R-2629

l
t_ ??I o
S,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA cy ??oFs
DEPAPUMENT OF 1I?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETF JR.
GOVERNOR P.Q. BOX 25201. RMTIG11, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 13, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager ,
Planning and Environmental Branch -
SUBJECT: Spring Lake Loop, from NC 24/ NC 87 to the Proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop, Spring Lake, Cumberland County, State
Project No. 8.2441801, Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-0620(2),
TIP No. R-2629
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways is studying the
proposed Spring Lake Loop improvements. The project is included in the 1997-2003 North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year
2003 and post year (after the year 2003) construction.
The project consists of upgrading portions of existing SR 1451 (Manchester Road) and
SR 1600 (McCormick Bridge/ McArthur Road) from NC 24/ 87 to the Proposed Fayetteville
Outer Loop. Two alternatives are being evaluated (refer to the attached map). Alternative 1
upgrades existing SR 1451 and SR 1600, involving some new location to connect the two
facilities. Alternative 2 begins at the Odell Road intersection with NC 24/ 87, extends on new
location to avoid several historic properties, and upgrades existing SR 1600 from just north of
SR 1605 (Johnson Farm Road) to the proposed Outer Loop. The following typical sections are
proposed:
Location Typical Section
NC 24/87 to SR 1605 Two-lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) roadway with shoulders,
(Johnson Farm Road) requiring a 30-meter (100-foot) right of way
SR 1605 to the Ft. Bragg Four-lane, 15.6-meter (52-foot) roadway with a
South Boundary 1.2-meter (4-foot) painted median and shoulders,
requiring a 42-meter (140-foot) right of way
Ft. Bragg South Boundary Five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot) curb and gutter section,
to Proposed Outer Loop requiring a 28-meter (90-foot) right of way

r" 1 1%
2
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
February 6, 1997 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Mark Reep, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension 216.
HFV/plr
Attachment

z
'?
c z

?VA

J
?
,
4}
Qj

1

0O
?cf1r4
n?
?O
1
F I
A 4?
ro '?
1
?? •° cn x ?I 3°K
ss IP H
?Z
1H. r v
p M,
2?O
i ` IN O y
td 0
t'+ O
r >:Y'
y; ,..
F..1 0 8 to
N 0100,
Y e ? ` y,r?? `^?1Y\
?O
k, ss
llb\
N y R N.
O
4
rro
O
H
Hn
to H
tf
-A—
r•-
RPIr!?'
• r ,?S

zs
r?
c

w 6 v I 'A
1,
If d 07 i
7 ?AS ` o
A6
o

0.
III.
SR 1
6f)S
( JOHNSON F
` Amy 'ROAD)
o ,.
07
,r
'-'`; 6ro I
?os?
/ "P
O
All
rP
G
I?
r
1,34
r
IAf
?cl
t
Jr fl
As V L
N
1? fsl? I
..............
I
1
i

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor --
7111
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 24, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning franc
RE: Comments on EA # 97-0410; WQ# 11463
Spring Lake Loop, Spring Lake
TIP # R-2629; Cumberland County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the EA/EIS document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz- Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/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? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stonmwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G . Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmativo Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
IPF
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior t6 the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not (if
applicable)?
Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option. -
- K.---To-what_extentcan traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the traffic
problems in the study area?
L. 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.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full
control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland
mitigation.
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 DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or
Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the document. It is
recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for review prior to the
sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until the applicant informs
DWQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off 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 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please give me a call at [phone], ext. 567 if you should have any questions.
mis:\970410
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs ? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form 6
Prj-cNumber: County: Date: -t q Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas _*Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville - Air El Coastal management ? Water Planning

LJ Water ?Water Resources Environmental Health
Mooresville
Groundwater

VWildlife ? Solid waste management
? Raleigh ?Wt and Quality Engineer Forest Resources ?' Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources C David Foster

? Wilmin
n
t 'Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
g
o u Others V Environmental Management
Winston-Salem PWS Mcnica Swihart t/-
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
11:1 No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommendeC for further development for reasons
stated in attacheC comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS.must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
vs 104

a
RECEIVED ~2?k s
DEC 161996 =="
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR.' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT Jr..
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 13, 1996
114EMORANDUNI TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch .?'•
SUBJECT: Spring Lake Loop, from NC 24/ NC 87 to the Proposed
Fayetteville Outer Loop, Spring Lake, Cumberland County, State
Project No. 8.244180 1, Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-0620(2),
TIP No. R-2629
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways is studying the
proposed Spring Lake Loop improvements. The project is included in the 1997-2003 North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year
2003 and post year (after the year 2003) construction.
The project consists of upgrading portions of existing SR 1451 (Manchester Road) and
SR 1600 (McCormick Bridge/ McArthur Road) from NC 24/ 87 to the Proposed Fayetteville
Outer Loop. Two alternatives are being evaluated (refer to the attached map). Alternative 1
upgrades existing SR 1451 and SR 1600, involving some new location to connect the two
facilities. Alternative 2 begins at the Odell Road intersection with NC 24/ 87, extends on new
location to avoid several historic properties, and upgrades existing SR 1600 from just north of
SR 1605 (Johnson Farm Road) to the proposed Outer Loop. The following typical sections are
proposed:
Location Typical Section
NC 24/87 to SR 1605 Two-lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) roadway with shoulders,
(Johnson Farm Road) requiring a 30-meter (100-foot) right of way
SR 1605 to the Ft. Brag Four-lane, 15.6-meter (52-foot) roadway with a
South Boundary v 1.2-meter (4-foot) painted median and shoulders,
requiring a 42-meter (140-foot) right of way
Ft. Bragg South Boundary Five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot) curb and gutter section,
to Proposed Outer Loop requiring a 28-meter (90-foot) right of way
0
17
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
February 6, 1997 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Mark Reep, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension 216.
HFV/plr
Attachment - - - -- - - - - -
Z
?II
Z
0$1.
? +If
0?
J?
P?
i
?Q
01,91: ,
"
rl,ri ? ???? ? tl •?\
;Opp
ILI
at' ?T-"?'
L;
I
o

