A. Project # STP-1400(2)
Division 6
County Cumberland
Route SR 1400 Cliffdale Road
Functional Classification Urban Other Principal Arterial
Length 4.8 Miles
Purpose of Project: Widen existing roadway to a five-lane
facility (C&G) for increased capacity, and safety. A
realignment on the northern portion of the project will
accommodate an interchange with the proposed Fayetteville
Outer Loop (TIP Project U-2519).
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road), From SR 1403 (Reilly
Road) to US 401. Widen existing facility to a five-lane
64-foot roadway with curb and gutter. Some relocation is
planned to the north to accommodate an interchange with the
proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA and FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA March 95 - Sept. 96
FONSI Dec 96 - March 97
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
How and when will this be paid?
, or M
Page 1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: 2-lane existing
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
(control of access at proposed interchange location)
Type of Roadway: Five-lane, 64-foot C&G proposed
Interchanges _ Grade Separations _ Stream Crossings _
Typical Section of Roadway: Existing 24-foot pavement, 44=6 foot
unpaved shoulders. Proposed 5-lane, 64-foot C&G.
Traffic: Current 3300-14,700 vod Design Year 6500-27,200 vpd
% Trucks 2
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,800,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,400,000
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . $ _
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,200,000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,800,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,400,000
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,200,000
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project: 5-lane C&G section
ITEMS REQUIRED ( x ) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,999,360
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . (resurfacing) . . $
_ Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
- Shoulders: _ Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
_x_ Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,166,305
T Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_x_ Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 463,235
_x_ Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $ 1,000,000
- Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_x_ Structures: Width x Length
_ Bridge Rehabilitation x $
_ x_ New Bridge x $ 190,164
- Widen Bridge x $
_ x_ Remove Bridge x $ 11,648
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
_ Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
_ Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
_x_ Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $ 380,160
T Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
- Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
_x_ Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 99,000
_ Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_x_ Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 90 , 000
_ Signing: _ New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
_x_ Traffic Signals: _ New . . . . . . . . . $
_x_ Revised . . . . . . . $ 15,000
RR Signals: _ New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Revised . . . . . . . . . . $ _
_ With or Without Arms. . . . $
_ If 3R: _ Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
_ Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
_x_ Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo _x_ $ 86,400
Markers _x
w
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . $
_x_ Other (misc., mob., clear & grub). . . $ 1,298,728
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 6,800,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,000,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $ 7,800,000
_x_ Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes - No _
_ Existing Right of Way Width:
_x_ New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of way subtotal: $ 4,400,000
-Total Estimated Cost : $ 12,200,000
(In udes R/W)
Prepared By: ?tL Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services _ALJ
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
3/27 Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
INIT. DATE
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
•?V uuw1 ?N. t{
STATE OF NORTH CAROLI NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JIt.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 14, 1995
I?EDEIVED
EN JUN 191995
V1RD1VME/Vr,,
S("IF.A
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SeCRP FARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Fayetteville, Cliffdale Road (SR 1400), From US 401 to
Reilly Road (SR 1403), Cumberland County, Federal-Aid
Project #STP-1400(2), State Project #8.2441701, TIP #U-2520
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun
studying the proposed improvements to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400). The project is
included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and
is scheduled for right of. way in fiscal year 2000 and construction in fiscal
year 2002.
Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) is to be widened to a 64-foot, five-lane roadway
with curb and gutter. Near Reilly Road (SR 1403) a section of SR 1400 is to be
relocated to accommodate a future interchange with the Fayetteville Outer Loop.
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
July 19, 1995 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this docu-
ment.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Marc
Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension
212.
HFV/plr
Attachment
?01
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A74 ?
dft
DEHNR
July 7, 1995
MEMORAND
TO: Melba McGee, Le islative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica SwihartXater
Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0915; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to Cliffdale Road, TIP No. R-2520
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.
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
Melba McGee
July 7, 1995
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.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
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.
10982.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OE: September 7, 2005
Regulatory Division
?n
?v
!q? o
9y?so?<<? ? ? C ,?.? f?I?? r
i
Abp
Subject: Action ID No. 200200640, TIP No. U-2520, SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) from US 401 to
SR 1403 (Reilly Road, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
I am responding to your request dated August 16, 2005, for a modification to the existing
Department of the Army (DA) permit issued for the above referenced project. The proposed
project modifications are as follows:
REDESIGNED INLET AND OUTLET AT CULVERT
U-2520, permit drawing sheet 9, Station L 58+77, Site 4
The referenced Section 404 permits authorized 92 linear feet of stream impact at this site. Due to
culvert misalignment and high discharge velocities the stream is downcutting upstream and
downstream. To control the headcutting and provide stability for the stream, a 58 linear foot,
step pool control structure is proposed. To control the erosive velocities at the end of the culvert
a 35 linear foot rip-rap outlet energy dissipater basin is proposed. This resulted in an increase in
impact area of 0.01 acre or 95 linear feet of stream channel.
I have determined that the proposed project modifications described above are not contrary
to the public interest and therefore, the DA permit is hereby modified to reflect the modified
project as described in the information above and the drawings provided with the modification
request.
Please note that a modified Water Quality Certification shall be obtained from NCDENR-
DWQ. Furthermore, all unmodified terms and conditions of your original Department of the
Army permit shall remain in effect and the original permit expiration date shall remain the same.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard Spencer, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Division, at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
John E. Pulliam, Jr.
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188
Mr. John Hennessy
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Chris Militcher
USEPA Raleigh Office
Care of FHWA
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mr. Art King
Division Environmental Officer, Division 8
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 1067
Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
2
Mr. James J. Rerko, PWS
Division Environmental Officer, Division 6
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 1150
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302-1150
Ms. Beth Harmon
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
3
ao
0
A
C) c
m
1y

Va go
O
r
om m
01.9
?
r -?

a
a
y
r
r
n

p $? _ i V m ? i ()C)

F 5 ? i r yt iY ? F? ?
f f ?` .

I ti
1109
191
l
III I
-

ifiall
i

^pR
Z i 4
?

b
O?O?WAT?RpG
r

September 7, 2005
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Modification to the Widening and Realignment of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) from US 401 to SR
1403 (Reilly Road), Cumberland County, TIP No. U-2520, WQC Project No. 020400, WQC No.
3381
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Attached hereto is a modification to Certification No. 3381 issued to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation on September 7, 2005. The attached modification authorizes 95 linear feet of additional
stream impacts at Site 4. This modification is applicable only to the additional proposed activities. All
the authorized activities and conditions of certification associated with the original Water Quality
Certification dated April 19, 2002 and all other corresponding modifications still apply except where
superceded by this certification.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
ncere ,
G
Ian W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
Attachments
Modifications to WQC No. 3381
cc: Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
Gary Jordan, US FWS
Christopher Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Ken Averitte, NC DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
N??on?ehhCaro na
Transportation Permitting Unit ?vatural??fJ
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone]/ Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
An Eaual ODDortunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500/6 Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
APPROVAL OF 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
THIS 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 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500, and 15 NCAC 2B .0233. The attached modification
authorizes the NCDOT to incur the following impacts:
Table 1. - Stream Impacts in the Cape Fear River Basin
Section Stream Mitigation
Impacts Required
(linear feet) (linear feet)
Site 4 Impacts
authorized under 92 0
original W QC
Site 4 Impacts for 95 0
this modification
Total Modified 187 0
Impacts for Site 4
This modification is applicable only to the additional proposed activities. All the authorized activities and
conditions of certification associated with the original Water Quality Certification dated April 19, 2002
and all other corresponding modifications still apply except where superceded by this certification. The
project shall be constructed pursuant to the application submitted on August 16, 2005 (received August
19, 2005). The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
of the Cape Fear River Basins in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a violation
of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina
certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application, as described
in the Public Notice. Should your project change, you are required to 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 additional wetland impacts, or
stream impacts, for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre or 150 linear feet, respectively,
additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7).
For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with all the conditions listed below. In
addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge and
Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification 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 Corps of Engineers
Permit, whichever is sooner.
2
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. Clearing and grubbing of vegetation should not begin until all necessary equipment is on site,to begin
construction of the step pool channel.
2. The existing channel should not be filled until the new channel construction is complete.
3. All the authorized activities and conditions of the certification associated with the original Water
Quality Certification dated April 19, 2002 and all other corresponding modifications still apply except
where superceded by this certification.
Conditions from WQC No. 3381 issued April 19, 2002:
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 (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers not designated as trout
waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within 30 days after the project has
been released;
3. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a FONSI or ROD is
issued by the State Clearinghouse. All water quality-related conditions of the FONSI or ROD shall
become conditions of this Certification;
4. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters of the
state until the concrete has hardened;
5. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be
located in wetlands or stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact
from road construction activities.
6. All channel relocations will be constructed in a dry work area, and stabilized before stream flows are
diverted. Channel relocations will be completed and stabilized prior to diverting water into the new
channel. Whenever possible, channel relocations shall be allowed to stabilize for an entire growing
season. 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 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.
3
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to streams shall be done for 576 linear feet of stream impact at a
replacement ratio of 1:1. As such, compensatory mitigation for 576 linear feet of streams is required.
We understand that you have chosen to perform compensatory mitigation for impacts to streams
through an in lieu payment to the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP), and that
the WRP has agreed to implement the mitigation for the project. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts
to streams shall be provided through an in-lieu payment to the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) at a rate of $125 per linear foot. Therefore, a total payment of $72,000 shall be
submitted to the NCWRP to offset the impacts. No construction activities in jurisdictional streams
shall begin until payment for stream mitigation is made and the Wetland Restoration Program
receives and clears your check (made payable to DENR - Wetland Restoration Program). The
payment to NCWRP shall be sent within two months of issuance of the 404 permit. If you have any
questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program, please contact them a t 91-733-5208.
8. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands shall be done for 1.67 acres of impacts. Applying
a replacement ratio of 2:1, total mitigation for 3.34 acres of riparian wetlands shall be provided. We
understand that you have chosen to perform compensatory mitigation for impacts to streams through
an in lieu payment to the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP), and that the WRP
has agreed to implement the mitigation for the project. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands shall be provided through an in-lieu payment to the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) at a rate of $24,000 per acre for 3.25 acres of impacts (Acreage requirements
proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Program must be rounded to one-quarter
increments according to 15A 2R.0503(b). Therefore, a total payment for 3.25 acres impact at
$24,000 per acre for a total payment of $78,000 shall be submitted to the NCWRP to offset the
impacts. No construction activities in jurisdictional streams shall begin until payment for wetland
mitigation is made and the Wetland Restoration Program receives and clears your check (made
payable to DENR - Wetland Restoration Program). The payment to NCWRP shall be sent within
two months of issuance of the 404 permit. If you have any questions concerning the Wetland
Restoration Program, please contact them a t 91-733-5208.
9. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ 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.
10. 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 streambeds 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.
11. The permittee shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (an/or agents) a copy of this certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions
4
are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit. This Certification
shall expire upon the expiration of the 404 or CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request
within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. If modifications are
made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are
made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 7th day of September 2005
DIVISIO WATER QUALITY
I?
an W. Klimek Pf.775?
Director
WQC No. 3381
r-'k
4-W
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
41,
19
"OSr TFR SOS D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?gRry
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 16, 2005 D ? D 4/0V. 2,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 6
Dear Sir:
Subject: Application for a Permit Modification for Section 404 and 401 permits
For the improvements to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) from US 401 to
SR 1403 (Reilly Road), Cumberland County. TIP No. U-2520; Federal
Aid No. STP-1400(2); State Project No. 8.2441701; USACE Action ID
200200640; DWQ Project No. 020400. $475 to WBS No. 34818. 1.1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve SR
1400 with 4.5 miles of widening and 1.1 miles of new location. The proposed cross-section
will consist of a combination of five-lane and four-lane median divided.
The U.S. Army Crops of Engineers issued an Section 404 Individual permit on
August 12, 2002 (Action ID 200200640) and the N.C. Division of Water Quality issued a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification on April 19, 2002.
The purpose of this submittal is to request a modification to the Section 404 permit
and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The modification for the permit is for
additional stream impacts of 95 feet to Site 4.
The revised design does not compromise NCDOT's compliance with the existing
permit conditions. The revision has been evaluated for compliance with the
avoidance/minimization criteria and are in compliance with all previous issues, including the
following:
• Protected Species, Aquatic Life passage, FEMA compliance or Cultural Resources.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1545 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
`J
U17. 1

I U
Permit Drawing 9 of 11/Site 4
The stream at this site was not shown correctly on the plans and so at the inlet of this
culvert, the stream is eroding, scouring and headcutting upstream. To control the erosion and
provide stability for this stream a step pool is designed at the inlet. The step pool is 58 ft and
the design is enclosed with this application.
At the outlet of this culvert a rip rap pad with an energy dissipator basin is needed to
dissipate the water coming out of the culvert.
A preformed scour hole was changed to a energy dissipator basin near this site for the
same reason as above. .
The additional impacts to both of these areas at Site 4 are 95 ft. This stream is
intermittent and did not require mitigation in the original permit so no mitigation is required
for these additional impacts.
This application is hereby made for a Section 404 Individual Permit Modification as
stated for the above mentioned activity. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification modification. In compliance with Section 143-
215.313(e) of the NCAC we will provide $475 to act as payment for processing the Section
401 permit modification as previously noted in this application (see Subject Line). Seven
copies of the application are being provided to the DWQ for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Rachelle
Beauregard at 715-1383.
Sincerely,
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (7 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. Becky Fox, USEPA - Whittier, NC
Mr. Ronald Mikulak, USEPA - Atlanta, GA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
x
f L\ I II ? ? I
\ x q
uu
rcII
I

00
00+vI ` IL

. E

N
EE
I
m
I

ILA
i I
I 4
h
Ir ` OMxww GOBI -x?
I I 2
I Q
?
pp x
?N? ? I
¦ I
I I
I R

/ mN~ I.0>1
9
O$<
EE
O EI
I
I
40 F- g I
c?
?
w-j
- E
B\+
E \ I

La Pn ai 40
0 cj
0
< > H

I I
+`oo
m u??1?tw W

® ? I? I
\
. I
I I
Vl/?OS . I

a
?
a
I
HW
NN
x-max
xr-
1
e? +
O-11
y
00+99
®© I /
I
?0 I
I
I '
1
1
? U? 1 y
I
I
i
I
o I
b?
• a
<
O<?J II
W.11
Q J
r6 <
S.
V~1 HNW
WWWN
U-)
® O
W
00 ~
a ??L^t
X;
?S V
-CL
?< J
<u u
N W Ln
ON I
J
U-
4Na(WN
I I I ? //- ? vas wrv? -vvv
d / mmc >°
I I Iry / ?\b ? J??`oa ti °
I I ? / X o\ \ \ ?e?a
I I I? _ ? ? III ? U ??
I I g I? I 1 ? (I? / ? r.? 1?\\
C()NC \\
I U cl ? I \ `G r
I I U '?? JN0.7 SS - / \ i / \\??
b
°?
? o N V) co
00 b

W U V '-T r) .7
N
O
G? C)
`
?. r
a
(/1 Q >
4
F.. QzN
F
U .?..]
o3??c?

