20030890 Ver 1_Complete File_20030717

OMSrA1Fo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
030890
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
July 17, 2003

Of1 Sf (0 G?Q. ')['_J
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MUM/401 ffiMP
JUL i T 2003
Asaftm-
M
11NMwV
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
r?
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide Permit 14 for the extension of Lake Valley
Road (SR 2685) from Yadkin Road (SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US 401
Bypass) in Cumberland County, a distance of 0.6 miles. State Project No.
8.2443401 T.I.P. No. U-2911: $475.00 Debit work order 8.2443401, WBS
Element 34884.1.2
Dear Mr. Spencer:
The NCDOT proposes to extend Lake Valley Road on new location in the City of
Fayetteville. The proposed Lake Valley Drive Extension will extend southward on new
location from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) and tie-in to an existing multi lane access road,
which intersects with US 401 Bypass across from the entrance to Cross Creek Mall. The
.06 mile long project involves construction of a four lane divided facility with a 16-foot
raised grass median and curb and gutter from Yadkin Road to US 401 Bypass (Skibo
Road) with a proposed right-of-way of 110 feet. Impacts at from this project will qualify
for permitting under a Nationwide Permit 14. This project has a let date of November 18,
2003.
NEPA Document Status
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was submitted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA was
approved March 2001. A Finding of No Significant Impact was approved in January
2002. The documents describe the need for transportation improvements in the City of
Fayetteville. In addition, existing and projected conditions in the study area were
described including natural systems and wetlands. Alignments were evaluated with
respect to costs, social and economic impacts, and environmental consequences. Both the
EA and FONSI have been provided to regulatory review agencies involved in the
approval process. Additional copies will be provided upon request.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWWACDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Jurisdictional Status
Construction of the proposed project will necessitate in impacts to jurisdictional waters.
This project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Stream impacts associated with this
project total 365 feet. Wetland impacts related to this project total 0.34 acres. The
USACOE (Mr. Richard Spencer) (no signed verification in file) verified all wetlands on
November 13, 2001. Impacts are reported in Table 1.
Table 1. Stream and Wetland Impacts for TIP Project U-2911, Cumberland Co.
Site Station Stream .lame DWQ Index No. Stream Impacts Wetland
feet (ac) Impacts (acres)
1 12+35 -Y- Beaver Creek 18-31-24-5 80 (0.02)
2 25+64-L- Unname Tributary 18-31-24-5 285 (0.03) 0.34
T* I. 0.34
s S:
Permanent Impacts: There are two sites in the project area that will impact jurisdictional
waters. The attached permit application package consists of drawings showing impacts to
jurisdictional waters. The original EA estimated that the only one site would be impacted
by the proposed project. Improvements to Yadkin Road (Site 1), including widening,
have been added to project since the EA was written.
DESCRIPTION OF JURISDITIONAL SITES:
Site 1: located at station 12+35-Y- Beaver Creek is a perennial stream. The existing 2 @
12'X6" RCBCs will be extended on the inlet and outlet ends. The coastal plain sands and
organic silts that compose the foundation of the culvert will be excavated and back filled
with Class III backfill material. Replacing these soils is essential to provide a stable base
for the culvert and to avoid outlet scour.
Site 2: located at Station 25+64-L- Unnamed Tributary to Beaver Creek is a perennial
stream. There is a wetland adjacent to the UT that will also be impacted. A 72 -inch
reinforced concrete pipe will be buried 1 foot below the stream bed will be installed.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 7 federally protected species
as occurring in Cumberland County. Table 1 lists the species, their status and biological
conclusion. Since the original Environmental Assessment was prepared no species have
been added to or removed from the list.
Tahle 1. Federally-Protected Snecies for Cumberland Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Analysis Conclusion
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E No No Effect
woodpecker
Saint Francis' Neonympha E No No Effect
satyr mitchellii ancisci
Small whorled Isotria medeoloides T No No Effect
0 onia
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E No No Effect
Rough-leaved Lysimachia E No No Effect
loostrife as erulae olia
Michaux's Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect*
sumac
American Schwalbea E No No Effect
chaffseed americana
"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 an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or significant portion of its range).
Based on Latest survey of July 15, 2003
Cultural Resources
An archeological survey of the project's area of potential effect was performed by
NCDOT archaeologists. Two sites were identified within the project corridor. Neither
site was determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with these findings in a letter
dated August 2, 2000 (See Appendix A in the EA).
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined there are no historic properties
in the area of potential effect and notified NCDOT of this in a letter dated May 6, 1999
(See Appendix A in the EA). The project is in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
An Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) study is being conducted because the proposed
project will involve a new road alignment. The expected date of completion of the ICE is
July 25, 2003.
Mitigation Options
The CEO 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. Mitigation of wetland 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
5660.1A (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 were taken to
minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
The NCDOT is commited 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 wetlands not directly affected by the project will be protected from
unnecessary encroachment.
1. No staging of Construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be
allowed in wetlands or near surface waters.
Minimization: Wetland impacts were minimized during the preliminary designs by
aligning the road in a way that minimizes the amount of stream impacts. In addition
to directly avoiding wetlands and streams, NCDOT is incorporating the following
measures to minimize impact to wetlands and surface waters:
In jurisdictional areas the side slopes have been steepened to a 3:1 slope, which is'
the most practicable slope in sandy soils.
2. Relocated water and sewer will be placed under the Fill in Surface Waters at Site 1
and will result in no additional impacts.
3. Placement of utilities under roadway fill slope in wetland areas at Site 2, resulting
in no additional impacts..
4. A preformed scour hole at Station 13+20-Y- will be installed to prevent direct
stormwater discharge at Site 1.
Stormwater: The following best practices and measures were taken during the design
of the project to reduce the stormwater impacts:
Storm drainage that is being collected on Yadkin Road east of Beaver Creek is
being discharged into a preformed scour hole and then ditched to the creek.
The storm drainage on the western approach of Yadkin Road is being
maintained in it's existing pattern and discharged into the culvert.
1. Storm drainage that is collected between station 11+50 and 18+50-L is being
collected and discharged on the west side of -L- near station 11+50. There is
also a 36" RCP cross line being placed in this location for the developer who
is proposing to develop both sides of the proposed roadway.
2. A 36" RCP cross line is being provided for the developer at station 19+00-L-.
3. Storm drainage that is collected between station 18+50 and 35+00-L- is being
collected and discharged near station 25+00-L-. This is the location of the 72"
RCP in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The storm drainage is being
discharged at least 50 feet away from the top of bank on either side of the
tributary. An additional 36" cross line is being provided for the property
owner at this location.
4. Storm drainage from station 35+00 to 45+00-L- is being collected and
discharged into an existing ditch near station 35+00-L-.
Compensation: Despite the minimization strategies employed for the proposed project,
the resulting wetland impacts will be greater than 0.1 acre. Consequently, the project will
require compensatory mitigation. North Carolina Wetland Restoration (WRP) has agreed
to provide maximum of .68 acres of wetland mitigation and 730 feet of stream mitigation
per attached acceptance letter dated April 1, 2003.
Regulatory Approvals
Attached for your information is a copy of the Storm Water Management Plan, WRP
acceptance letter, Preconstruction Notification (PCN), roadway designs plans, and permit
drawings for the subject project. Application is hereby made for the Department of Army
Section 404 Nationwide 14 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 NCAC we will provide $475.00 to act as
payment for processing the Section 401 permit application previously noted in this
application (see Subject line). 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.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Mr. Brett Feulner at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Ray Lofti, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division 6 Environmental Officer
w
%-ol 14
1499 7
? 7 p9 2685 •?? 87
141 3197 bo
BYP
Aa X91415
BEGIN 007
PROJECT ; 3196
,yb `C
i
1404 0 1007
h
1404
-23
O
a
O 159
h
VICINITY
MAPS
PROJECT
.17 679
77 1404
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT:8.244UO1 (U-2911)
LAKE VALLEY RD. EXT.
FROM YADKIN RD. TO SKIBO RD.
SHEET OF ? 11/26/02
NORTH CAROLINA
1 -
+ S
i ¦ Y i !!1•* : F ELI
F k;
lk'
F.ff'r '
r +?n ,,f F . I •, ._:=.t;?kf?FfrFFkFf F f
. 4 -cep-Frf ??FfF
FF fh
h fF FFF ? tk
2 •i:hi ?
c Fk
F
F tFfF r f }?? ?F??!'
F},.. f.
4 SITE i
? { Fh T
,r? ?,a ' F f'ff E k [}f pF 4
?' :Fr LI'!:. { r1 ` ref ?F?4 FLF h F M
?,:crv .h_c _t #?,.R=EFfFfF?'fF 'fl
,k '? cECCEFI EE7
Ff?a i
R :cnf }
::;ai?iiw•.
' ? C 2LL
_ _? _ -7kI ? .ff «Ki

BEGIN

PROJECT L
F fhkf _ : L
.«?
pr.
1 1 h - r l 1-.
?F Ft. FL ? ?+ J •. ? __? p r. l
ffpm- 4r.
=hFFF
00.
L
:
;ITE 1! F _ -
Err '•?? :.. ...
' 'F"" kf`FFhF-`=c;.. r'c hh :F - >'F fff}f4fffffn:k.l.
_kfF=i; tF c::FhFFFFF,:FFFLFF
w w Loa*':FFk' Ffff[fEF: Fkh"r r i:r R {j o
Ffff .:r?F:Fr;F :fFFF?rhFF
=?uffF' ' _?ffff' ? kf??;=E:kcrrt'F?=i' >•? ?€k •' fi''p ?
"d 'f f;Ffk ' h }kr FCF}f}r"':r' t 'fir ?
f, hfF? ... L'1... 1 s
END
FF_ PROJECT = f fr=`;? € }fffr - -?-ti
It
SITE
MAID

A \ V D® 1L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2443401 (U-2911)
LAKE VALLEY RD.
FROM YADKIN RD. TO SKIBO RD.
SHEET OF 11/26/02
WETLAND LEGEND
-'WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

L WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES-
® SURF CE WATER EXISTNG STRUC TURES) 54' PIPES
A
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
DENOTES MECHANIZED
•" • * CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
?- TOP OF BANK
- WE EDGE OF WATER
-- C-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - -F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -P1• - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -? - - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
E?D BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
NCDO#T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2443401 (U-2911)
LAKE VALLEY RD.EXT.
FROM YADKIN RD. TO SKIBO RD.
SHEET ,3 OF A, 11/26/02
& ABOVE
2? SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD

RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
N
Z
_w
w?
W
? J
N =
/ =) L)
/ Z
/ (n W
w
LLJI
Z w w
Cid
U Al ,? U , o F--1
cj:
aw Q r a
W p: I i1' co"
LL-j
LuO '
CL=
L) Z ILW
?7- O?:.-
' N caw
` W (LCA

M/b JNIISIX3
- ? M
q I
OM NIVGVX
-' a'
LIZ
I ,

?-Z

mQ

- -
0
' o +
N U) a- i U M
CL o
CO m Z

L Y =a ' O

1
Co d v , (
J

Q

'
-- Cl)
' H U
JAW Q

b
LX
_ I HO .Z)-
X- ?
?z
O
O
U o
Q cr. Z
a.
O
W
a
O U a,
' M/a DNIISIX3
? 1S8
L?
I
H
1 _8IL 1 w
I 1 ?~
coa I 3
LL
I
co w
Il OH I s oLL
x
O
LLID
I ?< Z O Ul
0 ?
10 U
sNln
a
a
al ?
aE
ri °
?a
J
> D4
Gil A
a ?
a
w
I?

O

M
O
O
O
OI
r?
O
N_
cl?
O
2
O
LC')
u
W
J
L a
N U
N
O
LC)
0
0 0 0
\ ®m G a p
w z rx
o , J ao > z O
al m z rs! F '''
(.D a
pfd A
i
i z ° O a c?
N i J m + A U 0.
x " x
w Nt ? w
?, ll z M
N
ii L
o
I ?+ o
N
z
w
x
w
LLP
? I o °o
O
ro
o i +
o
Z V o ?
+ w
M N C4 j J
~ G I, W
Leo
Z L (-4J
O N H
U ?
Z Z O
5 5 +
In co
a i v
yl /
rr
r
0
O *^-
Z C?
Z
O O O
0o r- SO
o ?
m r
cr
U m
m F-
U 1-
? J I
Om I
X F-
N ?I
N ?I
o ?I
r Z I
?vVc X
+r-Ow
N - O
Z
aww? I-
V)w(1-14 nw i !
I M
I
I N
II ?
I I 'Y'
o °
-
- A
a
0

E"?
w °
' az? ?
? ?
° a
I
O
® ?
.,o E
I C c arls
z
a? ?z c

? zx
m
I
? ?
w w ?
I

o0

Ua
A

a
w
I Wn. W
•a
occ

I aw

i
I / 0
b
9 -
o
f-
O
J
J
O w
LO 14
! ?n
I M
w c°n
I --1
w
I.
?1 1 ? 1
ti
U ?' `-QI !
VOU
3 ? 1 N' I
?,? i zl 1
?! 1 Nb? l
t l ; I
F-
?
J r
m m
F- ? I
I?
!
a0-OI COI 1 O
Cfl
N
v
ma
N
a
n.
a

0
O Y
o U
om
C0
wz
?a
w U
O ~ O
O w
z o
w Z
O =)
O
O
N
O
L
er
0
'? 1 I Q M
1 x
/ 1 .. ° .?
w 1
a'
> 0-4
w I 3 z a
ct
a r 1 I ®? U o w F
of 64
way
/ / i a' rWsl
/ m I
/ V I W O
N
ArL I N
> O_
1 w
a
cr- o
w -
a I > w
J
W Ln Q
I N U
f Ul
3d I o
Ln
W \ N
I r I
I ? I b
o I
w co 14"
E- u W
Do c,
mo ?
W 1
ULLI
00
Odt? N J
J,GZ 1 ? ? Z z F-
1 J -w =3
J F-- U
13 co 3 I \ ?Z ?3 ?z
Q
cn
owF wwU
w F-Z
w
~3 F-¢
p p w p
1 , W Z? ww
W 1 A 0 LLI Co pV
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
3 JOSEPH P. RIDDLE 238 McPHERSON CHURH RD.
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28303
4 A.T. WILLIAMS OIL CO. PO BOX 7287
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27109
5 SUCHADA, INC. 452 CORONATION DRIVE
.FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28311
6 KRISTINA A. REYNOLDS PO BOX 296
LEWISVILLE, NC 27023

7 RICHARD M. WIGGINS (TRUSTEE) PO BOX 87009
CHRISTINE
REEVES CHIDREN S
AREEMENT
TRU FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28304
9 VERA REEVES
4813 AYET TDVILLE DNC 28303
F

NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2443401 (U-2911)
LAKE VALLEY RD. EXT.
FROM YADKIN RD. TO SKIBO RD.
/
/
%
26
SHEET
02
OF t 11

f0 - a
N
d N O
Z CO r
zN °
¢
r?o
3??

CD
6

O

co

0 wm
xo?
A
c
N CU M
•X t 0...i co co
N O
ch oo
.-?
t-
W 0 E co
?A y,0
Q
0aN a
a

? r
z w
Ow 00
z °
C
v o U W
~ qUO ad

N C U
C o s

O
..
LL

M U)
C
-zq O O 9

O
co
_ Z
O
O
H jL
Q
_
a -a
N m -
C G -a v
p
O
v N "
U O O
W
n
to
z o?

X
W C
N
LL
l6 i'
E S v
O
? C
N
C
N

(h

M
o
LL j O C

U

d n co
a
I
X
N
CV
?
N
C O
O } J a
m
E M
to U
LL N L
.
. r N d
rc
0
LL
N
J

(? Z
-0

?
N
?
O
F

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(1t any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW. 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27966-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: tg_horpe9dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Extension of Lake Valley Road (SR 2685) From Yadkin Road (SR 1415)
to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass)
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): U-2911
Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Cumberland Nearest Town: Fayetteville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The project starts at the
intersection of Yadkin Road and Lake Valley Road and ends at US 401 Bypass
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Site 1 (Beaver Creek) UTM 17 685140E 3883959N
Site 2 (UT) UTM 17 685429E 3883557N
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
5. Property size (acres):
6. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake):
Beaver Creek
7. River Basin: Cape Fear River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
8. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The area surronding the proposed extension is mixture of
forestland and urban land.
Page 6 of 12
9. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Plans call
for extending Lake Valley Drive on a New Location. Equipment used will include standard
equipment for new road. .
10. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the work is to reduce con estion
along Yadkin Road and US 401 Bypass and provide a more direct route to the commercial
area near the US 401 Bypass/ Morganton Road intersection from residential areas along
Yadkin Road in Northwest Fayetteville.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed project will have
impacts at two sites. Site 1 will have .02 ac of fill in Natural Surface Waters and impact 80
feet of the existing channel. Site 2 will have 0.32 ac of fill in wetlands, 0.02 ac of
mechanized clearing, 0.03 ac of fill in Natural Surface Waters and 285 feet of impacts to the
existing channel.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
2 Fill 0.32 No Adjacent Forested wetland

2 Mechanized
clearing
0.02
No
Adjacent
Forested wetland

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at hgp:://wwlv.fema.eov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: <.50 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.34
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please seci )

1 Fill in surface
waters
80ft
Beaver Creek
30ft
Perennial
2 Fill in surface
waters 285 UT to Beaver Creek 6 ft Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 365 ft
Page 8 of 12
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbod
(if applicable) y Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond; estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The No-Build or "do nothing" alternative was considered but would have a negative effect on the
capacity and safety of surrounding; roadways. The "no build" alternative would lead to higher
operating costs, longer travel times and would not provide the safety benefits of the proposed
project.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnugide.htrnl.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
NCWRP has agreed to handle mitigation
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 365
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.34
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 1.5A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
T /-one l extends out sv teet perpendicular trom near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page I I of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Stormwater management plan attached.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Page 12 of 12
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Norti Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Greg Thorpe
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Project: Lake Valley Drive
TIP#: U-2911
County: Cumberland
APR 2, X113
e?
a
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP) is willing to accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project. Please
note that the decision by the NCWRP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not
assure that this payment will be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division
of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to
determine if payment to the NCWRP for impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated March 28, 2003, the 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 Wetland
(acres) Riparian Buffer
(ft2)
Impacts 365 0.34
Mitigation Maximum 730 0.68
The stream mitigation will be provided 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. The mitigation will be performed 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.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at (9.19) 733-5208.
Sincer ly, n
Prn'•
,?
f
NCDE
April 1, 2003 asp
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manager
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Richard Spencer, USACOE, Wilmington
Ken Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
file
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
[phone] Fax: [phone]
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
State Project 8.2443401 (U-2911) Date: 11/26/02
Cumberland County
Hydraulics Project Manager: Andrew Nottingham, PE
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION
The project involves the construction of a new location extension of Lake Valley Drive
(SR 2685) in the City of Fayetteville. The 0.68 mi. project will construct a four-lane
divided facility with a 16-foot raised grassed median and curb and gutter from SR 1415
(Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road).
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
There are two stream crossings on this project, which are classified as Class C and
located in the Cape Fear River Basin. The first is Beaver Creek. 80 feet of stream impact
is associated with this crossing. The second is an unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek.
285 feet of stream impact and .34 ac of wetland impact is associated with this crossing.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES
The following best management practices and measures were taken during the design of
the project to reduce the stormwater impacts:
1. Storm drainage that is being collected on Yadkin road east of Beaver Creek is
being discharged into a preformed scour hole and then ditched to the creek. The
storm drainage on the western approach of Yadkin road is being maintained in it's
existing pattern and discharged into the culvert.
2. Storm drainage that is collected between station 11+50 and 18 + 50 -L- is being
collected and discharged on the west side of -L- near station 11+50. There is also a
36" RCP cross line being placed in this location for the developer who is proposing
to develop both sides of the proposed roadway.
3. A 36" RCP cross line is being provided for the developer at station 19+00 -L-.
4. Storm drainage that is collected between station 18+50 and 35+00 -L- is being
collected and discharged near station 25+00 -L-. This is the location of the 72" RCP
in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The storm drainage is being discharged at
least 50 feet away from the top of bank on either side of the tributary. An additional
36" cross line is being provided for the property owner at this location.
5. Storm drainage from station 35+00 to 45+00 -L- is being collected and discharged
into an existing ditch near station 35+00 -L-.
CULVERTS
Station 12+35 -Y- (Beaver Creek). The existing 2 @ 12' X 9' RCBC will be extended on
the inlet and outlet ends.
Station 25+64 =L- (unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek). A 72-inch reinforced concrete
pipe buried 1 foot below the streambed will be used.

12-DEC-2002 13:48
R \roaddway\Pryj\ Iltsh
JI Hotfiold A R D ST7 OIC 09/e8/9
PROTECT: 8.2443401 U-2_9_1_1
a o 0
ut
o
m o
m = CA
O }Z. c?
n o Q o 0
F y
f b
N N
II H II II II II
'14 '14
v C A N °° V a
C: co
3E 01) °D a
C4 _
G1
m
Vg
S
D '<
m P
O -O
co y
0.
m
II II
?m
3 ?
z
m? b
m C
w
W a N °
y o
0.
ro b 1?
D i1O N 1`J 8,
o
m r V
y
x
Rhtl 4
c? q
0
?o
x
? OZ
1 1 1 to
0
m 0
z? v 0C)
pz N tam by
m
m A ° o Dap!
3 p o + + +?O
z ?° O O V O
i,
m
rn m
"V p
m pOOy
Q z
Oc: y
A z
CO) Qo
O 1
0
°
Nb
m y 0
m r O
t>1 m
m
r p?
vi \ ?J
y
m
o \\ -
TOG
ISO)
i

O ?1
y
O ?
N
N?
g

X
bb b
0
oy O
O ?
?y
y 't00v
1
a?
z
o ?o
I w !y
Sys/0y =
oII
C ?
?Q
?N
?
Ro
g

11Q
Oy/
7C
e,
? l N
I
?' I Z
? a
o
y 2
o ?

lU D
0 0
o
m x
3
o cn
g
kA
00
CGS ?

:0
Fo
q a,

c
1 ;
?
S

A
!P

o ril

y W
^
-ft tr
70

AMU
8
'uz
lu
?
O
rnrn
V

7
?Iz
I ?
o C
H
V ??ii '?ii
btC•,?y''?o
0
y b ?
n ?-
b
? C
?y
x o-
A z
?I
pOp y
?\ O Z
6

6/2/99
'w
yy?
V '
N
r N
0
C A
N O
v
` N

W
W
c
N
a;
0
9
t/1 m >o
m O ?O. x P v
? ? --- --- --- ° -off
s I
O N r
Zz yy
m w a; O o? 5o O
= 0
m
Z
O v
•o
• J
N
.J N ? <
D
r
a v
a
o ?
N O Z
N ° N
7O W O O
o Z
N N W G
= o 0
N
N
j O
z
O
m
N
I
?
N ? C
55
,L
m 7 O D m
Z
M-0
°
Q C.
Z
z
a-n +

N -ft
O
5;
M °
m

Q
.
;a
4
41 Q 0 O
MO
Oz z
z
O
O co,
I +O

O

J
b. N
N O
n O [?
C
X
F z
z
z
0
m
m
N 1
o D
<
m
o -zi
0
mm
G)
o mm
-1 N
DO
mm
r to
z m
m
a
z
r -
m
N
N
0
x
z
0
x
m
N
m
m
?r m v 0 0

N o D D -a D o
z<m
0o O O
C y mm-0 -D -p
Z Z z

o rn <"a m <"U < -o
z = m -0 o- .o m -u m -o
n xw •no?o xs s=
D Do X O D
m ID G)

X
-I-
X
6
7X
m o m oD m. m.
J
O
D
C
D
DDrn
iLn
?N
m z = m mc"
w m N m
010 aoDD oD o
m o mo m
D
z D D m•n o t
D

n N O m O O D
-1
-4 o
a ro
Do r r-i
m CD0 mo cca0
70 ca y -i z z • O
' m m m 0 C7 z
m Mm
mm O s wm
m-I -4
m m
cnD to cn cam
fJO 0) OfA D
• m
• -1
mm c

x
-a vo va n
0-

o
r
m /
a
u Hm n
0 07 0 z m
00
m
m
m0

n
?>
DC
o m
mm 0:0 C:
< x CO)
x x
o O m v
i
m ca
0 0. m
c -n
x ?
N
i
o
v- o m -o m
o m
W
-<m m z
m o]
m w On
OV Oo

C W
W N
rr^^
V,
m m J C7
x > = ,-

O
M z
m O O 2
ID D

m m H
> m x
x m
<
m N
ca m
-I ?
r
°
? m
m v o n v
1 D ? z
. n
r w m m
C
D
z
v m
m
w r
v r"
r-
< >

m Z
m

v

CD
w v
0 <

CO)
N

O ?
OD
A m
to

O ?
6
i
i?
=b T
I"o$IV?
Z o

n
II O
C II =
I
II N
C I O
II
II

70

e? m <
D
O ? XOSo m
O
oo Z Z nmm
O
,o
?
L
H z

nai
c A
p ?
O
P
? Q
? o
°
? ?
• w

N
A
v m N
O ??., ? N
C
N O
N
--1 a
?
v ° -1
N
N
n T
T
r
N
I C
1
7rO N
I W ? ? O
a
W I ? ? A

I m o
O O
N O
I iG ?
•
O ? N

I O
c
a
? ? O
`•
? o
I

n
r
rnm
O --
O
Z Z
Zm
W N
c
n
z 9
o
? N g -i m
r
O
o _ ^m m Q
O O O
- _ ------ N -r.C1 l l
0 N y Z v
9 W
4 m 10
= V
O (n O
= I - -_ ------- - -rn
P
r ?' '
y m W ff
„ I o 5
m o
Q Z r ,?
N s 'a
v O v m
n
• Z T O
N
5
< W C X Q v
y

a
O
?tF
p
mr
N w
m
C a r
w
W v
O
[il
7?
N w
W m
N N
P 0
1 C p
m
z O O
N
m m
z v
n
N_ _
ai ? O N +? m
Z N p vi
Q W o O
N
W O N
O O
w
O ?
Jr, N O m O
T -1 J? N O O
rn
N U Q ??J
O O
cn N C = N P O
y O O .4r w
f O `0 ? ? N
? ? !1! O O
r N
N
O
C, m -M
?!3 xwg_ 04_
ZZ OD Z
tI v0 Z1mmm
y ni
II C II Q
I I ? /?I I C ? ? y I
m
to
"?7OZ I W O
m Ir
In 0 0.
r- a IMn -0 'A
m Z pn0 .9h.
y I
T
AP W
mm
x p O ///_''???•

NZ+
C C) O n
-a
! Q Z
A 3-
m
Qm0 N O
C: 1P
m ?+ OA
O
=
G
0

w 10
X ? ± w N ? A q
o ; o O1 a w
M s p
O 9 r m <
A = ' '
v m
9
m o
m
r n
m
m m m
m v
m
-1 0 -1 w
' o m
i ? .m. m m m m m
z °m o ? o m o m d
-1 C z C m m m
'
r ? S m (
?

x

m O
? m
o m o m
5
9 ? A
N nm vN WIZ C
O tn
m
1

O
-1? +Hm
O 0, ? A ?
Z rn r p -t Q
go NQ3 W
z
W
+ Z
8Z4

1
0
O W m :

C N
Z
?
z
N

Z
Z?
O
0
6/2/99
W
N ?
? O
u
? a
v y? c O
-I a Q
n mm
N a mx
I I
' I
D "
r W I I
I 1
1 1
rn m 1 I
? I 1
O 1 I
1 I
= 1 I ??
O N I / C \
Z - I I
Z 1 I
m I I
Z II
I 1
o "
I I
I I
N
C
h
N
mZ N
m0
-om ?y
m
O
O A
70 0
r
Q 9 m
O0
?
Z Z
+ Z
O ;4, O
-1 p V
Z
a
N ?
% N ?
O O
? s
m M
oa n V O
v N ,0
m 0
N m
?o -O
-m

1

J •
a
O i
-
<y
`A
,..v I W
w
O I
I Q
C
.
rn m

1 I
I O

I
1

= I y

Q C
w
O N_
I
I
a
P
O

r
Z
I <
?

m

L

N W

_Om r
r?
Z 22
0
o
?.
I 1
? ?
<
m 0
m -O
p 0
T P ?
N
O?
a ? O
to Z I
vm ' N
m
?yyON
m T
u +
; ? lb? Zv0 om
3:-q 80
00 Z
O ?Z
Z
SO oO
nC
x
r
v?

c
-I
p
?
?
m
o
N
n m
Q
r
° ° m A II
N a
m m s a. > ° ° a m
_ m
~ S
.
. w z C m T m

j a ° m m o o ? m T
m D o ? >
> m ° m m ?

s ° n

m o m r
m
5

~ G
?
4
tti
O
ZZ
00

9
v
O

?Z it V!

<
N
O
0 ? C Z
rn m
m
?n m W!,
D ? m
M
D? pN
N y
T O
OO
. ..
to JJ --1

0
?Q
p0
a
• _
O

yr
8-04 _
0
Z
?n N
N

Z

ZO W
++
.
OZ ?O O v

0
0
0 :
n 0
yX Z T
S Z
?, o

Z
y

N cn
v
70
C
-< O . I
R v
Z
v M
n
y
r
C)
? H
m col<
0?
C-
Z
?Q
Xr? 0?
C-
Z
Z
00 m nrnm Z
p O
N •O
N
+O
O a
m Q
1 M
O O` Q
S ? r
z v
m
70
rtl O
O
m N
?O

O
In C.

r N
N
a

?
I

o <
O

P
r
I
C N

I n N
< N

a
I
l J ' °
r

I
O '
?G
?
Z ? m
?o

g

I
Z

O C i

?

N
N a<
O
Q?

N 25
z
Ul 1
1
I
I
I
?
OM
O N N
N
O
? <
O
m
pp,.
A

y
O
-f
1
O

O a
-o
O
-n
m
0
r

Z?
O
0
to m-I?oDb ,(4?o??oDb
II q11 tl 11 11 IIC 11 r r r M Mo
t3?Ny1V,N 1i?i'4 n 4?
t??TQt?iIgSQQ+1 ? ?ni?i?tp^1?+
a t*
w
^
/
'tiS3.94B5,
BS9?
1 ?
1 ? H °u
i 1
1 U
a
)I 10 l
URB / ISBK
8'C
BUS
C m lO m
G' CO
BST ?N ®w I ly 01
A ST
36' CONCC
?fS GENERAL
® asr
GENERAL ECTI011
EX6iN. B'CURB - _
Ca=== W/L - -
IB' CONC 'O ??
?.s?= Y
SR 1415 Y"IN RD 5
*30'C&G
EIR CB
? E>OSTpW.?WIf ?
?A
J K
tlt

I ?m
K

!
? ?
YADKIN RD
' -Y-
O
m
a P N

O P
P 0,
m
O O O O
Q
ttl?
N

OI?V ?
Z
0o O
p
F ~ 1~if
cu = rnti
`Vf I?y ?S ?O
o ?m
JiNNAR
? p N ?T TI'IN 2
rrrrrllcn s
Q
oPvi
1 8a?
55
N
NAD 83
o
N
w+ o
A S
?irr1r, rys3diy p W N
7ci? '8'sy. W
i'xa \
3?rn O •
N
In -4 K CQp
1 RU 5 + 41 VS
\ \ 152.95'. .. .. .. N
N79'p•29'N Lt Cf 00
- to
k 72' CHL X_Z _ a x k x CIS
y
W N'COr CONC Is.
tai N c ' I ? } 0 ~
k) :9
Q r c S rn
]A ,© ?_
?QjW+11
? :? I iN T L4 8 R ? WFU
I
,I n
m I Wyn Ca I
?i ? /I I
1
?. n 21 n
x
S85>/?.
E

V I
2
? C
x
;7 4
N n
I

-a
i
r
? ? ?
q a
(
S F
F a
N
O
I ?
< .
p
QL ?[fl yJ
Q ? ? O
m
r o_Y
b pip` N -4

? '
WI=IQ 2 N
w Tl r
m GD
mn ? m N

bb
t
® i0 a
to,
($Il q ? ?
m ?
?s 3t ° .. < z o hm
s ?
? m e?A
>
v v ?? + 3
_Oz ?c A y -
?nltl
o vr' v P
() Z V m o
N a
or
6/17/99
1?\\\ g$ t 4 lops
\ \ _ lL Fi,? 47Z
(j? \\ 501E s
n1 EIP
bb
\ 1 c?
st \ ? ? To tyi„ t!?? :ti

nn
.
A i

i
I +75
ii
D
p
L'n.• r ??
v I s
I TTT

i
O
I

I t

? $?F
n m ~
A
?
11 n ' 1
-<r- TOD
I I ^-Itr
^+ -lp- III
g H
WQ/ /
W/LT
/ 23
1
\ 1
\
?aNs 3gs aN ??' ? ?
.:..;.: Z
IL'UGI.'GUVL IJ:Y?
R•\roadwa \Pro \U2911s6.Psh
JF2H tf el A? RD03S0IC ?y 8/17/99
SE5H EEtoo. 5
?w
MXjCHuNE ?P
v 1412' i2 i4' I r ? ? \? \
y ?
QpQ? t? im ? ,,.
?!* m ri \
T ? 1
Ff N e? W N?' \\\
k -j
?? s" ^ 10
N \ \
O w S + \ \
o ?- 'An r7, v ?w i nt Iri $? w c? \ \ \
g>P ?O¢ppy 11 d In
o<T O w I I v< z
O ? 1 1 I I
C 1 N
N a
Z llJ? 1 C o?FCr/oN ?t p w
T m I
_y2- SKIBO RD n r
? ps I
f?AAy?iill??,, T ti tT V I1I• 'IIm? I 3
IP ?
P 1? I I B . ?/ I \ •S° f( /
r * /
x L- ? \ 34
_ Mm dsr ; I,L'1
,L4 ?4 -Z
N N r XT > A •??5 V \\ /y // p N
eS I Ijp t°1il p Rl(il? yi m asr\
zsK
j ?z
l v r X` 1 es
;p a
0 35 esr °&\ c N o
..........
s ,.? y? Xis + zSO? ?'? v1?f?IrC)D'b
0
-4 ISO
a
enm esp I ,/h' .w°y*, ?' v p>, II ?p ,p QD •40
}vZ i / ti0o L o O WW??W
I N P' ` r r i$
RE n.
A C ?n A a"oer \ \ \ O
•? o zq\ NC
Or i o \ \
8
ONOO.941 Di ? ONOO.94 °/ 4 $? ? $
\ ? \ s S fip Sag J7 II A II 0 y I
A. C,
L14
i ?e / j n jl/ ? / `r ? O e ?po? fio k`" ???•4
N°
?s. ?? fOj x i ;1 ? ° 1 n h ?O
w C.)
I I I 1-- -4 \ ;Q ?D -4 -
i??? asr ;?i? 1111 ilij
IN =
1 iP l a N
n?/ / ,L ?/ 11,' ' / / ? 1? B\ \\s•/Y? ??t, l ? l `?\ ??T O A ? ;?o ']yY??
??• ? ?/ ? ? I I ? /? .'\\ r? ? ? ? Iii
T BST
\ / r2 ?H< .•? ?. I 1 - esr 1 1111 01 \ `rs \ \? 83 I b
aectwµ =o I 1 e 1 ` \l pfll
grAs
t _ +
A
j eUk r W
.
:
tan r` 1' 1 s w?. ?t)t ' n oytyRy
004-51
a 1 O<\ \ \ +p °9 6 wxx?
r: `? t7 jp ?•ac ? esr\\ \ \?? ? \ \o \??? i `? ? / ? / / / / / ? Ssvd>a iob Sn ? ? / .? _:rr??? ?, 2255 ? ?
\ /=o" ,O`O `•,i Z°' 20
\ / r a
Q ?( ? ? 150• ??.i ?-?' ::?:?:?v?'.'?:
p I
r / X o1 C ENO' / i o? ,04 i i MM x ??X rQi v x
C y? Z
74, ?+/ o or tr, ` / //X/<rO o C n #C:ay:: 8
Po' ? cwt // p .1.5 ? ? ? i x t? /? ° ? \ `. r «<:rd?.'x• 0
8/17/99
1

/ l 1 I
© !f

_ n
=u

m
m
m
2

®a
i
C.
y O +Z
111
P
?F ?
O
?
A
N fr'f V?.'
O°+

D
o
ZZ
A
E

/// ?eL/ lSaa N?
??D-q-Opb
u 11u ,1u rN
_ o
'?f•
N 3jfiLO6
cpp ?
tly 1
?x
X \
\ aro ? ic O
1 sir
1
1 ltti o
.Z Zl 'i A xt-a. ZI o F
I
L
Iv
P ? ? Z
m
„ D
i r
j ?+ p
I - fC/f
f
I w
I Z o
?I g
I N ' ? Z
w
NNr
rn
o ? A v
'I
Io
?rr
X3
Z ZZn
vVo.
? I
1 I9I
ux ooa ia?i. s?as9

Utz"
N ?
W

i

N ?
A
I
l
ilt

-44 44- -
? N ?ip yi
p

\v7 ? ?