?Qd04 /Y?? trt is;
NoSNNo1'
,g o9 t ?S
:j
G0
O
0 [-1 .
y?

?4. W
H a

o
. y
\
o tvi
r toy rr'i? .I.
le

t N ISNIIAi
Y?.
o ®® v •?
r.
Sri ti~ ???
[Y
r
?tA
i 'Inca"
r. ?
.
1 ^ .o
o a
0
ti QI o
u
P4
?.
0 P4
?
W
?Wrn

' HpW N
a
a
z?y ,
w
H N H
P4 ' H .
(!] U G7
z. >
o z
H
IOj!/!(lr1I?111
r
e' re?q cl u. on'?, o ?i fi
,? u A 4 r
?? q??d :S aAf• %?.
VIA.
'7t t
+
;? P u ??q tt
?o
or
tiO

'rd
d
U
.r,
N
H
u
.b
U
q
w
°I P
ot;
1
1
S

?0 4
'. o Geo. Pp
CTIO, ?? C + C
err.
EA u'
W H ;;''
a a 41Y
P4
1
1-'A
??
Nf?
GG?, `
Vr?

r e L
4?, 1 ? •I "?j? J,I rr.
f ti ^i (rIl
ti
off`
?d
J
r
f
,v u. f .. ??a y
ti' + f
1r....1 ..
<L t
I r
w
00 ` zr spa
.? N4??
rA
t
P4 a ?G vi

/

1

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
/ ' G JG
u
TO: REF
.
NO. OR OM, BLDG.
.
E
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, OLOG.

ACTION e
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ADOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
o• .
?' .? t? ? s AFC I'FO
?N
T
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ", (4SC??NcFs
DEPARTMENT OF Tk NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 6, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Participants
r.
FROM: Mark Reep, P. E., Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Spring Lake Loop, from NC 24/ NC 87 to tite Proposed Fayetteville
Outer Loop, Spring Lake, Cumberland County, State Project No.
8.244180 1, Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-0620(2), TIP No. R-2629
An interagency meeting was held on Tuesday November 19, 1996 to finalize the scope of
the subject project. The following individuals attended the meeting:
George Vaughn Cumberland County Joint Planning Board
Rick Heicksen Cumberland Count), Joint Planning Board
Richard Higgins Town of Spring Lake
Glen Prillaman Fort Bragg
Kathryn Haught Fort Bragg
Terry Myers Fort Bragg
Debbie Bevin Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Eric Galamb DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ken Graham US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mark Cantrell US Fish and Wildlife Service - RCW Field Office
John Schrohenloher Federal Highway Administration
Steve Varnedoe Division 6 Office
Tracey Pittman Division 6 Office
Ray Goff Division 6 Office
Frank Vick Planning and Environmental
Richard Davis Planning and Environmental
Linwood Stone Planning and Environmental
Hal Bain Planning and Environmental
Charles Bruton Planning and Environmental
Mark Reep Planning and Environmental
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Lanette Cook Program Development
Harry Thompson Roadway Design
Sue Flowers Roadway Design
Gary Foster Roadway Design
Darrell Hensdale Statewide Planning

After the July 1995 scoping meeting, several preliminary alternatives were identified for
consideration in the project study. These consisted of upgrading existing SR 1451 (Manchester
Road) and SR 1600 (McCormick Bridge/ McArthur Road) and extending the project on new
location around the eastern perimeter of Fort Bragg. Sensitive environmental resources within
the project study corridor were identified using database records to determine the potential
impacts associated with the alternatives. This information was discussed during the interagency
meeting. Based upon the extent of potential impacts to these resources, it was decided that the
project should upgrade the existing roads.
Fort Bragg and US Fish and Wildlife Service representatives were concerned that widening the
existing roadway would reduce the amount of habitat for the recovering RCW populations in the
northeast section of the military base. A habitat deficit already exists in this portion of the base
which serves 35 clusters of woodpecker colonies. A biological assessment will be conducted
during the project study to fully evaluate the impacts to the RCW and its habitat.
Debbie Bevin, from the SHPO, provided comments on eligible National Register properties near
the existing roads. The McCormick Farmstead property is located along McCormick Bridge
Road near NC 210. According to correspondence from the SHPO, the southern boundary has
been determined to extend to the Fort Bragg Property. The Overhills historic district, near
NC 24/ 87, includes property on both sides of Manchester Road. Since much of this property
was recently purchased by Fort Bragg, the SHPO and Fort Bragg are reviewing the property to
determine if its National Register boundaries will change.
The environmental document will evaluate two alternatives (refer to the attached map).
Alternative 1 upgrades existing SR 1451 and SR 1600, involving some new location to connect
the two facilities. Alternative 2 begins at the Odell Road intersection with NC 24/ 87, extends on
new location to avoid the historic districts, and upgrades existing SR 1600 from just north of
SR 1605 (Johnson Farm Road) to the proposed Outer Loop. To accommodate the projected
traffic volumes and to reduce environmental impacts, the following typical sections are
proposed:
Location Typical Section
NC 24/87 to SR 1605 Two-lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) roadway with shoulders, requiring
(Johnson Farm Road) a 30-meter (100-foot) right of way
SR 1605 to the Ft. Bragg Four-lane, 15.6-meter (52-foot) roadway with a 1.2-meter (4-foot)
South Boundary painted median and shoulders, requiring a 42-meter (140-foot)
right of way
Ft. Bragg South Boundary Five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot) curb and gutter section, requiring
to Proposed Outer Loop a 28-meter (90-foot) right of way
MLR/