Q
? ._
E ?aa:

z
oo Z Wp
p
-
?
z
?, a
?
-
a
°

w w
a
w
?
z
a
F on
CIO
00 O
p
u 0

X
N
W [x]U^ flAU
G
d U
??
L
? ii `n o v
a
? v
W CD CD C)
? A O O O O O O O
(i 7 O O O O O O
_ rl

? l~d ??
S
O
O
O
O
O a's
O
u U u ?'' c o 0 0 0 p

d t
" r c
ctz n
L m Y
?? n`i vOi °?

d

O N
F+? y
My ?+ G ^
la
O 00
O
O
O
O
??1 Z X
Q Lt7
?.a
F m
3 EE VA

F iz

N
'-
-
O
N
000
W)
-' -- = O O O N N In
w3?- o 0 0 0 0 c

y 00

O

O
0

'?

O

0
X

O
C N X
00 N '= ^ N
N C'4 N
a.i

ce ce e ll? p

0
+ 0 0
+ r-
+ 0 0
+
O
t 00 +
N 00
N M V' tl IC ?D

C? rZ N r1 V v1 ?p

z
F
U
a
R
z

er! C7 U
p
A
]
?
?
C

z
Z
N

q U
a
w
A
U
?j
a) E
Co
z
W
CO
x
m

i
a) c

CL a)
C
N
? _N O_ N r O N

m
U
.

0
m

rn
v
c
m
U
m

? N

y
L y
O O

> O
m

c C C

N

O

O

N m
3
l0
n
E

c
c
m
L

a? a

C) U
c

c
m

I
D
d
w

f0
a

N
C
'C

? rn

Z U U

F- in m n?? o
U x t E F-
a w
U-

N C
C
C

?
?
C
U
V
Cd
7
N
1?
O
M
O
?
co
O
) CO
?
x
L 0) M
?-
Q
? E
WU d

w
U u?
LL E?m? °o,
>- ? U
Q
? c

? C U
?
? N ? _N N
O

N ?
a O O O O O
°
O O O O O

a rn
? c c
M -z; M o
C)

a'
W ?
D C 'C
U M O CO
?,
f0 f6 d ?p O O
O
O
N
? N
L >
U O O O O O °
H ~
U ?
cc
Q
a C ?
o v
m?
? ° o
0 ? o °
Z
g X ? ° °
w
H
W in
aC
? U O

C w

LL ?
> O O O O O
a
U
m

? T U
m N
?J ~
? R• 00 N ? O cD
7
N tp
X ?l I? X ?
_
?
f0 N
N

C 0 J J J J J J
O ? O ? O r-- ° N
?
? v
N
M
? dp
O N
(O
t0
J J J J J J

d O

'
' J
Q
? Z N f
7 q IA t0 I-
O c: N
W p W
a5
m
co
f"
6L 'pN •133HS 33S
c z 000'09+09 'VLS -?}- 3Nn HXVW
?1 ° I? al ge l I ti vT a
4 x
m to g wm II S 9{ 8g W b ?, y3 + eJ I ` b I I m rn I N J
• p q3 e; ?di ?f,• I m ?I
Z ?` 3 c fl III ??I? 6 r I I N
W rB no ise•aoro
?z? ___= III o a? ??i
4 --- ise as oar as r w 1 ti S? 1 II 1
Z8 .71N0.? 6i I Sono ]N0] ww 00 o III I , W
',?,' I I R
.9.7 S owl
eam arw
j -6'o0oza,
.x01 W I 1
W z v
C3 I /? d3unie._--? r"_ III I c ??[$1 u1 J?' N
II /? M w II ®??'j yam. a? W
oei? II + • refs W 2
X-x
a II I I I 14 o W
k av?re ?I II b 1a + N 1 II ?II I ?n a r t/j p W 4W1
$ ---II 09?Igl + Nd x vl'a
t- LL.
" I I r
80
152
.? 3.0e ,L0.eZ S + W l $ l
© I tetTS-x_
0`MXww ooai -x
T+? / / I III, >s /?:
??MI?ON / c4 f i
VIL
(ryllNllll p II
? ? ? / ? ?? x ? x I I t 6s o/$ld
I 81C'.
+ +?, : 3 Q III Ili o I I , :1 1 0 .. e 9
ry° o' k'0?.4 + IS? II 1 ,11 1 ' 99 99 99
II Il ; I a ?. a 09 9
??r- cho? , ,I, I I V ??4$ ?? 99 99 99
$ < ?w b I I g I 1 axd gg h
K d?
+ W? a° u c Il i I +
C3uj d a d ?1 jIII ` I I q ESQ Se? h a
\+ I
OA I
°t + ?MOV 0.°gW I 'III j I I 1 $ $? WW
? R +
X + ggoW r w°?0w l,l I n R - _ ??
?+ is°usw ~;? i VIII I I .+ 1 . /
r v~i
11
69 l to + 1 aa? ?"t
x iLL g
ig vc
? IC' ? a . • ,ICI I .. `"L?r +so a
^L ?L P
?- b I l I 88 p .4X u
?LjLlgo
.. (tltlii .OQd
( N ?O Ifl O
? I I III yF?rN=r?WW
7. IIIQ WWWVI
'+r JY
\ fIU III Asa \ -' ..- ,'_----•,1
a o ?x .Illl I! \.•
r
I-- $° W I $? Ijjj I I ?y ie
w l l I eesre
a / W N
lI? III I W y•>r.ce.
NN ri I IId III r. ? I + ,e? G ? A?
?? ?• ? N? + lI I ? sP k
+? O II? II I? . ? + ? b
n ?° n ?' ? ~ o ? I 1I Il l wwi ?n :
LJ t /w e .M + ?r ?S 0,
® k-_?XJ k ? ? ? 9 I O ~ S ? ? ? ? SG V
4'?a r? l I ? W
?yyp II
e'??y O? ? + ,. ? W 1 I IlI If I I ? ?' x
Ill II Q/
' I © r,
J li '? '? A
D •s? Mo 1?I1 Il o g $ ? ° ow \?Y
Q .t Ill ? I ? ?
LS
s ?4 A• a?? I II I l ! ? Q y? t?\
/? lyI I I ??p I ? ? cpxuc \\ ? ? Y'??
\`( I f l u u Q\ Yu Y\
yyll O OM mw 00 I T I
y I I I I I U I? ??
f?? ? E ? I III M'aN
II II II ' O ac q ??
: s z? a w ooal its
II uh 'YL AO.LZ OM ww OOZI 1 I J I 1{
I I ?TZI Uro 3.e149.21 S
s - li I I ,?
ia 40
C I I w
If Q 43 iH 00a b a r? r? I
ICI w 3 de AS AS K 9Ze'ZI H I I I .' .. ?? ..ti" F - 'r
II b .? 1 f ` ww OOB_ 7=S,?.lt S ZSZ'09 II
III °
II b US od 6606, 9 ' ? +
000'00+LS *VIS-Y 3N11 H:)1VW
Me'YIWLCL"t?1?XM1•K4C?hMlVw1?Y11MS?M ?tM?lw"?n?
?S
0
13
je ?H? < ?3?s{ ? ?•? ? " ??` ? ]Mai li¦M a ? .?
> <M?at >Y Q
aa M
! ?d®< $
:
4
z it
16 ul
?s
str' < s. M? 0; 4;
-? a of _
O IL •
NLn
> A t
Lnoo _
c\j +•
00
=Ln a a
?o N
4 ds ;Zj1,:
al >
r
„?.??.
Ail
A 'Koo
a ?
a Wj
?.. p O
W LY O
p z O.
C? >W
p0, ca ca
O
W v U.
O ?
V
O
bb/Z/L u6P'lood do a\0Z5Zn\uaTo6\• oorb a
91'80 SZf(aoOOZDb-'o6f1ur 0
V?.
-
?
° v
*-?_?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
o?
?'os q? 1pps,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 16, 2005
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 6
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
020410011.2,
Subject: Application for a Permit Modification for Section 404 and 401 permits
For the improvements to SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) from US 401 to
SR 1403 (Reilly Road), Cumberland County. TIP No. U-2520; Federal
Aid No. STP-1400(2); State Project No. 8.2441701; USACE Action ID
200200640; DWQ Project No. 020400. $475 to WBS No. 34818. 1.1 The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve SR 1
1400 with 4.5 miles of widening and 1.1 miles of new location. The proposed cross-section
will consist of a combination of five-lane and four-lane median divided.
The U.S. Army Crops of Engineers issued an Section 404 Individual permit on
August 12, 2002 (Action ID 200200640) and the N.C. Division of Water Quality issued a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification on April 19, 2002.
The purpose of this submittal is to request a modification to the Section 404 permit
and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The modification for the permit is for
additional stream impacts of 95 feet to Site 4.
The revised design does not compromise NCDOT's compliance with the existing
permit conditions. The revision has been evaluated for compliance with the
avoidance/minimization criteria and are in compliance with all previous issues, including the
following:
• Protected Species, Aquatic Life passage, FEMA compliance or Cultural Resources.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMNGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
Permit Drawing 9 of 11/Site 4
The stream at this site was not shown correctly on the plans and so at the inlet of this
culvert, the stream is eroding, scouring and headcutting upstream. To control the erosion and
provide stability for this stream a step pool is designed at the inlet. The step pool is 58 ft and
the design is enclosed with this application.
At the outlet of this culvert a rip rap pad with an energy dissipator basin is needed to
dissipate the water coming out of the culvert.
A preformed scour hole was changed to a energy dissipator basin near this site for the
same reason as above. .
The additional impacts to both of these areas at Site 4 are 95 ft. This stream is
intermittent and did not require mitigation in the original permit so no mitigation is required
for these additional impacts.
This application is hereby made for a Section 404 Individual Permit Modification as
stated for the above mentioned activity. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification modification. In compliance with Section 143-
215.3D(e) of the NCAC we will provide $475 to act as payment for processing the Section
401 permit modification as previously noted in this application (see Subject Line). Seven
copies of the application are being provided to the DWQ for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Rachelle
Beauregard at 715-1383.
Sincerely,
V g1-----
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (7 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. Becky Fox, USEPA - Whittier, NC
Mr. Ronald Mikulak, USEPA - Atlanta, GA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
j \ I Ix " I IA
oII I I ?o?
00"0911 I` I 1 u, Z o o?
it 4, 'z
a. x
II o I / <=pVOQM 0
crliZvOC c?`
aMkw
LAJ
? w ooe, ti° ? U
IIl I I ., to
x V
m? / H ; V
w_
/ I I I ? O V O v 0
off, ? ? ?_Q
/ J U mNW ." ?, ~ Z a W N
oI I I
}? _gx I I a
by<? ?} mX I I I W N? o
00-, I C.1 m W - Q
N?<a.tl }\ ? I ?VFJ 11
'?,?, M m I j!?2
?OO2N I I I (AAW C r? i
82131?
` "y 1 L)
N
® I? X1~ANNW
I I? I S WWWN ® s
I? I o
I ® o
f? I I W
W ' f L -MCC
a ?
N
E? /:•? ? mm I Cj
J
/ aW" <X 2
O NW lrl
HW I `? 1 Z
NN x_x I I I ?N
LL.
~1~AI~AW
• + ° 4(WIA 1
[",% I I I o
ry0
F? I I I ?' ?• ?SE°
O
?? u
°1-1 ems.?j
w d I v // ZSi L* 99 063L1
• ® I I I I? \b J / `OIL pp0
I ?V P
E
00"8s"o I I m HE
00
I I m a? ?` o ?\\
\\ a 1 ` 111 . sit l T ??, EE\
N 1 s I I X ? \\ °\
7Poo 95 r r \\ / ?_-
?? OM WW 00 I N m
? II I I W ? ? r= -=
C v' CA 00
^
0 C:
U O
4 N
\6 i

00 V
?•
W
U V• V V 'c7
N Q _ Z \

?
c0
?
F
C/1 NLs
F?-
F

d ° co
` ?
O
?
O
?
E Uo
(
j
? [r,
?
` u Z'"p?
] O
ms
-' 0 .a] o " W
E
W ?- z cr ? w
F .
E-+ CD -y
C co ?-.
-
00
N
b
"?
00 M O O w
] w
co w U 0
i> CL E
• r- oo
CIS
?' O F
'
?
iC L E N N V N 7
0
W „'
.
W W U ppCJ

d - U
.
.
`3?^ z
a
? v

° v, a
Cl rn v
O
o 0 0 Co
li y O O O O O O O
v C
N b0 `C •p ^
W)
v
m
00
rl
'r. O eq
cd ,C ,C O
O O
O
O v
O N
O
O
U 0 0 0 0 0

YN
d
bl)
r b
03

v, H ? 3

d
H
? ?-
q X
3" 0 0 p
d W
a
F y
E '" a A

t"w3

N
C C ^
N
N
N
o0
co
-
%n
_ S O O O N N 1I7
u 3" 0 0 0 0 0 O

7 y

?