N
.A

:::l::Z:::::::
................

4 4 -

N

?
N
?O

W
V
O

lint ill -
W pp
r

W ?O : Ai "' m m
N r ?r

y+ . Z
: ::...

+ M':::::::
y

-
t o

:rn..... :
A ?d

...............

.
....
....
...
.....

............... .
............... .

...
...
... ............
............
............ .
.
.

l i lt
N
W N

H ?
E

. 11 1- iiiii ZZ
W W i
Ol 4+ 4
to t I
tot
:
: m
;
: ;
: c
'•?
W m
Z
9
i
?l,s o5-MA , :s,
r? iasn.
? ? N W A
I I
O O O O O

J

-- -- - --- - -- --

F II t ill

:
T E

T F
: FH
f R R
N
E R F
T 4ff
I IF
+
ffff

I
F
1
., I
1 F
1
t .1
il 1
l

11 it

W

F il l

F i ll I

-- - -- -- -- - -- -- - --

ti ll I

- -- -- -- - - -- -
t i ll

- - - - - - - - - - - -

, ...

i t I

M M
I
m
F- i

Michael F. Easley, Governor
OF w rF9 Wtliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\OIt pG North Carolina Departrnent of Environment and Natural Resources
7Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
DWQ Project No.: 63 6 8 710 County: e p syi Pp is me/
Applicant: c 4 ee rT-.L?? DC ?? !7 /tieDdT l7c'??
Project Name: "-g z l.*-5- Z: O Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certifications ©? ?D 3

Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and
any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1621. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to
send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification _
I, T r 1 $4 it 4 , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the 16bservation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 W Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other sup ' g matm
Date:
Signature: X' __-
Agent's Certification "J
I, -3- T /` A*hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and * 1. /
specifications, and o supporting
Signature: aa-% - ?w Date: Q 9,,10-171
Engineer's Ce tion
Final
. as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North
Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project,for the
Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature Registration No.
Date

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
October 1, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
From: John E. Hennessy Q
Cabe,(-? qx-? b
Aw?
NCDENR
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive
(SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No.
MASTP-2685 (1), State Project No. 8.2443401., TIP U-2911, DENR No. OOE-0119.
Reference your correspondence dated August 18, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening
project TIP U-2911. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Further investigations at a higher
resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the
area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that
NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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 prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/01/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
1. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes 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.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/01/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal'Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-2911\comments\U-2911 scoping comments2.doc

,.? aNro
.W M
0?3C)??ZG
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 18, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: t °?&illiam D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive
(SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County,
State Project 8.2443401, Federal Aid Project MASTP-2685(1),
T.I.P. Project U-2911
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying the proposed extension of SR 2685 (Lake Valley Drive). The
project is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2002 and construction in fiscal year 2003.
A four-lane divided facility with 16-foot grassed median on new location is proposed
from SR 1415 to US 401 Bypass. The project is 0.6 miles in length.
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 November 19, 1999 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ron Lucas, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 253.
WDG/plr
Attachment 11E "' ? G'aw1
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DENR Fax:[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:11 P.01
- TABLE OF CONTENT'S O
q ?Q
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .. ................................................................................... i
I. TYPE OF ACTION .............................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .......................... •............................... I
III- PROJECT S'T'ATUS AND SCHEDULE .............................----..............................1
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..............................
A. Circulation of the environmental Assessment ........................ Y, ....... ...2:
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Arse
C. Public Hearing ................................................................ .........mot..... .......
,
V. REVISION TO THE ENVIRONMEWAL ASSESSMENT........ ..........
TION
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIMANT IMPACT........... 9
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2- USGS Quad Map
APPENDIX- Agency Comments on Environmcntal Assessment
Ic I I I -1-o --- a 5 [?

DENR Fax:[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:12
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension (SR 2685)
from SR 1415 ('Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
Roadway Design Un
P. 02
1.5 meter (5 foot) sidewalks will be constructed along the west side of Lake
Valley Drive Extension (SR 2685) from Yadkin Road (SR 1415) to approximately
168 meters (550 feet) north of Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) intersection. In accordance
with NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, the sidewalks will be jointly funded by NCDOT and the
City of Fayetteville (NCDOT and the City of. Fayetteville each will fund 50% of the
sidewalks on cost share basis).
. 4.2 meter (14 foot) outside lanes will be provided on both sides of Lake Valley
Drive Extension to allow motor vehicles and bicyclists to share the facility.
Program Development Brbtaeh
A municipal agreement will be prepared regarding the City of Fayetteville's
participation in the cost of new sidewalks to be constructed as part of this project.
Finding of No Significant Impact - U-2911 Page i of 1
December, 2001
-i-
DENR Fax:[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:12 P.03
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension (SR 2685)
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MA,STP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
1. TYEOPF ACTION,.
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on
the human environment. This finding of no significant impact is based on the March 29,
2001 Environmental Assessment (EA) which has been independently evaluated by the
FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental
issues and impacts of the proposed project. The EA provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a new
location extension of Lake Valley Drive in the City of Fayetteville. The 1.0 kilometer (0.6
mile) project will construct a four-lane divided facility with a 4.8 meter (16-foot) raised
grassed nnedian and curb and gutter from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass
(Sldbo Road). See Figure 1 for project area.
Approximately 34 meters (110 feet) of right of way will be acquired to
accommodate the proposed roadway.
III. PROJECT ST?T'US AND SCHEDULE
The project is included in the approved North Carolina 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year 2002 and construction is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2004.
DENR
Fax:[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:12 P.04
The current estimated costs for TIP Project U-2911 are as follows:
Construction $3,600,000
*Right of Way Acouisition $1 701 0 5
Total Cost $5,301,025
*A portion of the right of way required for the project may be donated by land owners.
The total estimated cost included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program for the project is $7,000,000, of which 52,300,000 is for construction and
$4,700,000 is for right of way acquisition-
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the approved Environmental Assessment were circulated to the
following federal, state, and local agencies for review and continents. An asterisk (*)
indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of correspondence
received are included in the Appendix of this document.
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Environmental. Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Administration
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Fayetteville
Cumberland County Commissioners
Region M Council of Governments
B. Comments Received on the EnvironLnental Assessment
Substantive comments received on the environmental assessment are discussed
below:
1. Department of Army-Wilmington tog n Distict Corps of Engineer
Comment: "Based on the discussion of drainage structures contained on page 5 of the
EA, the culvert under SR 1415 on Beaver Creek will be extended. Since Beaver Creek is
a dotailed study stream in the Cumberland County Flood Insurance Study, we refer you to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for `No Rise' Certification
-2-
DENR Fax:[phone] Rpr 25 2002 15:12 F'.05
for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways," • .. The project should be
designed to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and be in
compliance with all local ordinances."
Response: The proposed project will be designed in compliance with the
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and all local ordinances.
Comment: "The EA stated that the proposed project will impact 0.05 acres of
wetlands associated with the construction of a proposed culvert at an unnamed tributary
to Beaver Creek. NCDOT biologist discovered this stream during the general field
surveys conducted along the proposed alignment on April 13, 2001. The EA classifies
this stream as perennial and also states that it is not identified on the USDA Soil mapping
or USGS Topographic mapping for Cumberland County. It is recommended that the
jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the proposed project be verified by the US Army
Corps of Engineers prior to applying for a Department of the Army (DA) permit. "
Response: NCDOT will coordinate with the US Army Corps of Engineers during
final design of the project to verify impacts on jurisdictional wetlands prior to applying
for a Department of the Army permit.
Comment: "The EA further states that a nationwide permit is likely to be applicable
for the culvert installation in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The proposed
project could be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 14, provided it meets the criteria for
that nationwide permit. However, a final detennination should be made following the
jurisdictional determination as described above."
Response: Coordination concerning jurisdictional determination and the appropriate
Section 404 permit will be conducted during the permitting process.
2. U.S. DgpW3 ent of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "As noted on page 8 and 14 of the FEA, the preferred alternative will
impact 0.05 acre of wetland and an undetermined length of an unnamed tributary to
Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek is located outside the right-of-way and will not be impacted
by construction activities. However, because the selected alternative is a curb and gutter
design, there is potential for stormwater impacts to the water quality of Beaver Creek and
the unnamed tributary. Project design should include provisions for stormwater
collection and treatment before discharging to adjacent waters, including wetlands."
Response: Appropriate measures to minimize impacts of stormwater runoff discharge
to wetlands and Beaver Creek will be studied and developed during final design of the
project.
Comment: "The Service notes that the FEA provides a discussion (page 15) of the
potential project related impacts on Federally4isted threatened and endangered species.
-3-
DENR Fax.[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:13 P.06
There are eight federally-protected species listed for Cumberland County, and NCDOT
has determined that there will be:."No Effect" of the project on any of the listed species.
However, although the NCDOT has stated that there is no suitable habitat for seven of the
species, it is not clear whether or not this conclusion was made from actual field
investigations. It is noted that surveys were done for Michaux's sumac and no plants
were found. The Service concurs with NCDOT's "No Effect" determination for
Michaux's sumac only. Note, however, that this concurrence applies only to this species
up to the date of this letter. Should additional inkmation become available relative to
Michaux's sumac, additional surveys may be required. Survey methodologies or other
rationale for the remaining species should be forwarded to this office for review and
comment before the Service can concur with any "No Effect" determinations."
Response: As stated on page 7 of the environmental assessment, general field surveys
were conducted for the proposed project on April 13, 2000. No suitable habitat for seven
of the federally listed species for Cumberland County were found during these field
investigations. NCDOT Natural System Technical Report was forwarded to the Fish and
Wildlife Service- The Service has concurred that this project will have "No Effect" op
any of the listed endangered species (see December 7, 2001 letter in appendix).
Comment: "This document does not contain a 4(f) declaration; however, our records
indicate that no such public lands will be impacted by this project."
Response: No facilities or properties protected by Section 4(0 of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966 will be affected by this project.
Comment: "The Service considers that this FEA, except for the endangered species
section, adequately addressed the existing fish imd wildlife resources, and waters and
wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these
resources. However, based on the information provided, the Service cannot conclude that
this project, implemented as described, will not have significant impact on natural
resources under our jurisdiction."
Response: As stated previously, the NCDOT Natural System Technical Report was
forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Scrvice_ The Service has concurred that this project
will have "No Effect" on any of the listed endangered species (see December 7, 2001
letter in appendix)-
3. N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources-Division of W?
ovalitx
Comment: "The document does not present an estimate of the proposed impacts to
the one stream that will be impacted by the proposed project. NCDOT is advised that
future documentation should identify all the proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
and streams for the referenced project- ,Additionally, a quantification of the proposed
impacts should be listed in any future documentation"
-4-
DENR
Fax:[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:13 P.07
Response: Stream impacts are estimated to be 219 linear feet. Exact lengths of
impacts will be determined during the final design and permitting phases.
Comment: "At this time, it is impossible for the DWQ to ascertain the nature or
magnitude of the proposed impacts. While the written description of the anticipated
impacts seems relatively innocuous, without appropriate mapping that displays the
resources to be impacted with the proposed project superimposed, it is impossible to
ideotify the proposed impacts. As a result, DWQ is reluctant to concur with the proposed
project until the requested information can be provided."
Response: Figure 2 of this document presents wetlands and streams which will be
affected by the project.
Comment: 'Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands."
Response: Sediment and erosion control measures will not be placed in wetlands,
where practicable.
Comment: "Borrow/waste area should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste could precipitate compensatory
mitigation."
Response: The contractor for the proposed project will not be permitted to dispose
material or obtain borrow from wetlands. The contractor will be responsible for finding
proper borrow and waste sites and obtaining all necessary permits.
Comment: "Me 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."
Response: As stated previously. appropriate measures to minimize impacts of
stormwater runoff discharge to wetlands and Beaver Creek will be studied and developed
during final design of the project.
Comment: "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 its conjunction with the issuance of a 441
Water Quality Certification."
-5-
DENR Fax:[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:13 P.08
Response: It is estimated the project will impact 0.312 acres of wetlands and 219 feet
of streams. NCDOT anticipates utilizing the wetland restoration program for wetland and
stream mitigation for the project.
Comment: "Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed
wetland and strearn impacts with corresponding mapping-"
Response: As stated previously, the project will impact approximately 0.312 acres of
wetlands and 219 feet of streams which will be affected by the project are shown on
Figure 2 of this document.
4. North Carolina Wildlife Resources- Commission
Comment: "NCDOT should minimize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands to the
maximum extent possible."
Response: NCDOT will continue efforts in minimizing impacts to wetlands during
final design and the permit application process.
Comment: "In the Finding of No Significant Impact, NCDOT should also commit to
using natural stream channel design on all stream relocations and to use NCDOT Best
Management practices."
Response: Natural stream channel design will be used on stream relocations where
practicable and strict adherence to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the protection
of surface waters will be enforted during project construction.
5. The City of Flyetteville
Comment: The City of Fayetteville has requested construction of sidewalks on the
west side of the proposed Lake Valley Drive extension. Additionally, the City has
requested the installation of street lights.
Response: The C'ity'S request for construction of sidewalks on the west side of Lake
Valley Drive Extension has been approved, and a municipal agreement describing cost
sharing and maintenance responsibilities will be prepared prior to construction. In
accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy, the sidewalks will be jointly funded by
NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville (NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville each will fund
50% of the sidewalks). Installation of street lights for this project will be the
responsibility of the City of Fayetteville and hwidled as an encroachment. The City of
Fayetteville was advised to submit an encroachment request, along with design plans, to
the NCDOT District 2 Engineer in Cumberland County. Following approval of the
encroachment, a special provision will be added to the construction contract to allow the
City's lighting contractor to install the lighting during construction of the roadway.
-6-
DENR
. C. Public Hearin
Fax:[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:14 P.09
. Following completion of the environmental assessment, a combined public
hearing for the proposed project was held on June 28, 2001 at the Alger B. Wilkins
Elementary School in Fayetteville. Approximately 15 citizens attended the hearing.
A summary of comments received during and following the public hearing and responses
to those comments are included below.
Comment: A local resident requested the following at the hearing:
1. The installation of a warning 1 fight on the westbound approach of the proposed
signalized intersection at Lake Valley Drive and Yadkin road.
2. The installation of shielding for the signal heads at the intersection of Lake Valley
Drive and Yadkin Road to reduce glare from the early morning and late afternoon
sun.
3. Area lighting to be included in the final plans for the proposed project.
Response: Requests listed in item 1 and 2 above will be addressed during the
preparation of final roadway plans. The design and construction of street lights for this
project will be the responsibility of the City of Fayetteville. The City has been asked to
submit the request for street lights along with design plans to the NCDOT District 2
Engineer in Cumberland.
Comment: A Citizen requested that geometric and operational improvements be made
to two existing signalized intersections. The intersections are located at the entrance to
Wal-Mart and Yadkin Road, and at Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) and Yadkin Road.
Response: The request for improvements of the existing intersections above has been
forwarded to Division 6 for their consideration.
Comment: "Entering Yadkin Rd. from Santee Dr. has very poor visibility to the east.
This is due to cars being parked close to the road, a utility box next to the road, other cars
entering road from adjacent businesses and speeding cars traveling west. I request a
study to improve this intersection."
Response: This intersection is located outside of the proposed project limits. The
request for improvements to this existing intersection has been forwarded to Division 6
for their consideration.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL A$S SENT
No changes have occurred in the proposed project since completion of the
environmental assessment.
-7-
DENR Fax:[phone] Apr 25 2002 15:14 P.10
V1. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SPaMFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the impact of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state, and local
agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that the project will not have a
significant impact upon the quality of the human or natural environment. No significant
impacts on cultural, natural, ecological, or scenic resources are expected. Therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required..
The following persons may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, F.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
-8-
DENR
Fax:[phone]
+ r I r? r r
rr
r or
r
r r .? 10,
it rr
rr '?
r'r w
r r
r r
it a,
r r
r r
r
P.11

•~ 4s T40RTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
e TRAWSPORTATIO4N
110F 111 Y3
PROJECT DEYELOP'1LORMENT ANp
ENYMONMEMAL ANALY313 BRANCH
FAYETTEVILLE
SR 2685 (LAKE VALLEY DR.) EXTENSION
FROM SR 1415 (YAOM RD.) TO US 401 $YPAU
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-2911
No Scale 177GURE 1
Apr 25 2002 15:14
DENR
i - _
Fax:[phone]
Apr 25 2002 1515 P.12
_ rent
I•
a '+• ii iMo4n 0. •9, .?
?• ./ y T?eate. ••? ?
Creek '.l?inprojcce' ? '.,I,•• • `' '?••> L?
y .? •r5 ? Y •,z:
" •? •.`, l ',? \.-? Ewa f?.? ' • n ..

•
•x 32

;?`', ev : 5y z ' C

• I J
• • C o.

- ? 1 ?•? r;b
_ '•s? w 5'' std'. r,

r h ? O ?,r•• • }3
4-

s r
•• T •A
? (• 1
"0•b
14

NORTH AROLkOA'tA't1RTMMOf
DIVISION OF MCRwAYS
Vlko1kCt lDmwmwW?T
AND BNYIRONMSNTA4 ANALYSIS BRANCH
mm?
OS = MAY
FAYBTTIVILLE,
Sit 2685 (LAKE VALLEY DR.) LXTENSION
FROM SR 1415 (YADKIN RD.) TO US 401 BYPASS
CUMURLAND COUNTY
TIP P>f101ECT V•79t1
Scale U2400 Fe?ure 2

i
6.

C: ? Jc 90

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA A?
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. RIs -9L
GOVERNOR RETY
sr's0•
we- April 6, 1999 -i '
-e-
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell ?:--?
DWQ - DENR
FROM: ?William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manage
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Fayetteville, Extension of Lake
Valley Drive (SR 2685) From Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to
Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County, State Project
8.2443401, Federal Aid Project MASTP-2685(1), T.I.P. Project
U-2911
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 4, 1999 at 2:00 PM in the Project Development and Environmental
Analysis 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 Ron Lucas, P. E., Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 253.
WDG/plr
Attachment
??i
1

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date April 1. 1999
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning, X_
Design
TIP No.: U-2911
State Project No.: 8.2443401
F.A. Project No.: MASTP-2685(1)
Divisions: 6
Counties: Cumberland
Towns: Fayetteville
Route: SR 2685
Functional Classifications: N/A
Length: 1.0 km (0.6 mi.)
Purpose of Project:
To provide an alternate route, relieve congestion, increase safety, and improve traffic flow in
the Cross Creek mall area. The project will particularly improve operations at the Yadkin
Drive/US 401 Bypass intersection.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
Construct a multi-lane facility on new location from SR 1415 (Yadkin Rd) to US 401 Bypass
(Skibo Road)
Type of environmental document to be prepared:
An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact will be prepared
for the proposed project.
Environmental study schedule:
The Environmental Assessment is to be completed November 2000. The Finding of No
Significant Impact is to be completed August 2001.
Construction and Right of Way schedule:
Right of Way: Federal Fiscal Year 2002
Construction: Federal Fiscal Tear 2003
r ,
M
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
Features of Proposed Facility
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 0
Typical Section of Roadway: Under the feasibility study, a five-lane shoulder section
with 4-foot paved shoulders is proposed. A median divided facility will likely be
studied as part of the current project study.
Proposed Right of Way: 110 feet
Traffic Data: 1999 9,700 vehicles per day (vpd)
2025 18,000 (vpd)
Updated traffic and truck percentages are currently being updated.
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 50 mph
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost for U-2911 (including engineering
and contingencies)
*Right of Way Cost (Including rel., util.,
and acquisition)
Force Account Items
Preliminary Engineering
Total Cost
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction
Right of Way
Total Cost Listed in TIP
$ 2,300,000
$ 700,000
$ 3,000.000
$ 2,000,000
$ 700,000
$ 2,700.000
* - cost listed in T.I.P.
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED COMMENTS
Estimated Cost of Improvements
X Pavement
X Surface
Pavement Removal
Milling and Recycling
Turnouts
Shoulders: Paved
Earth
X Earthwork
Subsurface Items
X Subgrade and Stabilization
X Drainage (List any special items)
Sub-drainage
Structures Width X
Bridge Rehabilitation _
New Bridge _
Widen Bridge _
New Culverts: Size
Culvert Extension
Retaining Walls: Type _
Noise Walls
Any other Misc. Structures
Concrete Curb and Gutter
Concrete Barrier
Utilities
Fencing
X Erosion Control
Landscape
Lighting
X Traffic Control
X
X
X
Length
Length
Fill Ht.
Avg. Ht. Skew
COST
$ 617.260
$ 243,600
$ 102.307.50
$ 177,000
$ 13.500
$ 11,800
$ 45,000
$ 10.620
$ 778.912.50
Signing: New
Upgrading
X Traffic Signals: X New
Revised
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 Markers
Delineators
X Other (clearing, grubbing, mobilization, misc.)
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal) $ 2,000,000
t
?l
Page 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering
PE Costs.
Force Account
$ 300,000
Subtotal $ 2,300.000
Right of Way:
Will the project be contained within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
Existing Right of Way Width: None
New Right of Way Needed: 33 m (110 feet) $ 700,000
Right of Way Subtotal: $ 700,000 *
* This is the right of way estimate included in the TIP.
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W):
$ 3,000,000
Prepared By: Alan Jones Date: 3/18/99
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical.
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Project Development
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Comments or Remarks:
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
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
*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.
* - cost listed in T.I.P.
y
•
. 1
N
•` • ? ?? .?I.' -` !,t'` ?'n ?w'1 ilk (: ? ?IIII?\ \ ?f
• . Kan - '.?_ '1:>•• `? ~ !? /' r a '' '? `\ ,
7
` ??_ a ?? ?,.: ?' ?' - r- ?. ?%/• ::::7,.. ?°:;? .jZ1 ;C1-?d? _! LArC ' = ?? ` 1• ,'~`j?
-u01
Y?j ./'•? : •,' ?.\\ _ _ l j ! ; f`'`r oia (r
-Ch
t f ,'_ I?.. sue.- c ?? 1.1! •.,:.,•..• ?"? , ? ???' ,1 ?: ?--; " - ?,a
?•• mar,./ ?'•. •••\•••. ' •• `? ,' ????~?" ,,-????"' .) \ \
f • ?. Cam. ..... J?R.? ?'?;''•::.' _if? ''••. /J-/'' ?... -- r?` ?l rea:er .}? r
/ rya 1 1.
1 ? _ :•r?. ? .1:: /%:• ? ? • , . ,, ? r i ,lam
/ ? ? ?,?;::?::• ?T :•?•,,:, •?? ?:-? egln rolal ?\ ??,?\ r;??\ ?\.^ ? j ?a?:_art
'??`• ?I Ian ?. 4?r••. • • _ \•^ '? ' `•• /^• `? ,• \
•.r?. 1. J.??!'::\•• ??.•? \ ?v\ J', rL/ori--.f= Endp \ ?• '? -
Ro'd
.^, ?---t' /? 1,/, \t p ?'C•.•
lbj?
C\."''?'' + C\ •???F:.!1?•"•1'."-. .. ??? ?W,'?t?..,`?„?°??,` ill ?1 tla ` '`•\ -?-k. ?Y(?1 ?
Ch / a s rll\'??
pORr 9
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Ida z
F DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
,yIA•
OR TgI.M9P- AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

USGS QUAD MAP
FAYETTEVILLE
SR 268 5 (LAKE VALLEY DR.) EXTENSION
FROM SR 1415 (YADKIN RD.) TO US 401 BYPASS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PRCIFCT .11-1011
FIC.2

'sat C.
o Fo
:s
.' •% -'?° 216 J.
/.
^

1k
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
0.98MA
NCDENR
July 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive
(1415) to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-
2685(1), State Project No. 8.2443401, TIP U-2911.
Reference your correspondence dated April, 1999 in which you requested comments for the Lake Valley
Drive Extension (TIP R-3825). Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple
impacts to perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Further investigations at a
higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands
in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality requests
that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that
the Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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 prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
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
07/27/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 27261Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that _
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes 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.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/27/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-2911\comments\U-2911 scoping comments.doc
NATF9
BOA Q
>
C3 "<'
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
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
September 6, 2003
Cumberland County
DWQ Project No. 030890
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This certification modifies the original certification issued on August 19, 2003. In the original certification the total
stream impact was listed incorrectly as 345 linear feet with authorized impacts to 80 linear feet at Site 1 and 285
linear feet at site 2. This certification authorizes the correct impact of 365 linear feet of stream.
As such, you have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
material in 0.34 acres of wetlands and 345 linear feet of streams for the purpose of constructing Lake Valley Road
(SR 2685) from Yadkin Road (SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) in Cumberland County. The impacts are
authorized as listed below.
.Site Station Stream Name . DWQ Index Stream Wetland
No. Impacts Impacts
(linear feet) (acres)
1 12+35 Y Beaver Creek 18-31-24-5 80
Unnamed
2 25+64 L Tributary 18-31-24-5 285 0.34
Total 365 0.34
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated July 17, 2003. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3404. This
certification corresponds to the Nationwide Permit 14 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should
acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
with the accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification, and supercedes the
original certification issued on August 19, 2003.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
1.) 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 into the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.

N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
l..M...r.... C-;--- 4 onn C04_77A4
N
WAT ,
??b_ `<
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
2.) The 72 inch reinfornced concrete pipe being constructed at Station Number 25+64L shall be buried one foot
below stream bed elevation.
3.) Of the total project impacts to 345 linear feet of streams, 285 linear feet requires compensatory mitigation.
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to streams shall be done for 285 linear feet of stream impact at a
replacement ratio of 1:1. 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 $35,625 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 at 919-
733-5208.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for, a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Ron Ferrell, Wetlands Restoration Program
File Copy
Central Files
c:\ncdot\TIP U-2911\wqc\030890wgc02.doc
n
a
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is authorized to impact
the waters of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the purpose of constructing Lake Valley Road (SR
2685) from Yadkin Road (SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) in Cumberland County (TIP No. U-2911,
DWQ No. 030890). All activities associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted in accordance with
the conditions listed in the attached certification transmittal letter. THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID
WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION:
LOCATION: Construction of Lake Valley Road from Yadkin Road to Skibo Road
COUNTY: Cumberland
BASIN/SUBBASIN: Cape Fear, Cataloging Unit 03030004
DWQ No.: 030890
As required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to compensate for the
above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands and surface waters as
outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or degrade waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Program must be rounded to
one-quarter increments according to 15A 2R.0503(b).
0.0 acres of Class WL wetlands
0.0 acres of riparian wetlands
0.0 acres of non-riparian wetlands
0 acres of Class SWL wetlands
285 linear feet of stream channel
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is through payment of a
fee to the Wetland Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R.0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form and
mail it to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the address listed below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of
payment will be sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED
BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC, 27626-0535
[phone]
w0 ? ,q
QG
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
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
August 19, 2003
Cumberland County
DWQ Project No. 030890
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dr: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill material in
0.34 acres of wetlands and 345 linear feet of streams for the purpose of constructing Lake Valley Road (SR 2685)
from Yadkin Road (SR 14.15) to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) in Cumberland County. The impacts are authoirzed
as listed below.
Site Station Stream Name DWQ Index Stream Wetland
No. Impacts Impacts
(linear feet) (acres)
1 12+35 Y Beaver Creek 18-31-24-5 80
Unnamed
2 25+64 L Tributary 18-31-24-5 285 0.34
Total 345 0.34
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated July 17, 2003. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3404. This
certification corresponds to the Nationwide Permit 14 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should
acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
with the accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
1.) 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.
2.) The 72 inch reinfornced concrete pipe being constructed at Station Number 25+64L shall be buried one foot
below stream bed elevation.

N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
CF ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carotina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
3.) Of the total project impacts to 345 linear feet of streams, 285 linear feet requires compensatory mitigation.
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to streams shall be done for 285 linear feet of stream impact at a
replacement ratio of 1:1. 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 $35,625 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 at 919-
733-5208.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers,
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Ron Ferrell, Wetlands Restoration Program
File Copy
Central Files
c:\ncdot\TIP U-2911\wqc\030890wgc.doc

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
September 4, 2003
TO: John Hennessy, NC DNR, Dept. of Water Quality
FROM: Ann Steedly, P.E.
Public Involvement and Community Studies
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Final ICE Report for TIP U-2911, Lake Valley Dr. Ext.;
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Attached is the final Indirect and Cumulative Effects report for TIP U-2911, extension of
Lake Valley Drive in Fayetteville.
Please let me know if we may be of further assistance.
AS/rwd
cc: Brett Feulner, NCDOT Natural Systems Permitting
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 168
RALEIGH, NC 27604
iW,,
rte{{ :? + ° .L t d ??pp1
35 i' tin S `? P` T•
l ALJT' TIVFE, UDI,R£CT AN a?
.1LATIV 1=1=??`fS ASSESSMENT
b ' ' r TIFF b '291'F ;
iSVC'aike V,k Pr.ive_:Ez`ten'si®n l-
tn°be'rlan.d County,' North Carolina
Kk.
?Prepare
t :Onrgdin Deparlrn ac- Transportation
a{
?? Y, , Office' c f``-luman E rWyjrorr'mant
Y `
Prapar ;d by ?
' {€ Hl1F ryl?lorth'C r61,ia, c -
71
? 1 b8 South ?Boule..
Sa'rte 108
r t 4 €
`i?arlotte , North Carolina 282.03 ,
Aug68t 26, 2003' {
i
Y ? 41 Y ? F
wz"i7 _

7

1

d

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................1
Growth and Development ......................................................................................................................1
Existing Plans and Environmental Regulations ...................................................................................... I
Existing Reports .....................................................................................................................................2
Potential for Induced Development ........................................................................................................2
II. PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AND BACKGROUND .......................... . 2
III. DEFINE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ..................................................... . 3
Identification of Demographic Area .......................................................................................................3
Identification of Potential Growth Impact Area .....................................................................................3
Identification of Impact Area .................................................................................................................3
IV. IDENTIFY THE STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS .................. . 4
Local Land Use and Zoning Plans ..........................................................................................................7
Environmental Regulations ....................................................................................................................7
V. INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES ................................................. . 8
VI. IDENTIFY ACTIVITIES THAT CAUSE IMPACTS ................................ 10
Previous Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................10
Environmental Assessment ..................................................................................................................10
VII. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL INDIRECT/CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR
ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 10
VIII. ANALYZE INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................... 13

' unt
l
d C
2911
C
b
TIP U
er
an
o
y
um
,
-
A JP Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
' August 26, 2003

North Carolina Department of Transportation
' Office of Human Environment
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Impact Effects Report
' TIP U-2911, SR 2685/Lake Valley Drive Extension, Cumberland County
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a new

' location extension of SR 2685/Lake Valley Drive in the City of Fayetteville. The 0.6
grassed median
with a 16-foot raised
des a four-lane divided facilit
l
t i
il
,
y
nc
u
m
e projec
with curb and gutter from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) (See
Figure I). Approximately 110 feet of right-of-way will be acquired to accommodate the
' proposed roadway.
This report is intended to provide a preliminary analysis of the potential for indirect and
' cumulative effects associated with Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) U-2911,
and to provide information requested by the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The information
' requested relates to downstream water quality impacts that may occur as a result of
indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed TIP project and Section 401 Water
' Quality certification.
Growth and Development
• The City of Fayetteville experienced relatively rapid population growth in the 1990's.
Conversely, Cumberland County and the demographic area grew moderately in
' population. The area immediately surrounding TIP U-2911, which experienced
extensive commercial development, grew only marginally in population.
• Water and sewer services are provided within the city limits of Fayetteville, which
' includes the project area.
• Future development proposals for land along the project length have been presented

' to local planners.
Existin Plans and Environmental Re lations
' • TIP U-2911 is consistent with the goals listed in the Comprehensive Plan for the City
of Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.