stA, 00
7
' ICI -?? ? ?llar?, Jl1jU ??,;-° ';???,?•?? l'1 ?{?????-L' ,,,:... ?,, S?(-? J ? ."r\ ?:
`\ ? ?- I •r?4? V '! \ of ({ ?l ?•\`;`??../?•; o Iii ( }k\ (
c9e
_
?_`rra J/ (/?'=? ??? ?? ?,\ .11''~1\ ?y.. /?'\./ •???`?? I,? -I? - ? `?? /
lk,
0,11
(ht'O ?.??,n•`?1\',.) i?'1???`?•t?; ??\ •?_- : ?.,? l S _\\ sb2? ?t`A?, ~\?
J/V) - ?,A ;- 0?
,°
?.' ?i??-??s-? ? ?/'I)'f ?. ;?? ? `- "?7 ? ae`\?\\? °of• ? Uhl ? 0 1 /? ? -?? ? ? ?: , ..
'21) L
DZ\\'/,/
/r :7?? ??-? ?? ?? a° 1'? ?\\?_ '?? • _ osz ( ? ;,---?. ( ( ?? ??
C\ ? 1
1 ? I`I ?:' ._ , \`•? ?';?1 / A ,p ' 4°a4 ??? a ??? ? 1
r \ y sa -i ?l too It
1 t p a %'?QQ ncal !?
-N I'll
•aaa .i6? ` 1 _\ L+Q i ?'"i ?\ •°J 1. /`- ?- ; ' ? `M N' 1 I???"' =I?? ?
' y '-J •'\
C?z
01
// R' -- % / (O! ?_\ 1=a__ O ?•?'/) - ???/ /?/ '/4:-?' .tea ?? V 1,
off
\ I J y 1 / ?L\ ?SZ / 1
osz ' r lam' N
• V n'I.' I`• v i/'/ ? a??-lQl \ _ / 0'''7??())/7 ? (1?? _/ - ? ?-?(•: r '?i•• •f•? ??' '?"r eic?
YV\ ?vl
44
(l . -
-• ? ?. C-??..',--?- 0 \ `yam' l? J ?. ? .?t
SO I
?' 0 , -/'ll 11 ? ••a ` . v • ? /P .0 v,
1 ?: /// --__J' ?.e'??df M°:oard ,,??j?••?: ??/ d`t',? Q II 91 ?d/i • / /
?? I ?d 3'iP /i • :.'G.. '(? - - -ter S ' ? . S ? t 0 J
?./ '"; / d?'P ?.•? ??.?iilJl ti?? nnuunu??ninn?l???nunn??7n nnnnnf?n s9.,,., ,
O _© / j• ,;?? /. d. /sr
P• •%: '' • , 1SallOULIN) I St I 2IS ?;:•JI
c•
(ptlo 13
Art#
l f ?s-•? / • O? ??
Publ
i .? ` ? /; ? , 1011 ??I?aQ ?r ?sr ??? ??? ^ •- „ ? 1 ,, •?;.
>L Q
??• ?•? \ • ' l? . ?.?'?? SL.?•??r ?\`l`\ v???\\ ?•\ I ??\ ,? . i\ ;j?? ? ?' ?`??.\??• . _ - /' ? o Obi /0???
/Uo v
-? , V W-i Cam- G ? J 2.
L?? C c? ? ? ? ? LGC c? L L c
C2z h?
?/ f
W -V
/-ck
1 ?
• 1 t ?t - CUC ; x// a
C7,tt 1Y
NL Z{v ??1 ? Selfi?ti` ?y ffz
X41
i
)/. 2-
V l ll„ "?