O

O 0

'?
O
0
X

O
-3L 00 N oo ^ N
.Ni N
v

0
+ Cl 0
+ r-
+ o O
+ O
+ + F.

N
M
V' 00
? N
cD 00
c0

fnZ N M V vi ?p

z =
o

z
R a

V; ° C7 U
O
w x z
C:
N
O

c z z
x
W
W O
CO

p U
0.
W
Q
z W
x

CL m

v
CL N C
? N O N r O N

>.
m
CL

04 C14
O cn
C
ONi

C

N
O
O
LD
N
3

co U
co
O
O
C)
!?
CO lC

? LL j

O

O

O

O

O CL
E
a?
c
L

CL U
c

co m

C
m
C
R

m
a
Q
U)

E
f0
C
'C
O
r
?
$
y
f

E c
? ? rn

zoo

!A _N
? C U d
H Co Cd ? ?
U ?x L E H
a wU-
?
N C
? C U C
to
? ? r
M ?
p fh O
Lo ll
t0
F
L t N O? O? M O
?
? WU?a
W
U N
j ? °
? ?
E
C U N U'3 _N N Cp _O ?
? ?> n?

? O
o O
0 O

0 O
O
O
?
°
V a
E 0 0 0

C 'C f0 U
fO m C N f0 p
c
F-
?
U ?
l O
l
W 'g N
?
N N y?
L N O O O ? O N
°
>
U O O O O O
H V ?
cc
a N
0
v
C ?
O

Q cc
O
O
N
O

°
X 7
W
J
H
W N
E c m ? °

y
?N G:
O
>
C N
f0
U,

N
C?

?
-

a
U

m °'
U ao
L)
? o
X
? N ?p
St N

N

C O J J J J J J
O? O O
co p ^ O
Cl) O
cli
:? O
co ? +
N c7 +
? +
? ? O
<O
... J J J _j J J

Z
N
Cl)
?
O
to J

0
t0
f0
l0
d
?Z 6L 'QVN La3HS
C Dv U. 000'09+09 3N33SIl H:).LVW
Q ,
° II al+ o /
!k b At MDa ss N Gi EI I I 1 M 1? 2 4
f miLk.
11,Q Ell
C*j
W? o J 118 I , $
- eaiino Lse uro !^ I
+r-9 I a's z U 01
`x aMD7 6Y II° 9tlnJe7N00 ww OO"f as .Y .t I o i H I, '
s ?i o
__ I I N
G u 3. ? / Cq I a ?
w 002 ~
?1?? ? a ?r? IOZ.BZ eemno wao ao Mole d -5??- I '
Ise zB _ ' 1 no p ? 1 8 V1
? II /' U3LLn? 1 uxu . ? ? ? ti _ 1 11 . , c io ?I
Q II ?? ?' Mwwww ?I li ® ?v ?I M a W
a X X I?IX R 1 + I$ W
+ N III All
I N <?=
W` W
t?t
$ X ---II 0911 N t i? ?+ ? via N
,.?j I 3 AC .L0.92 S W 8 I r.
„? © II ^{ z9m-x?
© ' gV I OMXW`w 0091 _X I I I
Q © ?I I' a I' 1 ' I / +
N ©o /// %/ '0O I I Ilii 1 I / t7.
un
INS L IA.
P_ + , II 11 I I e Ln g ! 9? '?a
ry o 8 °' •OP,r?, + q
?!• I L I , o. 1 + • ay l a y 9 9 9 9
.m\+ I Ii ?Il ' _ ?. a 07 9
LLr< ?o? , I Iv .?1 !7 99 97
o?Lu I III I ?>
d
LL o o
A? t o Ip-°w? Q X e: ' c I I IXW
w 33E?? d ?
a vria LLJ.e I I jl ? ( I I r s.??apr r ?' a r,;
1 r +vr l~l?11?l??ov ° n g~ I 11?I 1 I WWW?
p0 U 200W 1 I I
?+
6S 111 s 'C + a E ad9 ?"
I • g
% ? r? I! ? I,I I ? 160 vc a
49
r
UVJ,
CL >Y I $4 1111 I E I ue ? :::s
N ,t1 c t ti H W ?. W l i 11 6 I G -'po'se
+ F1 ?? $ I i"II li I vv^11 > I "'"•ce.
?S g W ? ) + +
II 1 I ray k
?! + O 11'1 I I +
+ o I II,I I ^r, _
~
, r, d x?
ysa ? I I 1? ?? W
I b?*'
4 C4
_j U.
0 S9? MO li,i I I D4 0 low
LS I

¦?ool r
II' 7..E .00.LZ S LL910
bI? w do e

g

la
-? U---
II
E 9'A OM w GOBI
.Y2 AO.LE S OM ww OOZI
II
u
w
II

II C
Ii
(??• 43 IM W OOZ ? e
3.LS.LZ.LE 90 X 9E9'A
II
a'
?I b
II b US 9d 60
'
1301
Lt ON 1
000'00+LS VS

1 %!l u '(I
I § 1\\
8 8 Y
i1 i I mm Iffi ? c0"c v??
I
I+I I 'fit ?l?A "NN
??
I I, 0 V s ?p aNO? s5 8-
I 11'1 ?L
I 11 I ?? a I r. p6re ? ? ??
ONt?f? I
121,
i,1, I gI??I ASOS 3.99 S
C I C 'I ?P? ? o?? ? II
LL.
f1 1 I
Y- I
I f 7 e ww OOB_ SS,QQ.Li S LK'09
11
IIlI I
$
O _V03 Z'S
I in
41 -Im --A
HD1VW
4IIS
we'YtaLCtM«»taEw'uS;t?l.tvwt?""?n?v ?9M'r»IMP1n?
I
? I I
x I
I /
-x- x_
r U'w oooi -x? I -
x
00 /
W x I ll
Nr ? I
k RR
$I I i° I
k x
fY r ,
o2 4I 1 o so I
r I I
I
+A I +p
q N
u 's c
o ?
1 a
-A os
?fL O I ? :? ??t?J
? A* I I ?" W W
!t " 0 4
b 00
I I ` O
8S IE Fs
u I I co
® 1 ?1 'v ?o ro ca

0
N
i
J
Rai
FY , I lilt ? ?t?y 9 F F N
I ? ; ¦
Big
W lilt
Si r.
Id IL
16 - a
cO? W
N + J t0
00
=Ln J a a? Q
U/
?
al
Hsi
i
In
a ?
a WJ?
Z
a
a. ca
co
O
W
H V ?
N
V
O
bb/Z/L iooo
u6p•lood daga\gZgZ_n\uaiv6\s?oa A ao .+6u• \t•
9180 5002-OfIV-60
?i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
/ fflzl • •
A;, L
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
April 19, 2002
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed widening and realignment of SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) from US 401 to SR 1403 (Reilly Road) in
Cumberland County (TIP U-2520).
WQC Project No. 020400
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3381 issued to The North Carolina Department of Transportation
dated April 19, 2002. You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
place fill material in 1.42 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, perform mechanized clearing in 0.23 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands, and excavate in 0.02 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. In addition, you are authorized the
place fill in 962 linear feet of streams. The project purpose is the widening and realignment of SR 1400 (Cliffdale
Road) from US 401 to SR 1403 (Reilly Road) in Cumberland County. The project shall be constructed in
accordance with your application dated March 15, 2002 and any additional conditions listed later in this certification.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office `
DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Ron Ferrell, Wetlands Restoration Program
Central Files
File Copy
Sincerely,
ry J. Thorpe, Ph.
tin Director
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center
Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
- - 0 * 2
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 9:
217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15
NCAC 2H, Section .0500. You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed belo
to place fill material in 1.42 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, perform mechanized clearing in 0.23 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands, and excavate in 0.02 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. In addition, you are authorized the
place fill in 962 linear feet of streams. The project purpose is the widening and realignment of SR 1400 (Cliffdale
Road) from US 401 to SR 1403 (Reilly Road) in Cumberland County. The project shall be constructed in
accordance with your application dated March 15, 2002 and any additional conditions listed later in this certificatic
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters of Bones Creek
located in the Cape Fear River Basin in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a violation of
applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that
this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-21
if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application, as described in the
Public Notice. Should your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ and you may be required to submi
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. Any additional impacts to wetlands or
streams, for this project (now or in the future) will require compensatory mitigation as described in 15A NCAC 2H
.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with all the conditions listed
below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge and Water Supply
watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or or
the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding Corps of Engineers Permit, whichever is sooner.
Condition(s) of Certification:
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most
-recent 3tetsianszf_ih.a"North Caro)ina_Seditnent ancfEr4s1911utrol Plaon.jng 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 standart
(50 NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and
reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable,.
they shall be removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has released d
project;
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1 62 1
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
ffl:?K;WAA
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
3. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a FONSI
or ROD is issued by the State Clearinghouse. All water quality-related conditions of the FONSI or ROD
shall become conditions of this Certification;
4. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
5. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with
this permit without appropriate modification of this certification. Should waste or borrow sites be located
in wetlands or stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road
construction activities.
6. All channel relocations will be constructed in a dry work area, and stabilized before stream flows are
diverted. Channel relocations will be completed and stabilized prior to diverting water into the new
channel. Whenever possible, channel relocations shall be allowed to stabilize for an entire growing
season. 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 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.
7
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to streams shall be done for 576 linear feet of stream impact at a
replacement ratio of 1:1. As such, compensatory mitigation for 576 linear feet of streams is required. We
understand that you have chosen to perform compensatory mitigation for impacts to streams through an in
lieu payment to the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP), and that the WRP has agreed
to implement the mitigation for the project. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to streams shall be
provided through an in-lieu payment to the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) at a
rate of $125 per linear foot. Therefore, a total payment of $72,000 shall be submitted to the NCWRP to
offset the impacts. No construction activities in jurisdictional streams shall begin until payment for stream
mitigation is made and the Wetland Restoration Program receives and clears your check (made payable to
DENR - Wetland Restoration Program). The payment to NCWRP shall be sent within two months of
issuance of the 404 permit. If you have any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program please
contactthem.at_919-733-520.8._ --
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands shall be done for 1.67 acres of impacts. Applying a
replacement ration of 2:1 total mitigation for 3.34 acres of riparian wetlands shall be provided. We
understand that you have chosen to perform compensatory mitigation for impacts to streams through an in
lieu payment to the North Carolina Wetland Festoration Program (NCWRP), and that the WRP has agreed
to implement the mitigation for the project. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands shall be
provided through an in-lieu payment to the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) at a
rate of $24,000 per acre for 3.25 acres of impacts (Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through
the Wetland Restoration Program must be rounded to one-quarter increments according to 15A
2R.0503(b). Therefore, a total payment for 3.25 acres impact at $24,000 per acre for a total payment of
$78,000 shall be submitted to the NCWRP to offset the impacts. No construction activities in
jurisdictional streams shall begin until payment for stream mitigation is made and the Wetland Restoration
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
4 •
WOOM
Michael F. Easley, Governor NC ENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Program receives and clears your check (made payable to DENR - Wetland Restoration Program). Th
payment to NCWRP shall be sent within two months of issuance of the 404 permit. If you have any
questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program please contact them at 919-733-5208.
9. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been complete(
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.
10. 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 t
DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other structl
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in di
equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the abo,,
structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be maintained if
requested in writing by DWQ.
11. The permittee shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit. This
Certification shall expire upon the expiration of the 404 or LAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within
(60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a written petition conformii
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O.
27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the
Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This.the..19`h dayszf Apffl2002..
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WQC No. 3381
r g J. orpe, Ph.
cting Director
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
A? ST ri
d?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I uti
MICHAEL F. EASIJ?Y 1 LYNDO TIPPI.TT
GOVERNOR , I SECRETARY
August 20, 2002
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890 L3 +
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 3 0
r k "
ATTN.: Mr. Richard Spencer tsq
NCDOT Coordinator SECTION
Dear Sir: n
1
Subject:- Cumberland County, SR 1400 (Cliffdaj@-Rd.) from US 401 to SR 1403 (Reilly Rd.) in
I?a} Fe -1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, T.LP. No.
-U-2520.
Please find attached revised permit drawings for this project. As 1 stated during our last
phone conversation, impacts to waters of the U.S. have not changed. "These drawings show the
locations of energy dissipaters that will be used instead of the pre-formed scour holes that were
originally planned.
If you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to contact me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
,,, ?/ ;? C-
%- ,
Chris Rivenbark, Natural Systems Specialist
PDEA-Office of Natural Environment
cc: Mr. John Hennessey, NCDWQ
U-2520 file
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC Dh:PAR1 NIFN ' OF TRANSPORT A IION
PROIH ,I' UEVI!L01'61ISN 1 AND I:NVIRONNII:NI AI. ANAI.)'SIS
1548 MAIL S1:RVICI( QIN 1IA
RM.nuH NC 27699-1548
H:i.miom 919-793-3141
PAX: 919-733-9794
WiiC tin. II'wir.AY7)OTORli
LOCATION:
PRANSPOR IAFION BUILDING
I SOUTII WII.MINGION S"IRI'ICI
RAITI(M NC