' • TIP U-2911 is included in the NCDOT's 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program (Draft)
.
• Beaver Creek, which is located adjacent to the project impact area, is classified by the
N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as Class C. Class C represents freshwaters
' protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life and wildlife.
• There are no 303(d) streams in the impact area. T?? n' 1?1 AA??
' -
4 2003
SFP
I fllATERQUALITYSECTION

,4 ap.M u u 8 Waxhaw r
0 10
Landing
I ' 1oa6P
1O
2! t1a4°1pd "?• 6 y?ot-
r o A/
? o R
elson Ave - nyn?ea
Leona Ave 9a?Ct ??
10 43a9!l i a 4
you O? t- .y
,• Q B°nan2
a
o m °nna
m -n
? X ?
\N O < b?a'ch co 0
O ? o Or n 0
a
'TI
Q? 6
a??>SaM \O !eno
P
m
ur i U J

467 N
ritan D v 0
A a o ?O
< f
_
ti o

B e G He ,
a hstone Dr o
o
Ski,- _ Oid Ga e R n o
G"Ord
iG
'OyeOF`S
' ? PeG a
P
?d »d
a Is e??S Jo
00 O Sauk M e? ajO? o?ou?
ed P
?O
o m L Ro'
<°7m N o
NPQ
p 70 eU?d
a o = vat
0 1
10 y
to co m
Ln
m? °
m o e
? ,O S
d 0G
y ° p O
O0 m °1
p0,
0 t
T 0-
wy6uo O ee
e?a
aV? Q or
?Oee ° >O `e1 ?OJ
C; dr ?rea> e6 p NO J -D
ad \Ud
,aAO ig 6u!!e
i0>Sa? P\ ?
J
1L
No 0
14 oNe 5 Barcelona Dr

?0 uo31o0
?
Sugarcane Cir 1 QJe
JO
- ,? °
1 iau 6 M
o? va
?o v Great
Oaks
o j r4r
Re ent r n er
y ?? ?' m
3
°?

- Z ?d
? C/r
m ? m? a BIa ton Rd
s
o f
_ m ? 0
0\ 4 ?
,
\
_ O °
3 m o
DIG ;P °?h
tiiiiRd ?
c
Ia 0 ° CO
3

r11t!H e W
a uo wa

m s
3e
N
O

' A
_ o
? a
u'

m? ti

Shanno D c a
O O
p
?CD a La alle Ave
p?a!P!-s CO
, y aS r° Nu eY Dr
9 6 ay? ?Q
? m O

\
y
ain Johns W
d
T ?
p Q : n,
be?? orneliffDr r arx
JCj < a pea4aa W cD (D

014

N

i

' 0

a9

p

.
I M k aap 4 /RO 0 ?
o m a m 3 0 4 ?O

? s 'C, ? n a ° Or
Q
t
0
r?c?cmz?7
9m-V
x<
v
<

o
,

0
O
iy
mA
cicip 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m I
v
m Cn
c
(D
(D
(D
(D
(D
(D
(D
y
C
CD
y
m
m m p (n (n (n to cn cn cn
C (D
(n
(D < O
-1 O
-?
(=
•?
m i
(a C

v C
?I
N (n

E3 C (n
-I C

iU '1

y rF C7

(D N O
CD
m Cn
T
A !
.?+
.?-r
O? ! Qp
C Q
(n Q
(n
p
_? W O
z z W W W N r) O O ?
n
C D P- C) 0
'p CD
P,

T

W
tmi Z oo
3- m
ZT IU
a- 0 0 0 0
X, G)

0

F
G) G) G) =
G)
O G)
O G)
O ? c c c
CD

(D
N C
-0 O
"O C
"O
N
N
N

Z ?
W ?
N t
--I
I
ro
w
A
2
a
n
ti
A
a.
? C
b
ti
fC ti
n
a ? o-
fi " to
r)
'mow O

7

i

_ TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
August 26, 2003
Existing Reports
• The Environmental Assessment (March 2001) indicates that there are no waters
classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Water Supply Watersheds within the
impact area.
• A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) report was issued in December 2001 by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA has determined this
project will not have any significant impact on the human environment.
Potential for Induced Development
• Any induced development will most likely be concentrated along proposed TIP U-
2911 (Lake Valley Drive Extension) corridor and SR 1415 (Yadkin Road).
• Evaluation of potential project induced development, local regulations and water
quality management plans indicate that TIP U-2911 will not substantially deteriorate
water quality in local streams and rivers.
U. PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AND BACKGROUND
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to extend SR
2685/Lake Valley Drive on new location in the City of Fayetteville. The proposed
project will extend southward from Yadkin Road and connect to an existing multi-lane
access road, accessing US 401 Bypass across from the entrance to Cross Creek Mall.
The 0.6 mile project includes construction of a four-lane facility with a 16-foot grassed
median and with curb and gutter. 14-foot wide outside lanes will be provided to allow
motor vehicles to better share the facility with bicyclists. Also proposed are 5-foot
sidewalks along the west side of Lake Valley Drive Extension from SR 1415 (Yadkin
Road) to approximately 550 feet north of US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). The proposed
right-of-way is 110 feet in width.
An existing multi-lane access road intersects with the US 401 Bypass across from the
entrance to Cross Creek Mall. This road provides access from the US 401 Bypass to a
shopping center. The road ends to the rear of the shopping center.
TIP U-2911 is intended to provide a more direct route for traffic traveling from northwest
Fayetteville to Cross Creek Mall and other businesses along the US 401 Bypass and
Morganton Road. TIP U-2911 is also intended to relieve traffic congestion at the
intersection of SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) and US 401 Bypass by removing motorists
traveling south to Cross Creek Mall. Upon completion of the extension of SR 2685/Lake
Valley Drive, traffic from Yadkin Road and the surrounding area will have an alternative
route to reach desired destinations south of the proposed project.
This project is not anticipated to cause the relocation of any residences or businesses.
The Environmental Assessment also revealed there are no properties or archaeological

TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
August 26, 2003
sites within the TIP project area that are eligible for the National Register of Historic
' Places.
' M. DEFINE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
Identification of Demographic Area
'
The demographic area is located southeast of the Fort Bragg U. S. Army Base in a highly
developed and commercialized region of Fayetteville. A demographic area was
' delineated in order to analyze the population and employment encompassing the project
corridor (See Figure I). The following census block groups from the 2000 census are
included in the demographic area for TIP U-2911:
'
• Census Tract 20, Block Groups 1 and 2
' • Census Tract 21, Block Group 2
Block Group 2
• Census Tract 22
,
• Census Tract 33.04, Block Groups 1, 2, and 3
' The demographic area is generally bounded by Bragg Boulevard to the east, Santa Fe
Drive to the north, Bonanza Drive and Beaver Creek Pond to the west, and Cliffdale
' Road to the South.
Identification of Potential Growth Impact Area
' The North Carolina DOT's and North Carolina DENR's Guidance for Assessing Indirect
and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina indicate that the
development effects of a new roadway facility are most often found up to one mile
' around an interchange, and up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the
interchange. Based on this guidance, an initial review of project area conditions, and
' professional judgment, it was determined that the potential for growth impact as a result
of this project would mostly be within a two-mile radius of the project corridor (See
Figure II). This two-mile radius, referred to as the Potential Growth Impact Area, is the
' area within which the project has the potential to induce land use changes, and will
determine the data collection and analysis area, but will not necessarily be the extent of
the growth impact that is expected to occur.
' A
rea
Identification of Impact
' The Impact Area for TIP U-2911 is defined as that area which is most likely to
experience land use changes as a result of the construction of the project. It was created
by identifying undevelopable lands, such as already built-up areas, floodplains, and steep
' topography, and then determining the areas where travel time savings are most likely to
occur as a result of the project (See Figure II). The availability of water/sewer also
influences the determination of the impact area.
0
i
aP.M u lie 9 Waxhaw Dr jQ aAe1 ?
Landing gyp'
v h; ?a
zzv o ie a / / 1 UayFOU y _oQd /5? S7'?n?_ \
'e
''' >O ?- oo
?aQ.v ?
? ? ?o L rh'? ??
a
R
6 I a
LJ•i 9 e
a? S 3 d oa
Lobloll ?Q 11!U?ene
a
CD m
/i? % / 11 N
sr 7
d -? i

ed1d
U
lla4°1Pd a , to ,Q )poj ICeLnW 0 0
°
'
i ?f
-
r'o 9 0
B/p co L

- p
?
t n
m?
°m
o•
a

(D
41a9!l
CD
°nnet
n >O s
o

0

O
6

G
r ?
0-)-

4

J??? `JO
, ?' NS
O
^d?c _ o
m o ° `° 9 O
Z Gd O
O hOr n D 1!Ual
l ?o

oc H ve
Dr ca
c p o
v bra co
YOr po
,
-
? CaRS, --
.
tl ?" `• ego e as
^
m
m _ w^ e
, ,
a?el?satJ` ?f
10 Ilenp . ti °
is a ese? °'? ?a
o0 oha? ?5
Q? u°?e?a
d3 .o m O c ?O e? o ?O
eal o
N- 1 10
Ly hur t D d?
P?o
NO e 9
SR#1467

=

ritan D

cn

x
v
'
? ?

r lei T

,
!
/ n ? m
a
to ? ? o ? O ? ve p/
c o
cn
ea /
stone D
r
o a ley o
6
e
_ Skibo R
Old Ga e R o
D
`_®9a C
r

/y0
y
>O
-y
d
?? eof`S
oy
P
,NN
Q ?ae?e u,aahS Uos,au d N
a+?Je00, ,Oke?. ed P ?reOajO P? o1ou0o a
o e?
U1 OU .D
,als tD
?p ope Barcelona Dr
o s?aad i0 u01l0 0 n Sugarcane Cir
oUrJ m ja 6 M
pia `?Ja^ t Oaks Q `S C-) Re ent r rh er mGi
r
O 3 /?? ?? y C/r 3 ?
Q /n O15
W 0 1 ? ?yle
? Vla N?
CL ? UO m Carb?
0\1 , Qoa\ m ha on C
m
>O
Pa/P,a?P?ye? u? Sao, oS ?F
IG
/ y
C/lam ?,
3
?? Q BI ton Rd ) sr
c? v >

0 Co
3
W A
7
?
_
m
-• OG a Z, •ti
d J
L salle Ave <
N eY Dr
m p
m

m a d Pea4? W m 40 m

(D
o' an
Ue m
d Ojos o
y>

O
v ?S p
r ?
no
3 s
3 °
m n
m
a
a
0 m
o n
c b
? c
y.
O
2 Q. . cm oz y 33
C.5 O
3< 0t?S Am n a ® ?'
ppx
X, CyZ0C %
omyzom O no
o? mZ.. tV n
m U' C) SG 1 W -1
z Ca
m 3 p 3 O CD CD CD ID
< O O
y 3 O (A n, .?-. O CD C
CU :L7 .U tV
m? C) G) 9L -1
nOi ¢Ol
p CTl C CD =r 0 CL CL
0-4
_ z rz =3 CD 0 CD o D (n CO) 0)
E ° 3 ?
c p CD CD (D
N
I 3 CD 3 w CL D
mm ~ O fn -1
%Z O- ?'' flJ CD
(A 0 2)
D N
3 CD 90
n
Z
J
N ? JQ, d
' a
(D
m
4 m N m
d
s ?e
?l
?rrr 1S \ne?J
s
is 0
II?
Kt)
A
A,
A
A
a.
? C
M
?• ti
t?7
fi
fi ? A
fi
N` C
tv b
O
O Z 1z
I TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
r = Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
' August 26, 2003
Most of the demographic area is within the potential growth impact area; however these
' two entities do not exactly share the same boundaries (See Figure II). As shown in the
table below, the City of Fayetteville grew substantially more than North Carolina
between 1990 and 2000. Fayetteville's growth can be attributed to aggressive annexation
' and the increasing number of military personnel in the area. Even though the
demographic area is within the Fayetteville city limits, its growth rate from 1990 to 2000
was much slower. This is due largely to the commercial zoning and shortage of vacant
' land in the demographic area. Population growth in the demographic area is expected to
continue to be slower than the City of Fayetteville.
IV. IDENTIFY THE STUDY AREA DERECTION AND GOALS
' The City of Fayetteville has been experiencing relatively fast population growth in the
last decade, and despite the fact that the demographic area grew slower in population, the
remaining undeveloped area surrounding TIP U-2911 is considered by the local planners
' to have a great deal of development potential. Almost all of the land along US 401
Bypass within the demographic boundary has already been developed. However, all of
the land upon which TIP U-2911 is to be built is currently vacant. This area has the
' greatest potential for commercial development. The new extension may make land in
this portion of Fayetteville more attractive and valuable because of the improved access
to other commercial centers and thoroughfares, particularly Cross Creek Mall.
' According to the NC Office of State Budget & Management, Cumberland County is
forecasted to continue growth at near its present rate through 2020. Because it
' encompasses a relatively built-up environment with predominantly commercial uses, the
demographic area experienced a slower growth rate (10.1%) than all other local
geographic areas between 1990 and 2000.
Population Estimates & Projections

Population:
1980 N/A N/A N/A 5,880,095
' 1990 9,298 75,695 274,566 6,628,637
Percentage growth 1980-1990 N/A N/A N/A I Z 7%
2000 10,239 121,015 302,963 8,049,313
' Percentage growth 1990-2000 10.1% 59.9% 10.3% 21.4%
Population Projections:
2010 N/A N/A 334,040 9,491,374
' Percentage growth 2000-2010 N/A N/A 10.3% 17.9%
2020 N/A N/A 366,204 10,966,138
Percentage growth 2010-2020 N/A N/A 9.6916 15.5%
' Sources: US Census Bureau (Tract 20/BG 1 & 2, Tract 21 /BG 2, Tract 22/B G 2, Tract 33.04/B G 1, 2, & 3)
NC Office of State Budget and Management
TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
' August 26, 2003
The table on the next page shows employment growth by industry sector in Cumberland
' County. The data suggests that between 1990 and 2000, there was a general transition
from a manufacturing and agricultural based economy (textiles and manufacturing) to a
service based economy, particularly business, health and educational services. The
' manufacturing sector in Cumberland County lost almost 1,900 jobs (12.1%), while the
services sector gained over 17,071 jobs (55.4%) between 1990 and 2000. Much of those
services are military driven, as the military community is the primary economic engine
for the county. The agriculture, mining and retail trade sectors also experienced
substantial reductions in employment.
' Employment By Sector
Cumberland County, 1990-2000
' Construction 5,986 7,842 1,856 31.0%
Agriculture 1,427 788 -639 -44.7%
Minin 106 9 -97 -91.5%
' Manufacturing 15,354 13,485 -1,869 -12.1%
Transportation/
Public Utilities 5,854 8,489 2,635 45.0%
' Wholesale Trade 2,870 2,832 -38 -1.3%
Retail Trade 20,936 16,004 4,932 -23.6%
FIRE 4,908 5,150 242 4.9%
' Services 30,816 47,887 17,071 55.4%
Government 7,947 7,851 -96 -1.2%

Source North Carolina Employment Security Commission
Similar to the county, the demographic area services sector substantially increased.
' However, the construction and transportation/public utilities growth grew the most
rapidly at 77.2% and 81.3%, respectively. This is due, in part, to the increased amount of
commercial and residential construction this area of Fayetteville has been experiencing
for the past decade.

5

40, IMIhni=3
TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
August 26, 2003
Employment By Sector
ni-mnornnhir Art-n- 1990-2000
Em to ment Chan e
Sector 1990 2000 Difference %
Construction 114 202 88 772'%
Agriculture 46 21 -25 -54.3%
Mining 8 0 -8 -100.0%
Manufacturing 334 439 105 31.4%
Transportation/
Public Utilities
171
310
139
81.3%
Wholesale Trade 54 63 9 16.7%
Retail Trade 496 553 57 11.5%
FIRE 182 151 -31 -17.0%
Services 1,302 2,010 708 54.4%
Government 328 358 30 9.1%
Total: 3,035 4,107 1,072 35.3%
Source: North Uarohna rmpioyment ?)ecunty t,omcrossioci

6

J
0

0

r

i
fl

- TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
August 26, 2003
Local Land Use and Zoning Plans
The Fayetteville 2010 Land Use Plan serves as a decision-making guide for future
growth in and around the City of Fayetteville. As the project site is located entirely
within the municipal limits of Fayetteville, land use and development in the immediate
vicinity of the project site would be guided by this plan. See Figure III for existing land
use.
The project is consistent with the plan's primary land use and transportation goal: "to
serve as a guide for the revitalization of existing development as well as the framework
for fixture development." TIP U-2911 provides flexibility by improving access and
providing more connectivity to commercial centers for those traveling from northeast
Fayetteville. This project also encourages development by providing infrastructure that
will support commercial activity. TIP U-2911 should increase transportation options by
alleviating some of the traffic congestion from the US 401 Bypass/Yadkin Road
intersection.
Environmental Regulations
Land disturbing activities such as agricultural uses and development (including highway
construction, residential subdivisions and commercial centers) often contribute to
degradation of water quality due to increased sedimentation. Numerous government
agencies have implemented programs to limit soil loss and protect water quality related to
sedimentation. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act, administered by the North
Carolina Division of Land Resources, requires that any person planning to disturb more
than one acre of land must submit a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan to the
Division. Local governments may review and enforce the program within their
jurisdiction, but the program has to be as strict as the Division of Land Resources
program. In addition, the NCDOT is required to follow "Best Management Practices" (a
sedimentation control program) for the protection of surface waters during construction.
No construction is allowed in the floodway.
7

n z
3
a
m n
d
a
a .
n
O
c_ o
CD
N
mz
Ogg
ciuiz0 r
3<a5?-o f1
mz- o
Cs C
0 P- p
o! D z N r 0 < cn K C) C-0 ? ?D
c o Cn w (D M O O (D
m m D (D 3 0 = .-..3 M (D < O O.
a3i (n CD :3 (D =n 3 rt n (D -s C
m m (D -!n Al (CD D N r
-1 CD
CD
n (p v
A
z? 0 0 w N /?
j o CL
1 ? (CD uni =' C
ci A fn Q N
m Q (D 3
D
(D
?z CD
U)

fi
ti
ti
a.
n
a
0.
fi C
A ?
n
a
o
O*P Ilkqkd=l
TIP U-2911, Cumbedand County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
August 26, 2003
V. INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES
Federallv-Protected Species
Plant Species
Featherbristle Beaksedge Rhynchos ora oliganthia Threatened
Sandhills P ie Schoeno lectus etuberculatus Endangered
Southern White Beaksedge Myrio h llum laxym Endangered
Loose Watermilfoil* Pyxidanthera barbulata varbre olia Threatened
Ro -Leaf Loosestrife* Gelsemium rankinii Endangered
Bo S icebush* Gaillardia aestivalis Endangered
Pine Barrens Boneset Ddanthonia epilis Threatened Special
Concern
Bog Oatgrass Lindera subcoreacea Significantly Rare-
Threatened
Coastal Sedge L simachia a eruli olia Threatened
Michaux's sumac* Rhus michauxii Endangered
Saint Francis sa * Neon ha mitchellfifirancisci Endangered
Small-whorled o onia* Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Pondberry* Lindera melissi olia Endangered
American chaffseed* Schwalbea americana Endangered
White wic * Kalmia cuneata Endangered
Sandhills bog lily* Lilium iridollae Threatened
Carolina ass-of- arnassus* Parnassia caroliniana Endangered
Spiked medusa* Ptero lossas is ecristata Endangered
Sandhills ixie-moss* Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevistyla Endangered
Awned maedowbea * Rhexia aristosa Threatened
Carolina goldenrod* SoliAgopulchra Endangered
Spring-flowering goldenrod* Solida o verna Threatened
Pickerin 's dawnflower* Stylisma ickerin 'i varpickeringii Endangered
Georgia indigo-bush* Amo ha eorgiana var. eor Tana Endangered
Sandhills Milk-vetch* Astragalus michauxii Significantly Rare-
Threatened
Animal S ecies
Coachwhi Crotalus adamanteus Endangered
Eastern Diamondback Mastico his a ellum Significantl Rare
Red Cockheaded
Woo ecker* Picoides borealis Endangered
Yellow la mussel* Lam silis cariosa Threatened
Atlantic i oe* Fusconaia masons Threatened
Sources: North Carolma National rieruage rrogram, l umoerlanu wuniy, wily cvvj
http://ils.unc.edu/par! rpjpcVnhp
*Environmental Assessment (March 2001)
8
4PI . 164 1 F9
TIP U-2911, Cumbedand County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
August 26, 2003
Source: North Carolina National Heritage
http://ils.unc. edu/parkproj ect/ghp
County, May 2003
Project Growth Impact Area Potential Hazardous Material Sites
VndPrvrnnnd Stnraue Tank WST) I,ocafions
1
Hoggard Residence 2223 Winterlochen Road Fayetteville Cumberland

The Pantry 3014 (Former
Quick St #39
2501 Hope Mills Road
Fayetteville
Cumberland
Broadfood Ave &
Axers Body Shop Morgantown Road Fayetteville Cumberland

The Pantry 3043 (DBA
Quick Stop #95) 100 South Reilly Road Fayetteville Cumberland

Elizabeth Yarborough
Residence 2224 Winterlochen Road Fayetteville Cumberland
The Pantry 3169 1326 Robeson Street Fa etteville Cumberland
source: North k;arouna lleparanent oI rnvuoument ana 1Vi1LU1FW .MMVLUCCa, "P wuvb. iviay',Vw
hqp://www.wastcnot.enr.state.nc.us
Prniwtrt Crnwth Tmnapt Aron Snlid Wacte Facilities

Lamont Road, Fort Commander AFZA-PW-
Fort Bragg Transfer Bragg, North EE (Bill Squire) Fort
2606-T Station Transfer Carolina Bragg, NC 28307-5000
Lamont Road, Fort Michael J. Ackerman
US Army - Fort Bragg, North AFZA-DE-DV Fort
26G Bra LCID Carolina Bragg, NC 28307
James Ballengee PO Box
Fayetteville, North 53645 Fayetteville, NC
26K Crowell Site LCID Carolina 28305
Source: North Carolina Department of environment ana Natural resources, may Zv, /-vvw
http://www.wastenot.enr.state.nc.us
9
Natural Communities
' TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
AJW 1=10kO Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
' August 26, 2003
VI. IDENTIFY ACTIVITIES THAT CAUSE E"ACTS
' Previous Conclusions
' Environmental Assessment
Indirect and cumulative impacts were not addressed in detail, but the Environmental
' Assessment does specify that TIP U-2911 will surely induce commercial development
along the proposed roadway, and that a resulting reduction in congestion along US 401
Bypass and SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) may enhance the existing retail and service uses,
especially with regard to much improved direct access to Cross Creek Mall.
The environmentally sensitive areas plan goal states, "to protect the watersheds and
t watercourses from pollution." This project is consistent with this goal in that it includes a
culvert extension to help minimize impacts to Beaver Creek.
' The 303(d) list is a product of the Clean Water Act, which requires states to identify
those waters that do not meet water quality standards or which have impaired uses. If
control strategies for point and non point source pollution exist for impaired waters, they
may be excluded from the 303(d) list. According to NCDOT GIS files and North
Carolina's 2000 303(d) List (on the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
website), there are no 303(d) streams in the potential growth impact area or impact area.
' The Environmental Assessment indicates that there are no High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supply Watersheds or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) within the impact
' area. However, the Cross Creek Water Supply Watershed (WS-IV) extends slightly into
the PGIA (Potential Growth Impact Area) from the east, but not into the impact area. TIP
U-2911 should not have any impact on this watershed. In addition, Environmental
' Assessment does indicate that the project crosses an unnamed tributary of Beaver Creek, a
Class C stream. This type of stream is suitable for aquatic life propagation, secondary
recreation and fishing. There is one low quality wetland located along the unnamed
' tributary to Beaver Creek within the project area. This wetland area will be affected by
project construction. NCDOT will coordinate with DWQ and the Army Corps of
Engineers in order to obtain the necessary permits required after assessing potential
' wetland impacts due to temporary construction aids.
TIP U-2911 will include extending a culvert for Beaver Creek along SR 1415 (Yadkin
' Road) west of Lake Valley Drive. TIP U-2911 will cross an unnamed tributary to Beaver
Creek.
' VII. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL INDIRECT/CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR
ANALYSIS
Any induced development would likely be high density commercial and would primarily
be concentrated along proposed TIP U-2911 and to a lesser degree, SR 1415 (Yadkin
' Road). Parcels fronting these roads have better access to utilities, and people traveling
10
' TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
' August 26, 2003
from these areas would surely experience some travel-time savings from the new road. It
' is unlikely that any residential development would occur. Land located immediately
surrounding project is vacant, and like the land development surrounding the project and
impact area, is zoned commercial.

I
I

The impact area, as shown in Figure IV, is relatively small compared to the potential
growth impact area. This is because of a few factors that may limit development. As
stated previously, almost all available land in the immediate vicinity of the project has
been developed, most of which is commercial and densely developed. The only
exception is a relatively small parcel of land north of the project on Lake Valley Road
that is currently vacant and zoned for single family residential. TIP U-2911 aligns
through what appears to be some of the last vacant and developable land in an otherwise
entirely commercially developed region of Fayetteville.
Another factor that may inhibit growth is the presence of a 100-year floodplain of Beaver
Creek along the western limit of the impact area. There will be no direct involvement of
the floodplain with respect to TIP U-2911, but it may limit development of those specific
parcels adjacent to the floodplain within the impact area. Local planning guidelines
dictate that, under most conditions, developing within a floodplain is prohibited.
Intersection of US 401 Bypass and Future TIP U-2911 (Lake Valley
Drive Extension), across from Cross Creek Mall Entrance.
The NCDOT, in their document entitled Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, outline a set of factors that can be
used to evaluate indirect and cumulative impacts, and to determine if further analysis is
necessary. The following is an assessment of these factors as they apply to TIP U-2911.
"Yes" answers indicate the likelihood that additional analysis is warranted.
11

0
00c z
c?mp

OG Up En N
n
m
3 0
Zlymztpi
y o _.._ _ ? ? ?
CD
n¢
c u, D N O n
O p 0 CD =
Cp D
p p C7 ?Q
O flJ CO
CD ?

z < m
m m
(p

n
p
O+.
p
p
a
C
3
-?,
fA
p
c,

3
N
fn
p
O .
O

C
G
y3
M z v
u^1 y o 0 n
Z 3 m
(n
7
C
0
•
?
p
D]
?
N
O

x
C:
Uf
a CD

3 .-+ 1. ? d Q O
1: z

(n
a?

D

O

3

O

3

O
cn.

a
m D 3 (D O
a f/)
m (?
1 CD
v
o

n
-? O

3
`°
?? z
CD

b
ti
A
co
ti
a
A N
n'7
n
fi
ti Z
n A
k?
o? z
w??
TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
' August 26, 2003
• Conflict with Local Plan (NO):
' TIP U-2911 is consistent with goals of Fayetteville 2010 Land Use Plan. The project
is also in conformance with the Proposed Thoroughfare Plan for the City of
Fayetteville.
' • Explicit Economic Development Purpose (MAYBE):
The NCDOT's purpose for TIP U-2911 is to reduce congestion along
' Yadkin Road and US 401 Bypass, and to provide a more direct route to the
commercial area near the US 401 Bypass/Morganton Road intersection from
residential areas along Yadkin Road in northwest Fayetteville. However, TIP U-2911
' will improve access to undeveloped, commercial land along the new corridor.
• Planned to Serve Specific Development (MAYBE):
' The currently vacant land immediately surrounding proposed TIP U-2911 is zoned
for commercial use; local planners are not aware of any specific development
proposals at this time. Therefore, the new route will not be built to serve "future"
' development, however it could be construed that it is being built to indirectly serve
"existing" development.
' • Likely to Stimulate Land Development Raving Complementary Functions
(YES):
TIP U-2911 is located in a densely commercialized region of Fayetteville. Water
' and sewer services are available in the immediate area of proposed TIP U-2911.
Although the demographic area has experienced lower levels of growth than the City
of Fayetteville, the undeveloped land (zoned commercial) immediately around the
' project site is forecasted to build out in the next few years.
' • Likely to Influence Intraregional Land Development Location Decisions (NO):
Water service is available within the impact area, as is sewer service. Most of the
induced growth would all take place along TIP U-2911 with some potential growth
' spilling over to just west of the intersection of TIP U-2911 and Yadkin Road.
• Notable Feature Present in the Impact Area (NO):
' Notable features typically relate to the natural environment, historic or cultural
properties, wildlife habitat, etc. It does not appear from the site visit that any historic
or cultural properties, or unique habitats will be directly impacted by TIP U-2911.
' However, just northwest and adjacent of the demographic area are the locations of
Fort Bragg Army Base and Pope Air Force Base. Because of their impact on the
community as a whole as well as their overall adjacency to this project, both military
' installations shall be regarded as notable features in the vicinity, but not within the
impact area.
12
14
' TIP U-2911, Cumberland County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
I August 26, 2003
VIII. ANALYZE INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
' Only one of the six factors above suggests that further analysis of indirect and cumulative
impacts would be warranted. The following set of quantitative factors to help evaluate
' the magnitude of land use and growth impacts induced by highway projects. These
factors include change in accessibility, change in property values, forecasted growth, land
supply vs. demand, water and sewer availability, market for development and public
' policy.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Tnhla VT ManniftAp of I.nnd Use Chanves Surroundine Transportation Improvements
a
Change in ` Property Forecasted vs Land Sewer Market For ?-
R Values Grv tL Avai a ' 'ty Dry:e p P,
Travel Time Extremely
Savings > 10 > 50% > 3% Annual < 10-Year Current High
Stron min. Increase Pop. Growth Supply of Lan Services Exist Potential Pro-Growth
.. X X
++ X X X
++ X X
Weak Travel Time No Change < 1% Annu > 20-Year No Plans For Extremely Anti-Growt
[ Savings < 10 I Pop. Growth Supply of Lan Future Low Potentia
. . Service
Source: HNTB Corporation
TIP U-2911 should improve accessibility of northwest Fayetteville to specific
commercial areas and reduce travel-time, especially for those accessing Cross Creek
Mall. Property values for adjacent parcels may increase slightly as a result of improved
accessibility. Growth rates in the demographic area have been relatively low compared
to the region; however, with exception to proposed TIP U-2911 the demographic area has
nearly built-out, and can no longer facilitate much more additional growth. The demand
for land and market development is relatively high in and around the project area. Water
and sewer are available primarily within the City Limits of Fayetteville, but sewer service
is limited throughout the unincorporated portions of the County. Finally, the City of
Fayetteville appears to have a thorough comprehensive land use plan that approaches
growth issues proactively.
Because of the weaker rankings of the change in accessibility, change in property value,
and forecasted growth, and requirements instituted by the local planning agencies and
floodplains regulations, development induced as a result of TIP U-2911 should not have
substantial impact upon water quality in the local streams located in project area.
13
FEB
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 5, 2002
Mr. John Hennessy
NCDENR ' Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
SUBJECT: Federal Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Lake Valley Drive
Extension (SR 2685) From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo
Road), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal-Aid project MASTP-2685(1),
State Project 8.244340 1, TIP Project Number U-2911
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved FONSI for the subject proposed
highway improvement. This report records the determination that implementing the proposed
action will not have a significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Sincerely,
"rYl?
illiam D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/pir
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 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