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSRIITTAI_ Slip nATE kc)
TO: REF. NO. nR PnO M, BLDG.
?rIG b( i.o
ENV- n..
FR REF. NO. OR ROOM. RLOG.
ee u?i?r r??
_
ACTION
_
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CnNVFRSATION
? NOTE ANO RETURN TO MC ? PER YOUR RFOUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE, DETAILS ? FOR YOIIR APPPOVAL
? NOTE AND SF.E ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
m}
'^ 4
RECEIVED
OCT 1 t 1995
q p.v..cA?
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETf JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Scoping Meeting Participants
FROM: Mark L. Reep, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Spring Lake Loop, from NC 24/87 to the Proposed Fayetteville Outer
Loop, Spring Lake, Cumberland County, State Project No. 8.244180 1,
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-0620(2), TIP No. R-2629
On 7/27/95, a scoping meeting was held for the subject project. The following people
attended the meeting: f
Rick Heicksen Cumberland County Joint Planning Board
Eric Galamb DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
Melba McGee DEHNR
Linda Pearsall DEHNR - Division of Parks and Recreation
Vince Barone FHWA
Ann Krieger Fort Bragg
Richard Higgins Town of Spring Lake
Bill Rosser Division 6 Office
Ray Goff Division 6 Office
Jay King Geotechnical
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
John Taylor Location and Surveys
Keith Johnston Photogrammetry
Frank Vick Planning and Environmental
Richard Davis Planning and Environmental
Linwood Stone Planning and Environmental
Cindy Sharer Planning and Environmental
Stephanie Briggs Planning and Environmental
Mark Reep Planning and Environmental
Jimmy Capps Program Development
Darin Wilder Program Development
Betty Yancey Right of Way
Nelson Frye Right of Way
Sue Flowers Roadway Design
Herman Lancaster Roadway Design
Darrell Hensdale Statewide Planning
Allen Thompson Structure Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Jay Woolard Traffic Control
RD]
The meeting began with a brief summary of the project history and a description of the
proposed improvements outlined in the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). In
1990, planning began for the Spring Lake Loop. At that time, the project consisted of a four-lane
freeway on new location, providing interchanges at major roadway crossings. Because of the low
traffic volumes projected for the facility and a number of environmental concerns, the project
was downscoped. Currently, the project consists of upgrading existing SR 1451 (Manchester
Road) and SR 1600 (McCormick Bridge Road/ McArthur Road), involving some new location.
Several possible cross sections will be considered. A two-lane section will be evaluated
in the project study if it can accommodate the projected traffic volumes. As requested by the
Fayetteville Area Transportation Advisory Committee, a multilane section will also be
considered. When traffic projections are available, the volumes will be reviewed to determine the
appropriate typical sections to address in the study.
Preliminary alignment alternatives were also discussed during the meeting. The meeting
participants discussed several options for upgrading and connecting SR 1451 and SR 1600,
involving some new location. In addition, an alternative was Oscussed that would widen only the
existing roads. If the widened existing roads can accommodate the future traffic volumes, this
option will be addressed in the study. Fort Bragg representatives support a two-lane cross
section along existing SR 1600 through the military reservation. However, the military does not
favor widening the existing road to a multilane facility. A multilane roadway would prevent
troops from accessing the easternmost portion of the reservation during maneuvers. Fort Bragg
supports a multilane cross section only if the alignment is on new location, around the perimeter
of the reservation. Because of Fort Bragg's comments, it was suggested that an alternative be
developed in the area of the previously studied Spring Lake Loop corridor. A variation of this
alternative should also be developed to avoid the McCormick Farmstead and Overhills Historic
District properties, both Section 4(f) resources.
The preliminary alignment alternatives were clarified during a meeting held on August 1
with Planning and Environmental representatives. It was concluded that at least three general
alignments will be addressed in the environmental document (refer to attached map for locations):
tion 1 Best alignment connecting and upgrading SR 1451 and SR 1600 with possible
endpoints at (A) Vass Road and (B) Manchester Road.
tion 2 Alternative following the previously studied Spring Lake Loop corridor on new
location with endpoints at (A) Vass Road and (B) Manchester Road.
tion 3 Alternative following the previously studied Spring Lake Loop corridor on new
location ending at Odell Road (approximately 3500 feet south of Manchester
Road).
An interchange will be included with the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop for each option.
Linda Pearsall, from the Natural Heritage Program, suggested that the project area should
be investigated during the September blooming season for the appropriate protected plant
species. In September, Planning and Environmental staff biologists began investigating the
project for these protected plant species. Eric Galamb, from the Division of Environmental
Management, suggested that the environmental document include a commitment to use Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Guidelines for High Quality Waters in the watershed areas draining
into Carvers Falls and Texas Pond.
The schedule for completing preliminary designs and construction cost estimates will be
coordinated with Roadway Design when traffic projections are available and cross sections are
selected.
MLR/
Attachment
cc: Scoping Participants

ti
!' cn
?r
Q1
N
n •.
V

0
Nih,
zk
??v
SR 1461 (Manchester Rd)
_,_ _ I_ -
A?v

\\
m
O

qPS y
,f/off O
_O
/i
•I
?0
100
00
o ?
0
SR 160 Johnsoa Farm Rd)
4
?• 1w
„? to
Cr.
v \
OA
\?\ \ W o?.oe Pev on .
• u. 1s
D!
oneycutt Road
. ? std ? `Tl ? -`Q' rs
u ?
J'
11
E 0IV <w
x7 -n '
z>
< -
rn
?mx

`-
I ?m?
m C Z Z ,
..
liee
Ar
m
1 F ? L' r
? ? ! o! g 'AIM Q %( .be,c
0) C: m
cp o 00
oe oe .o
// » A
U3 C -4 m
-i ?