cn -
j 53tic?a
i
3 " y33e?" - ?" ?'!
EM1 r V
\L?, j Sti qy
0
I ?^ r

D
I
Y i

O rf ? , •? 'P ? O
0 r f lry- t 1 . , ?_ .
• O I ..
1 1 4 ' ' W
r -
i
-- - ---------
-0 C)
a w
„4 0 ?C<-0 +\ `Y
CA r, 0
-n I ar
m r OD MY
JP JP %J
0o moCO2N ? ... (fr ?;
r G Z'. `I , o : f r
Ln -< LA 31
w -.4
O O p ?,? P l ?` L
00
30 133HS
2002 A8vndg33
V08 A11138) E00 8S O1 ar Sn
W0a3 C08 31V033110) 00b1 dS
(OZSZ-n) Ioiartr '8 103f Oad
A1Nn00 ONVI839Wn0
SAdMHOIH 30 NOISIAIO
N011VAUSNV81 30 '1d30 'O'N
VOSLZ 3N'NOSN38
III X09 '0'd SH30NVS vnnr V *d "VI111M 1,Z
ON '3XV1 JNIadS NOI1VA83S3a
OaVBB 1803 k8Vllllh DOV80 1803 £Z
01£8Z ON'31IIA3113AV3
OVoe 31x033110 60LL AV8'3 GIVOIH38V ZZ
£O£8Z ON'3111A3113AV3
OV08 A11138 *N ILZ 3SVO VaONVS IZ
1,1£8Z ON'3111A3113AVj
OV08 31V033113 8291 NOSMVI ONOMAVd OZ
1,0£82 ON'3111A3113AV3
OVOB 08033V8 008£ NOIIV130SSV 0113911NOM 61
10£82 ON'3111A3113AVj
aV08 08neSWVI111M 011,5 3noV31 N313H 81
1,1£82 ON'3111A3113AV3
18nO3 NV03A OOL A3lOn0 SIMHO LI
1,1£BZ ON'3111A3113AVj
3A180 )1338O 3NO9 6069 SN3A31S A1101-1 91
VIER ON '31`lIA3Ii3,kVj
3AI80 0031NVd 9ZOL HDVNIS OlYN08 51
d800 1N314d013A30 1S3MH1n05 1,I
bl£8Z ON'3111A3113AVj
3NVI X008910H 8696 Hd3SOr A38333r £I
CO£8Z ON'3111A3113AVj 'ONI'3111A3113AVj
OV08 NIXOVA 901,9 j0 S3MIOH 3011S38d ZI
1,0£82 ON'311IA3113AV3
3AI80 Nn8 83AV38 8661 N3110 V80NVS II
1,0£92 ON'311IA3113AV3
3 WE X09 1,.18 '8r 30V11VM AdN3H 01
90£8Z ON'311IA3113AVj
3 51,9 Xo9 ZI'18 ONI "OD ON10lIne 1S8 6
1,1£82 ON'311IA3113AVj
AVM NVllnr*IS 91,99 831-Ionold NYM83H 8
1,1£9Z ON '3111A3113AVj
0V08 31V033113 6L89 83N8VA 13VHOM I
90£9Z ON'3111A3113AVj
30V1d j8ns 06ZI '8r'ABneSNV1S 08VN839 9
LIM ON'SONIBdS 038
O£9 X0e'0'd 'd80O dIHS83e1043104 83AI8 338mm S
1,1£82 ON'3111A3113AVj
3NVl 31139 31NN09 1,059 OA011 V8nV1 1,
10£8Z ON'3111A3113AVj
133815 AVH f£1, 311IA3113AV3 30 Al1O £
1,1£9Z ON'3111A3113AVA
OV08 0138 AONV8 S99L ar'NOOONVI NAl08VO Z
1,1£9Z ON'311IA3113AVj
VON 0138 AONV8 5981 8r 'N000NV1 '3 'O I
S3SS3HOOV S3WdN 'ON 1338Vd
SdINMO ?k1d3dOdd
C Vi 4- w N .-- z
C
^
?
y

c
00
?
t1i
In
00
P
W
N

O o o 0 0 0
?.
a H H --3 H

C/1 H H H H H H

A
b Coe)
N

8
p
x
?-
C W N

8 o
x
?' C
N n
co
w o 0
0
C o 0 0 0 0 ??

J 0 o g o c
c w`
? 00 N N O. ?
N

d ^5?
y
r
c ? x z
g g ? = ,._, a
w w o ? O
r.r
?O O0 p,
? ? ?

s_ 0
^
S
v W
p
i
CD a

? n
0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
?
o
00

w 8

v? `: $
• 5
0-1 _
? o O o 0 0 0 ? ?'?7
S
w w

p A?? ? A N N N ? ? S K

C ? ? oo v
b N
, ..
p ?'
•
o o -- -- ? a

?
? 00 -3
Cl7C
°D
py ?
"
t
C
7
C?J
pNgd
o
C?ryn
A
'=7g
??p?0 ? w ?
v= S P: .d
n co
c

? QrQ
oil y
7o a v? y L
to
Z
oo P,
in 91
N
O
T
J
O vim,
N lf3D
N
Q
. OO
N
30 133HS
zooz A8vn8933 SONVl13M T
('OM A11138) E0171 8S o1 lob sn
W08J C08 TIV033110) OObI aS
(ozsz-n) IOLIbbZ'9 103rO8d dV8 did
A1Nno0 ONV1839Wn0
SAVMHOIH 30 NOISIAIO
NOI1VIdOdSNV81 30 '1d30 '0'N 131N1 39VNIV80 ¦
3N11 S000M
3381 3l9NIS
839WnN 1308Vd 80 83NMO AId3dOdd 1N30VrOV 0
1N3W3SV3 N01i:)nHISN09 A8V8OdV43i 3 3
1N31N3SV3 30VNIV80 IN3NVV483d ---30d ad
1N3w3SV3 39VNIV80 AdV8OdV43i -301 301
3NIl A1d3dOdd - - - - -
ONnOdO lVdniVN ----- ON - -----
AVM 30 1H918 03SOdO8d
ln0 j0 IMI-I 03SOdOdd - - - - - -
lll3 JO DNIl 03SOdOdd - - - ? - - -
831VM 30 3003 -------- ?- - -
XNV9 JO d01 Bl
N01103810 MOI. E-
SONVl13M NI IIIJ S310N30
S831VM 30V38nS NI lll3 S31ON30
9N18V310 03ZINVH03W S31ON30
SONVl13M NI NOIIVAVOX3 S310N30
AdVONn09 ONVI13M AlIIVnO HOW e.
AdVONn09 ONVI13M kinvno wn103w 81M
ON]93?
o
- -, r-
, D O r
rm r? F

-

A 0Y
r?
o 0 E3 4

o
I?

T l -W
A -0
izz, E3 ?
j = n

CD
c?
??c_o
?

O
0

O
?
eZ
C
-31 O CD
z

?
O
D
D
0- °
if
D
C --o

-
CD FT
1
o? o ?F
X
n
D CD C/) ITS
f -n C/? E3 C
z
z- zz
?I m

?
D o ?

rl z 0
m

D T-1
Z F-
< n
m ---?

?D Q
-j m cr ? w N - Cc)

N N ?
m O C") T
Oj
OM O n p 0 D
m-romc??'
A ?
V
I m
< 0
f')
A
O
rn>?r-pDmZ? z

r=aoaZ
-4
n r-
o N o
m
-OX-
nm
a 0 0 0
0
0 Z

?
oE
cz
o
0 r- ?
N r- : NUP < ((A
N
o 1
0
i W ? W (.J?
L^' N CO 11
6' -n
-r?.
-L?, w o0 10 1 1
z
C ?
N
mz

00 .A m w cJi ? 61
O O O O c1i 0 0 ?

D
O H O c.n ? ? O Z

0 0 O

? m Lo ?o m m m _

W
,-
W
W N ,
-
N

Or cn cn to
r nO
,: O
C-D
0
5 p
D M
r 73
LTI M
3 C
Z ?D ?o _7C) -
m p

n

---1 D m

-m m
=
-

r
= u
0
r-
o
TI
D
n(n 7D
z
mm
T (n n CO T1
r D O n
=
_ ?
Z D

-
o FT
1
m -- p
n a -'
4
?1
4 l J
QJ `
m (n Z" C

W CD
p (D
) n m
? m
O ? D\ O C-) m =
tJ
•? 3 z n ' (n

C m -+
33
d r-
-
m
? i? -
-I
c
n ? =
D
Z D z F-

C7 Z D Z
-I D ? ITS
x D

O C
n
C
-
C Drrr r7
1
Zx rC ?-
O D N r
r = m
ohm C?
Cdr -?
Z =
0
FT-1
D
D
r7"l
LAN ?
a M
OMO
v
Q
o a?
?
m
miomCC? i
X::0 -4W0 ' O - O -
m> r-wMzm
- L-i L; m
:
n
??--n
T 3 `'i O
vaZ
M
::z X: X.
0 O
UD
T. mop=tn
ommciaO
O r . :5
N??(Njf-ALA
N
0 ?
MO
°? 0
n
.O o 6. 3 ?

.. d
o•
m
?r N 2
m
Q co
o
h .?Iq
'~r?
n
O

.
Q S
ag
'
4?
• ? o ? 4 z z
.o.. 0 0 m

1 JJ 0 :J ? ? 1
_
.
O /V
O

0 30, mv10 ;NO
`
mm 7O0!*. gg ?
3 ?` 0

o

cr
? 7 x n

0 o C
° ?
8
Ir c° '° 14 m
a` rn
-
cn O a

?01
1
1 7 m
°

T
7
cc
3N .
oar
301
0,0

°

C)
C

a
-4,

X0
c 7
0
-NxC
OS 7

y

0

FT
3 0,
ft
10 7
x° .nod
$?o'
°
-
D
{ 001 o
3
p N 3 0 ` ?-
E ? -x ap
7 I
X ° Q 1
O
o
c?
3 3 n
(C/1 N ? O
m x #0 a
c?v
n 37x ?
rr
;o
nm1 or^c?
CA
o 0
°
zo
rn> pwT a °.

n -r xa
w
mp
mgoo
-
o
N O 2
0
n Za
r
k
r- -4
N
Ln -C N
y
"n
N
o
o; °
.. z
n
m
2
g T
F

S
_ \
Comm
s
O O N
n u n

IL a LA
N
i
3 g v
a ? a
-1
m
0
000
0
coo
oc
0
000
1 1 1 I -.r
T r ? m
r r s a
z z z n
-i
mi z o °z
r T
a a ? z
p m a ?
cn ME
11 a z ?
o m " a
O N 11 O
CD
n 11 Q II
O C
LTI D O
o d
°
? n o
a a
I
o
O I
- l

i
i /

'tom
-IIE.' -
...t?.r? ? -. 7 W

O \?
W

\ L
0
OjS I /

2+00
i \
W
? \ x
In \
clsc i
C'!
a ?- r x
r
m Z
? lnl /L I ? L `
000
00
? i o1o S
000
r r m I
r r = ?/
Z Z S /L,?
a a yaw`
a ro
(/l \+ 3 900
i i a Z \? a 0
o m c? ,
O
a ° ° k. /
°m a x r'
m
? -? k_ OxpS: f
'L001 C
6p0 L L x;
J _ s ' c
?a ?, C
CS ? ? ? L
a ? a
o
/ 00, ?' Lx rS,gja 3/t28s?
i I m
o -
*? I o0 3 __-_-,-- -_
_-
t c) m m ? --e
I/ n, SCSIo. 3/tg
T+ \ -;-4 m O I I co
N
IC?g t
00 I o\ x
\ m f I 0 --- .J2*00
x
I v ? S y
00
X OM 1 I ON ww OOBi `•'"' X11 ?? \.
11 ? ?
I
C55&55
a z B?
o o0`npm f g 1I I ?? Q
xao ;, ^??J 1 ?? / p
me 3.1 o
mG,V^rz0
?m
-?0 pa0 => 1 I IIIB ?? ?
pNw?? =Z
?. mO?CEN 1 '? ilI' l
o --J9
01AmCCa co,
Nr;D ? T I
m m O N I 1 I i epp mm 33+00
V 0
- OM w i? 1i I X p
r

T
r
Z
T
a
n
m
AE
a
m
N
O
O
O
2
a
(A
n?
m
IILL
Comm
58??
Z c)
O W ? K
O in a Tc
Oo `? 3 N
3 \
N N 11
O
m

i
_-1800
T x
c /
pl ? p ? ? I . w
PCSto.58+27.352
l \;
T? m
'yy H ?
i N r
f? 71NrON
> C
N /
" ? r I
-
m F-?" ,r N p?
_ lam/
Hill
r"' r m X ?'m I
I 1-
r r = a
z z z a ? II I I
m
o z ® T ?I, II I I ?°"'
n A p z ?? I I
z n ?d I
o m rr' m II m l
p m Cl) Z"a .0 /450 CSP 450 375
? 11=1 II
I gm?
N O c.n \ c ? 1
40
n p ° I\ I T? a.
C> X-
_ = o
n 3:. re ?k \ 62+00
°o xovl
r o o° °? "? -Cm$ I
°mm I ( LE O
III °
m
IE ° I I I
-on
CD `i >° +
m
mo ` ICI .
375 m I
Qo
o dy >? I II NI al?
° o
° J II I ICI ?I
K' O° ° ---'`-
\? 159 fC__ _- I
? I
„ ad
375 375 I 63+00
ri I I m l \I?I-- - - a,N
C'
PD
<0mm
C: Z SSo, 3
?? -_ \ I I
a 0 0. 0` e?` \ 2 I I $I
I? I I ^I ?L
OaOC r
<O*1 ` m (A
O L
a v, I r- ai_N
N On; 3u v m
mc°c?-4rCDo'+ Nw g oq
?C??roo?Z-n
a N
" 8>-6 m I?
a ? ^'` M-2-4 ALZ Cl)
I
om??c°?o ' I I II
ojo,Zaz I 1
Nom{ -n UNi-( tA a
N
0 O O O
2
... I I r II II
y