L
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension (SR 2685)
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
/Z / 9 /C'
il iam D. Gilmore, PI., Manager
at ptf- William-
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
% 7 B?
Date iL. Graf, P.E.
`Division Administrator, FHWA
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension (SR 2685)
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
ADMINISTRATION ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Ray . Lotfi
Pro ct Development Engineer
?.•`?H CARD( j'''•..
?? .
EESS?pNq'?.
J es A. McInnis, Jr., P.#., Project Development Unit Head ? 20701
Q.
l _4
ow,
00
?2• ra-01
Robert Hanson, PI., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
! l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .............................................................................................. i
1. TYPE OF ACTION ................................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................1
III. PROJECT STATUS AND SCHEDULE ...............................................................1
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................2
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ..................................................2
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ..................................2
C. Public Hearing ...................................................................................................7
V. REVISION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................7
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ....................................8
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2- USGS Quad Map
APPENDIX- Agency Comments on Environmental Assessment
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension (SR 2685)
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MAST?-2685(1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
Roadway Design Unit
1.5 meter (5 foot) sidewalks will be constructed along the west side of Lake
Valley Drive Extension (SR 2685),from Yadkin Road (SR 1415) to approximately'
168 meters (550 feet) north of Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) intersection. In accordance
with NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, the sidewalks will be jointly funded byNCDOT and the
City.of Fayetteville (NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville each will fund 50% of the
sidewalks on cost share basis).
4.2 meter (14 foot) outside lanes will be provided on both sides of Lake Valley
Drive Extension to allow motor vehicles and bicyclists to share the facility.
Program Development Branch
A municipal agreement will be prepared regarding the City of Fayetteville's
participation in the cost of new sidewalks to be constructed as part of this project.
Finding of No Significant Impact- U-2911
December, 2001
-i-
Page 1 of 1
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension (SR 2685)
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact 6n
the human environment. This finding of no significant impact is based on the March 29,
2001 Environmental Assessment (EA) which has been independently evaluated by the
FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental
issues and impacts of the proposed project. The EA provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a new
location extension of Lake Valley Drive in the City of Fayetteville. The 1.0 kilometer (0.6
mile) project will construct a four-lane divided facility with a 4.8 meter (16-foot) raised
grassed median and curb and gutter from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass
(Skibo Road). See Figure 1 for project area.
Approximately 34 meters (110 feet) of right of way will be acquired to
accommodate the proposed roadway.
III. PROJECT STATUS AND SCHEDULE
The project is included in the approved North Carolina 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year 2002 and construction is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2004.
-1-
The current estimated costs for TIP Project U-2911 are as follows:
Construction $3,600,000
*Right of Way Acquisition $1,701,025
Total Cost $5,301,025
*A portion of the right of way required for the project may be donated by land owners.
The total estimated cost included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program for the project is $7,000,000, of which $2,300,000 is for construction and
$4,700,000 is for right of way acquisition.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the approved Environmental Assessment were circulated to the
following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments. An asterisk (*)
indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of correspondence
received are included in the Appendix of this document.
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Administration
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Fayetteville
Cumberland County Commissioners
Region M Council of Governments
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments received on the environmental assessment are discussed
below:
Department of Army-Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Comment: "Based on the discussion of drainage structures contained on page 5 of the
EA, the culvert under SR 1415 on Beaver Creek will be extended. Since Beaver Creek is
a detailed study stream in the Cumberland County Flood Insurance Study, we refer you to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for `No Rise' Certification
-2-
for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways," ... The project should be
designed to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and be in
compliance with all local ordinances."
Response: The proposed project will be designed in compliance with the
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and all local ordinances.
Comment: "The EA stated that the proposed project will impact 0.05 acres of
wetlands associated with the construction of a proposed culvert at an unnamed tributary
to Beaver Creek. NCDOT biologist discovered this stream during the general field
surveys conducted along the proposed alignment on April 13, 2001. The EA classifies
this stream as perennial and also states that it is not identified on the USDA Soil mapping
or USGS Topographic mapping for Cumberland County. It is recommended that the
jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the proposed project be verified by the US Army
Corps of Engineers prior to applying for a Department of the Army (DA) permit. "
Response: NCDOT will coordinate with the US Army Corps of Engineers during,
final design of the project to verify impacts on jurisdictional wetlands prior to applying
for a Department of the Army permit.
Comment: "The EA further states that a nationwide permit is likely to be applicable
for the culvert installation in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The proposed
project could be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 14, provided it meets the criteria for
that nationwide permit. However, a final determination should be made following the
jurisdictional determination as described above."
Response: Coordination concerning jurisdictional determination and the appropriate
Section 404 permit will be conducted during the permitting process.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "As noted on page 8 and 14 of the FEA, the preferred alternative will
impact 0.05 acre of wetland and an undetermined length of an unnamed tributary to
Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek is located outside the right-of-way and will not be impacted
by construction activities. However, because the selected alternative is a curb and gutter
design, there is potential for stormwater impacts to the water quality of Beaver Creek and
the unnamed tributary. Project design should include provisions for stormwater
collection and treatment before discharging to adjacent waters, including wetlands.
Response: Appropriate measures to minimize impacts of stormwater runoff discharge
to wetlands and Beaver Creek will be studied and developed during final design of the
prof ect.
Comment: "The Service notes that the FEA provides a discussion (page 15) of the
potential project related impacts on Federally-listed threatened and endangered species.
-3-
There are eight federally-protected species listed for Cumberland County, and NCDOT
has determined that there will be: "No Effect" of the project on any of the listed species.
However, although the NCDOT has stated that there is no suitable habitat for seven of the
species, it is not clear whether or not this conclusion was made from actual field
investigations. It is noted that surveys were done for Michaux's sumac and no plants
were found. The Service concurs with NCDOT's "No Effect" determination for
Michaux's sumac only. Note, however, that this concurrence applies only to this species
up to the date of this letter. Should additional information become available relative to
Michaux's sumac, additional surveys may be required. Survey methodologies or other
rationale for the remaining species should be forwarded to this office for review and
comment before the Service can concur with any "No Effect" determinations."
Response: As stated on page 7 of the environmental assessment, general field surveys
were conducted for the proposed project on April 13, 2000. No suitable habitat for seven
of the federally -listed species for Cumberland County were found during these field
investigations. NCDOT Natural System Technical Report was forwarded to the Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Service has concurred that this project will have "No Effect" on
any of the listed endangered species (see December 7, 2001 letter in appendix).
Comment: "This document does not contain a 4(f) declaration; however, our records
indicate that no such public lands will be impacted by this project."
Response: No facilities or properties protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966 will be affected by this project.
Comment: "The Service considers that this FEA, except for the endangered species
section, adequately addressed the existing fish and wildlife resources, and waters and
wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these
resources. However, based on the information provided, the Service cannot conclude that
this project, implemented as described, will not have significant impact on natural
resources under our jurisdiction."
Response: As stated previously, the NCDOT Natural System Technical Report was
forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service has concurred that this project
will have "No Effect" on any of the listed endangered species (see December 7, 2001
letter in appendix).
3. N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources-Division of Water
Quality
Comment: "The document does not present an estimate of the proposed impacts to
the one stream that will be impacted by the proposed project. NCDOT is advised that
future documentation should identify all the proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
and streams for the referenced project. Additionally, a quantification of the proposed
impacts should be listed in any future documentation."
-4-
Response: Stream impacts are estimated to be 219 linear feet. Exact lengths of
impacts will be determined during the final design and permitting phases.
Comment: "At this time, it is impossible for the DWQ to ascertain the nature or
magnitude of the proposed impacts. While the written description of the anticipated
impacts seems relatively innocuous, without appropriate mapping that displays the
resources to be impacted with the proposed project superimposed, it is impossible to
identify the proposed impacts. As a result, DWQ is reluctant to concur with the proposed
project until the requested information can be provided."
Response: Figure 2 of this document presents wetlands and streams which will be
affected by the project.
Comment: "Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands."
Response: Sediment and erosion control measures will not be placed in wetlands,
where practicable.
Comment: "Borrow/waste area should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste could precipitate compensatory
mitigation."
Response: The contractor for the proposed project will not be permitted to dispose
material or obtain borrow from wetlands. The contractor will be responsible for finding
proper borrow and waste sites and obtaining all necessary permits.
Comment: "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."
Response: As stated previously, appropriate measures to minimize impacts of
stormwater runoff discharge to wetlands and Beaver Creek will be studied and developed
during final design of the project.
Comment: "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."
-5-
Response: It is estimated the project will impact 0.312 acres of wetlands and 219 feet
of streams. NCDOT anticipates utilizing the wetland restoration program for wetland and
stream mitigation for the project.
Comment: "Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed
wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping."
Response: As stated previously, the project will impact approximately 0.312 acres of
wetlands and 219 feet of streams which will be affected by the project are shown on
Figure 2 of this document.
4. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "NCDOT should minimize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands to the
maximum extent possible."
Response: NCDOT will continue efforts in minimizing impacts to wetlands during
final design and the permit application process.
Comment: "In the Finding of No Significant Impact, NCDOT should also commit to
using natural stream channel design on all stream relocations and to use NCDOT Best
Management practices."
Response: Natural stream channel design will be used on stream relocations where
practicable and strict adherence to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the protection
of surface waters will be enforced during project construction.
5. The City of Fayetteville
Comment: The City of Fayetteville has requested construction of sidewalks on the
west side of the proposed Lake Valley Drive extension. Additionally, the City has
requested the installation of street lights.
Response: The City's request for construction of sidewalks on the west side of Lake
Valley Drive Extension has been approved, and a municipal agreement describing cost
sharing and maintenance responsibilities will be prepared prior to construction. In
accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy, the sidewalks will be jointly funded by
NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville (NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville each will fund
50% of the sidewalks). Installation of street lights for this project will be the
responsibility of the City of Fayetteville and handled as an encroachment. The City of
Fayetteville was advised to submit an encroachment request, along with design plans, to
the NCDOT District 2 Engineer in Cumberland County. Following approval of the
encroachment, a special provision will be added to the construction contract to allow the
City's lighting contractor to install the lighting during construction of the roadway.
-6-
C. Public Hearing
Following completion of the environmental assessment, a combined public
hearing for the proposed project was held on June 28, 2001 at the Alger B. Wilkins
Elementary School in Fayetteville. Approximately 15 citizens attended the hearing.
A summary of comments received during and following the public hearing and responses
to those comments are included below.
Comment: A local resident requested the following at the hearing:
1. The installation of a warning light on the westbound approach of the proposed
signalized intersection at Lake Valley Drive and Yadkin road.
2. The installation of shielding for the signal heads at the intersection of Lake Valley
Drive and Yadkin Road to reduce glare from the early morning and late afternoon
sun.
3. Area lighting to be included in the final plans for the proposed project.
Response: Requests listed in item 1 and 2 above will be addressed during the
preparation of final roadway plans. The design and construction of street lights for this
project will be the responsibility of the City of Fayetteville. The City has been asked to
submit the request for street lights along with design plans to the NCDOT District 2
Engineer in Cumberland.
Comment: A Citizen requested that geometric and operational improvements be made
to two existing signalized intersections. The intersections are located at the entrance to
Wal-Mart and Yadkin Road, and at Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) and Yadkin Road.
Response: The request for improvements of the existing intersections above has been
forwarded to Division 6 for their consideration.
Comment: "Entering Yadkin Rd. from Santee Dr. has very poor visibility to the east.
This is due to cars being parked close to the road, a utility box next to the road, other cars
entering road from adjacent businesses and speeding cars traveling west. I request a
study to improve this intersection."
Response: This intersection is located outside of the proposed project limits. The
request for improvements to this existing intersection has been forwarded to Division 6
for their consideration.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
No changes have occurred in the proposed project since completion of the
environmental assessment.
-7-
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the impact of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state, and local
agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that the project will not have a
significant impact upon the quality of the human or natural environment. No significant
impacts on cultural, natural, ecological, or scenic resources are expected. Therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required..
The following persons may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
-8-
r r
r r
r ? r
AV /
r
.r r
r
r
rr ? •
r r r /
r r r
/ r At
i
3•
3
n
0
'm
sf
¦
1-
'fN Rd sR 168
(SR
2639 141 •s ? I.•:` .
!Z 26n ZL1 BEGIN'
t
73 PROTECT
63
s 3106
C o ° Ioa jiii
-UK

12
3197

-.¦
END 4b " I aos
PROJECT = 4?? 15
CROSS r5s
1 <s
CREEK ?e
PLAZA o CROSS
T
y CREEK N
?'• ° MALL -1007
O .h:T.._:...
iaoa
..:._:! ?• 17 ? 7670
N T. fA` .
3t6e
??°p NORiH C?9O
iy NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
° =Q=I DIVSION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
OF TpI.Q°P ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
FAYETTE VILLE
SR 2685 (LAKE VALLEY DR.) EXTENSION
FROM SR 1415 (YADKIN RD.) TO US 401 BYPASS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-2911
No Scale FIGURE 1
?5
?• `?, ' fa > -' / \ 1 1 • ;;rte` -Ch
I '.?•.• ?,?`, . _ - ? ••!• • .P.??1 -.?•5 railer `U\ t'
Rte. ,.. '• . ,c IL. o- Drive-in 'O y' ?'` • ` -rN 40 - 'il
_-?;. ?• ::. I` i Theater ° ?< =}
','-J'..? : .. .C. 1,? Beaver/C ,. , ? ??• '?? ? ? ' ? ? ° C
i...•?: .•?? ? a- Begin Project `? - ? ? ?, ',• r ,
•?• r r• ? ?? •?. ate.
• • R UT to Beaver Creek ? J ?• ' ?
i' • 1 < yCAMpRE
If I r i _'/ WETLAND SITE / 1 ? ? / / ? ??' i? i ?? ?n
r?_ •;`. - End Project , y\ > I f` . r _` v 1 „ 'J n n
? 1 ° •?? a a ? \? 1,
232
?•'?.. !I .- ? ?k ? ;? I r??o \,• ?, ? ??, is ?.
415
f
E
ar
OF NOPTH ?
9
? or
y4
y NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
m 2
° DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
y

OF ranNSQ? PROJECT DEVELOPAfENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

USGS QUAD MAP
FAYETTEVILLE
SR 2685 (LAKE VALLEY DR.) EXTENSION
FROM SR 1 415 (YADKIN RD.) TO US 401 BYPASS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-2911
Scale 1:24000 Figure 2
APPENDIX
Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO. BOX 1894
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 10, 2001
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
EIV,6
MAY 22 ?001
r
1 ?A ? avtsact? o>= ?- t .?
This is in response to your letter of April 10, 2001, requesting comments on the
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Fayetteville, Lake Valley Drive Extension, from
SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), Cumberland County, Federal-
Aid Project MASTP-2685(1 )State Project 8.2443401, T.I.P. Project U-2911" (Regulatory
Division Action ID No. 200000537).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
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,
W-
W. Coleman Long `
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosure
May 10, 2001
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
Federal Environmental Assessment for Fayetteville, Lake Valley Drive Extension, from
SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), Cumberland County, Federal-
Aid Project MASTP-2685(1 )State Project 8.2443401, T.I.P. Project U-2911" (Regulatory
Division Action ID No. 200000537)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section at
[phone]
We provided comments on flood plains for this project by letter dated January 18,
2000, a copy of which is contained in Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment
(EA). At that time, it appeared that the flood plain would not be involved. However,
based on the discussion of drainage structures contained on page 5 of the EA, the
culvert under SR 1415 on Beaver Creek will be extended. Since Beaver Creek is a
detailed study stream in the Cumberland County Flood Insurance Study, 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 National Flood Insurance Program and be in compliance with all
local ordinances.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Dave Timpy, Wilmington Field Office
Regulatory Division at [phone]
The EA states that the proposed project will impact 0.05 acres of wetlands
associated with the construction of a proposed culvert at an unnamed tributary to
Beaver Creek. NCDOT biologists discovered this stream during the general field
surveys conducted along the proposed alignment on April 13, 2001. The EA classifies
t IiJ Sll earri as per eni iiai al id also state) Lhal it Is i iot ide. iliiiCG Vi 1 u Ic USDDrn Jvli
mapping or USGS Topographic mapping for Cumberland County. It is recommended
that the jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the proposed project be verified by the US
Army Corps of Engineers prior to applying for a Department of the Army (DA) permit.
The EA further states that a nationwide permit is likely to be applicable for the
culvert installation in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The proposed project
could be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 14, provided it meets the criteria for that
nationwide permit. However, a final determination should be made following the
jurisdictional determination as described above.
If you have any questions related to DA permits, they should be addressed to Mr.
Timpy.
C l''=
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 7, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carollina 27699-1548,
Attention: Ray Lofti
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
m .z

Thank you for forwarding to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) a copy of the April 25, 2000
Natural Resources Technical Report for the SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road),
Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2911). 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 of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
By letter dated May 16, 2001, the Service commented on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA)
for the subject project. We noted in our comments that the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) concluded that the project would have "No Effect"on the following federally-listed species:
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia),
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha miichellii francisci), small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides),
pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), and American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis). However, there was no supporting documentation indicating that these
conclusions had been arrived at through field investigations. Based on information contained in the
Technical Services Report, the Service concurs that this project, implemented as described, will have
"No Effect" on any of the the species listed above.
Note that this concurrence applies only to the referenced species up to the date of this letter. Should
additional information become available relative to these, or any other listed species, these
determinations may be reconsidered and additional surveys may be required.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. Please advise us of any changes
in project plans. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom McCartney at
[phone], Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
12
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: COE, Wilmington, NC (Richard K. Spencer)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/07/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-291 Lesp
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
May 16, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,l`:orth Carolina 2759^>-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
,. 177,
N
Thank you for your letter of April 10, 2001, requesting comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA), dated March 29,
2001, for Fayetteville, Lake Valley Drive Extension, from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401
Bypass (Skibo Road), Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2911). 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 of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
Purpose and Need
The Service concurs that the primary purpose and needs for this project have been adequately
stated and supported by written discussion and tabular data.
Alternatives Analysis
riccordirig to the FEA, the North Carolina -Department of l ransportacion (NCDOT) has
selected a four-lane, raised grass median, curb and gutter design. The total project length is 0.6
mile. The Service concurs with this decision. However, the Service retains the right to
recommend other alternatives if data not contained in this FEA become available, and to
provide comments on the final alignment.
Wetlands
As required by the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency, the NCDOT
should first endeavor to avoid, then minimize, and finally compensate for wetland losses that
would be incurred if this project is implemented. As noted on pages 8 and 14 of the FEA, the
preferred alternative will impact 0.05 acre of wetland and an undetermined length of an
unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek is located outside the right-of-way and will
not be impacted by construction activities. 1-iowever, because the selected alternative is a curb
and gutter design, there is potential for stormwater impacts to the water quality of Beaver
Creek and the unnamed tributary. Project design should include provisions for stormwater
collection and treatment before discharging to adjacent waters, including wetlands.
Endangered Species
The Service notes that the FEA provides a discussion (page 15) of the potential project related
impacts on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. There are eight federally-
protected species listed for Cumberland County, and NCDOT has determined that there will
be "No Effect" of the project on any of the listed species. However, although the NCDOT
has stated that there is no suitable habitat for seven of the species, it is not clear whether or not
this conclusion was made from actual field investigations. It is noted that surveys were done
for Michaux's sumac and no plants were found. The Service concurs with NCDOT's "No
Effect" determination for Michaux's sumac only. Note, however, that this concurrence
applies only to this species up to the date of this letter. Should additional information become
available relative to Michaux's sumac, additional surveys may be required. Survey
methodologies or other rationale for the remaining species should be forwarded to this office
for review and comment before the Service can concur with any "No Effect" determinations.
Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that the Secretary of
Transportation may not approve the use of land from any publicly owned park, recreational
area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or other designated area, purchased all, or in part, with
Federal funds unless a determination has been made that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of the land from the property; and, (2) the action includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to the property from such use.
This document does not contain a 4(1), declaration; however, our records indicate that no such
public lands will be impacted by this project. -
Summary
The Service considers that this FEA, except for the endangered species section, adequately
addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources, and waters and wetlands of the United
States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these resources. However, based
on the information provided, the Service cannot conclude that this project, implemented as
described, will not have significant impact on natural resources Linder our jurisdiction.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the project. Please advise us of any
changes in project plans and provide us with your response to any issues we have raised in this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom McCartney at
[phone], extension 32.
Sincerely,
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:05/16/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-291 Lea
a rSEAJZo?
Q Pw ??
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Mr. H.A. Tasaico
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Anal. Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1534 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Dear Mr. Tasaico:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
June 18, 2001
Re: SCH File # 01-E-4220-0679; Environmental Assessment Proposed Extension of Lake Valley
Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to Skibo Road (SR US 401 Bypass) in
Cumberland County; TIP 4U-2911
Tlie above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Attachments
cc: Region M
Sincerely,
"V.t? 6op-ex
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesT • 0
A44 A
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary NCDENR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGeeY
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 01-E-0679 EA for Lake Valley Drive Extension to US 401 Bypass
in Fayetteville, Cumberland County
DATE: June 15, 2001
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
Rr-r1:1VE-fl
JUN 1'8 2001'
rd.C. S TA FE CLcARICdGHCCy?
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 1 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMERPAPER
WATER QUALITY PLANNING Fax:[phone] Jun 12 '01 16:43 P.03i07
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources LT?
Division of Water Quality
iirl¦L aka
Michael F. Easley, Governor HCDENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
June 12.2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: ohn Dorne(?
From. John Hennessy
Subject Comments nn . e EA for the Lake Valley Drive Extension from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)
to US 401 Bypass (Skibo $oad) in Cumberland County, Federal Aid Project No.
MAST?-2685• (1), State Project No. 82443401, TIP Project No. U-2911, DENR Project
Number O1E-0679.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
far the issuance of the Section. 401 Water Quality Certification for acti•dties that impact Waters of the•U:S.,
including wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will restilt:
in impacts to a jurisdictional stream (UT to Beaver-Cteek Classification C). 'The DWQ offers the following
eommcnts based on review of the aforcutentioned dvGument:
.A) The document does not present an estimate of the proposed impacts to the one stream that will be
impacted by the proposed project. NCDOT is advised that future docutentation should identify
all the proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetBinds and streatns for the referenced project.
Additionally; a quantification of the proposed impacts should be listed in any future
documentation.
B) At this time, it is impossible for the DWQ to ascertain the nature or magnitude of the proposed
impacts. While the written description of the anticipated impacts seems relatively innocuous,
without appropriate mapping that displays the resources to be im()acted with the proposed project
superimposed, it is impossible to identify the proposed impacts. As a result, DWQ is reluctant to
concur with the proposed project until the requested information can be provided.
C) After rbe selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and Ininirnization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical..
Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required ror this
project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be
• rcyuiial iII accordancu with NCDWQ yv.,aand Ru1ex (15A rt!_'4!'. 2A.f1_SA6 fh)(211.
D) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Mules 115A NCAC 214.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitig?tion is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
1621 Mail Service Center, Aaleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Talephone 919.733-5083 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10 /e post-consumer paper
wr,icr; UUHl_iir rLHNINAb rdx:yly-715-5 37 jun 12 '01 16:43 P.OL107
Mr. Witham D. Gilmore memo
06112101
Page 2
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) Where streams must be crossod, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However,
we realize that economic considerations often require the us &- 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 creels, to the
maximum extent practicable.
P} Sediment and erosion control measires should not be placed in wetlands.
G) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
H) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwata should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwattr should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facilitylapparatus.
I} There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if Rot 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 Rater Quality Cerdficarion.
Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream
impacts with corresponding mapping.
K Based on the information presented in the document, it is not possible to accurately su ertain what
type*of permit from the Corps of Engineers or the corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification,
that may be needed. 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 authorl7mdon 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 Eagineem
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy
CAnedaNT1P U-29111commeats\ U-2911HA commenmAnc
4 State of North Caro;ina
- N
Reviewing Office: - ? ?'_Z L?
MCDEENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number:)/9-0 6 Due Date. 0 E? C
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this farm.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual. (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
Gl Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
(F1 Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement (90 days)
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Gl Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
60 days
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A (90 days)
L and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
20.0800
The Sedimentation. Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre. (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five 1 day
in coastal N.C..with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
Oil Refining Facilities 90 -120 days
N/A (N/A)
Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C.qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. 30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum (60 days)
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process lime
(StatutoryTime Limit)

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any

well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according 10 days

to DENR rules and regulations. (N/A)
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by lette?. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Cohstruction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15 - 20 days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
0 30 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs 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 (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
*
I 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
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N.C.28301 Raleigh, N.C.27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone] [phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
. NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jun 06101 11:06 No.001 P.03
_ North Carolina, Wcflife Resources Com inission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
)~ROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo for
Habitat Conservation Program ,
DATE: June 6, 2001
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for Lake Valley Drive Extension, from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)
to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) itl Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North
Carolina. TIP No. U-2911, SCH Project No. 01-E-0679.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
FA and are familiar with habitat values in the project are& The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NC:DOT proposes to extend Lakc Valley Drive on new location southward from Yadkin
Road to all existing multi-lane access road which intersects US 401 Bypass across from Cross
Creek Mall. NCDOT will construct a four-lane facility with a 16-foot raised median. The total
project length is approximately 0.6 miles. No impacts to jurisdictional streams are expected,
however wetland impacts are expected to total approximately 0.05 acres.
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. We concur with the selection of altemativc
the preferred alternativ4, NCDOT should minimize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands to the
maximum extent possible. In the Finding of No significant Impact, NCDOT should also commit
to using natural stream channel designs on all stream relocations and to use NC"DOT Best
Managenicttt practices. At this time, we concur with the EA for this project.
Mail iris Address: Uivisiotl of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service C;entcr - Raleigh, NC 17699-1711
Telephone: [phone] ext.2R1 9 Fax: [phone]
NCWV - HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL :[phone] Jun 06'01 1107 No. 001 P-.04
Memo
Than[c you for the opportunity to commot on this F.A. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at (919) 528-9$86.
cc: Tom McCartney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Saviee, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Department ofrnvir4nment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date Received: Date Response Due (fum deadline):
0 (V -7 0 ! ' ----& / / / / &/
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville )UVater ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville eff6roundwater ildlife meter Resources

eigh Land Quality Engineer -
-
En
--G
vironmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant f orest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem arks & Recreation ? Other
ater Quality
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED: /
3 -29 -01 .??f o/'
Date William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
31 ?oo
Y
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
r
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Ray . Lotfi
Project Development Engineer
J es A. McInnis, Jr., P. t.
Project Development Unit Head
?> V, P""?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
L_7
,?o?.??.CaRpt??q
4ESSI
y t 20701` •
.Q
??•.. A_ Mr?N_..•`'
3 49-01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i
0 1. Type of Action .................................................................................................... i
2. Permits Required ............................................................................................... .. i
3. Project Purpose/Description of Action ............................................................. .. i
4. Needs to be Addressed by Project ..................................................................... . ii
5. Environmental Effects ...................................................................................... . ii
6. Alternatives Considered .................................................................................... . ii
7. Coordination
..................................................................................................... "
iii
8. Additional Information
..................................................................................... "
iii
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ............................................................................................ iv
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................. ..1
A. Project Purpose .......................................................................................... ..I
B. General Description .................................................................................... .1
C. Cost Estimates ..............................................................................................1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT ...................................................................................................2
A. Description of Existing Facility .............................._..........................................2
1. Length of project .....................................................................................2
2. Speed Limit .............................................................................................2
3. Drainage Structures .................................................................................2
4. Utilities .................................................................................................. ..2
5. School Bus Data .................................................................................... ..2
6. Existing Roadway Network .................................................................. ..2
7. Railroad Involvement ............................................................................ ..3
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility ...................................................................... ..3
1. Accident Analysis ................................................................................. ..3
2. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .............................................................. ..3
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ............................................................................ ..4
1. Travel Time ........................................................................................... ..4
2. Capacity ................................................................................................ ..4
3. Safety .................................................................................................... ..4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................... ..5
A. Design Speed .................................................................................................... ..5
B. Speed Limit
...................................................................................................... 5
..
C. Typical Section ................................................................................................. ..5
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions ........................................................................ ..5
E. Median Crossovers ........................................................................................... ..5
F. Utilities ...............................................................................................................5
G. Drainage Structures ............................................................................................5
H. Right of Way ......................................................................................................5
1. Access Control .....................................................................................................6
J. Intersections .........................................................................................................6
K. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................6
L. Railroad Involvement .........................................................................................6
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............................................................................6
A. Typical Section Alternatives ..............................................................................6
B. Transportation System Management Alternative ...............................................6
C. "No-Build" Alternative ......................................................................................7
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................7
A. Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................7
1. Archaeological Resources .................................................................... ..7
2. Historic Architectural Resources ........................
B. Natural Resources ........ 7
.................................................................................... ..
1. NX ater Resources .... 8
............................................................................... ..
a V aters Impacted and Characteristics ........................................ ..8
h Ph% deal Characteristics of Surface Waters .............................. ..8
Nk ater QUA11% ....................................... 8
..................................... ..
d Summan of'Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............. ..9
2. Biotic Resources ................................................................................... ..9
a. 7 errestrial Communities ............................................................ ..9
b. Maintained/Disturbed ............................................................... ..9
c. Pine-Hardwood Forest .............................................................. 10
d. Lobolly Pine Plantation ............................................................ 10
e. Perennial Stream ....................................................................... 11
3. Wildlife ................................................................................................. 11
a. Terrestrial Fauna ....................................................................... 11
b. Aquatic Fauna ........................................................................... 12
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources .......................................:
......
12
a. Terrestrial Impacts ..................................................................... 12
b. Aquatic Impacts ........................................................................ 13
5. Waters of the United States ................................................................... 14
a. Characteristics of Surface Water Impacts ................................. 14
b. Permits .............................................. 14
........................................
c. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ....................................... 14
6. Rare and Protected Species ................................................................... 14
a. Federally-Protected Species ...................................................... 14
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............... 15
C. Social and Economic Environment .................................................................. 17
1. Relocation Impacts ................................................................................ 17
2. Social Impacts ....................................................................................... 17
a

I
i
D. Land Use Planning ...........................................................................................18
1. Existing Land Use/Zoning ....................................................................18
2. Future Land Use ....................................................................................18
3. Local Land Development Plan ..............................................................18
4. Farmland ...............................................................................................18
E. Traffic Noise Analysis ......................................................................................18
1. Noise Abatement Criteria .....................................................................19
2. Ambient Noise Levels ...........................................................................19
3. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ......................................19
4. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ..............................................................20
5. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ......................................................20
6. Construction Noise ................................................................................20
7. Summary ...............................................................................................21
F. Air Quality Analysis .........................................................................................21
1. CO Analysis ..........................................................................................21
2. Other Pollutants ....................................................................................22
G. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns ...........................................23
H. Landfills and Hazardous Material Involvement ...............................................23
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .....................23
A. Agency Coordination .......................................................................................23
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ....................................................................24
C. Public Hearing ..................................................................................................24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................... 4
Table 2 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .......................13
Table 3 - Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County .................15
Table 4 - Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County ................16

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 4A 2003/20023 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Not Built)
Figure 4B 2003/2023 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Build)
Figure 5 Proposed Intersection Configurations
Figure 6 Fayetteville Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 7 100-Year Floodplain Limits In Project Area
APPENDICES
Appendix A Agency Correspondence
Appendix B Noise Analysis Tables
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment (EA).
2. Permits Required
A Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) Permit is likely to be required for culvert
installation in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek.
This project will also require a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification
from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality prior to the issuance.of the
Nationwide Permit.
3. Project Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion along Yadkin Road and US 401
Bypass and provide a more direct route to the commercial area near the US 401
Bypass/Morganton Road intersection from residential areas along Yadkin Road in
northwest Fayetteville.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to extend Lake
Valley Drive on new location in the City of Fayetteville. The proposed Lake Valley Drive
Extension will extend southward on new location from Yadkin Road and tie-in to an
existing multi-lane access road, which intersects with US 401 Bypass across from the
entrance to Cross Creek Mall. The 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile) project involves construction
of a four-lane facility with a 4.8 meter (16-foot) raised grassed median and curb and
gutter from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). See Figure 3 for
typical section. The proposed right-of-way is 34 meters (110 feet) wide.
The total cost estimate included in the 2002-2008 Draft Transportation
Improvement Program for the project is $3,000,000, including $2,300,000 for
construction and $700,000 for right of way acquisition.
This project is included in the approved 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program. The current estimated cost of this project is $5,301,025 including
$1,701,025 for right-of-way acquisition and $3,600,000 for construction. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2002, and construction is
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2004.
-t-
4. Needs to be Addressed by Project
The existing roadway has the following deficiencies:
a. Without the proposed extension, access from Yadkin Road to Cross Creek
Mall and other area businesses will remain longer in distance, adding to travel
time and increase congestion.
b. Rate of fatal accidents on Yadkin Road are considerably higher than the
statewide average rate for similar facilities (see Section II-B-1).
c. Rear-end collisions make up the majority of the accidents occurring at the
Yadkin Road/Lake Valley Drive intersection. This will be considerably
improved by the new configuration at the proposed signalized intersection (see
Figure 5).
5. Environmental Effects
It is anticipated that no residences or businesses will be relocated by the proposed
project. The project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of
this area. In the immediate proiect vicinity, no homes or businesses will be impacted by
traffic noise. There arc no properties or archaeological sites eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places in the area of potential effect. Approximately 0.02 hectares
(0.05 acres) of low qualitN wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. Neither
High Quality Water (11Q\h' ). \h ater Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds, or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped %katersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters occur within
1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area. Impacts to terrestrial habitat include
1.69 hectares (4.17 Acres) of Pine-Hardwood Forest and 1.19 hectares (2.95 Acres) of
Loblolly Pine Plantation.
6. Alternatives Considered
Typical section alternatives, transportation system management and the "no-
build" alternative were considered. The construction of proposed Lake Valley Drive
Extension as a four-lane median divided facility was selected because it meets the
purpose and need of the project and has a lower cost and less environmental impact than
the other typical section alternatives examined. Transportation system management
alternatives and the "No-Build" alternative do not meet the purpose and need of the
project.
-ii-
7. Coordination
The following federal. state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Administration
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
8. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and statement can be obtained by
contacting the following:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone].
-iii-
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
Roadway Design Unit
1.5 meter (5 foot) sidewalks will be constructed along the west side of Lake
Valley Drive Extension from Yadkin Road (SR 1415) to approximately 168 meters
(550 feet) north of Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) intersection. In accordance with
NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, the sidewalks will be jointly funded by NCDOT and the City
of Fayetteville (NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville each will fund 50% of the sidewalks
on cost share basis).
4.2 meter (14 foot) outside lanes will be provided on both sides of Lake Valley
Drive Extension to allow motor vehicles and.bicyclists to share the facility.
Program Development Branch
A municipal agreement will be prepared regarding the City of Fayetteville's
participation in the cost of new sidewalks to be constructed as part of this project.
a