o P
0 0 fAu A,
m Z

o0m?
.
? Q ?? ? o " 11 oe
1 ?e

D
9
l7?l?G?li,?+, IE ov 16
CJ

S
'?- ti .
21 t o r >
q
o?
R?L ?I 1\
s' •
Y J, ` rg40
<qo p ?`.' RaJ
A w ,
d
, l
R
os `?? ? i
e? \
"
-,:yRa)
N. C. DEPARTMEN ATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO,
^ N? ?
P ?` /^-4-r1 ?l f V
^
? 1
REP. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
REP. NO. OR ROOM, OLDS.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
, ? NOTS AND RETURN TO ME ? ' PER., YOUR PESUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR. YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND •SS ME ABOUT THIS ? -FOR. YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? `TAKS APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS;
i M.
?? SIALL SIAII OI N(?t,iII CAR()[ I NA
DEI'ARTMEN'I, ()I- "I'I?ANSI'(_)IZIAI-ION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. PIMION OI: I II( it IWAY,S R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.(). M)X'P001 RAI I](;I IN.C. ' 1Ad15'2(11 SGCREI'nliY
Augi st 18, 1991)
MIMOPANDUM TO: John Dorney, Water Quality Section
DFIINR, Division of Lnvironmental Mana em t
FROM: It. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 1 over the Little River on
SR 1600 (McCormick Bridge Road), Shririg Lake,
Cumberland County, TIP No. B-2535
Thank you for your recent memorandum regarding the subject bridge
replacement project. At your request, we have investigated the proposed
bridge design. This replacement bridge will provide a 30-foot wide
structure with standard concrete barrier rails. According to NCDOT's
Structure Design Unit Staff, this bridge could be widened if SR 1600
(McCormick Bridge Road) is upgraded to a multilane facility with the Spring
Lake Loop project (R-2629).
If you need additional information, please let me know.
NFV/tp
cc:l. fic'Galamb, Division of Environmental Management
19
lq?
i
N. C. `DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TtQN

TRANSMITTAL SLIT OArk
r+
T
ring. gi?& em
o. 1 a. 16, acrid.
RRoml RDR No. P11 IIOO } , 19frq

? NOT19 AMID'VILIt ? r19R DD11 NYNMiATIDN i
? NOTR"ANO RSTUAN Ti M19 ? r19R 1OUR1R QWKjT
? RiTURN WITH MdR19 WAILS ? ROROUR! 4 PROYAL ? -,
? NOTS AND 10199 M19 A2OLIT.THI• ? ROR ;TOUR' i? rbftkoiot4 .
? RLDAf19 ANDWRR ? IOR "YOUR c 6MMENT19
? RR19RARR REPLY OOR- MY, SIONATUR19 ?. AIONATUMj ? --
? TAH19 APRROORIAT19 AmTIbN ?INV194TIOA 19 •Af.IO 019PORT'
COMMRNT!1 I
i
i
j

9 t
a ?? ?? LaPMENT UNIT
STATE OF NORTIi CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT )R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNK III
GMI RNOR 11.0. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 4t
July 7, 1995 91995
ENVIRONMENI?? SCIENCES
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
4
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager l/
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Spring Lake Loop, from
NC 24/87 to the Fayetteville Outer Loop, State Project
No. 8.2441801, Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-0620(2),
TIP No. R-2629
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 July 27, 1995 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Mark Reep, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MR/pl r 1
l
Attachment
SV 1 2 ?{ -
Olko 5
(20 AA 0- 41
-DOT
Iy ?_
La?
t `

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date July 7, 1995
Revision Date
Project Development Stage:
Programming
Planning X
Design
Route Spring Lake Loop - SR 1451 (Manchester Roa )
and SR 1600 (McCormick Road) (,J J I /1 / ,eva"
Functional Classification
SR 1451 Urban Minor Arterial SR 1600 Rural Major Collec or)
Length 13.4 kilometers (8.3 miles) ? Y -Z (-10 h?
Purpose of Project: .( VOL+bfvck
1?Q
The purpose of the project is to improve and connect e existing two-lane
? ?? CL
facilities to better serve traffic and improve safety. YI
(0 /
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements o
work: aidd
a x ?
The proposed Spring 1_.ar:e Loop consists of constructing two-ian?_ improvements
along existing SR 1451 from NC 24/87 to NC 210 and extending the roadway on ?
new location from NC 210 to SR 1600. Two-lane improvements are also
proposed along SR 1600 from the extension of SR 1451 to the Fayetteville
Outer Loop. Uf T4 Type of environmental document and study schedule: -,_ r'?pSt o to SltC
?" 1M z
s
TIP # R-2629 ?
rCez{?vi?? UL? 7)
Project 8.2441801
F.A. Project # STPNHF-0620(2) \ c
Division 6
County Cumberland` r,
? -2
d
Document Tape Begin Date Completion Date
EA 6/95 7/96
FONSI 10/96 13/97
Type of Funding: State
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount : Mr __( )
How and when will this be paid? N/A
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET

Type of Facility: Minor Arterial/ Major Collector
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 2
IV .
Typical Section of Roadway:
The proposed cross section will provide a two-lane, '.2-meter roadway
(24-foot) with 2.4-meter (eight-foot) usable and 1.3-meter (four-foot) paved
shoulders.
Traffic: An average of 4500 vehicles per day currently travel along the
existing routes.
Design Year
% Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO Y 3R
Design Speed: 60 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . . S
Right of Way Cost (including rel., utit.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . y
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . S
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
TIP Cost Estimate:
Prior Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S 400.000
S 5.000.000
S 2.800.000
S 8.200.000

PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect
cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS
COST
Estimated Costs'vf Improvements:
X Pavement
X Resurfacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 336,500
X Widening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 354.900
X New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 341.700

- Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 544,700
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 80.100
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $ 570,500
- Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Structures: Width x Length
X Bridge Rehabilitation 10.4m x 36.9m $ 102,300
X New Bridge 10.4m x 61.31n $ 355,300
- Widen Bridge x $
- Remove Bridge X S
New Culverts: Size Length . . . $
Culvert Extension . . . . . . $
_ Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Noise Walls . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
_ Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . S
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Fencing: W.W. _ and/or C. L. _ $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 95.400
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 275.600
- Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
_ Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: _ New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . S
- Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . S
- Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X S 61.500
Markers X
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X, Other: ClearinL-. Gruhk>irt,. Mobilizatiori . . S 1.110.000
3
'IAF'Je F1 ittcTI in Tntc1-1?ection III] hro?ements 1215.000
- ----- -- rONTRA(717 COST (Subtotal): $ 4.3 0.000

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 650,000
PE Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $ 5,000,000
_ Right of Way,
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
_ Existing Right of Way Width: 60 feet
_ New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal:$ 2,800,000
Total Estimated Cost :$ 7,800,000
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Mark Reep, Project Planning Engineer
Date: Julv 7, 1995
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Research
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
3
Comments or Remarks:
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Manager, Program and
Policy Branch
Asst. Highway Admin.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Landscape
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Chief Engineer
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
DEHNR
INIT. DATE
*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.
r
C
? D
O Z
C
D =
0 rn
D M
Z
r
rn
a
V
/•r 1
1O
v0
l
l
tp
F
t

N11
A?l
? S
?44 C??S
s,f
>,o
.63
.7 210 0
eF : a Ins NC 24
IAu
?O
V
I ?.
9J
V?
F e
i
'i
r ?
O
q C-
al rn
€1 -ni

Y-,
?NR
Y4
01
° A
b
O
s 6 ,
0 7j
?dyo? a ?° 0 09
ti
\0
00
y

lk
ro N??
04
IolI C
/
III ?
10
I
10
CMI`i / s
a / w
dt1
Ft::
S 1605
ORNS
RJ ovFq
"ifi'• O
i'li 7.67 '?9 'ROAD
S
1
10 /
^
?o
,ltl?,
/ O
'
S ?.
I?
0-1
I
171 ,wr+'+!!MT1? ii;i^ ? ?? JL

1
J n
C

Z
O
I=

In Z
D v
0
r
O
D
Z

O
L
?-/
??
4 a 1i
;?
?z
,?? ?,
?° - ?,
.?
ti
? ? ??
??
-.? -? ?,
-?
v
? .? ?
? ?
??
?? ? ??
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources r4**A
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ID F C F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretory
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E., Director
July 27, 1995
Memorandum
To: Frank Vick
DOT
Through: John Dor 4TV
From: Eric Galamb ?
Subject: Bridge Replacement over the Little River
Cumberland County
TIP # B-2535
DOT requested a 401 Certification to replace the bridge over
the Little River (B-2535) in March 1994. DOT requested a
categorical exclusion for the project and therefore had automatic
approval.
On July 27, 1995 DOT held a scoping meeting for R-2629
(Spring Lake Bypass). DOT has been requested to study the
upgrade existing alternative that will utilize SR 1600. The
bridge replacement (B-2535) project is on SR 1600.
DEM requests that DOT study B-2535 and assure DEM that there
is not a bridge design "deficiency" that would prohibit the
upgrade existing alternative for R-2629. DEM requests that DOT
provide a letter of assurance before the let date for B-2535.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 733-
1786.
r 2629.mem
cc: David Foster
Melba McGee
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
4
ENT OF Tjy?/yR?
N ?
ARCH Aga

United States Department of the Interior
j
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 17, 1997 RECEI VEC
SAN 2 1 1987
Mr. H. Franklin ck Manager, Planningland Environment Branch ENV1RDIVA IVTqLSClENC S
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Spring Lake Loop Improvement, TIP No. R-2629,
Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of December 13, 1996, requesting
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
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 (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). This report also serves as initial scoping comments
to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to upgrade portions of existing
SR 1451 (Manchester Road) and SR 1600 (McCormick Bridge/McArthur
Road) from NC 24/87 to the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop. Two
alternatives are being evaluated.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations,
we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations should help guide
the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Regarding
avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to

existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed
areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use
existing crossings and/or occur on structure wherever feasible.
Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or
impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway
shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized
by using appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques.
Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird
nesting.
The Service reviewed the two alternatives under consideration.
We note that alternative 1 proposes a new location connection
between SR 1451 and SR 1600 which would require a new crossing of
the Little River. However, less than a mile north of the start
of the new location corridor on SR 1451 these two roads join west
of the Little River. The Service recommends that the NCDOT
investigate the feasibility of modifying alternative 1 to include
upgrading NC 210 from the junction with SR 1451 to the junction
with SR 1600. This alignment would avoid most work on new
location and allow the use of the existing bridge on SR 1600 over
the Little River.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state
permits at the time of public notice issuance. Resource agency
coordination should occur early in the planning process to
resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the
following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project,
including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action and an analysis of the
alternatives for the proposed project that were considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads, if applicable,
and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the action area of the proposed project which may be
directly or indirectly affected;

4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging,
clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact
acreages should be differentiated by habitat type based on
the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and
permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result
of the proposed project. The assessment should also include
the extent to which the proposed project would result in
secondary impacts to natural resources and how this and
similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would
be employed to avoid or minimize the fragmentation or direct
loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other
mitigation measures which would be employed at wetland
crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend
that every effort be made to identify compensatory
mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should
include a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for
offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via
conservation easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached page identifies the federally-listed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species that are known to occur in
Cumberland County. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available
habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present
within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. Survey methodologies and results
should included in the environmental documentation. In addition
to this guidance, the following information should be included in
the environmental document regarding protected species. The
level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental impacts:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
v
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed
species and the habitat of the species that may be affected
by the action, including the results of an onsite
inspection;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed
species and associated habitat which includes consideration
of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the
effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors
leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat.
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and
private activities in the project area and cumulative
effects area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the
proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are
part of a larger action and depend on the larger action
for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the
action under consideration); and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private
activities (not requiring federal agency involvement)
that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. 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. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or
the degradation of habitat are all ways in which listed
species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measurement
of potential effects. Criteria may include post-project
population size, long-term population viability, habitat
quality, and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. 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 are those plant and animal species for which
the Service has sufficient information on their biological status
and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no
statutory protection under the ESA, federal agencies are required
to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may
destroy or modify proposed critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which
the Service does not have enough scientific information to
support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant
listing at the present time. These species receive no statutory
protection under the ESA, but could become candidates in the
future if additional scientific information becomes available
indicating that they are endangered or threatened. Formal
listing places the species under the full protection of the ESA,
and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area
is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for the NCDOT to
avoid any adverse impacts 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 made in
the planning process, including your official determination of
the impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely,
71, /'?. Ll I C-- /I
Mike Wicker
Acting Supervisor
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:1/17/97:WP:A:cumr2629.197
FEDERALLY-LISTED, CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL OF CONCERN
(revised August 23, 1996)
CLIIBERLA,ND COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis
Southern ho--nose snake Heterodon simus
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Northern pine snake Pitttophis ntelanoleucus ntclanoleucus
Im crtebrates
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa
Saint Francis' satyr Neonvntpha rrtitchelhi fi-ancisci
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana
Sandhills milkvetch 4stragaltis michauxii
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula
Resinous boneset Eupatorhan resinosum
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria ntedeoloides
White wickv Kabnia cuneata
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae
Pondberry (=Southern spicebush) Lindera rnelissifolia
Boo spicebush Lindera sttbcoriacea
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia bovkinii
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lvsinzachia asperttlacfolia
Loose watermilfoil Mvriophvlltnn laxum
Savanna cowbane Oxvpolis ternata
Carolina grass- of-pamassus Parnassia caroliniana
Wavyleaf wild quinine Partheniian radfordii
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pvxidanthera barbulata var. brevistyla
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa
American chaffseed Schwalbea americans
Carolina goldenrod Soliclago pulchra
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii
Carolina asphodel Tofteldia glabra
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass A'vris scabrifolia
KEY:
FSC
Status
FSC
T(S/A)
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Threatened*
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
13
FEDERALLY-LISTED, CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL OF CONCERN
(revised August 23, 1996)
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specis observation is uncertain.
*** Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
** * Historic, obsure and incidental record.
34
r-
f
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

0,` f? ?! f9
9J
ILI
This is in response to your letter of December 13, 1996, requesting our comments
on "Spring Lake Loop, from NC 24/NC 87 to the Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop,
Spring Lake, Cumberland County, State Project No. 8.2441801, Federal Aid Project No.
STPNHF-0620(2), TIP No. R-2629" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199704275).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
March 24, 1997
n
0
G
n
a
n
0
d
0
n
N
Enclosure
14
-2-
Copies Furnished (with copy of
incoming correspondence):
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. David Cox, Highway Projects Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1141 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
r
March 24, 1997
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Spring Lake Loop, from NC 24/NC 87 to the Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop, Spring Lake,
Cumberland County, State Project No. 8.2441801, Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-0620(2),
TIP No. R-2629" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199704275)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County which participates in the National
Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panels 35, 40, and 75 of the February 1982
Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Alternative 1 crosses Little River twice.
Little River is a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined. Based on the same FIRM panels, Alternative 2 does not appear to be within
an identified flood hazard area. However, from a review of the pertinent United States
Geological Survey topo map ("Manchester, N.C.") both alternatives cross Gibsons Creek,
which appears to have sufficient drainage area to produce flooding. In addition, Alternative 2
crosses two unnamed tributaries of Little River which also appear to have sufficient drainage
area to produce flooding.
For the Little River crossings, we refer you to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's "Procedures for'No Rise' Certification For Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways", copies of which have been provided to your office previously. In addition, we
suggest coordination with the county for compliance with their flood ordinance and any
changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
According to your December 13, 1996 request for information, two alternatives are being
considered for this project. Alternative 1 utilizes a portion of SR 1451 (Manchester Road) but
will require a new location segment between NC 210 and SR 1600 with a new crossing of the
Little River. Alternative 2 requires a new location segment between NC 24/NC 87 and
SR 1600, potentially impacting seven (7) tributaries to the Little River including Gibsons Creek.
Based on available information, including aerial photography and the Cumberland County
Soil Survey and National Wetland Inventory Maps (Manchester Quadrangle), Alternative 2 has
the potential to impact several riparian corridors adjacent to the Little River. These wetlands
and others in the project vicinity provide a number of benefits to the Little River, including the
attenuation and desynchronization of flood events, improvements to water quality in
downstream receiving waters, and the uptake and transformation of many biologically active
compounds. In addition, these areas provide valuable wildlife habitat for a variety of birds,
mammals, amphibians, and reptiles.
March 24, 1997
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Spring Lake Loop, from NC 24/NC 87 to the Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop, Spring Lake,
Cumberland County, State Project No. 8.2441801, Federal Aid Project No.
STPNHF-0620(2), TIP No. R-2629" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199704275)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
In general, the up-grade or widening of an existing road will have less impacts on the
natural environment, including wetlands, than a road built entirely on new location.
As you are aware, DA permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material,
including mechanized landclearing, in waters of the United States or any adjacent or isolated
wetlands in conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction debris. Under our
mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will then
consider compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed,
including the extent and location of any work in wetlands and proposed wetland crossing types
(if any), our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for
project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
Although our initial emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated
impacts to waters and wetlands, if degradation to other aspects of the natural environment
(e.g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be of greater concern, an
alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in
accordance with the 1990 Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement between the United Sates
Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps, unavoidable wetland impacts must be
addressed prior to a final permit decision.
If you have any questions, they should be addressed to Mr. McLendon.
r"
a S1Ai( o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. Coleman Long
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 13, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Long:
SUBJECT: Spring Lake Loop, from NC 24/ NC 87 to the Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop,
Spring Lake, Cumberland County, State Project No. 8.2441801, Federal Aid
Project No. STPNHF-0620(2), TIP No. R-2629
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways is studying the
proposed Spring Lake Loop improvements. The project is included in the 1997-2003 North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year
2003 and post year (after the year 2003) construction.
The project consists of upgrading portions of existing SR 1451 (Manchester Road) and
SR 1600 (McCormick Bridge/ McArthur Road) from NC 24/ 87 to the Proposed Fayetteville
Outer Loop. Two alternatives are being evaluated (refer to the attached map). Alternative 1
upgrades existing SR 1451 and SR 1600, involving some new location to connect the-two
facilities. Alternative 2 begins at the Odell Road intersection with NC 24/ 87, extends on new
location to avoid several historic properties, and upgrades existing SR 1600 from just north of
SR 1605 (Johnson Farm Road) to the proposed Outer Loop. The following typical sections are
proposed:
Location Typical Section
NC 24/87 to SR 1605 Two-lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) roadway with shoulders,
(Johnson Farm Road) requiring a 30-meter (100-foot) right of way
SR 1605 to the Ft. Bragg Four-lane, 15.6-meter (52-foot) roadway with a
South Boundary 1.2-meter (4-foot) painted median and shoulders,
requiring a 42-meter (140-foot) right of way
Ft. Bragg South Boundary Five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot) curb and gutter section,
to Proposed Outer Loop requiring a 28-meter (90-foot) right of way
(9

2
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
February 6, 1997 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Mark Reep, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension 216.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
w1 Y...:.LLw's.::, :•J...?iAJ'?Jwtew.".131?T1JtlIrL..u?L..rrr{?w+,..:).w....w __.? _ __ •. _.....n.+.-?.......r........-...._...?.............-?._.......
wl+ "?f
A 1 k`
1
t C •
'1 .
z
E/I
'^ H $
1"' 1
Z ^7A t Ii:A ?®
j 7? /
1 ?. N I `r
M
:?. ?• SAN ti 0, .? ]

+ LI 1 °
fi + .1 SI ; OAS J Q r al
74
3)

TA,
O
?O
:. ,x
G ?
71111111
r VM
`"' .0."
1
1? 1 s.
1 '
,
1
ro ?'

Aj
r
1-3
F]
H
IA
L
txj
N H 00
0

II O L31
?
N ?a
?do
ti xUto
0 to

txj
K G
rro,
H 'v
o
Iyn
Illitlllltll
1
1
it

AL
74
01.
I
H C?
OO.ci'
6yo? °
1111 .`
f1!)/I/Ir
/

J
F
A
I]
At' .dd \0]
IAS \ o
r
? r
M
O?
r OO
4P
rl:
Y -
60S
r.:? $NS?N
tip 13
[l AD )

S?
16,10 I
l0
U,

r
1 ?
????I r t? `tn
0
79
/A, 1i+ ? IF N 1
?Wo
6:,11 ` i! •`?;;+-.?...,
1
Z
O
n
!0
Z
'D
a