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
020.4001
March 15, 2002 - -
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
MAR 15
. wEru>Mas crt?uP'?
TE1 UALITYSECTV1
Subject: Cumberland County, SR 1400 (Cliffdale Rd.) from US 401 to SR 1403 (Reilly Rd.) in
Fayetteville, Federal Aid Project STP-1400(2), State Project No. 8.244170 1, T.I.P. No.
U-2520.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes improvements to SR 1400
by constructing project U-2520, which is a 4.5 mile widening project with 1.1 miles on new
location. The proposed cross-section will consist of a combination of five-lane and four-lane
median divided.
Summary of Impacts: Impacts to jurisdictional areas of U-2520 consist of a total of 1.67 acres of
permanent wetland impacts which consist of 1.42 acres of fill, 0.02 acres of excavation, and 0.23
acres of mechanized clearing and grubbing. There will also be 0.16 acres of permanent fill in
surface waters and 962.3 linear feet of jurisdictional stream impacts.
Summary of Mitigation: The project has been redesigned to further avoid and minimize impacts
to the jurisdictional wetlands and streams as follows:
• The alignment was shifted to the south at Site 6 (St. 68+20) to minimize impacts to a
large headwater wetland system. This shift has reduced wetland impacts from 1.5 ac
to 0.69 acres. cutting impacts at this site by greater than 50%.
• Stream and Wetland Mitigation: The 575.8 feet of perennial stream impacts as well as
1.67 acres of wetland impacts will be mitigated by using mitigation credit from the
N.C. Wetland Restoration Program (WRP).
N' T
WTFIVED
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
I SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WkBsin,: www NCDOT ORG RALEIGH NC
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was submitted by the NCDOT in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA was approved on August 19, 1997. A Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved on May 3, 1999. The EA explains the purposc
and need for the project, provides a description of the alternatives considered, and characterizes
the social, economic, and environmental effects. After the EA was approved it was circulated t4
federal state and local agencies. Copies of the EA and FONSI have been provided to regulatory
review agencies involved in the approval process. Additional copies will be provided upon
request.
U-2520 is in compliance with 23 CFR Part 771.111(f) which lists the FHWA characteristics of
independent utility of a project:
(1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure, even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area;
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
RESOURCE STATUS
Surface Waters: Bones Creek (DWQ Index No. 18-31-24-2) and four of its unnamed
tributaries are crossed by the project. Each of these streams are in the Cape Fear River Basin
(Hydrologic Unit 03030004) and carry a Best Usage Classification of C. Details for all
jurisdictional impacts are listed on the summary sheet with the attached permit drawings. The
total impacts for jurisdictional surface waters associated with the project is 0.16 acre or 962.3
linear feet. Compensatory mitigation will be offered for 575.8 linear feet of perennial stream
impacts. Copies of the USACE Intermittent Channel Evaluation Forms as well as the NCDWQ
Stream Classification Form are included with this permit application.
Jurisdictional Wetlands: Wetland delineations were conducted using the criteria specifi(
in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Mr. Dave Timpy of the USACE
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office verified a portion of the delineations in the field on Augus
22, 2000. Mr. Dave Timpy and Mr. Richard Spencer verified the remaining delineated wetlanc
on February 6, 2001. The attached permit application package consists of drawings depicting
jurisdictional impacts. As previously mentioned, the construction of U-2520 consist of a total c
1.67 acres of permanent wetland impacts which consist of 1.42 acres of fill, 0.02 acres of
excavation, and 0.23 acres of mechanized clearing and grubbing. Copies of the USACE Wetla
Data Sheets are included with this permit application.
Site 1 has a DWQ rating of 52. This wetland is located adjacent to an intermittent
unnamed tributary to Bones Creek (Lake Rim). The wetland has a sandy soil [Blaney
loamy sand (BaD) according to the NRCS soil survey of Cumberland County]. The
dominant vegetation is black willow (Sal ix nigra), cat-tails (Typha latifol ia), tear-thuml
(Polygonum sagittatum).
Site 2 has a DWQ rating of 48. This wetland is located adjacent to an intermittent
unnamed tributary to Bones Creek (Lake Rim). The wetland has a loamy soil [Blaney
loamy sand (BaD) according to the NRCS soil survey of Cumberland County]. The
dominant vegetation is giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Site 3 has a DWQ rating of 50. This wetland is located adjacent to a perennial unnamed
tributary to Bones Creek (Lake Rim). The wetland has a sandy soil [Johnston loam (JT)
according to the NRCS soil survey of Cumberland County]. The dominant vegetation is
netted chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamosa), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Site 5 has a DWQ rating of 56. This wetland is located adjacent to Bones Creek. The
wetland has a loamy soil [Johnston loam (JT) according to the NRCS soil survey of
Cumberland County]. The dominant vegetation is American holly (Ilex opaca), netted
chainfern (Woodwardia aerolata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple
(Acer rubrum).
Site 6 has a DWQ rating of 86. This wetland is located adjacent to a perennial unnamed
tributary to Bones Creek. The wetland has a loamy soil [Johnston loam (JT) according to
the NRCS soil survey of Cumberland County]. The dominant vegetation is netted
chainfern (Woodwardia aerolata), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and spicebush
(Lindera benzoin).
Table 1. Impacts Wetlands and Jurisdictional Surface Waters from U-2520
Site Station Wetland
Impacts
(ac)* Stream Impacts
(ft) Surface Water
Impacts (ac)
1 L 21 + 70 LT-RT 0.04 203.71 0.012
2 L 31 + 80 LT-RT 0.02 91.21 0.015
3 L 41 + 70 LT-RT 0.09 92.5 P 0.012
4 L 58 + 77 LT-RT N/A 91.51 0.012
5 L 62 + 30 LT-RT 0.83 333.0 P 0.096
6 L 68 + 20 LT-RT 0.69 150.3 P 0.010
TOTAL 1.67 962.3 0.016
Note: * Includes fill, excavation and mechanized clearing.
P -Perennial stream
I - Intermittent stream
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 February 26, 2001 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) lists eight federally protected species for Cumberland County (Table 2).
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A)
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Neon m ha mitchelli ancisci Saint Francis satyr E
Isotria medeoloides small-whorled o onia T*
Lindera melissi olia pondberry E
L simachia as erulae olia rough-leaved loosestrife E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance with other rare species that are listed for protection.
"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 that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of
a significant portion of its range).
* denotes Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for each of these species in the EA.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a letter of concurrence with the No Effect status dated
October 8, 1997. Due to the time that has lapsed since the original survey, any areas that provide
suitable habitat will be re-surveyed before construction to insure that the project will not impact
any federally protected species.
In a letter dated October 2, 1997, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) had
requested a moratorium for in water work for the protection of anadromous fish. In addition to
the moratorium the WRC recommended using "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous
Fish Passage" during project construction. Within the project area, Bones Creek and two of its
unnamed tributaries flow into Lake Rim. Upon further investigation, it appears that the dam for
Lake Rim would prohibit fish from returning upstream for spawning. Therefore, neither the
moratorium nor "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" are proposed for
this project.
Cultural Resources: The N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was aware of
no structures of historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. In
addition, there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project. This determination
was issued by the SHPO in a letter dated July 12, 1995. A copy of this letter is included with
this permit application.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland and surface water
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order
5660.1 A (Preservation of the Nations Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and
values provided by wetlands. These directives require that new construction in wetlands be
avoided as much as possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate
impacts to wetlands.
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize wetland impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all
remaining wetland impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and
EA/FONSI phases; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
AVOIDANCE: All wetland areas not affected by the project will be protected from
unnecessary encroachment. No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction
supplies will be allowed in wetlands or near surface waters
MINIMIZATION: Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts. Minimization techniques were implemented as follows:
1. Station L 68 + 20 LT-RT Site 6 : The alignment was shifted to minimize impacts to
the wetland at this location. As a result, impacts were reduced from 1.5 ac to 0.69 ac.
2. Slopes: Fill slopes in wetlands are at a 2:1 ratio.
3. Best Management Practices: Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control
Best Management Practices (BMP) for the protection of surface waters and wetlands
will be enforced.
4. Ditching: It is the policy of the NCDOT to eliminate lateral ditching in wetlands as
much as possible, thus preserving the hydrology of adjacent wetlands.
5. Clearin : Clearing Method III will be used.
COMPENSATION: The primary emphasis of the mitigation is to reestablish a condition
similar to that which would have existed if the project were not built. As previously stated,
mitigation is limited to reasonable expenditures and practicable considerations related to
highway operation. Mitigation is generally accomplished through a combination of methods
designed to replace wetland functions and values lost as a result of construction of the project.
These methods consist of creation of new wetlands from uplands, borrow pits, and other non-
wetland areas; restoration of wetlands; and enhancement of existing wetlands.
All compensatory mitigation must be in compliance with 23 CFR Part 777.9, "Mitigation
of Impacts" that describes the actions that should be followed to qualify for Federal-aid highway
funding. This process is known as the FHWA "Step Down" procedures:
1. Consideration must be given to mitigation within the right-of-way and should include the
enhancement of existing wetlands and the creation of new wetlands in the highway median,
borrow pit areas, interchange areas and along the roadside.
2. Where mitigation within the right-of-way does not fully offset wetland losses, compensatory
mitigation may be conducted outside the right-of-way including enhancement, creation, and
preservation.
Wetland impacts are 1.67 acres of PFO1 B riverine wetlands. These impacts will most
likely require 2:1 restoration. The project will also impact 575.8 ft of Bones Creek and two othe.
perennial tributaries to Bones Creek. NCDOT proposes to mitigate for these impacts through the
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP). Upon receipt of the 401 Water Quality
Certification from DWQ for this project, NCDOT will transfer funds to WRP to compensate for
wetland and stream mitigation performed to cover the costs of planning and implementation.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed, the DWQ
requires a formal letter from the WRP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. A copy of this letter dated September 18, 2001 was sent
to Mr. Rob Ridings of DWQ and Mr. Dave Timpy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE). A copy of this letter is also included with this permit application.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Individual 404 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 Mr. Chris Rivenbark
at [phone].
?Xj?_
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/mcr
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.E., Program Development
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Terry R. Gibson, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Eric Midkiff, P.E., PD & EA
APPLICATION FOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR 325)
OMB APPROVAL No. 0710-003
Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing Instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of Information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of Information, Including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington
Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204,
Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003),
Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must
be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities In, or
affecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material Into waters of the United States, and the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping It into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on
this forth will be used In evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested Information is voluntary.
If Information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be Issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must
be attached to this application (see sample drawings and Instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION
COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE
(an agent is not required)
N.C. Department of Transportation William D. Gilmore, P. E. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/ AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business [phone]
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/ AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, , to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Proposed improvements to Cliffdale Rd. (SR 1400) from US 401 to SR 1403 (Reilly Rd.) In Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project STP-1400(2), State Project No. 8.2441701, T.I.P. No. U-2520.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOW (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Unnamed tributaries to Bones Creek and Bones Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Cumberland County NC
County State
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
See August 19, 1997 EA
17. DIRECTIONS TO SITE
See vicinity maps associated with permit drawings.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Proposed Improvements to Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) by constructing project U-2520, which is a 4.5 mile widening
project with 1.1 miles on new location. The proposed cross-section will consist of a combination of five-lane and
four-lane median divided.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public highway facility. Detailed explanation of project purpose and need are included in August 19, 1997 EA.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/ OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for discharge
Roadway construction along relocated Cliffdale Road (SR 1400).
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Roadway fill, pipe/culvert installation and/or extension. See cover letter and permit drawings for additional
details.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
1.67 ac of wetlands and 0.16 ac of surface waters. See cover letter and permit drawings for additional details.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete?Yes No X
IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be
entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
See property list included with permit drawings.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/ Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agents for Work
Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE OF IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE DENIED
APPROVAL" NUMBER
N/A
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify
that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to
ndertake the work described herein or am acting as the agent duly authorized agent of the applicant.
L, ?L L; 2poL
SIGNATURE OF PL?ICANT 001E SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it
may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or
disguises a material fact or makes any false, ficticious or fraudulent statements or respresentations or makes
any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry,
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
U

., I F= o 0
0
1 Q???NL
03>>c
Z V p l
0 Q
I ~ O J N
c` Op W 00
t
IL j W t
'm U
s V CL
O
V
W
O

X11 :•• ?:. • m r
%•''.%? Vii. Y ' O y _
0 ? J '? • ?? m ?O'n
1
N N
L1J I
C O
aNr,n??
g u ?? 1-?--N J
? a Z, p J C14
N CL = o ? oo -
?2 UpW"No
x"aQao>- N
i O Q N a H
J W
06
LL.
a.?2wu u.
p C3 U p v 0
L) a. cr
'n CA
?o