Environmental Assessment- U-291`1 Page 1 of 1
hdarch, 2001
-iv-
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion along Yadkin Road and US 401 Bypass and
provide a more direct route to the commercial area near the US 401 Bypass/Morganton Road
intersection from residential areas along Yadkin Road in northwest Fayetteville.
B. General Description
The North Carolina Department of "I ransportation proposes to extend Lake Valley Drive on
new location in the City of I- a%etteN i Ile. The 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile) project will construct a four-
lane divided facility with a 4.8 meter 0 0-foot) raised grassed median and curb and gutter from SR
1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 13,. pass ( Skibo Road). See Figure 1 for project area and Figure 3 for
typical cross section. The proposed right-of-way is 34 meters (110 feet) wide.
The proposed roadway will extend southward on new location from Yadkin Road and tie-in to
an existing multi-lane access road which intersects with US 401 Bypass across from the entrance to
Cross Creek Mall.
The project is included in the approved 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program. Right of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year 2002 and construction is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2004 in the draft
2002-2008 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program.
C. Cost Estimates
The current estimated costs for TIP Project U-2911 are as follows:
Construction $3,600,000
*Right of Way Acquisition $1,701,025
Total Cost $5,301,025
*A portion of the right of way required for the project may be donated by land owners.
The total estimated cost included in the 2002-2008 draft Transportation Improvement Program
for the project is $3,000,000, of which $2,300,000 is for construction and $700,000 is for right of way
acquisition.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
1. Length of project
The proposed project is approximately 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile) long.
2. Speed Limit
The speed limit on existing Lake Valley Drive is 40 km/h (25 MPH).
The speed limit on SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) is 65 km/h (40 MPH).
The speed limit on US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) is 70 km/h (45 MPH).
3. Drainage Structures
A 2 barrel 3.7 meter by 2.7 meter (12-foot by 9-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert is
located along SR 1415 (Yadkin Road), approximately 420 feet west of the intersection of Lake Valley
Drive and Yadkin Road.
4. Utilities
Overhead power lines, telephone lines, water lines and sewer lines are located along Yadkin
Road and existing Lake Valley Drive in the project area.
5. School Bus Data
Seven school buses each use Yadkin Road twice daily.
6. Existing Roadway Network
Currently, motorists wishing to access Cross Creek Mall and other businesses along Skibo
Road from the residential areas surrounding Yadkin Road must take Yadkin Road to Skibo Road and
then travel down Skibo Road.
The northern end of the project is the intersection of Lake Valley Drive and SR 1415 (Yadkin
Road). Lake Valley Drive is classified as a collector. Lake Valley Drive is a two-lane roadway with
curb and gutter. Lake Valley Drive provides access to Yadkin Road for a residential area. Yadkin
Road is classified as an urban minor arterial on the North Carolina Functional Classification System.
2
Yadkin Road is a five-lane, undivided roadway with curb and gutter. Yadkin Road provides
access to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), SR 1007 (All American Freeway) and points northwest of
Fayetteville.
The southern terminus of the project is US 401 Bypass (Skibo road). US 401 Bypass is a six
lane divided facility and is currently designated as a major thoroughfare on the mutually adopted
Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare plan and classified as an Urban Principal Arterial in the North
Carolina Functional Classification System. See Figure 6 for the Thoroughfare Plan.
An existing multi-lane access road intersects with US 401 Bypass across from the entrance to
Cross Creek Mall. This road provides access to US 401 Bypass for a shopping center. The road ends
at the back of the shopping center.
7. Railroad Involvement
The access road intersecting US 401 Bypass across from the entrance to Cross Creek Mall
crosses tracks owned by the Cape Fear Railroad. These tracks parallel US 401 Bypass to the west.
This railroad line has been inactive for over ten years.
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility .
1. Accident Analysis
An accident study was performed for the period from June 1, 1997 to July 31, 1999. A total
of 188 accidents were reported on SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) from US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) to SR
1528 (Cimarron Road) during this time period, resulting in a total collision rate of 607.15
accidents/per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. This rate is considerably above the average of
269.30 accidents/per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for similar facilities in North Carolina. Three
fatalities occurred along the studied section of Yadkin Road, resulting in a fatal crash rate of 6.46
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. The fatal crash rate for similar facilities in North Carolina
was 0.63 accidents per 100 million vehicles miles.
41 % of the total accidents were rear-end collisions. These types of accidents are more
likely to occur on more congested facilities.
2. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Approximately 7,800 vehicles per day are expected to use Lake Valley Drive
extension just south of Yadkin Road in the year 2003. Traffic volumes are projected to increase to
15,700 vehicles per day by the year 2023. Truck traffic is projected to be 4% of the total average
daily traffic. See Figures 4A and 4B for additional traffic information.
Capacity analyses were performed for the proposed project to determine the level of
service (LOS) at the following intersections shown in Table 1 below:
3
Table 1
Intersection Capacity Analysis
INTERSECTION EXISTING
CONDITIONS PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
Year 2003 Year 2023 Year 2003 Year 2023
Yadkin Rd./Lake Valley Dr. Ext N/A N/A B C
Yadkin Rd./McPherson& Skibo Rd. D E C D
AAF Loop A and Skibo Road B C A B
AAF Loop D and Skibo Road B B B B
Cross Creek Mall & Proposed Lake
Valley Extension C C C D
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
1. Travel Time
The proposed project will provide a more direct route for traffic traveling from northwest
Fayetteville to Cross Creek Mall and other businesses along US 401 Bypass and Morganton Road.
After the extension of Lake Valley Drive, traffic from Yadkin Road and surrounding area will have an
alternative route to reach desired destinations located to the south of the proposed project. This will
reduce travel time.
2. Ca aci
The proposed project is expected to reduce traffic congestion at the US 401 Bypass/McPherson
Church Road intersection and other intersections along US 401 Bypass (see Table 1). Figures 4A and
413 show traffic volumes for area roadways with and without the proposed Lake Valley Drive
Extension for the years 2003 and 2023.
Proposed exclusive left and right turn lanes at the intersection of Lake Valley Drive/Yadkin
Road will allow turning vehicles to move more freely, reducing congestion at this intersection (see
Figure 5).
3. Safe
Adding exclusive right and left turn lanes will reduce the existing high rate of rear-end
and side swipe collisions. The proposed project will provide a safer facility in the area.
The proposed median will enhance safety by separating opposing traffic streams and
limiting left turns onto the new roadway to median crossover locations.
4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph)
B. Speed Limit
A 45 mph speed limit is recommended.
C. Typical Section
Proposed travel lanes will be 3.6 meters (12 feet) wide for the inside lanes and 4.2 meters
(14 feet) for the outside lanes with a 4.8 meter (16 foot) raised median.
Curb and gutter and 3.0 meter (10 foot) berms will be provided. A 1.5 meter (5 foot)
sidewalk will be provided on the west side of the roadway (see Figure 3 for proposed typical
section).
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions will be required for the proposed project.
E. Median Crossovers
Locations of median crossovers will be determined during the design phase of the
project.
F. Utilities
Overhead power lines, telephone lines, water, sewer and gas mains are in the project
area. It is anticipated the project will have a low degree of utility conflict.
G. Drainage Structures
An existing 2 barrel 3.7 meter by 2.7 meter (12 feet by 9 feet) reinforced concrete box
Culvert for Beaver Creek is proposed to be extended. This culvert is located along SR 1415 (Yadkin
Road), approximately 128 meters (420 feet) west of the intersection of Lake Valley Drive and
Yadkin Road. The proposed roadway will cross an unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The
appropriate drainage structure to accommodate this stream will be determined during hydraulic
design for the project.
H. Right of Way
Approximately 34 meters (110 feet) of right of way will be acquired to accommodate
5
the proposed project. Additional right of way beyond 34 meters will be required at intersections and
temporary easements will be required where slopes extend beyond the proposed right of way. A
portion of this right of way may be donated to the project by land owners.
1. Access Control
There will be no control of access along the project.
J. Intersections
The intersection of SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)/Lake Valley Drive will be signalized,
and exclusive right and left turn lanes will be provided at this intersection (see Figure 5).
K. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
4.2 meter (14-foot) wide outside lanes will be provided to allow motor vehicles to
better share the facility with bicyclists. In accordance with NCDOT's pedestrian policy, NCDOT
will participate with the City of Fayetteville on a cost-share basis to provide a 1.5 meter (5-foot)
sidewalk along the west side of Lake Valley Drive extension. NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville
will each be responsible for 50% of the sidewalk cost. A municipal agreement regarding the
proposed sidewalks will be prepared prior to construction of the proposed project.
L. Railroad Involvement
Cape Fear Railroad tracks are located along the west side of US 401 Bypass just south
of the studied project area. This railroad line has been inactive for over ten years. Depending on the
condition of the existing crossing, it may need to be replaced. No additional signalization is
recommended at this location.
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Typical Section Alternatives
A four-lane median divided, a six-lane median divided and a five-lane undivided typical
section were all considered for the project. The four-lane median divided section was selected
because the proposed median will allow better access management and minimize the number of
conflict points along the proposed facility. Traffic projections for the project do not warrant
construction of a six-lane facility.
B. Transportation System Management Alternative
The transportation system management alternative includes traffic signal optimization or
improvements to existing roadways, such as turn lanes, in the vicinity of the proposed project. This
6
option would reduce congestion along US 401 Bypass but would not provide a more direct route to
the commercial area along US 401 Bypass and Morganton Road and therefore will not serve the
purpose and need of the project.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
This alternative would have a negative effect on the capacity and safety of surrounding
roadways. The "no-build" would not provide an alternative route for traffic currently directed to the
Skibo Road/McPherson Church Road intersection. By the year 2003, this intersection will operate at
LOS D and will deteriorate to LOS E in the year 2023.
The proposed extension will be a link between the residential area north of Yadkin
Road and the commercial areas near Cross Creek Mall. The "no-build" alternative would lead to
higher operating costs, longer travel times, and would not provide the safety benefits of the proposed
project. Therefore, the "no build" alternative has been rejected.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey of the project's area of potential effect was performed by,
NCDOT archaeologists. Two sites were identified within the project corridor. Neither site
was determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The
State Historic Preservation Office concurred with these findings in a letter dated August 2,
2000 (see Appendix A).
2. Historic Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined there are no historic
properties in the area of potential effect and notified NCDOT of this in a letter dated May 6,
1999 (see Appendix A). The project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
B. Natural Resources
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
Environmental Biologists on April 13, 2000. Water resources were identified and.their physical
characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also identified
and described. Vegetative communities were mapped. Wildlife identification involved using a variety
of observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active
searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
7
1. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along
with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project is located in the Cape Fear sub-basin 03-06-15, United States Dept.
of Interior Hydrologic Unit 03030004. This sub-basin is drained primarily by Rockfish
Creek and Little Rockfish Creek.
An unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek (UT BC 1) intersects the project area.
Beaver Creek lies within the project vicinity (DEM-index 18-31-24-5). Beaver Creek
is classified by the N. C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as Class C. Class C
represents freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life and
wildlife. Unnamed tributaries receive the same DWQ classification as the unnamed
tributary's receiving stream. Beaver Creek is located outside the right-of-way
boundary for this project by 98 meters (320 feet) or more and will not be impacted by
this project.
This unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek was found only during field
investigations and was not identified on USDA Soil mapping for Cumberland County
or USGS Topographic mapping for Cumberland County. No waters classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
b. Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
There is one surface water, UT BC 1, located within the project study area. UT
BC 1 width averages around 1.8 meters (6 feet) and is 0.3-0.6 meter (1-2 feet) in depth
and has apparently been altered. During the biologist's field visit in April, there was
no evidence of recent flow. The water was stagnant with a large amount of
filamentous algae present.
c. Water Oualily
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted point source
dischargers located in the project study area.
8
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to water resources
located outside the construction limits. These impacts may include the following:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Change in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow due to construction.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
and toxic spills.
Sedimentation control guidelines and Best Management Practices will be
impemented prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of the project to
minimize the potential impact to water resources.
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography,
hydrologic influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems
are presented in the context of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
likely to occur in each community are described and discussed. Fauna observed during field
investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities were identified in the project area:
Maintained/Disturbed, Pine-Hardwood Forest, Loblolly Pine Plantation, and Perennial
Stream communities. Community boundaries within the study area overlap. Faunal
species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter
and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
b. Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community can be found throughout the project
study corridor. Several habitats are included in this community: road shoulders and
residential/commercial landscapes.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding
communities by filtering storm water run-off. Vegetation occurring here includes
fescue, dandelion, horse nettle, dog fennel, golden rod, smooth sumac, beggar's tick,
elephant's ear, wood sorrel, clovers, chickory, violets, and buckhorn plantain. Areas
' receiving less frequent maintenance are occupied by broomsedge, poison ivy, saplings
of yellow poplar, blackberries, Japanese honeysuckle, other goldenrods, yarrow and
ragweed.
9
Vegetation associated with residential and business landscapes includes: flowering
Dogwood, Chinese dogwood, forsythia, azaleas, lilac, loblolly pine, Southern red oak,
and various ornamental hybrids of hollies, Chinese fir, arbor vitae and juniper. Fescue,
clover, plantains and crabgrass dominate lawn areas.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, such
that both are required for survival and reproduction.
c. Pine-Hardwood Forest
The Pine-Hardwood community can be found throughout most of the project
area and is adjacent to the Perennial Stream, Loblolly Pine Plantation, and Maintained/
Disturbed communities. This community has a canopy dominated by loblolly pine,
sweetgum, water oak, and an occasional white oak and southern red oak. The
understory contains red maple, magnolia, horse sugar, sassafras , mockemut hickory,
American holly, persimmon and flowering dogwood. The vine layer is dominated by
Virginia creeper, muscadine grape, greenbrier, bona-nox, cat brier, wisteria, yellow
jasmine and Japanese honeysuckle. The herbaceous layer contains spotted wintergreen,
blackberry, partridge berry, and bracken fern.
d. Loblolh Pine Plantation
This mature communit% is found throughout the project area along
Higher elevations in %%ell-drained, sandy soils. This community is adjacent to the
Perennial Stream. fine-hardwood Forest, and Maintained/Disturbed communities.
Most of this communit% type throughout the project area is approximately 40 years
old; however, a portion of the loblolly pine plantation community found in the
southern region of the project area has been recently harvested (March 2000).
This community is dominated by a canopy cover of loblolly pine. Because of
the thick cover of pine straw the only visible ground species are spotted wintergreen,
blueberry, huckleberry, and partridge berry. The vine layer consists of Japanese
honeysuckle, yellow jasmine, muscadine grape, and poison ivy. The subcanopy and
herbaceous layer in this community is sparse and may include: wax myrtle, magnolia,
horse sugar, black gum, flowering dogwood, American holly, persimmon, and young
loblolly pine saplings.
The harvested area will be invaded by early successional species. Previously,
this community was predominantly made up of loblolly pine. An abundance of
loblolly pine saplings will emerge. Other species that will invade this community may
include: broomsedge, bedstraw, dog fennel, blackberry, blueberry, sweet gum, cat
briar, and poison ivy.
10
e. Perennial Stream
There is one perennial stream within the project area, an unnamed tributary to
Beaver Creek. The perennial stream community is adjacent to the pine-hardwood
forest community on both sides of the stream. The unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek
intersects the southern half of the project alignment and has a small drainage area. The
vegetation found along the stream banks is diverse.
Vegetation found along the stream bank and within the adjacent wetland may
include: river birch, red maple, Chinese privet, tag alder, elderberry, giant cane, dog
fennel, tearthumb, titi, southern lady fern, netted chain-fern, cinnamon fern, Virginia
chainfern, viburnums, Joe-pye-weed, false nettle, and orange-spotted jewelweed.
3. Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit all biotic
communities discussed. The maintained/disturbed community dominates the project area.
Forested tracts and drainage ways provide habitat for species requiring a forest community,
and also provide shelter and movement corridors for other species of wildlife within the
project vicinity. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Fauna
Due to the disturbed nature of all of the habitats in the project area' the faunal
component is expected to consist mostly of opportunistic animals able to adapt to the
"edge" habitat created by human activites. Conversely, species which require large
undisturbed forested habitats are likely to be absent from the project area.
Herbivorous mammals, such as white-tailed deer and eastern cottontail rabbit,
frequent the vegetatively diverse "edges" of disturbed areas and community borders.
Primarily bird species such as downy woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker,
yellow-bellied sapsucker, ruby-crowned kinglet, golden-crowned kinglet, brown
creeper, blue-gray gnatcatcher*, yellow-rumped warbler, white-breasted nuthatch,
tufted titmouse*, red-eyed vireo*, pine warbler* and gray catbird, utilize the canopy.
However, gray squirrel, raccoon, Virginia opossum, grey treefrog, and eastern fence
lizard also utilize this stratum.
Many of the ground-dwelling species, including worm snake, southeastern
crowned snake, southeastern shrew, and woodland vole are fossorial (living in
burrows). Other species occupying the forest floor include the ground nesting
ovenbird, American toad*, ground skink and eastern box turtle*. Earthworms, insects
and other invertebrates constitute the majority of these species' diets.
Top predators expected to occur here include various hawks, gray fox, and
copperhead. These species are important in maintaining populations of rodents, small
11
birds and other small animals. Because of the open, relatively non-stratified nature of
maintained/disturbed communities such as the roadside habitats, resident vertebrate
fauna are generally small in size. Small mammals such as least shrew, white-footed
mouse, and house mouse are able to utilize the limited amount of vegetative cover of
crop fields and pastures. The burrowing eastern mole is common in open areas
bordering forested tracts. These small mammals are important prey items for black rat
snake*, red fox, red-tailed hawk* and other birds of prey.
Faunal community complexity is a function of vegetative community
complexity. Few animals reside along roadsides because of the limited size and
complexity of the habitat. Various species of birds feed along roadsides on seeds,
berries and insects. Some of these species include the northern cardinal*, American
robin* and white-throated sparrow. Snakes such as the black racer* and eastern garter
snake may venture into this habitat to feed on insects and small mammals.
Virginia opossum and raccoon* frequently forage nocturnally in these habitats,
or travel along roadways between habitats. These animals are often road kill victims.
Consequently road kills attract a large number of scavenger species including turkey
vulture*, common crow*, domestic dogs and cats.
b. Aquatic Fauna
Species abundance and diversity within a stream are dependent on the size and
water quality of the water body. This first order stream within the project area is
generally too small to support a rich diversity of ichthyofauna, or large individuals of
representative species. These streams are likely to support smaller individuals of the
larger species such as fry and young of the year fish, as well as those species that are
generally small (in size).
The project area's surface water can be expected to provide habitat for a limited
number of aquatic organisms. Ichthyofauna are absent, however, several aquatic
insects that may be found in this community include: water strider, riffle beetle, crane
fly, stream mayfly and black-winged damselfly. The bullfrog, pickerel frog, queen
snake, and northern water snake may occupy this community also.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community (Table 2). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
proposed right of way width and temporary easements. Project construction does not
usually require the entire impact width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
12
Table 2
Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community Impacted Area
Hectares(Acres)
Pine-Hardwood Forest 1.69(4.17)
Loblolly Pine Plantation 1.19(2.95)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.35(0.87)
TOTAL 3.23(7.99)
The biotic communities found within the project study area will be altered as a
result of project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and
shelter habitat for fauna. The majority of the project study area is located in disturbed
habitat. Most of the project study area is located on new location. This results in
increased impacts to forested communities (specifically the pine/hardwood forest
community). The construction of this will result in habitat loss and habitat
fragmentation. Many vertebrates as well as insects and plants have restrictive habitat
requirements; the resulting landscape disturbance may affect the long-term viability of
these species once their habitats are fragmented. The size of fragmented habitat areas
is always relative to the species of concern; however, fragmented areas more than
likely will disrupt continuity between populations of some animal and plant
communities. Fragmentation of large gene pools could affect the ability of some plant
and animal populations to persist under harsh environmental conditions. Species
adapted to disturbed and edge habitat will thrive, while species that require larger
tracts will decrease or disappear due to competition or habitat reduction.
Clearing and conversion of forested tracts for roadway development eliminates
nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for faunal organisms. Many forested systems
offer all of the necessary components (i.e. food, water, cover) to support vertebrate
species. The loss of this habitat will displace animals from this area as they search for
additional habitat.
b. Aquatic Impacts
Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to
aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the
burial of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic
substances and decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased
sediment load.
13
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to
construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding mechanisms of
benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified
throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher trophic
levels.
5. Waters of the United States
Any action that proposes to place fill material into "Waters of The United States", falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
There is one low quality wetland located within the project area. This small wetland
area (-0.05 acre) can be found along each side of the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek, UT
BC 1. This wetland area will be affected by project construction.
a. Characteristics of Surface Water Impacts
The jurisdictional surface water found within the project area is the unnamed
tributary to Beaver Creek and will likely be impacted. Impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that is located
within the proposed right of way.
b. Permits
A Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) Permit is likely to be applicable for
culvert installation in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
c. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Current projected project impacts will not exceed the above-mentioned wetland
and linear stream thresholds for compensatory mitigation. Therefore, compensatory
mitigation is not anticipated for construction of this project. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
6. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of Feruary 26, 2001, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists eight
federally protected species for Cumberland County.
14
Table 3
Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha milchellii francisci E
small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
• "T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance is species that are threatened
due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed for the rare
species' protection. T (S/A) are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
• "E"-Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of their range.
• "T"-Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the near future
• Throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
No suitable habitat exists in the project area for the American Alligator, the Red-
Cockaded V oodpecl,cr. Saint Francis' satyr, Small-Whorled Pogonia, Pondberry,
Rough-leaved ltwoNcNtritc and :'American chasffseed. However, suitable habitat does
exist in the proic:t area fur Michaux's sumac. A plant by plant survey for Michaux's
sumac was conducted b) NC DOT biologist on June 29, 2000. No specimens were
found. A rex•ie%% of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats did not contain records of any of these federally-protected
species.
The proposed project will have "no effect" on any federally-protected species.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the
ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR), or Special Concern (SC) on
the Natural Heritage Program list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to
state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Twenty-Seven FSC are listed for Cumberland County. Table 4 lists Federal
Candidate and State listed species, the species state status (if afforded state protection)
and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area.
15
Table 4
Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Sc NO
Heterodon simus Southern hognose
snake SR/PSC * YES
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC** YES
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC/PT NO
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE NO
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T/PE NO
Amorpha georgiana
var. georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E YES
Astragalus michauxii sandhills milkvetch T NO
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC NO
Kalmia cuneata white wicky E-SC NO
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T NO
Lindera subcoriacea bog spieebush E NO
Litsea aestivalu Pondspice C NO
Lobelia bo? king Bovkin's lobelia C NO
Myriophyllum lax um loose watermilfoil T NO
Oxypolis ternata savanna cowbane W1 NO
Parnassia carolinianu Carolina grass-of-
parnassus E NO
Parthenium radlordii wavyleaf wild quinine W1 YES
Potamogeton
confervoides Conferva pondweed C NO
Pteroglossaspis ecristata spiked medusa E YES
Pyxidanthera barbulata
var. brevistyla Sandhills pyxie-moss E NO
Rhexia aristosa awned meadowbeauty T NO
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E NO
Solidago verna spring-flowering
goldenrod T YES
Stylisma pickeringii var.
pickeringii Pickering's dawnflower E NO
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C NO
Xyris scabrifolia roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass C NO
• "E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
• "T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be
taken or collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of

16
Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold
of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
• "C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare
throughout its range in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the
country or the world.
• "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is
generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North
Carolina.
• "W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North
Carolina is relatively well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this
time.
• "/P"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing
process.
• *-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years
ago.
• ** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Surveys for FSC species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats shows
no occurrences of rare species in the project study area.
C. Social and Economic Environment
1. Relocation Impacts
The construction of Lake Valley Drive will not require the relocation of any residences
or businesses.
2. Social Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the community. Positive impacts
include: Reduced congestion, improved mobility and traffic safety in the area, improved travel
time and convenience. The project will provide an alternative route to Cross Creek Mall and
area businesses.
The proposed construction of Lake Valley Drive Extension will not disrupt community
cohesion, interfere with accessibility to facilities or services, and will not displace any
residences and businesses.
17
D. Land Use Planning
1. Existing Land Use/Zoning
Land use around the northern terminus of the project at the Yadkin Road/Lake Valley
Drive intersection consists of residential use and scattered businesses. The southern terminus
of the project ends at an existing road for a retail center and Cross Creek Mall, and will tie into
Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass).
The land use within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project is mostly wooded
and primarily vacant land.
2. Future Land Use
The Fayetteville 2010 Land Use Plan has projected that the wooded vacant land
surrounding the proposed project will be developed for commercial, retail and office use.
3. Local Land Development Plan
The proposed project is compatible with the Fayetteville 2010 land use plan and local
zoning. Most of the land in the immediate project area is zoned for commercial and residential
uses.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
and important farmland soils.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS). Land which is planned or zoned for urban development is not
subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
The proposed project is located in an urban area, zoned for commercial and residential
development. The project will not disturb or disrupt any farming operations. No further
consideration of impacts to farmland soil is needed.
E. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect on noise levels in the immediate
project area. This investigation included an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field
survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also included a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be
18
expected to result 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.
1. Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine whether highway noise levels are 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. A summary of the noise
abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2 (Appendix B) 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.
2. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise levels were taken in the immediate vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels for the identified receptors. The purpose of this noise
level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noose level increases. The existing background Leq noise level ranged
from 52.8 to 59.1 dBA. I sing this information, ambient noise levels were determined for all
receptors in the vicirioN cif the project.
3. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
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 roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade.
Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model, 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.
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 2025. 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.
19
The Leq traffic noise exposures for this project are listed in Table N3 (Appendix B).
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.
4. 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. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category.
The number of receptors in each activity category for each section and alternative
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N4 (see Appendix B).
These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise
levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, no receptors are predicted to be impacted by highway
traffic noise. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are less than
15.5 meters (51 feet) and 20.3 meters (66.7 feet), respectively, from the center of the proposed
roadway. Contour information in Table N4 is shown by alternative and section. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. 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.
The exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by the alternative
and roadway section are shown on Table N5 in Appendix B. No receptors are predicted to
experience a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. The predicted noise level increases
for this project range from +1 to +9 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.
5. 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. For this
project, no traffic noise impacts were anticipated, therefore no traffic noise abatement is
required.
6. 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
20
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.
7. Summar2,
Based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise impacts are anticipated to occur
because of this project, and no noise abatement measures are required. 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.
F. Air Ouali!y Analysis
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate
matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), 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
herein is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to
traffic flow.
1. CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, 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
107 meters (350 feet) 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."
Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a
level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily
traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2005,
2010 and 2025, using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", the MOBILE5A
mobile source emissions computer model.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For
Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO
concentration near sensitive receptors.
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
(DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an
ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
21
. The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located 33 meters (74 feet) northwest
of the Lake Valley Drive/SR 1415 intersection. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for
the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010 and 2025 are 7, 7.6, and 8.6 ppm, respectively. Comparison
of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-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 for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be
concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
2. Other Pollutants
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 may be offset by the
increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than two 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 exceed the NAAQS.
The photochemical reactions. that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason. the peak levels of ozone generally occur 3.7 to 7.4 Kilometers
(2.3 to 4.6 miles) 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 that forms in Los Angeles, California.
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 burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to
reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air
quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are
necessary. The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 are not
i
22
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.
G. Floodnlain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
Cumberland County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. Figure 7 shows the limits of the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Since there are no major streams affected by the project, there will be no significant floodplain
involvement. The project is not within a water supply watershed protected area or high quality water
area.
Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures. Existing drainage patterns and
groundwater resources will not be affected by the proposed project.
H. Landfills and Hazardous Material Involvement
A field reconnaissance survey and public record search revealed no regulated UST facilities,
hazardous material sites or landfills in the project corridor.
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Agency Coordination
The proposed project has been coordinated with local, state, and federal agencies.
Comments were requested from the agencies and municipalities listed below. Agencies which
commented on the project are marked with an asterisk (Agencies' written responses are included in
Appendix B).
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources
*N.C. Department of Administration
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
23
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on March 7, 2000 to inform citizens of the
proposed project and solicit comments and suggestions. This workshop was advertised in local news
media and flyers were sent to area residences. The majority of citizens supported the project.
Questions regarding-the project's impact to properties and questions regarding right of way
acquisition were addressed at the workshop. Several citizens expressed concerns over the safety of
turning lanes at Yadkin Road/Lake Valley Drive intersection and complained about the narrow lanes
along Yadkin Road. Other comments included the community's desire for sidewalks, lighting, water
and sewer lines along the project.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held to solicit public comments on this project prior to acquisition of
right of way.
24
FIGURES
r r
r r
r r r
r r r
r'
r r
/ r
+r r
r +
r +
r r r +++
/ r +
r /
r
At
0 0
/
r r
r
•
7
.?3
P
I< a a o_ P c, "ooh - w ktl " S R?
LAR .07 G.. -U' ,`1 O: S fO 263 (S$ J 4 j s_?
, to
T39 ° O-12T1 o5 2
o?
1.13 o OS `,? 1 e .JJ Pis 63
31
? `2720: 2e37 Oh . n? 7:?{'
12
I=
ow-
. 73
y 227
/N 106
3
rwa
n
v
2617 p
SS
c
3197
r
1_2
v
A
] 24
T
01 •Q
Ilk
'??'' 3- ay itDs
END t ADS
PROJECT = 4?Np ?S
s S
CROSS r55
CREEK 4.
PLAZA CROSS
.p
y CREEK
?•• ° HALL ,007
n 1 a0a
';•? 1Li 7679
i
t
0.
!? ???• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?• TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGH%%A) S
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
"i• P?" AND EN IRONME.VTAL.\NALlSIS BRANCH
??os?rxS%
VICINITY MAP
FAVETTEVILLE
SR 2685 (LAKE VALLEY DR.) EXTENSION
FROM SR 1415 (YADKIN RD.) TO US 401 BYPASS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-2911
Figure 1

•
N
h
U
h
O
^a
N
H
c
TWw
U ?
0
O
rA?
?I--I
?I
a?
0
M
N
^?I
?I
c

u
W
F

Y W
?
U
E
0 w

M 0
^' ?
?
C f
V
E ?
N ?
E ?
?O N
M -
E
00
E y
M
it
N ?
E.
O ?
M

------ 64

a
U
W
F
U
O
? U
o ?o
l? N
Cn
U
ri
O F
W ?
Coll U
Z U ?
..7 0.1 ?
W W ?
Q A c
W ? o
A U N
M
w
LAKE VALLEY DRIVE
EXTENSION 2003/2023 ADT NOT BUILD
TIP PROJECT U-2911
?a
40" `~
b
V
,
/ 1700
1 2??
(
LEGEND
XXX - ADT (VYD)
DHV -DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME?
D - DIRECTIONAL FLOW (r)
K30 - 3Wt HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
AS (S ) OF ADT
?• - DIRECTIONAL OF D
(X.X) -DUAL TRUCKS, TTST.(i )
AM - AM PEAK
PM -PM. PEAK
PM
DHV-rD
(X,X)
T-.k.
Q
9 pol ?4?.
f Se ° ?q0
S
05-
8
Rt
AO
CROSS
CREEK
(P?A
d
l
e+? ?'° 8000
/ ?~ 11900
CROSS
CREEK
PLAZA
\ PLAZ t
r6?
CROSS
Y? B CREEK
4Q MAILL
4,, e

FIGURE 4A
LAKE VALLEY DRIVE
EXTENSION 2003/2023 ADT BUILD
TIP PROJECT U-2911

y0
9700
ti
0
CROSS
CREEK
PLAZA
N
/a
o
b
Y._
'voo
3e o ?0
s?o0 °o
8? / / 6yoDo ? )300 9?
e. j 23
w CROSS
CREEK
a PLAZ
O
\\ )o ??^ 100
.LEGEND
XXX ADT (VYD)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUMES
D - DIRECTIONAL FLOW (Z)
K30 3M HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME .
AS (Z ) OF ADT
-? DIRECTIONAL OF D
(X,X) -DUAL TRUCKS, MT. (Z )
AM AM PEAK
PM PM PEAK
PM
DHV- D
(X,X)
T-k.
Q
Atie°?o
y* ?
\ 6 1i
0 80
4/r0 960
8p
CIS ?1
yq ry*op 33 Do
d\Op
s
?1\O
s?\o???ooo
o
d6 .(
Sr00 0 r99r00
O ?O
A,y?ob0o so .off
CROSS
r? B CREEK
MAILL
Q`' p1?0
RA
FIGURE 4B

0
r,am Q
O
VN
Z?
.V
?W
V0
W
cca
Wa
Z ~
O
?LU
O
O
r
Z
o,
W ?
Wy
NQ
O?
QQ
V
?tz
a oc
U
ZZ
C
W -
?W
WJ
`L
11
11
J V
Qy
?O
?C V
V?
Q
J
0

Z

W F-
me--

(SSVdA9 IOV Sn) OVOU 06INS
GVOH NlMaVA
I
I I
1
l??l?lL

I
I
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
adOll NIVGVA
(SSddA9 cob sn) avoy 08/HS
I
,
I ,
!ll '
0
z
W
O

U
z
W
r
cJ
C
W
OWC
U
H
ODC
U
LF)
W
cc

>F
loss
_? ??. _ i r j poop ? ? l? ?? ./ +'_ ? ? ? - ? , .? ?. ? ?, ? ?* ? ?i? \` ? '•;;. p??
-IN
, •? - % , 5 t .. y ? J ? - ? ?3 " 0 k ?•? ? 1: 6t's.? ?7 ? It ? ? r ,.yr"'? ` : .ts
1 - ,l (1 5 • ? ?• s •
'' N 1 ?..' : hi •O/ 1: 1 ? Y s „M-..X? , {{[[ 11NiJ ? X T? •,`?iC-? :? }? P'• y ?(? ` ?,??+ ?-
1 ?,? r` G ? ? ._.. ?.. X - ^• ?, •• - _- C i il,.. ..•;:• ? 7 ? ? 1 ?t? ? z pY? r - .?
Its
E e
\rr
X
1
•- •?• ??s , 7i,' ; •?-`-J? .,' S"•xy' i ((??.y]yiy y` `?"'w - +9? 3 ?I C
XX ? S ;i
• I`? a'? K ??' it yby ? '- "' _ - k ``. - <
PIE
.. ?• ???' ? ? ? ...... -• ?' _ ? ,? ; ,w? ? alp ?
y
i+

13
.
!, r o Z I` t +
i
;,,. • C J ' l
,{ z Cy 0
yy z ' _.l
F
°?

\ __...... , ,,
\
_ Xi-'-•
??
-?? _ ••?r:??? ice
_
._. ____..
_ , ,
y -?
Cll
a N
of ? ?
n
L,
w w
9 ?
t ; ? g
? 3 m
m
?y
i m ,P ? E a
N
-IT[
????•
• ?1*• ePwt+i,1 " JE'WE3?? .LJISpO 1- ` 'l ,_ ?, ••
RM SE-28A
•185 , .
• „• ?% - jo-nnie Dq Mlssio?a ??•
:? ?•(`
.Danl ZONE B l' =/? - s _7
•"•' ,// ??' ZONE 8 '?• /_? • (?. i _- •
?• r RM 8E 28 •?r
• '. ,• •op0 ZONE B ?????•• .::,
••• P • 1 78 • • ° .11• • .1t
• •'• •• ZONEA6 ` Qom"
• 2 ZONE '
• 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMITS ?? o C
\•il •• •.' •'• • R'VE • • '• ?/ 'J Drive-in j
'F9 ••• ; ?' • ?, .? Theater::
.0 TAMP-S .•' 9 ZONE*B
177
234 DAM PROJECT BEGIN \
• •C9? • • •.?!• 174 ?i• .\ //
R BE-25
Y N • o
\•• °R'?E ZONE B ,s;/ O• /
.? 171
IvE I ?- •
c
ZONE B j0
00
I I
RM BE•21 ' • • ' f
' /? PROJECT END
=;\ , " ?• City of Fayetteville
I
• _ - II 0 ZONE C II? AREA NOT INC
II LUDED „o.•
? .
o
I) o
,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
• ?? (? TRANSPORTATION
DI VISION OFHIGH AVS

l•?? " N1\ _ R
??T
Y
?? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
AND ENVI11ONMENTALANALYSI3 BRANCH
G.T,A,
'
I ?l 11, J
1 Cam G r o u t d FAYETTEVILLE
(
^V/ / A 2685 (LAKE VALLEY DR.) EXTENSION
TO US 401 BYPASS
RO
D
Q ,
I
? A
)
FROM SR 1415 (YADKIN
UMBERLAND COUNTY
I
• C
• / t" C
. - - - _ ' , I
`
• • •?
?` TIP PROIECT U-2911
`
,
..
,? FIG.I

APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 18, 2000

Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to your letter of August 18, 1999, requesting preliminary
comments on "Extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415)
to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County, State Project 8.2443401 Federal
Aid Project MASTP-2685(1), T.I.P. Project U-2911" (Regulatory Division Action ID
No. 200000537).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
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,
W. of an Long
Ch ef, Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosure
January 18, 2000
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON: r
"Extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to Skibo Road
(US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County, State Project 8.2443401, Federal Aid Project
MASTP-2685(1), T.I.P. Project U-2911" (Regulatory Division Action ID No. 200000537)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section at
[phone]
Based on a review of the site map enclosed with your request for comments and
Panel 115 of the February 1982 Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the
proposed project appears close to the flood plain of Beaver Creek near its intersection
with Yadkin Road. This is a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. As shown on the site map and also compared with
the pertinent United States Geological Survey topographic map ("Fayetteville, N.C."), it
appears likely that the proposed roadway alignment would avoid this flood plain.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Dave Timpy Wilmington Field Office
Regulatory Division at [phone]
Based on information provided in the letter request for comments and on a review
of the soil survey for Cumberland County by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the proposed project may impact jurisdictional wetlands due to the close
proximity to Beaver Creek. Based on the information provided, it is not likely that the
proposed project will cross any streams. However, more information is needed on the
extent and location and community type of all the impacted wetlands before an
environmental assessment can be made.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean 1A./atcr Act of 1977, as amended, will be required fnr Onn dfcrharne of rircrlncrl n
fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with
this project, including disposal of construction debris. Pursuant to 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, our Regulatory Division would
appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for project-specific determinations of DA
permit requirements.
J
If you have any questions related to DA permits, they should be addressed to
Mr. Timpy.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
September 21, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
O?
M v lG'
Thank you for your letter of August 18, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to Skibo
Road (US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2911). This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes a four-lane divided
facility with a 16-foot grassed median on new location from SR 1415 to the US 401 Bypass.
The project is 0.6 mile in length.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and 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 are provided.to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we 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 region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic 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 techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Fayetteville 7.5 Minute Quadrangle does not
show any wetland resources at the project site. However, while the NWI maps are useful for
providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed
wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination
occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize
delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
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 with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3• A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that 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, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 COMS of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
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;
2
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, 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 Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Cum berlan d 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 listed species should be.performed. Environmental documentation should include survey
methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should be
included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
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 any onsite inspections;
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 impacts area;
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;
3
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 measure 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.
FSC's include those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but
further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these
taxa. Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the
NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve
them if found. 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
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr.
Tom McCartney of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
F" vwi .
0M. He?
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
4
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (Dave Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCWRC, Creedmore, NC (David Cox)
USEPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartnev:TM:09/20/99:919/556-420 extension 32:\u-291 l.tip
a ,,, SwF ??
Y ?r
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
September 2, 1999

Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Anal. Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

SF.?
r i 1999
•F .i, 7
TF1/_Y
%+?11AMY
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR
1415) to Skibo Road (SR US 401 Bypass) in Cumberland County; TIP 9U-2911
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 00-E-4220-0119 Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 11/10/1999. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
A-
V
(:?? /?? _;;?Z7-
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street * Raleiah, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An 6yual Opportunity/Affirmative Action C•ntploNer
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salishurv Street, Raleigh, North Caroline Z7604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melha McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co r
Habitat Conservation Progr _
DATE: October 8, 1999
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the SR 2685 (Lake
Valley Drive) extension, from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US
401 Bypass), Cumberland County, North Carolina. TIP No. 11-2911, SCH
Project No. 00-E-0119.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilinore of the
NCDOT fi)r our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, 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:. 661-6674).
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation mid the review
process, our general informational needs are outlined below:
I . 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
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699 - 1615
[phone]
Memo 2 October 8, 1999
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need liar
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type neaps 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 identifcMon-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 turd
criteria listed.
4. Cover type neaps 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
dcgradatior, in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulutive 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.he
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 contact me at [phone].
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
n
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality A*A
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary NCDE
Kerr T. Stevens, Director NR
October 1, 1999
N11LN1 n RA NDt1M
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne}
From: John E.IIennessy
Subject: Scopine comments on proposed extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive
(SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US ;01 Bypass) in Cumberland Courity, Federal Aid Project No.
MASTP-2685 Strte P-Ject No. 8 .2443401, TIP U-2911, DENR No. 0013-0119.
Rclcrcncc your correspon.'.,,_c dstej Au=ust IS. 1999 in which you requested comments fur widening
project TIP U-2911. Pr !: rn' ury ar ,;t s,s of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
Perennial streams and jurad z%o a: in the project area. Further investigations at a higher
resolution should be ttndc,Ltk.r: 6; •etth iht: pte,ence of other screams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the
area. In the event that any Jurud,c;,ona1 areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that
NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to sec a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Lcvel-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for The project. 'T'herefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Servicc as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Sdsvicc should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mida tion plains for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
r_ 2
it is preferable to present a conceptual
(if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
docurnentation. 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 prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals 111,11, no Outslanding Resource Waters, Watcr Supply Water, High
I* Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulation entitled "Design
' Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
1621 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 100% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/01/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on [fie existing: location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ .
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 ('t'emporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installcd at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as IIQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installcd
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather Than
flowing directly into the stream.
C3. if applicable, DOT should not install the bride bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H• Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion contt•ol
structuresimcasures) to the maximum extent practical. if this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to so-eams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands arc impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and ocher aquatic organisms passage through die
crossing.
II. If foundation rest borings arc necessary; it should be noted in the document. C;cotc:chnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with die NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for iutpacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes 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 availahle for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office, tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.

Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/01/99
Pugs 3
Thank you for requesting our input ar this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Cettifteation requires rlhat appropriate measures be instituted to ensure rhat water quality standards are met
and designated use.s arc not degraded or lost. Jf you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engincers
Tom McCartney, U$FWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Fics
(::\ucdot\TIP U-2911\c0mmcnts\U-291 l souping coin nicnts2.doc

State of North Carolina
'Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office: c1"?yv r:•e,G? *? /? O
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: COF_ - 40 11,5 Due Date: 10- 9- 517
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR 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 Regional Off-ice.
Normal Process Time

(statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer system contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters. (90 days)
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
discharging into state surface waters. treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
plats or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
D Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820. • (90 days)

O Complex Source Permit requited under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days
Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first arse and S2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit . ` On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater 30 days
titan one acre must be pernitted The appropriate bond must be receivea (60 days)
before the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned"
O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A (60 days)
minimum fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.

No? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
V
? 4,
o .
'7999 r:
U= aCFj? IV
Pd,
MEMORANDUM ?lI/ nl n S
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee t
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: OOE-0119 Scoping Lake Valley Drive Extension,
Cumberland County
DATE: October 26, 1999
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.ENR.STATE.NC.Us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
aaoYSTAT(,y
s
®QYMVP??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 6, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook rj
Deputy State 141storic Preservation ?fficr
SUBJECT: Fayetteville, extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR
2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to Skibo
Road (US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County,
State Project 8.2443401, Federal Aid Project
MASTP-2685(1), TIP U-2911, ER 99-8712
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 1999, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have checked our maps and files and have determined there are no historic structures in
the project's area of potential effect.
We recommend that an archaeological survey should be conducted of new right-of-way
inasmuch as prehistoric and historic sites are likely to exist in the area.
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: Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 IW
SrA
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Jeffrev J. Crow, Director
October 5, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tr tion
FROM: David Brook ?/ ?,
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: SR 2685 from SR 1415 to US 401 Bypass, U-2911,
Cumberland County, ER 99-8712, CH 00-E-4200-0119
Attached is a copy of our May 6, 1999, comments concerning this project. We recommend an
archaeological survey be conducted within new right-of-way inasmuch as prehistoric and historic
sites are likely to exist in this area. Existing right-of-way and substantially developed properties
do not require additional investigation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified
at 36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comments, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
DB:lbd
cc: Clearing House

109 East Jones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
STATE,,
.. i
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
F
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrev J. Crow, Director
August 2, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: David Brook p?c
Deputy State Histottc Preservation Officer
RE: SR 2685, (Lake Valley Drive) Extension from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)
to I'.S. 401 Bypass, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, ER 99-8712,
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-2685(1), TIP No. U-2911
Thank you for the letter of June 10, 2000, transmitting the "Archaeological Survey Report" by Brian
P. Overton.
This well-written report clearly describes the field methods and total number of shovel tests
excavated during the survey. Two small archeological sites, 31 CD841 and 31 CD842, were
discovered and evalua:c--d. Both site descriptions include well-executed maps that illustrate the site
boundaries. Photographs clearly illustrate the stratigraphy at 31CD842. Soils in the project area
and the sites are described clearly along with Munsell color chart numbers. The report concludes
that neither site is eligible for the National Register. We concur.
We also acknowledge receipt of the two official archaeological site forms with detailed information
on the fieldwork conducted.
We recommend that -lo additional archeological work be conducted for the subject project. This
concludes the Section -06 consultation regarding archeological resources for the subject project.
The above comments a:-e 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 comment,
please contact Renee Cledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: Roy Shelton, FHwA.
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
ADMINISTRATION
ARCIIAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center
4619 Mail Service Center
4613 Mail Service Center
4018 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 7
Raleigh NC 2 76 99-46 1 9
Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 3
Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] 733-8653
[phone] 715-2671
[phone] 715-4801
[phone] 715-4801
APPENDIX B
NOISE ANALYSIS TABLES

TABLE NI
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
{
I
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m 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
Powcr lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90-- ---- ------ ---------------------------------------
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m 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 at 1.5m away
20 ' Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 ----- -- ----_-___------------------------ ---------- ---------------------- ------------
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noisc and Hcaring 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
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dH
Activity
ate o L (h) Description of Activitv CateQnrv
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet arc of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas; recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D I - I Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
..in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
k"
I
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
i
(D
to
M
a
V)
w
O
zx
W
W W
U
LT-.
N
i
a
H
0
U
T3
cCS
U
O
U
O
3
z
O
N
w
Q
CC
a? .
lV
tM/'7
W
N
C4
V,^
J
w

w ? `-

U + + + + + + + + + +
? z i
`. h
- N G, ,n I-.:. vl ivl N
???CCC ?.: V
1 ?n to to wn to v, w, .,;
? GGG
_

W
W

w

o ,
Z i
o ,
W
I
U
j
1
I I
I
Y I
I? I I

?
Q ? ?-. O C O C (^ C ?O C .^.. C

rq -t m C4 (N
U
O i ?
I
I
I ?
W 'n f I

I - I-
Q
? z

LL
C I
?
W ? I I
] W
V U

m
W
?n
?n N
•n I
?n :n I
n ,r, in
?n hn . ,n !
?n n In
,n
z
2 _j

I ?

I
w a

o x
z
O w ?,' U U m m co m m m m m

Q u
V
O W

'A
A
N U

C ^

•• V

'O N

"R CJ

b CJ

't.S V

'a V

'O V U
O Q (-Y. N N C?J N N
a ?a m cn r.? oC rx c? c? r? r? rX
W N M t •n * M C
• M• •7F jl- if• ?
Q I
U
c^
N
O
.N
U
U
U
U
-a
O
1
U
.II
U
H
U
_O
V
x
• ac
V L
` U
U
O OL
^_ L
O U
U
O
0
a?
U V
O U
W
_ U
o_ U
r
N
O ?
U L
?LT-
•o ?
N
? L
U
i
72 U
O
L
C)
O
2 ..
t U
O O
? Q
?1 -x-
N -
U
N O
a ?
CC
-
D o
O n Cn
t1
O ;a
y IJ
C n'
00
? N
G7 0 O n
-
D ° 07 0 ?-

O Al
ry
y ,?

? l7 "? fD
m
n? n

? ry
°
a
z

?o
,. z
?= z

o?

O r6
5-. .-

o ?
m
L
CD

O A N
O
° D C) D
a Z x
- -- - - -- .-.-

V co 7u
D
a
- - ° a -?? m 77 0
r. m,p
0 o CU M
N p
._ .. _. _... - n Cn
0 0 D m
C7 n
C)
-- - --Dpo
:o 0 'i7
o O ? J p?
?z?
n
CD ° m 0
O
N
C1i
CEO
Ull
C
ITI
?a
`- z
n
x O
?y
"? • W
a
? m Y
o m ?
? m
/? r=7
1 :.r
= a
C
A?
a a
-3
N
!r,
'K,
4

I
Q
W
Q
Z U
w z
H W
w
O
z
U
w
Li..
Q
N
a
H
x
0
U
C?
a?
U
O
O
.U
m
0
3
N
z
0
x
X
W
a?
CCS
lV
MM?
W
W
w
ox
?
mF`_? 0 0
U
a U
F-
?

w w
>
V)
Z
<
-a w°
y_ c
w
O
O
U0 v
i U
=oz
z

V)
LL)
En j O O

w

U
z ?
N

? o 0 Cl

w N

w
.j
w o 0
-
z -
?
O o 0 0

w _

w N N
0

w q
U N N
w

0
v
n
3 0
0
-
V
Z
0 <
O =

R
>-
z w
o

0 V
n
w > 0
Q U.
0 L. V)
cz ' a
v 0
N U m
00
'D o
N y
0.? O V)
cn U =
N
z
w
m
F-
w
0
E
0
0
a?
a?
y N
Nz
czw
U ?
L
? i
(A
IC U
>, s
o .n
N d
y y
Q Q
^ N
A6.ib,
d1,a 5TA1Fp
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 10, 2001
Mr. John Hennessy
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Fayetteville, Lake Valley Drive Extension,
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), Cumberland
County, Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685(1), State Project 8.2443401,
TIP Project Number U-2911
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Resources
Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project
will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments
received on the Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for
preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide
planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as
discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded
to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
2
Your comments should be received by May 15, 2001. If no comments are received by
that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of the."Finding of No Significant
Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/plr
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
APRs iL!
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED: Q
Date William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
31 -,.0 ?? -0 &
Y mv,4 Date Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
' Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
zi ? ?;! ?__ z I
Ray a. Lotf
Project Development Engineer
J es A. McInnis, Jr., P. t.
Project Development Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

??0?.??•CARp
.r?4ESSI
20701
:Q
9'fs''•:?hCl NE??''j ?,
A Nlc 04
3 49.01
TABLE OF CONTENTS

i
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i
1. Type of Action .................................................................................................... i
2. Permits Required ................................................................................................. i
3. Project Purpose/Description of Action ............................................................... i
4. Needs to be Addressed by Project ...................................................................... ii
5. Environmental Effects ....................................................................................... ii
6. Alternatives Considered ..................................................................................... ii
7. Coordination ..................................................................................................... iii
8. Additional Information "
..................................................................................... iii
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ............................................................................................ iv
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................1
A. Project Purpose ...................................:........................................................1
B. General Description .....................................................................................1
C. Cost Estimates ..............................................................................................1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT ...................................................................................................2
A. Description of Existing Facility .............................._..........................................2
1. Length of project ..................... ................................................................2
2. Speed Limit ............................. ................................................................2
3. Drainage Structures ................. ................................................................2
4. Utilities .................................... ................................................................2
5. School Bus Data ...................... ................................................................2
6. Existing Roadway Network .... ................................................................2
7. Railroad Involvement .............. ................................................................3
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility ........ ................................................................3
1. Accident Analysis ................... ................................................................3
2. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ................................................................3
C. Benefi ts of Proposed Project .............. ................................................................4
1. Travel Time ............................. ................................................................4
2. Capacity .................................. ................................................................4
3. Safety ...................................... ................................................................4

III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................5
A. Design Speed .......................................
B. Speed Limit .......5
C. Typical Section ...................................................................................................5
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions ..........................................................................5
E. Median Crossovers .............................................................................................5
F. Utilities ..........................................................................................................:....5
G. Drainage Structures .....:......................................................................................5
H. Right of Way ......................................................................................................5
1. Access Control .....................................................................................................6
J. Intersections .........................................................................................................6
K. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................6
L. Railroad Involvement .........................................................................................6
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............................................................................6
A. Typical Section Alternatives ..............................................................................6
B. Transportation System Management Alternative ...............................................6
C. "No-Build" Alternative ......................................................................................7
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................7
A. Historic and Cultural Resources .....
. 7
.
............................................................... ..
1. Archaeological Resources ................................... 7
2. .................................
Historic Architectural Resources ....................................................... ..
7
B. Natural Resources .... 7
........................................................................................ ..
1. Water Resources .. 8
................................................................................. ..
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ........................................ ..8
b. Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .............................. ..8
c. Water Quality ............................................................................ ..8
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............. ..9
2. Biotic Resources ..........................................
. 9
.
....................................... ..
a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................ ..9
b. Maintained/Disturbed ............................................................... ..9
c. Pine-Hardwood Forest ..................................... 10
.........................
d
. Lobolly Pine Plantation ............................................................ 10
e. Perennial Stream ....................................................................... 11
3. Wildlife ................................................................................................. 11
a. Terrestrial Fauna ....................................................................... 11
b. Aquatic Fauna ........................................................................... 12
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources .............................................. 12
a. Terrestrial Impacts ..................................................................... 12
b. Aquatic Impacts ............................................
. 13
.
..........................
5. Waters of the United States ................................................................... 14
a. Characteristics of Surface Water Impacts ................................. 14
b. Permits ............................................. 14
.........................................
c. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ....................................... 14
6. Rare and Protected Species ..................................... 14
..............................
a. Federally-Protected Species ...................................................... 14
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............... 15
C. Social and Economic Environment .................................................................. 17
1. Relocation Impacts ................................................................................ 17
2. Social Impacts ....................................................................................... 17

r

r
D. Land Use Planning ...........................................................................................18
1. Existing Land Use/Zoning ................................................................... .18
2. Future Land Use ................................................................................... .18
3. Local Land Development Plan ............................................................. .18
4. Farmland ...............................................................................................18
E. Traffic Noise Analysis ......................................................................................18
1. Noise Abatement Criteria .....................................................................19
2. Ambient Noise Levels ...........................................................................19
3. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ......................................19
4. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ..............................................................20
5. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ...................................................... 20
6. Construction Noise ................................................................................ 20
7. Summary ............................................................................................... 21
F. Air Quality Analysis ......................................................................................... 21
1. CO Analysis .......................................................................................... 21
2. Other Pollutants .................................................................................... 22
G. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns ........................................... 23
H. Landfills and Hazardous Material Involvement ............................................... 23
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .....................23
A. Agency Coordination .......................................................................................23
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ....................................................................24
C. Public Hearing .. ..............................................................................................24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................... 4
Table 2 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .......................13
Table 3 - Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County .................15
Table 4 - Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County ................16

I
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 4A 2003/20023 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Not Built)
Figure 4B 2003/2023 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Build)
Figure 5 Proposed Intersection Configurations
Figure 6 Fayetteville Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 7 100-Year Floodplain Limits In Project Area
APPENDICES
Appendix A Agency Correspondence
Appendix B Noise Analysis Tables
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment (EA).
2. Permits Required
A Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) Permit is likely to be required for culvert
installation in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek.
This project will also require a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification
from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality prior to the issuance of the
Nationwide Permit.
3. Project Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion along Yadkin Road and US 401
Bypass and provide a more direct route to the commercial area near the US 401
Bypass/Morganton Road intersection from residential areas along Yadkin Road in
northwest Fayetteville.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to extend Lake
Valley Drive on new location in the City of Fayetteville. The proposed Lake Valley Drive
Extension will extend southward on new location from Yadkin Road and tie-in to an
existing multi-lane access road, which intersects with US 401 Bypass across from the
entrance to Cross Creek Mall. The 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile) project involves construction
of a four-lane facility with a 4.8 meter (16-foot) raised grassed median and curb and
gutter from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road). See Figure 3 for
typical section. The proposed right-of-way is 34 meters (110 feet) wide.
The total cost estimate included in the 2002-2008 Draft Transportation
Improvement Program for the project is $3,000,000, including $2,300,000 for
construction and $700,000 for right of way acquisition.
This project is included in the approved 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program. The current estimated cost of this project is $5,301,025 including
$1,701,025 for right-of-way acquisition and $3,600,000 for construction. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2002, and construction is
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2004. •
-i-
4. Needs to be Addressed by Project
The existing roadway has the following deficiencies:
a. Without the proposed extension, access from Yadkin Road to Cross Creek
Mall and other area businesses will remain longer in distance, adding to travel
time and increase congestion.
b. Rate of fatal accidents on Yadkin Road are considerably higher than the
statewide average rate for similar facilities (see Section II-B-1).
c. Rear-end collisions make up the majority of the accidents occurring at the
Yadkin Road/Lake Valley Drive intersection. This will be considerably
improved by the new configuration at the proposed signalized intersection (see
Figure 5).
5. Environmental Effects
It is anticipated that no residences or businesses will be relocated by the proposed
project. The project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of
this area. In the immediate project vicinity, no homes or businesses will be impacted by
traffic noise. There are no properties or archaeological sites eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places in the area of potential effect. Approximately 0.02 hectares
(0.05 acres) of low quality wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. Neither
High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds, or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters occur within
1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area. Impacts to terrestrial habitat include
1.69 hectares (4.17 Acres) of Pine-Hardwood Forest and 1.19 hectares (2.95 Acres) of
Loblolly Pine Plantation.
6. Alternatives Considered
Typical section alternatives, transportation system management and the "no-
build" alternative were considered. The construction of proposed Lake Valley Drive
Extension as a four-lane median divided facility was selected because it meets the
purpose and need of the project and has a lower cost and less environmental impact than
the other typical section alternatives examined. Transportation system management
alternatives and the "No-Build" alternative do not meet the purpose and need of the
project.
-ii-
7. Coordination
The following federal, state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Administration
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
8. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and statement can be obtained by
contacting the following:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone].
-iii-
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive.Extension
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
r Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
Roadway Design Unit
1.5 meter (5 foot) sidewalks will be constructed along the west side of Lake
Valley Drive Extension from Yadkin Road (SR 1415) to approximately 168 meters
(550 feet) north of Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) intersection. In accordance with
NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, the sidewalks will be jointly funded by NCDOT and the City
of Fayetteville (NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville each will fund 50% of the sidewalks
on cost share basis).
4.2 meter (14 foot) outside lanes will be provided on both sides of Lake Valley
Drive Extension to allow motor vehicles and bicyclists to share the facility.
Program Development Branch
A municipal agreement will be prepared regarding the City of Fayetteville's
participation in the cost of new sidewalks to be constructed as part of this project.
Environmental Assessment - U-2911 Page 1 of 1
March, 2001
-iv-
Fayetteville
Lake Valley Drive Extension
From SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road)
Cumberland County
Federal-Aid Project MASTP-2685 (1)
State Project 8.2443401
TIP Project Number U-2911
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion along Yadkin Road and US 401 Bypass and
provide a more direct route to the commercial area near the US 401 Bypass/Morganton Road
intersection from residential areas along Yadkin Road in northwest Fayetteville.
B. General Description
The North Carolina Depanment of Transportation proposes to extend Lake Valley Drive on
new location in the City of Fa,,.rtte% 111c. The 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile) project will construct a four-
lane divided facility with a 4.8 meter 116-foot) raised grassed median and curb and gutter from SR
1415 (Yadkin Road) to US 401 By pass (Skibo Road). See Figure 1 for project area and Figure 3 for
typical cross section. The proposed right-of-way is 34 meters (110 feet) wide.
The proposed roadway will extend southward on new location from Yadkin Road and tie-in to
an existing multi-lane access road which intersects with US 401 Bypass across from the entrance to
Cross Creek Mall.
The project is included in the approved 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program. Right of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year 2002 and construction is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2004 in the draft
2002-2008 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program.
C. Cost Estimates
The current estimated costs for TIP Project. U-2911 are as follows:
Construction $3,600,000
*Right of Way Acquisition $1,701,025
Total Cost $5,301,025
*A portion of the right of way required for the project may be donated by land owners.
The total estimated cost included in the 2002-2008 draft Transportation Improvement Program
for the project is $3,000,000, of which $2,300,000 is for construction and $700,000 is for right of way
acquisition.
H. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
1. Length of project
The proposed project is approximately 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile) long.
2. Speed Limit
The speed limit on existing Lake Valley Drive is 40 km/h (25 MPH).
The speed limit on SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) is 65 km/h (40 MPH).
The speed limit on US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) is 70 km/h (45 MPH).
3. Drainage Structures
A 2 barrel 3.7 meter by 2.7 meter (12-foot by 9-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert is
located along SR 1415 (Yadkin Road), approximately 420 feet west of the intersection of Lake Valley
Drive and Yadkin Road.
4. Utilities
Overhead power lines, telephone lines, water lines and sewer lines are located along Yadkin
Road and existing Lake Valley Drive in the project area.
5. School Bus Data
Seven school buses each use Yadkin Road twice daily.
6. Existing Roadway Network
Currently, motorists wishing to access Cross Creek Mall and other businesses along Skibo
Road from the residential areas surrounding Yadkin Road must take Yadkin Road to Skibo Road and
then travel down Skibo Road.
The northern end of the project is the intersection of Lake Valley Drive and SR 1415 (Yadkin
Road). Lake Valley Drive is classified as a collector. Lake Valley Drive is a two-lane roadway with
curb and gutter. Lake Valley Drive provides access to Yadkin Road for a residential area. Yadkin
Road is classified as an urban minor arterial on the North Carolina Functional Classification System.
2
Yadkin Road is a five-lane, undivided roadway with curb and gutter. Yadkin Road provides
access to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road), SR 1007 (All American Freeway) and points northwest of
Fayetteville.
The southern terminus of the project is US 401 Bypass (Skibo road). US 401 Bypass is a six
lane divided facility and is currently designated as a major thoroughfare on the mutually adopted
Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare plan and classified as an Urban Principal Arterial in the North
Carolina Functional Classification System. See Figure 6 for the Thoroughfare Plan.
An existing multi-lane access road intersects with US 401 Bypass across from the entrance to
Cross Creek Mall. This road provides access to US 401 Bypass for a shopping center. The road ends
at the back of the shopping center.
7. Railroad Involvement
The access road intersecting US 401 Bypass across from the entrance to Cross Creek Mall
crosses tracks owned by the Cape Fear Railroad. These tracks parallel US 401 Bypass to the west.
This railroad line has been inactive for over ten years.
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Accident Analysis
An accident study was performed for the period from June 1, 1997 to July 31, 1999. A total
of 188 accidents were reported on SR 1415 (Yadkin Road) from US 401 Bypass (Skibo Road) to SR
1528 (Cimarron Road) during this time period, resulting in a total collision rate of 607.15
accidents/per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. This rate is considerably above the average of
269.30 accidents/per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for similar facilities in North Carolina. Three
fatalities occurred along the studied section of Yadkin Road, resulting in a fatal crash rate of 6.46
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. The fatal crash rate for similar facilities in North Carolina
was 0.63 accidents per 100 million vehicles miles.
41 % of the total accidents were rear-end collisions. These types of accidents are more
likely to occur on more congested facilities.
2. _Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Approximately 7,800 vehicles per day are expected to use Lake Valley Drive
extension just south of Yadkin Road in the year 2003. Traffic volumes are projected to increase to
15,700 vehicles per day by the year 2023. Truck traffic is projected to be 4% of the total average
daily traffic. See Figures 4A and 4B for additional traffic information.
Capacity analyses were performed for the proposed project to determine the level of
service (LOS) at the following intersections shown in Table 1 below:
3
Table 1
intersection C annrity Analvcic
INTERSECTION EXISTING
CONDITIONS PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
Year 2003 Year 2023 Year 2003 Year 2023
Yadkin Rd./Lake Valley Dr. Ext N/A N/A B C
Yadkin Rd./McPherson& Skibo Rd. D E C D
AAF Loop A and Skibo Road B C A B
AAF Loop D and Skibo Road B B B B
Cross Creek Mall & Proposed Lake
Valley Extension C C C D
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
1. Travel Time
The proposed project will provide a more direct route for traffic traveling from northwest
Fayetteville to Cross Creek Mall and other businesses along US 401 Bypass and Morganton Road.
After the extension of Lake Valley Drive, traffic from Yadkin Road and surrounding area will have an
alternative route to reach desired destinations located to the south of the proposed project. This will
reduce travel time.
2. Ca aci
The proposed project is expected to reduce traffic congestion at the US 401 Bypass/McPherson
Church Road intersection and other intersections along US 401 Bypass (see Table 1). Figures 4A and
4B show traffic volumes for area roadways with and without the proposed Lake Valley Drive
Extension for the years 2003 and 2023.
Proposed exclusive left and right turn lanes at the intersection of Lake Valley Drive/Yadkin
Road will allow turning vehicles to move more freely, reducing congestion at this intersection (see
Figure 5).
3. Safe
Adding exclusive right and left turn lanes will reduce the existing high rate of rear-end
and side swipe collisions. The proposed project will provide a safer facility in the area.
The proposed median will enhance safety by separating opposing traffic streams and
limiting left turns onto the new roadway to median crossover locations.
4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph).
B. Speed Limit
A 45 mph speed limit is recommended.
C. Typical Section
Proposed travel lanes will be 3.6 meters (12 feet) wide for the inside lanes and 4.2 meters
(14 feet) for the outside lanes with a 4.8 meter (16 foot) raised median.
Curb and gutter and 3.0 meter (10 foot) berms will be provided. A 1.5 meter (5 foot)
sidewalk will be provided on the west side of the roadway (see Figure 3 for proposed typical
section).
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions will be required for the proposed project.
E. Median Crossovers
Locations of median crossovers will be determined during the design phase of the
project.
F. Utilities
Overhead power lines, telephone lines, water, sewer and gas mains are in the project
area. It is anticipated the project will have a low degree of utility conflict.
G. Drainage Structures
An existing 2 barrel 3.7 meter by 2.7 meter (12 feet by 9 feet) reinforced concrete box
Culvert for Beaver Creek is proposed to be extended. This culvert is located along SR 1415 (Yadkin
Road), approximately 128 meters (420 feet) west of the intersection of Lake Valley Drive and
Yadkin Road. The proposed roadway will cross an unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. The
appropriate drainage structure to accommodate this stream will be determined during hydraulic
It design for the project.
H. Right of Way
Approximately 34 meters (110 feet) of right of way will be acquired to accommodate
5
the proposed project. Additional right of way beyond 34 meters will be required at intersections and
temporary easements will be required where slopes extend beyond the proposed right of way. A
portion of this right of way may be donated to the project by land owners.
1. Access Control
There will be no control of access along the project.
J. Intersections
The intersection of SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)/Lake Valley Drive will be signalized,
and exclusive right and left turn lanes will be provided at this intersection (see Figure 5).
K. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
4.2 meter (14-foot) wide outside lanes will be provided to allow motor vehicles to
better share the facility with bicyclists. In accordance with NCDOT's pedestrian policy, NCDOT
will participate with the City of Fayetteville on a cost-share basis to provide a 1.5 meter (5-foot)
sidewalk along the west side of Lake Valley Drive extension. NCDOT and the City of Fayetteville
will each be responsible for 501 of the sidewalk cost. A municipal agreement regarding the
proposed sidewalks will be prepared prior to construction of the proposed project.
L. Railroad Involvement
Cape Fear Railroad tracks arc Icxated along the west side of US 401 Bypass just south
of the studied project area. This railroad line has been inactive for over ten years. Depending on the
condition of the existing crossing. it may need to be replaced. No additional signalization is
recommended at this location.
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Typical Section Alternatives
A four-lane median divided, a six-lane median divided and a five-lane undivided typical
section were all considered for the project. The four-lane median divided section was selected
because the proposed median will allow better access management and minimize the number of
conflict points along the proposed facility. Traffic projections for the project do not warrant
construction of a six-lane facility.
B. Transportation System Management Alternative
The transportation system management alternative includes traffic signal optimization or
improvements to existing roadways, such as turn lanes, in the vicinity of the proposed project. This
6
option would reduce congestion along US 401 Bypass but would not provide a more direct route to
the commercial area along US 401 Bypass and Morganton Road and therefore will not serve the
purpose and need of the project.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
This alternative would have a negative effect on the capacity and safety of surrounding
roadways. The "no-build" would not provide an alternative route for traffic currently directed to the
Skibo Road/McPherson Church Road intersection. By the year 2003, this intersection will operate at
LOS D and will deteriorate to LOS E in the year 2023.
The proposed extension will be a link between the residential area north of Yadkin
Road and the commercial areas near Cross Creek Mall. The "no-build" alternative would lead to
higher operating costs, longer travel times, and would not provide the safety benefits of the proposed
project. Therefore, the "no build" alternative has been rejected.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey of the project's area of potential effect was performed by
NCDOT archaeologists. Two sites were identified within the project corridor. Neither site
was determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The
State Historic Preservation Office concurred with these findings in a letter dated August 2,
2000 (see Appendix A).
2. Historic Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined there are no historic
properties in the area of potential effect and notified NCDOT of this in a letter dated May 6,
1999 (see Appendix A). The project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
B. Natural Resources
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
Environmental Biologists on April 13, 2000. Water resources were identified and their physical
characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also identified
and described. Vegetative communities were mapped. Wildlife identification involved using a variety
of observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active
searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
7
1. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along
with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
. The project is located in the Cape Fear sub-basin 03-06-15, United States Dept.
of Interior Hydrologic Unit 03030004. This sub-basin is drained primarily by Rockfish
Creek and Little Rockfish Creek.
An unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek (UT BC 1) intersects the project area.
Beaver Creek lies within the project vicinity (DEM-index 18-31-24-5). Beaver Creek
is cla§sified by the N. C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as Class C. Class C
represents freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life and
wildlife. Unnamed tributaries receive the same DWQ classification as the unnamed
tributary's receiving stream. Beaver Creek is located outside the right-of-way
boundary for this project by 98 meters (320 feet) or more and will not be impacted by
this project.
This unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek was found only during field
investigations and was not identified on USDA Soil mapping for Cumberland County
or USGS Topographic mapping for Cumberland County. No waters classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
b. Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
There is one surface water, UT BC 1, located within the project study area. UT
BC 1 width averages around 1.8 meters (6 feet) and is 0.3-0.6 meter (1-2 feet) in depth
and has apparently been altered. During the biologist's field visit in April, there was
no evidence of recent flow. The water was stagnant with a large amount of
filamentous algae present.
c. Water Ouality
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted'point source
dischargers located in the project study area.
8
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to water resources
located outside the construction limits. These impacts may include the following:
* Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
* Change in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
* Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow due to construction.
* Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
and toxic spills.
Sedimentation control guidelines and Best Management Practices will be
impemented prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of the project to
minimize the potential impact to water resources.
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography,
hydrologic influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems
are presented in the context of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
likely to occur in each communit% are described and discussed. Fauna observed during field
investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial ('ommunities
Four terrestrial communities were identified in the project area:
Maintained/Disturbed, Pine-Hardwood Forest, Loblolly Pine Plantation, and Perennial
Stream communities. Community boundaries within the study area overlap. Faunal
species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter
and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
b. Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community can be found throughout the project
study corridor. Several habitats are included in this community: road shoulders and
residential/commercial landscapes.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding
communities by filtering storm water run-off. Vegetation occurring here includes
fescue, dandelion, horse nettle, dog fennel, golden rod, smooth sumac, beggar's tick,
elephant's ear, wood sorrel, clovers, chickory, violets, and buckhorn plantain. Areas
receiving less frequent maintenance are occupied by broomsedge, poison ivy, saplings
of yellow poplar, blackberries, Japanese honeysuckle, other goldenrods, yarrow and
ragweed.
9
Vegetation associated with residential and business landscapes includes: flowering
Dogwood, Chinese dogwood, forsythia, azaleas, lilac, loblolly pine, Southern red oak,
and various ornamental hybrids of hollies, Chinese fir, arbor vitae and juniper. Fescue,
clover, plantains and crabgrass dominate lawn areas.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, such
that both are required for survival and reproduction.
c. Pine-Hardwood Forest
The Pine-Hardwood community can be found throughout most of the project
area and is adjacent to the Perennial Stream, Loblolly Pine Plantation, and Maintained/
Disturbed communities. This community has a canopy dominated by loblolly pine,
sweetgum, water oak, and an occasional white oak and southern red oak. The
understory contains red maple, magnolia, horse sugar, sassafras, mockernut hickory,
American holly. persimmon and flowering dogwood. The vine layer is dominated by
Virginia creeper, muscadine grape, greenbrier, bona-nox, cat brier, wisteria, yellow
jasmine and Japanese honeysuckle. The herbaceous layer contains spotted wintergreen,
blackbern•, partridge berry, and bracken fern.
d. Lobloll% Pinc Plantation
This mature communit% is found throughout the project area along
Higher elevations in %%ell-drained, sandy soils. This community is adjacent to the
Perennial Stream. fine-llard%%ood Forest, and Maintained/Disturbed communities.
Most of this communit% type throughout the project area is approximately 40 years
old; however, a portion of the loblolly pine plantation community found in the
southern region of the project area has been recently harvested (March 2000).
This community is dominated by a canopy cover of loblolly pine. Because of
the thick cover of pine straw the only visible ground species are spotted wintergreen,
blueberry, huckleberry, and partridge berry. The vine layer consists of Japanese
honeysuckle, yellow jasmine, muscadine grape, and poison ivy. The subcanopy and
herbaceous layer in this community is sparse and may include: wax myrtle, magnolia,
horse sugar, black gum, flowering dogwood, American holly, persimmon, and young
loblolly pine saplings.
The harvested area will be invaded by early successional species. Previously,
this community was predominantly made up of loblolly pine. An abundance of
loblolly pine saplings will emerge. Other species that will invade this community may r
include: broomsedge, bedstraw, dog fennel, blackberry, blueberry, sweet gum, cat
briar, and poison ivy.
10
e. Perennial Stream
There is.one perennial stream within the project area, an unnamed tributary to
Beaver Creek. The perennial stream community is adjacent to the pine-hardwood
forest community on both sides of the stream. The unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek
intersects the southern half of the project alignment and has a small drainage area. The
vegetation found along the stream banks is diverse.
Vegetation found along the stream bank and within the adjacent wetland may
include: river birch, red maple, Chinese privet, tag alder, elderberry, giant cane, dog
fennel, tearthumb, titi, southern lady fern, netted chain-fern, cinnamon fern, Virginia
chainfem, vibumums, Joe-pye-weed, false nettle, and orange-spotted jewelweed.
3. Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit all biotic
communities discussed. The maintained/disturbed community dominates the project area.
Forested tracts and drainage ways provide habitat for species requiring a forest community,
and also provide shelter and movement corridors for other species of wildlife within the
project vicinity. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Fauna
Due to the disturbed nature of all of the habitats in the project area' the faunal
component is expected to consist mostly of opportunistic animals able to adapt to the
"edge" habitat created by human activites. Conversely, species which require large
undisturbed forested habitats are likely to be absent from the project area.
Herbivorous mammals, such as white-tailed deer and eastern cottontail rabbit,
frequent the vegetatively diverse "edges" of disturbed areas and community borders.
Primarily bird species such as downy woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker,
yellow-bellied sapsucker, ruby-crowned kinglet, golden-crowned kinglet, brown
creeper, blue-gray gnatcatcher*, yellow-rumped warbler, white-breasted nuthatch,
tufted titmouse*, red-eyed vireo*, pine warbler* and gray catbird, utilize the canopy.
However, gray squirrel, raccoon, Virginia opossum, grey treefrog, and eastern fence
lizard also utilize this stratum.
Many of the ground-dwelling species, including worm snake, southeastern
crowned snake, southeastern shrew, and woodland vole are fossorial (living in
' burrows). Other species occupying the forest floor include the ground nesting
ovenbird, American toad*, ground skink and eastern box turtle*. Earthworms, insects
and other invertebrates constitute the majority of these species' diets.
Top predators expected to occur here include various hawks, gray fox, and
copperhead. These species are important in maintaining populations of rodents, small
11
birds and other small animals. Because of the open, relatively non-stratified nature of
maintained/disturbed communities such as the roadside habitats, resident vertebrate
fauna are generally small in size. Small mammals such as least shrew, white-footed
mouse, and house mouse are able to utilize the limited amount of vegetative cover of
crop fields and pastures. The burrowing eastern mole is common in open areas
bordering forested tracts. These small mammals are important prey items for black rat
snake*, red fox, red-tailed hawk* and other birds of prey.
Faunal community complexity is a function of vegetative community
complexity. Few animals reside along roadsides because of the limited size and
complexity of the habitat. Various species of birds feed along roadsides on seeds,
berries and insects. Some of these species include the northern cardinal*, American
robin* and white-throated sparrow. Snakes such as the black racer* and eastern garter
snake may venture into this habitat to feed on insects and small mammals.
Virginia opossum and raccoon* frequently forage nocturnally in these habitats,
or travel along roadways between habitats. These animals are often road kill victims.
Consequently road kills attract a large number of scavenger species including turkey
vulture*, common crow*, domestic dogs and cats.
b. Aquatic Fauna
Species abundance and diversity within a stream are dependent on the size and
water qualitN of the eater bode. This first order stream within the project area is
generally too small it, support a rich diversity of ichthyofauna, or large individuals of
representative species. These streams are likely to support smaller individuals of the
larger species such as fr% and young of the year fish, as well as those species that are
generally small (in size).
The project area's surface water can be expected to provide habitat for a limited
number of aquatic organisms. Ichthyofauna are absent, however, several aquatic
insects that may be found in this community include: water strider, riffle beetle, crane
fly, stream mayfly and black-winged damselfly. The bullfrog, pickerel frog, queen
snake, and northern water snake may occupy this community also.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community (Table 2). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
proposed right of way width and temporary easements. Project construction does not
usually require the entire impact width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
12
Table 2
Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community Impacted Area
Hectares(Acres)
Pine-Hardwood Forest 1.69(4.17)
Loblolly Pine Plantation 1 .19(2.95)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.35(0.87)
TOTAL 3.23(7.99)
The biotic communities found within the project study area will be altered as a
result of project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and
shelter habitat for fauna. The majority of the project study area is located in disturbed
habitat. Most of the project study area is located on new location. This results in
increased impacts to forested communities (specifically the pine/hardwood forest
community). The construction of this will result in habitat loss and habitat
fragmentation. Many vertebrates as well as insects and plants have restrictive habitat
requirements; the resulting landscape disturbance may affect the long-term viability of
these species once their habitats are fragmented. The size of fragmented habitat areas
is always relative to the species of concern; however, fragmented areas more than
likely will disrupt continuity between populations of some animal and plant
communities. Fragmentation of large gene pools could affect the ability of some plant
and animal populations to persist under harsh environmental conditions. Species
adapted to disturbed and edge habitat will thrive, while species that require larger
tracts will decrease or disappear due to competition or habitat reduction.
Clearing and conversion of forested tracts for roadway development eliminates
nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for faunal organisms. Many forested systems
offer all of the necessary components (i.e. food, water, cover) to support vertebrate
species. The loss of this habitat will displace animals from this area as they search for
additional habitat.
b. Aquatic Impacts
Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to
aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the
burial of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic
substances and decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased
sediment load.
13
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to
construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding mechanisms of
benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified
throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher trophic
levels.
5. Waters of the United States
Any action that proposes to place fill. material into "Waters of The United States", falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
There is one low quality wetland located within the project area. This small wetland
area (-0.05 acre) can be found along each side of the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek, UT
BC 1. This wetland area will be affected by project construction.
a. Characteristics of Surface Water Impacts
The jurisdictional surface water found within the project area is the unnamed
tributary to Beaver Creek and will likely be impacted. Impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that is located
within the proposed right of way.
b. Permits
A Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) Permit is likely to be applicable for
culvert installation in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
c. Avoidance. Minimization. Mitigation
Current projected project impacts will not exceed the above-mentioned wetland
and linear stream thresholds for compensatory mitigation. Therefore, compensatory
mitigation is not anticipated for construction of this project. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
6. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of Feruary 26, 2001, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists eight
federally protected species for Cumberland County.
14
Table 3
Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci E
small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
• "T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance is species that are threatened
due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed for the rare
species protection. T (S/A) are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
• "E"-Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of their range.
• "T"-Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the near future
• Throughoui all or a significant portion of its range.
No %ui:.i?,4 tijbit.it exists in the project area for the American Alligator, the Red-
Cockaded X%--..:;,,.kvT `.Tint f rancis' satyr, Small-Whorled Pogonia, Pondberry,
Rough-lea% rJ I. • .; •t! 116, ind \merican chasffseed. However, suitable habitat does
exist in the pro!,,1 jr:,, for \LL:haux's sumac. A plant by plant survey for Michaux's
sumac %vas conJu. wd h\ ' CDOT biologist on June 29, 2000. No specimens were
found. A recte%% os thr North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats did not contain records of any of these federally-protected
species.
The proposed project will have "no effect" on any federally-protected species.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the
ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR), or Special Concern (SC) on
the Natural Heritage Program list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to
state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Twenty-Seven FSC are listed for Cumberland County. Table 4 lists Federal
Candidate and State listed species, the species state status (if afforded state protection)
and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area.
15
Table 4
Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC NO
Heterodon simus Southern hognose
snake SR/PSC * YES
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC** YES
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC/PT NO
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE NO
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T/PE NO
Amorpha georgiana
var. georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E YES
Astragalus michauxii sandhills milkvetch T NO
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC NO
Kalmia cuneata white wicky E-SC NO
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T NO
Lindera subcoriacea bog spicebush E NO
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice C NO
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia C NO
Myriophyllum laxum loose watermilfoil T NO
Oxypolis ternata savanna cowbane W1 NO
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-
pamassus E NO
Parthenium radfordii wavyleaf wild quinine W1 YES
Potamogeton
confervoides Conferva pondweed C NO
Pteroglossaspis ecristata spiked medusa E YES
Pyxidanthera barbulata
var. brevistyla sandhills pyxie-moss E NO
Rhexia aristosa awned meadowbeauty T NO
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E NO
Solidago verna spring-flowering
goldenrod T YES
Stylisma pickeringii var.
pickeringii Pickering's dawnflower E NO
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C NO
Xyris scabrifolia roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass C NO
• 64 "--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
• "T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be
taken or collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of
16
Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold
of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
• "C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare
throughout its range in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the
country or the world.
• "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is
generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North
Carolina.
• "W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North
Carolina is relatively well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this
time.
• "/P"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing
process.
• *-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years
ago.
• ** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Surveys for FSC species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats shows
no occurrences of rare species in the project study area.
C. Social and Economic Environment
1. Relocation Impacts
The construction of Lake Valley Drive will not require the relocation of any residences
or businesses.
2. Social Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the community. Positive impacts
include: Reduced congestion, improved mobility and traffic safety in the area, improved travel
time and convenience. The project will provide an alternative route to Cross Creek Mall and
area businesses.
The proposed construction of Lake Valley Drive Extension will not disrupt community
cohesion, interfere with accessibility to facilities or services, and will not displace any
residences and businesses.
17
D. Land Use Planning
1. Existing Land Use/Zoning
Land use around the northern terminus of the project at the Yadkin Road/Lake Valley
Drive intersection consists of residential use and scattered businesses. The southern terminus
of the project ends at an existing road for a retail center and Cross Creek Mall, and will tie into
Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass).
The land use within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project is mostly wooded
and primarily vacant land.
2. Future Land Use
The Fayetteville 2010 Land Use Plan has projected that the wooded vacant land
surrounding the proposed project will be developed for commercial, retail and office use.
3. Local Land Development Plan
The proposed project is compatible with the Fayetteville 2010 land use plan and local
zoning. Most of the land in the immediate project area is zoned for commercial and residential
uses.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
and important farmland soils.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS). Land which is planned or zoned for urban development is not
subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
The proposed project is located in an urban area, zoned for commercial and residential
development. The project will not disturb or disrupt any farming operations. No further
consideration of impacts to farmland soil is needed.
E. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect on noise levels in the immediate
project area. This investigation included an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field
survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also included a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be
18
expected to result 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.
1. Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine whether highway noise levels are 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. A summary of the noise
abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2 (Appendix B) 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.
2. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise levels were taken in the immediate vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels for the identified receptors. 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 background Leq noise level ranged
from 52.8 to 59.1 dBA. Using this information, ambient noise levels were determined for all
receptors in the vicinity of the project.
3. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
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 roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade.
Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model, 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.
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 2025. 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.
19
The Leq traffic noise exposures for this project are listed in Table N3 (Appendix B).
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.
4. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis V
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a] approach
or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the
Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition
of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category.
The number of receptors in each activity category for each section and alternative
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N4 (see Appendix B).
These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise
levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, no receptors are predicted to be impacted by highway.
traffic noise. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are less than. 15.5 meters (51 feet) and 20.3 meters (66.7 feet), respectively, from the center of the proposed
roadway. Contour information in Table N4 is shown by alternative and section. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. 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.
The exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by the alternative
and roadway section are shown on Table N5 in Appendix B. No receptors are predicted to
experience a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. The predicted noise level increases
for this project range from +1 to +9 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.
5. 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. For this
project, no traffic noise impacts were anticipated, therefore no traffic noise abatement is
required.
6. 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
20
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.
7. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise impacts are anticipated to occur
because of this project, and no noise abatement measures are required. 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.
F. _Air Quality Analysis
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate
matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), 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
herein is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to
traffic flow.
1. CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, 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
107 meters (350 feet) 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."
. Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a
level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily
traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2005,
2010 and 2025, using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", the MOBILE5A
mobile source emissions computer model.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For
Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO
concentration near sensitive receptors.
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
(DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an
ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
21
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located 33 meters (74 feet) northwest
of the Lake Valley Drive/SR '1415 intersection. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for
the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010 and 2025 are 7, 7.6, and 8.6 ppm, respectively. Comparison
of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-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 for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be
concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
2. Other Pollutants
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 may be offset by the
increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than two 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 exceed the NAAQS.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 3.7 to 7.4 Kilometers
(2.3 to 4.6 miles) 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 that forms in Los Angeles, California.
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 burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to
reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air
quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are
necessary. The project is located in Cumberland County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 are not
22
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.
G. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
Cumberland County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. Figure 7 shows the limits of the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Since there are no major streams affected by the project, there will be no significant floodplain
involvement. The project is not within a water supply watershed protected area or high quality water
area.
Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures. Existing drainage patterns and
groundwater resources will not be affected by the proposed project.
H. Landfills and Hazardous Material Involvement
A field reconnaissance survey and public record search revealed no regulated UST facilities,
hazardous material sites or landfills in the project corridor.
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Agency Coordination
The proposed project has been coordinated with local, state, and federal agencies.
Comments were requested from the agencies and municipalities listed below. Agencies which
commented on the project are marked with an asterisk (Agencies' written responses are included in
Appendix B).
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources
*N.C. Department of Administration
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
23
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on March 7, 2000 to inform citizens of the
proposed project and solicit comments and suggestions. This workshop was advertised in local news
media and flyers were sent to area residences. The majority of citizens supported the project.
Questions regarding the project's impact to properties and questions regarding right of way
acquisition were addressed at the workshop. Several citizens expressed concerns over the safety of
turning lanes at Yadkin Road/Lake Valley Drive intersection and complained about the narrow lanes
along Yadkin Road. Other comments included the community's desire for sidewalks, lighting, water
and sewer lines along the project.
C. Public Hearin
A public hearing will be held to solicit public comments on this project prior to acquisition of
right of way.
24
FIGURES

/ / ./
i /
ipf
,y ??`• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISIONOF HIGII%%A1S
Q PROJECTDEVELOP?ENT
fpv?. AND E>VIRON)IE7(TAL.\NALStiiS BRANCH
VICINITY NIAP
FAYETTEVILLE
SR 2685 (LAKE VALLEY DR.) EXTENSION
FROM SR 1415 (YADKIN RD.) TO US 401 BYPASS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-2911
Figure 1
s
a
•
? ? • r
10.
i-
v
r
rmlq
V
ON
N
N
U
h
O
a
s
E w
M -?
tt N 'ch
? o
Con
'w ? ? M N _?
?I ? • p
a
MOP-
E
.
0 0
ri

m
a
U
W
F
W
U
O
? U
v? .
t? N
CA . o ?o
?C,3
------C4
cn
m
o-'
a
U
W
F
U
O
? U
o
r N
U
w
u,
OF
W ?
CIO
W U
z? R
am
W W ?
A A c
W O
DU °
3¢ ;
M
W
w
LAKE VALLEY DRIVE
EXTENSION 2003/2023 ADT NOT BUILD
TIP PROJECT U-2911
r
g°xIh
Rd
/
/
/
/
/ 17(
1 t71
C
I
A
40?~
b
9 AA
s se
A 6
LEGEND
XXX - ADT (VYD)
DHV - DESIGN HOURLY VOLUMEI
D - DIRECTIONAL FLOW a )
K30 - IOTA HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
AS (S ) OF ADT
y? - DIRECTIONAL OF D
(X.X) -DUAL TRUCKS. TIM. (I )
AM - AM PEAK
PM -PM PEAK
PM
DHV- D
(X•X)
T-6
Q
4A
?j
6
8
?? iwh/? dl
$d
CREEK
PLAZ
c
r
8000 1r?
?? 11900 ?b ,-6
°
CROSS U
CREEK d
PLAZA
v 1\
bqj? '? A
CROSS
'rte 9 CREEK
4 Q. MAILL
9

FIGURE 4A

Y
1
a
y0
9700
`i
CROSS
CREEK
PLAZA
LAKE VALLEY DRIVE
EXTENSION 2003/2023 ADT BUILD
TIP PROJECT U-2911
Y.
'o0
308 0 ' 0
S?0 ?
0
e?00 6/
/
/
off/
/ R2
?^ 1 3000
CROSS
C CREEK
a+ ?. PLAZA
?j
?\O
\o
S
>
0
Js
100 O ly 0?°O
O
'r0 A
CROSS
f? CREEK
MAILL
p?ti O
Jg ?ti0
5
Q+ ?
?f `gry
LEGEND
XXX ADT (VYD)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUMES
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (Z)
K30 MI, HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
AS (1 ) OF ADT
-? - DIRECTIONAL OF D
(X,X) DUAL TRUCKS TTST. (1 )
AM - AM PEAK
PM -PM PEAK
PM
DHV?D
(X.X)
T-k.
4

V Bo
6 " / 9 0
g
Op0 E?SpN
SEE Rp
FIGURE 4B
a
40/e
b
?3300 9 Al.

O
I
Q
p
Z ?
VN
ZO
O~
.V
?W
WO
Ac
oca
Wa
Z
ftall
O
W
vi
O
O
Z
V1 v-
W?
?C y
W ?-
NQ
CCO
cc
W?
V
Q Q
?Q
hb
a?
V
ZZ
o?
W?
~W
WN
WQ
W
JU
Q y
?O
?C V
Q
v
v
s
0
2
ILI
W Mo.-

0

I
I I
I
II; I
IN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
GVOH NDff7lfA
(SsvdA9 Lob sn) civoy oems
I
i I
I ,
I.

0
Z
W
OC
v
r

s
U
ti
W
cJ
C
~ W
? V
H
U
(SSVdA9 Lob Sn) CIVOY 09/HS
Ln
W
OC
O

A

p d /i
C
? c
I R
?C.
it A4Z
PJ /M

T! / Eat

l
1
If ? I

l 1

. 't

n
I
.

r
Cl)

o

?
°

- 3
dd ? ST

7
-
it 4

7y H o

L Z O
tz,
1 \ 1
71 >

y C
1 , 1
1 ?
F
Q
_ J

- E
, S

x- ? r

>o
m

t ^ ,

'77 5;
N S.
C N
- ?i
7 t- V lp b -
N O - a [
w rn
• :??, `PN\hl, Sewage .tAlispo t, ` ?. •.
' 185 _
??j% onnle DQ1SSI
o
flni 1?•
•°'?' ZONE B 1 = " -" +
10
C' I/ ZONE B
?• ?ri 0A 8E•28 •10? •011
'.,• oP° ZONE a ;;'-l .'•.1 :1
•a 178 ' ' '??° ? .v•• •+1
• • • , Q
' • '•• ZONEA6 wLva
• '? Z O N E 0/?
• • •••• •' 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
?..,ti ' ' '•• R'?E • . ?? Drive - 'I
TAMPAS o.
%QQ•.. ,, Theaier::
•' 9 ZONE?B
9
• 177
•• •. •' .' 2 J Q DAM =PROJ \ 17 'AA, • • ' : !! 174
R SE-25
ZONE B
171
,-ate ... ? ° ?
•/'
Y
IVE l .
6,q
- e
f
-? ZONE B °
00
r1
• •. \o
•21 \\
RM BE•
• PROJECT END
11 •. /
1'• I
• `? •' ' ?• ' ' City- of Fayetteville \
ZONE C
AREA NOT INCLUDED F,.aAn?o
o J o
C I I I I NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNIENTOF
• ??+? TRA.YSPORTATION
1 DIVISION OF H IGH W AI'S
?1 PROJECT D -IAIIM&YT
'? - • I • - ?F' AITI ENVIRONAIEYTALANALI'SIS BRANCH
II !1I 21? Cam G r o u d FAYETTEVILLE
I V? ' - C SR ?685 (LAKE VALLEY DR) EXTENSION
1 1 1'"1 FROM SR IJ 15(YADKM ROAD) TO US lot BYPASS
I! • /'`,• . - _ C CUMOERLAND COUNTY
_ X TIP PROIECF U-1911
\Y . . • ! - , FIG. 7
APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 18, 2000
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to your letter of August 18, 1999, requesting preliminary
comments on "Extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415)
to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County, State Project 8.2443401, Federal
Aid Project MASTP-2685(1), T.I.P. Project U-2911" (Regulatory Division Action ID
No. 200000537).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
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,
W. of an Long
Chef, Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosure
January 18, 2000
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to Skibo Road
(US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County, State Project 8.2443401, Federal Aid Project
MASTP-2685(1), T.I.P. Project U-2911" (Regulatory Division Action ID No. 200000537)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section at
[phone]
Based on a review of the site map enclosed with your request for comments and
Panel 115 of the February 1982 Cumberland County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the
proposed project appears close to the flood plain of Beaver Creek near its intersection
with Yadkin Road. This is a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. As shown on the site map and also compared with
the pertinent United States Geological Survey topographic map ("Fayetteville, N.C." ), it
appears likely that the proposed roadway alignment would avoid this flood plain.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC _ Mr. Dave Timpy Wilmington Field Office
Regulatory Division at [phone]
Based on information provided in the letter request for comments and on a review
of the soil survey for Cumberland County by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the proposed project may impact jurisdictional wetlands due to the close
proximity to Beaver Creek. Based on the information provided, it is not likely that the
proposed project will cross any streams. However, more information is needed on the
extent and location and community type of all the impacted wetlands before an
environmental assessment can be made.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clear? 1/1,/al-r Act of 1977, as amended) will be ra rrni tired for tI . discharge of rlrc_? J_ l n
fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with
this project, including disposal of construction debris. Pursuant to 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, our Regulatory Division would
appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for project-specific determinations of DA
permit requirements.
If you have any questions related to DA permits, they should be addressed to
Mr. Timpy.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33 726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 21, 1999
V.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
.1

n v

Thank you for your letter of August 18, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to Skibo
Road (US 401 Bypass), Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2911). This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes a four-lane divided
facility with a 16-foot grassed median on new location from SR 1415 to the US 401 Bypass.
The project is 0.6 mile in length.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and 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 are provided.to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we 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 region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic 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 techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Fayetteville 7.5 Minute Quadrangle does not
show any wetland resources at the project site. However, while the NWI maps are useful for
providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed
wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review anv federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination
occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize
delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
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 with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a 'no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that 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, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Coros of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
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 construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, 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 Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) 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 listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation should include survey
methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should be
included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
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 any onsite inspections;
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 impacts 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;'
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure 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.
FSC's include those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but
further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these
taxa. Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the
NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve
them if found. 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
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr.
Tom McCartney of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
ohn M. Hec?
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
4
cc:
COE, Wilminaton, NC (Dave Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCWRC, Creedmore, NC (David Cox)
USEPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartnev:TM:09/20/99:919/S56-4-i?0 extension j'2:\u-2911.tip
10

North Carolina
Department of Administration

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
September 2, 1999
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Anal. Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
SEC EO
SFP look
't r
'; A. AIYS
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadkin Drive (SR
1415) to Skibo Road (SR US 401 Bypass) in Cumberland County; TIP 9,U-2911
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 00-E.4220-0119 Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 11/10/1999. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

/? -;ZZ7-
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street * Ralei,h, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
9-North Carolina Wildife Resources Commission g
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276044188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co r
Habitat Conservation Progr /
DATE: October 8, 1999 1
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the
SR
268 5 (Lake
Valley Drive) extension, from Yadkin Drive (SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US
401 Bypass), Cumberland County, North Carolina. TIP No. IJ-2911, SCH
Project No. 00-E-0119.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT For our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, 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).
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation mid the review
process, our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
z
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699 - 1615
[phone]
Memo
2 October 8, 1999
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need lbr
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 contact me at [phone].
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James 8. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
NCDENR
Kerr T, Stevens, Director October 1, 1999

MENI ORA NDliM
To: Nlelba McGee
Through: John Dorney
From: John E. IIennessy
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR 2685) from Yadki
Drive
(SR 1415) to Skibo Road (US 401 Bypass) in Cumberland County, l=Gderal slid Project n No.
MAS'IP-268S S;a;: pro tc: No i-2443401, TIP U-2911, DF-INR No. OOE-0119.
Reference your correspe•,,,'.,-%,_r d.;,c'4 AuZtist 1 F. 1999 in which you requested comments for widening
project TIP U-2911. Pn:. rr""Ar) s.s of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
perennial streams and jut+s.J c;, to the project area. Further investigations at a higher
resolution should be un.icrt •.r t,, .e-jr. the p«,cnce of other streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the
area. In the event that any Jjr;sdre:,ontl .ucs arc identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that
NCDOT consider the following en%irenmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
The project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
L.cvcl-of- Service (LOS) is one of die primary reasons for The project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Servicc. The discussion for the future Level-of-Servicc should consider the Level-
of-Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailcd and iterniztd presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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
docurnentation. 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 prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of tilt project reveals that 110 Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, flig11
* Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
inlplernentation. However, should further analysis reveal the Presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (Hialt Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (1'rout Water) clarifications.
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
Mr. William D. Gitmorc memo
t o/01/99
Page 2
E. When Practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remcdiation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 ('Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of die project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will'be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as IIQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G• Tf applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
pt•acticable.
H• Weiland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sedimtnt and erosion control
struciuresimcasures) to the maximum extent practical. if this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Miti-ation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to suseams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. 13orrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with brid-cs. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through die
crossing.
II. If foundation test borings arc necessary; it should be noted in the document. Gcotc:chnical work is
approved under General 401, Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. III accordance with die NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitiuaton will be
required for itttpacts of brrcater Than 150 linear feet to any single '
the event
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be dz igned to replace appropriate lostthat
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wcdands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be availahle for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful tiflice tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
le
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
ift V99
Pugh 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated Uscs arc not degraded or lost. Jf you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers
Toni McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C::\nc<loi\Tl? U-2911\commcncs\U-291 l scuping cnmmcnrs2.doc
State of North Carolina
'Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office: ?J GC "J O
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number:47OF_ - d 111 Due Date: 10' 9- `>17
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR 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 apolications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
i
i
(statutory t
me l
mit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. Ott-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters. (90 days)
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
discharging into state surface waters. treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Permit to construct & operate.4ir Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 13 A NCAC 2D.1900 -
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820. (90 days)
O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days
Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and S2000 for each additional acre or part must . (30 days)
accompany the plan
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit -; On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater 30 days
titan one acre mast be penniac%i The appropriate bond must be teceivea (60 days)
before the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned"
O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A (60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
NO/ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ES B. HUNT J
E:R?OR "i:t •,
V ,
6P
m OCP7999
? FcF? N
Lrc e`dn ? ?/J 7
.:0?
l
MEMORANDUM ill/ nI r+ n S
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: OOE-0119 Scoping Lake Valley Drive Extension,
Cumberland County
DATE: October 26, 1999
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.ENR.STATE.NC.Us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10q POST-CONSUMER PAPER
,. STATt
.y.Hyf
?y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 6, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook '
Deputy State historic Prese rvation fficer
SUBJECT: Fayetteville, extension of Lake Valley Drive (SR
2685) frorl YjJk-m [Irive (SR 1415) to Skibo
Road WS 4 Fvj%tss). Cumberland County,
State Pr.'Nic, t ;-t : ?4t?" 1. Federal Aid Project
MASTP-?c?? ; +. 1, ER 99-8712
Thank you for your letter 01 April 6. 1999, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have checked our maps and files and have determined there are no historic structures in
the project's area of potential effect.
We recommend that an archaeological survey should be conducted of new right-of-way
inasmuch as prehistoric and historic sites are likely to exist in the area.
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: Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 13 021
a
SrA•C q
4
•? RNM ?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 5, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tr tion
FROM: David Brook `/ Gj,V i I
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: SR 2685 from SR 1415 to US 401 Bypass, U-2911,
Cumberland County, ER 99-8712, CH 00-E-4200-0119
Attached is a copy of our May 6, 1999, comments concerning this project. We recommend an
archaeological survey be conducted within new right-of-way inasmuch as prehistoric and historic
sites are likely to exist in this area. Existing right-of-way and substantially developed properties
do not require additional investigation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified
at 36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comments, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
DB:lbd
cc: Clearing House
R
109 East Jones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
STATF,,
..y
? , ? ^gL
W C
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
' State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
i James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
August 2, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: David Brook
cs,t ?i
Deputy State Histolt Preservation Officer
RE: SR 2685, (Lake Valley Drive) Extension from SR 1415 (Yadkin Road)
to i?.S. 401 Bypass, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, ER 99-8712,
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-2685(1), TIP No. U-2911
Thank you for the letter of June 10, 2000, transmitting the "Archaeological Survey Report" by Brian
P. Overton.
This well-written report clearly describes the field methods and total number of shovel tests
excavated during the survey. Two small archeological sites, 31 CD841 and 31 CD842, were
discovered and evalux: _-d. Both site descriptions include well-executed maps that illustrate the site
boundaries. Photographs clearly illustrate the stratigraphy at 31CD842. Soils in the project area
and the sites are described clearly along with Munsell color chart numbers. The report concludes
that neither site is eligible for the National Register. We concur.
We also acknowledge receipt of the two official archaeological site forms with detailed information
on the fieldwork conducted.
We recommend that no additional archeological work be conducted for the subject project. This
concludes the Section - 06 consultation regarding archeological resources for the subject project.
The above comments a:-e 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 comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: Roy Shelton, P.;., FHwA
Tom Padgett, N C DOT
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
431 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center
4619 Mail Service Center
4613 Maul Service Center
401K Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Raleigh NC 2 7 69 9-46 1 9
Raleigh NC 37699-4013
Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 8
Telephone/Fax
[phone] 733-9653
[phone] 715-2671
[phone] 715-4801
[phone] 715-4801
APPENDIX B
NOISE ANALYSIS TABLES
TABLE NI
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
I
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HU MAN 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 at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 151n 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 at 1.5m away
20 ' Light rainfall, rustic of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON' S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 ---- - ----_-_--------------------- ---------------------------------------------
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Hanford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA.
t.
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
T
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
ate o L (h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
7 (Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leg(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
11

Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.

:n
a.
W
O
M ?
zx
W
W W
• 1
LT.
Lt.

N
,
O
U
" C3
c?
N
0
U
0
3
z
O
U
X
W
L
Q2
cc
Q?
cC
M?
00
W
N
w

? a ? c c c c -- v cis r

z + + + + + + + +
+ +
? i

W) tr)
i
r-4

i

`-? I I I
W

I

L u !'. .
? I i I
m
i
•'7

?? p IC' I? ?_] IL's IG i'Li !? IL'i ?C !C
} C

i
? } i I I I I I !
0 v i i
W r'
C) W I I

of
Z W _j i l
cq W
En- Q >
z

a z l i I'n IL ! v'1 i I !

W Q.'
L^.1 I I

O re !
v
v ? Im I
m Im I
O W I ! ° m j Im m m
Q v > I I I

O W
-?

N

H

U

U

U I

U I

U

U ?

U

U
'r,?

ry

? ?
.'.' U
'fl U
'II U
'U U
72 U I
7p U
72 ! U
b U
'S!
o
a a
J a

cn I =

rn =

m v

?

r?

x

x

a

w
1 I

C?

w
.x. C

I
U
N
U
U
U
U
v
U
O
.:C
U
'IIU
0
U
D
x
C `
L U
O
O U
t.
y U
C
ti
o?
U U
U U
C ti
>- LLI
C.
_ U
°- U
N
O ?
U
U G
U LPL
O U
ti N
? L
?• U
"a U
O
L
C
O
2 O
o _
U U
O p
C) U
N --
-j to
N O
n.
O
once
O
CN
O J O n lip
p o
a ° p ° ?-
O
(D
O ?.
m
y a rn
3 a z
CD a m -a

CD
a _
o z

O

r
?^ z
"
(
D (D

o ?

CD

d ? O
o ?? O o p ?
w o D m

o ?

o

O
O D O D
Z
r- - --- X
D
CN zo?
V ^ 3
co
D C/)
a
?- m-O
0 o p m? x
0 o n? D m
0 o O J p?
IQ
N n ?
0 o Im 0 m
N
00
v,
T-'
CD
Q
? D
?z
h
J l+1
? G7
a
? m•D
o m ?
? m
=?z
l 1 ?...r
= a
r
c v'
C
A?
?- a
C
N
t
41

I-4
Q
W
Q
z U
wz
w
w
w
O
z
U
L=.
Q
G1
N
i
a
h
A
0
U
C?
L.
a?
U
O
s.
0
3
z
0
W
Cd
MM?
W
NO
(.14
w
a
o ?

E C) LLI N O O
U

U

? J
Q Lr? LU
> Q
z
a-?w=
Li] c? O O
V) cn U
ZD

w
Cn N O O
A
Ill

U
z ?
N

? o 0 0

LU N

Lil
m
V) o 0

O o O o

L[] -

LU c
? N N

LL) V
U N N

0
11 \0 \0
A
3 O
z -? Q
o o
_?
x
z
o LLI

LO O
0 a> LY m

U
00 7 -
Zo .L. O
N ? ?l

N
z
LU
m
Q
O
E
0
0
a?
y N
cz
L LU
? m
?co+ M
H L
O .+
H L
RS U
T S
c O
O -0
N d
N N
N V1
Q Q
N
?a STATE o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
July 5, 2000
Memorandum To: Robert Hanson, P. E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
From: i'/ii effrey Burleson, Environmental Biologist
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Protected species update for the proposed construction of a multi-lane
facility on new location from SR 1415 (Yadkin Rd.) to US 401 Bypass
(Skibo Rd.) in Cumberland County. TIP No. U-291 l; State Project No.
.8.2443401; Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-2685(1).
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTP) submitted on April 25, 2000.
ATTENTION: Ray Lofti, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The following memorandum addresses Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), one of the
federally protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Cumberland County.
Potential habitat was identified mostly at the southern portion of the project area. A plant-by-
plant survey was conducted for Michaux's sumac by NCDOT biologist's Jeffrey Burleson and
Logan Williams on June 29, 2000 during the flowering period. A known population* of
Michaux's sumac was visited prior to the site visit. Specimens of Michaux's sumac were not
found within the project area or vicinity. However, other species of sumac (Rhus spp.) were
identified, such as, winged sumac (Rhus copallina). Therefore, project construction will not
affect Michaux's sumac.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
. Thank you for you assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need any
additional information about this project, please contact Mr. Jeffrey Burleson at [phone],
Extension 315.
(*The known population of Michaux's sumac is located on Barwell Road, just east of Raleigh,
along the roadside)

M STS
.,}y

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 25, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Hanson, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
FROM: 'effrey Burleson, `Environmental Biologist
, ' Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Natural. Resources Technical Report for the proposed
construction of a multi-lane facility on new location
from SR 1415 (Yadkin Rd.) to US 401 Bypass (Skibc
Rd.) in Cumberland County, TIP No. U-2911, State
Project No. 8.2443401; Federal Aid No. MASTP-
2685(1).
ATTENTION: Ray Lofti, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Engineering Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories
and descriptions of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along
with analyses of probable impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of
project construction. Pertinent information on wetlands and federally protected
species is also provided, with respect to regulatory concerns that must be
considered. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report
copied onto disk format.
cc: File: U-2911

CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-LANE FACILITY
FROM SR 1415 (YADKIN RD.) TO US 401 BYPASS (SKIBO RD.)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP NO. U-2911
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2443401
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NQ. MASTP-26851(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
U-2911
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMNETAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
JEFFREY BURLESON, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
APRIL 25, 2000

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. .................................... :...................................... 2
1.2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................2
1.3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... .3
1.4 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................. .4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ .4
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................. . 4
2.2 SOILS ..................................................................................................................................... . 5
2.3 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... .6
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ........................................................................... . 7
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .................................................................. . 7
2.3.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. . 8
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water7Resources .................................................. . 9
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 10
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. 10
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed ................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2 Pine-Hardwood Forest ................................................................................................. 11
3:1.3 Loblolly Pine Plantation ................................................................................................ 12
3.1.4 Perennial Stream .......................................................................................................... 12
3.2 WILDLIFE .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna .......................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Aquatic Fauna ...........................................................................................................:. 15
3.3 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................... 15
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts ........................................................................................................ 15
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts ............................................................................................................ 17
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 18
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................................ 18
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands Impacted .......................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Characteristics of Surface Water Impacts ................................................................... 18
4.1.3 Permits .....................................................................................................:................... 19
4.1.4 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................................... 20
4.1.4.2 Minimization ........................................................................................................................ 20
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................................... 21
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................................ 21
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........................................................................................ 21
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ................................................. 28
5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 31
Table 1. Soils Occurring in the Project Area .....................................................5
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ..............................16
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Cumberland County ......................22
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County .......................28

-1-
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
-2-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project.
The project lies in Cumberland County (Figure 1). The purpose of this report is
to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed
right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these
natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that
will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may
affect the selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in
design criteria. Such environmental concerns should be addressed during the
preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses
contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the existing
preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria
change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will build a four-lane facility on new location from SR
1415 (Yadkin Rd.) to US 401 Bypass (Skibo Rd.), an area covering 0.6 miles in
length. The multi-lane facility will contain a 16-foot grassed median. The
proposed right-of-way (ROW) is 110 feet. The proposed speed limit for the
facility will be 45 mph. This project is located in Cumberland County in the city of
Fayetteville.
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe
the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This
report also attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures that will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions are relevant
only.in the context of existing design concepts. If design parameters and criteria
change, additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
-3-
1.3 METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed.
Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Fayetteville).
USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Cumberland County, North Carolina
(1984).
NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity
Base Maps of Cumberland (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in
the study area was obtained from the FWS list of protected and candidate
species (December 20, 1999) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NHP-) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were
reviewed for documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and
locations of significant natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT Environmental Biologists Logan Williams, Sue Brady, Karen Lynch, and
Jeffrey Burleson on April 13, 2000. Water resources were identified and their
physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications
generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant
taxonomy follows Radford, et aL (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et aL
(1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et aL (1980), and Webster, et aL (1985).
Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project
site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities.
Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation techniques:
qualitative , habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active
searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows).
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on
criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environment Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental Management, 1995).
Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et aL
(1979).
-4-
1.4 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used
concerning the limits of natural resources investigations. Project area
denotes the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full
length of the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area
extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region"
denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute
USGS quadrangle map, i.e. [163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)].
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed
below with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site
topography significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction,
along with other possible construction limitations or management concerns.
Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased
potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from
construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of water
resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the
availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Cumberland County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of
North Carolina. In addition, the northwestern section of Cumberland County is in
the Sandhills region (Figure 2). The lower elevations are in the southeastern part
of the county where elevations can be less than 100 feet above sea level. The
northwestern part of Cumberland County reaches elevations of 270 feet above
sea level. The county is located in the Cape Fear River drainage basin and is
drained by tributaries running to the Cape Fear River. Significant geologic
features in Cumberland County are the Carolina bays ranging in size from less
than 1 acre to more than 1,000 acres. Soils in these areas are wet throughout
the year. These areas are located primarily in the southeastern Cumberland
County.

2.2 SOILS
Generally, soils are characterized into Soil Associations or "General Soil
Mapping Units" with consistent patterns of soil, relief, and drainage. The project
study area in Cumberland County lies within the Wagram-Faceville-Norfolk
"General Soil Mapping Unit". This soil unit is characterized by nearly level to
gently sloping, well-drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil on uplands.
There are six soil types located in the project area. An inventory of these soils
can be found in Table 1. A brief description of each soil type is also provided.
Table 1. Soils Occurring in the Project Area.
Map Specific Mapping Unit % Slope Hydric Capability
Symbol Unit
VaD Vaucluse loamy sand 8-15- Non- IVe
hydric
WgB Wagram-Urban land 0-8 Non- Not
complex hydric assigned
BaB Blaney loamy sand 2-8 Non- Ills
hydric
WaB Wagram loamy sand 0-6 Non- lis
hydric
JT Johnston loam Nearly Hydric VIIw
level
BaD Blaney loamy sand 2-8 Non- Ills
hydric
VaD (Vaucluse loamy sand), 8-15 % slope -This is a well-drained soil located
on side slopes in uplands. This soil will likely be found in the northern and
western parts of Cumberland County. Permeability is moderately slow in the
upper part of the subsoil and slow in the lower part. Reaction ranges from
extremely acid through strongly acid in all horizons. The hazard of erosion is
severe when the soil is exposed. Most areas in this soil are in woodland and
a few are in pasture or cropland. This soil is suited to most urban and
recreational uses. Slope can be a limitation to building site development.
WqB (Wagram-Urban land complex), 0-8 % slope -This map unit consist of
areas of Wagram soil and areas of Urban land that are too small and too
intermingled to be mapped separately. Permeability is moderately rapid, and
available water capacity is low to medium. Reaction is very strongly acid or
strongly acid throughout the soil. Urban land consists of areas where the
original soil has been covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings; or other
impervious surfaces. Slope is modified to fit the site and commonly ranges
from 0 to 4 percent.
-6-
BaB (Blaney loamy sand), 2-8 % slope-This well-drained soil is on side
slopes and narrow ridges of uplands. It is mostly in the western and northern
parts of Cumberland County. Permeability is moderately slow, and available
water capacity is low. Reaction is very strong acid or strongly acid throughout
the soil. The hazard of erosion is moderate where the soil is exposed. A
perched water table is frequently above the brittle subsoil for brief periods
after heavy rains. Most areas of this soil are in woodland, and the rest are
mainly in row crops or pasture. This soil is suited for most urban and
recreational uses.
WaB (Wagram loamy sand), 0-6 % slope- This soil is well drained and
located on broad, smooth flats and side slopes of uplands. Permeability is
moderately rapid, and available water capacity is low to medium. Reaction is
very strongly acid or strongly acid throughout the soil. Most areas of this soil
are in cultivated crops. The rest are in pasture or woodland. This soil is well
suited to most urban uses.
JT (Johnston loam), This nearly level poorly drained soil is along major
drainageways. It is located primarily on floodplains in Cumberland County.
Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper part of the soil and rapid in the
lower part. Reaction is very strongly acid or strongly acid throughout. The
seasonal high water table is at or above the surface most of the year. This
soil is subject to frequent flooding. This soil is poorly suited, to urban and
recreational uses. Wetness, flooding, and low strength are the main
limitations.
• BaD (Blaney loamy sand), 2-8 % slope- This soil is well drained, located on
the side slopes and narrow ridges of uplands. It is mostly in the western and
northern parts of Cumberland County. Permeability is moderately slow, and
available water capacity is low. Reaction is very strongly acid or strongly acid
throughout the soil. The hazard of erosion is moderate where the soil is
exposed. A perched water table frequently is above the brittle subsoil for brief
periods after heavy rains.
2.3 WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning surface water resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments
include the physical characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality
aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major regional
drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also
discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
. -7-
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The. project area is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear
River Basin is the largest river basin in the state and covers an area of 9,149
square miles in 24 counties. The basin is confined to the Piedmont, Sandhills,
and Coastal Plain ecoregions. The project is located in the Cape Fear subbasin
03-06-15, United States Dept. of Interior Hydrologic Unit 03030004. This
subbasin is located in the Sandhills ecoregion of the state and contains the city
of Fayetteville, the largest urban area, as well as the majority of the Fort Bragg
Military Reservations. This subbasin is drained primarily by Rockfish Creek and
Little Rockfish Creek.
There is one water resource, an unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek (UT
BC 1), intersecting the project area. Beaver Creek lies within the project vicinity
(DEM-index 18-31-24-5). Beaver Creek is classified by the N. C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) as Class C. Class C represents freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and
wildlife. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a minimum
(DEHNR 1997). Unnamed tributaries receive the same DWQ classification as the
unnamed tributary's receiving stream. Beaver Creek is located outside the right-
of-way boundary for this project by 320 feet or more and will not be impacted by
this project.
This unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek was found only during field
investigations and was not identified on USDA Soil mapping for Cumberland
County or USGS Topographic mapping for Cumberland County.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
There is one surface water, UT BC 1, located within the project study
area. UT BC- 1 width averages around 6 feet and is 1-2 feet in depth and has
apparently been altered., During the field visit in April, there was no evidence of
recent flow. The water was stagnant with a large amount of filamentous algae
present.
-8-
2.3.3 Water Quality
The DWQ is the state agency responsible for regulating and enforcing
Surface Water Quality rules. To accomplish this task the DWQ collects data on
the biological, chemical and physical condition of North Carolina surface waters.
The Benthic Macroi nverteb rate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by
the DWQ 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 benthic macro invertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Many benthic macroi nverteb rates have stages in their life cycle that can
last from six months to a year, therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will
not be overcome until the next generation (DEM, 1993). Different taxa of
macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long term
changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from
pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the
species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long
term water quality conditions.
"Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from
Poor to Excellent to each benthic sample based on the number of taxa present in
the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT)," (DEM,
1993). A biotic index is also developed for the m acroinve rteb rate samples by
summarizing tolerance data for all species in a given sample. A bioclassification
is derived from the data generated from the EPT and biotic index metrics. There
are no BMAN stations located directly above or below the project area.
Point source discharge is defined "as any discharge that enters surface
waters through a pipe, ditch or any other well-defined point. The term commonly
refers to discharges associated with waste water treatment plant facilities. In
addition, discharges from storm water collection systems at industrial sites and in
large urban areas are now considered point source discharges (DEM, 1993).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted
point source dischargers located in the project study area.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through storm water or snowmelt (DEM, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve
as a source for various forms of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and
plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to erosion, which
can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause
of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina (DEM, 1993). Pesticides, chemical
fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to
-9-
receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
nutrients. Animal wastes can also be source of bacterial contamination and
elevate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained
soils enhances the transportation of storm water into surface waters (DEM,
1993). Within the project vicinity, there is predominately impervious surface in
the form of parking lots of major shopping centers, roadways, and private
residences.
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project may result in impacts to water resources.
Land clearing and grubbing activities during project construction may result in
soil erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity in nearby streams.
These effects may extend downstream for considerable distance with decreasing
intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water
quality. The vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus
moderating water temperature. The removal of streamside canopy will result in
fluctuating water temperatures. During warmer portions of the year, the water
temperature will increase, resulting in a decrease in dissolved oxygen because
warmer water holds less oxygen. Stream bank vegetation also stabilizes stream
banks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles. .
The installation and/or extension of hydraulic modifiers such as culverts
and pipes during project construction typically results in sedimentation and
turbidity in stream resources. The placement of culverts and pipes in-stream
may result in alterations of the water level. This disruption of the stream reduces
stream flow downstream of the project. Temporary diversions of water flow will
raise the water level upstream from the project and lower the water level
downstream of the project. Additionally, they may accelerate water flow during
storm events, leading to stream bank scouring and substrate disturbance.
Locally, the construction of this project will increase the amount of
impervious area in the project study area and ultimately vehicular use in the
vicinity. This will directly lead to an increase in concentrations of toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) which may be carried into nearby water
resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased
amounts of toxic materials can adversely alter the water quality of any water
resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of
disturbance of the stream bank and substrate. Sedimentation from these
1(3
activities may be high during construction, but should diminish rapidly following
project completion when exposed soils are revegetated and stream banks
stabilized with native vegetation. Wooded buffers effectively trap organic
nutrients and sediments before they reach water resources. This will increase
long-term water quality and provide wildlife habitat.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described
and discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations is denoted with an
asterisk (*). 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.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley
1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better
reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms,
as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Rhode et al. 1994; Potter et al. 1980).
Recreational fishing potential was obtained from Fish (1968).
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Four terrestrial communities are identified in the project area:
Maintained/Disturbed, Pine-Hardwood Forest, Loblolly Pine Plantation, and
Perennial Stream communities. Community boundaries within the study area
overlap. Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all
communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
41-
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community can be found throughout the project
study corridor. Several habitats are included in this description: road shoulders
and residential/commercial landscapes. Road shoulders are irregularly
maintained, receiving only periodic mowing and herbicide applications.
Residential and business landscapes receive more frequent mowing and general
maintenance.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding
communities by filtering storm water run-off. Vegetation occurring here includes
fescue (Festuca spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), horse nettle (Solanum
carolinensis), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), golden rod (Solidago
altisma), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra)), beggar's tick (Bidens sp.), elephant's ear
(Elephantophus tomentosa), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), clovers (Trifolium spp.),
chickory (Cichoruim intybus), violets (Viola spp.), and buckhorn plantain
(Plantago lanceolata). Areas receiving less frequent maintenance are occupied
by broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
saplings of yellow poplar (Lirodendron tulipifera), blackberries (Rebus spp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), other goldenrods (Solidago spp.),
yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and ragweed (Ambrosia artemissifolia).
Vegetation associated with residential and business landscapes includes:
flowering dogwood (Comus florida), Chinese dogwood (C. kousa chinensis),
forsythia (Forsythia sp.), azaleas (Rhododendron spp.), lilac (Syringa vulgaris),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Southern red oak (Quercus falcata), and various
ornamental hybrids of hollies (Ilex spp.), Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata),
arbor vitae (Thuja sp.) and juniper (Juniperus sp.). Fescue, clover, plantains and
crabgrass (Digitaria sp.) dominate lawn areas.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
such that both are required for survival and reproduction.
3.1.2 Pine-Hardwood Forest
The Pine-Hardwood community can be found throughout most of the
project area and is adjacent to the Perennial Stream, Loblolly Pine Plantation,
and Maintained/Disturbed communities.
This community has a canopy dominated by loblolly pine, sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Q. nigra), and an occasional white oak (Q.
alba) and southern red oak. The understory contains red maple (Acer rubrum),
12
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), horse sugar (Symplocus tinctoria), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), American holly (Ilex
opaca), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) and flowering dogwood. The vine
layer is dominated by Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), muscadine
grape (Vitus rotundifolia), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), bona-nox (S. bona-
nox), cat brier, wisteria (Wisteria frutescens), yellow jasmine (Gelsemium
sempervirens) and Japanese honeysuckle. The herbaceous layer contains
spotted wintergreen (Chimiphala maculata), blackberry, partridge berry (Mitchella
repens), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).
3.1.3 Loblolly Pine Plantation
This mature community is found throughout the project area along higher
topographic elevations in well-drained, sandy soils. This community is adjacent
to the Perennial Stream, Pine-Hardwood Forest, and Maintained/Disturbed
communities. Most of this community type throughout the project area is
approximately 40 years old; however, a portion of the loblolly pine plantation
community found in the southern region of the project area has been recently
harvested (March 2000). During the next growing season, early successional
species will invade this harvested area.
This mature community is dominated by a canopy cover of loblolly pine.
Because of the thick cover of pine straw the only visible ground species are
spotted wintergreen, blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), huckleberry (Gaylucacia
frondosa), and partridge berry. The vine layers consists of Japanese
honeysuckle, yellow jasmine, muscadine grape, and poison ivy. The subcanopy
and herbaceous layer in this community is sparce and may include: wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera), magnolia, horse sugar, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), flowering
dogwood, American holly, persimmon, and young loblolly pine saplings.
The harvested area will be invaded by early successional species.
Previously this community was predominantly made up of loblolly pine, an
abundance of loblolly pine saplings will emerge. Other species that will invade
this community may include: broomsedge, bedstraw (Galium sp.), dog fennel,
blackberry, blueberry, sweet gum, cat briar, and poison ivy.
3.1.4 Perennial Stream
There is one perennial stream within the project area, an unnamed
tributary to Beaver Creek. The perennial stream community is adjacent to the
pine-hardwood forest community on both sides of the stream. The unnamed
tributary to Beaver Creek intersects the southern half of the project alignment
13
and has a small drainage area. The vegetation found along the stream banks is
diverse.
The composition of stream bank vegetation and within the adjacent
wetland may include: river birch (Betula nigra), red maple, Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), elderberry (Sambucas
canadensis), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), dog fennel, tearthumb
(Polygonum sagittatum), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), southern lady fern (Athyrium
aspleniodes), netted chain-fern (Woodwardia aerolata), cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea), Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia virginica), viburnums
(Viburnum spp.), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium dubium), false nettle (Bohemeria
cylindrica), and orange-spotted jewelweed (impatiens capensis).
3.2 WILDLIFE
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit all
biotic communities discussed. The maintained/disturbed community dominates
the project area. Nearly all the forested parcels within the project area have
received some degree of impact by human activities. Generally, the community
boundaries are abrupt, with little transitional area between them. Forested tracts
and drainage ways provide habitat for species requiring a forest community, and
also provide shelter and movement corridors for other species of wildlife within
the project vicinity.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna
The conglomeration of community types within the project area forms a
contiguous and diverse association of habitats, which allows for similarly
complex faunal components. Because of the disturbed nature of all of the
habitats in the project area, the faunal component is expected to consist mostly
of opportunistic animals able to adapt to the "edge" habitat created by human
activites. Conversely, species which require large undisturbed forested habitats
are likely to be absent from the project area. Herbivorous mammals, such as
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), frequent the vegetatively diverse "edges" of disturbed areas and
community borders.
Despite the disturbance of the forest areas by human-influenced activities,
a vertically stratified and complex habitat with abundant food and shelter
resources is available for a variety of fauna. The canopy strata provide a
plethora of food items including insects, mast and leaves. Primarily bird species,
such as downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius),
14
ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), golden-crowned kinglet (R. satrapa),
brown creeper (Certhia familiaris), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea)*,
yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta
carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor)*, red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus)*,
pine warbler (D. pinus)*, gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) and northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*, utilize the canopy. However, gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis or H. versicolor), and eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) also utilize this stratum.
Many of the ground-dwelling species, including worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), southeastern crowned snake (Tantilla coronata), southeastern shrew
(Sorex longirostris), and woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum) are fossorial (living
in burrows). Other species occupying the forest floor include the ground nesting
ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), American toad (Bufo americanus)*, ground skink
(Scincella lateralis) and eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling)*. Earthworms,
insects and other invertebrates constitute the majority of these species' diets.
The woodland vole and eastern box turtle consume mainly plant material and
fungi.
Top predators expected to occur here include various hawks (Accipiter
spp. and Buteo spp.), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix). These species are important in maintaining populations
of rodents, small birds and other small animals. Because of the open, relatively
non-stratified nature of maintained/disturbed communities such as the roadside
habitats, resident vertebrate fauna, are generally small in size. Small mammals
such as least shrew (Sorex cinereus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), and house mouse (Mus musculus) are able to utilize the limited
amount of vegetative cover of crop fields and pastures. The burrowing eastern
mole (Sca/opus aquaticus) is common in open areas bordering forested tracts.
These small mammals are important prey items for black rat snake (Elaphae
constrictor)*, red fox (Vulpes vulpes), red-tailed hawk (Bueto jamacensis)* and
other birds of prey.
Faunal community complexity is a function of vegetative community
complexity. Few animals reside along roadsides because of the limited size and
complexity of the habitat. Various species of birds feed along roadsides on
seeds, berries and insects. Some of these species include the northern
cardinal*, American robin (Turdus migratorius)* and white-throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis). Snakes such as the black racer (Coluber constrictor)*
and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) may venture into this habitat to
feed on insects and small mammals.
Virginia opossum and raccoon* frequently forage nocturnally in these
habitats, or travel along roadways between habitats. These animals are often
15
road kill victims. Consequently road kills attract a large number of scavenger
species including turkey vulture (Carthartes aura)* and common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos)*, as well as domestic dogs and cats.
3.2.2 Aquatic Fauna
The aquatic community impacted by the proposed project is the unnamed
tributary to Beaver Creek. Physical characteristics of the water body and
condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also influence
the aquatic community.
Species abundance and diversity within a stream are dependent on the
size and water quality of the water body. This first order stream within the
project area is generally too small to support a rich diversity of ichthyofauna, or
large individuals of representative species. These streams are likely to support
smaller individuals of the larger species such as fry and young of the year fish,
as well as those species that are generally small (in size).
The project area's surface water can be expected to provide habitat for a
limited number of aquatic organisms. Ichthyofauna is absent, however, several
aquatic insects may be found in this community, include: water strider (Gems
spp.), riffle beetle (Psephenus henicki), crane fly (Tipula spp.), stream mayfly
(Ephemeroptera) and black-winged damselfly (Calopteryx maculata).
The bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R. palustris), Queen snake
(Regina septemvittata), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) may occupy
this community also.
3.3 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
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of the
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are. considered here
as well.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community (Table 2). Project construction will result in the
16
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts
are derived using the proposed ROW width and temporary easements outlined in
preliminary plan sheets provided by NCDOT. Project construction does not
usually require the entire impact width; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community Impacted Area
Hectares(Acres),
Pine-Hardwood Forest 1.69(4.17)
Loblolly Pine Plantation 1.19(2.95)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.35(0.87)
TOTAL 3.23(7.99)

The biotic communities found within the project study area will be altered
as a result of project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting,
foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. The majority of the project study area is
located in disturbed habitat. Additional disturbed habitats will be re-established
as roadside shoulder and other types of irregularly maintained communities after
project construction.
Most of the project study area is located on new location. This results in
increased impacts to forested communities (specifically the pine/hardwood forest
community). The construction of this will result in habitat loss and habitat
fragmentation. An isolated-forested tract of land will be fragmented further by
project construction, resulting in the forested tracts becoming smaller and
eliminating habitat for plants and animals. Many vertebrates as well as insects
and plants have restrictive habitat requirements; the resulting landscape
disturbance may affect the long-term viability of these species once their habitats
are fragmented. The size of fragmented habitat areas is always relative to the
species of concern; however, fragmented areas more than likely will disrupt
continuity between populations of some animal and plant communities. The
construction of this project may create a barrier to gene flow between
populations on either side of a road. Fragmentation of large gene pools could
affect the ability of some plant and animal populations to persist under harsh
environmental conditions. Species adapted to disturbed and edge habitat will
thrive, while species that require larger tracts will decrease or disappear due to
competition or habitat reduction.
Clearing and conversion of forested tracts for roadway development
eliminates nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for faunal organisms. Many
forested systems offer all of the necessary components (i.e. food, water, cover)
to support vertebrate species. The loss of this habitat will displace animals from
this area as they search for additional habitat. This may concentrate animals
4T
into a smaller area that can cause degradation of remaining habitat and
increased mortality due to disease, predation, and starvation. Individual
mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals (moles, shrews, snakes, etc.)
from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of
aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, and stream banks). Disturbance of
aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by
reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical
alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the
burial of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic
substances and decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal.
• Loss of benthic macro i nverteb rates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to construction
activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified
throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption
and/or additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level
may severely impact spawning activities of mobile and sessile organisms.
Construction runoff and highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species
inhabiting water resources.
The construction of this project will increase vehicular use in the project
vicinity. This may lead to the introduction of toxic compounds that may be
I8
carried into water resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface
drainage. Wildlife crossings will become difficult and will result in an increase in
roadkills.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the United States and Protected and
Rare Species.
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and jurisdictional 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.
Surface waters are used in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to the
ebb and flow of tides, all interstate waters including interstate wetlands, and all
other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that
proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.9.9 Characteristics of Wetlands. Impacted
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 among other indicators), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including;
saturated soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized root channels, matted vegetation, high
water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
There is one small low quality wetland located within the project area.
This small wetland area (-0.05 acre) can be found along each side of the
unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek, UT BC1.
4.9.2 Characteristics of Surface Water Impacts
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet
of the stream that is located within the proposed ROW. Physical aspects of surface
13
waters are described in section 2.3.2. The Jurisdictional Surface water found within
the project area is the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek and will likely be impacted.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Surface Waters within the project area could total, but not
exceed, 110 linear feet of creek (proposed ROW).
4.1.3 Permits
impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are -anticipated from the proposed
project. Consequently, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water
quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) Permit is likely to be applicable for
project construction at the crossing of the Waters of the United States, culvert
installation in the unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek. These permits authorize
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency' or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from. the
DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of
the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulation.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of 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 maintain and restore
the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
24
CEQ -to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope
and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology
and logistics, in light of overall project purposes.
4.1.4.2 Minimization .
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
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.
Practicable 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
ROW widths and easements, 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 BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands.
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies
and wetlands.
Minimization of "in-stream" activities.
21-
4.1.4.3 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 that 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.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands
• And/or more than 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams
Current projected project impacts will not exceed the above-mentioned wetland
and linear stream thresholds for compensatory mitigation. Therefore,
compensatory mitigation is not anticipated for construction of this project.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest
with the COE.
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process
of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
development. 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 United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 20, 1999, the FWS lists eight
federally protected species for Cumberland County.
22
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Cumberland Coun
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci E
small-whorled pogonia lsotria medeoloides T
pondberry Linders melissifolia E
rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
American chaffseed Schwa/bea americana E
"T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance is species that are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are
listed for the rare species' protection. T (S/A) are not subject to Section 7
consultation. "
"E"-Endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
"T"-Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the near future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) T(S/A)
Animal Family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: 04 June 1987
The American alligator is a large reptile with a broad snout, a short neck,
heavy body, and a laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish to dark gray.
The alligator inhabits freshwater marshes and swamps in the coastal plain
of North Carolina. It is found from the southern boundary of the Albemarle Sound
throughout the coastal plain of eastern and southeastern North Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT REQUIRED
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T S/A). This is due to its similarity of appearance to another rare
species that is listed for protection. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats did not contain any
American Alligator project region. T S/A species are not subject to Section 7
consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not required. In
addition, habitat for American alligator is not present within the project area.
Therefore, project construction will not affect the American alligator.
23
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
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 cape, neck, and throat. The
RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pines
(Pinus palustris) for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are
>60 years old and are contiguous with pind stands of at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees
that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are
located in colonies from 3.6 to 30.3 m (12 to 100 ft) above the ground and
average 9.1 to 15.7 m (30 to 50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in
April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting habitat, open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) lacking a thick understory, is not
present within the project area. In addition, the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats did not contain any
red-cockaded woodpecker sightings or active nesting trees within the project
area. Therefore, project construction will not affect the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Date Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of
the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers
of Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. The fruit, which develops from
August to September on female plants, is 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
24
usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams.
Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
There is habitat for Michaux's sumac in the form of wooded edges within
the project study area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats did not contain any Michaux's
sumac sightings within the project vicinity. Since habitat is present within the
project area, a plant-by-plant survey for Michaux's sumac will need 'to be
conducted to resolve this issue.
Neonympha mifchelli francisci (Saint Francis' satyr) E
Family: Nymphalidae
Federally Listed: 18 April 1994
Currently this species is known from a single metapopulation located on
Fort Bragg in the. coastal plain of North Carolina. Historically, it is thought to
have had a patchy distribution throughout the coastal plain prior to loss of habitat
through fire suppression and over collection. It was thought to be extinct until
rediscovery in 1992.
Saint Francis' satyr is a small dark brown butterfly with a typical wingspan
of 34-44 mm (1-2 in). This species can be identified by conspicuous eyespots on
the lower surface of the fore and hind wings. The eyespots are characterized by
dark maroon-brown centers containing opalescent patches, borders are straw
yellow in color with an outermost border of dark brown. Saint Francis' satyr can
be further distinguished by two bright orange bands along the posterior wing
edges and two darker bands across the central portion of each wing. Two flights
occur each year one in early May and the second in early August. Larvae are
thought to feed on a wide variety of grasses and sedges.
Suitable habitat for this satyr is found in wide wet meadows dominated by
sedges and wetland graminoids. This species prefers recently disturbed wetland
habitats. In most localities this habitat is not available on a permanent basis,
forcing metapopulations to move to areas of more recent disturbance.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, wide wet meadows dominated by sedges and wetland
graminoids, is not present in the project area. In addition, a search of the NHP
26
database of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrence of Saint
Francis' satyr within the project vicinity. Therefore, no effects to this species will
result from construction of this project. Therefore, project construction will not
affect this species.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) E
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, second growth deciduous-coniferous forests with an
open canopy and open shrub layer, does not exist within the project area. The
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no listing of small-
whorled pagonia within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will
not affect this species.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) E
Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
The pondberry is currently known from 19 populations in the southeastern
United States. North Carolina is home to only one known population; this
population occurs on private land in Bladen County.
26
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub that has a distinct
sassafras-like odor. It grows approximately 2 meters tall and spreads through
stolons. Leaves in the pondberry are six to sixteen centimeters long and two to
six centimeters wide, arranged alternately, have rounded bases, and droop
downward. It has small pale yellow flowers that appear in early spring before the
leaves. The fruit which matures in August or September is a bright red drupe.
This plant grows in lowland habitats with hydric soils. These sites are
generally flooded at some time during the growing season. It is associated with
the margins of sinks, ponds, and other like depressions. The soils present are
sandy with a high peat content in the subsurface. Areas inhabited by this
species show signs of past fire maintenance and now have shrubby conditions.
The plants generally grow in shady areas but may also be found in areas that
receive full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, lowland habitats in hydric soils containing a deep peat
layer, is not present within the project study area. In addition, the NHP database
of rare species and unique habitats contains no listing of the pondberry within
the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect this species.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June .
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bladen, Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus,
Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Onslow, Pamlico, Pender, Richmond, Scotland.
This plant which is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and
South Carolina and is currently found in nine locations in North Carolina and is
believed to be extirpated from South Carolina.
This perennial herb has slender stems that grow to a height of three to six dm
from a rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle the stem at intervals below the
showy yellow flowers, and usually occur in threes or fours. Flowers are borne in
terminal racemes of five petal flowers. Fruits are present from July through
October.
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
27
the low shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly
drained depressions of unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire-
maintained. It is rarely associated with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, fire-maintained edges between longleaf pine uplands and
pine pocosins on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic
soils overlaying sand, is not present within the project study area. In addition, the
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no listing of the
rough-leafed loosestrife within the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will not affect this species.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) E
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
Distribution in N.C.: Bladen, Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Pender, Scotland.
This species is known historically from Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware,
Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, and Virginia in
which it has been extirpated. The only confirmed North Carolina population is on
Fort Bragg military base in Hoke County.
The American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only at the
base (if at all) and grow to a height of 3-8 dm. The entire plant is pubescent,
with upwardly curving hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to
elliptic, stalkless, and 2 to 5 centimeters long. 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.
This species 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
Suitable habitat, fire-maintained, pine flatwood ecotonal areas between
peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems, is not present within the project
t 2&
study area. In addition, the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
contains no listing of the American chaffseed within the project vicinity.
Therefore, project construction will not affect this species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species
that may or may not be listed in the future. Theses species were formerly
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened. Federal Species of Concern are not
afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Significantly Rare (SR), or Special Concern (SR) by the NHP list of rare plant
and animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979. However, the level of protection given to state listed species does not
apply to NCDOT' activities. Twenty-Seven FSC are listed for Cumberland
County. Table 4 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for
each species in the study area. This species list is provided for informational
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Cumberland County.
?? fi "? ° o ?? ? ? 6 ttabt
S46,t ?
Bachman's sparrow
Southern hognose
snake
SC NO
SR/PSC * YES
Pituophis melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC** YES
melanoleucus
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC/PT NO
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE NO
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T/PE NO
Amorpha georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E YES
var. georgiana
Astragalus michauxii sandhills milkvetch T NO
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC NO
Kalmia cuneata white wicky E-SC NO
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T NO
Aimophila aestivalis
Heterodon simus
29
Lindera subcoriacea
Litsea aestivalis
Lobelia boykinii
Myriophyllum laxum
Oxypolis temata
Pamassia caroliniana
Parthenium radfordii
Potamogeton confervoides
Pteroglossaspis ecristata
Pyxidanthera barbulata var
brevistyla
Rhexia aristosa
Solidago pulchra
Solidago vema
Stylisma pickeringii var.
pickeringii
bog spicebush E NO
Pondspice C NO
Boykin's lobelia C NO
loose watermilfoil T NO
savanna cowbane W1 NO
Carolina grass-of- E NO
parnassus
wavyleaf wild quinine W1 YES
Conferva pondweed C NO
spiked medusa E YES
Sandhills pyxie-moss E NO
awned meadowbeauty T NO
Carolina goldenrod E NO
spring-flowering T YES
goldenrod
Pickering's dawnflower E NO
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C NO
Xyris scabrifolia roughleaf yellow-eyed C NO
grass
• "E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
• "T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
• "SC''--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may
be taken or collected and sold under regulations adopted under the
provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and
the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material
may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
• "C%-A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is
also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main
range in a different part of the country or the world.
• "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is
generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in
North Carolina.
3a
• "W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North
Carolina is relatively well known and which appears to be relatively secure at
this time.
• "/P"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the
listing process.
*-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than
50 years ago.
** - Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows
no occurrences of rare species in the project study area. Surveys for FSC
species were not conducted during the site visit.
31-
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. (ed.), 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina." Raleigh, North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goulet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
"Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States", U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. a
Fish, F.F. 1968. "A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina".
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Division of Inland
Fisheries.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. (eds.) 1999. ".Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980.
"Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia". Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. "The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina". Raleigh,
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. 1995.
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1997a. Basinwide Assessment Report
Support Document-Cape Fear River Basin.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1997b. Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan-Draft Executive Summary.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1997c. Water Quality Stream
Classification for Streams Located in North Carolina.
32
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. "Birds of the Carolinas".
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. "Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas". Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. "Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware". Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. "Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (3rd Approx.)". Raleigh, North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. "Soil Survey of Cumberland County".
Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. "Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland". Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
20 0 20 40 Miles
Nati. Hwy. Sys. (Primary Roads)
N Blue Ridge Parkway (Federal)
N Interstate
A/ us
NC W
SR
City
Other
%' ;,% Proposed
Hydro - Major Rivers/Streams (100k)
Hydro - Major Water Bodies (100k)
N
S
E
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1

4 '44

I . I . . . . . . . . .
Flo