Y?
LO k
N ?
Liu
LLA
uj aI
+r ; A
n %r-t G 1
d'C
j N
% v
W w
cc)
PROPERTY OWNERS
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 C. E. LANGDON. JR. 7885 RANDY REID ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28314
2 CAROLYN LANGDON. JR. 7885 RANDY REID ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28314
3 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 433 HAY STREET
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28301
4 LAURA LLOYD 6504 BONNIE BELLE LANE
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28314
5 LUMBEE RIVER MEMBERSHIP CORP. P.O. BOX 830
RED SPRINGS. NC 28377
6 BERNARD STANSBURY.JR. 7290 SURF PLACE
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28306
7 MICHAEL VARNER 8879 CLIFFDALE ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28314
B HERMAN PLOUCHER 6846 ST. JULIAN WAY
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28314
9 RST BUILDING CO..INC RT. 12 BOX 645 F
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306
10 HENRY WALLACE JR. RT.4 BOX 300 F
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28304
p SANDRA OTTEN 7496 BEAVER RUN DRIVE
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28304
12 PRESTIGE HOMES OF 6448 YADKIN ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE, INC. FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28303
13 JEFFREY JOSEPH 9598 HOLBROOK LANE
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28314
14 SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENT CORP.
15 RONALD SMITH 7026 PANTEGO DRIVE
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28314
16 HOLLY STEVENS 6909 BONE CREEK DRIVE
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28314
17 CHRIS DUDLEY 700 MEGAN COURT
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28314
18 HELEN TEAGUE 5410 WILLIAMSBURG ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28303
19 MONTIBELLO ASSOCIATION 3800 RAEFORD ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28304
20 RAYMOND LAWSON 7828 CLIFFDALE ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28314
21 SANDRA CASE 27I N. REILLY ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28303
22 ARCHIBALD F. RAY 7709 CLIFFDALE ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE. NC 28314
23 FORT BRAGG MILITARY FORT BRAGG
RESERVATION SPRING LAKE. NC
24 WILLIAM P. 6 JULIA SANDERS P.O. BOX 117
BENSON, NC 27504
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIC
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT 8.2441701 (U-2520)
SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE RD.) FRO
US 401 TO SR 1403 (REILLY RI
FEBRUARY 2002
SHEET 3 OF 11
N
O
C)
b .-

?
C

00
?
i,
C [? ?c
V O N
V V-? 00
00
..
C
N wU N A
F- °px
?
cri Vl Q Y' ?
„? N Gr. Y'

Q w
° w oGwo..
p
w o
n,
v ??
o
waa?0
z
?
zoo .
ZA
?wzgdox?
Q a FpQ o
Z w
w
E"' _
"
' ;
wz? xaw
p?m
?
U
p., Q c
? ca •• -- oo cy rn v, oo r
? Vpw
w U ? N N N tV U?$O
?
w AA
.
.r
V v 04 COD
z
S?0
w
?
° ° ° °O o
ry)
w 7
G o
0 o
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 o
o p
? ^
a? oA C
N
n

O

O

O

O
ry
v
-r N
O

C O

O
O
O O

C

00-0
b

? cts
U a3?
F

Q

d
o b 00

)-4 X 3 o o c
w

a
F H
W v

N
S Cc?
--
N
O
N
O
00
00

N
it s O N In
w3?- o 0 0 0 o c

`
00
O
O 0
M

00
X C 000 ^ C
C/1 ?' N N
H [- I^ H H F C/1
a x x x x x ,?

Y
00
00
°
r-

+
o
0
? 0
0 N 00
N M ?' vl ? ?O

?_ O
t/) z
N
M
n
?O
LEGEND
MO WLB MEDIUM QUALITY WETLAND BOUNDARY
HO WLB HIGH QUALITY WETLAND BOUNDARY
DENOTES EXCAVATION IN WETLANDS
DENOTES MECHANIZED CLEARING
DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
® DENOTES FILL IN WETLANDS
-? FLOW DIRECTION
TB TOP OF BANK
---- -----wE -------- EDGE OF WATER
- - - F - - - PROPOSED LIMIT OF FILL
- - - c - - - PROPOSED LIMIT OF CUT
PROP
SED R
T OF
A
IGH
W
Y
O
------ NG------ NATURAL GROUND
----F - PROPERTY LINE
TDE TDE- TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT
rDE PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT
E E TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
Oi ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER OR PARCEL NUMBER
© SINGLE TREE
- - WOODS LINE
• DRAINAGE INLET N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIO
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PIP RAP PROJECT 8.2441701 (U-2520)
SR 1400 (CLIFFDALE RD.) FR01
US 401 TO SR 1403 (REILLY R(
y WETLANDS FEBRUARY 2002
SHEET 5 OF 11
?t ? k I I L
LU I I I LL.
0
I I I
W
?? ?? /? I I I d I °
\ k W I I _ Z
d?? ? II II
?? ?? ? I I I I
u- --- I ?I co
010
x
? H?N<
N?mW
Lao L,
/ / (,lll Qp
x
7 x xy nus ?,
Lxi?x--9X 1 I 1 W ,?,
o/ 1 l
o 1©?

i
?p+12 i
a1?5,

250M.0

O O
O ?l7 O
O Q
O
cr- O
W o
z a ??
W
W W D
Z U Q Q
I..L J
O LJ N 3
z z
V (, J J
YG W J J
W ? lL I.i
0°0
000
GRO
00
000
000
Boa
w
°w
W
\ W O
\ d N
\ CJ Q
J
\? <
N
{3
00+ CC
00+"ZF
Q

M0
W
-7
A?
V \ /
w r
?O J

Fl av,

0
z
O
0 0
~ VAN'
Q Z C
O3c >>G
=ou
Ir OTC
~ O Q N
O Z cr 00
OLJ??
N G3 V
w
CL >_ >
C)
L! CL
0
z v
. 11
a
s
r Q ?c
s c
? c
o c
o „
C;
to
LL
Z st
3
L.J LL.
U LPL.
W
Z Z
Q
S
U
W
LL-
000
O
O
OHO
000
L l
y -, A
---? V-
I r I ?c?
C-r //// ,h I III OQ=
W N-
^? WI a m a2= .. d'00
?E/? E c I II C) US Ow IN0
-- R/F _J I / - - - - - 04: 2i: OQ >
.? Q f., laL Q O ?
SR 3192 BEAVER I J O Q N -L, wQ H
-YI ' Ruv esr © " Z O0 z w
\ 0 p W U III 2
I W \\ F N M U O w o
CL 5:
W, Cc)
TIN O Q O
d0
I I \ Zpm I ll U P
I I W \
SBNB
I ISiO ?? I W I I N I I
k
W ? I ? H
? ? I I a /l
I \
I I If
ooze d
I w W ?O , I DE
uj
b
U /
I I I
I "
1- a:
I I -10 ?• dJa w 06 I I Ln 0:
f ?- /
i12 I WcJis?
hM+l SL ? ?- j
I ? d i ? PDI
I _
Job
I O I I LO
. I W I I4 o a
I \ ? ' ? I 1
N
O l/7 N
I VI ? I E ?l' ? ?_\ ?\ ?? I 11 ? 0
0
I
O
aa O \ ` .
1 W I : I I \OUl I` \ I 3 11
I / I W\\? I k1 ; Q Q
LLJ
00+1b'/ I I I I w v=i w
x
V ° J J
x yj J J
W ? 6'L li
\ I 1 1 1
m o?' I II I
?I I 1606011
O00
~ ~ / E \ 000
1 ly ` Op0
d
OM851N ?' I I I I I 8
w ? s
I I I u-
"
?p ?+\ I Ix ? ?
fl I ? ?"
II I

00?I
I : 1 x Q
I E
m
II I/ x -nF-x I "I
,
U I y?
4 I
I
^
vii
x _ I
` OMxww 0001 -xl
I ¢
6 I
ca
1 LOYI
°\ x
r r
E
° + gl
\ xl
O
I
it
i-- /X
x?
/k
T k
? d Oys2
00+85
rH I ?
V
O
I
I
I,
IJ
I
I
)00.-
11 I ?
010,
U
V,
?W
II
Z
O j
~ N ?
av?a
sQ Z N
a. 0
Z C? C1 0
OQ?
~ O J N l
OZpm?l
CL 2 ?
jw
p O U
Li a
Z
Fg ?
N
0
O
W
W
0
1
? eo c, ' v .fin

Na
N
?O W'
m
P '.
W

b? I
b W '?
'Y•`0.
0
'fro
\SFO

o
'
l
?
° b
x
o

a
H O
o
?IE
1

E m
S 1\

d
\
°o
_ c°Nc Q ?\
JNOJ 9S
mm WO o 1p? \
00p
W ? uA
JII
i
J
I I -,
1
I I i 1
II ??
,\ 1 1 1 1 1
I I II I
NTB ', I I
IE ? I I
III m
HTR - _ - - - ?-IJI\ I q I I
I ? -i
?£9 111 I i s1£
- -F-- ' I I
R
i ---4V -I
7.1 BS!
$ II
m II ? I I Y
I I !I
I it
F-? ? - ? II I
W II
I OV
Or
? a I I ?W
N OJ
W
O?D
N
Z

8 OSL\
W
x
0
2
a to
O
Y
W
U4
N
v~?
'H \
EW
?-KN`
mNW
00 ~
/00 ??0- ?- W??l?i
-??/' ?ODpO `1
0
00+09 -?N-a
a
I ?I I _
--F °w C) ? _
? I Q11 I ,, ? „ o a
W I W I O 00
I C, I _r -i LQ ?i W N
O I I W I m SLC OSb 009 d J Z Q
o. ? I
I ?J N
I?I ? ? 3
I la?l I Po W ? ? Q a
I II I ° t= 3
I I II
7 ? Q Z Z
d'
O Q =
I I I I I W C? x W J J
%I I I I W a %A W ? LA_ I.i
re I
?ti wl III I Oo0
I I I IT I d
00
I ? I I I ?yW OOO
00
V
H
f?
Q
r?
A

W
E-0
M?1
Cl?

f-CPA
N OolL pn
?J
1
I
N
1 O
I
I
II
i
W
_ 2
O a?
N
N >- Ln
>-?-N-.
CZ c
3c M = O cr
(9UO4
=a Q
c
LL. Z O J N 4
2 cr 0 -
U
OW
U 03 Q
as
v
2
Q
N N
O
? O
oW Z
W
c-)
o
W
IV
Z
Q
2
V
W

OOq
0004
000!
N ?Op!
000!
O!
E'B p yN
.. CI
O
,. O ev
a p?
awzV ?g
F' O - w
..a oo w ^' O
O C
Er cG U
a 0 .. O
U A U a ?
-4 c
t V)
z
?
L
N
+
N _ L
E? - E.. aD
L 3 v
0- 39
N
O ix na) O
a) X L +- (n ED
DE C Nv jC Li,E? a)
?1O a?i o ?0 0 ° ao C
poi E:F-0 Z) 7
C X++ L+ a) > + O O T E°
U) a°v ?? 01L n? (s
10 u>E E CD ZQ V) -0 L+
E 4-+D v 0-
L a)prn
OCLT a) 4- 3
v OVOV C10
D EEmLE a)a)
O ZL M O L L L D v
cc 4- 0 0 a:)
?- O E 4- a) U D TIE
00
0
7 v x a> E CD N- OT:
CDO
00x@04--C
E n O?+ Ov, w? ? °LU)
Q aa)) I r aOQ Cw+W
p 0
w
0 Z E
Ix, <
V?ry
0 ?E8
pcn Z n I`° 8
w o
? L ? m
p °
?y om
L q-
LL w 0, 0 a
0
?> o 0E
w T a N _
+ N
x
wJ ° ? L ?uE
Q c o 0 + -
1.1 N O LO c CO _N
d Dw 4 -L wC,
a> v E
CC CD0
v a)
a)
E = a 0 x
L Ix U L H L
L+
4- Z) O CL0 C 3 Z O
N
L 0 C J
d N
M A Engineering
ii CONSULTANTS, INC.
598 E. Chatham Street, E
Cary, Nc
Phone: [phone] Fax: 919.;
February 27, 2001
Mr. Marshall Clawson
Hydraulic Design Unit
NCDOT - Century Center
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Attn.: Mr. Galen Cail
Re: State Project No. 8.2441701 (U-2520) Cumberland County
SR 1400 (Cliffdale Road) from U.S. 401 to SR 1403 (Reilly Road)
Mr. Call,
Enclosed herewith, for your review is the revised wetland permit application for the above referenced project
The revisions consist of the following:
• Added Site 4 at !L- Sta. 58+77 Lt.-Rt. per discussion with Chris Rivenbark and Galen Call.
• Preformed scour holes shown at corrected scale and location modified slightly if necessary to avoti
wetlands or buffer zones. R/W and Easements adjusted if necessary.
• Property owner sheet updated to reflect addition of Sites 2 & 4.
• R/W and Easements shown and/or revised at Site 5 (stilling basin relocated) and Site 6 (wetlan
realignment area).
• Preformed Scour Hole and revised drainage system shown at Site 2.
• All wetland impact areas rechecked. Site 5 Mechanized Clearing area revised in addition to a few othE
very minor area revisions on the other sites.
Attached are two copies of the permit, one for your use, and one to be sent to Chris Rivenbark with PD&E)
Please call me at [phone] x128 should you have any questions or require any additional informatior
Sincerely,
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
David Fuh, PE
Senior Engineer
DF/rwp
Attachments
cc: 659.024p
p:\Jobs\0659\024\sr1400\wetpermi\wp rev 2.doc
?oF w A rFq p Michael F. Easley, Governor
?O G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
? North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> =1 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Q 'C Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
September 18, 2001
Mr. Chris Rivenbark
NC Department of Transportation
P D and E A Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Rivenbark:
Subject: Project: Cliffdale and Reilly roads
County: Cumberland
TIP #: U-2520
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) will accept payment for riparian wetland and stream impacts associated
with the subject project. Stream and wetland impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated July 26, 2001, the riparian
wetland and stream restoration that is necessary to satisfy the compensatory mitigation
requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum amount of
mitigation that the NCWRP will accept for this project is also indicated in this table.
Stream
(linear feet) Riparian Wetlands
(acres) Riparian Buffer
(ft)
Impact 753 2.37
Mitigation Max. 1506 4.74
As requested, the NCWRP will provide riparian wetland and stream mitigation as
specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Section 404 Permit for impacts
associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Crystal
Braswell at [phone].
Since
Ronald E. Fe ell,
Program Manager
cc: Rob Ridings, Wetlands/401 Unit
Dave Timpy, USACOE
Ken Averitte, FRO
N?L,Eft
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 [phone] Customer Service
320 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Fax: [phone] 623-7748
e r STAR °?
r n
ti
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and Histo
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Direct
July 12, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tran nation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State ist tc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Cliffdale Road (SR 1400) from US 401 to
Reilly Road (SR 1403) in Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, U-2520, Federal Aid
Project STP-1400(2), State Project
8.2441701, 95-E-4220-0915
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. No survey of
historic architectural resources is recommended for this project.
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 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:sIw//
cc: 'State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
-B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jooes Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B-15
CDWQ Stream Classification Form
II
roject Name: River Basin: (bp 11W r County: C er 1"' '^? Evaluator: k- 00
S. l+
WQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Signature: L1lc--z-
6oNS (' e, It
ate: `?- 11i ?? I USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
lso, !fin the best professionai Judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-rhls
ting system should not be used*
rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Absent Weak Moderate
Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
0 I
2
3 -2
Are Natural Levees Present? 0 I 2 3 1
Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 I 2 3
Is There An Active (Or Relic)
loodplain Present?
0 1
2
3 1
) Is The Channel Braided? 0 I 2 3 Z)
1 Are Rerent Alluvial nennsits Present? 0 1 2 3
Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 1
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
NOTE?fBed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WLTHOUT Smuosit Then Score =B•) 1
0) Is A?2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tol)o Mal) And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O tJ
RIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: _-
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is There A Groundwater
low/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 _ 3
RIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 0
II Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 1
Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3 O
Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 0
RIMAR Y BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:?L
econdary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 5 1 1.5 0
1 Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 - 5 1 1.5 1
) Does Topography Indicate A
atural Drainage Way? 0 .5 I 1.5 I
ECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _I
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 15 I 5 0 1
_
Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 1 1.5 1
Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 5 1 1.5 1
Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1
* 1.5
0
)
ast Known Rain? (•VOTF If Ditch indicated In N9 Above Skip This Step And N5 Below
Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5 S
onditions Or In Growing Season)? -
TOR
II. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong -
Arc Fish Present". 0 c ! L._` f7
Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 1 1.5
1 Are AouaticTurtles Present? _ 0 5 1 1.5 0
Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 I l.D r
Are Macrobenthos i'resent? 0 5 I 1.5 v
Are Iron Oxidizing 8acteria[Fungus Present? 0 5 I 1.5 0
Is Filament6us Algae Present9 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Wetland Plants in Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
• NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0 49
s Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAY Presents )
ECONDA R Y BIOL 0 G Y INDICA TOR POINTS:
0TAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary =_LL(IjGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Pohas The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)

CDWQ Stream Classification Form
roject Name: River Basin: far' County:??_ ?V (? 1 Evaluator: ( • 141r?- ?,?r_
S,I*Z ,r
WQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: k vj r t , ei ? Latitude: Signature: "VI'tttf< < Zn /
ate: - _2fo- O USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
PLEASE NOTE: lfevaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Iso, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this
ling system should not be used*
rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Absent Weak
Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
0 I
2
3 .2_
Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3 /
Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3 f
Is There An Active (Or Relic)
loodplain Present?
0 1
2
3 2
v t? rh- 1'6-- -I n-;A.A9 n t 2 3 D
Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3 0
Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 2
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 1
?0•
NOTE: i Bed h Bank Caused B Ditching And KTHOUT Sinuosi Then Score
0) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O D
RIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:_t__
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is There A Groundwater 0
low/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
RIMARYHYDROLOGY INDICATORPOINTS:_c _
II Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
Is Peri h on Present? 0 1 2 3
1 Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
RIMAR Y BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
econdary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Absent Weak
Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 5 1 1.5 0
Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 5 1 1.5 1
Does Topography Indicate A
atural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1.5 1
ECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter 5
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 1 1.5
Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 5 I 1.5
Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5 b
ast Known Rain? (•NOTF if Ditch Indicated in Nit Ab ove Skip This Step And 05 Below*)
S
Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
onditions Or In Growing Season)?
) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1 5 No=0 115
ECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3. 55
II. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Are Fish Nesent? 0 .5 1 1'' 0
Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 I.D a
5 0
Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.
Are Crayfish Present? 0 5 1 1.5 O
Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 5 1 1.5 0
Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 .5 1 1.5 fJ
is Filamentous Algae Presents 0 5 1 1.5 D
Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
• NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 1 1 .75 .5 0 0 0
s Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAI' Presents).
ECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:_
(&, 5
0TAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) =(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
CDWO Stream Classification Form

County:C,-),r,,r„
roject Name: U- - >-' River Basin: Ca?t (-W
Evaluator:
Lrf `
J
Nearest Named Stream: N-10'1 Latitude:
WQ Project Number: Signature
ate: ", _ 1 • ) I USGS QUAD: Longitude : Location/Directions:
PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
lso, !fin the best professional Judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this
ring system should not be used*
rimary Field I f dieators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 2 3
Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3 l
Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3 17
Is There An Active (Or Relic)
loodplain Present? 0 1 2 3
Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 n
Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3 O
Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
NOTE !(Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Simrosity Tlren Score=0•/
0) Is A 2. Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Too Ma And/Or In Field Present? Yes=3 No=O
RIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
I. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is There A Groundwater
2
low/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
RIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: a
II. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3
Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3
Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3 1
Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 O
RIMARY BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:--2_
econdary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5 0
Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5 (.5
Does Topography Indicate A
atural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1.5 /
ECONDARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: a -S
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
Is Sediment On Plants Or Debris Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5 1
ast Known Rain? ('NOTE If Duch Indicated In 011 Above Skip This Step And N5 Belou,*)
) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
onditions Or In Growing Season)?
) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=l.5 No=O
ECONDARYHYDROLOGY INDICATORPOINTS:-y, 5
11. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fish Present? 0 ; 1.5 S
Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 I 1.5 ,S
Are AquaticTurtles Present' 0 5 I 1.5 u
Are Crayfish Present? 0 5 I 1.5 S
Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 5 I 1.5 I_
Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 5 I 1.5
Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Wetland Plants In Streambed?
• NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed SAV Mostly OBL
2 1 Mostly FACW Mostly FAC
.75 .5 Mostly FACU
0 Mostly UPL
0 D
s Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SA I' Present').
ECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: OTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)=.l (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
Per t?"?
WO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: l) -25 a ?S !e y River Basin: (hpr rep/, County: (J ^ber??^e? Evaluator: C. ra. barK
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: $osec Cru? Latitude: Signature:r
Date: -1/I11/01 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Station N:
Local ion/Direct ions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form Is not
necessary. Also, If In the best professional)udgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modiJled natural
stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
t) is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 2 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3 J
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3 3
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic) -)
8) is There a aankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 (0
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
('NOTE- ILB h Bank Caused By Dl tehlnr And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score-0.1
10) Is A Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Two Mao And/Or In Field) Present? Yes-3 No=0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
II Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 I 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I Geomornholoey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 5 I 1.5 a
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 5 I 1.5 /. S
3) Does Topography Indicate A S
Natural Drainage Way?_ 0 .5 I 1.5 '
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: .2-
11. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter S
Present In Streambed? 15 1 .5 0

2 Is Sediment On Plants Or Debris Present?
0
.5 I J
1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 5 I 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5 S
Last Known Rain? ('NOTE IfDltch lndica(ed In #I I Above Skip 71ris Step And NS Belory)
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5 0
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1 5 No=0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1
III Bioloey
1 Are Fish resent? Absent
0 Weak Moderate
.5 1 Strone
1.5
2) Are Amohibians Present? 0 5 1 1.5
3 Are A uaticTurtles Present?
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0
0 .5 I
.5 I 1.5
1.5
Are M bench s Present? 0 .5 1 1.5 4
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 5 I 1 5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Presents 0 5 I 1.5 .S
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed?
(• NOTE: IJTotal Absence OJAII Plants In Streambed SAV Mostly OBL
1 1 Mostly FACW Mostly FAC
.75 .5 Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
0 0 .5
As Noted Above Ski 71ris Str UNLESS SAV Presem* .
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: r5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary = Z'3 (if Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: z
CDWQ Stream Classification Form
roject Name: River Basin: pole (t s( County: Evaluator: c,
-5
( J C !?
Nearest Named Stream:
WQ Project Number: Latitude: Signature:mw'p av

{t
C, tt?e
ate:'. 1 le" `) USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
lso, If in the best professional Judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modif ed natural stream--this
Ling system should not be used"
rlmary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is There A Riffle Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3 I7
Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 2 3
Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3 Y
3
Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
1 Is There An Active (Or Relic)
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is There A Groundwater 3
low/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
RIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS.--L-
H. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3
Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3
Is Periphyton Present? 0 I 2 3 /
Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 /
RIMA R Y BIOL OG Y INDICA TOR POINTS:
econdarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 5 1 1.5 S
Does Topography Inflicate A
atural Draina¢e Way?
0
.5 1
1.5 s
ECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: -;'
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter S
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 1 1.5
Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5 S
Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5 I S
ast Known Rain? (*NOTE If Ditch Indicated In #11 Above Skip This Step And N5 Below*)
Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
onditions Or In Growing Season)?
) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)9 Yes=1.5 No=0
ECONDAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: IlA
II Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fish Present? 0 _ I 1.5
Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 1 1.5 S
Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 5 1 1.5 S
Are Crayfish Present?
Are Macrobenthos Presents 0
0 5 1
5 1 1.5
1.5 1.0
Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 5 1 1.5 V
Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5 1,0
Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
• NOTE: If Total Absence Of.111 Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0 r5
s Noted Above Ski Thts Ste UNLESS SAI' Presenl• .
ECONDAR Y BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:_,5
OTAL POINTS (Primary + Seeondary)= _.?10 (if Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
$af Ghn,F?
NOTE i Bed & Bank Caused B Ditching And WITHOUT S'inuosi then Score=u•
0) Jr. A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated 3
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O
RIMAR Y GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:JIg
CDWQ Stream Classification Form
K
??
roject Name: )-? o River Basin: Co?. ?W County: (e.. ci Evaluator: C . /2s .<'?
WQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:W-e-, 6,041-atitude: Signature:
ate: - G _ 0 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
PLEASE NOTE: if evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Iso, if in the best professional)udgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream--this
ling system should not be used*
rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Weak
) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 I 2 s I
1 Is The 11Sr)A Texture In Streambed
Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 /
Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3 0
Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 1
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 1
NOTE: ! Bed A Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score -O•
0) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O 0
RIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
I_Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is There A Groundwater ?2
low/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
RIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: )-,
II Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 I
Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
Is Periphyton Present? 0 I 2 3
Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 0
RIMAR Y BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:_
eeondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5 Is
1 is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0_ .5 1 1.3 u
) Does Topography Indicate A 5
atural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1.5
ECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _I
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 1 1.5
Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5 15
Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5 S
ast Known Rain? ('NOTE If Ditch Indicated In Ml I A bove Skip This Step And 05 Below')
Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
nnditinns Dr In Growinlz Season)? _
Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
!.5
IL Biology } Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fish Present? 0 5 1 1.5 n
Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 1.5 r
Are A uaticTurties Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Crayfish Present? 0 5 1 1.5
Are Macrobenthos Present? U 5 1 1 5
5 )
d
Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 .5 1 1. 0
Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly VPL 5
• NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
s Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAI' PresenP). 9
ECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: °14
OTAL POINTS (Primary +Secondary)='2's'5(IfGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
9,)(( . , r
Innrlnlain Present') 0 1 2 _ 3 .d
.5* (
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME /t/CJ)07- U-}S,n DATE
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) Z44 ?li f?+'f (,??dl n ' ?'( S I ?/ f
WATERBODV/RIVER BASIN Cry r! COUNTY/CITY ???"/bl r?gr+
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS ??/G?Z,rs h'S
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
y Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
f' C?odY? w ! S
x Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand) J
S h OQ OSf
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
!OJ
V 64' Vl'P p
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
X Flow In Channel
a
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
Awe A rlcel ? 14":-?
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
X Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel / 07Y-1 NM ?d a G
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y(N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? CY) N Approx. Drainage Area:
llll/llll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llIIIHIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) 8 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if o r than .O.E. project manager)
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllIHIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4/98

I I atj0) '.)
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? N/ N Approx. Drainage Area:
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME Ve ()Dr DATE 9 d4/?7
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, repo-cation, etc.) /? !
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN ?yyt / 2Q1? COUNTY/CITY (A-o" 6t r•-
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS r9r%t 57,60-.r
w
a

P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
x Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
X Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
X Stable Streambanks ?`/ FS
h u rl

X Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)

X Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
(UM
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
llll/lllllllllllllllllll/lllllllll/llllllllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llll/lllllllll/lllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
yr,'
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
Evaluator's Signature: JA d a=-,
(if ther th C.O.E. project manager)
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll NIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
JOE) EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME /? Q7?LL DATE a?
PROPOSED CHANNEL. WORK (i.e., culvert,,rrelocation, etc.)
WATERBODWRIVER BASIN t.?i • "?? r COUNTY/CITY ( 1r?/4hf.G
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS /??1?N w?/ ?f NIBS
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
? I, r'n o S
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) /-
Gh ram
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure

X Stable Streambanks
vi C oGe a e.* d ?1..
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand) L
rock 4'r 111

IX I Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure) ?,? f r M !Jr??t?'/s.?
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel II
dOP ? ?
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)

X Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present l
M Qq i
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
g
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? (/ N Approx. Drainage Area:
HIIIIIIIIII lllNlIHHIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIHIIIHIHIIIIIIIIIIlNIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIlllllHIHIIHIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlNIIIIIIHIIIIIIHIHIIHIIIIIIII lHHHIIIIIIIlIIIIII IIIIIlllHHIIIIIIHHHHIIIIHIIIII
neterminatinn
Perennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature: ,/.14 A W. -----
(if other thin C.O.E. project manager)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////IIIIII////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4/98
S;4( ?
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL EVALUATION FORM

ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME NC001 y- a54 0 DATE
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, ?etc.)
WATERBODY/RIVERBASIN 4[i% +V DOr/! (fWi C 4?41' COUNTY/CITY
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS t1
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) '
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
i.e. ravel, cobble rock, coarse sand
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
June through Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
jacent Fl plain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y G
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map N Approx. Drainage Area:
lllllllllllllllllll Jllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll??ll..l..lll//llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) n Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
ntetmittent Channel (proceed) !ray Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature: 7LG??' ??J r
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
1111 llllllllll!!111111111111ll!ll1/!!llllllllllIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl!l!lll!l!l!!!l!!lIIIIIIIIIIIIJ!ll!lIIIIII!!!l!!!ll!!!III11111111IIIIII l!!lH III!ll!l!ll!lJllllll?
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
?,k 5 , - P ? ?-o
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL'
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID
APPLICANT NAME 10'6-- -

J 11 DATE 9'u °t
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culverts. relocation, etc.) pY?p l,/t v T ' h^ ?i+? hIj /
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN T ' t u o COUNTY/CITY 6-of4et A-W
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS lY7r?1 ?./?h -! I ?Y3
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
X Benthic Macro Invertebrates

?( Amphibians Present/Breeding
ha r.J? Ve yaS, c.
X Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks

x Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand) J/f? l J
/tltf • QY?I Ap Spi?s ?N 7 p?
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure /
X Flow In Channel ..
XS Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)

k Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.) LL I ,
C S L-94 "
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.) i,
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation i Jacen to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map?Q N Approx. Drainage Area:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) 8 Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature: ?
(if oche than C. .E. project manager)
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 11 l l l l l l l l l l l/ l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4/98
S .-t< 6 U- ajrp
-s
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME /SIC ?l DATE .?1 d?
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) t'tct,J IQC I' UI- ?ObJ
A /
WATERBODV/RIVERBASIN G?l?(l (ity COUNTY/CITY Ao4ki 4t/
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS 1111, Lill q p `V1
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
X Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks

X Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
i dt"'l G fat
X Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
X Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue) II
W ?1^ o f 7 k?
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Y, Wrack Material or Drift Lines
X Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel /
h iYl ? .ck LPL
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:
lllllll/llllllllllllllll/lllllIIINlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/l/llllll/ll/llll/llllllllllllll/l/lllllllllllll/lllllllllllll/llllllllllllll/lllb
rlrtrrm i n n t i nn
Perennial Channel (Stop) B Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
lll/lllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIll/llllllllllllllllllll/lllllllll/lllllllll/lllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllINlI/lllllllllll/lllllllll/lllllllllll/llllllb
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-'• '5 Z D Date: 9 --Z b -V /
Applicant/Owner: NC r.- County: l.?,y,b,,- la-
Investigator: r J? ?r 1/ rJT State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (!&j) No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes (Njb Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: S%
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. P 10A , 0J I Qcr: ? .. 46 1,-, S s ue- 9.

3. P"'P111
4. L rc ' C _V SAC- 12.
5.eprllILv,or SEVS g ,nw??CTN?+ p C 13. `
6. SirlilRx `Y/ 14.
7. V4, T- r?,fiy..el, f0I n _V ?. c 15.
,' o. ddra rt ?l 4 ? F C 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC o/0
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
r .?
Vy
a•?
4--
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_ Other
-`/No Recorded Data Available Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: _ (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ' (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: _ (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
r 1 j?
?IUS°h?P fi? UJ2??tr-NJa,?
?? J kJ
SOILS
Map Unit Name
O ?0 v+? S A r?
(S
i
d P
er
es an
hase):
y Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-a 2 2f R 3/1
Y%-
/o a
-I!
5 if ? z C. /?lq l0-4

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidio Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_
?Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
? h,??r?? Sa r (S
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ss No (Circlel (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yss
Hydric Soils?Present? Yes EO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
Remarks: \
?t
r.Ni1
Approved by
HQUSACE 2/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: I J- a S ? 0 Date: 9-_?
Applicant/Owner. 1 County: r ,jr,(- C<,
Investigator: { , ; w??. ' / J, / ,s "s State: nl
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: voeflo-eJ
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Io Plot ID: s.' 1
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
n ?
pl3L 9.

IA ia.
Tq QV)A L
r\
10.
3.1 0`l430^kk'" Sa9i 4 M
)-o,'iV k ` 11.
4. A,, a tr JJ} _ PC v1 - 1 11

6. m?r t A,, 14.
7, 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
vo(l', r
0 f I /
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Date (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_
_ Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_
Other
- ?aturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
/
? No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
?Drift Lines

-` Sediment Deposits
.?Dreinage Patterns in Wetlands
Feld Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
11
? _ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1
J " (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: y?
D • (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: II II I

l l )
Pr t S(" y
SOILS
Map Unit Name

Q n P `, Oa
(Series and Phase): D

-9a Drainage Class:

Taxonomy (Subgroup): Feld Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc.
:)/I J

3
Hydric Soil Indicatory
_ Histoso' _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils.
C /?quic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
,/Reducing Conditions _
?Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
is (C r-
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle)
Wedsnd Hydrology Present? No _
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? lies No
1? Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
DATA FORM
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

10.
3.f?ct: t-<S FRC 11.
?tlSS?, ,I ?A G. FA ?-
4. 1? I
.
5. nn / < F A Q
' 13.
6. 1 1
c' 1( ro lji_ J? r F A C- 14.
FACVj 1s.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
lexcluding FAC-).
Remarks:
wv'lt.-?rf or!
wvnani nr:v
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hvdrologv Indicators:
_
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_
Aerial Photographs Inundated
7 Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
/ _ Other M
k
W
? No Recorded Data Available ater
ar
s
Drift Lines
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators 12 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 6 (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: .?- (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

l - \\ 1 _
km
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 3 /
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): - I CIO +?Q!T? Sir v C? Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Cinches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
?-1 to R
Hydric Soil Indicators:
I _ Histoso; v Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ SulRdic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Zy Ieyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hyd?ophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
No (Circle)
Yee No
es No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland) ryes No
Remarks:
h4l Grj
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: tJ'? 5 Date: ?'- -(71
Applicant/Owner: Pt 007 County: r ,- ?.!. -r'
Investigator: 4.?1 S r ); ?? ,..F S State: P.l C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID: vT?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes QQ) Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. - l-) _C nivra r
, ?r d V- 4 C 9.
2. ft(e""A. r,rf - ril n?_?. FAC-J 10.
3. LI? dA,T?n. c?
- ti/lafrt??% S AC+
? 11.
n_
f &J r^, r/ FAG 13.
6. 14.
7. 15
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC f p/?
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
f( evo? le"
C_
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
-"/No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
,
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: ?7 (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
jj I ' /
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): A )'Aoe!l /on o,'l Sa ?
Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (M
ns
u
elll Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
j
un
se
?
R
Liz
Hydric Soil Indicators:
i
M _ Histoso' _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
I r
cYri c
YW-+\ 1-
j0 l
1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yss (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes `No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: ,
Approved by HUUbAut /

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: f*' J? S-2 D Date:
Applicant/Owner: c 00 "T County: C.?,? c,a r I? -r'
Investigator: air'- K 1 J?r• ark . _ i I1 /&,t T State: H C-

No
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Community ID: (we_tla?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Co Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator
?. ?fnl ?/?? C/ nnAn"'OSti ?_ FlT? wt
3. ?ay;? S ?r Gam. t? A C
?.AMr NbrvM PA C
7.
8.
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
11.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are 09L, FACW or FAC 0/0
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks: /
,j V /1 t ?. E r T't
11 PC IJe, f e ri? J/ Ivy d , n J
uvnonr nw
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_
Aerial Photographs I ndated
_
_
Other
\-/No Reco_rded Date Available Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
ater Marks
Drift Lines

edimsnt Deposits
Field Observations:

Depth of Surface Water:
nn
l ` (in.) rainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: V (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

-ter

SOILS
Map Unit Name ?_
,,j
(Series
d Ph
J 0? n
I
an
ase):
? i
v ^
n4 M Drainage Class:

Taxonomy (Subgroup): Feld Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colon Mottle Texture, Concretions

(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) ,
Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
12-3 2 311
Lt.

I
Hydric Soil Inoicetors:

c
I
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquio Moisture Regime _
j
/Reducing Conditions Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Li
d
N
,
_
i/Gleyed or low-Chroma Colors _ ste
on
ational Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
t'??n C ' (S (1< cam. ?'
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? . Y No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 7" 1
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Cep No
Remarks: ,
0 E - k
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: <J_.? S .1 ;-) Date: -J 4- d
Applicant/Owner: C 00T County: rvr Y. A-I
Investigator: State: C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: `ice
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 60 Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes DO Plot ID: ?r
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stre m Indicator Dominant Plant SP8665 Stratum Indicator
1. nfTsi.J ? 9.
2. (_10L
10.
3. 11.
i
n 1
5. A r P r t J 1'?Rl M
?_ F C
13.
6. 1?r (le. ?. r ACJ- 14.
7. 1 S.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
/
(excluding FAC-). o
Remarks: r I
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_
_ Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_
Other _ Saturated in UpTeU12 Inches
_
'"No Recorded Date Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines \
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: -? (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
-> ? 00 )CL-d' ??..? ?,nl 0")-. L'
SOILS
Map Unit Name /I
(S
i
d Ph
J
ko s7t
bam
er
es an ase): "
o
y„ Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structurre, etc.
3 3 c I a-i /a o-

3-}n Ow SJ6 5- of Dl."'
LLC_- L=? r rGo^C
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yss (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ys• o ""'?
Hydric Soils Present? Yet No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (
Remarks: ,
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U- Date:
Applicant/Owner: A C 0 County:
Investigator: C ??o /ve- ar i 1 ".; State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 6D No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes RE) Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 9) Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
t. -5.! C4 o
DA« ?A(-- 9.
I
?.JrZ0'J' a - dr 6% aCO/46, i.. 06L_
Z. 10.
//
3* c?11 rJ ar- r rA r G?_ CAC + 11.
4. ?
rnr? Nbri1M _ PA c I t'.
??
E U'?muN4P C-H.,,t Ansm FACwJ? 13.
8. 14.
7. 15.
8. 18.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs _ I ndated
_ Other
-/ ?t Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Date
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): AV h t- ? 0 o-W) Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
o- 3 0Y/? -21d r !r',, /0
o
S-10 ?fe 4/4)
I

Hydric Soil Indicators: i
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
-7 _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyad or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
I-+? a i? c J D? ?? (PSGr,_ L
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wedand Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No (Circle) I (Circle)
No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? `Yss? No
or tln1,YJ

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: leZ J Date:
Applicant/Owner: C l)& i County: 1. *•
Investigator: Ph.-. s State: AAC.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 'Y No Community ID: s' is 5
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Mo, Transect 10:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot 10:
(lf needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. V PX _2w oLe_4.. -_ F A(-
3 .?IP?c aP??ti S S [:AC-
SA'VM VAC
a. So 'a1( r') 'Iv,-r , 43- F A C
L;?
s.
7.-
8.
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
11.
1 ?.
13. -
14.
15.
18.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). D?
Remarks:
P(e J G (P ? r ( 0-? ?'..+.? ?I ro P ?? n L v? C ? ? oh
uvntant nr_v
Recorded Date (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_
Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_
/ _ Other -"t - Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
- No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
11(( r I r
r ?( T 1 jell l ()•'?'
SOILS
Map Unit Name l
?
J
/
(Series and 0
Phase):
S ?91 ni M Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Des cription:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Cinches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. eto.
X11. ').sYk' L?2 i
sk
q- S S a. r
I
Hydric Soil I ndicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? rs o (Circle) (Circle)
Wc4jrtd Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydri6 Soils Present? Yes o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
pp
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
-wr

Project/Site: O- ?',z !) Date: 9 -a- 6 -b)
Applicant/Owner: nl County: r 61
Investigator: State: N C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es o Community ID: wCfA^
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 4;Z> Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Areal Yes i o- Plot ID: 5;)
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. J 10? ya?? . ?1 (v7)li T ? 081- 9.
FA C lo.
3.C_)l,,t; i.' ??r?f0?z ?_ FAC 11.
a. tO'rr o i rni ke'yr-, f=A C 1 ?.
`` L., k"'t " S, (7ACV-) I 13.
8. ('0r11'J S n?hn'f)Y" ACV 14.
7. ?fhXn?m F I.x? ?? E _ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC 9D /
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
f (/ "r: ? •?_.,i v l ey r? ??'.`!? n ? ?/r -. --''- ? a-
HYDRnL0GY
Recorded Date (Describe in Remarks): Welland Hydrology Indicators:
_
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gouge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other ?Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines

_ Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(S
d Ph
i
r
d
es an
er
ase): O
w
? Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicetore:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulf(dic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
educing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
mac: Moved or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
r
S O (,(s
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
No (Circle)
Y, No
ss No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within s Wetland? r Yes No
Remarks:
,X, i {"

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: q 6 ??
Applicant/Ownef 01 County: !., In„C.1_
Investigator: Cln tee. ?. , State: C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No.? Community ID: ) '(A
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o J Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ? Plot ID: i r
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
3. A, C
4. u o r C t, i r, n
5 U, 10
1221 /r r i n G J? F A C
6.
7.
8.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
13.
14.
15.
16.
E V 00
Remarks:
R1?4 fen
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
I-"'o Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: f (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC•Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): /?
81Qh Qy I fla S a ?`?
Drainage Class:

Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth
inches Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist) LMunsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
Il I ''0 311
lna i'1.?! s?.??
/-1. 4 0 S ? scc,?c?

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Gloved or Low-Chrome Colors
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks: ,
es (Circle) (Circle) rr
Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
rte'' "_4 ), Io, ty
Individual Permit QA/QC data collection sheet
Project Name
IV.
V
Project # '
County
Original Application (format for data: month/day/year) //>,? -? C "?? ??,'%?-?' hr
Date of Public Notice
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again, ? if any)
Date 401 Issued
First Modification
Date modification request received -'
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
Second Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
Third Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
Fourth Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued