20010404 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

y'. SfAiF q,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
FILE COPY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 12, 2002
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
ATTN: Ms. Cynthia Van De Weile
Dear Cynthia:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
d l0 voy
,6/3
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUAL PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR VASS BYPASS, MOORE/LEE COUNTIES, TIP
NO. R-210.
REFERENCES: A - 401 WATER QUALITY APPLICATION, FEBRUARY 19, 2001
B - WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN - SALT MITIGATION SITE,
AUGUST 2000
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied for a Section 404
Individual Permit and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the subject project in
an application dated February 19, 2001. As a result of the Section 404 Public Notice
period, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Public Hearing held
November 1, 2001 and that resulting Public Comment period, as well as various meetings
with DWQ personnel, many questions and concerns were raised. Most of these issues are
summarized in your November 20, 2001 correspondence to NCDOT. NCDOT provides
the following responses to address these questions and concerns.
The Secondary and Cumulative impacts resulting from the project
The study of indirect and cumulative impacts (ICI) for the lands surrounding the
proposed R-210 project has estimated that the increase in land development in the
surrounding areas of Moore and Lee counties due to the proposed transportation project
will be slight, and that the general increase in development will continue to be slow and
steady over the next twenty years (Attachment A).
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND 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
The completed ICI study also provides rationale that, based on events which are
reasonably foreseeable, the development of the land falls well below the ultimate limits
on development provided by the state mandated Water Supply Watershed Protection
Ordinance. Indeed, the presence of the ordinance itself will guard against excessive
development which might endanger downstream water quality.
As the proposed transportation project lies entirely within the protected area of a WS-III
BA water supply watershed, both the project itself and any other development which ever
occurs, are subject to the rules and regulations set forth in the Water Supply Watershed
Protection Ordinance which is in effect for a broad area in both Lee and Moore counties.
An important point to consider is that the amount of development which is permitted
under the watershed protection ordinance is permitted regardless of whether the
development is due to the proposed transportation project or from other sources.
Therefore, modeling or estimating the impacts of specific development which is
permitted under the ordinance, and which conforms to the provisions of the ordinance
intended to protect water quality, would provide no additional information. The presence
of the ordinance and its provisions, as designed by NCDENR, provides the expectation
that these safeguards will protect water quality when employed and enforced in the
manner and spirit in which they were intended. The local government is required to
apply this ordinance to all development considerations, as they have since its adoption
and it is expected they will continue for do so in perpetuity, protecting the quality of the
down stream water for such time. Furthermore, as these regulations are mandated by the
state of North Carolina to protect the drinking waters of the state, they may not be
waived, ignored or laid bare to the winds of local political change.
While transportation projects often do influence land use patterns and may even affect the
rate of development, this depends upon a variety of factors. It is also true that the
extension of urban services and the vision or lack thereof, on the part of local
governments plays a significant role in facilitating development, as local zoning and
development regulations can serve to either encourage or inhibit land development, and
also determine the quality of any such development and it's impact upon the
environment.
In the lands surrounding the proposed project, the combination of the watershed
ordinance's limits upon development density and impervious surface cover, vegetative
buffers, and strong local planning efforts (Moore County's comprehensive,plan) which
support the state's efforts to protect sources of drinking water, provide powerful tools for
safeguarding the environment in this part of North Carolina.
In specifically addressing turbidity and sedimentation, there is every expectation that
strategies such as vegetative buffers, density limits and curtailing impervious surface
cover, combined with strong adopted local planning efforts, will be robust enough to
prevent them from becoming a threat to down stream water quality.
While there is some question as to whether or not to attempt to calculate estimations of
future volume and flow of specific substances into streams and rivers, NCDOT staff are
of the opinion that the state of the practice of secondary/indirect and cumulative impacts
analysis is not developed well enough yet to give the necessary assurances that any such
calculations of specific substances, across a very large study area, some ten and twenty
years in the future, is an accurate and reliable method of estimating ICI impacts at this
time. There are too many variables relating to the art and science of estimating future
urban development which are not fully understood or widely accepted to be considered
reasonably foreseeable or reliable. However, the approach which has been employed is
consistent with the recently adopted "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina", and examines the project and its
potential impacts, addressing those issues which are reasonably foreseeable. This
narrative approach is based on reasonable assumptions and logic, involving calculation of
future development potential and discussion of impacts based on quantitative and
qualitative methods as described in the ICI guidelines.
As the local governments are responsible for employing the provisions of the ordinance
when approving development proposals, and are also responsible for maintaining
administrative control over the accumulation of development as per the ordinance, the
protection afforded by the ordinance ultimately rest in the hands of the local government.
It is local government control over the provision of urban services, site-specific
development and construction practices that further supports the watershed ordinance in
protecting the environment and restricting the flow of unwanted materials and substances
into local streams an rivers. It is always in the best interests of the local government to
devise or adopt best management practices to protect its citizens and the natural resources
upon which they rely. Such practices could include improving stormwater management
ordinances and construction inspections programs.
2. Compensatory mitigation for the project.
Surface Water Mitigation: As reported in Reference A, the North Carolina Wetland
Restoration Program (WRP) has agreed to provide the stream mitigation for this project.
Wetland Mitigation - SALT Site: The NCDOT has proposed to utilize the SALT
Mitigation Site as part of the wetland mitigation for this project. The SALT Mitigation
Site represents a slightly different approach and philosophy towards mitigation in that
NCDOT is offering the site in its entirety to provide mitigation for not only 36.8 acres of
wetlands, but all natural resources. As part of this ecosystem approach, studies of the site
indicate that the proposed mitigation strategy will restore a minimum of 49 acres of
wetland to its historic hydrologic regime (Reference B).
However, there is a concern that the site will not provide the spatial wetland replacement
of 1:1 restoration or creation that is required under state regulations. Since the original
modeling of the site did not directly measure the drainage effect of the existing ditches,
NCDOT is proposing to place new groundwater gauges on the site such that they will
accurately measure the drainage effect of the existing ditches. The hydrology of the site
will then be modeled and calibrated based on the data collected from the new gauges.
The resulting drainage effect of the ditches will be translated into actual areas of wetlands
that can be restored on the site. If these models show that less than 36.8 acres of
wetlands will be restored, the WRP has agreed to make up the difference through in-lieu
payments.
Before the additional monitoring and modeling of the Site begins, NCDOT will meet
with DWQ representatives to agree upon the details of the additional studies.
Wetland Mitigation - Little River: The NCDOT has proposed to provide 4.8 acres of
restoration in the flood plain of the Little River. The mitigation plan is detailed in
Appendix C of Reference A. One of the comments from the Public Hearing was that
NCDOT did not yet own each parcel listed itemized in the mitigation plan, however, at
the time of this correspondence, NCDOT has acquired each parcel.
3. The potential impacts to groundwater from the proposed roadway's close
proximity to the adjacent well field in Cameron.
4. The relocation plan for the impacted wells
The Town of Cameron is currently utilizing two water supply wells to meet the municipal
demands of the town. The proposed roadway will impact both these wells as they are
within the design corridor, therefore these wells will have to be abandoned. The NC.L)QT
entered *,;a.U,tility Relocation Agreement with the Town of Cameron on October 26,
1998, to construct a municipal supply well or wells capable of yielding minimum 70 ,
gallons per minute (gpm) to replace the two existing wells. A copy of this Agreement is
included in Attachment B. As of the time of this correspondence, the relocation project is
65% complete. The closest relocated well will be approximately 0.75 miles from the
proposed roadway. Therefore, there is no threat of groundwater contamination to the
Town of Cameron municipal supply wells as a result of this project.
5. Legible permit drawings.
Included with this submittal are %z sized plan sheets for the project. It is anticipated that
these will aid in interpreting the impacts detailed on the permit drawings in Appendix B
of Reference A. In regards to the specific items listed in the June 1, 2001
correspondence, sheets 4 of 58 and 11 of 58 have been revised along with several other
permit drawings and are included in Attachment C.
The June 1, 2001 correspondence also questioned the proposed ditch through a wetland
on sheet 32 of 58. This ditch is accurately depicted. NCDOT was unable to avoid
placing the ditch through the wetland due to topographic constraints and is considering
the entire wetland on this side of the road impacted. While this impact was accurately
reported and figured into the wetland impacts in the original application (Reference A),
the permit drawing was not. The drawing has now been revised and is include in
Attachment C.
Additional Issues
In addition to those issues listed in your November 21, 2001 correspondence, DWQ
requested the following items to be investigated.
6. Selection of Alternatives.
Planning for TIP R-210 began in 1989 with the preparation of environmental documents
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in cooperation
with the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Prior to preparing the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), NCDOT scoped the project study area by
receiving input from multiple public entities, including, but not limited to, USFWS, NC
State Clearinghouse, USDOI, USACE, NCDENR (Parks & Recreation and Water
Quality), NC Dept. of Cultural Resources, Pinehurst Civic Group, Inc., County of Moore
etc.
In 1991, NCDOT prepared and published a DEIS evaluating the environmental impact of
various alternative routes for TIP R-210. Both NCDOT and FHWA signed and approved
the DEIS on September 11, 1991. NCDOT held a public workshop concerning the
project on Nov. 12, 1991 at the Cameron Elementary School. A public hearing was held
for the interested public (after notification in local papers) on November 19, 1991 on the
DEIS. NCDOT responded to comments from multiple public and private entities
concerning the DEIS, including, but not limited to, NCDENR (DEM, Parks and
Recreation, Water Quality Section), USFWS, USDOI, USACE, NC Dept. of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Moore County Planning and Community
Development, NC Dept. of Cultural Resources, Pinehurst Civic Group, Inc., etc.
After evaluating comments from numerous public and private entities and consulting
FHWA/NEPA regulatory issues on December 1, 1995, NCDOT prepared and published a
Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") pursuant to NEPA. The FEIS officially
designated "Alternative A" as NCDOT's "Preferred Alternative." Notice of the FEIS was
made through the State Clearinghouse pursuant to the NCEPA EIS review process on
December 20, 1995.
NCDOT received comments from multiple public and private entities concerning the
FEIS, including, but not limited to, USEPA, the State Clearinghouse, NC Wildlife
Resources Commission, NC Dept. of Cultural Resources, DENR etc. Specifically, the
correspondence from DWQ was dated January 24, 1996. In that memorandum, DWQ
listed the major issues that they felt were not adequately addressed and therefore, stated
they could not concur with Preferred Alternative at that time.
This correspondence, as well as the other aforementioned comments, was addressed in
the Record of Decision (ROD). On March 21, 1996 FHWA approved the ROD and
NCDOT's selection of "Alternative A" as the "environmentally preferred alternative." A
public hearing was held on 21 March 1996 explaining the decision to the public. No
further comments were received from DWQ or any resource agencies questioning the
selection of the "preferred alternative."
NCDOT has evaluated the comments mentioned during the November 1, 2001 Public
Hearing that expressed concern that widening of the existing alignment of US 1 was not
given due consideration as an potential alternative. However, after reviewing the DEIS,
FEIS, and ROD, NCDOT believes that the analysis of alternatives and reasoning for
selection of the "preferred alternative" is thoroughly addressed in these documents.
Therefore, it is NCDOT's contention that all relevant comments regarding the selection
of alternatives have been adequately addressed and the time period for additional
comments is well past. NCDOT defers to the DEIS, FEIS, and ROD to justify the
selection of the "Preferred Alternative."
7. Hydraulic Design
NCDOT designed the proposed roadway and hydraulic structures in accordance with all
rules, regulations, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that were required at that
time. There are no special design exceptions to report.
CONCLUSION
It is NCDOT's contention that all outstanding issues have now been addressed and the
application is considered complete with no foreseeable modifications necessary. If you
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood
at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc w/o %2 sized plans: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington Coordinator
Mr. Garland Purdue, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMF
cc w/o attachments: Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Susan Cauley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
MEMORANDUM
To: Leigh Lane
Public Involvement & Community Studies Unit
Office of the Human Environment
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation
From: Donal R. Simpson, FAIA, AICP, ASLA
HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Subject: R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality
Date: November 27, 2001
HNTB North Carolina, P.C., was requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to
review available information related to the R-210 Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) for widening and
realigning portions of U.S. 1 in Moore and Lee Counties. The purpose of this review was to provide information
requested by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) relative to a Section 401 water quality certification requested by NCDOT for the R-210 project.
DWQ requested information related to any downstream water quality impacts that might occur due to secondary and
cumulative effects of R-210.
Our review basically required a two step process:
• Estimate the land use change that might occur as a result of constructing R-210
• Calculate the change in surface stormwater flow into the Little River that would result from the land use change
Two authoritative references were used as a basis of the methodology used in this process:
• The Louis Berger Group: "Draft Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina," prepared for State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation/Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, April 2001 (Berger);
• ECONorthwest and Portland State University: "A Guidebook for evaluating the Indirect Land use and Growth
Impacts of highway Improvements, Final Report," for Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon,
and Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2001 (ECONorthwest)
This Memorandum summarizes the information we have been able to determine related to this issue, in six sections:
1. Analysis Area and Impact Areas
2. Methodology Used to Evaluate Potential Land Use Change
3. Evaluation of Potential For Land Use Change
4. Growth Assumptions For Analysis Area
5. Assumed Land Use Change For Watershed Analysis Purposes
6. Watershed Hydrologic Analysis
The conclusion of the analysis indicates that, in the worst case scenario, R-210 might result in an additional built-
upon area (impervious cover) of approximately 129 acres, or less than 0.3% of the potentially affected watershed
land area. The resulting change in the estimated 25 year event future peak discharge would be un-measurable in 5 of
the 8 sub-watersheds, and less than 3% in the other two. The worst case scenario development assumed for the
analysis would be very low density, scattered site development, primarily residential. The interspersed farmland and
woodland should easily provide filtration of any contaminants in the stormwater runoff, so that there should be no
change in the rate of flow into the Little River, and no impact on downstream water quality as a result of the
secondary and cumulative effects of R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 1 of 38 November 27, 2001
1. ANALYSIS AREA AND IMPACT AREAS
'two types of area were considered for this analysis. The first was the overall watershed area that feeds the creeks
and tributaries of the Little River in the area where R-210 might affect land use. This overall analysis area was
necessary for hydrologic analysis purposes, and provided a maximum area in which land use change might occur as
a result of R-210. The second type of area considered was land where development might occur. These impact areas
were related to factors that could be evaluated to make an assessment of the probability of land use change that
might occur because of the influence of the R-210 project.
1.1 Overall Analysis Area
According to the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina," the development effects of a new highway are most often found:
• Up to one mile around a freeway interchange, and
• Up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange.
(Berger, p. 7-14)
The Oregon DOT "Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway
Improvements," was also consulted, as a comparison to the NCDOT "Draft Guidance." The Oregon DOT
"Guidebook" suggested a study area of V2 mile around an improvement as the primary area of potential effect, with a
larger area of impact possible for large projects on routes with a lot of through trips. (ECONorthwest, pp. 17-18)
According to the NCDOT Draft Guidance, development beyond areas delineated in long-range infrastructure or
growth management plans is limited or restricted. The Draft Guidance suggests that, in these circumstances, it may
be appropriate to confine consideration of indirect/cumulative effects to a study area coincident with accepted
growth boundaries. (Berger, p. 3-16)
The NCDOT "Draft Guidance" also suggested that complementary land development, such as highway-oriented
businesses (gas stations, rest stops, motels, etc.), is more likely near interchanges in rural areas. (Berger, p. 7-13)
Another possible approach suggested by the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina" is to establish the study area to match potentially impacted
watersheds. (Berger, p. 3-16)
Since the primary purpose of this analysis was to provide input to the Department of Water Quality as they consider
whether R-210 would have secondary and cumulative effects that would adversely impact downstream water
quality, the potentially impacted watershed was used as the overall analysis area. The watershed roughly
corresponds to the two- to five-mile area along major feeder roadways to R-210. The watershed used as the analysis
area is shown in Figure 1.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 2 of 38 November 27, 2001
i
C
LEE
`% COUNTY
MOORE
COUNTY
Impacted
• .
US 151501 •? Watershed
Carthage
US 15/501
Cameron`
??? •'. ? R-210
NC 22 NC 24/27
US-1
hispering
Pines ?? /
Vass
_1* HARNETT'
?? Woo k ?j
OUNTY
uthern Pines ? HOKE "''?••'?
,•• COUNTY N S•a?-
i
5 MILES !
`I
Figure 1: Analysis Area
Source: HNTB
1.2 Sub-Watersheds Analyzed
The hydrologic model used in the watershed hydrologic analysis, described in Section 6 of this analysis, required
that the watershed be analyzed by sub-watersheds to conform to the hydrologic model used (TR-55, Soil
Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds). This resulted in a further differentiation of the
analysis by eight sub-watershed areas, as diagrammed in Figure 2. The eight watersheds include a total land area of
approximately 73.8 square miles, or 47,232 acres, as indicated in the table below.
The sub-watersheds also formed the framework for a "before" and "after" hydrologic comparison, based on the
change in stormwater flows that would occur based on the assumptions of land use changes due to R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 3 of 38 November 27, 2001
Watershed and Sub-watershed Land Areas
1 Grains Creek, west of Herd's Creek 14.5 9,280
2 Herd's Creek 9.5 6,080
3 Crains Creek, from Little Crains Creek to Herd's Creek 5.0 3,200
4 Little Grains Creek 19.0 12,160
5 Big Branch 2.3 1,472
6 Crains Creek, from Little Grains Creek to Beaver Creek 3.8 2,432
7 Beaver Creek 14.0 8,960
8 Grains Creek, from Beaver Creek to Lake Surf 5.7 3,648
1.3 Potential Impact Area
In order to assess the locations within the analysis area where land development might actually occur as a result of
the r-210 project, four potential impact areas were evaluated. These areas, which were based on the combined
suggestions of the NCDOT "Draft Guidance" and the Oregon DOT "Guidebook," were:
• land immediately around the new interchanges and intersections,
• land on new frontage roads,
• areas along major feeder roadways inside Moore County adopted Urban Services Boundaries, and
• areas along major feeder roadways outside the adopted Urban Services Boundaries.
These four categories of potential land development impact allowed an assessment which was sensitive to the
different economic and location factors which might influence development within the overall analysis area, and
could be correlated to the sub-watershed areas for hydrologic analysis purposes.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 4 of 38 November 27, 2001
Figure 2. Sub-watershed areas
The estimated impact area was based on the following factors for three different conditions:
• Land at Interchanges. For impacts at the interchanges and intersections themselves, the land evaluated was the
property at the four corners of the interchange or intersection. With the DWQ watershed development standard
limiting built-upon area to 24% of the property, 2 acres was considered to be the minimum lot size that would
necessary to accommodate buildings and pavement for highway oriented commercial development at any given
interchange or intersection corner.
• Land along New Frontage Roads. Any currently undeveloped land along the new frontage roads was considered
to be potentially subject to development as a result of R-210. The new frontage roads will occur only where the
R-210 construction is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment. The depth of the impact area was assumed at 300 ft.
deep from the frontage road right-of-way line, which is a typical depth for a broad range of commercial and
light industrial land uses.
• Land Served by Major Feeder Roadways. Land potentially impacted by R-210 was considered to be along the
roadway within either a 10 minute drive from the interchange/intersection, or to a natural or political boundary
that might affect development decisions in relation to the influence of the new U.S. 1. These boundaries could
be a wide floodplain, a creek, a town limits, an urban service boundary, or a large existing developed area.
2. METHODOLOGY USED TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL LAND USE CHANGE
2.1 Factors Used to Evaluate Land Use Change
According to the NCDOT Draft Guidance, empirical evidence indicates that transportation investments result in
major land use changes only in the presence of other factors, including:
• supportive local land use policies,
• local development incentives,
• availability of developable land, and
• a good investment climate.
(Berger, p. 4-1)
Additional factors influencing the likelihood and rate of development near rural interchanges include:
• distance to major urban area or regional center,
• traffic volume on the intersecting road,
• presence of frontage road
• availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure.
If these factors are present, induced growth effects of this type warrant analysis. (Berger, p. 7-13)
For land at interchanges, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Traffic volume on intersecting road
• Availability.of water and sewer
For land along the new frontage roads, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use
change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Availability of water and sewer
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 5 of 38 November, 27, 2001
For land served by major feeder roadways, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use
change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Availability of water and sewer
The methodology used in assessing each of these factors is described below.
Availability of developable land was estimated by mapping areas within the estimated impact area that were not
suitable for, or not available for development. These areas included 100 year flood plains, wetlands, existing
urbanized areas, existing single family properties, existing farms of 50 acres or less with a residence on the property,
and other land not available for development, such as land trust lands. The presently occupied properties were
determined from Geographic Information System (GIS) data provided by Moore and Lee Counties, and from R-210
project aerial photography. Existing farms of 50 acres was considered an upper range of non-available land, based
on properties advertised for sale and discussions with developers in the area. These properties tend to be large
owner-occupied farms, usually with equestrian activities.
Land use policies were determined by interviews with staff of Moore County, Lee County, Town of Vass, and Town
of Cameron. Current land use plans and zoning ordinances of Moore County, Lee County, Vass and Cameron were
reviewed. DWQ requirements related to land use were determined from a review of the DWQ "Red Book of Rules."
Investment climate was estimated from interviews with staff of Moore County, Lee County, Town of Vass, and
Town of Cameron and representatives of Woodlake. A visual survey the area provided indicators of development
activity or interest, such as recent development, for sale signs, occupancy and activity at existing uses, etc. U.S.
Census data on recent growth indicated areas of development potential.
Distance to major urban area or regional center provided an indicator of commuting influence on an area. In general
a time savings of less than 10% was considered to have no influence on development decisions, and a time savings
of less than 20% was considered to only have a slight influence on development decisions. The time savings were
calculated based on driving times at posted speed limits on the existing U.S. 1, and on the FEIS stated speed limit
for R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road was determined by comparing the FEIS 1990 existing two-way Average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes and Level of Service (LOS) with the FEIS projected 2010 AADT volumes and LOS
for each intersecting road (FEIS Table I-2, p. I-6). The Table I-2 estimates were compared to the FEIS Table H-4, p.
II-17 estimates for the preferred alternative to determine any differences between the No-Build Alternative and the
Preferred Alternative. This was an indicator of changes in traffic volumes and level of service due to R-210. If there
were no projected differences between the no-build and the preferred alternative, traffic volume on the intersecting
road was not considered to have a secondary effect due to R-210. Only roads that connected directly to the new U.S.
1 at an interchange or intersection were considered.
Presence of frontage road was determined from the FEIS description of frontage road locations, on page II-8. This
factor was considered only where a frontage road would be present as part of R-210.
Availability of water, sewer and other infrastructure was determined from interviews with staff of Moore County,
Lee County, Town of Vass, and Town of Cameron, and from GIS data provided by Moore County.
Probability of land use change due to R-210 involved scenario analyses based on a judgement of all of the above
factors. This is one of the three methods recommended by the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina." The other two methods involved sophisticated
integrated land use and transportation models based on Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) that were not
available for this analysis. The time frame for the probability scenarios generally, but not rigidly, based on the 2000
to 2010 time frame corresponding to available population projections. These numbers were adjusted upward in areas
where it was thought that there might be a moderate or higher probability of land use change due to R-210. This
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 6 of 38 November 27, 2001
form of analysis provided a reasonable estimate within a foreseeable time frame, since most development decisions
are made on a 5 to 10 year projection. Market forecasting beyond 10 years tends to become speculative.
2.2 Consideration of Cumulative Effects
Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions." As described in the NCDOT
"Draft Guidance," in practice, analysis of cumulative effects has been incorporated with the assessment of
indirect/cumulative effects because many indirect/cumulative effects, including induced development effects, fall.
within the definition of cumulative impacts. (Berger, p. I-5)
The consideration of cumulative effects for this analysis focused on the effects that might occur in a 7 to 10 year
time frame, since any downstream effects on water quality would result from development induced by R-210.
Developers generally base investment decisions on a 7-year return on investment. Market analyses and
development pro formas that attempt to project absorption of new land development beyond a 7 to 10 year period
are generally considered speculative. Further, empirical studies have determined that the land use effects of a new
highway project occur within the first 7 to 10 years of the construction of the project.
The other actions that were identified which might affect the 7 to 10 year analysis horizon were:
• Preparation of the Greenwood Area Plan for Lee County
• Preparation of a new Land Use Plan for Cameron
• Preparation of a new Land Use Plan for Vass
• Extension of Moore County water service into the area between Vass and Woodlake
• NCDOT TIP Project R-2529, multi-lane widening of NC24/NC27
The new plans that will be prepared for Greenwood, Cameron and Vass will be bound by the DWQ Class WS-III
Watershed development standards, and will not be able to adopt any land use densities that are inconsistent with
those standards. Consequently, they were not considered to have any cumulative effect on the probability of land use
change.
The extension of Moore County water service could cause some additional pressures for residential development in
the area between Vass and Woodlake. The absence of sewer outside the Vass and Woodlake Urban Service
Boundaries will limit that pressure. The additional pressure that could result within the Vass and Woodlake Urban
Service Boundaries was considered to have a possible cumulative effect. That effect is reflected in the assumed land
use change for the sub-watersheds in this area, as described in Section 5 of this report.
The NCDOT TIP project number R-2529 would widen NC24/NC27 to a multi-lane road from the Carthage Bypass
to NC 87 in Harnett County. NC24/NC27 intersects with U.S. 1 in Cameron, and will intersect with R-210, the
relocated U.S. 1, just east of Cameron. R-2529, however, is an unfunded project, and is not scheduled to proceed
within the 2002-2008 TIP timeframe. Since it will not be built within the 7 to 10 year horizon of this analysis, it was
not considered to have a potential contribution to cumulative effects of R-210.
3. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR LAND USE CHANGE
The potential for land use change was evaluated on case-by-case basis for each major feeder roadway intersecting
with U.S. 1 at an R-210 interchange or intersection. The evaluation was considered in three potential areas of
impact: at the interchange/intersection itself; along the major feeder road inside an urban service boundary; and
along the major feeder road outside an urban service boundary. Potential impacts to the east and to the west along
major feeder roads were evaluated separately, since R-210 will have different effects on travel time in each
direction, and since existing land use conditions tend to be different to the east and west of the new road.
Figure 2: R-210 Impact Area indicates the area described in the following evaluation.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 7 of 38 November 27, 2001
Figure 2
R-210 Impact Area
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality . Page 8 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.1 SR 1181 (Eakes Road) Intersection
This is an at-grade intersection on the existing U.S. 1 alignment. U.S. 1 will be widened to 4 lanes divided,
with frontage roads. Eakes Road (SR 1181), which only runs west of U.S. 1, will be unchanged. No road
runs east from this intersection. The intersection could become a grade-separated interchange in the future,
if traffic volumes warrant. That eventuality is far enough in the future that it was not considered reasonable
or foreseeable for this analysis.
3.1.1 Land at Eakes Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Limited, due to existing highway commercial at intersection
corners, and to floodplain to the east and south of the intersection.
Land use policies. Currently zoned Residential/Agricultural. As part of Lee County's on-going
development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the County in more
detail, probably in 2003. The west side of U.S. 1 is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of
the Little River Watershed, limiting non-residential development to 24% built-upon area.
Investment climate. Commercial development at this intersection is supported primarily by the
Quail Ridge development, along with existing single-family residences and family farms on Eakes
Rd. There is a competing, more intensely developed commercial area at the US 151US501
intersection with U.S. 1, approximately 1 '/z miles north. The frontage along U.S. 1 north of
US15/US501 has been developing through the 1990's with highway oriented commercial
development, dominated by manufactured housing sales centers.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill
"Triangle," which is now about 43 minutes, would be unchanged. Travel time to Southern Pines,
now approximately 22 minutes, would decrease by approximately 3 t/z minutes. Travel time to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by way of NC24/NC27, would decrease by
about 4 Vh minutes. These changes in travel time would be in the 10% to 15% range, which could
have only a slight influence on investment decisions at this intersection.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Eakes Rd. at the intersection with U.S.
1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 300 vpd (vehicles
per day) to 400 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to remain at "A." This does not
represent a traffic.increase or change in level of service over the no-build alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated good
for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water service to
the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate. The market that would support further
commercial development at this intersection already exists. However, the presence of frontage
roads at this location could improve its attractiveness for some additional commercial
development.
3.1.2 Land west of the Eakes Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Approximately I/2 mile west along Eakes Rd. to the Cedar Lane Rd. (SR
1182) intersection. Land beyond t/2 mile is more convenient to US151US501, and will not be
influenced by a change in U.S. 1.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 9 of 38 . November 27, 2001
Availability of developable land. Very limited. The Quail Ridge single-family residential golf
course community takes up all of the north side of Eakes Road. The south side of the road is
mostly developed with large lot single-family residences and small family farms.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to V/z acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. Development in this area is all residential. Any further development will
predominantly occur in Quail Ridge. Sanford's growth has been and is expected to continue to be
to the north and southeast, not in this direction.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 24 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 V2 minutes. The time savings are in the
10% to 15% range, which should not be great enough to influence development investment
decisions in this area.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to low, due to the extent of existing
development in this area.
3.2 Frontage Road between SR 1181 (Eakes Rd.) and SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.)
This segment of R-210 is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment, all within Lee County. Frontage roads will
be provided for the R-210 project where it follows the existing alignment, so this area will have frontage
roads. The existing U.S. 1 will be used as one of the frontage roads where possible.
Estimated impact area. From Eakes Rd. south to SR 1182, Cedar Lane Rd., a length of
approximately 2 miles. Land fronting on the frontage road north of Eakes Rd. is already
developed.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 13,700 linear feet of frontage along the
new U.S. 1 frontage roads that are potentially available for development.. Assuming an
approximate depth of 300 ft. for non-residential development, there would be approximately 100
acres potentially available for development along the frontage roads. All of this land would be in
sub-watershed area 4.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to a minimum 'h acre lot size and maximum 24% built-upon
area. Non-residential uses are limited to a maximum 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. The segment of U.S. 1 between Tramway Road (NC 78) south of Sanford and
US 15/US501 has experienced a considerable amount of non-residential development since U.S. 1
was widened to a 4 lane divided highway with direct curb cut access. Most of the commercial uses
appear to be businesses that can be supported by on-site septic systems, rather than sanitary sewer.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 10 of 38 November 27, 2001
The availability of continuous access from the frontage roads in this segment of R-210 could be
expected to attract considerable interest in commercial development.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and Lee
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County (the rural southwest area of the County, where the
northern portion of r-210 is located) is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately high to high.
3.3 SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.) Intersection
This is an at-grade intersection on the existing U.S. 1 alignment. U.S. 1 will be widened to 4 lanes divided,
with frontage roads. Cedar Lane Road (SR 1180) will be unchanged. The intersection could become a
grade-separated interchange at some time in the future, if traffic volumes warrant. That eventuality is far
enough in the future that it was not considered in this analysis.
3.3.1 Land at Cedar Lane Rd. Intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection
Availability of developable land. Two of the four corners at this intersection currently have
highway-oriented commercial development.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting non-residential development to 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning for the two undeveloped corners is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same
limitations as the WS-III standards. As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land
Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. With the projected increase in traffic on U.S. 1, there could be interest in one
or two more highway-oriented commercial developments at this intersection. The support,
however, would be mostly from highway traffic, due to the relatively low density of surrounding
residential development. There is a more intensely developed commercial area at the US 151US501
intersection with U.S. 1, approximately 3-'/z miles north. The frontage along U.S. 1 north of
US 15/US501 has been developing through the 1990's with highway oriented commercial
development, dominated by manufactured housing sales centers.
Distance to maior urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle," which is now about
45 minutes, would be unchanged. Travel time to Southern Pines, now approximately 22 minutes,
would decrease by approximately 3 '/z minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base, by way of NC24/NC27, would decrease by about 4 V2 minutes. The travel time
savings are in the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment
decisions at this intersection.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Cedar Lane Rd. at the intersection with
U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 700 vpd
(vehicles per day) to 1,200 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "A" to
"B" This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build
alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated good
for supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 11 of 38 November 27, 2001
an on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.3.2 Land west of the Cedar Lane Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1 mile west of the intersection along Cedar Lane Road. The
area beyond that is more within the influence area of the existing US 151US501 than that of U.S. 1.
Availability of developable land. Limited by flood plain and existing manufactured housing
subdivisions off of Cedar Lane Road, and by existing single-family houses and family farms on
Cedar Lane Road.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to 1/z acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre. As part of Lee
County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the
County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. Several manufactured housing subdivisions appear to have been developed
within this area within the last 10 to 15 years. There could be market support for more
manufactured housing subdivisions along this road, if land is available and appropriate zoning can
be obtained.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 21 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 %2 minutes. The travel time savings are in
the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment decisions at this
intersection.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the-
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are good for
supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an
on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due primarily to the extent of existing
development in the impact area and the limitations on land availability due to the flood plain south
of and parallel to Cedar Lane Road.
3.3.3 Land east of the Cedar Lane Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1 mile east of the intersection along Rocky Fork Church
Road. The area beyond that is more within the influence area of the existing US 15/US501 than
that of U.S. 1.
Availability of developable land. Limited by flood plain and existing single-family houses and
family farms on Rocky Church Road.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to 1/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 12 of 38 November 27, 2001
Investment climate. Several manufactured housing subdivisions appear to have been developed
within this area within the last 10 to 15 years. This would indicate that there could be market
support for more residential development along this road.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 21 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 '/z minutes. The travel time savings are in
the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment decisions at this
intersection.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are good for
supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an
on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due to minor changes in travel times to urban
and regional destinations and absence of sewer
3.4 Frontage Road between SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.) and SR 1173 (Pine Forest Rd.)
This segment of R-210 is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment. Frontage roads will be provided for the R-
210 project where it follows the existing alignment, so this area will have frontage roads. The existing U.S.
1 will be used as one of the frontage roads where possible.
Estimated impact area. From Cedar Lane Rd.. south to SR 1173, Pine Forest Rd., a length of
approximately 3/a miles, and approximately 1,500 feet south of Pine Forest Rd.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 4,800 linear feet of frontage along the
new U.S. 1 frontage roads that are potentially available for development. Assuming an
approximate depth of 300 ft. for non-residential development, there would be approximately 35
acres potentially available for development along the frontage roads. All of this land would be in
sub-watershed area 5.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to '/z acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. The segment of U.S. 1 between Tramway Road (NC 78) south of Sanford and
US 151US501 has experienced a considerable amount of non-residential development since U.S. 1
was widened to a 4 lane divided highway with direct curb cut access. Most of the commercial uses
appear to be businesses that can be supported by on-site septic systems, rather than sanitary sewer.
The availability of continuous access from the frontage roads in this segment of R-210 could be
expected to attract considerable interest in commercial development.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not. serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good, soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an on-going continuation of the
countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately high to high.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 13 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.5 NC24/NC27Interchange:
This will be a new grade-separated interchange on a new U.S. 1 alignment where it crosses the existing
NC24/NC27 just east of the Cameron Town Limits. This area is in Cameron's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
and the Moore County adopted Urban Service Boundary. NC24/NC27 to the east is Main Street in
Cameron. NCDOT's long range Transportation Improvement Plan reportedly includes the widening of
NC24/NC27 to four lanes divided. However, the time for that widening has not been set, and the alignment
has not been determined. While there could be long-term cumulative effects from the combination of these
two projects, there are too many unknown factors regarding any plans for NC24/NC27 to be able to
reasonably estimate any indirect effects of the combined projects. This analysis is limited to the effects of
R-210, which most likely will occur before any widening of NC24/NC27 takes place.
3.5.1 Land at NC24/NC27 interchange
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. The existing land use at the proposed interchange location
consists of two family farms with owner-occupied residences and related accessory farm
structures. The R-210 project will require taking of some of the property from each of the two
farms, which could result in a change in use from family farming.
Land use policies. Cameron's existing zoning for this area is RA, or one-acre single-family
residential use. Cameron's Historic District is just east of this area, which would most likely
heavily influence any request for zoning change from residential use compatible with the
"gateway" entrance to the town that the new interchange will be. This area is also above an
aquifer, which is the source for two of Cameron's water supply wells. It is highly unlikely that the
town would approve any zoning change at this intersection because of the potential impact it could
have on the aquifer. The impacts of R-210 on the aquifer would be direct effects, and are
addressed separately. The interchange is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area,
which would limit any development to a maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Cameron is not a growth area, and in fact lost population between 1990 and
2000 from 151 people to 93 people, a 38.7% loss in population. Any attraction for development at
this corner, other than single-family residences which might replace the family farms, would be
for gasoline station/convenience stores to take advantage of the crossing traffic on NC24/NC27, an
east-west trucking route. However, there is an existing grade separated interchange at NC24/NC27
and the existing U.S. 1, and no commercial development has occurred there. An existing gasoline
station/convenience store exists in Cameron approximately 3/4 miles west of the proposed
interchange, and could probably serve traffic from the relocated U.S. 1 if there were informational
signing.
Distance to maior urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 V/z minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips, but is
unlikely by itself to influence any non-residential development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg
and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on NC24/NC27 on the east side of the
intersection with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily
Traffic) of 2,500 vpd (vehicles per day) to 6,400 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to
change from "B" to "D." The AADT on NC24/NC27 is projected to decrease west of U.S. 1, since
the new U.S. 1 alignment will intercept traffic U.S. 1-bound traffic that currently travels
westbound through Cameron.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 14 of 38 November 27, 2001
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Urban Service Boundary, it could have sewer
service within the next 10 to 15 years. There are no current plans to extend sewer to this area.
Soils in this area are rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due to Cameron's restrictive zoning and the
low probability of the town approving a zoning change for a gasoline station above their aquifer. If
the existing family farms were to change use, it would most likely be to single-family residential
use, which would not change the built-upon area from the existing farm residences and accessory
structures.
3.5.2 Land east of NC24/NC27 interchange within Cameron Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land along NC24/NC27 within the Cameron Urban Service Boundary,
which is approximately 1 '/2 mile to the east of the new interchange.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 650 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection and within Cameron's Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 300 of these acres are in sub-watershed 5, and approximately 350 of these acres
are in sub-watershed 7.
Land use policies. This area is in Cameron's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. Cameron's existing
zoning for this area is RA, or one-acre single-family residential use. Any residential or non-
residential use would be limited to a maximum 24% built-upon area by the DWQ watershed
standards. Cameron will permit minor subdivisions only in this area, limited to a maximum of 5
single-family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once
every 5 years.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 38.7% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable farms with residences and stable single-family houses.
While there could be an appeal for a development that took advantage of the charm of Cameron's
Historic District, there would not appear to be a measurable market for subdivision development,
considering the lack of growth in the area and Cameron's restrictive development policies. There
are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any notable amount of
development. The investment climate could support some single-family development on large lots,
and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family farms
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 V2 minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by
R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Urban Service Boundary, it could have sewer
service at some time in the future, but there are no current plans to provide sewer in this area.
There are no current plans to extend sewer to this area. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low, due primarily to restrictive
Cameron development policies, and lack of support services for residential development.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 15 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.5.3 Land west of NC24/NC27 interchange within Cameron Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land west of the interchange within the Cameron Town Limits, between
the new U.S. 1 and Little Crane Creek. Land west of Little Crane Creek for approximately 2 miles
along NC24/NC27 is developed land within the Town of Cameron, including the National
Register of Historic Properties Historic District. Since the interchange is actually moving
approximately 1Y2 miles east of the existing U.S. 1/24-27 interchange, the new road is unlikely to
have any discernable development effect to the west of Little Crane Creek.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 150 acres of land potentially available
for development west of the intersection and within Cameron's Urban Service Boundary. This
land is all within sub-watershed 4.
Land use policies. This area is in Cameron's Town Limits. Cameron's existing zoning for this area
is Residential/Agricultural, which permits single-family residential use with minimum one-acre lot
sizes. The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
development a maximum 24% built-upon area. Any non-residential use would be limited to a
maximum 24% built-upon area by the DWQ watershed standards. Cameron will permit minor
subdivisions only in this area, limited to a maximum of 5 single-family residences, and will
approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 5 years.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 38.7% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable single-family houses, many of them in Cameron's Historic
District. While there could be an appeal for a development that took advantage of the charm of
Cameron's Historic District, there would not appear to be a measurable market for subdivision
development, considering the lack of growth in the area and Cameron's restrictive development
policies. There are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any notable
amount of development. The investment climate could support some single-family development.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is. less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 '/z minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by
R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Town Limits, and thus in the Urban Service
Boundary, it could have sewer service at some time in the future. There are no current plans to
extend sewer to this area. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.5.4 Land outside Cameron Urban Service Boundary east of NC24/NC27 interchange.
Estimated impact area. Land along NC24/NC27 from the Cameron Urban Service Boundary to a
point approximately 2 %2 miles east of the interchange at Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek creates a
perceptual change from Moore County to Harnett County, even though it is still in Moore County.
There is little development between Beaver Creek and the Moore County/Harnett County line.
Development along NC24/NC27 in Harnett County consists primarily of some manufactured
houses on large lots.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 16 of 38 November 27, 2001
Availability of develo2aable land. There are approximately 850 acres of land potentially available
for development west of the intersection and outside Cameron's Urban Service Boundary. This
land is all within sub-watershed 7.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of V/x acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 28% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable farms with residences and stable single-family houses.
While there appear to be some recently built houses, most are over 10 years old. There would not
appear to be a measurable market for subdivision development, particularly given Moore County's
development policies. There are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any
notable amount of development. The investment climate could support some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 24 minutes from the edge of the Urban Service Boundary along the existing U.S. 1.
Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 54 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east
of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 4 minutes, which is
less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to
Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 7 minutes, which is a 30% reduction and
could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville,
Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are mostly rated poor for
septic systems, with a small area rated moderate for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately Low to Moderate, due primarily to
restrictive Moore County development policies, DWQ watershed standards for development, and
lack of support services for residential development.
3.5.5 Land outside Cameron Urban Service Boundary west of NC24/NC27 interchange
Estimated impact area. Land to the west of this interchange for approximately 2 miles along
NC24/NC27 is developed land within the Town of Cameron, including the National Register of
Historic Properties Historic District. Since the interchange is actually moving approximately IV2
miles east of the existing interchange of U.S. 1 and NC24/NC27, the new road is unlikely to have
any discernable development effect to the west of Cameron.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 17 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.6 SR 1825 (Cranes Creek Rd.) Intersection
This will be an at-grade intersection on a new alignment, across the railroad approximately I mile east of
the existing intersection of U.S. I and Cranes Creek Road. The intersection could become a grade-
separated interchange at some time in the future if traffic volumes warrant, according to the FEIS. That
eventuality is far enough in the future that it was not considered in this analysis.
3.6.1 Land at Cranes Creek Rd. Intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Land at all four corners of this intersection is currently farmland,
and could potentially be available for development. This area is not in an Urban Service
Boundary.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/z acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. There is no commercial development at the existing U.S. 1/ Cranes Creek
Road intersection, and no evidence of commercial development in this area. This analysis assumes
that there would be highway-oriented commercial at the new U.S. 1/Lobelia Road intersection,
approximately 3 miles south. This intersection will be an exit for southbound U.S. 1 traffic
destined toward Woodlake, which could be attractive for a corner gasoline/convenience store.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 16 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2
minutes, which is less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development.
The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the
15% to 20% range and could make the area slightly more attractive for some commute, service
and leisure trips, but is unlikely to influence any non-residential development. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church
Rd. and NC 24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Cranes Creek Rd. at the intersection
with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 600
vpd (vehicles per day) to 1,100 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to remain at "B"
This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build alternative
due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low. No development exists at the current
intersection. No commercial development is anticipated at the intersection due to restrictive Moore
County zoning.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 18 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.6.2 Land east of Cranes Creek Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land between the intersection and the Woodlake community Urban
Service Boundary, approximately 4V2 miles east of the interchange. None of this area is in an
Urban Service Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 2,000 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection. None of this land is in an Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 700 of these acres are in sub-watershed 5, approximately 400 of these acres are in
sub-watershed 7, and approximately 900 of these acres are in sub-watershed 8. About half of the
potentially available land in sub-watershed 8 is in Harnett County.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Hamett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of V2 acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Woodlake, a planned community, was started in 1973 as a predominantly
single-family residential golf community. It grew at about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's,
and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has
approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the
approval process. About 600 of these lots have been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake
has not been rapid enough to indicate that there would be investment interest in another large
residential development in this area. Further, the available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb
most of the growth in this area. Any additional development is likely to be some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 18 minutes from the intersection of Cranes Creek Road and Cypress Church Road.
Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east
of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is
less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to
Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 15% to 20% range
and could make the area slightly more attractive for some commute, service and leisure trips, but
is unlikely to influence any non-residential development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base is east along Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church Rd. and NC 24, and would
be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low to moderate.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 19 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.6.3 Land west of Cranes Creek Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land approximately 3 miles west of the interchange, to NC24/NC27.
Availability of developable land. Land west of the Cranes Creek Rd. intersection was not
calculated, since travel time to urban and regional destinations would be virtually unchanged from
existing travel times.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of 1/z acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. There is no discernable development or construction of new houses in this
area.
Distance to manor urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 16 minutes from Cranes Creek Cemetery, about halfway to NC24/NC27. Travel
time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east of
Cameron would not reduce the travel time to the "Triangle," so would not influence development
related to "Triangle" employment. The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by
approximately 1 minute, which is less than 10% and is not enough change to induce any
measurable development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along
Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church Rd. and NC 24, and would increase by approximately 1
minute.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore. County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to low.
3.7 SR 1001 (Main St./Lobelia Rd.) Interchange
This will be a new grade separated interchange between the new U.S. 1 and the existing two lane SR 1001,
which is Main Street in Vass east of the existing U.S. 1, and is known as Union Church Road west of the
existing U.S. 1. Outside of the Vass Town Limits to the east, SR 1001 is known as Lobelia Road. The
interchange will be inside the Vass Town Limits, approximately 1/2 mile east of the existing U.S. 1. There
will be no frontage roads in this area.
3.7.1 Land at Main St./Lobelia Rd. interchange
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Two of the proposed interchange corners are currently farms
with houses on them, one is farmland only, and one is a single-family residence. The land is all
within the Vass Town Limits.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 20 of 38 November 27, 2001
Land use policies. This land is all inside the Vass Town Limits, and is zoned R-20 which allows
20,000 sq. ft. (nominally I/2 acre) single family residential lots. For the purposed of this analysis, it
has been assumed that a zoning change to commercial uses could be obtained from the Town of
Vass at this location.
Investment climate. Vass grew more slowly than the rest of Moore County from 1990 to 2000.
The Vass population grew 11.9%, from 670 to 750, while Moore County as a whole grew 26.7%,
from 59,000 to 74,769. This would not indicate . a very strong overall investment climate.
However, there are two existing service stations/convenience stores in Vass at the Corner of U.S. 1
and Main St./Union Church Road that appear to be very oriented toward U.S. 1 traffic. These two
stations/stores would indicate that there could be a strong demand for service stations/convenience
stores at the new interchange. These might be either new, competing businesses, or relocations of
the existing businesses. None of the other businesses on the existing U.S. 1 in Vass appear to be
highway-oriented. There are existing highway-oriented businesses at the SR 1853 (Aiken Rd.)
intersection, approximately 1 3/a miles south of this interchange.
Distance to maior urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 12 minutes from the existing U.S 1 intersection with Main St. Travel time to the
"Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce
the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not
enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would
be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 20% to 25% range and could make the
area more attractive for development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base
is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Vass' Main Street at the intersection
with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 3,200
vpd (vehicles per day) to 9,950 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "C"
to "E."
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. There is existing sanitary sewer service,
owned by Moore County Public Utilities, in Vass west of the existing U.S. 1. This service is
currently being extended along Main Street to approximately Johnson Road, which is
approximately the location of the new interchange. No sewer service is planned west of the new
alignment of U.S. 1.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. High.
3.7.2 Land east of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection within the Vass Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land along SR 1001 from the new interchange approximately 1-1/z miles to
the Vass Urban Service Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 450 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection in the Vass Urban Service Boundary. Approximately 150
acres are potentially available inside the Vass Town Limits, and approximately 300 acres are
potentially available outside the Town Limits but inside the Urban Service Boundary. All of these
acres are in sub-watershed 6.
Land use policies. Land inside the Vass Town Limits is zoned R-20, which would allow 20,000
sq. ft. (nominally I/2 acre) single family residential lots. Land outside the Town Limits and inside
the Urban Service Boundary is zoned Residential/Agricultural, which would allow 2 acre single
family residential lots. The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area,
which would limit any residential lots to a minimum of V2 acre, and would limit any development .
to a maximum of 24% built-upon area.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Qctality Page 21 of 38 November-27,2001
Investment climate. Vass grew more slowly than the rest of Moore County from 1990 to 2000.
The Vass population grew 11.9%, from 670 to 750, while Moore County as a whole grew 26.7%,
from 59,000 to 74,769. This would not indicate a very strong overall investment climate within
Vass itself. Woodlake, a planned golf course community approximately 4 V2 miles east of the new
interchange, grew much more rapidly at a rate of 72.2%, from 790 to 1,360. Woodlake grew at
about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's, and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the
mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another
approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the approval process. About 600 of these lots have
been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake has not been rapid enough to indicate that there
would be investment interest in another large residential development in this area. Further, the
available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb most of the growth in this area. Any additional
development is likely to be some single-family development on large lots, and one or two minor
subdivisions for additional residences on family farms.
Distance to maior urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 13 minutes from the existing U.S I intersection with Main St. Travel time to the
"Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce
the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not
enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would
be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 20% to 25% range and could make the
area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. There is existing sanitary sewer service,
owned by Moore County Public Utilities, in Vass west of the existing U.S. 1. This service is
currently being extended along Main Street to approximately Johnson Road, which is
approximately the location of the new interchange. No sewer service is planned west of the new
alignment of U.S. 1. This area does not currently have water service. However, Moore County is
presently planning water service districts, which will provide water service to this area in the near
future. The water service is intended to serve existing residential development, with predominantly
6-inch water lines and a few 8-inch mains. Moore County's policy is that sewer service could be
provided in this area, since it is inside of an adopted Urban Service Boundary. However, no sewer
service is currently planned for the area. Soils in this area are mostly rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.7.3 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary east of the Main StJLobelia Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land along SR 1001 from the Vass Urban Service Boundary to a point
approximately 4 miles east of the interchange to the Woodlake community. Approximately one
mile of this area, on the north side of Lobelia Road, is in the adopted Woodlake Urban Service
Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 1,550 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection. None of this land is in an Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 850 of these acres are in sub-watershed 6, and approximately 700 of these acres
are in sub-watershed 8.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III High Quality watershed area, which would
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 22 of 38 November 27, 2001
limit any residential development to a maximum of V/z acre lots, and would limit any development
to a maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Woodlake, a planned community, was started in 197xx as a predominantly
single-family residential golf community. It grew at about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's,
and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has
approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the
approval process. About 600 of these lots have been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake
has not been rapid enough to indicate that there would be investment interest in another large
residential development in this area. Further, the available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb
most of the growth in this area. Any additional development is likely to be some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to maior urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 15 minutes from the Vass Urban Service Boundary. Travel time to the "Triangle" is
approximately 60 minutes. The new bypass and. interchange in Vass would reduce the travel time
to the "Triangle" by approximately 4 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not enough change to
induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes, which is approximately 20% and could make the area slightly more
attractive for some commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, which will provide water
service to this area in the near future. The water service is intended to serve existing residential
development, with predominantly 6-inch water lines and a few 8-inch mains. Moore County's
policy is to not provide sewer service in the portion of this area that is outside of the adopted
Urban Service Boundaries. There are no plans for providing sewer services within the portion of
the Woodlake Urban Service Area that is in the impact area of R-210. Soils in this area are mostly
rated poor for septic systems, with one relatively small area rated moderate for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low, due primarily to restrictive Moore
County development policies, DWQ watershed standards for development, and ample availability
of residential lots in Woodlake.
3.7.4 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary west of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land west along SR 1001 was not analyzed. The land along SR 1001
within the Vass Urban Service Boundary is virtually all within the developed area of Vass, and the
interchange will actually be approximately 1/z mile farther east than the present intersection, which
means that there will be no notable amount of travel time savings that would cause a development
in this direction. This move of the intersection east will make land along SR 1803, the Vass-
Carthage Road, even less accessible than it is now, so there is unlikely to be any development
effect from R-210.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8 Intersection with existing U.S. 1 south of Vass
This will be a new at-grade intersection with the existing U.S. 1 alignment in Vass, approximately 1-1/4
miles south of Main St.
3.8.1 Land at intersection with existing U.S. 1
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 23 of 38 November 27, 2001
Availability of developable land. There will be little, if any land available for development at this
intersection. The area surrounding the intersection location is virtually all in the Little River 100-
year floodplain, and is further constrained by the presence of the existing railroad tracks.
Consequently, no development is anticipated at this intersection.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8.2 Land east and west of the intersection with the existing U.S. 1 within the Vass Urban Service
Boundary
Estimated impact area. Areas that are potentially available for development in the Vass Town
Limits and within Vass' Urban Service Boundary are accessible from this intersection only by
way of the existing U.S. 1. Since their accessibility due to R-210 would be virtually unchanged,
this intersection is not anticipated to have any measurable effect on growth and development in
Vass.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8.3 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary served by the intersection with the existing
U.S. L
Estimated impact area. No land outside the Urban Service Boundary would be served by this
intersection.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.9 SR 1853 (Aiken Rd.) Intersection.
This is an existing intersection in. the community of Lakeview, at which U.S. 1 is already four-lane divided.
No change is proposed for U.S. 1. at this intersection, or to SR 1853.
3.9.1 Land at Aiken Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. There is existing convenience commercial development at 2
corners of the intersection, limiting any further development to 2 corners of the intersection. A
typical corner commercial development would require 2 acres of land to be able to build a typical
commercial building and parking within the DWQ maximum of 24%built-upon area.
Land use policies. Any further commercial development would require a zoning change from
Moore County. Any further commercial development would be limited to a maximum of 24%
built-upon due to the Class WS-III watershed restrictions of DWQ, which have been adopted by
Moore County.
Investment climate. The Lakeside community is not large enough to support additional locally
oriented commercial development, particularly with the availability of retail and support services
nearby in Vass. For service to through traffic, the area is close to Vass with its current two
highway-oriented gasoline stations/convenience stores, which could relocate to the new U.S: 1
bypass (see 3.7.1 above). There are additional existing highway-oriented service businesses at
Skyline (Youngs Road), approximately 2 1/2 miles south toward Southern Pines. Any additional
commercial development at this intersection would be competing with those two locations.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 24 of 38 November 27, 2001
Distance to maior urban area or regional center. Travel time to Southern Pines, Aberdeen,
Pinehurst and other destinations to the south would be unchanged, since U.S. 1 is already two-lane
divided in that direction. Travel time to Vass would be unchanged, since the most convenient
route would be along the existing U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes from the existing time of approximately 59 minutes. This would be less
than 10% and is not be enough time savings to affect development decisions at this location due to
commuting convenience. Travel time to Pope AFB and Fort Bragg would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes. This would not be enough time to affect development decisions at this
location due to commuting convenience.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Aiken Rd. at the intersection with U.S.
1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 2,600 vpd
(vehicles per day) to 4,600 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "B" to
"C." This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build
alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This intersection is in the Moore County
Water Service Area No. 1, which is planned for water service in the near future. It is in the
County's designated Urban Service Boundary, so it could have sanitary sewer service at some
time in the future. No sanitary sewer service is currently planned for this area. Soils in this area are
rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. There is a low to moderately low probability of one
additional highway-oriented business at one corner of this intersection.
3.9.2 Land east of Aiken Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land east of the Aiken Rd. intersection was not analyzed in detail. This
area would not experience any travel time savings to Southern Pines due to the new bypass. Travel
time savings to the "Triangle" would be approximately 3 minutes from the existing approximately
59-minute travel time, which is not enough to time to affect development decisions at this location
due to commuting convenience. There would be an approximately 3 minute travel time savings to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, which is unlikely to influence development
decisions at this location due to commuting convenience. The land to the east of the intersection is
approximately 50% to 60% developed as single-family homes and family farms or horse ranches.
Much of the remaining land convenient to the intersection is in large land trust holdings, and
unavailable for development.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.9.3 Land west of Aiken Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Land west of the Aiken Rd. intersection was not analyzed in detail. There
is a relatively small area within convenient access to this intersection, and it includes the
community of Lakeside and extensive Little River floodplains and wetlands. Since there would be
negligible travel time savings to major urban or regional centers, as described above, there is
unlikely to be any measurable development influence in this area attributable to R-210.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 25 of 38 November 27, 2001
4. GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR WATERSHED ANALYSIS AREA
The methodology used as a basis for assuming built-upon residential areas (i.e., impervious cover) involved a seven-
step process:
1. Estimate 2000 - 2010 household growth for Moore and Lee Counties
2. Estimate the watershed analysis area capture rate of 2000 - 2010 Moore and Lee County household growth
3. Distribute the watershed analysis. area estimated household growth into the sub-watersheds used for the
hydrologic analysis
4. Develop scenario assumptions of the additional growth in each sub-watershed that might occur due to the
influence of R-210.
5. Calculate the land potentially available for development within each sub-watershed area
6. Distribute the estimated household growth into the calculated land potentially available for development, for
each sub-watershed
7. Calculate the built-upon area (i.e., impervious cover) potentially added to each sub-watershed, as the basis for
the hydrologic analysis
Steps 1 through 3 of this process are described in this Section. Steps 4 through 7 are described in Section 5:
"Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Purposes."
4.1 Estimated 2000 - 2010 Household Growth for Moore and Lee Counties
In order to forecast the amount of built-upon residential area (i.e., impervious cover) added within the watershed
analysis area between 2000 and 2010, population and household growth forecasts were reviewed. The first step was
to retrieve the 1990 and 2000 population figures for Lee and Moore Counties as well as the municipalities within
those counties.
Population Growth Trends
1990-2000
Next, the 2010 population forecast for Lee and Moore Counties was retrieved from the Office of State Planning.
Based on shares of overall county population growth between 1990 and 2000, the municipality and unincorporated
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 26 of 38 November 27, 2001
Note: Woodlake is not incorporated, but is a major subdivision
Note: Much of Sanford's growth was due to annexation
area population forecasts for 2010 were calculated. The 2010 forecasted population by county and municipality was
then converted to households using average household size values in 2000 from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Household Growth Forecast
4.2 Analysis area capture rate of 2000 - 2010 Moore and Lee County household growth
The watershed analysis area includes unincorporated portions of Lee and Moore Counties and the incorporated
municipalities of Vass and Cameron. In order to estimate the analysis area capture rate of the forecasted household
growth within the unincorporated portions of the counties., household growth data for Census Tract 9505 in Moore
County and Block Groups 1, 3 and 4 of Census Tract 305 in Lee County was retrieved from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Data for Whispering Pines and Woodlake in Census Tract 9505 was omitted since these areas are not included in the
analysis area. The boundaries of the Census Tract/Block Group area extend somewhat beyond the analysis area
boundaries, but they nonetheless provide a reasonable indication of potential capture capacity.
After determining the 1990,- 2000 Census Tract/Block Group area household growth, its share (13.5%) of overall
household growth for Lee and Moore Counties during the same period was determined. This percentage was then
applied to the 2000-2010 household growth forecast (8,940) for these counties that was determined previously in
order to estimate the number of households added (1,206). Therefore, of the 2,174 additional households forecasted
for unincorporated Moore County between 2000 and 2010, the 30 additional households forecasted for Vass, the -26
additional households forecasted for Cameron, and the -421 additional households forecasted for unincorporated
Lee County, an estimated 1,206 households are within the analysis area.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 27 of 38 November 27, 2001
Source: NC Office of State Planning, HNTB
Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2010
Area 5,045 6,251 1,206 23.9%
Counties (Moore &
Lee) 49,179 58,11 8,940 18.2%
Analysis Area
Of Counties 10.3% 10.8% N/A N/A
Source: Office of State Planninq, HNTB
These 1,206 households are the projected growth in the analysis area due to normal population growth and in-
migration, and do not necessarily reflect any additional influence on household growth due to R-210.
4.3 Sub-watersheds estimated household growth
The estimated household growth for the overall watershed analysis area was next distributed into the sub-watersheds
used for the hydrologic analysis. Initially, each sub-watershed was identified by the rivers, creeks and tributaries on
USGS quad maps of the watershed analysis area. The land area of each sub-watershed was then measured from the
USGS quad maps in square miles. The land area was translated into acres for each sub-watershed, and calculated as
a percentage of the overall watershed analysis area, by sub-watershed. This percentage formed the basis for
distribution of household growth by sub-watershed, proportionate to the land area of the sub-watershed in relation to
the overall watershed.
Two of the sub-watersheds appeared to have a disproportionately high percentage of household growth based solely
on a percentage of land area. Specifically, sub-watershed 4 at 26% of the total household growth, and sub-watershed
7 at 19% seemed higher than observation of apparent growth and building trends in the area would indicate. Further,
sub-watersheds 5, 6 and 8 seemed disproportionately low. To compensate for this apparent discrepancy, the
percentages were adjusted to make the distribution of household growth into sub-watersheds 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 more
equal.
The adjusted percentage of households were then multiplied by the total projected household growth of 1,200, which
was rounded from the calculated 1,206 households to provide an estimated 2000 - 2010 household growth by sub-
watershed. This household growth is the projected growth by sub-watershed due to normal population growth and
in-migration, and does not necessarily reflect any additional influence on household growth due to R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 28 of 38 November 27, 2001
5. ASSUMED LAND USE CHANGE FOR WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS PURPOSES
5.1 Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
The-assumptions of land use change due to R-210 were based on a calculated distribution of households by sub-
watershed. An initial distribution of households based proportionately on sub-watershed land area was adjusted to
conform to the Potential for Land Use Change assessment. These distributed households were then translated into
acres, assuming 94 acre per household, the minimum lot size permitted by DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards.
The built-upon area was then calculated at 24% built-upon area, the maximum built-upon area permitted by DWQ
Class WS-III Watershed Standards. Even though local zoning might require a larger lot size than V2 acre, the ratio of
24% built-upon for a %2 acre lot was considered to be consistent with the built-upon area that would occur with
larger lots. The 24% built-upon area on a V2 acre lot represents a 3,000 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with a two-car
garage, driveway, front entry walk, and 800 sq. ft. patio, swimming pool, or other impervious outdoor area. This
would be a fairly typical residence in this area, regardless of lot size.
Non-residential built-upon area was derived from the assumed land use change analysis, with the built-upon area
being calculated at 24%, the maximum built-upon area permitted by DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards.
As suggested by the NCDOT "Draft Guidelines," several scenarios were considered for the assumed additional
growth in the sub-watersheds that might occur due to the influence of R-210. These scenarios assumed a percentage
increase in households over the household growth that was projected by the Office of State Planning. These
scenarios were:
Scenario 1: "Probable Scenario", which was a judgement based on professional experience, observation of the area,
and the interpretation of the analysis. This scenario resulted in a total assumed built-upon area of 47 acres due to the
influence of R-210. The 47 acres represents 0.1% of the total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area
are shown in the following table.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 29 of 38 November 27, 2001
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 1: Probable Scenario
Scenario 2: "Conservative Scenario," increased the assumed percentage of growth in each sub-watershed due to R-
210 by a factor of 3 for sub-watersheds 5, 7 and 8, and by a factor of 2 for sub-watershed 6, to account for any
unanticipated growth or any possible additional influence on' growth resulting from R-210. This scenario resulted in
a total assumed built-upon area of 92 acres due to the influence of R-210. The 92 acres represents 0.2% of the total
watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area are shown in the following table.
Scenario 3: "Worst Case Scenario," increased the assumed percentages of additional growth due to the influence of
R-210 by a factor of 4 in sub-watersheds 5, 6, 7 and 8 over Scenario 1. For this worst case scenario to occur, major
changes in current Moore County and Lee County land use policies would have to occur. While this seems unlikely
because of the relatively recent adoption of land use plans in Moore County and Lee County, there is an outside
possibility that the political climate might change in one or both of those counties. The worst case scenario resulted
in a total assumed built-upon area of 129 acres due to the influence of R-210. The 129 acres represents less than
0.3% of the total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area are shown in the following table.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 30 of 39 November 27, 2001
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 2: Conservative Scenario
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 3: Worst Case Scenario
5.2 Built-Upon Area Added by R-210
As shown in the table below, the worst case scenario calculation described above provides a total assumed built-
upon area of approximately 129 acres in the total watershed. This represents an approximately 0.3% increase in
built-upon area for the watershed affected by R-210.
These built-upon areas were used in the watershed hydrologic analysis to calculate the increase in stormwater
discharge due to the secondary and cumulative impacts of R-210. They are summarized in the following table.
Built-Upon Areas Added by R-210 (Worst Case Scenario)
Source: HNTB
5.3 Land Potentially Available for Development by Sub-Watershed
The computer model used for the hydrologic analysis required that the estimated households be located in the
general area of each sub-watershed. The model calculates runoff based on the runoff distance and time from the
source (in this case, new households) to the affected creek or tributary. To locate the assumed sub-watershed
household growth, land not currently built-upon was used as a basis for locating new households.
To identify land not currently built-upon, a generalized analysis of currently built-upon land and land not available
for development was prepared. This analysis identified existing "urbanized" areas in the Towns of Vass and
Cameron and in the developments of Woodlake and Quail Ridge. These areas are shown in Figure 2, R-210 Impact
Area.
Floodplains and wetlands were assumed to be land that would not be available for development. Using information
from Moore County and Lee County GIS systems, and from Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM maps), this land
was mapped in combination with the existing "urbanized" areas. The combined "urbanized" areas, floodplains and
wetlands are shown in Figure 3, R-210 Floodplains and Wetlands. As stated, this is a generalized analysis, and this
map should not be used as a reference in relation to any specific floodplain or wetland impact analysis.
The third type of land considered to be currently built-upon was land outside the "urbanized" areas that has existing
single family residences, manufactured houses, or farms with a residence. For purposes of this analysis, only farms
of 50 acres or less with a residence were considered to be "currently built-upon." This. land was added to the map
with "urbanized" areas, floodplains and wetlands, as shown in Figure 4, R-210 Floodplains, Wetlands and Built-
Upon Areas.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 31 of 39 November 27, 2001
The remaining land was considered to be the area where any growth influenced by R-210 might occur. It is shown in
Figure 5, R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-Watersheds. Since the Evaluation of Potential for Land Use Change had
indicated that any growth effects of R-210 would be most likely to occur east of the new road, only impact areas east
of R-210 are shown, other than an area in Cameron just west of the new road. The land area available, as shown
below, is over 35 times the land needed for the worst case scenario, indicating that even in the worst case, any
growth influenced by R-210 would be extremely low density.
Land Area Potentially Available for
1 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0
4 150 0 0 150
5 0 150 700 850
6 150 300 850 1,300
7 0 350 1,250 1,600
8 0 0 700 700
Source:
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 32 of 39 November 27, 2001
Figure 3
R-210 Floodplains and Wetlands
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 33 of 39 November 27, 2001
Figure 4
R-210 Floodplains, Wetlands and Built-Upon Areas
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 34 of 39 November 27, 2001
°o
US 151501
R ck Fork
a es a C ch Road
0 c? O [1 ` Ced e 150 AC
2 a ! O 300 AC
V (/ Q 350 A
C 2 /27 0 ; -= +1• 850 AC
' ;i1
ra s Creek RoadO 4 t ??? .;? ?`' '.''•'
US-1
"NC 24 27
Union Chur h Ro??d J ,
700 AC
Q 3 / 400 AC
- - ' " , ••• 900 AC
• •• Cypress
ass-C ha oa
Church
1 s 8 :, .0. Oad
•.u
150 A 20 AC
US- 100 AC
a Me Riv "- r
Lobelia Road ??? ?
N •? ??.
850 AC
??? 700 AC
I,
Figure 5
R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-Watersheds
5.4 Assumed Land Use Change
To assume locations within the sub-watersheds for supporting the hydrologic analysis, the probable impacts
described in Section 3 were compared to the land presumed to be available for development, as described in Section
5.3 above. The resulting assumptions, as shown in the following table, provided a relatively specific location of
assumed land use changes, which were used in the hydrologic model to calculate distance and time of runoff.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 35 of 39 November 27, 2001
Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Major Feeder Road Location hed (from Section 3) Analysis.Purposes Acres
Eakes Road (SR 1181) At the intersection 7 Moderate One two-acre corner commercial use 0.5
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon area (impervious cover)
West of the intersection 7 None to Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 7 N/A N/A 0.0
Frontage Road between 4 Moderately High to 100 acres of non-residential uses 24.0
Eakes Rd. (SR 1181) and High Direct access from frontage roads
Cedar Lane Rd. (SR 1182) 24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
Cedar Lane Road (SR 1182) At the intersection 5 Moderate One two-acre comer commercial use 0.5
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon
West of the intersection 4 Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 5 Low None 0.0
Frontage Road between 5 Moderately High to 33 acres of non-residential uses 8.0
Cedar Lane Rd. (SR 1182) and High Direct access from frontage roads
Pine Forest Road (SR 1173) 24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
NC24/NC27 At the interchange 5 Low None 0.0
East of the interchange, in 5 Moderately Low 40 single family residences 4.8
the Urban Service 1/m acre lots
Boundary (USB) Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, in 7 Moderately Low 32 single family residences 3.8
the USB ifs acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange, in 4 Moderate 24 single family residences 2.9
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 7 Moderately Low to 70 single family residences 8.4
outside the USB Moderate 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange, None to Very Low None 0.0
outside the USB
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 36 of 39 November 27, 2001
Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Major Feeder Road Location hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Acres
Cranes Creek Road (SR 1825) At the intersection 4 Low None 0.0
East of the intersection .5 Moderately Low to 92 single family residences 11.0
Moderate 'A acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the intersection 7 Moderately Low to 42 single family residences 5.0
Moderate 'A acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the intersection 8 Moderately Low to 101 single family residences 12.1
Moderate 1h acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the intersection None to Low None 0.0
Main SULobelia Road At the interchange 6 High Two two-acre comer commercial uses 1.0
(SR 1001) Commercial uses
24% built-upon area
East of the interchange, in 6 Moderate 108 single family residences 13.0
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots predominantly located in the first mile
east of the USB
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 6 Moderate 204 single family residences 24.5
outside the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 8 Moderately Low 79 single family residences 9.5
outside the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange 3 None to Very Low None 0.0
Existing U.S. 1, south of Vass At the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
West of the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 37 of 39 November 27, 2001
Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Major Feeder Road Location hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Acres
Aiken Road (SR 1853) At the intersection N/A Low to Moderately One two-acre comer commercial use 0.5
Low DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon (impervious cover)
East of the intersection N/A None to Very Low None 0.0
West of the intersection N/A None to Very Low None 0.0
Total Assumed Built-Upon Acres 129.5
The location of these impact areas and the sub-watersheds is shown in Figure 5: R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-
Watersheds.
6. WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
6.1 Hydrologic Analysis Methodology
A preliminary hydrologic study was performed for this project to estimate the proposed increase of stormwater
discharge due to the construction of project R-210 and associated future developments.
Based on the preliminary alignment for R-210, and an estimation of future development occurring within the impact
area, a hydrologic model was created using TR-55 (Soil Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds), for the existing and proposed conditions. The 25-year storm was used as the storm event for the
models. The drainage areas, runoff coefficients, and time of concentrations were derived by using USGS Quad maps
and aerial photography.
The majority of R-210, and the future developments, will occur within the watersheds of Crane Creek and its
tributaries. Crane Creek ultimately flows into Lake Surf, where the discharge is detained/retained and released over
time into the Little River. Very little of the future developments are believed to be located along the Little River near
Vass, NC.
The future developments will consist of mostly individual residences and scattered residential minor subdivisions
(four houses or less), with some minor commercial development occurring adjacent to R-210. Increases in
impervious areas are less than 0.3 percent in regards to total watershed areas, and the associated increases of
stormwater peak discharges will be less than 3 percent in relation to the existing peak discharges, as described in the
following section.
6.2 Estimated Hydrology Effect of R-210
As indicated in the table below, the hydrologic model indicated that there would be very small increases in the
estimated 25 year event future peak discharges resulting from the worst case scenario increased built-upon area that
could result from R-210. Sub-watersheds 1, 2 and 3 would have no change, since none of the assumed land use
change would occur in those sub-watersheds.
Sub-watersheds 4 and 7, even though they could experience an increase in built-upon area due to R-210, would have
changes in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges too small for the computer model to calculate.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 38 of 39 November 27, 2001
Sub-watersheds 5, 6 and 8 would have changes in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges in the range of
2.7% to 2.8%.
Hvdroloqv Effect of R-210 (Worst Case Scenario)
4 19.0 15,940 27 0.2% 15,940 0.0%
5 2.3 2,413 24 1.7% 2,479 2.7%
6 3.8 3,188 38 1.6% 3,277 2.8%
7 14.0 11,099 18 0.2% 11,099 0.0%
8 5.7 5,658 22 0.6% 5,819 2.8%
includes Residential and Commercial Development. Acreages are total built-upon (impervioous cover) areas
Source: HNTB
6.3 Estimated Effect on Downstream Water Quality
The above flow rates will occur as a result of primarily single-family residential development which, due to local
planning and zoning requirements, will be in scattered site development. The remaining farmland and woodland
should easily provide filtration of any contaminants in the-stormwater runoff from these developments before it
reaches the watercourses. Additionally, Woodlake (Lake Surf) provides a retention area, which will limit the rate of
flow into Little River. Consequently, there should be no change in the rate of flow into the Little River, and no
impact on downstream water quality as a result of the secondary and cumulative impacts of R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 39 of 39 November 27, 2001
M• {I M N 1F M N M• N M M M• N M M M A M N N M M N M M M N N N N M M N M N N•• A w N
UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY PROJECT NO. 6.569003T
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM NO. R-210B
COUNTY
Moore/Lee
N N M M iF N M IF {F {F M* M N y N N N M M N N N• 1? M• M• M 1F N• N• M M M M k N A A M
This agreement made this 2 day of b c 1 19C, by and
between the Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of North
Carolina, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT, and the
Town of Cameron a North Carolina Municipality
hereinafter referred to as the TOWN:
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT will submit a project for construction as
follows:
US 1 from SR 1825 in Moore County to SR 1182 in Lee County
known as route US 1 in Moore/Lee County, North
Carolina to be designated as N. C. State Highway Project 6.569003T
and,
WHEREAS, the construction of said project will require certain adjustments
to be made to the existing facilities of the TOWN.
NOW, THEREFORE, in order to facilitate the orderly and expeditious
relocation of the said facilities of TOWN, the DEPARTMENT. and the TOWN have
agreed as follows:
1
1. That the scope, description, and location of work to be undertaken by the
TOWN is as follows: Construction of a municipal water supply well or wells capable of
yielding minimum 70 gpm to replace the two existing wells that will be abandoned due to
the said North Carolina State Highway proiect
2. That any work performed under this agreement shall comply with
DEPARTMENT's "POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCOMMODATING UTILITIES
ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY,' dated January 1, 1975, and such amendments
thereto as may be in effect at the date of this agreement. The work to be
performed by the TOWN shall conform with Federal Highway Administration's
Federal-Aid Policy Guide, Subchapter G, Part 645, Subpart A hereinafter referred to
as FAPG dated December 9, 1991, and such amendments thereto as may be in
effect at the date of this agreement. The provisions of said FAPG and
amendments thereto are incorporated in this agreement by reference as fully as if
herein set out. Any work performed under this agreement not in compliance with
FAPG shall constitute unauthorized work and the DEPARTMENT shall be relieved of
participating in the costs of such unauthorized work unless such work is done
pursuant to a supplemental agreement attached to and made a part hereof.
3. That the TOWN will prepare an estimate, broken down as to
estimated cost of labor, construction overhead, materials and supplies, handling
charges, transportation and equipment, rights of way, preliminary engineering and
construction engineering, including an itemization of appropriate credits for salvage,
betterments and accrued depreciation, all in sufficient detail to provide the
DEPARTMENT a reasonable basis for analysis. Unit costs, such as broad gauge
units of property, may be used for estimating purposes where the TOWN uses
such units in its own operations. The TOWN will also prepare plans, sketches or
drawings showing their existing facilities, temporary and permanent changes to be
made with reference to the DEPARTMENT's new right of way using appropriate
nomenclature, symbols, legend, notes, color coding or the like. The before
mentioned estimate and plans are attached hereto and made a part hereof. The
DEPARTMENT will not reimburse the TOWN for any utility relocations or changes
not necessitated by the construction of the highway project, nor for changes
made solely for the benefit or convenience of the TOWN, its contractor, or a
highway contractor.
4. That the DEPARTMENT's authority, obligation, or liability to pay for
relocations as set for in this agreement is based on the TOWN's having a right
of occupancy in its existing location by reason of holding the fee, an easement or
other real property interest, the damaging or taking of which is compensable in
eminent domain.
5. That payment for all work done hereunder shall be made in
accordance with the requirements of FAPG unless payment is being made pursuant
to a supplemental agreement attached to and made a part of this agreement.
2
6. That the construction work provided for in this agreement will be
performed by the method or methods as specified below:
_ BY TOWN's REGULAR FORCE: The TOWN proposes to use its
regular construction or maintenance crews and
personnel of wages and working hours in accordance withthe terms of itsa agreement edwith
such employees.
- BY EXISTING WRITTEN CONTINUING CONTRACT: The TOWN
proposes to use an existing written continuing contract under which certain work
as shown by the TOWN's estimate is regularly performed for the TOWN and
under which the lowest available costs are developed.
X BY CONTRACT: The TOWN does not have adequate staff or
equipment to perform -the necessary work with its own forces. The TOWN
proposes to award a contract to the lowest qualified bidder who submits a
proposal in conformity with the requirements and specifications for the work to be
performed as set forth in an appropriate solicitation for bids.
7. a. It is contemplated by the parties hereto that the construction
of this State Highway Project will begin on or about the 1 day of
September 2000.
b. Based on the best information available at the present time to
the TOWN, indicate applicable paragraph below:
X Materials are available and. it is expected that work will be
complete prior to highway construction.
_ All work will take place during highway construction and
.arrangements for said work will be coordinated with highway
construction operations at preconstruction conference.
Work will begin
promptly upon notification by DEPARTMENT ;
however, it is not expected to be complete prior to highway
construction . Any remaining work will be coordinated with
highway construction operations at preconstruction conference.
Other (Specify)
8. That the method used by the TOWN in developing the relocation
costs shall be as indicated by Paragraph (a), (b) or (c) as follows:
3
I
_ Actual direct and related indirect costs accumulated in
accordance with a work order accounting procedure
prescribed by the applicable Federal or State regulatory
body.
X - Actual direct and related indirect costs accumulated in
accordance with an established accounting procedure
developed by the TOWN and approved by the
DEPARTMENT.
On a lump-sum basis where the estimated cost to the
DEPARTMENT does not exceed $100,000.00. Except
where unit costs are used and approved, the estimate
shall show such details as man-hours by class and rate;
equipment charges by type, size, and rate; materials and
supplies by items and price; and payroll additives and
other overhead factors.
9. Indicate it (a), (b) or (c) is appucabse:
a. X That the replacement facility is not of greater functional
capacity or capability than the one it replaces, and
includes no TOWN betterments.
b. _ That the replacement facility involves TOWN betterments,
or is of greater functional capacity or capability than the
one it replaces.
C. _ That the replacement facility is other than a segment of
the TOWN's service, distribution, or transmission lines,
such as a building, pumping station, filtration plant, power
plant or substation, production or transfer of storage
facilities and other similar operating units of the TOWN's
physical plant or operating facilities.
If (c ) is applicable, set forth credit to the project for the accrued
depreciation of the facility being replaced.
10. That the total estimated cost of the work
proposed herein, including all cost to the DEPARTMENT
and TOWN less any credit for salvage, is estimated to
be ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $203,485.00
The estimated non-betterment cost to the DEPARTMENT,
including all cost less any credits for salvage, betterments,
accrued depreciation and additional work done by the
TOWN will be -------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------- $.203,485.00
4
s
1
i
s

The estimated cost to the TOWN including betterments,
accrued depreciation and any additional work done by
the TOWN will be ----------------- ---------------------------- $0.00
(The above costs shall be supported by attached estimate and plans)
11. That in the event it is determined there are changes in the scope of
work, extra work, or major changes from the statement of work covered by this
agreement, reimbursement shall be limited to costs covered by a modification of
this agreement or a written change or extra work order approved by the
DEPARTMENT.
12. Periodic progress billings of incurred costs may be made by TOWN to
the DEPARTMENT not to exceed monthly intervals; however, total progress billing
payments shall not exceed 95% of the approved non-betterment estimate.
Progress billing forms may be obtained from the State Utility Agent. One final
and detailed complete billing of all costs shall be made by TOWN to the
DEPARMENT at the earliest practicable date after completion of work and in any
event within 6 months after completion of work. The statement of final billing
shall follow as closely as possible the order of the items in the estimate portion
of this agreement.
13. That the DEPARTMENT shall have the right to inspect non-reusable
materials of the TOWN recovered on this project prior to disposal by sale or
scrap.
14. That the DEPARTMENT shall have the right to inspect all books,
records, accounts and other documents of the TOWN pertaining to the work
performed by it under this agreement at any time after work begins and for a
period of 3 years from the date final payment has been received by the TOWN.
15. That if, in the future, it becomes necessary due to highway
construction or improvement to adjust or relocate utilities covered in this
agreement being relocated at DEPARTMENT expense that are crossing or ot`1erwise
occupying highway right of way, or to provide or substitute additional well or
wells in order to achieve the volume of water provided in Item 1 of this
agreement, the non-betterment cost of same will be that of the DEPARTMENT.
16. That the TOWN agrees to relinquish their rights in that portion of
right of way vacated by their existing facilities now absorbed within DEPARMENT
right of way.
17. That the DEPARTMENT agrees to reimburse.the TOWN for time spent
inspecting the construction of the said project. Reimbursement shall be at a rate equal to
that of the TOWN's employee performing the inspections. The TOWN or the employee of

5
the TOWN shall be responsible for keeping a log of the all time spent inspecting the
project.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have affixed their names by their
duly authorized officers the day and year first above written.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
y.
.
B t
MANAGER OF RIGHT 0 WAY
li?l IF
.,Li ATTEST OR WITNESS
1,64 LZ
Z21a I
4eq
(TI LE),/epr-/,ME/°? (j 11 -ry
TOWN OF CAMERON
c
By:
Isabel McKei en Thomas, Mayor
ATTEST OR WITNESS
Carol Lucas, own Clerk
SE M.:

6

-23.02-9 -Y6-REV 5 11 L:' Z P?
iEGIN PROP. C/A
iEGIN PROP. FENCE Cr
SIB 1 N pR0 a /
lam-, ? ?:_?N I ? ORM -? PN & MEp Z A R1 t GN o D / /
6 QRpP • /
V! / .
ITCH CAT-1
- a
1
SRO
• 4.5 A-5 - alt +25.(
.0? .sue ?',}P • ENO F
END F
23.0(
I: G t(?
Vr
??°F H°nrti+yO NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?•
T.iv1P!k7 D (,( T77 -,w TRANSPORTATION
D EAlarES t
.?
Od40k)0 ?q
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Tp sJ ?(^vi ?E? ?? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
\ P
? ? ? 6 <? p G 1)I:P10'1'1''S 7'1?,?(1? IX(1,gC'i' I(J ?Vl;"t•(,A;rJ ?\ - ?°vrnAIENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
n n r. n n n n OU[; TO ?f1;CIfAI.1tCAJ. Cl-CARINU \
JXYONU CONL'1"Ir,UC'I'1ON LL%jI-r:-
_ MOORE 1 LEE COUNTY
?Y DF_NOTES WEYLFNp PROJECT 8.T560302
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIE1A
oeNa FILL IN W i LA,o. to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
\?\ ?_ SHEET 4 OF 68
`' I I A
-Y2-BASELINE . POT 5+00.000 = NI I ?, D B
-Y2- POS 10+72t 96, 7.312 LT. a
ARCHIE L.. BLUE I I?
DB 1115 PG 54 o0
57 I 1440 °c t-f-
O
- c
w I c I
J ?
WOODS I I
t '? I I
v~y I
+55.871 -Y2-
+83 750 -Y2- I o
13.000 (LT)
13-000 (LT) o I
EST. 1Q.Q m TONS
' I
- CLASS B RIP RAP +74.342 -Y2-
? 270
W/ 5 m2 FILTER FABRIC 113.000 (LT) I
ND Yp '-'PROP. SR CIAL DITCH - 4.4
j. 18 AXIS I. SEE PROF I L
o ?c
'T s, IR
CO
mai p0 c
T - O SR 186
P? 16- 152 MM oW_
1.
cP EIP
-AR / ,-.w --'-- RIV -
c?
w RAVE o _--
IP = NE ° a
AR ` w N VARIES 68 RIVE
cR SLOPE 5? Ey E
1 C /\4 1 O wC'
! O w F-
- SPEG? L
+15,000 -Y2- c
----------- - 4?of ?O"? c\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
b bjor?6 r qMc 7 .Dui n,
O 0 0 0-^ 8(JS 1 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?J PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 81
ow??w ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
/? /? G G O G G U1•1`101I S TENN. INIPACT IN WL•''1'LA:f?
OUL TO Ntl"CIIANICAI. CLZARINU
ULYOND CONS'I*RUCTION LL%11TS MOORS LEE COUNTY
PROJECT 8.T560302
?Y W DENOTES WETuc-NC) US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW
OSNTE; FILL Im "17Lg,-jo. to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
SHEET /I OFJc'8
DETAIL I
SEE FALSE j
iEE ALSE 1L ll] RT.
U
P4,ECfA \ Oo
e
f ?-
O L
\
!
M1 GRA
\ 4 P M/ / 92
F ? + r
3R)C C 93
X/ 14 m? FILTER FABRIC
i
i
X"
x
to 15-'09.691
T 08.4'
5.000
Y.6T4
1c
Y S I r -Y3- PO
"UT
-L- Poc
Y3- PO
. PROP. 0
J rA UIDERAIL
J
c
ALSE Suw @
cf z 2GI
s-INI,

LI
?? -C-RA?F rh P£ "' 33 `7 59 - ?,
\L- PX 4ft44.07, 25.075 RT.
\ -L-BASELINE PIAC 34-62-911-
-L- 45:44.29.525-
GEORGE R. BLUE ?`SL2 sTAXE LINE _
DB 134 PG 29 _
X/ t4 m FILTERAFABRIC 28

o \
f
/ +01.657 RP'C'
BLUE
DB 163 PG 274
28
/
s s ??
30.GEORGE000 R I.RTI
SO

O Q O Q AEAOI`?S LqPACT D(11 TV
4D,TA,(9,QT /li(-
? 0? 6 C? 6 G I)(Ttp'f'I?S Tlibil', (?(I'AC'I' IIJ \YL1'LA:1?
A n i, n n n n f)UL TO \fI-CIIAN (:A1, CLCARINU
IXYOND CONSTRUCTION LL4I(T'.;
Y v ? ? DF_NOTES WETI?.Np
O?NTES GILL IN W°_TLAVp,
I c £I
Y3 F
RAMP
RAMP

\
PRA \ \
.
(O CN?O)

C ?
A

+04.657 RP'C'
30.000 (RT)

V
O? lL?RTF/ C?9\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
J 1
`° DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

P PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
(TOr Twp ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

MOORE 1 LEE COUNTY
km/ PROJECT 8.T560302
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW
to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
SHEET 15 OF $S

S Ii r
i
KEITH BYRD
DB 510 PG 444
?V
,L O
C
A
T . T N,
W% 10 mB F44 P RAP s
M2 FILTER FABRIC
o_
w>_ g ?
C\j
• .,? o PROP. SPECIAL DITCH - -
ri _ at 'h c NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DErlori 5 Tirlpr?c7 D(t
T?n ?? PI DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
O Q 4 p?? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SPrDJA(EkJT 1?(,vl r
, MJ ?7AAN`'ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
^ Aa^ar0^bna G ` DIsNOTZS T`E&Ul. t,IYACT' I14 \VLi-I-"fD
DUE TO AUXIIANICA), CLIZARINU MOORE / LEE COUNTY
BLYOND CONSTRUCTION LULIT:,
PROJECT 8.T560302 f
Y DF_NOTES WETLAND US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW I
to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
OSNTci G(l.l iry w,; Lq;?D,
SHEET OF 5g
iT.REV.
FEY.
f T 17- E, L)
\ KEITH BYRD
DII 510 PG 444
\ 42

:0 OLDHAM
33 PG 95

31 \
V
SLOPE STAKE LINE
6
A
Er
?.C =-D
'$ F LINE - O6EA FALIL SUW
Oal
To SEE FALSE S
fG \ E

• ? J
LSIn
? ??L ..j?, -3j a
• J
2073T
c? -S
?°?+datnannnn9?a%' _ ?e2
7 7
PR 1
A T
?n

-L-BASEIAE
Il! -L- Px 49-fa.:
• _ s ? 2G?
?rr7 . 1A
Q O a Q O .DEAIO'fC5 ZIrIPAC T, D(g TD
'OJ-AC "r AC77V ?E
a t? 'a e, IWlO't'LS')'I;NU',
LA.A ! f?(1'ACT• IN WL:'1'(r1;;D
f)Ul:'f0 AIIxIIANICAI, Cl,"UNU
UL•:YONI) CUNS'1'RUCi'IUN UNLIT:,
? W
Y v DENOTES W EYLF.N D
O=N,7 atl FILL IN I :i LA •; rJ,
e ` -
crvP
r
i ' r
wO
c?
x?
Q
?Z
Y?
L11'
_ ZYQ
xI Y
1l ?
A 1
x? %AT
eoF ?OR7" ?.? 'NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
e
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
/ ? Q<T
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
or-re?ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
MOORE /LEE COUNTY
PROJECT 8.T560302
? US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW
_.?. to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
m•
SHEET ?gOF?B
PROP. SPECIAL BERA
SEE PROFILE
-Y4- 1
(LT)
_ PROP. R/W
TAKE LINE
I
1
DITCH
o w
w -
a? o
N
w
rn

SI F IZ
Ln
1110
SR 2005
.,TAKE LINE
-w V)
fii
CYPRESS CH f-- Z
_ 0
noon, ?tqo NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
?? 4pl DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
6mcTl;5 IinP/tcr D([F Tn I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
? anJZlccr,r orrn? ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
?+Cr1v27?ES _
^?^4^???^<'^0 p bi;MO'i'I:.S '1'la?t1', I0vil'AC7' IN \VL•-1'LA;1,D,
UUU TO DU:CIIANICAI. CLr UtIN(:I
UEYONU CONS1"KUCI"10N LL\Li"f.,
W
DENOTES WETIP.Nc)
0=NT 2.5 GILL IN Ir:_i IA;0.
MOORE / LEE COUNTY
PROJECT 8.T560302
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW
to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
SHEET 26OF 58
s?,-?_ rz ?J1
. ?0 S 60
ENE ,? Zk 71 x
GNP ? Z ?N ??
MPS ? P ? -
{
ter'^rn ,Y?? m?? ?
AT. V DITCH
A f \
FILE
N '
f ? .l
PROP.
HEADWALL-1.
k,
S \
+42
BEGIN SHOULDER
?L$ERM GUTTER \
3 +43 r
\ \
W/ (2) ELBOWS
= +45. 674 -L-
45.000 (LT) > \
J? EST. 0.9 m TONS
i`I ACC - 1 O1 OTO DAD 'm of
Q 0? Q O DEA10Tn ImPAcr Dc* Tr
q?lxlctnlr Rcnv* 72 f_
4 4 0 0 0 O G l)(:CIO'1'1SS'173bU'.I?il'AC]'liJ\VL•''1'LA;1? `'
n A n n n n n n I)6L TO All cIIANICAI, CLUIILIN(:j
,
UL':1 ONL) CON57"ILUC1"I0N LIAIIT:, \
Y DENOTES WETLAND
O:NTa, FILL IN W:i LA.Ip.
?L
--?----. ? tin
7E
F IL
D
`
N.
r\PR(
A
SEE
SEE
1 \
1 TRAF. BRG.`
\ DI W/ ANGLE\
VANE GRATE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
MOORE / LEE COUNTY
PROJECT 8.T560302 -
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW
to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
SHEET 2-? OF 5$ .4/rr
'

IARD

7
S ITE Iq
tl>l• 13.6 m TONS
W/ 31 m2 FILTER F ERIC
I
I
+43.000 -Y4-
15. 000 (?T) &
+25.000 -Y4- 19.000 ( T)
15.000 (LT) ?
3

--r--- `.
13.000
t YP.) COLLAR
U
zz
+53.000 -?.
15.000 (LT
19.000 (L1
I.
Zki UNABLE
I G R/
MAY EXIST
,?I
7+ F
K15TING R/W
NO 4.8 0-?'--- - N
GRAVEL 1050m-n ?•• ?'
R I V NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
" n
0??. TRANSPORTATION
O O O Q ?1 DENO)t-5 ]WAC i TV Spi DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'V AoJ-ACeNr A/rly, rscs PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
4 a ?? o G i)I'Stp'I'LS 1'EAU', IMPACT U4 \VI'CLA 1D ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
oUIS'rp AII:CIIAMCAI, CLEAltINU
BEYOND CONS'I'RUCI'ION U\11T5 -E MOORE / LEE COUNTY
P
SIC ? .? DENOTES WETLFNG PROJECT 8.T560302
?t 1
?i US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW
OSNrGi FILL IN W:i Lo.l o. to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
- SHEET zq OF S$
I to-- An
? ?
is . ' i t s ' 1' _ A
94
7
4 1 Y,: 1! l% s1 I r
:` Q
01
ITT i'r r ? /
SITE #16 i
SCALE
20M 10 0 20M
® DENOTES FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION IN WETLANDS
DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMP. IMPACT IN WETLAND
DUE TO MECHANICAL CLEARING
BEYOND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
10 0 0 DENOTES IM ACT Dvf T4 Ab FVbJf kriV17-1E5
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
M13ORE COUNTY
8.7560302
PROPOSED GRADING. PAVING. DRAINAGE. FENCING
CULVERTS, STRUCTURES. SIGNING. PAVEMENT
MARKINGS. AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1825
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET21OF S8
I
L j .
Tl?
WOODS
A
PROP. LAT. 'V'
PROP-kAT. 'V%_ DITCH SOIL REINFORCI
y A SEE DITCH DETA
SEE P FILE / IZCC DDnt TI C
_ 0 0 0 Q b L?,uo>?s T5'NAC ) ve To
----=r- SLOF E ST L E \ ADTACE&IT Kr' IV/ -
n a o <? o G
A 1)1?t07.1ESTI}NW. I?(I'ACT IN NVL•-I'L.A:(0
?' •^ ?DU(i'CU dfliCllAMCA1, CLG1ItlNq
\ 11L'a ONU CONSTRUCI•ION LLULTS
?L <)ENOTES WETLANC)
L7 \
O:.uT,'GJ FILL irq L.417La,;O.
N Q)
T- ?• 0 OUBLE
r. FA \
hOERAIL
z. SEE FALSE SUMP
DETAIL III -?
US ft-, 2GI
77 3 (EX. DEPTH)
N to ~'•
• 4 &FLAT 2G I W/
"ORNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF GRt
0
H~ ?? TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & \
or, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH sy 4 OO rm,
P =Y= (2) E
MOORE / LEE COUNTY
PROJECT 8.T560302
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW n d Q -
to North of SR 1825, R-210 A T
W/A16 m8 FILT R AFABRIC
_ SHEET ?8 OF 5
u?

Sllt_ ZU
??
PROP .
'V' HEAD DITCH
SEE DITCH DETAIL 'V'

L LAT. 'V' DITCH
ICH DETA
'
'
3 IL
A
0FILE
LO OPE
-?--- STAKE LINE
- - PROP. AT. 'V' T H
SEE DITCH DETAIL A
SEE PROFILE

PROP. DOUBLE
FACE GUIDERAIL
? 1000 CQ • 0 DErJO>?s lmrac ? ? ve rn ,

4Ap^p^p^p^p p I)I1•I0TLS TXW. MWACI' IN NVL•'1'"n:)
DUe TO D(IXIIAMCAJ, CLEARINU
BEYOND C0NST1tUCI'I0N LL%1I•C.;
?Y DENOTES W BYLFNp
C
6.5m -L- us

11 1 lam, w 1_^ _ V CV N
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CL
TRANSPORTATION
j L DER_=:6ERM . GUTER
m o DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
*4? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT $
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

l
O { 400m
MOORE /LEE COUNTY (2
PROJECT 8.T560302
S TAKE
L I'1'QE \ ??\
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW -
= -
n??-A ap p „
to North of SR 1825, R-210 A

p SHEET 4Q OF s$
EST.
4,5 m TONS
I ulv? , .

oro ono I
..
SS "b,
wi 17 -2 CTI TPR PARR TC' ES1iJ 1.8
PROP. STD. BERM DITCH `-
titoF ><unm °+yo NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
PROP. STD • _ TRANSPORTATION 8
OU DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

10000-0 _
N??S TmPAC I '
or,w PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

o ??TRCe>ur ncrlv,rscs P?,
0 o a
<, n o
n n n n n n n
A DITIO'nEs *1'1chU'. INIPAC1• IN NVL

f) Ul; .«? i
Ni
I1:CII
MOORE !LEE COUNTY
t
A
CA1, CLI:AICINU
IJLYONU CONS'l-RUM-ION UNLIT., R
v
PROJECT 8.T560302
v_
? K )
0 US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW
-
-
Y - DENOTES WEYLGN I . to North of SR 1825, R-210 A

SHEET OF _a
D
b?
SLIDE STAKE LINE
A_1?
RAMP C FUTURE
SC 1+16.000
EARNEST C. & AMELIA G. EVANS
08 265 PG 634
50
S? 1_ z 3

Cs
I C --
PROP. STD.
7-? --- -?
JTLET „
r r CH OE7AI1.1Z
1 s
I I
I
x 30.000 (RT
1
6 --
I I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
o o 0.0 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ADTF.C E'•l ; PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
4 a <? p G hliPlO'1'I > '1'1:`U'. I-NIPAC'I' !IJ \VL•"1'LA:I ??OA ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
A q n <, n n n n OUL TO AtECIIANICAl. CLI!AR NQ J '
IIGYONU C0N5'I'1LUC1'ION LL%- IT.;
W DENOTES WETLF.Np
D<_NJ7ci FILL IN IJ_i LA i0.
.L
MOORE / LEE COUNTY
PROJECT 8.T560302
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW
to North of SR 1825, R-210 A
SHEET5oOF5S i \1

\ \
AT. ' V' T H

75. SE E PROFILE

\ +85. 000 -L-
45. 000 (LT) o0

1 \
ROP. R/ C
?A 3

o

EST. 10.0 m TONS
CLASS '
'
B
RIP RAP
W/ 24 m2 FILTER FABRIC

-9

?• N
i to
N

y LL
C ti z /I ///:: ::r
I F _
I V.
SUMP _L_ US ? ?
z C

N 40° 3/' 52
7 E to
F-
.

N cyn N C)
L

_ z

?-
?t. n
P NonrH
a cfg
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
o'
4?
TRANSPORTATION
{? Q Q DbnloTl S rmPnC r D(? I q a' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S
gD?cE'"r AcnvS '??S PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
\ f --
n p G ?, G
G ll1;h10'1'1?S TI:bU'. (?fl'AC'1' Ih! \VL'1'LA:1?
n A n ?, n n n n OF7pPN5? ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VUL TO DQiCl1ANiCAI. CIA AIUNU
UEYONI) C0N.S"1'1t,UCI'lON LLUT,
MOORE / LEE COUNTY
L
W
.Y •i .? DENOTES WETLGNp PROJECT 8.T560302
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 1825 TO
NORTH OF SR 1182, R-210 B
SHEETz? OF3`}
r
SIT L
R/W
C
A
° STD. BERM DRAINAGE OUTLET
u-i
v
SEE DETAIL I FALSE SUMP STo. 6- ER?D I TCH
2GI
450mm CS W/(2) ELBOWS C
/28
N vy SEE
FALSE SUMP
DETAIL I
2GI
o u I32
rn N N N
e- Q O Lr
LSE SUMP C)
III 2GI ? v
/29 450rrm RCP ° a DETA L
I-
ti l33 2 G I
N (n N LL
a- CD
• ti
Cr
EST. 1.8 m TONS N _
CLASS B RIP RAP FALSE
QQ ?, W/ 6 m2 FILTER FABRIC- ,,II
F FALSE Sl??1P U
_ f--
,P 13 --- -f- Q I
ABRIC, ?.'., 375// 2GI
I LAT. ' V' DITCH f I34 ;
TAIL
_ _•_ SEE DITCH DE A
O SEE PROFILE
O U ,IOFTNC?q NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
/ '? ?• y? O?y?,, TRANSPORTATION
DE/jorfs LY)('P,(-r buJ To DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
O O O 4 )4D `(6"^)T A(.1-vi nE, l OFTMR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
.4A4no?o^t^G^p D(;r1077?5'Pt bU'. I•LIPAC"I' Iid',VL-I'Ln:f?
UUL'r0 Atl:CiIANICnI, CLIiAItINU MOORE /LEE COUNTY
"L•'YOND CONZ'1-ItLIC770PI UNLITS PROJECT 8.T560302
DF_NOTES WE'rL^-mC) US I FROM NORTH OF SR 1825 TO
NORTH OF SR 1182, R-210 B
LLL..,LLLLG? D:NJ-ci GILL IN I.J_i LC..?D,
SHEET T OF
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Robert Deaton
Public Involvement & Community Studies Unit
Office of the Human Environment
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation MAR
From: Donal R. Simpson, FAIA, AICP, ASLA
HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
G?;, !IY SECI`It::
Subject: R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality
Date: November 27, 2001 REVISED MARCH 1.5, 2002
HNTB North Carolina, P.C., was requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to
review available information related to the R-210 Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) for widening and
realigning portions of U.S. 1 in Moore and Lee Counties. The purpose of this review was to provide information
requested by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) relative to a Section 401 water quality certification requested by NCDOT for the R-210 project.
DWQ requested information related to any downstream water quality impacts that might occur due to secondary and
cumulative effects of R-210.
Our review basically required a two step process:
• Estimate the land use change that might occur as a result of constructing R-210
• Calculate the change in surface stormwater flow into the Little River that would result from the land use change
Two authoritative references were used as a basis of the methodology used in this process:
• The Louis Berger Group: "Draft Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina," prepared for State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation/Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, April 2001 (Berger);
• ECONorthwest and Portland State University: "A Guidebook for evaluating the Indirect Land use and Growth
Impacts of highway Improvements, Final Report," for Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon,
and Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2001 (ECONorthwest)
This Memorandum summarizes the information we have been able to determine related to this issue, in six sections:
1. Analysis Area and Impact Areas
2. Methodology Used to Evaluate Potential Land Use Change
3. Evaluation of Potential For Land Use Change
4. Growth Assumptions For Analysis Area
5. Assumed Land Use Change For Watershed Analysis Purposes
6. Watershed Hydrologic Analysis
The conclusion of the analysis indicates that, in the worst case scenario, R-210 might result in an additional built-
upon area (impervious cover) of approximately 100 acres, or approximately 0.2% of the potentially affected
watershed land area. The resulting change in the estimated 25 year event future peak discharge would be un-
measurable in 4 of the 8 sub-watersheds, and 0.5% to 1.5% in the other four. The worst case scenario development
assumed for the analysis would be very low density, scattered site development, primarily residential. The
interspersed farmland and woodland should easily provide filtration of any contaminants in the stormwater runoff,
so that there should be no change in the rate of flow into the Little River, and no impact on downstream water
quality as a result of the secondary and cumulative effects of R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream water Quality Page I of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
4
a
1. ANALYSIS AREA AND IMPACT AREAS
Two types of area were considered for this analysis. The first was the overall watershed area that feeds the creeks
and tributaries of the Little River in the area where R-210 might affect land use. This overall analysis area was
necessary for hydrologic analysis purposes, and provided a maximum area in which land use change might occur as
a result of R-210. The second type of area considered was land where development might occur. These impact areas
were related to factors that could be evaluated to make an assessment of the probability of land use change that
might occur because of the influence of the R-210 project.
1.1 Overall Analysis Area
According to the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina," the development effects of a new highway are most often found:
• Up to one mile around a freeway interchange, and
• Up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange.
(Berger, p. 7-14)
The Oregon DOT "Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway
Improvements," *as also consulted, as a comparison to the NCDOT "Draft Guidance." The Oregon DOT
"Guidebook" suggested a study area of'h mile around an improvement as the primary area of potential effect, with a
larger area of impact possible for large projects on routes with a lot of through trips. (ECONorthwest, pp. 17-18)
According to the NCDOT Draft Guidance, development beyond areas delineated in long-range infrastructure or
growth management plans is limited or restricted. The Draft Guidance suggests that, in these circumstances, it may
be appropriate to confine consideration of indirect/cumulative effects to a study area coincident with accepted
growth boundaries. (Berger, p. 3-16)
The NCDOT "Draft Guidance" also suggested that complementary land development, such as highway-oriented
businesses (gas stations, rest stops, motels, etc.), is more likely near interchanges in rural areas. (Berger, p. 7-13)
Another possible approach suggested by the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina" is to establish the study area to match potentially impacted
watersheds. (Berger, p. 3-16)
Since the primary purpose of this analysis was to provide input to the Department of Water Quality as they consider
whether R-210 would have secondary and cumulative effects that would adversely impact downstream water
quality, the potentially impacted watershed was used as the overall analysis area. The watershed roughly
corresponds to the two- to five-mile area along major feeder roadways to R-210. The watershed used as the analysis
area is shown in Figure 1.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 2 of 39 REVISED MARCH 1 S, 2002

Taylortown
5MILES
Figure 1: Analysis Area
Source: HNTB
1.2 Sub-Watersheds Analyzed
The hydrologic model used in the watershed hydrologic analysis, described in Section 6 of this analysis, required
that the watershed be analyzed by sub-watersheds to conform to the hydrologic model used (TR-55, Soil
Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds). This resulted in a further differentiation of the
analysis by eight sub-watershed areas, as diagrammed in Figure 2. The eight watersheds include a total land area of
approximately 73.8 square miles, or 47,232 acres, as indicated in the table below.
The sub-watersheds also formed the framework for a "before" and "after" hydrologic comparison, based on the
change in stormwater flows that would occur based on the assumptions of land use changes due to R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 3 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002

Watershed and Sub-watershed Land Areas
tershed Creek or Tributary (s ml r Draffifte P"
1 Crains Creek, west of Herd's Creek 14.5 9,280
2 Herd's Creek 9.5 6,080
3 Crains Creek, from Little Crains Creek to Herd's Creek 5.0 3,200
4 Little Crains Creek 19.0 12,160
5 Big Branch 2.3 1,472
6 Crains Creek, from Little Crains Creek to Beaver Creek 3.8 2,432
7 Beaver Creek 14.0 8,960
8 Crains Creek, from Beaver Creek to Lake Surf 5.7 3,648
TotA[ ` 73.8 47,232
Watershed square miles acres
Source: HNTB
1.3 Potential Impact Area
In order to assess the locations within the analysis area where land development might actually occur as a result of
the r-210 project, four potential impact areas were evaluated. These areas, which were based on the combined
suggestions of the NCDOT "Draft Guidance" and the Oregon DOT "Guidebook," were:
• land immediately around the new interchanges and intersections,
• land on new frontage roads,
• areas along major feeder roadways inside Moore County adopted Urban Services Boundaries, and
• areas along major feeder roadways outside the adopted Urban Services Boundaries.
These four categories of potential land development impact allowed an assessment which was sensitive to the
different economic and location factors which might influence development within the overall analysis area, and
could be correlated to the sub-watershed areas for hydrologic analysis purposes.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 4 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Figure 2. Sub-watershed areas
4
The estimated impact area was based on the following factors for three different conditions:
• Land at Interchanges. For impacts at the interchanges and intersections themselves, the land evaluated was the
property at the four corners of the interchange or intersection. With the DWQ watershed development standard
limiting built-upon area to 24% of the property, 2 acres was considered to be the minimum lot size that would
necessary to accommodate buildings and pavement for highway oriented commercial development at any given
interchange or intersection corner.
• Land along New Frontage Roads. Any currently undeveloped land along the new frontage roads was considered
to be potentially subject to development as a result of R-210. The new frontage roads will occur only where the
R-210 construction is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment. The depth of the impact area was assumed at 300 ft.
deep from the frontage road right-of-way line, which is a typical depth for a broad range of commercial and
light industrial land uses.
• Land Served by Major Feeder Roadways. Land potentially impacted by R-210 was considered to be along the
roadway within either a 10 minute drive from the interchange/intersection, or to a natural or political boundary
that might affect development decisions in relation to the influence of the new U.S. 1. These boundaries could
be a wide floodplain, a creek, a town limits, an urban service boundary, or a large existing developed area.
2. METHODOLOGY USED TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL LAND USE CHANGE
2.1 Factors Used to Evaluate Land Use Change
According to the NCDOT Draft Guidance, empirical evidence indicates that transportation investments result in
major land use changes only in the presence of other factors, including:
• supportive local land use policies,
• local development incentives,
• availability of developable land, and
• a good investment climate.
(Berger, p. 4-1)
Additional factors influencing the likelihood and rate of development near rural interchanges include:
• distance to major urban area or regional center,
• traffic volume on the intersecting road,
• presence of frontage road
• availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure.
If these factors are present, induced growth effects of this type warrant analysis. (Berger, p. 7-13)
For land at interchanges, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Traffic volume on intersecting road
• Availability of water and sewer
For land along the new frontage roads, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use
change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Availability of water and sewer
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 5 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002

For land served by major feeder roadways, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use
change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Availability of water and sewer
The methodology used in assessing each of these factors is described below.
Availability of developable land was estimated by mapping areas within the estimated impact area that were not
suitable for, or not available for development. These areas included 100 year flood plains, wetlands, existing
urbanized areas, existing single family properties, existing farms of 50 acres or less with a residence on the property,
and other land not available for development, such as land trust lands. The presently occupied properties were
determined from Geographic Information System (GIS) data provided by Moore and Lee Counties, and from R-210
project aerial photography. Existing farms of 50 acres was considered an upper range of non-available land, based
on properties advertised for sale and discussions with developers in the area. These properties tend to be large
owner-occupied farms, usually with equestrian activities.
Land use policies were determined by interviews with staff of Moore County, Lee County, Town of Vass, and Town
of Cameron. Current land use plans and zoning ordinances of Moore County, Lee County, Vass and Cameron were
reviewed. DWQ requirements related to land use were determined from a review of the DWQ "Red Book of Rules."
Investment climate was estimated from interviews with staff of Moore County, Lee County, Town of Vass, and
Town of Cameron and representatives of Woodlake. A visual survey the area provided indicators of development
activity or interest, such as recent development, for sale signs, occupancy and activity at existing uses, etc. U.S.
Census data on recent growth indicated areas of development potential.
Distance to major urban area or regional center provided an indicator of commuting influence on an area. In general
a time savings of less than 10% was considered to have no influence on development decisions, and a time savings
of less than 20% was considered to only have a slight influence on development decisions. The time savings were
calculated based on driving times at posted speed limits on the existing U.S. 1, and on the FEIS stated speed limit
for R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road was determined by comparing the FEIS 1990 existing two-way Average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes and Level of Service (LOS) with the FEIS projected 2010 AADT volumes and LOS
for each intersecting road (FEIS Table I-2, p. I-6). The Table I-2 estimates were compared to the FEIS Table II-4, p.
II-17 estimates for the preferred alternative to determine any differences between the No-Build Alternative and the
Preferred Alternative. This was an indicator of changes in traffic volumes and level of service due to R-210. If there
were no projected differences between the no-build and the preferred alternative, traffic volume on the intersecting
road was not considered to have a secondary effect due to R-210. Only roads that connected directly to the new U.S.
1 at an interchange or intersection were considered.
Presence of frontage road was determined from the FEIS description of frontage road locations, on page II-8. This
factor was considered only where a frontage road would be present as part of R-210.
Availability of water, sewer and other infrastructure was determined from interviews with staff of Moore County,
Lee County, Town of Vass, and Town of Cameron, and from GIS data provided by Moore County.
Probability of land use change due to R-210 involved scenario analyses based on a judgement of all of the above
factors. This is one of the three methods recommended by the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina." The other two methods involved sophisticated
integrated land use and transportation models based on Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) that were not
available for this analysis. The time frame for the probability scenarios generally, but not rigidly, based on the 2000
to 2010 time frame corresponding to available population projections. These numbers were adjusted upward in areas
where it was thought that there might be a moderate or higher probability of land use change due to R-210. This
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 6 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
form of analysis provided a reasonable estimate within a foreseeable time frame, since most development decisions
are made on a 5 to 10 year projection. Market forecasting beyond 10 years tends to become speculative.
2.2 Consideration of Cumulative Effects
Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions." As described in the NCDOT
"Draft Guidance," in practice, analysis of cumulative effects has been incorporated with the assessment of
indirect/cumulative effects because many indirect/cumulative effects, including induced development effects, fall
within the definition of cumulative impacts. (Berger, p. I-5)
The consideration of cumulative effects for this analysis focused on the effects that might occur in a 7 to 10 year
time frame, since any downstream effects on water quality would result from development induced by R-210.
Developers generally base investment decisions on a 7-year return on investment. Market analyses and
development pro formas that attempt to project absorption of new land development beyond a 7 to 10 year period
are generally considered speculative. Further, empirical studies have determined that the land use effects of a new
highway project occur within the first 7 to 10 years of the construction of the project.
The other actions that were identified which might affect the 7 to 10 year analysis horizon were:
• Preparation of the Greenwood Area Plan for Lee County
• Preparation of a new Land Use Plan for Cameron
• Preparation of a new Land Use Plan for Vass
• Extension of Moore County water service into the area between Vass and Woodlake
• NCDOT TIP Project R-2529, multi-lane widening of NC24/NC27
The new plans that will be prepared for Greenwood, Cameron and Vass will be bound by the DWQ Class WS-III
Watershed development standards, and will not be able to adopt any land use densities that are inconsistent with
those standards. Consequently, they were not considered to have any cumulative effect on the probability of land use
change.
The extension of Moore County water service could cause some additional pressures for residential development in
the area between Vass and Woodlake. The absence of sewer outside the Vass and Woodlake Urban Service
Boundaries will limit that pressure. The additional pressure that could result within the Vass and Woodlake Urban
Service Boundaries was considered to have a possible cumulative effect. That effect is reflected in the assumed land
use change for the sub-watersheds in this area, as described in Section 5 of this report.
The NCDOT TIP project number R-2529 would widen NC24/NC27 to a multi-lane road from the Carthage Bypass
to NC 87 in Harnett County. NC24/NC27 intersects with U.S. 1 in Cameron, and will intersect with R-210, the
relocated U.S. 1, just east of Cameron. R-2529, however, is an unfunded project, and is not scheduled to proceed
within the 2002-2008 TIP timeframe. Since it will not be built within the 7 to 10 year horizon of this analysis, it was
not considered to have a potential contribution to cumulative effects of R-210.
3. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR LAND USE CHANGE
The potential for land use change was evaluated on case-by-case basis for each major feeder roadway intersecting
with U.S. 1 at an R-210 interchange or intersection. The evaluation was considered in three potential areas of
impact: at the interchange/intersection itself; along the major feeder road inside an urban service boundary; and
along the major feeder road outside an urban service boundary. Potential impacts to the east and to the west along
major feeder roads were evaluated separately, since R-210 will have different effects on travel time in each
direction, and since existing land use conditions tend to be different to the east and west of the new road.
Figure 2: R-210 Impact Area indicates the area described in the following evaluation.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 7 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Lakeview,--`
Figure 2
R-210 Impact Area
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 8 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.1 SR 1181 (Eakes Road) Intersection
This is an at-grade intersection on the existing U.S. 1 alignment. U.S. 1 will be widened to 4 lanes divided,
with frontage roads. Eakes Road (SR 1181), which only runs west of U.S. 1, will be unchanged. No road
runs east from this intersection. The intersection could become a grade-separated interchange in the future,
if traffic volumes warrant. That eventuality is far enough in the future that it was not considered reasonable
or foreseeable for this analysis.
3.1.1 Land at Eakes Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Limited, due to existing highway commercial at intersection
corners, and to floodplain to the east and south of the intersection.
Land use policies. Currently zoned Residential/Agricultural. As part of Lee County's on-going
development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the County in more
detail, probably in 2003. The west side of U.S. 1 is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of
the Little River Watershed, limiting non-residential development to 24% built-upon area.
Investment climate. Commercial development at this intersection is supported primarily by the
Quail Ridge development, along with existing single-family residences and family farms on Eakes
Rd. There is a competing, more intensely developed commercial area at the US15/US501
intersection with U.S. 1, approximately 1 'h miles north. The frontage along U.S. 1 north of
US 15/US501 has been developing through the 1990's with highway oriented commercial
development, dominated by manufactured housing sales centers.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill
"Triangle," which is now about 43 minutes, would be unchanged. Travel time to Southern Pines,
now approximately 22 minutes, would decrease by approximately 3 'h minutes. Travel time to "
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by way of NC24/NC27, would decrease by
about 4 '/z minutes. These changes in travel time would be in the 10% to 15% range, which could
have only a slight influence on investment decisions at this intersection.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Eakes Rd. at the intersection with U.S.
1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 300 vpd (vehicles
per day) to 400 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to remain at "A." This does not
represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated good
for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water service to
the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate. The market that would support further
commercial development at this intersection already exists. However, the presence of frontage
roads at this location could improve its attractiveness for some additional commercial
development.
3.1.2 Land west of the Eakes Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Approximately '/2 mile west along Eakes Rd. to the Cedar Lane Rd. (SR
1182) intersection. Land beyond 'h mile is more convenient to US15/US501, and will not be
influenced by a change in U.S. 1.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 9 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Availability of developable land. Very limited. The Quail Ridge single-family residential golf
course community takes up all of the north side of Eakes Road. The south side of the road is
mostly developed with large lot single-family residences and small family farms.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to '/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. Development in this area is all residential. Any further development will
predominantly occur in Quail Ridge. Sanford's growth has been and is expected to continue to be
to the north and southeast, not in this direction.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 24 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 '/s minutes. The time savings are in the
10% to 15% range, which should not be great enough to influence development investment
decisions in this area.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to low, due to the extent of existing
development in this area.
3.2 Frontage Road between SR 1181 (Fakes Rd.) and SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.)
This segment of R-210 is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment, all within Lee County. Frontage roads will
be provided for the R-210 project where it follows the existing alignment, so this area will have frontage
roads. The existing U.S. 1 will be used as one of the frontage roads where possible.
Estimated impact area. From Eakes Rd. south to SR 1182, Cedar Lane Rd., a length of
approximately 2 miles. Land fronting on the frontage road north of Eakes Rd. is already
developed.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 13,700 linear feet of frontage along the
new U.S. 1 frontage roads that are potentially available for development. Assuming an
approximate depth of 300 ft. for non-residential development, there would be approximately 100
acres potentially available for development along the frontage roads. All of this land would be in
sub-watershed area 4.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to a minimum '/z acre lot size and maximum 24% built-upon
area. Non-residential uses are limited to a maximum 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. The segment of U.S. 1 between Tramway Road (NC 78) south of Sanford and
US15/US501 has experienced a considerable amount of non-residential development since U.S. 1
was widened to a 4 lane divided highway with direct curb cut access. Most of the commercial uses
appear to be businesses that can be supported by on-site septic systems, rather than sanitary sewer.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 10 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
The availability of continuous access from the frontage roads in this segment of R-210 could be
expected to attract considerable interest in commercial development.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and Lee
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County (the rural southwest area of the County, where the
northern portion of r-210 is located) is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately high to high.
3.3 SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.) Intersection
This is an at-grade intersection on the existing U.S. 1 alignment. U.S. 1 will be widened to 4 lanes divided,
with frontage roads. Cedar Lane Road (SR 1180) will be unchanged. The intersection could become a
grade-separated interchange at some time in the future, if traffic volumes warrant. That eventuality is far
enough in the future that it was not considered in this analysis.
3.3.1 Land at Cedar Lane Rd. Intersection
Estimated impact area. The four comer properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Two of the four corners at this intersection currently have
highway-oriented commercial development.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting non-residential development to 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning for the two undeveloped corners is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same
limitations as the WS-III standards. As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land
Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. With the projected increase in traffic on U.S. 1, there could be interest in one
or two more highway-oriented commercial developments at this intersection. The support,
however, would be mostly from highway traffic, due to the relatively low density of surrounding
residential development. There is a more intensely developed commercial area at the US 15/US501
intersection with U.S. 1, approximately 3-'/2 miles north. The frontage along U.S. 1 north of
US 15/US501 has been developing through the 1990's with highway oriented commercial
development, dominated by manufactured housing sales centers.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle," which is now about
45 minutes, would be unchanged. Travel time to Southern Pines, now approximately 22 minutes,
would decrease by approximately 3 '/2 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base, by way of NC24/NC27, would decrease by about 4 '/z minutes. The travel time
savings are in the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment
decisions at this intersection. ,
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Cedar Lane Rd. at the intersection with
U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 700 vpd
(vehicles per day) to 1,200 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "A" to
"B" This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build
alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated good
for supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 11 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
an on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.3.2 Land west of the Cedar Lane Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1 mile west of the intersection along Cedar Lane Road. The
area beyond that is more within the influence area of the existing US 15/US501 than that of U.S. 1.
Availability of developable land. Limited by flood plain and existing manufactured housing
subdivisions off of Cedar Lane Road, and by existing single-family houses and family farms on
Cedar Lane Road.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to '/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre. As part of Lee
County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the
County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. Several manufactured housing subdivisions appear to have been developed
within this area within the last 10 to 15 years. There could be market support for more
manufactured housing subdivisions along this road, if land is available and appropriate zoning can
be obtained.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 21 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 '/2 minutes. The travel time savings are in
the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment decisions at this
intersection.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are good for
supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an
on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due primarily to the extent of existing
development in the impact area and the limitations on land availability due to the flood plain south
of and parallel to Cedar Lane Road.
3.3.3 Land east of the Cedar Lane Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1 mile east of the intersection along Rocky Fork Church
Road. The area beyond that is more within the influence area of the existing US15/US501 than
that of U.S. 1.
Availability of developable land. Limited by flood plain and existing single-family houses and
family farms on Rocky Church Road.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to '/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 12 oj39 REVISED MARCH 1 S, 2002
Investment climate. Several manufactured housing subdivisions appear to have been developed
within this area within the last 10 to 15 years. This would indicate that there could be market
support for more residential development along this road.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 21 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 '/z minutes. The travel time savings are in
the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment decisions at this
intersection.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are good for
supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an
on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due to minor changes in travel times to urban
and regional destinations and absence of sewer
3.4 Frontage Road between SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.) and SR 1173 (Pine Forest Rd.)
This segment of R-210 is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment. Frontage roads will be provided for the R-
210 project where it follows the existing alignment, so this area will have frontage roads. The existing U.S.
1 will be used as one of the frontage roads where possible.
Estimated impact area. From Cedar Lane Rd. south to SR 1173, Pine Forest Rd., a length of
approximately'/ miles, and approximately 1,500 feet south of Pine Forest Rd.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 4,800 linear feet of frontage along the
new U.S. 1 frontage roads that are potentially available for development. Assuming an
approximate depth of 300 ft. for non-residential development, there would be approximately 35
acres potentially available for development along the frontage roads. All of this land would be in
sub-watershed area 5.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to '/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. The segment of U.S. 1 between Tramway Road (NC 78) south of Sanford and
US15/US501 has experienced a considerable amount of non-residential development since U.S. 1
was widened to a 4 lane divided highway with direct curb cut access. Most of the commercial uses
appear to be businesses that can be supported by on-site septic systems, rather than sanitary sewer.
The availability of continuous access from the frontage roads in this segment of R-210 could be
expected to attract considerable interest in commercial development.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an on-going continuation of the
countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately high to high.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 13 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.5 NC24/NC27Interchange:
This will be a new grade-separated interchange on a new U.S. 1 alignment where it crosses the existing
NC24/NC27 just east of the Cameron Town Limits. This area is in Cameron's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
and the Moore County adopted Urban Service Boundary. NC24/NC27 to the east is Main Street in
Cameron. NCDOT's long range Transportation Improvement Plan reportedly includes the widening of
NC24/NC27 to four lanes divided. However, the time for that widening has not been set, and the alignment
has not been determined. While there could be long-term cumulative effects from the combination of these
two projects, there are too many unknown factors regarding any plans for NC24/NC27 to be able to
reasonably estimate any indirect effects of the combined projects. This analysis is limited to the effects of
R-210, which most likely will occur before any widening of NC24/NC27 takes place.
3.5.1 Land at NC24/NC27 interchange
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. The existing land use at the proposed interchange location
consists of two family farms with owner-occupied residences and related accessory farm
structures. The R-210 project will require taking of some of the property from each of the two
farms, which could result in a change in use from family farming.
Land use policies. Cameron's existing zoning for this area is RA, or one-acre single-family
residential use. Cameron's Historic District is just east of this area, which would most likely
heavily influence any request for zoning change from residential use compatible with the
"gateway" entrance to the town that the new interchange will be. This area is also above an
aquifer, which is the source for two of Cameron's water supply wells. It is highly unlikely that the
town would approve any zoning change at this intersection because of the potential impact it could
have on the aquifer. The impacts of R-210 on the aquifer would be direct effects, and are
addressed separately. The interchange is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area,
which would limit any development to a maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Cameron is not a growth area, and in fact lost population between 1990 and
2000 from 151 people to 93 people, a 38.7% loss in population. Any attraction for development at
this comer, other than single-family residences which might replace the family farms, would be
for gasoline station/convenience stores to take advantage of the crossing traffic on NC24/NC27, an
east-west trucking route. However, there is an existing grade separated interchange at NC24/NC27
and the existing U.S. 1, and no commercial development has occurred there. An existing gasoline
station/convenience store exists in Cameron approximately Y4 miles west of the proposed
interchange, and could probably serve traffic from the relocated U.S. 1 if there were informational
signing.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 '/z minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips, but is
unlikely by itself to influence any non-residential development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg
and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on NC24/NC27 on the east side of the
intersection with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily
Traffic) of 2,500 vpd (vehicles per day) to 6,400 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to
change from "B" to "D." The AADT on NC24/NC27 is projected to decrease west of U.S. 1, since
the new U.S. 1 alignment will intercept traffic U.S. 1-bound traffic that currently travels
westbound through Cameron.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 14 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Urban Service Boundary, it could have sewer
service within the next 10 to 15 years. There are no current plans to extend sewer to this area.
Soils in this area are rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due to Cameron's restrictive zoning and the
low probability of the town approving a zoning change for a gasoline station above their aquifer. If
the existing family farms were to change use, it would most likely be to single-family residential
use, which would not change the built-upon area from the existing farm residences and accessory
structures.
3.5.2 Land east of NC24/NC27 interchange within Cameron Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land along NC24/NC27 within the Cameron Urban Service Boundary,
which is approximately 1 '/2 mile to the east of the new interchange.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 650 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection and within Cameron's Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 300 of these acres are in sub-watershed 5, and approximately 350 of these acres
are in sub-watershed 7.
Land use policies. This area is in Cameron's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. Cameron's existing
zoning for this area is RA, or one-acre single-family residential use. Any residential or non-
residential use would be limited to a maximum 24% built-upon area by the DWQ watershed
standards. Cameron will permit minor subdivisions only in this area, limited to a maximum of 5
single-family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once
every 5 years.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 38.7% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable farms with residences and stable single-family houses.
While there could be an appeal for a development that took advantage of the charm of Cameron's
Historic District, there would not appear to be a measurable market for subdivision development,
considering the lack of growth in the area and Cameron's restrictive development policies. There
are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any notable amount of
development. The investment climate could support some single-family development on large lots,
and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family farms
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 '/2 minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by
R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Urban Service Boundary, it could have sewer
service at some time in the future, but there are no current plans to provide sewer in this area.
There are no current plans to extend sewer to this area. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low, due primarily to restrictive
Cameron development policies, and lack of support services for residential development.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 15 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.5.3 Land west of NC24/NC27 interchange within Cameron Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land west of the interchange within the Cameron Town Limits, between
the new U.S. 1 and Little Crane Creek. Land west of Little Crane Creek for approximately 2 miles
along NC24/NC27 is developed land within the Town of Cameron, including the National
Register of Historic Properties Historic District. Since the interchange is actually moving
approximately 1'/2 miles east of the existing U.S. 1/24-27 interchange, the new road is unlikely to
have any discernable development effect to the west of Little Crane Creek.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 150 acres of land potentially available
for development west of the intersection and within Cameron's Urban Service Boundary. This
land is all within sub-watershed 4.
Land use policies. This area is in Cameron's Town Limits. Cameron's existing zoning for this area
is Residential/Agricultural, which permits single-family residential use with minimum one-acre lot
sizes. The entire area is in aDWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
development a maximum 24% built-upon area. Any non-residential use would be limited to a
maximum 24% built-upon area by the DWQ watershed standards. Cameron will permit minor
subdivisions only in this area, limited to a maximum of 5 single-family residences, and will
approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 5 years.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 38.7% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable single-family houses, many of them in Cameron's Historic
District. While there could be an appeal for a development that took advantage of the charm of
Cameron's Historic District, there would not appear to be a measurable market for subdivision
development, considering the lack of growth in the area and Cameron's restrictive development
policies. There are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any notable
amount of development. The investment climate could support some single-family development.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 '/z minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by
R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Town Limits, and thus in the Urban Service
Boundary, it could have sewer service at some time in the future. There are no current plans to
extend sewer to this area. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.5.4 Land outside Cameron Urban Service Boundary east of NC24/NC27 interchange.
Estimated impact area. Land along NC24/NC27 from the Cameron Urban Service Boundary to a
point approximately 2 '/z miles east of the interchange at Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek creates a
perceptual change from Moore County to Harnett County, even though it is still in Moore County.
There is little development between Beaver Creek and the Moore County/Harnett County line.
Development along NC24/NC27 in Harnett County consists primarily of some manufactured
houses on large lots.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 16 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 850 acres of land potentially available
for development west of the intersection and outside Cameron's Urban Service Boundary. This
land is all within sub-watershed 7.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/z acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 28% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable farms with residences and stable single-family houses.
While there appear to be some recently built houses, most are over 10 years old. There would not
appear to be a measurable market for subdivision development, particularly given Moore County's
development policies. There are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any
notable amount of development. The investment climate could support some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 24 minutes from the edge of the Urban Service Boundary along the existing U.S. 1.
Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 54 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east
of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 4 minutes, which is
less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to
Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 7 minutes, which is a 30% reduction and
could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville,
Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are mostly rated poor for
septic systems, with a small area rated moderate for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately Low to Moderate, due primarily to
restrictive Moore County development policies, DWQ watershed standards for development, and
lack of support services for residential development.
3.5.5 Land outside Cameron Urban Service Boundary west of NC24/NC27 interchange
Estimated impact area. Land to the west of this interchange for approximately 2 miles along
NC24/NC27 is developed land within the Town of Cameron, including the National Register of
Historic Properties Historic District. Since the interchange is actually moving approximately 1'/z
miles east of the existing interchange of U.S. 1 and NC24/NC27, the new road is unlikely to have
any discernable development effect to the west of Cameron.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 17 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.6 SR 1825 (Cranes Creek Rd.) Intersection
This will be an at-grade intersection on a new alignment, across the railroad approximately 1 mile east of
the existing intersection of U.S. 1 and Cranes Creek Road. The intersection could become a grade-
separated interchange at some time in the future if traffic volumes warrant, according to the FEIS. That
eventuality is far enough in the future that it was not considered in this analysis.
3.6.1 Land at Cranes Creek Rd. Intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Land at all four corners of this intersection is currently farmland,
and could potentially be available for development. This area is not in an Urban Service
Boundary.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Hamett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/z acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. There is no commercial development at the existing U.S. 1/ Cranes Creek
Road intersection, and no evidence of commercial development in this area. This analysis assumes
that there would be highway-oriented commercial at the new U.S. 1/Lobelia Road intersection,
approximately 3 miles south. This intersection will be an exit for southbound U.S. 1 traffic
destined toward Woodlake, which could be attractive for a corner gasoline/convenience store.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 16 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2
minutes, which is less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development.
The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the
15% to 20% range and could make the area slightly more attractive for some commute, service
and leisure trips, but is unlikely to influence any non-residential development. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church
Rd. and NC 24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Cranes Creek Rd. at the intersection
with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 600
vpd (vehicles per day) to 1,100 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to remain at "B"
This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build alternative
due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low. No development exists at the current
intersection. No commercial development is anticipated at the intersection due to restrictive Moore
County zoning.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 18 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.6.2 Land east of Cranes Creek Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land between the intersection and the Woodlake community Urban
Service Boundary, approximately 4'/z miles east of the interchange. None of this area is in an
Urban Service Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 2,000 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection. None of this land is in an Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 700 of these acres are in sub-watershed 5, approximately 400 of these acres are in
sub-watershed 7, and approximately 900 of these acres are in sub-watershed 8. About half of the
potentially available land in sub-watershed 8 is in Harnett County.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/2 acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Woodlake, a planned community, was started in 1973 as a predominantly
single-family residential golf community. It grew at about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's,
and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has
approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the
approval process. About 600 of these lots have been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake
has not been rapid enough to indicate that there would be investment interest in another large
residential development in this area. Further, the available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb
most of the growth in this area. Any additional development is likely to be some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 18 minutes from the intersection of Cranes Creek Road and Cypress Church Road.
Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east
of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is
less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to
Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 15% to 20% range
and could make the area slightly more attractive for some commute, service and leisure trips, but
is unlikely to influence any non-residential development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base is east along Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church Rd. and NC 24, and would
be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low to moderate.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 19 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.6.3 Land west of Cranes Creek Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land approximately 3 miles west of the interchange, to NC24/NC27.
Availability of developable land. Land west of the Cranes Creek Rd. intersection was not
calculated, since travel time to urban and regional destinations would be virtually unchanged from
existing travel times.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/z acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. There is no discernable development or construction of new houses in this
area.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 16 minutes from Cranes Creek Cemetery, about halfway to NC24/NC27. Travel
time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east of
Cameron would not reduce the travel time to the "Triangle," so would not influence development
related to "Triangle" employment. The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by
approximately 1 minute, which is less than 10% and is not enough change to induce any
measurable development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along
Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church Rd. and NC 24, and would increase by approximately 1
minute.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to low.
3.7 SR 1001 (Main St./Lobelia Rd.) Interchange
This will be a new grade separated interchange between the new U.S. 1 and the existing two lane SR 1001,
which is Main Street in Vass east of the existing U.S. 1, and is known as Union Church Road west of the
existing U.S. 1. Outside of the Vass Town Limits to the east, SR 1001 is known as Lobelia Road. The
interchange will be inside the Vass Town Limits, approximately '/z mile east of the existing U.S. 1. There
will be no frontage roads in this area.
3.7.1 Land at Main St./Lobelia Rd. interchange
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Two of the proposed interchange corners are currently farms
with houses on them, one is farmland only, and one is a single-family residence. The land is all
within the Vass Town Limits.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 20 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Land use policies. This land is all inside the Vass Town Limits, and is zoned R-20 which allows
20,000 sq. ft. (nominally 1/2 acre) single family residential lots. For the purposed of this analysis, it
has been assumed that a zoning change to commercial uses could be obtained from the Town of
Vass at this location.
Investment climate. Vass grew more slowly than the rest of Moore County from 1990 to 2000.
The Vass population grew 11.9%, from 670 to 750, while Moore County as a whole grew 26.7%,
from 59,000 to 74,769. This would not indicate a very strong overall investment climate.
However, there are two existing service stations/convenience stores in Vass at the Corner of U.S. 1
and Main St./Union Church Road that appear to be very oriented toward U.S. 1 traffic. These two
stations/stores would indicate that there could be a strong demand for service stations/convenience
stores at the new interchange. These might be either new, competing businesses, or relocations of
the existing businesses. None of the other businesses on the existing U.S. 1 in Vass appear to be
highway-oriented. There are existing highway-oriented businesses at the SR 1853 (Aiken Rd.)
intersection, approximately 1 '/ miles south of this interchange.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 12 minutes from the existing U.S 1 intersection with Main St. Travel time to the
"Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce
the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not
enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would
be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 20% to 25% range and could make the
area more attractive for development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base
is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Vass' Main Street at the intersection
with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 3,200
vpd (vehicles per day) to 9,950 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "C"
to "E."
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. There is existing sanitary sewer service,
owned by Moore County Public Utilities, in Vass west of the existing U.S. 1. This service is
currently being extended along Main Street to approximately Johnson Road, which is
approximately the location of the new interchange. No sewer service is planned west of the new
alignment of U.S. 1.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. High.
3.7.2 Land east of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection within the Vass Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land along SR 1001 from the new interchange approximately 1-'/z miles to
the Vass Urban Service Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 450 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection in the Vass Urban Service Boundary. Approximately 150
acres are potentially available inside the Vass Town Limits, and approximately 300 acres are
potentially available outside the Town Limits but inside the Urban Service Boundary. All of these
acres are in sub-watershed 6.
Land use policies. Land inside the Vass Town Limits is zoned R-20, which would allow 20,000
sq. ft. (nominally '/z acre) single family residential lots. Land outside the Town Limits and inside
the Urban Service Boundary is zoned Residential/Agricultural, which would allow 2 acre single
family residential lots. The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area,
which would limit any residential lots to a minimum of'h acre, and would limit any development
to a maximum of 24% built-upon area.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 21 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Investment climate. Vass grew more slowly than the rest of Moore County from 1990 to 2000.
The Vass population grew 11.9%, from 670 to 750, while Moore County as a whole grew 26.7%,
from 59,000 to 74,769. This would not indicate a very strong overall investment climate within
Vass itself. Woodlake, a planned golf course community approximately 4 '/2 miles east of the new
interchange, grew much more rapidly at a rate of 72.2%, from 790 to 1,360. Woodlake grew at
about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's, and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the
mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another
approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the approval process. About 600 of these lots have
been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake has not been rapid enough to indicate that there
would be investment interest in another large residential development in this area. Further, the
available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb most of the growth in this area. Any additional
development is likely to be some single-family development on large lots, and one or two minor
subdivisions for additional residences on family farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 13 minutes from the existing U.S 1 intersection with Main St. Travel time to the
"Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce
the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not
enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would
be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 20% to 25% range and could make the
area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. There is existing sanitary sewer service,
owned by Moore County Public Utilities, in Vass west of the existing U.S. 1. This service is
currently being extended along Main Street to approximately Johnson Road, which is
approximately the location of the new interchange. No sewer service is planned west of the new
alignment of U.S. 1. This area does not currently have water service. However, Moore County is
presently planning water service districts, which will provide water service to this area in the near
future. The water service is intended to serve existing residential development, with predominantly
6-inch water lines and a few 8-inch mains. Moore County's policy is that sewer service could be
provided in this area, since it is inside of an adopted Urban Service Boundary. However, no sewer
service is currently planned for the area. Soils in this area are mostly rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.7.3 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary east of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land along SR 1001 from the Vass Urban Service Boundary to a point
approximately 4 miles east of the interchange to the Woodlake community. Approximately one
mile of this area, on the north side of Lobelia Road, is in the adopted Woodlake Urban Service
Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 1,550 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection. None of this land is in an Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 850 of these acres are in sub-watershed 6, and approximately 700 of these acres
are in sub-watershed 8.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III High Quality watershed area, which would
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 22 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
limit any residential development to a maximum of 1/2 acre lots, and would limit any development
to a maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Woodlake, a planned community, was started in 197xx as a predominantly
single-family residential golf community. It grew at about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's,
and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has
approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the
approval process. About 600 of these lots have been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake
has not been rapid enough to indicate that there would be investment interest in another large
residential development in this area. Further, the available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb
most of the growth in this area. Any additional development is likely to be some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 15 minutes from the Vass Urban Service Boundary. Travel time to the "Triangle" is
approximately 60 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce the travel time
to the "Triangle" by approximately 4 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not enough change to
induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes, which is approximately 20% and could make the area slightly more
attractive for some commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, which will provide water
service to this area in the near future. The water service is intended to serve existing residential
development, with predominantly 6-inch water lines and a few 8-inch mains. Moore County's
policy is to not provide sewer service in the portion of this area that is outside of the adopted
Urban Service Boundaries. There are no plans for providing sewer services within the portion of
the Woodlake Urban Service Area that is in the impact area of R-210. Soils in this area are mostly
rated poor for septic systems, with one relatively small area rated moderate for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low, due primarily to restrictive Moore
County development policies, DWQ watershed standards for development, and ample availability
of residential lots in Woodlake.
3.7.4 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary west of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land west along SR 1001 was not analyzed. The land along SR 1001
within the Vass Urban Service Boundary is virtually all within the developed area of Vass, and the
interchange will actually be approximately '/2 mile farther east than the present intersection, which
means that there will be no notable amount of travel time savings that would cause a development
in this direction. This move of the intersection east will make land along SR 1803, the Vass-
Carthage Road, even less accessible than it is now, so there is unlikely to be any development
effect from R-210.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8
Intersection with existing U.S. 1 south of Vass
This will be a new at-grade intersection with the existing U.S. 1 alignment in Vass, approximately 1-'/
miles south of Main St.
3.8.1 Land at intersection with existing U.S.1
Estimated impact area. The four coiner properties at the intersection.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 23 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Availability of developable land. There will be little, if any land available for development at this
intersection. The area surrounding the intersection location is virtually all in the Little River 100-
year floodplain, and is further constrained by the presence of the existing railroad tracks.
Consequently, no development is anticipated at this intersection.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8.2 Land east and west of the intersection with the existing U.S. 1 within the Vass Urban Service
Boundary
Estimated impact area. Areas that are potentially available for development in the Vass Town
Limits and within Vass' Urban Service Boundary are accessible from this intersection only by
way of the existing U.S. 1. Since their accessibility due to R-210 would be virtually unchanged,
this intersection is not anticipated to have any measurable effect on growth and development in
Vass.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8.3 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary served by the intersection with the existing
U.S. 1.
Estimated impact area. No land outside the Urban Service Boundary would be served by this
intersection.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.9
SR 1853 (Aiken Rd.) Intersection.
This is an existing intersection in the community of Lakeview, at which U.S. 1 is already four-lane divided.
No change is proposed for U.S. 1 at this intersection, or to SR 1853.
3.9.1 Land at Aiken Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. There is existing convenience commercial development at 2
corners of the intersection, limiting any further development to 2 corners of the intersection. A
typical corner commercial development would require 2 acres of land to be able to build a typical
commercial building and parking within the DWQ maximum of 240/obuilt-upon area.
Land use policies. Any further commercial development would require a zoning change from
Moore County. Any further commercial development would be limited to a maximum of 24%
built-upon due to the Class WS-III watershed restrictions of DWQ, which have been adopted by
Moore County.
Investment climate. The Lakeside community is not large enough to support additional locally
oriented commercial development, particularly with the availability of retail and support services
nearby in Vass. For service to through traffic, the area is close to Vass with its current two
highway-oriented gasoline stations/convenience stores, which could relocate to the new U.S. 1
bypass (see 3.7.1 above). There are additional existing highway-oriented service businesses at
Skyline (Youngs Road), approximately 2 '/z miles south toward Southern Pines. Any additional
commercial development at this intersection would be competing with those two locations.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 24 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to Southern Pines, Aberdeen,
Pinehurst and other destinations to the south would be unchanged, since U.S. 1 is already two-lane
divided in that direction. Travel time to Vass would be unchanged, since the most convenient
route would be along the existing U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes from the existing time of approximately 59 minutes. This would be less
than 10% and is not be enough time savings to affect development decisions at this location due to
commuting convenience. Travel time to Pope AFB and Fort Bragg would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes. This would not be enough time to affect development decisions at this
location due to commuting convenience.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Aiken Rd. at the intersection with U.S.
1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 2,600 vpd
(vehicles per day) to 4,600 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "B" to
"C." This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build
alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This intersection is in the Moore County
Water Service Area No. 1, which is planned for water service in the near future. It is in the
County's designated Urban Service Boundary, so it could have sanitary sewer service at some
time in the future. No sanitary sewer service is currently planned for this area. Soils in this area are
rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. There is a low to moderately low probability of one
additional highway-oriented business at one comer of this intersection.
3.9.2 Land east of Aiken Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land east of the Aiken Rd. intersection was not analyzed in detail. This
area would not experience any travel time savings to Southern Pines due to the new bypass. Travel
time savings to the "Triangle" would be approximately 3 minutes from the existing approximately
59-minute travel time, which is not enough to time to affect development decisions at this location
due to commuting convenience. There would be an approximately 3 minute travel time savings to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, which is unlikely to influence development
decisions at this location due to commuting convenience. The land to the east of the intersection is
approximately 50% to 60% developed as single-family homes and family farms or horse ranches.
Much of the remaining land convenient to the intersection is in large land trust holdings, and
unavailable for development.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.9.3 Land west of Aiken Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Land west of the Aiken Rd. intersection was not analyzed in detail. There
is a relatively small area within convenient access to this intersection, and it includes the
community of Lakeside and extensive Little River floodplains and wetlands. Since there would be
negligible travel time savings to major urban or regional centers, as described above, there is
unlikely to be any measurable development influence in this area attributable to R-210.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 25 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
4. GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR WATERSHED ANALYSIS AREA
The methodology used as a basis for assuming built-upon residential areas (i.e., impervious cover) involved a seven-
step process:
1. Estimate 2000 - 2010 household growth for Moore and Lee Counties
2. Estimate the watershed analysis area capture rate of 2000 - 2010 Moore and Lee County household growth
3. Distribute the watershed analysis area estimated household growth into the sub-watersheds used for the
hydrologic analysis
4. Develop scenario assumptions of the additional growth in each sub-watershed that might occur due to the
influence of R-210.
5. Calculate the land potentially available for development within each sub-watershed area
6. Distribute the estimated household growth into the calculated land potentially available for development, for
each sub-watershed
7. Calculate the built-upon area (i.e., impervious cover) potentially added to each sub-watershed, as the basis for
the hydrologic analysis
Steps 1 through 3 of this process are described in this Section. Steps 4 through 7 are described in Section 5:
"Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Purposes."
4.1 Estimated 2000 - 2010 Household Growth for Moore and Lee Counties
In order to forecast the amount of built-upon residential area (i.e., impervious cover) added within the watershed
analysis area between 2000 and 2010, population and household growth forecasts were reviewed. The fast step was
to retrieve the 1990 and 2000 population figures for Lee and Moore Counties as well as the municipalities within
those counties.
Population Growth Trends
1990-2000

., a u ion row ange
Area
Moore County . o
Aberdeen 2,717 3,400 683 25.1%
Cameron 215 151 -64 -29.8%
Carthage 976 1,871 895 91.7%
Foxfire Village 334 474 140 41.9%
Pinebluff 876 1,109 233 26.6%
Pinehurst 5,091 9,706 4,615 90.7%
Robbins 995 1,195 200 20.1%
Southern Pines 9,213 10,918 1,705 18.5%
Taylortown 545 845 300 55.0%
Vass 670 750 80 11.9%
Whispering Pines 1,346 2,090 744 55.3%
Woodlake 790 1,360 570 72.2%
-U oFp fe_ x,2321 --WO,gq 5,66U W7,17%
Lee oun o
Broadway (part) 973 1,015 42 4.3%
Sanford 14,475 23,220 8,745 60.40
Unincorporated 25,922 4; -1, 3T7

4.3°
1
Source: Census ureau
Note: Woodlake is not incorporated, but is a major subdivision
Note: Much of Sanford's growth was due to annexation
Next, the 2010 population forecast for Lee and Moore Counties was retrieved from the Office of State Planning.
Based on shares of overall county population growth between 1990 and 2000, the municipality and unincorporated
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 26 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
area population forecasts for 2010 were calculated. The 2010 forecasted population by county and municipality was
then converted to households using average household size values in 2000 from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Household Growth Forecast
2000-2010

rea 2000-2010
Population
Added 20DO
Avg. Size
Household 200-2011
Household
Add d
oore ounty 6,047
Aberdeen 623 2.23 280
Cameron -58 2.29 -26
Carthage 817 2.42 338
Foxfire Village 128 2.14 60
Pinebluff 213 2.47 86
Pinehurst 4,212 2.05 2,055
Robbins 183 2.81 65
Southern Pines 1,556 2.19 711
Taylortown 274 2.74 100
Vass 73 2.47 30
Whispering Pines 679 2.15 316
Woodlake* 520 2.20 236
Unincorporated 5,173
Lee County 7,552 2.61 ,
Broadway (part) 41 2.54 16
Sanford 8,610 2.64 3,262
Unincorporated -1,100 2.61 -421
" Not yet incorporated, but a major subdivision
S i, MI"Ift Office of State Planning, HNTB
4.2 Analysis area capture rate of 2000 - 2010 Moore and Lee County household growth
The watershed analysis area includes unincorporated portions of Lee and Moore Counties and the incorporated
municipalities of Vass and Cameron. In order to estimate the analysis area capture rate of the forecasted household
growth within the unincorporated portions of the counties, household growth data for Census Tract 9505 in Moore
County and Block Groups 1, 3 and 4 of Census Tract 305 in Lee County was retrieved from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Data for Whispering Pines and Woodlake in Census Tract 9505 was omitted since these areas are not included in the
analysis area. The boundaries of the Census Tract/Block Group area extend somewhat beyond the analysis area
boundaries, but they nonetheless provide a reasonable indication of potential capture capacity.
After determining the 1990 - 2000 Census Tract/Block Group area household growth, its share (13.5%) of overall
household growth for Lee and Moore Counties during the same period was determined. This percentage was then
applied to the 2000-2010 household growth forecast (8,940) for these counties that was determined previously in
order to estimate the number of households added (1,206). Therefore, of the 2,174 additional households forecasted
for unincorporated Moore County between 2000 and 2010, the 30 additional households forecasted for Vass, the -26
additional households forecasted for Cameron, and the -421 additional households forecasted for unincorporated
Lee County, an estimated 1,206 households are within the analysis area.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 27 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2010
Counties & Estimated Impact Area
HOffftholds
ea 2000 2010 #
naysss
Area
5,045
6,251
1,206
23.9%
Counties (Moore
Lee)
49,17
58,11
8,940
18.2%
Analysis ea
&9@unties
10.3%
10.8%
N/A
N/
Source: Office of ate Planninul
These 1,206 households are the projected growth in the analysis area due to normal population growth and in-
migration, and do not necessarily reflect any additional influence on household growth due to R-210.
4.3 Sub-watersheds estimated household growth
The estimated household growth for the overall watershed analysis area was next distributed into the sub-watersheds
used for the hydrologic analysis. Initially, each sub-watershed was identified by the rivers, creeks and tributaries on
USGS quad maps of the watershed analysis area. The land area of each sub-watershed was then measured from the
USGS quad maps in square miles. The land area was translated into acres for each sub-watershed, and calculated as
a percentage of the overall watershed analysis area, by sub-watershed. This percentage formed the basis for
distribution of household growth by sub-watershed, proportionate to the land area of the sub-watershed in relation to
the overall watershed.
The percentage of households were then multiplied by the total projected household growth of 1,200, which was
rounded from the calculated 1,206 households to provide an estimated 2000 - 2010 household growth by sub-
watershed. This household growth is the projected growth by sub-watershed due to normal population growth and
in-migration, and does not necessarily reflect any additional influence on household growth due to R-210.
Distribution of Households by Sub-Watershed
G`
Households
Sub- Distributed by Household
watershed" Sub- Sub- Distr bution s
Sub- Area in watershed %of Total watershed for 1200
watershed square miles Area in Acres Watershed ` Land Area Households
1 14.5 9,28U 19.7% 0
2 9.5 6,080 12.9% 12% 144
3 5 3,200 6.8% 7% 84
4 19 12,160 25.8% 26% 312
5 2.3 1,472 3.1% 3% 36
6 3.75 2,400 5.1% 5% 60
7 14 8,960 19.0% 19% 228
8 5.7 3,648 7.7% 8% 96
- II 6
5. ASSUMED LAND USE CHANGE FOR WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS PURPOSES
5.1 Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
The assumptions of land use change due to R-210 were based on a calculated distribution of households by sub-
watershed. A distribution of households was based proportionately on sub-watershed land area. These distributed
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 28 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
households were then translated into acres, assuming '/2 acre per household, the minimum lot size permitted by
DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards. The built-upon area was then calculated at 24% built-upon area, the
maximum built-upon area permitted by DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards. Even though local zoning might
require a larger lot size than 'h acre, the ratio of 24% built-upon for a''/2 acre lot was considered to be consistent with
the built-upon area that would occur with larger lots. The 24% built-upon area on a''/2 acre lot represents a 3,000 sq.
ft. two-story dwelling with a two-car garage, driveway, front entry walk, and 800 sq. ft. patio, swimming pool, or
other impervious outdoor area. This would be a fairly typical residence in this area, regardless of lot size.
Non-residential built-upon area was derived from the assumed land use change analysis, with the built-upon area
being calculated at 24%, the maximum built-upon area permitted by DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards.
As suggested by the NCDOT "Draft Guidelines," several scenarios were considered for the assumed additional
growth in the sub-watersheds that might occur due to the influence of R-210. These scenarios assumed a percentage
increase in households over the household growth that was projected by the Office of State Planning. These
scenarios were:
Scenario 1: "Probable Scenario', which was a judgement based on professional experience, observation of the area,
and the interpretation of the analysis. This scenario resulted in a total assumed built-upon area of 43 acres due to the
influence of R-210. The 43 acres represents 0.1% of the total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area
are shown in the following table.
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 1: Probable Scenario
Assumed Additional Assumed
Assumed Assumed Additional 'BM-Upon Additional
Household Land Assumed Additional Additional Built-Upon Non- Bulk-Upon
Sub- Distribution Consumed Additional Growth due to Growth due t Due to R- Residential Due to R-
Sub- watershed for 1200 avg. 0.6 acre Growth Due to R-210, in R-210, in 210 at V%, at M,, in 210, in
watershed Area in'Acr Ho olds per hou hol R-210 housgk&WL acre&6 _J in acres acres acres
/o
2 6,080 144 86 0% 0 0 0 0 0
3 3,200 84 50 0% 0 0 0 0 0
4 12,160 312 187 20% 62 31 7 12 19
5 1,472 36 22 25% 9 5 1 8 9
6 2,400 60 36' 50% 30 15 4 1 5
7 8,960 228 137 25% 57 29 7 0 7
8 3,648 96 58 25% 24 12 3 0 3
0 0
Source: MN 1 ti
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 29 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Scenario 2: "Conservative Scenario," increased the assumed percentage of growth in each sub-watershed due to R-
210 by a factor of 3 for sub-watersheds 5, 7 and 8, and by a factor of 2 for sub-watershed 6, to account for any
unanticipated growth or any possible additional influence on growth resulting from R-210. This scenario resulted in
a total assumed built-upon area of 75 acres due to the influence of R-210. The 75 acres represents less than 0.2% of
the total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area are shown in the following table.
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 2: Conservative. Scenario
Assumed Additional' Assumed
Assumed Assumed Additi W "-Up" Adeto#?at
Household Land Assumed AdditlorW Additional Built-Eipo>s Mon-' BallEtlpbn,
Sub- Distribution Consumed @ Additional Growth `dueto Growth due to Dueto R. Residential, ,Due to R.
-
Sub- watershed for 1200 avg. 0.6 acre Growth Due to R=210, in R-210, in 210 at24%, '
at 24% In 210, in
watershed Area in Acres Households per househo R-210 households acres in acres acres acres
1 9,280 240 144 U /o
2 6,080 144 86 0% 0 0 0 0 0
3 3,200 84 50 0% 0 0 0 0 0
4 12,160 312 187 20% 62 31 7 17 24
5 1,472 36 22 75% 27 14 3 8 11
6 2,400 60 36 100% 60 30 7 1 8
7 8,960 228 137 75% 171 86 21 0 21
8 3,648 96 58 75% 72 43 10 0 10
oa
IZU
-A
392
2U?5
413
2b j
15
Source: HN I b
Scenario 3: "Worst Case Scenario," increased the assumed percentages of additional growth due to the influence of
R-210 by a factor of 4 in sub-watersheds 5, 6, 7 and 8 over Scenario 1. For this worst case scenario to occur, major
changes in current Moore County and Lee County land use policies would have to occur. While this seems unlikely
because of the relatively recent adoption of land use plans in Moore County and Lee County, there is an outside
possibility that the political climate might change in one or both of those counties. The worst case. scenario resulted
in a total assumed built-upon area of 100 acres due to the influence of R-210. The 100 acres represents 0.2% of the
total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area are shown in the following table.
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 3: Worst Case Scenario
Assumed AdditbtW AY, med
Assumed Assumed Additional Built-Upon AddK6nal
Household Land Assumed Additional Additional Builk-Upon Mon- $pA-Upon
sub- OMdbutlon Consumed g Additional Growth duff to Growth due to Due to R- ' Resklentbl Duo to R-
Sub- watershed for 1200 avg. 0.6 acre Growth Due to R-210, in _ R-210, in 210 at 24%, at 24%, In 210, in
watershed Area in Acres households per household R•210 households acres in acres acres acres

2
6,080
144
86 0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
3 3,200 84 50 0% 0 0 0 0 0
4 12,160 312 187 20% 62 31 7 24 31
5 1,472 36 22 100% 36 18 4 8 12
6 2,400 60 36 200% 120 60 14 1 15
7 8,960 228 137 100% 228 114 27 1 28
8 3,648 96 58 100% 96 58 14 0 14
0 542 2?1 'T A
Source: HN I b
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 30 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
5.2 Built-Upon Area Added by R-210
As shown in the table below, the worst case scenario calculation described above provides a total assumed built-
upon area of approximately 100 acres in the total watershed. This represents an approximately 0.2% increase in
built-upon area for the watershed affected by R-210.
These built-upon areas were used in the watershed hydrologic analysis to calculate the increase in stormwater
discharge due to the secondary and cumulative impacts of R-210. They are summarized in the following table.
Built-Upon Areas Added by R-210 (Worst Case Scenario)
Source: HNTB
Sub-
Watershed Drainage Area
(sq, ml) Upon Acr"
Added Due to R.
210-..,. A &d as % of
Total Watershe
1 14.5 0 0.0%
2 9.5 0 0.0%
3 5.0 0 0.0%0
4 19.0 31 0.3%
5 2.3 12 0.8%
6 3.8 15 0.6%
7 14.0 28 0.3%
8 5.7 14 0.4%
Total 716 0.16 0.2% -'
Watershed square mWo square ndiea
47,232 100.
acres acrezt
5.3 Land Potentially Available for Development by Sub-Watershed
The computer model used for the hydrologic analysis required that the estimated households be located in the
general area of each sub-watershed. The model calculates runoff based on the runoff distance and time from the
source (in this case, new households) to the affected creek or tributary. To locate the assumed sub-watershed
household growth, land not currently built-upon was used as a basis for locating new households.
To identify land not currently built-upon, a generalized analysis of currently built-upon land and land not available
for development was prepared. This analysis identified existing "urbanized" areas in the Towns of Vass and
Cameron and in the developments of Woodlake and Quail Ridge. These areas are shown in Figure 2, R-210 Impact
Area.
Floodplains and wetlands were assumed to be land that would not be available for development. Using information
from Moore County and Lee County GIS systems, and from Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM maps), this land
was mapped in combination with the existing "urbanized" areas. The combined "urbanized" areas, floodplains and
wetlands are shown in Figure 3, R-210 Floodplains and Wetlands. As stated, this is a generalized analysis, and this
map should not be used as a reference in relation to any specific floodplain or wetland impact analysis.
The third type of land considered to be currently built-upon was land outside the "urbanized" areas that has existing
single family residences, manufactured houses, or farms with a residence. For purposes of this analysis, only farms
of 50 acres or less with a residence were considered to be "currently built-upon." This land was added to the map
with "urbanized" areas, floodplains and wetlands, as shown in Figure 4, R-210 Floodplains, Wetlands and Built-
Upon Areas.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 31 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
The remaining land was considered to be the area where any growth influenced by R-210 might occur. It is shown in
Figure 5, R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-Watersheds. Since the Evaluation of Potential for Land Use Change had
indicated that any growth effects of R-210 would be most likely to occur east of the new road, only impact areas east
of R-210 are shown, other than an area in Cameron just west of the new road. The land area available, as shown
below, is over 35 times the land needed for the worst case scenario, indicating that even in the worst case, any
growth influenced by R-210 would be extremely low density.
Land Area Potentially Available for Development

Sub-
Watershe Acres
inside a
Town
L i Inside an
Urban
Service
Boundary Outside an
Urban
Service
Bou dary

Total Acres
Av ble
1 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0
4 150 0 0 150
5 0 150 700 850
6 150 300 850 1,300
7 0 350 1,250 1,600
8 0 0 700 700
Total 300 X90 3,500 4,600
Source: hN I b
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 32 of 39 REVISED MARCH 1 S, 2002
Figure 3
R-210 Floodplains and Wetlands
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 33 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Figure 4
R-210 Floodplains, Wetlands and Built-Upon Areas
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 34 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002

Union C
r
l US.15/501
5.4 Assumed Land Use Change

To assume locations within the sub-watersheds for supporting the hydrologic analysis, the probable impacts
described in Section 3 were compared to the land presumed to be available for development, as described in Section
5.3 above. The resulting assumptions, as shown in the following table, provided a relatively specific location of
assumed land use changes, which were used in the hydrologic model to calculate distance and time of runoff.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 35 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
150 AC
300 AC
Figure 5
R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-Watersheds

Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Major Feeder Road Location hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Acres
Eakes Road (SR 1181) At the intersection 7 Moderate One two-acre corner commercial use 0.5
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon area (impervious cover)
West of the intersection 7 None to Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 7 N/A N/A 0.0
Frontage Road between 4 Moderately High to 100 acres of non-residential uses 24.0
Eakes Rd. (SR 1181) and High Direct access from frontage roads
Cedar Lane Rd. (SR 1182) 24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
Cedar Lane Road (SR 1182) At the intersection 5 Moderate One two-acre comer commercial use 0.5
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon
West of the intersection 4 Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 5 Low None 0.0
Frontage Road between 5 Moderately High to 33 acres of non-residential uses 8.0
Cedar Lane Rd. (SR 1182) and High Direct access from frontage roads
Pine Forest Road (SR 1173) 24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
NC24/NC27 At the interchange 5 Low None 0.0
East of the interchange, in 5 Moderately Low 1 I single family residences 1.3
the Urban Service %2 acre lots
Boundary (USB) Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, in 7 Moderately Low 51 single family residences 6.1
the USB '/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange, in 4 Moderate 62 single family residences 7.5
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 7 Moderately Low to 111 single family residences 13.3
outside the USB Moderate 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange, None to Very Low None 0.0
outside the USB
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 36 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002

Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Major Feeder Road Location hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Acres
Cranes Creek Road (SR 1825) At the intersection 4 Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 5 Moderately Low to 25 single family residences 3.0
Moderate %2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the intersection 7 Moderately Low to 66 single family residences 1.3
Moderate '/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the intersection 8 Moderately Low to 54 single family residences 6.5
Moderate %2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
241/o built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the intersection None to Low None 0.0
Main St./Lobelia Road At the interchange 6 High Two two-acre comer commercial uses 1.0
(SR 1001) Commercial uses
24% built-upon area
East of the interchange, in 6 Moderate 42 single family residences 5.0
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots predominantly located in the first mile
east of the USB
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 6 Moderate 78 single family residences 9.4
outside the USB %2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 8 Moderately Low 42 single family residences 5.0
outside the USB %2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange 3 None to Very Low None 0.0
Existing U.S. 1, south of Vass At the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
West of the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 37 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
•
4

ajor Feeder Road Location
Sub- Probability of
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed
hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Assumed
Built-
upon
Acres
Aiken Road (SR 1853) At the intersection N/A Low to Moderately One two-acre comer commercial use 0.5
Low DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon (impervious cover)
East of the intersection N/A None to Very Low None 0.0
West of the intersection N/A None to Very Low None 0.0
Total Assumed Built-Upon Acres 129.5
The location of these impact areas and the sub-watersheds is shown in Figure 5: R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-
Watersheds.
6. WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
6.1 Hydrologic Analysis Methodology
A preliminary hydrologic study was performed for this project to estimate the proposed increase of stormwater
discharge due to the construction of project R-210 and associated future developments.
Based on the preliminary alignment for R-210, and an estimation of future development occurring within the impact
area, a hydrologic model was created, using TR-55 (Soil Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds), for the existing and proposed conditions. The 25-year storm was used as the storm event for the
models. The drainage areas, runoff coefficients, and time of concentrations were derived by using USGS Quad maps
and aerial photography.
The majority of R-210, and the future developments, will occur within the watersheds of Crane Creek and its
tributaries. Crane Creek ultimately flows into Lake Surf, where the discharge is detained/retained and released over
time into the Little River. Very little of the future developments are believed to be located along the Little River near
Vass, NC.
The future developments will consist of mostly individual residences and scattered residential minor subdivisions
(four houses or less), with some minor commercial development occurring adjacent to R-210. Increases in
impervious areas are approximately 0.2% in regards to total watershed areas, and the associated increases of
stormwater peak discharges will be 1.8% or less in relation to the existing peak discharges, as described in the
following section.
6.2 Estimated Hydrology Effect of R-210
As indicated in the table below, the hydrologic model indicated that there would be very small increases in the
estimated 25 year event future peak discharges resulting from the worst case scenario increased built-upon area that
could result from R-210. Sub-watersheds 1, 2 and 3 would have no change, since none of the assumed land use
change would occur in those sub-watersheds.
Sub-watersheds 4, even though it could experience an increase in built-upon area due to R-210, would have changes
in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges too small for the computer model to calculate.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 38 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002

Sub-watersheds 5 and 6 would have changes in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges in the range of
1.3% to 1.8%.
Sub-watersheds 7 and 8 would have changes in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges in the range of
0.5% to 0.7%.
Hydrology Effect of R-210 (Worst Case Scenario)
Sub-
Watershed Drainage Area
(sq. mi.) Event Existing
Peak Discharge
(cfs) pon Acres
Added Due to R-
410 Added as a of
Total Watershed
red $led 25 y,
Event Future Peak

Discharge (cfs)
Change Due to

R-2,t0
4 19.0 15,940 31 0.3% 15,945 0.0%
5 2.3 2,413 12 0.8% 2,456 1.8%
6 3.8 3,188 15 0.6% 3,230 1.3%
7 14.0 11,099 28 0.3% 11,150 0.5%
8 5.7 5,658 14 0.4% 5,700 0.7%
includes Kesidentiai and uommeraai ueveiopment. Acreages are total uwit-upon (impervioous cover) areas.
Source: HNTB
6.3 Estimated Effect on Downstream Water Quality
The above flow rates will occur as a result of primarily single-family residential development which, due to local
planning and zoning requirements, will be in scattered site development. The remaining farmland and woodland
should easily provide filtration of any contaminants in the stormwater runoff from these developments before it
reaches the watercourses. Additionally, Woodlake (Lake Surf) provides a retention area, which will limit the rate of
flow into Little River. Consequently, there should be no change in the rate of flow into the Little River, and no
impact on downstream water quality as a result of the secondary and cumulative impacts of R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 39 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
M d yau.,
yLLn
?Q Pew
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 3, 2002
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
ATTN: Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
;S
i'
?..4;? APR 2 4 2002 ? U
SUBJECT: R-210 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON
DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY
On February 12, 2002, the Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted to the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) a letter addressing a list of concerns regarding the proposed
widening and realigning of U.S. 1 in Moore and Lee Counties, TIP No. R-210. After
reviewing this information, the DWQ requested DOT to expand on some of the items
addressed in the Indirect and Cumulative Impact (ICI) study, which was Attachment A of
this submittal.
DOT has completed the expansion and the revised ICI is enclosed as Attachment A. A
copy of this has already been transmitted to the DWQ on March 20, 2002. If you have any
questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood at (919)
732-1300.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc w/ attachment:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE
Mr. Garland Purdue, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMF
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
cc w/o attachment:
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Susan Cauley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC

MEMORANDUM
To: Robert Deaton
Public Involvement & Community Studies Unit
Office of the Human Environment
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation
From: Donal R. Simpson, FAIA, AICP, ASLA
HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Subject: R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality
Date: November 27, 2001 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
HNTB North Carolina, P.C., was requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to
review available information related to the R-210 Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) for widening and
realigning portions of U.S. 1 in Moore and Lee Counties. The purpose of this review was to provide information
requested by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) relative to a Section 401 water quality certification requested by NCDOT for the R-210 project.
DWQ requested information related to any downstream water quality impacts that might occur due to secondary and
cumulative effects of R-210.
Our review basically required a two step process:
• Estimate the land use change that might occur as a result of constructing R-210
• Calculate the change in surface stormwater flow into the Little River that would result from the land use change
Two authoritative references were used as a basis of the methodology used in this process:
• The Louis Berger Group: "Draft Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina," prepared for State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation/Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, April 2001 (Berger);
• ECONorthwest and Portland State University: "A Guidebook for evaluating the Indirect Land use and Growth
Impacts of highway Improvements, Final Report," for Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon,
and Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2001 (ECONorthwest)
This Memorandum summarizes the information we have been able to determine related to this issue, in six sections:
1. Analysis Area and Impact Areas
2. Methodology Used to Evaluate Potential Land Use Change
3. Evaluation of Potential For Land Use Change
4. Growth Assumptions For Analysis Area
5. Assumed Land Use Change For Watershed Analysis Purposes
6. Watershed Hydrologic Analysis
The conclusion of the analysis indicates that, in the worst case scenario, R-210 might result in an additional built-
upon area (impervious cover) of approximately 100 acres, or approximately 0.2% of the potentially affected
watershed land area. The resulting change in the estimated 25 year event future peak discharge would be un-
measurable in 4 of the 8 sub-watersheds, and 0.5% to 1.5% in the other four. The worst case scenario development
assumed for the analysis would be very low density, scattered site development, primarily residential. The,
interspersed farmland and woodland should easily provide filtration of any contaminants in the stormwater runoff,
so that there should be no change in the rate of flow into the Little River, and no impact on downstream water
quality as a result of the secondary and cumulative effects of R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page / of 39 REVISED MARCH l5, 2002

1. ANALYSIS AREA AND IMPACT AREAS
Two types of area were considered for this analysis. The first was the overall watershed area that feeds the creeks
and tributaries of the Little River in the area where R-210 might affect land use. This overall analysis area was
necessary for hydrologic analysis purposes, and provided a maximum area in which land use change might occur as
a result of R-210. The second type of area considered was land where development might occur. These impact areas
were related to factors that could be evaluated to make an assessment of the probability of land use change that
might occur because of the influence of the R-210 project.
1.1 Overall Analysis Area
According to the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina," the development effects of a new highway are most often found:
• Up to one mile around a freeway interchange, and
• Up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange.
(Berger, p. 7-14)
The Oregon DOT. "Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway
Improvements," was also consulted, as a comparison to the NCDOT "Draft Guidance." The Oregon DOT
"Guidebook" suggested a study area of/z mile around an improvement as the.primary area of potential effect, with a
larger area of impact possible for large projects on routes with a lot of through trips. (ECONorthwest, pp. 17-18)
According to the NCDOT Draft Guidance, development beyond areas delineated in long-range infrastructure or
growth management plans is limited or restricted. The Draft Guidance suggests that, in these circumstances, it may
be appropriate to confine consideration of indirect/cumulative effects to a study area coincident with accepted
growth boundaries. (Berger, p. 3-16)
The NCDOT "Draft Guidance" also suggested that complementary land development, such as highway-oriented
businesses (gas stations, rest stops, motels, etc.), is more likely near interchanges in rural areas. (Berger, p. 7-13)
Another possible approach suggested by the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina" is to establish the study area to match potentially impacted
watersheds. (Berger, p. 3-16)
Since the primary purpose of this analysis was to provide input to the Department of Water Quality as they consider
whether R-210 would have secondary and cumulative effects that would adversely impact downstream water
quality, the potentially impacted watershed was used as the overall analysis area. The watershed roughly
corresponds to the two- to five-mile area along major feeder roadways to R-210. The watershed used as the analysis
area is shown in Figure 1.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 2 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
r
Taylortown
5 MILES
Figure 1: Analysis Area
. Source: HNTB
1.2 Sub-Watersheds Analyzed
The hydrologic model used in the watershed hydrologic analysis, described in Section 6 of this analysis, required
that the watershed be analyzed by sub-watersheds to conform to the hydrologic model used (TR-55, Soil
Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds). This resulted in a further differentiation of the
analysis by eight sub-watershed areas, as diagrammed in Figure 2. The eight watersheds include a total land area of
approximately 73.8 square miles, or 47,232 acres, as indicated in the table below.
The sub-watersheds also formed the framework fora "before" and "after" hydrologic comparison, based on the
change in stormwater flows that would occur based on the assumptions of land use changes due to R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 3 of 39 REVISED MARCH 1 S, 2002

Watershed and Sub-watershed Land Areas
1 Crains Creek, west of Herd's Creek 14.5 9,280
2 Herd's Creek 9.5 6,080
3 Crains Creek, from Little Crains Creek to Herd's Creek 5.0 3,200
4 Little Crains Creek 19.0 12,160
5 Big Branch 2.3 1,472
6 Crains Creek, from Little Crains Creek to Beaver Creek 3.8 2,432
7 Beaver Creek 14.0 8,960
8 Grains Creek, from Beaver Creek to lake Surf 5.7 3,648

1.3 Potential Impact Area
In order to assess the locations within the analysis area where land development might actually occur as a result of
the r-210 project, four potential impact areas were evaluated. These areas, which were based on the combined
suggestions of the NCDOT "Draft Guidance" and the Oregon DOT "Guidebook," were:
• land immediately around the new interchanges and intersections,
• land on new frontage roads,
• areas along major feeder roadways inside Moore County adopted Urban Services Boundaries, and
• areas along major feeder roadways'outside the adopted Urban Services Boundaries.
These four categories of potential land development impact allowed an assessment which was sensitive to the
different economic and location factors which might influence development within the overall analysis area, and
could be correlated to the sub-watershed areas for hydrologic analysis purposes:
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 4 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15,2002
Figure 2. Sub-watershed areas
The estimated impact area was based on the following factors for three different conditions:
• Land at Interchanges. For impacts at the interchanges and intersections themselves, the land evaluated was the
property at the four corners of the interchange or intersection. With the DWQ watershed development standard
limiting built-upon area to 24% of the property. 2 acres was considered to be the minimum lot size that would
necessary to accommodate buildings and pavement for highway oriented commercial development at any given
interchange or intersection corner.
• Land along New Frontage Roads. Any currently undeveloped land along the new frontage roads was considered
to be potentially subject to development as a result of R-210. The new frontage roads will occur only where the
R-210 construction is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment. The depth of the impact area was assumed at 300 ft.
deep from the frontage road right-of-way line, which is a typical depth for a broad range of commercial and
light industrial land uses.
• Land Served by Major Feeder Roadways. Land potentially impacted by R-210 was considered to be along the
roadway within either a 10 minute drive from the interchange/intersection, or to a natural or political boundary
that might affect development decisions in relation to the influence of the new U.S. 1. These boundaries could
be a wide floodplain, a creek, a town limits, an urban service boundary, or a large existing developed area.
2. METHODOLOGY USED TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL LAND USE CHANGE
2.1 Factors Used to Evaluate Land Use Change
According to the NCDOT Draft Guidance, empirical evidence indicates that transportation investments result in
major land use changes only in the presence of other factors, including:
• supportive local land use policies,
• local development incentives,
• availability of developable land, and
• a good investment climate.
(Berger, p. 4-1)
Additional factors influencing the likelihood and rate of development near rural interchanges include:
• distance to major urban area or regional center,
• traffic volume on the intersecting road,
• presence of frontage road
• availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure.
If these factors are present, induced growth effects of this type warrant analysis. (Berger, p. 7-13)
For land at interchanges, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Traffic volume on intersecting road
• Availability of water and sewer
For land along the new frontage roads, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use
change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Availability of water and sewer
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 5 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
For land served by major feeder roadways, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use
change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Availability of water and sewer
The methodology used in assessing each of these factors is described below.
Availability of developable land was estimated by mapping areas within the estimated impact area that were not
suitable. for, or not available for development. These areas included 100 year flood plains, wetlands, existing
urbanized areas, existing single family properties, existing farms of 50 acres or less with a residence on the property,
and other land not available for development, such as land trust lands. The presently occupied properties were
determined from Geographic Information System (GIS) data provided by Moore and Lee Counties, and from R-210
project aerial photography. Existing farms of 50 acres was considered an upper range of non-available land, based
on properties advertised for sale and discussions with developers in the area. These properties tend to be large
owner-occupied farms, usually with equestrian activities.
Land use policies were determined by interviews with staff of Moore County, Lee County, Town of Vass, and Town
of Cameron. Current land use plans and zoning ordinances of Moore County, Lee County, Vass and Cameron were
reviewed. DWQ requirements related to land use were determined from a review of the DWQ "Red Book of Rules."
Investment climate was estimated from interviews with. staff of Moore County, Lee County, Town of Vass, and
Town of Cameron and representatives of Woodlake. A visual survey the area provided indicators of development
activity or interest, such as recent development, for sale signs, occupancy and activity at existing uses, etc. U.S.
Census data on recent growth indicated areas of development potential.
Distance to major urban area or regional center provided an indicator of commuting influence on an area. In general
a time savings of less than 10% was considered to have no influence on development decisions, and a time savings
of less than 20% was considered to only have a slight influence on development decisions. The time savings were
calculated based on driving times at posted speed limits on the existing U.S. 1, and on the FEIS stated speed limit
for R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road was determined by comparing the FEIS 1990 existing two-way Average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes and Level of Service (LOS) with the FEIS projected 2010 AADT volumes and LOS
for each intersecting road (FEIS Table I-2, p. 1-6). The Table I-2 estimates were compared to the FEIS Table H-4, p.
II-17 estimates for the preferred alternative to determine any differences between the No-Build Alternative and the
Preferred Alternative. This was an indicator of changes in traffic volumes and level of service due to R-210. If there
were no projected differences between the no-build and the preferred alternative, traffic volume on the intersecting
road was not considered to have a secondary effect due to R-210. Only roads that connected directly to the new U.S.
1 at an interchange or intersection were considered.
Presence of frontage road was determined from the FEIS description of frontage road locations, on page II-8. This
factor was considered only where a frontage road would be present as part of R-210.
Availability of water, sewer and other infrastructure was determined from interviews with staff of Moore County,
Lee County, Town of Vass, and Town of Cameron, and from GIS data provided by Moore County.
Probability of land use change due to R-210 involved scenario analyses based on a judgement of all of the above
factors. This is one of the three methods recommended by the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina." The other two methods involved sophisticated
integrated land use and transportation models based on Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) that were not
available for this analysis. The time frame for the probability scenarios generally, but not rigidly, based on the 2000
to 2010 time frame corresponding to available population projections. These numbers were adjusted upward in areas
where it was thought that there might be a moderate or higher probability of land use change due to R-210. This
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 6 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
form of analysis provided a reasonable estimate within a foreseeable time frame, since most development decisions
are made on a 5 to 10 year projection. Market forecasting beyond 10 years tends to become speculative.
2.2 Consideration of Cumulative Effects
Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions." As described in the NCDOT
"Draft Guidance," in practice, analysis of cumulative effects has been incorporated with the assessment of
indirect/cumulative effects because many indirect/cumulative effects, including induced development effects, fall
within the definition of cumulative impacts. (Berger, p. I-5)
The consideration of cumulative effects for this analysis focused on the effects that might occur in a 7 to 10 year
time frame, since any downstream effects on water quality would result from development induced by R-210.
Developers generally base investment decisions on a 7-year return on investment. Market analyses and
development pro formas that attempt to project.absorption of new land development beyond a 7 to 10 year period
are generally considered speculative. Further, empirical studies have determined that the land use effects of a new
highway project occur within the fast 7 to 10 years of the construction of the project.
The other actions that were identified which might affect the 7 to 10 year analysis horizon were:
• Preparation of the Greenwood Area Plan for Lee County
• Preparation of a new Land Use Plan for Cameron
• Preparation of a new Land Use Plan for Vass
• Extension of Moore County water service into the area between Vass and Woodlake
• NCDOT TIP Project R-2529, multi-lane widening of NC24/NC27
The new plans that will be prepared for Greenwood, Cameron and Vass will be bound by the DWQ Class WS-III
Watershed development standards, and will not be able to adopt any land use densities that are inconsistent with
those standards. Consequently, they were not considered to have any cumulative effect on the probability of land use
change.
The extension of Moore County water service could cause some additional pressures for.residential development in
the area between Vass and Woodlake. The absence of sewer outside the Vass and Woodlake Urban Service
Boundaries will limit that pressure. The additional pressure that could result within the Vass and Woodlake Urban
Service Boundaries was considered to have a possible cumulative effect. That effect is reflected in the assumed land
use change for the sub-watersheds in this area, as described in Section 5 of this report.
The NCDOT TIP project number R-2529 would widen NC24/NC27 to a multi-lane road from the Carthage Bypass
to NC 87 in Harnett County. NC24/NC27 intersects with U.S. 1 in Cameron, and will intersect with R-210, the
relocated U.S. 1, just east of Cameron. R-2529, however, is an unfunded project, and is not scheduled to proceed
within the 2002-2008 TIP timeframe. Since it will not be built within the 7 to 10 year horizon of this analysis, it was
not considered to have a potential contribution to cumulative effects of R-210.
3. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR LAND USE CHANGE
The potential for land use change was evaluated on case-by-case basis for each major feeder roadway intersecting
with U.S. 1 at an R-210 interchange or intersection. The evaluation was considered in three potential areas of
impact: at the interchange/intersection itself; along the major feeder road inside an urban service boundary; and
along the major feeder road outside an urban service boundary. Potential impacts to the east and to the west along
major feeder roads were evaluated separately, since R-210 will have different effects on travel time in each
direction, and since existing land use conditions tend to be different to the east and west of the new road
Figure 2: R-210 Impact Area indicates the area described in the following evaluation..
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 7 of 39 REVISED MARCH 75, 2002

Union Church
Road

Fort Bragg Military Reservation
Figure 2
R-210 Impact Area
10
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 8 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.1 SR 1181 (Eakes Road) Intersection
This is an at-grade intersection on the existing U.S. I alignment. U.S. I will be widened to 4 lanes divided,
with frontage roads. Eakes Road (SR 1181), which only runs west of U.S. I, will be unchanged. No road
runs east from this intersection. The intersection could become a grade-separated interchange in the future,
if traffic volumes warrant. That eventuality is far enough in the future that it was not considered reasonable
or foreseeable for this analysis.
3.1.1 Land at Eakes Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Limited, due to existing highway commercial at intersection
corners, and to floodplain to the east and south of the intersection.
Land use policies. Currently zoned Residential/Agricultural. As part of Lee County's on-going
development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the County in more
detail, probably in 2003. The west side of U.S. 1 is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of
the Little River Watershed, limiting non-residential development to 24% built-upon area.
Investment climate. Commercial development at this intersection is supported primarily by the
Quail Ridge development, along with existing single-family residences and family farms on Eakes
Rd. There is a competing, more intensely developed commercial area at the US15/US501
intersection with U.S. 1, approximately 1 '/z miles north. The frontage along U.S. 1 north of
US15/US501 has been developing through the 1990's with highway oriented commercial
development, dominated by manufactured housing sales centers.
Distance to maior urban area or regional center. Travel time to the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill
"Triangle," which is now about 43 minutes, would be unchanged. Travel time to Southern Pines,
now approximately 22 minutes, would decrease by approximately 3 '/2 minutes. Travel time to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by way of NC24/NC27, would decrease by
about 4 '/2 minutes. These changes in travel time would be in the 10% to 15% range, which could
have only a slight influence on investment decisions at this intersection.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Eakes Rd. at the intersection with U.S.
I is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 300 vpd (vehicles
per day) to 400 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to remain at "A." This does not
represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated good
for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water service to
the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate. The market that would support further
commercial development at this intersection already exists. However, the presence of frontage
roads at this location could improve its attractiveness for some additional commercial
development.
3.1.2 Land west of the Eakes Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact. area. Approximately '/Z mile west along Eakes Rd. to the Cedar Lane Rd. (SR
1182) intersection. Land beyond '/2 mile is more convenient to US15/US501, and will not be
influenced by a change in U.S. 1.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 9 of 39 REVISED MARCH /5, 2002
Availability of developable land. Very limited. The Quail Ridge single-family residential golf
course community takes up all of the north side of Eakes Road. The south side of the road is
mostly developed with large lot single-family residences and small family farms.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to '/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. Development in this area is all residential. Any further development will
predominantly occur in Quail Ridge. Sanford's growth has been and is expected to continue to be
to the north and southeast, not in this direction.
Distance to major urbanarea or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 24 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 '/2 minutes. The time savings are in the
10% to 15% range, which should not be great enough to influence development investment
decisions in this area.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to low, due to the extent of existing
development in this area.
3.2 Frontage Road between SR 1181 (Fakes Rd.) and SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.)
This segment of R-210 is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment, all within Lee County. Frontage roads will
be provided for the R-210 project where it follows the existing alignment, so this area will have frontage
roads. The existing U.S. 1 will be used as one of the frontage roads where possible.
Estimated impact area. From Eakes Rd. south to SR 1182, Cedar Lane Rd., a length of
approximately 2 miles. Land fronting on the frontage road north of Eakes Rd. is already
developed.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 13,700 linear feet of frontage along the
new U.S. 1 frontage roads that are potentially available for development. Assuming an
approximate depth of 300 ft. for non-residential development, there would be approximately 100
acres potentially available for development along the frontage roads. All of this land would be in
sub-watershed area 4.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to a minimum %2 acre lot size and maximum 24% built-upon
area. Non-residential uses are limited to a maximum 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. The segment of U.S. 1 between Tramway Road (NC 78) south of Sanford and
US 151US501 has experienced a considerable amount of non-residential development since U.S. 1
was widened to a 4 lane divided highway with direct curb cut access. Most of the commercial uses
appear to be businesses that can be supported by on-site septic systems, rather than sanitary sewer.
R-2 l0 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 10 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
The availability of continuous access from the frontage roads in this segment of R-210 could be
expected to attract considerable interest in commercial development.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and Lee
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County (the rural southwest area of the County, where the
northern portion of r-210 is located) is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately high to high.
3.3 SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.) Intersection
This is an at-grade intersection on the existing U.S. 1 alignment. U.S. 1 will be widened to 4 lanes divided,
with frontage roads. Cedar Lane Road (SR 1180) will be unchanged. The intersection could become a
grade-separated interchange at some time in the future, if traffic volumes warrant. That eventuality is far
enough in the future that it was not considered in this analysis.
33.1 Land at Cedar Lane Rd. Intersection
Estimated impact area. The four comer properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Two of the four comers at this intersection currently have
highway-oriented commercial development.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting non-residential development to 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning for the two undeveloped comers is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same
limitations as the WS-III standards. As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land
Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. With the projected increase in traffic on U.S. 1, there could be interest in one
or two more highway-oriented commercial developments at this intersection. The support,
however, would be mostly from highway traffic, due to the relatively low density of surrounding
residential development. There is a more intensely developed commercial area at the USI5/US501
intersection with U.S. 1, approximately 3-'/z miles north. The frontage along U.S. 1 north of
US15/US501 has been developing through the 1990's with highway oriented commercial
development, dominated by manufactured housing sales centers.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle," which is now about
45 minutes, would be unchanged. Travel time to Southern Pines, now approximately 22 minutes,
would decrease by approximately 3 '/2 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base, by way of NC24/NC27, would decrease by about 4 '/z minutes. The travel time
savings are in the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment
decisions at this intersection.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Cedar Lane Rd. at the intersection with
U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 700 vpd
(vehicles per day) to 1,200 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "A" to
"B" This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build
alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated good
for supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 11 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
an on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.3.2 Land west of the Cedar Lane Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1 mile west of the intersection along Cedar Lane Road. The
area beyond that is more within the influence area of the existing US 15/US501 than that of U.S. 1.
Availability of developable land. Limited by flood plain and existing manufactured housing
subdivisions off of Cedar Lane Road, and by existing single-family houses and family farms on
Cedar Lane Road.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to '/z acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre. As part of Lee
County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the
County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. Several manufactured housing subdivisions appear to have been developed
within this area within the last 10 to 15 years. There could be market support for more
manufactured housing subdivisions along this road, if land is available and appropriate zoning can
be obtained.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 21 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 '/z minutes. The travel time savings are in
the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment decisions at this
intersection.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are good for
supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an
on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due primarily to the extent of existing
development in the impact area and the limitations on land availability due to the flood plain south
of and parallel to Cedar Lane Road.
3.3.3 Land east of the Cedar Lane Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1 mile east of the intersection along Rocky Fork Church
Road. The area beyond that is more within the influence area of the existing US 15/US501 than
that of U.S. 1.
Availability of developable land. Limited by flood plain and existing single-family houses and
family farms on Rocky Church Road.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to %z acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 12 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002

Investment climate. Several manufactured housing subdivisions appear to have been developed
within this area within the last 10 to 15 years. This would indicate that there could be market
support for more residential development along this road.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 21 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 '/2 minutes. The travel time savings are in
the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment decisions at this
intersection.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are good for
supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an
on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due to minor changes in travel times to urban
and regional destinations and absence of sewer
3.4 Frontage Road between SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.) and SR 1173 (Pine Forest Rd.)
This segment of R-210 is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment. Frontage roads will be provided for the R-
210 project where it follows the existing alignment, so this area will have frontage roads. The existing U.S.
1 will be used as one of the frontage roads where possible.
Estimated impact area. From Cedar Lane Rd. south to SR 1173, Pine Forest Rd., a length of
approximately % miles, and approximately 1,500 feet south of Pine Forest Rd.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 4,800 linear feet of frontage along the
new U.S. 1 frontage roads that are potentially available for development. Assuming an
approximate depth of 300 ft. for non-residential development, there would be approximately 35
acres potentially available for development along the frontage roads. All of this land would be in
sub-watershed area 5.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to 1/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. The segment of U.S. 1 between Tramway Road (NC 78) south of Sanford and
US 151US501 has experienced a considerable amount of non-residential development since U.S. 1
was widened to a 4 lane divided highway with direct curb cut access. Most of the commercial uses
appear to be businesses that can be supported by on-site septic systems, rather than sanitary sewer.
The availability of continuous access from the frontage roads in this segment of R-210 could be
expected to attract considerable interest in commercial development.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an on-going continuation of the
countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately high to high.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 13 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.5 NC24/NC27Interchange:
This will be a new grade-separated interchange on a new U.S. 1 alignment where it crosses the existing
NC24/NC27 just east of the Cameron Town Limits. This area is in Cameron's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
and the Moore County adopted Urban Service Boundary. NC24/NC27 to the east is Main Street in
Cameron. NCDOT's long range Transportation Improvement Plan reportedly includes the widening of
NC24/NC27 to four lanes divided. However, the time for that widening has not been set, and the alignment
has not been determined. While there could be long-term cumulative effects from the combination of these
two projects, there are too many unknown factors regarding any plans for NC24/NC27 to be able to
reasonably estimate any indirect effects of the combined projects. This analysis is limited to the effects of
R-210, which most likely will occur before any widening of NC24/NC27 takes place.
3.5.1 Land at NC24/NC27 interchange
Estimated impact area. The four comer properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. The existing land use at the proposed interchange location
consists of two family farms with owner-occupied residences and related accessory farm
structures. The R-210 project will require taking of some of the property from each of the two
farms, which could result in a change in use from family farming.
Land use policies. Cameron's existing zoning for this area is RA, or one-acre single-family
residential use. Cameron's Historic District is just east of this area, which would most likely
heavily influence any request for zoning change from residential use compatible with the
"gateway" entrance to the town that the new interchange will be. This area is also above an
aquifer, which is the source for two of Cameron's water supply wells. It is highly unlikely that the
town would approve any zoning change at this intersection because of the potential impact it could
have on the aquifer. The impacts of R-210 on the aquifer would be direct effects, and are
addressed separately. The interchange is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area,
which would limit any development to a maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Cameron is not a growth area, and in fact lost population between 1990 and
2000 from 151 people to 93 people, a 38.7% loss in population. Any attraction for development at
this comer, other than single-family residences which might replace the family farms, would be
for gasoline station/convenience stores to take advantage of the crossing traffic on NC24/NC27, an
east-west trucking route. However, there is an existing grade separated interchange at NC24/NC27
and the existing U.S. 1, and no commercial development has occurred there. An existing gasoline
station/convenience store exists in Cameron approximately 3/4 miles west of the proposed
interchange, and could probably serve traffic from the relocated U.S. 1 if there were informational
signing.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 '/z minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips, but is
unlikely by itself to influence any non-residential development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg
and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on NC24/NC27 on the east side of the
intersection with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily
Traffic) of 2,500 vpd (vehicles per day) to 6,400 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to
change from "B" to "D." The AADT on NC24/NC27 is projected to decrease west of U.S. 1, since
the new U.S. 1 alignment will intercept traffic U.S. 1-bound traffic that currently travels
westbound through Cameron.
R-2 /0 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 14 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Urban Service Boundary, it could have sewer
service within the next 10 to 15 years. There are no current plans to extend sewer to this area.
Soils in this area are rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due to Cameron's restrictive zoning and the
low probability of the town approving a zoning change for a gasoline station above their aquifer. If
the existing family farms were to change use, it would most likely be to single-family residential
use, which would not change the built-upon area from the existing farm residences and accessory
structures.
3.5.2 Land east of NC24/NC27 interchange within Cameron Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land along NC24/NC27 within the Cameron Urban Service Boundary,
which is approximately 1 '/z mile to the east of the new interchange.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 650 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection and within Cameron's Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 300 of these acres are in sub-watershed 5, and approximately 350 of these acres
are in sub-watershed 7.
Land use policies. This area is in Cameron's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. Cameron's existing
zoning for this area is RA, or one-acre single-family residential use. Any residential or non-
residential use would be limited to a maximum 24% built-upon area by the DWQ watershed
standards. Cameron will permit minor subdivisions only in this area, limited to a maximum of 5
single-family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once
every 5 years.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 38.7% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable farms with residences and stable single-family houses.
While there could be an appeal for a development that took advantage of the charm of Cameron's
Historic District, there would not appear to be a measurable market for subdivision development,
considering the lack of growth in the area and Cameron's restrictive development policies. There
are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any notable amount of
development. The investment climate could support some single-family development on large lots,
and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family farms
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 '/z minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by
R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Urban Service Boundary, it could have sewer
service at some time in the future, but there are no current plans to provide sewer in this area.
There are no current plans to extend sewer to this area. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low, due primarily to restrictive
Cameron development policies, and lack of support services for residential development.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 15 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.5.3 Land west of NC24/NC27 interchange within Cameron Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact are a. Land west of the interchange within the Cameron Town Limits, between
the new U.S. 1 and Little Crane Creek. Land west of Little Crane Creek for approximately 2 miles
along NC24/NC27 is developed land within the Town of Cameron, including the National
Register of Historic Properties Historic District. Since the interchange is actually moving
approximately 1'/z miles east of the existing U.S. 1/24-27 interchange, the new road is unlikely to
have any discernable development effect to the west of Little Crane Creek.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 150 acres of land potentially available
for development west of the intersection and within Cameron's Urban Service Boundary. This
land is all within sub-watershed 4.
Land use policies. This area is in Cameron's Town Limits. Cameron's existing zoning for this area
is Residential/Agricultural, which permits single-family residential use with minimum one-acre lot
sizes. The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
development a maximum 24% built-upon area. Any non-residential use would be limited to a
maximum 24% built-upon area by the DWQ watershed standards. Cameron will permit minor
subdivisions only in this area, limited to a maximum of 5 single-family residences, and will
approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 5 years.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 38.7% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable single-family houses, many of them in Cameron's Historic
District. While there could be an appeal for a development that took advantage of the charm of
Cameron's Historic District, there would not appear to be a measurable market for subdivision
development, considering the lack of growth in the area and Cameron's restrictive development
policies. There are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any notable
amount of development. The investment climate could support some single-family development.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 '/2 minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and. Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by
R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Town Limits, and thus in the Urban Service
Boundary, it could have sewer service at some time in the future. There are no current plans to
extend sewer to this area. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.5.4 Land outside Cameron Urban Service Boundary east of NC24/NC27 interchange.
Estimated impact area. Land along NC24/NC27 from the Cameron Urban Service Boundary to a
point approximately 2 %z miles east of the interchange at Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek creates a
perceptual change from Moore County to Harnett County, even though it is still in Moore County.
There is little development between Beaver Creek and the Moore County/Harnett County line.
Development along NC24/NC27 in Harnett County consists primarily of some manufactured
houses on large lots.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 16 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 850 acres of land potentially available
for development west of the intersection and outside Cameron's Urban Service Boundary. This
land is all within sub-watershed 7.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/2 acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 28% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable farms with residences and stable single-family houses.
While there appear to be some recently built houses, most are over 10 years old. There would not
appear to be a measurable market for subdivision development, particularly given Moore County's
development policies. There are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any
notable amount of development. The investment climate could support some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 24 minutes from the edge of the Urban Service Boundary along the existing U.S. 1.
Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 54 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east
of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 4 minutes, which is
less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to
Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 7 minutes, which is a 30% reduction and
could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville,
Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are mostly rated poor for
septic systems, with a small area rated moderate for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately Low to Moderate, due primarily to
restrictive Moore County development policies, DWQ watershed standards for development, and
lack of support services for residential development.
3.5.5 Land outside Cameron Urban Service Boundary west of NC24/NC27 interchange
Estimated impact area. Land to the west of this interchange for approximately 2 miles along
NC24/NC27 is developed land within the Town of Cameron, including the National Register of
Historic Properties Historic District. Since the interchange is actually moving approximately 1'/z
miles east of the existing interchange of U.S. 1 and NC24/NC27, the new road is unlikely to have
any discernable development effect to the west of Cameron.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page / 7 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.6 SR 1825 (Cranes Creek Rd.) Intersection
This will be an at-grade intersection on a new alignment, across the railroad approximately 1 mile east of
the existing intersection of U.S. 1 and Cranes Creek Road. The intersection could become a grade-
separated interchange at some time in the future if traffic volumes warrant, according to the FEIS. That
eventuality is far enough in the future that it was not considered in this analysis.
3.6.1 Land at Cranes Creek Rd. Intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Land at all four corners of this intersection is currently farmland,
and could potentially be available for development. This area is not in an Urban Service
Boundary.
Land use policies: This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Hamett
County line. Moore County's Land Use' Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/2 acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. There is no commercial development at the existing U.S. 1/ Cranes Creek
Road intersection, and no evidence of commercial development in this area. This analysis assumes
that there would be highway-oriented commercial at the new U.S. 1/Lobelia Road intersection,
approximately 3 miles south. This intersection will be an exit for southbound U.S. 1 traffic
destined toward Woodlake, which could be attractive for a comer gasoline/convenience store.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 16 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2
minutes, which is less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development.
The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the
15% to 20% range and could make the area slightly more attractive for some commute, service
and leisure trips, but is unlikely to influence any non-residential development. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church
Rd. and NC 24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Cranes Creek Rd. at the intersection
with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 600
vpd (vehicles per day) to 1,100 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to remain at "B"
This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build alternative
due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low. No development exists at the current
intersection. No commercial development is anticipated at the intersection due to restrictive Moore
County zoning.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 18 of 39 REVISED MARCH IS, 2002
3.6.2 Land east of Cranes Creek Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land between the intersection and the Woodlake community Urban
Service Boundary, approximately 4'/z miles east of the interchange. None of this area is in an
Urban Service Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 2,000 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection. None of this land is in an Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 700 of these acres are in sub-watershed 5, approximately 400 of these acres are in
sub-watershed 7, and approximately 900 of these acres are in sub-watershed 8. About half of the
potentially available land in sub-watershed 8 is in Harnett County.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/2 acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Woodlake, a planned community, was started in 1973 as a predominantly
single-family residential golf community. It grew at about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's,
and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has
approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the
approval process. About 600 of these lots have been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake
has not been rapid enough to indicate that there would be investment interest in another large
residential development in this area. Further, the available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb
most of the growth in this area. Any additional development is likely to be some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 18 minutes from the intersection of Cranes Creek Road and Cypress Church Road.
Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east
of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is
less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to
Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 150/6 to 20% range
and could make the area slightly more attractive for some commute, service and leisure trips, but
is unlikely to influence any non-residential development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base is east along Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church Rd. and NC 24, and would
be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low to moderate.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 19 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
3.6.3 Land west of Cranes Creek Rd, intersection
Estimated impact area. Land approximately 3 miles west of the interchange, to NC24/NC27.
Availability of developable land. Land west of the Cranes Creek Rd. intersection was not
calculated, since travel time to urban and regional destinations would be virtually unchanged from
existing travel rimes.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Hamett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of %z acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. There is no discernable development or construction of new houses in this
area.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 16 minutes from Cranes Creek Cemetery, about halfway to NC24/NC27. Travel
time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east of
Cameron would not reduce the travel time to the "Triangle," so would not influence development
related to "Triangle" employment. The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by.
approximately 1 minute, which is less than 10% and is not enough change to induce any
measurable development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along
Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church Rd. and NC 24, and would increase by approximately 1
minute.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to low.
3.7 SR 1001 (Main St./Lobelia Rd.) Interchange
This will be a new grade separated interchange between the new U.S. 1 and the existing two lane SR 1001,
which is Main Street in Vass east of the existing U.S. 1, and is known as Union Church Road west of the
existing U.S. 1. Outside of the Vass Town Limits to the east, SR 1001 is known as Lobelia Road. The
interchange will be inside the Vass Town Limits, approximately V2 mile east of the existing U.S. 1. There
will be no frontage roads in this area.
3.7.1 Land at Main St./Lobelia Rd. interchange
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Two of the proposed interchange comers are currently farms
with houses on them, one is farmland only, and one is a single-family residence. The land is all
within the Vass Town Limits.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 20 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Land use policies. This land is all inside the Vass Town Limits, and is zoned R-20 which allows
20,000 sq. ft. (nominally 1/2 acre) single family residential lots. For the purposed of this analysis, it
has been assumed that a zoning change to commercial uses could be obtained from the Town of
Vass at this location.
Investment climate. Vass grew more slowly than the rest of Moore County from 1990 to 2000.
The Vass population grew 11.9%, from 670 to 750, while Moore County as a whole grew 26.7%,
from 59,000 to 74,769. This would not indicate a very strong overall investment climate.
However, there are two existing service stations/convenience stores in Vass at the Comer of U.S. I
and Main St./Union Church Road that appear to be very oriented toward U.S. 1 traffic. These two
stations/stores would indicate that there could be a strong demand for service stations/convenience
stores at the new interchange. These might be either new, competing businesses, or relocations of
the existing businesses. None of the other businesses on the existing U.S. 1 in Vass appear to be
highway-oriented. There are existing highway-oriented businesses at the SR 1853 (Aiken Rd.)
intersection, approximately 1 '/. miles south of this interchange.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 12 minutes from the existing U.S 1 intersection with Main St. Travel time to the
"Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce
the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not
enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would
be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 20% to 25% range and could make the
area more attractive for development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base
is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Vass' Main Street at the intersection
with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 3,200
vpd (vehicles per day) to 9,950 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "C"
to
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. There is existing sanitary sewer service,
owned by Moore County Public Utilities, in Vass west of the existing U.S. 1. This service is
currently being extended along Main Street to approximately Johnson Road, which is
approximately the location of the new interchange. No sewer service is planned west of the new
alignment of U.S. 1.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. High.
3.7.2 Land east of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection within the Vass Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land along SR 1001 from the new interchange approximately 1-'/2 miles to
the Vass Urban Service Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 450 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection in the Vass Urban Service Boundary. Approximately 150
acres are potentially available inside the Vass Town Limits, and approximately 300 acres are
potentially available outside the Town Limits but inside the Urban Service Boundary. All of these
acres are in sub-watershed 6.
Land use policies. Land inside the Vass Town Limits is zoned R-20, which would allow 20,000
sq. ft. (nominally '/z acre) single family residential lots. Land outside the Town Limits and inside
the Urban Service Boundary is zoned Residential/Agricultural, which would allow 2 acre single
family residential lots. The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area,
which would limit any residential lots to a minimum of %2 acre, and would limit any development
to a maximum of 24% built-upon area.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 21 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Investment climate. Vass grew more slowly than the rest of Moore County from 1990 to 2000.
The Vass population grew 11.9%, from 670 to 750, while Moore County as a whole grew 26.7%,
from 59,000 to 74,769. This would not indicate a very strong overall investment climate within
Vass itself. Woodlake, a planned golf course community approximately 4 '/s miles east of the new
interchange, grew much more rapidly at a rate of 72.2%, from 790 to 1,360. Woodlake grew at
about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's, and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the
mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another
approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the approval process. About 600 of these lots have
been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake has not been rapid enough to indicate that there
would be investment interest in another large residential development in this area. Further, the
available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb most of the growth in this area. Any additional
development is likely to be some single-family development on large lots, and one or two minor
subdivisions for additional residences on family farms.
3.7.3
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 13 minutes from the existing U.S 1 intersection with Main St. Travel time to the
"Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce
the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not
enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would
be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 20% to 25% range and could make the
area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. There is existing sanitary sewer service,
owned by Moore County Public Utilities, in Vass west of the existing U.S. 1. This service is
currently being extended along Main Street to approximately Johnson Road, which is
approximately the location of the new interchange. No sewer service is planned west of the new
alignment of U.S. 1. This area does not currently have water service. However, Moore County is
presently planning water service districts, which will provide water service to this area in the near
future. The water service is intended to serve existing residential development, with predominantly
6-inch water lines and a few 8-inch mains. Moore County's policy is that sewer service could be
provided in this area, since it is inside of an adopted Urban Service Boundary. However, no sewer
service is currently planned for the area. Soils in this area are mostly rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary east of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land along SR 1001 from the Vass Urban Service Boundary to a point
approximately 4 miles east of the interchange to the Woodlake community. Approximately one
mile of this area, on the north side of Lobelia Road, is in the adopted Woodlake Urban Service
Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 1,550 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection. None of this land is in an Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 850 of these acres are in sub-watershed 6, and approximately 700 of these acres
are in sub-watershed 8.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III High Quality watershed area, which would
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 22 of 39 REVISED MARCH /5, 2002
limit any residential development to a maximum of 1/2 acre lots, and would limit any development
to a maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Woodlake, a planned community, was started in 197xx as a predominantly
single-family residential golf community. It grew at about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's,
and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has
approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the
approval process. About 600 of these lots have been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake
has not been rapid enough to indicate that there would be investment interest in another large
residential development in this area. Further, the available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb
most of the growth in this area. Any additional development is likely to be some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 15 minutes from the Vass Urban Service Boundary. Travel time to the "Triangle" is
approximately 60 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce the travel time
to the "Triangle" by approximately 4 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not enough change to
induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes, which is approximately 20% and could make the area slightly more
attractive for some commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, which will provide water
service to this area in the near future. The water service is intended to serve existing residential
development, with predominantly 6-inch water lines and a few 8-inch mains. Moore County's
policy is to not provide sewer service in the portion of this area that is outside of the adopted
Urban Service Boundaries. There are no plans for providing sewer services within the portion of
the Woodlake Urban Service Area that is in the impact area of R-210. Soils in this area are mostly
rated poor for septic systems, with one relatively small area rated moderate for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low, due primarily to restrictive Moore
County development policies, DWQ watershed standards for development, and ample availability
of residential lots in Woodlake.
3.7.4 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary west of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land west along SR 1001 was not analyzed. The land along SR 1001
within the Vass Urban Service Boundary is virtually all within the developed area of Vass, and the
interchange will actually be approximately '/z mile farther east than the present intersection, which
means that there will be no notable amount of travel time savings that would cause a development
in this direction. This move of the intersection east will make land along SR 1803, the Vass-
Carthage Road, even less accessible than it is now, so there is unlikely to be any development
effect from R-210.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8 Intersection with existing U.S. 1 south of Vass
This will be a new at-grade intersection with the existing U.S. 1 alignment in Vass, approximately 1-'/4
miles south of Main St.
3.8.1 Land at intersection with existing U.S.1
Estimated impact area. The four comer properties at the intersection.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 23 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Availability of developable land. There will be little, if any land available for development at this
intersection. The area surrounding the intersection location is virtually all in the Little River 100-
year floodplain, and is further constrained by the presence of the existing railroad tracks.
Consequently, no development is anticipated at this intersection.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8.2 Land east and west of the intersection with the existing U.S. 1 within the Vass Urban Service
Boundary
Estimated impact area. Areas that are potentially available for development in the Vass Town
Limits and within Vass' Urban Service Boundary are accessible from this intersection only by
way of the existing U.S. 1. Since their accessibility due to R-210 would be virtually unchanged,
this intersection is not anticipated to have any measurable effect on growth and development in
Vass.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8.3 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary served by the intersection with the existing
U.S.1.
Estimated impact area. No land outside the Urban Service Boundary would be served by this
intersection.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.9 SR 1853 (Aiken Rd.) Intersection.
This is an existing intersection in the community of Lakeview, at which U.S. 1 is already four--lane divided.
No change is proposed for U.S. 1 at this intersection, or to SR 1853.
3.9.1 Land at Aiken Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. There is existing convenience commercial development at 2
comers of the intersection, limiting any father development to 2 comers of the intersection. A
typical comer commercial development would require 2 acres of land to be able to build a typical
commercial building and parking within the DWQ maximum of 240/obuilt-upon area.
Land use policies. Any further commercial development would require a zoning change from
Moore County. Any further commercial development would be limited to a maximum of 24%
built-upon due to the Class WS-III watershed restrictions of DWQ, which have been adopted by
Moore County.
Investment climate. The Lakeside community is not large enough to support additional locally
oriented commercial development, particularly with the availability of retail and support services
nearby in Vass. For service to through traffic, the area is close to Vass with its current two
highway-oriented gasoline stations/convenience stores, which could relocate to the new U.S. 1
bypass (see 33.1 above). There are additional existing highway-oriented service businesses at
Skyline (Youngs Road), approximately 2 1/2 miles south toward Southern Pines. Any additional
commercial development at this intersection would be competing with those two locations.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 24 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to Southern Pines, Aberdeen,
Pinehurst and other destinations to the south would be unchanged, since U.S. 1 is already two-lane
divided in that direction. Travel time to Vass would be unchanged, since the most convenient
route would be along the existing U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes from the existing time of approximately 59 minutes. This would be less
than 10% and is not be enough time savings to affect development decisions at this location due to
commuting convenience. Travel time to Pope AFB and Fort Bragg would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes. This would not be enough time to affect development decisions at this
location due to commuting convenience.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Aiken Rd. at the intersection with U.S.
1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 2,600 vpd
(vehicles per day) to 4,600 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "B" to
"C." This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build
alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This intersection is in the Moore County
Water Service Area No. 1, which is planned for water service in the near future. It is in the
County's designated Urban Service Boundary, so it could have sanitary sewer service at some
time in the future. No sanitary sewer service is currently planned for this area. Soils in this area are
rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. There is a low to moderately low probability of one
additional highway-oriented business at one comer of this intersection.
3.9.2 Land east of Aiken Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land east of the Aiken Rd. intersection was not analyzed in detail. This
area would not experience any travel time savings to Southern Pines due to the new bypass. Travel
time savings to the "Triangle" would be approximately 3 minutes from the existing approximately
59-minute travel time, which is not enough to time to affect development decisions at this location
due to commuting convenience. There would be an approximately 3 minute travel time savings to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, which is unlikely to influence development
decisions at this location due to commuting convenience. The, land to the east of the intersection is
approximately 50% to 60% developed as single-family homes and family farms or horse ranches.
Much of the remaining land convenient to the intersection is in large land trust holdings, and
unavailable for development.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.9.3 Land west of Aiken Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Land west of the Aiken Rd. intersection was not analyzed in detail. There
is a relatively small area within convenient access to this intersection, and it includes . the
community of Lakeside and extensive Little River floodplains and wetlands. Since there would be
negligible travel time savings to major urban or regional centers, as described above, there is
unlikely to be any measurable development influence in this area attributable to R-210.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 25 of 39 REVISED MARCH I5, 2002
4. GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR WATERSHED ANALYSIS AREA
The methodology used as a basis for assuming built-upon residential areas (i.e., impervious cover) involved a seven-
step process:
1. Estimate 2000 - 2010 household growth for Moore and Lee Counties
2. Estimate the watershed analysis area capture rate of 2000 - 2010 Moore and Lee County household growth
3. Distribute the watershed analysis area estimated household growth into the sub-watersheds used for the
hydrologic analysis
4. Develop, scenario assumptions of the additional growth in each sub-watershed that might occur due to the
influence of R-210.
5. Calculate the land potentially available for development within each sub-watershed area
6. Distribute the estimated household growth into the calculated land potentially available for development, for
each sub-watershed
7. Calculate the built-upon area (i.e., impervious cover) potentially added to each sub-watershed, as the basis for
the hydrologic analysis
Steps 1 through 3 of this process are described in this Section. Steps 4 through 7 are described in Section 5:
"Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Purposes."
4.1 Estimated 2000 - 2010 Household Growth for Moore and Lee Counties
In order to forecast the amount of built-upon residential area (i.e., impervious cover) added within the watershed
analysis area between 2000 and 2010, population and household growth forecasts were reviewed. The first step was
to retrieve the 1990 and 2000 population figures for Lee and Moore Counties as well as the municipalities within
those counties.
Population Growth Trends
1990-2000
Next,. the 2010 population forecast for Lee and Moore Counties was retrieved from the Office of State Planning.
Based on shares of overall county population growth between 1990 and 2000, the municipality and unincorporated
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 26 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Note: Woodlake is not incorporated, but is a major subdivision
Note: Much of Sanford's growth was due to annexation
area population forecasts for 2010 were calculated. The 2010 forecasted population by county and municipality was
then converted to households using average household size values in 2000 from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Household Growth Forecast
2000-2010.

oore County 14,393 2.38
Aberdeen 623 2.23 280
Cameron -58 2.29 -26
Carthage 817 2.42 338
Foxfire Village 128 2.14 60
Pinebluff 213 2.47 86
Pinehurst 4,212 2.05 2,055
Robbins 183 2.81 65
Southern Pines 1,556 2.19 711
Taylortown 274 2.74 100
Vass 73 2.47 30
Whispering Pines 679 2.15 316
Woodlake* 520 2.20 236
, s
Lee County 2,893
Broadway (part) 41 2.54 16
Sanford 8,610 2.64 3,262

' Not yet incorporated, out a major SUDalmsion
GOU&Wft Office of State Planning, HNTB
4.2 Analysis area capture rate of 2000 - 2010 Moore and Lee County household growth
The watershed analysis area includes unincorporated portions of Lee and Moore Counties and the incorporated
municipalities of Vass and Cameron. In order to estimate the analysis area capture rate of the forecasted household
growth within the unincorporated portions of the counties, household growth data for Census Tract 9505 in Moore
County and Block Groups 1, 3 and 4 of Census Tract 305 in Lee County was retrieved from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Data for Whispering Pines and Woodlake in Census Tract 9505 was omitted since these areas are not included in the
analysis area. The boundaries of the Census Tract/Block Group area extend somewhat beyond the analysis area
boundaries, but they nonetheless provide a reasonable indication of potential capture capacity.
After determining the 1990 - 2000 Census Tract/Block Group area household growth, its share (13.5%) of overall
household growth for Lee and Moore Counties during the same period was determined. This percentage was then
applied to the 2000-2010 household growth forecast (8,940) for these counties that was determined previously in
order to estimate the number of households added (1,206). Therefore, of the 2,174 additional households forecasted
for unincorporated Moore County between 2000 and 2010, the 30 additional households forecasted for Vass, the -26
additional households forecasted for Cameron, and the -421 additional households forecasted for unincorporated
Lee County, an estimated 1,206 households are within the analysis area.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 27 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2010
Counties & Estimated Impact Area
Area . 1 5,0451 6,2511 1,2061 23.
Lee) 1 49,179 58,11
&9@untieS 1 10.3%
These 1,206 households are the projected growth in the analysis area due to normal population growth and in-
migration, and do not necessarily reflect any additional influence on household growth due to R-210.
4.3 Sub-watersheds estimated household growth
The estimated household growth for the overall watershed analysis area was next distributed into the sub-watersheds
used for the hydrologic analysis. Initially, each sub-watershed was identified by the rivers, creeks and tributaries on
USGS quad maps of the watershed analysis area. The land area of each sub-watershed was then measured from the
USGS quad maps in square miles. The land, area was translated into acres for each sub-watershed, and calculated as
a percentage of the overall watershed analysis area, by sub-watershed. This percentage formed the basis for
distribution of household growth by sub-watershed, proportionate to the land area of the sub-watershed in relation to
the overall watershed.
The percentage of households were then multiplied by the total projected household growth of 1,200, which was
rounded from the calculated 1,206 households to provide an estimated 2000 - 2010 household growth by sub-
watershed. This household growth is the projected growth by sub-watershed due to normal population growth and
in-migration, and does not necessarily reflect any additional influence on household growth due to R-210.
5. ASSUMED LAND USE CHANGE FOR WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS PURPOSES
5.1 Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
The assumptions of land use change due to R-210 were based on a calculated distribution of households by sub-
watershed. A distribution of households was based proportionately on sub-watershed land area. These distributed
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 28 of 39 REVISED MARCH l5, 2002
Distribution of Households by Sub-Watershed
households were then translated into acres, assuming '/2 acre per household, the minimum lot size permitted by
DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards. The built-upon area was then calculated at 24% built-upon area, the
maximum built-upon area permitted by DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards. Even though local zoning might
require a larger lot size than %2 acre, the ratio of 24% built-upon for a'/2 acre lot was considered to be consistent with
the built-upon area that would occur with larger lots. The 24% built-upon area on a '/2 acre lot represents a 3,000 sq.
ft. two-story dwelling with a two-car garage, driveway, front entry walk, and 800 sq. ft, patio, swimming pool, or
other impervious outdoor area. This would be a fairly typical residence in this area, regardless of lot size.
Non-residential built-upon area was derived from the assumed land use change analysis, with the built-upon area
being calculated at 24%, the maximum built-upon area permitted by DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards.
As suggested by the NCDOT "Draft Guidelines," several scenarios were considered for the assumed additional
growth in the sub-watersheds that might occur due to the influence of R-210. These scenarios assumed a percentage
increase in households over the household growth that was projected by the Office of State Planning. These
scenarios were:
Scenario 1: "Probable Scenario", which was a judgement based on professional experience, observation of the area,
and the interpretation of the analysis. This scenario resulted in a total assumed built-upon area of 43 acres due to the
influence of R-210. The 43 acres represents 0.1 % of the total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area
are shown in the following table.
R=210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 29 of 39 REVISED MARCH IS, 2002
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 1: Probable Scenario
Scenario 2: "Conservative Scenario," increased the assumed percentage of growth in each sub-watershed due to R-
210 by a factor of 3 for sub-watersheds 5, 7 and 8, and by a factor of 2 for sub-watershed 6, to account for any
unanticipated growth or any possible additional influence on growth resulting from R-210. This scenario resulted in
a total assumed built-upon area of 75 acres due to the influence of R-210. The 75 acres represents less than 0.2% of
the total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area are shown in the following table.
Scenario 3: "Worst Case Scenario," increased the assumed percentages of additional growth due to the influence of
R-210 by a factor of 4 in sub-watersheds 5, 6, 7 and 8 over Scenario 1. For this worst case scenario to occur, major
changes in current Moore County and Lee County land use policies would have to occur. While this seems unlikely
because of the relatively recent adoption of land use plans in Moore County and Lee County, there is an outside
possibility that the political climate might change in one or both of those counties. The worst case scenario resulted
in a total assumed built-upon area of 100 acres due to the influence of R-210. The 100 acres represents 0.2% of the
total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area are shown in the following table.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 30 of 39 REVISED MARCH l5, 2002
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 2: Conservative Scenario
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 3: Worst Case Scenario
5.2 Built-Upon Area Added by-R-210
As shown in the table below, the worst case scenario calculation described above provides a total assumed built-
upon area of approximately 100 acres in the total watershed. This represents an approximately 0.2% increase in
built-upon area for the watershed affected by R-210.
These built-upon areas were used in the watershed hydrologic analysis to calculate the increase in stormwater
discharge due to the secondary and cumulative impacts of R-210. They are summarized in the following table.
Built-Upon Areas Added by R-210 (Worst Case Scenario)
Source: HNTB
5.3 Land Potentially Available for Development by Sub-Watershed
The computer model used for the hydrologic analysis required that the estimated households be located in the
general area of each sub-watershed. The model calculates runoff based on the runoff distance and time from the
source (in this case, new households) to the affected creek or tributary. To locate the assumed sub-watershed
household growth, land not currently built-upon was used as a basis for locating new households.
To identify land not currently built-upon, a generalized analysis of currently built-upon land and land not available
for development was prepared. This analysis identified existing "urbanized" areas in the Towns of Vass and
Cameron and in the developments of Woodlake and Quail Ridge. These areas are shown in Figure 2, R-210 Impact
Area.
Floodplains and wetlands were assumed to be land that would not be available for development. Using information
from Moore County and Lee County GIS systems, and from Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM maps), this land
was mapped in combination with the existing "urbanized" areas. The combined "urbanized" areas, floodplains and
wetlands are shown in Figure 3, R-210 Floodplains and Wetlands. As stated, this is a generalized analysis, and this
map should not be used as a reference in relation to any specific floodplain or wetland impact analysis.
The third type of land considered to be currently built-upon was land outside the "urbanized" areas that has existing
single family residences, manufactured houses, or farms with a residence. For purposes of this analysis, only farms
of 50 acres or less with a residence were considered to be "currently built-upon." This land was added to the map
with "urbanized" areas, floodplains and wetlands, as shown in Figure 4, R-210 Floodplains, Wetlands and Built-
Upon Areas.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 31 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
The remaining land was considered to be the area where any growth influenced by R-2 10 might occur. It is shown in
Figure 5, R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-Watersheds. Since the Evaluation of Potential for Land Use Change had
indicated that any growth effects of R-210 would be most likely to occur east of the new road, only impact areas east
of R-210 are shown, other than an area in Cameron just west of the new road. The land area available, as shown
below, is over 35 times the land needed for the worst case scenario, indicating that even in the worst case, any
growth influenced by R-210 would be extremely low density.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 32 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Land Area Potentially Available for Development
Figure 3
R-210 Floodplains and Wetlands
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 33 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Figure 4
R-210 Floodplains, Wetlands and Built-Upon Areas
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 34 of 39 REVISED MARCH 1 S, 2002

Union C1
US 15/50

5.4 Assumed Land Use Change

To assume locations within the sub-watersheds for supporting the hydrologic analysis, the probable impacts
described in Section 3 were compared to the land presumed to be available for development, as described in Section
5.3 above. The resulting assumptions, as shown in the following table, provided a relatively specific location of
assumed land use changes, which were used in the hydrologic model to calculate distance and time of runoff.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 35 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
1 S0 AC
'300 AC
Figure 5
R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-Watersheds
Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Major Feeder Road Location hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Acres
Eakes Road (SR 1181) At the intersection 7 Moderate One two-acre comer commercial use 0.5
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon area (impervious cover)
West of the intersection 7 None to Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 7 N/A N/A 0.0
Frontage Road between 4 Moderately High to 100 acres of non-residential uses 24.0
Eakes Rd. (SR 1181) and High Direct access from frontage roads
Cedar Lane Rd. (SR 1182) 24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
Cedar Lane Road (SR 1182) At the intersection 5 Moderate One two-acre comer commercial use 0.5
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon
West of the intersection 4 Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 5 Low None 0.0
Frontage Road between 5 Moderately High to 33 acres of non-residential uses 8.0
Cedar Lane Rd. (SR 1182) and High Direct access from frontage roads
Pine Forest Road (SR 1173) 24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
NC24/NC27 At the interchange 5 Low None 0.0
East of the interchange, in 5 Moderately Low 11 single family residences 1.3
the Urban Service %2 acre lots
Boundary (USB) Lots spread randomly throughout the area
241/o built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, in 7 Moderately Low 51 single family residences 6.1
the USB %2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange, in 4 Moderate 62 single family residences 7.5
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 7 Moderately Low to 111 single family residences 13.3
outside the USB Moderate 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange, None to Very Low None 0.0
outside the USB
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 36 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Major Feeder Road
Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Location hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Acres
Cranes Creek Road (SR 1825) At the intersection 4 Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 5 Moderately Low to 25 single family residences 3.0
Moderate '/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the intersection 7 Moderately Low to 66 single family residences 1.3
Moderate %2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
240% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the intersection 8 Moderately Low to 54 single family residences 6.5
Moderate %2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the intersection None to Low None 0.0
Main StJLobelia Road At the interchange 6 High Two two-acre comer commercial uses
(SR 1001) Commercial uses
24% built-upon area
East of the interchange, in 6 Moderate 42 single family residences
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots predominantly located in the first mile
east of the USB
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 6 Moderate 78 single family residences
outside the USB %2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 8 Moderately Low 42 single family residences
outside the USB '/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
240/6 built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange 3 None to Very Low None
1.0
5.0
9.4
5.0
0.0
Existing U.S. 1, south of Vass At the intersection
East of the intersection
West of the intersection
6 None to Very Low None 0.0
6 None to Very Low None 0.0
6 None to Very Low None 0.0
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 37 of 39 REVISED MARCH IS, 2002

ajor Feeder Road Location
Sub- Probability of
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed
hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Assumed
Built-
upon
Acres
Aiken Road (SR 1853) At the intersection N/A Low to Moderately One two-acre corner commercial use 0.5
Low DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon (impervious cover)
East of the intersection N/A None to Very Low None 0.0
West of the intersection N/A None to Very Low None 0.0
Total Assumed Built-Upon Acres 129.5
The location of these impact areas and the sub-watersheds is shown in Figure 5: R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-
Watersheds.
6. WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
6.1 Hydrologic Analysis Methodology
A preliminary hydrologic study was performed for this project to estimate the proposed increase of stormwater
discharge due to the construction of project R-210 and associated future developments.
Based on the preliminary alignment for R-210, and an estimation of future development occurring within the impact
area, a hydrologic model was created using TR-55 (Soil Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds), for the existing and proposed conditions. The 25-year storm was used as the storm event. for the
models. The drainage areas, runoff coefficients, and time of concentrations were derived by using USGS Quad maps
and aerial photography.
The majority of R-210, and the future developments, will occur within the watersheds of Crane Creek and its
tributaries. Crane Creek ultimately flows into Lake Surf, where the discharge is detained/retained and released over
time into the Little River. Very little of the future developments are believed to be located along the Little River near
Vass, NC.
The future developments will consist of mostly individual residences and scattered residential minor subdivisions
(four houses or less), with some minor commercial development occurring adjacent to R-210. Increases in
impervious areas are approximately 0.2% in regards to total watershed areas, and the associated increases of
stormwater peak discharges will be 1.8% or less in relation to the existing peak discharges, as described in the
following section.
6.2 Estimated Hydrology Effect of R-210
As indicated in the table below, the hydrologic model indicated that there would be very small increases in the
estimated 25 year event future peak discharges resulting from the worst case scenario increased built-upon area that
could result from R-210. Sub-watersheds 1, 2 and 3 would have no change, since none of the assumed land use
change would occur in those sub-watersheds.
Sub-watersheds 4, even though it could experience an increase in built-upon area due to R-210, would have changes
in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges too small for the computer model to calculate.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 38 of 39 REVISED MARCH 15, 2002
Sub-watersheds 5 and 6 would have changes in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges in the range of
1.3% to 1.8%.
Sub-watersheds 7 and 8 would have changes in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges in the range of
0.5% to 0.7%.
Hydrology Effect of R-210 (Worst Case Scenario)
Suter r ? ?. 14raa Extstit?g
E
VB
r
t
t t , ??ta,++? ? f?
VYAtM'g ? ,{,?, ?: .
,
?
'
"
,
PYi16LilISt?NS r ? ?
?
~ ?
r -..r 218 ° ?
4 19.0 15,940 31 0.3% 15,945 0.0%
5 2.3 2,413 12 0.8% 2,456 1.8%
6 3.8 3,188 15 0.6% 3,230 1.3%
7 14.0 11,099 28 0.3% 11,150 0.5%
8 5.7 5,658 14 0.4% 5,700 0.7%
inr. a BS B SI Bn an m mercia eve oomen . cteaaes are total b uilt-upon impeMoou s cover areas.
Source: HNTB
6.3 Estimated Effect on Downstream Water Quality
The above flow rates will occur as a result of primarily single-family residential development which, due to local
planning and zoning requirements, will be in scattered site development. The remaining farmland and woodland
should easily provide filtration of any contaminants in the stormwater runoff from these developments before it
reaches the watercourses. Additionally, Woodlake (Lake Surf) provides a retention area, which will limit the rate of
flow into Little River. Consequently, there should be no change in the rate of flow into the Little River, and no
impact on downstream water quality as a result of the secondary and cumulative impacts of R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 39 of 39 REVISED MARCH /S, 2002
Wetlands delay project

Subject: Wetlands delay project
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 09:01:33 -0500

From: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
To: Greg Thorpe <[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>,
Danny Smith <Danny. Smith@ ncmail.net>, Ernie Seneca <Emie. Seneca@ ncmail.net>,
Johanna Reese <[e-mail]>, Don Reuter <[e-mail]>
CC: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
http://www.fayettevilleobserver.com//cgi-bin/news/display.pl?month=ll&index=n29wetl.hti
TEVILLE ONLINE
Saturday, December 29, 2001

' nes
it
Loca
a Nat of lWorld Wetlands delay project
Spot r =
Busik °t

Opinion

a By Matt Leclercq
Feats f es ` Staff writer
'
Flipsib
E? Efforts to protect Moore County
s wetlands have further held up the
Milita _ permits the state Department of Transportation needs to begin widening
Columnists
-Coma

' U.S. 1 to four lanes.
The state's Division of Water Quality has asked transportation officials
to provide more information about the 12-mile project's potential threat
to wetlands, waterways and wells. Transportation officials had hoped to
let the project in February and finish construction -- including a new
corridor to bypass Cameron and Vass -- by 2005.
The project would affect 42 acres of wetlands and 4,800 feet of streams.
New pavement would connect the already-widened U.S. 1 south of
bscribe Here Sanford and north of Southern Pines.
On Nov. 15, two weeks after a public hearing on the road's impact on
wetlands, the Division of Water Quality notified the Department of
Transportation that the issue of secondary and cumulative impacts to
waterways has not been resolved.
The division also told transportation officials that they need to address
the bypass's impact on at least two wells in Cameron, as well as provide
information on relocating the wells. Some comments at the Nov. 1 public
hearing dealt with residents' concerns over well water.
Water quality officials also are asking the Transportation Department for
legible drawings, because those submitted were indecipherable due to
1 of 3 1/4/02 2:26 PN
Wetlands delay project

their scale and lack of proper legends, according to a Division of Water
Quality letter sent to the Department of Transportation.
The issues of Cameron's wells and the maps were brought up in a June 1
letter from the Division of Water Quality to the Department of
Transportation. The permit application has been on hold since then
because transportation officials have yet to resolve the issues, said Ernie
Seneca, a Division of Water Quality spokesman.
With the proper information in hand, it takes up to 60 days for the
division to decide on a permit. Engineers must show that a project
minimizes stormwater pollution and the destruction of sensitive habitats.
When wetlands are destroyed, planners must create new wetlands.
Since 1995, the Transportation Department has redesigned portions of
the U.S. 1 project twice to satisfy government environmental officials.
The Transportation Department has proposed creating 49 acres of new
wetlands. The fragile banks of the Little River, Crane Creek and an
unnamed tributary would be protected by bridges, transportation officials
said. Engineers have lengthened the proposed bridge over the Little River
from 393 feet to 1,300 feet.
Many of the comments made at the November public hearing were from
business leaders, rescue workers and elected officials who support the
project. A four-lane highway with interstate-style exit ramps would spur
the economy and make travel safer, they said.
Marsh Smith, a lawyer in Southern Pines, opposed the bypass. He urged
environmental officials to force the Department of Transportation to
further study the impact on wetlands.
Smith said Friday that the Division of Water Quality's request for more
information was not a surprise.
"I think the Division of Water Quality is one of the few state agencies
that hasn't been cowed by DOT," Smith said.
Staff writer Matt Leclercq can be reached at 486-3551 or
[e-mail]
News Community Marketplace I Weekender Classifieds Search Help
Local material copyright 2001 The Fayetteville (NC) Observer
2 of 3 1/4/02 2:26 PN
Wetlands delay project
http://www.fayettevilleobserver.com//cgi....pl?month=l l &index=n29wetl.htm&,
YETTEVILLE ONLINE
WAL ?ns
Saturday, December 29, 2001
rld
?nra Wetlands delay proj
5S
By Matt Leclercq
Z
•7_, f Staff writer
r Efforts to protect Moore County's wetlands have further held up the
permits the state Department of Transportation needs to begin widening
ttsts`T- ` U.S. 1 to four lanes.
The states Division of Water Quality has asked transportation officials
to provide more information about the 12-mile project's potential threat
lace
to wetlands, waterways and wells. Transportation officials had hoped to
let the project in February and finish construction -- including a new
state
corridor to bypass Cameron and Vass -- by 2005.
The project would affect 42 acres of wetlands and 4,800 feet of streams.
New pavement would connect the already-widened U.S. 1 south of
Sanford and north of Southern Pines.
On Nov. 15, two weeks after a public hearing on the road's impact on
wetlands, the Division of Water Quality notified the Department of
Transportation that the issue of secondary and cumulative impacts to
waterways has not been resolved.
The division also told transportation officials that they need to address
the bypass's impact on at least two wells in Cameron, as well as provide
information on relocating the wells. Some comments at the Nov. 1 public
hearing dealt with residents' concerns over well water.
Water quality officials also are asking the Transportation Department for
legible drawings, because those submitted were indecipherable due to
their scale and lack of proper legends, according to a Division of Water
Quality letter sent to the Department of Transportation.
The issues of Cameron's wells and the maps were brought up in a June 1
letter from the Division of Water Quality to the Department of
Transportation. The permit application has been on hold since then
because transportation officials have yet to resolve the issues, said Ernie
Seneca, a Division of Water Quality spokesman.
With the proper information in hand, it takes up to 60 days for the
division to decide on a permit. Engineers must show that a project
minimizes stormwater pollution and the destruction of sensitive habitats.
1 of 2 1/4/02 "
Wetlands delay project
http://www.fayetteyilleobserver.com//cgi....pl?month= l l &index=n29wetl.htm&year=21
When wetlands are destroyed, planners must, create new wetlands.
Since 1995, the Transportation Department has redesigned portions of
the U.S. 1 project twice to satisfy government environmental officials.
The Transportation Department has proposed creating 49 acres of new
wetlands. The fragile banks of the Little River, Crane Creek and an
unnamed tributary would be protected by bridges, transportation officials
said. Engineers have lengthened the proposed bridge over the Little Rivej
from 393 feet to 1,300 feet.
Many of the comments made at the November public hearing were from
business leaders, rescue workers and elected officials who support the
project. A four-lane highway with interstate-style exit ramps would spur
the economy and make travel safer, they said.
Marsh Smith, a lawyer in Southern Pines, opposed the bypass. He urged
environmental officials to force the Department of Transportation to
further study the impact on wetlands.
Smith said Friday that the Division of Water Quality's request for more
information was not a surprise.
" I think the Division of Water Quality is one of the few state agencies
that hasn't been cowed by DOT," Smith said.
Staff writer Matt Leclercq can be reached at 486-3551 or
leclercgm @fayettevillenc. com
News Community Marketplace Weekender Classifieds I Search ( Help
Local material copyright 2002 The Fayetteville (NC) Observer
2 of 2 1/4/02 2:47 PM
Re: [Fwd: wells?]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: wells?]
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:26:49 -0500
From: Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Michael G Wood <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], cynthia vanderwiele <[e-mail]>
Thanks Michael ! R . 7-10
Michael G Wood wrote:
> Steve - Here are the answers to your questions:
> 1) Cameron had 5 working wells, numbered 1-5, before the roadway was
> proposed. They also have a spare well, Well 6, that has never been
> developed. Wells 3 and 4 were being impacted by the road and had to be
> relocated. Of the three remaining active wells, 1, 2, and 5, the
> closest one to the proposed roadway is approximately 2 miles.
> 2 & 3) Two wells are being constructed to replace Wells 3 and 4. The
> replacement wells are numbered 7 and 8 and their yield will exceed the
> yield of the wells they are replacing. Well 7 is expected to go on
> within the next month and is considered 95% complete. Well 8 is
> considered 65% complete, but is expected to move along quickly once Well
> 7 is functioning.
> Let me know if you need any more information. Thanks.
> MW
> On Thu, 04 Al have a few more questions as I sort through this project's
> large
> files.
> The immediate questions are:
> 1) how many drinking water supply wells does the Town of Cameron own;
> (it seems I have read both "two" and "four", which number is correct?) I
> understand that two wells (Town's only wells or two of the Town's four
> wells) are in the path of R-210's Alternative A.
> 2) what is the status of completing the well relocation; and
> 3) how many new wells were/are being constructed for the Town?
> pr 2002 14:35:54 -0500 Robert Deaton <[e-mail]> writes:
> > Any answers Mike?
> > Bob
> > 250-4092
> Michael Wood
> The Catena Group
> 303 Pond Lily Court
> Hillsborough, NC 27278
> 919-732-1300
1 of 2 4/19/02 10:07 AN
Re: [Fwd: wells?]
Steve Zoufaly <Steve.Zoufaly>
Env. Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
DENR
2 of 2 4/19/02 10:07 AM
R-210
Subject: R-210
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:48:57 -0500
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
To: Bill Gilmore <bgilmore@dot. state.nc.us>, Leigh Lane <[e-mail]>,
Michael G Wood <[e-mail]>, Robert Deaton <[e-mail]>,
Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]>
Good afternoon all,
I am using email rather than snail mail in an effort to help everyone. I think the meeting today was
helpful. I want to help you with your project and at the same time keep us all out of court.
Issues to be addressed before DWQ can issue the Water Quality Certification:
1. Cumulative/Secondary Impacts
The report prepared by HNTB was fairly good. Small details: Figures 3, 4, and 5 did not contain
keys/legends or labels.
Back in August when DOT and HNTB met with DWQ, we advised that 2 build-out scenarios be
evaluated: the low-density and the high-density option. The report prepared by HNTB only examines the
results of development under the low-density option (which is currently in place). They did not consider
that the
locals could revise their ordinances to a high density ordinance which allows for
more BUA (built upon surface area), nor did they factor in that the local
governments can allow up to 70% BUA for 10% of their jurisdiction w/in the
watershed which could very well be along this highway corridor. Thus, their worst-case scenario really
isn't... I believe an attorney specializing in environmental law and possessing a copy of our rules would be
astute enough to realize this.
HNTB mentioned two methodologies for analyzing growth but said they could
not complete these models due to lack of data. I understand that DOT is going to make some
changes but it will be too late for this project. DWQ's recommendation is that
DOT coincidentally develop their TAZ or, as in this case, RPO, with the highway
project so the data is available concurrently to run the models (whichever one
is best).
2. Compensatory Mitigation
This will absolutely have to be in place before a permit can be issued.
3. Impacts to groundwater
4. Relocation plan for the impacted wells.
5. Legible permit drawings.
These are our comments to date. Steve Zoufaly will send you additional comments/requests for
information based upon his review of the Secondary/Cumulative Impact study.
We realize that you are anxious for the 401 WQC and we will make every effort to review this material in
as timely a manner as possible. Does DOT have a proposed timeline for when DWQ 401 Wetlands Unit
can expect to receive this information?
i of 2 10/3/02 6:03 Pn
f*. S"
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
iff
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
June 1, 2001
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: Permit Application for proposed US 1 Bypass of Vass from North of Lakeview to South of Sanford in
Moore and Lee Counties
DWQ No. 010404, TIP No. R-210
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
There is no information regarding potential impacts to groundwater. from the road's close proximity to
the adjacent well fields. Could you please provide information that clearly shows the location of the
existing well field with the proposed location of the new road facility superimposed. Additionally,
could you provide a discussion on the proposed relocation plan for the impacted wells.
Several of the permit drawings are indecipherable due to the scale of the drawing or the absence of an
appropriate legend. Please provide X12 sized project drawings for the entire project. In addition,
additional explanation regarding the proposed impacts on: 1) sheet 4 of 58, sheet 11 of 58, and 32 of 58
would be appreciated. The lack of an appropriate legend on the first two sites makes it difficult to
determine the nature of the proposed impacts. On sheet 32 of 58, it appears that the proposed ditch is
through wetlands. Is this true? If so, what is the anticipated effect of the ditch on the impacted
wetlands. Please present an analysis using approved quantitative methods that demonstrates the
anticipated impacts from this ditch.
A request for a public hearing has been received in the NCDWQ 401-wetlands office. Review of that
request is underway. To better facilitate the review, we will need to verify that the proposed design
presented in the application represents all the proposed activities for the referenced project. More
specifically, DOT needs to review the project and verify that no additional access points beyond those
shown in the permit application are planned for this controlled access facility. The areas of greatest
concern are around the interchanges. A letter verifying that no upgrades of the existing road
infrastructure adjacent to the project (beyond those shown in the application, i.e. Y lines) are planned
should be submitted to the NCDWQ.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 211.0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper

Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely,
John R. Domey
Water Quality Certification Program
cc: DWQ Fayettevile Regional Office
USACE Wilmington Field Office
File Copy
C:\ncdot\R-210\conespondence\010404hld.doc
J
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROUNA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
April 6, 2001
Action ID No. 199300570, TIP R-210ABC, Improvements to US 1 from Sanford to Lakeview,
Lee and Moore Counties, North Carolina.
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-16217
Dear Mr. Dorney:

It is our understanding that you have been provided a copy of the application of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for Department of the Army (DA)
iwti1G1•YL,G.L1U13 and a JLdcG vT1%CLLGl Quality Clcrtificaetc'3n tV a.vnSLtivt. a four lane divided hig-h-,,vay or,
new location from approximately Camp Easter Road (SR 1853)/Aiken Road (SR 2175) in Moore
County to Wild Life Road (SR 2175) in Lee County. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by June 5, 2001, the District Engineer will deem
that waiver has occurred.

T comments may be addressed to me at [phone].
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
2
l
W AT ?RPG
?J r
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
November 20, 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL: Return receipt requested
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch DEC " 3
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548 FILE COPY.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: Individual Permit Application for Moore and Lee Counties; US 1 Bypass of Vass from north of
Lakeview to south of Sanford; F.A. Project NHF-0001(3); State Project 8.T560302; TIP No. R-
210. '
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) placed the above referenced project on hold on June 1, 2001.
On November 1, 2001, a Public Hearing was held concerning water quality issues. The public
comment period is open until December 3, 2001. However, in order for the Director of DWQ to make
a decision regarding the issuance of an Individual §401 Water Quality Certification, under 15A NCAC
2H .0506 "Review of Applications", the following concerns must be addressed:
1. The project will not remove or degrade existing uses;
2. There is no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (f) of this Rule, or
impacts less than three (3) acres of class WL wetlands;
3. The project will minimize adverse impacts.to surface waters and wetlands;
4. The project will not result in the degradation of ground or surface waters;
5. The project will not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated
future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards;
6. The project will provide for the protection of downstream water quality standards through the use
of on-site stormwater control measures;
7. The project will provide for the replacement of existing uses. through mitigation.
Items that still require resolution before an Individual Permit can be issued are:
1. The secondary and cumulative impacts resulting from the project.
2. ' Compensatory mitigation for the project.
The potential impacts to groundwater from the proposed roadway's close proximity to the adjacent
well fields in Cameron (addressed in. the June 1, 2001 hold letter).
4. The relocation plan for the impacted wells (addressed in the June 1, 2001 hold letter).
5. Legible permit drawings (addressed in the June 1, 2001 hold letter).
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(4), the permit application will remain on hold until we
are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers
continue to place the permit application on hold. Should additional issues come forth as part of the
public hearing process, we will advise you so that those matters may be addressed.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
--- 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
?6 rp auq
??Fo
a4? '
V
FILE COPY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNOR
July 11, 2003
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
4"?+ A
9r?a?
JUL 1 5 2003
QLI?
SUBJECT: INDIVIDUAL PERMIT MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR US 1 FROM
NORTH OF LAKEVIEW TO SOUTH OF SANFORD, MOORE/LEE
COUNTIES, TIP NO. R-210. $200.00 - DEBIT WORK ORDER
#8T560302 (WBS 34330.1.1)
On October 4, 2002 and July 19, 2002 respectively, the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) 404 Individual Permit (Action ID # 199300570) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC #
3344) were issued for the subject project. These permits authorized construction of
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Number R-210, Sections A, B and C.
Construction has begun on the project. The purpose of this correspondence is to request a
permit modification for the subject project.
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
As previously noted, construction has begun on this project. The Contractors
have requested modifications for three sites. The reasons for these modifications were
discussed with personnel from the USACE and DWQ on May 8 and May 9, 2003
respectively. The reasons are restated, and in some cases further clarified, in this cover
letter. The Contractor has provided detailed drawings and descriptions of each site as
well as supporting information when appropriate. This information is contained in the
appropriate Appendix. The location of each of the sites is noted in the vicinity maps in
Appendix A. The sites are summarized as follows.
SECTION R-210 A SITE 1: This is the crossing of the Little River. This river has been
assigned a best usage classification of WS-III HOW by the DWQ and considered a high
qualms wetland for design purposes. The original permit called for a temporary work
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
bridge to b4'constructed..between'the permanent dual bridges. Work spurs, also'?bridged,
are to be placed on either site of the work bridge to facilitate the construction• of the bents
for the superstructures. The work bridge was to be constructed on one side of the Little
River, removed, and transported back along existing US 1 so it could be reassembled on
the other side of the Little River. The original drawing is provided in Appendix B, page
B 1. The Contractor is requesting two modifications from this original design.
1. The first request is'to place a temporary span across the Little River, thus creating one
long work bridge. There will be NO impacts to surface waters as the Little River will
be spanned completely. The construction sequence is depicted on page B2.
Temporary work pads A - H are currently in place facilitating construction of the dual
bridges (Phase I). As each section of the dual bridges is completed, the contractor is
proposing to begin removing each work pad, beginning with pad A, and move it
forward along the work bridge and incrementally set pads I - O (Phase II). The
advantages to this design are threefold:
• It is expected to allow removal of each work pad 2 months sooner than the original
design, thus reducing the time of temporary wetland impacts
• It will eliminate the need to haul the temporary mats back along existing US 1 and
endanger the traveling public as well as the construction personnel
• It saves time and money
This modification will not result in any additional jurisdictional temporary impacts to
the Little River and the surrounding wetlands, only temporary shading from the span
over the river.
2. The second modification request is to use temporary work mats as opposed to bridged
work pads for each of the work spurs. The reason for this request is that the original
design did not consider the low clearance of the dual bridges over the Little River
floodplain. The clearance at the start of the bridge is less than one foot and is six feet
at its maximum at the Little River. Since the work spurs must be located below the
level of the girders supporting the superstructure, the spurs will be located at ground
level at most every location, making it senseless to drive piles to support the work
pads. This situation would also leave no room for removal of the piles, structural steel,
and timber decking of the work spurs once the girders for the superstructure are in
place, essentially making this method of construction impracticable.
In order to avoid this conflict, the contractor proposes to place Type2 filter fabric
under two layers of 24'x5' crane mats set perpendicular to the temporary bridge with
joints being staggered as shown in detail section "AA" on page B3 and referenced on
page B2. Other figures are also provided on page B3 for informational purposes. The
physical properties of this filter fabric are provided on page B5. Based on the
maximum loading capacity of 300 lbs per square foot on the mats, only '/4" to '/2" of
soil compaction (settlement) is expected. This is the result of an investigation by
Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd., included at page B4. Such an impact is not
anticipated to adversely affect vegetation growth in this area. Utilizing the timber mats
is anticipated to require 180 days of construction time (6 days x 15 spans x 2 sides) as
opposed to 420 days required for work pads (14 days x 15 spans x 2 sides). This same
method of construction was requested and subsequently approved by the agencies in
building of the bridges for the Deep Run Bypass (TIP R-2001 B).
The mats and filter fabric will NOT be removed if the Little River has escaped its
banks and flooded the construction site. If this situation occurs, the contractor will
wait for the floodwaters and Little River to recede back to within the existing channel
before removing the mats and filter fabric. This design change will result in no
additional impacts to the site and will reduce the temporary impact time by
approximately 240 days.
SECTION R-210 A SITE 16 (Harbour Borrow Site): In the early development stages of
this permit modification, it was anticipated that the haul road to access the Harbour
Borrow Site would result in 0.02 acre of temporary wetland impact. However, the haul
road is now located such that there are no wetland impacts. Michael Wood of The Catena
Group performed this field determination on June 24, 2003. Therefore, there will be no
jurisdictional impacts associated with this haul road. A drawing (C 1) showing the
placement of the haul road in relation to the project is being provided in Appendix C for
informational purposes.
SECTION R-210 A SITE 21: This is the crossing of Cranes Creek. This creek has been
assigned a best usage classification of WS-III by the DWQ. The original permit design
and placement of the temporary work pads is shown on page D1. The Contractor is
proposing to construct a temporary haul road (consisting of timber mats) and temporary
bridge to facilitate construction of the permanent bridge crossing of Cranes Creek. This
construction is being shown in two phases. By using this two-phased method, the time
required for the temporary impacts will be decreased by 3 months. The placement of the
haul road and minor reconfiguration of temporary work mats will result in a total increase
in temporary wetland impacts of 0.01 acre. However, it is believed that this slight
increase will be offset by the reduction in the amount of time of the temporary impact.
Phase 1 (page D2) consists of constructing the haul road and the temporary bridge.
The temporary haul road will consist of Type 2 filter fabric (page 135) placed
under timber mats. A silt fence will be constructed on either side of the timber
mats as shown in Detail "A" on page D2 to contain any spillages. Two temporary
work bridges placed side by side, as shown on page D4, will be placed across
Cranes Creek connecting the haul roads. Temporary 42" handrails covered by 24"
of filter fabric (Detail "B" on page D2) will be constructed to contain any
spillages on the bridge. In addition, a laborer will be at the site with a shovel to
ensure there is no build up of material that could fall into jurisdictional areas.
This design allows a hydraulic opening of approximately 15 meters, which is the
same as proposed in the original permit. Once in place, approximately 175,000
m3 of material will be moved across the bridge. This is expected to take 4-5
months to complete, after which the haul road and bridge will be removed and
Phase II will begin.
Phase II is detailed on page D3. It is anticipated that Phase II will take 9-10
months to complete.
SECTION R-210 B SITE 10: This site is the crossing of the CSX Railroad and an UT to
Little Crane Creek. This stream has been assigned a best usage classification of WS-III
by the DWQ. The original permit showing the work pad in this area is provided in
Appendix E, page E I. However, since the time this permit was issued, new federal
regulations have been enacted that require all cranes performing work on bridges over
railroads to be large enough to handle 150% of the designed loading capacity. This has
resulted in a larger crane having to be employed on this site. Accordingly, the work pads
have had to be re-configured. Both the original plan and the revised plan are shown on
drawing page E2. While the re-configured pads have been shortened, they have also been
widened. This will result in a net increase of 0.02 acre of temporary wetland impact. In
addition, the original plan called for the 33 feet of the UT to Little Crane Creek to be
temporarily piped under the mainline of the work pad. But since the spur pads will have
to be widened, a longer stretch of the tributary will need to be temporarily piped, resulting
in an increases SO linear feet, for a total temporary impact of 83 linear feet of channel
(pa e . Due to the need for the enlarged work pads, there was no way to avoid the
increased impacts to the UT.
DESIGN CHANGES
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLES. In order to eliminate direct discharges into streams and
to further minimize construction impacts to water quality, NCDOT has installed
preformed scour holes (PSH) at strategic locations throughout the project. These devices
are installed at the outlet of some of the road drains and are designed to reduce the
discharge from these drains to non-erosive velocities. The typical PSH covers
approximately 100 ft2 of area.
Some of the PSH have had to be located in wetlands along the project, however
they all fall within the mechanized cleared areas. Since the mechanized cleared zones are
10 feet from the edge of the fill slope and have been considered permanent impacts, no
additional wetland impacts will be realized from the installation of the PSH. They do,
however, represent a design change from what was permitted in the original application.
Therefore, revised permit drawings are being provided in Appendix F for the following
sites all in Section R-210 A: 10, 15, 19, and 21. The drawing for site 10 replaces permit
drawings 19 and 20 of 58 in the original application. Please note that the PSH have NOT
been drawn to scale on these drawings, but have been enlarged to aid in identifying their
positioning on the project.
SITE 16. Site 16 in Section R-210 A has been redesigned to eliminate the direct
discharge into the stream. The drain has been rerouted to discharge along a grassed swale
at non-erosive velocities. This drawing is included in Appendix G.
CONCLUSION
The temporary impacts requested in this modification will increase the total
temporary wetland impacts by 0.03 acre and the temporary stream impacts by SO linear
feet. However, these modifications will collectively decrease the length of time of the
temporary wetland impacts by slightly more than 2 years (25 months). The restoration
efforts for these impacted areas are detailed in appropriate appendices. No additional
restoration is proposed. The other Design Changes will not result in any additional
impacts within jurisdictional areas, but represent a change from what was originally
permitted and therefore will require authorization from the permitting agencies.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
It is requested that these modifications be authorized via a modification of the
Section 404 Individual Permit. (Action ID # 199300570). We also request that the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC # 3344) be modified. In compliance
with Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC we are electronically providing $475.00 to act
as payment for processing the Section 401 permit application as previously noted in this
application (see Subject line).
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Michael Wood at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ (7 copies)
k,b&. David Cox, NCWRC
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
?Pvlr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. John Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
,4r. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
,-W. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
Mr. Michael Wood, The Catena Group
w ",,,x,-gym Poa /667 Alx ? c 29315

strove '0 C.
Il
wnynot Y 42 - -
S Westmoore 1
HigA alh
A wR Ro
ples .' 1 arkwood
2
9 0 O 5 R
+Cartnage
6 705 1
$amarcand HIII Crest
I
agl I even Lakes R 2:
Springs 11 Eastwood
?Emw<Y WC sA 13
6 OL
rot ny.ev,
a 1. y 42 9 1 6 ?? y
It42 421 San n ., 4halybeate Springs r }
* 1 4 ng,a ,
.? Bro
Tramway 1 \ . adway S, 401 4 \\
321 •' C?dP 5 Bwes
E E` g1 Mamers + i Creek a Coats
?•??r Lemon +, Lilhngton O 21
sprang: H A R 1 j b
$winn ?en
i t
5 1 Onvu , <, 1 SS o C
r 2 ro '*7
a ero? O
Plnenew Erwl %DUn •
rag ? , 19 BUnnlevel
? '0 1 t7 a
asS,,Johns Ville 1 Spout Springs 10 82
a
t'akev,ew \ QPI C' 1 i 1. mile
V FYI' 6 SI R,tL M IN
Foal. C Aberde?y .' fORT JRAGG MIIITARrAESER- A J 1
5 Villa a VlnebluffJ + 4 c ;,
Fayete?nii 7 ; s s
sNeY HelQhts - 7 a ,`r
z
M O N D 59 1: - 6 4
• it an eER Y ;..i:J<' Vander I S
SondAilll RK. Area ? OEE 4 ? - ? ,C1.ind- v_ 4.. L? r d? 1 e AUtr vi
,erdel Marston R 128 C^ Tlmberland O
Raeford ] p `Gtllr"f.
f `zx ?., d • . ??. ?.??
Scale of Miles 30
U '10 10 20 300 ..,.:401 48
V/C/N/ T Y I AMP
Scale Kilometers
A Al,
i ... ,.ra
t „ ,?
Ll 1,
' H??yao R ? twl
1 O ! 2 3 4 MILES
SGAI-E
2 ,e.s %
X193'
19;
IeYN•a
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF. HIGHWAYS
MOORE COUNTY
B.T560302 R-210A
PROPOSED GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, FENCING
CULVERTS, STRUCTURES, SIGNING, PAVEMENT
MARKINGS, AND SIGNALS.ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1825.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET I OF ;; NOVEMEBER 1997
F
SITE MAP
SCA L E
v Sib /ouoi?-t.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE COUNTY
/ : 2r, oao
S.T560302
R-210A
PROPOSED GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, FENCING
CULVERTS, STRUCTURES, SIGNING, PAVEMENT
MARKINGS, AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1.825.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET -2- OF' r NOVEMEBER 1997

Rp

..fie E I
.? • '°
L
6 003
i

L
A ms

VICINITY MAP.
(NOT To V-4m
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE/ LEE COUNTY
PROJECT: 6.569003T (R-210B)
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 1825
TO NORTH OF SR 1182
SHEET 4 OF ---X -
0
doW?
U
O ?^ -L- STA. 179+45.047 L.B. (R-210B).=
~ o LREVI- STA. 16 + 31.750 L.A. (R-210C
icy
U,

SITE XIV------", `
PINE FOREST RD.
(SR 1173)
i
SITE XIII ra
O
SITE XII
LEE COUNTY
MOORE COUNTY
SITE XV
SITE XVI
R-210 B
Site 16
CSX Railroad
-r -r -
O O?
?£ P?HF FO tFn v~i
\ h0 ' JJT # J J
SITE XVII
wo
SITE X
-R
Q
41l VQ-
SITE I
MATCHLINE SITE MAP I
SITE MAP - 2
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE/ LEE COUNTY
PROJECT: 6.569003T (R-210B)
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 1825
TO NORTH OF SR 1182
SHEET _5 OF ...?,. 8/ 2/ 99

.
3
Q

1` dl

? h

A
pa
' z
0

, N ~ m

! x ! 0 z
o L t V

# #
ootJ2 '
L? a

w
o a H
#

A
. z
y
_

- W # r

1
A #
x r #' ? a N
Z
j wz
¦ x r? m < 1
x F? o a 3

- i

- x
x

m

- x :o ¦ # U
czi_

It # x

Y
i x V
Vj7't '

i x x
e ?
J

d J' W

a
a
O ,. r
#

® Y;, y
l

1,X L)
r? nl s
i

3
rn
d
i

V
a ? 3
3?'R
`MM\
!3i

of
N
b
J
N
n
m?
?N
W
0
0 0
o?
o?
U
J
0
b
J
Wo
Q?
?W
Wm
Wi
2b
JZ
j?
J
W
W
1
Q
w
W
V
W?
W~
2
hm
I v
Io
om
of I \ 1
?o
cc I \f
O
m
II?
FQ
?E
M
•?a
3
v
e

4
U
?
2 Q O
h Q ?
?

2 2
?R
a
'i11 V
W
4, :1 l; t
?I t l ? Oh
X1`1 ?
?? W I
b
Z
2
Q 1
W?
?W
R?
1
o `1

h
o ? ? a
1
h
V
Q
2
m
F?

a
Nz?
V?
M?
U
oZ?
U?
R
0
t
MAY-14-20133 i1a; 00 ECS LTD. 919 544 9092 P.02
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
Geotechnical • Construction Materials a Environmental May 13, 2003
Mr. Gregory Nelson
S.T. Wooten Corporation
PO BOX 2408
Wilson., NC 27894-2408
RE: Estimate of Consolidation Under Crane Mats at US I and Little Creek, Moore
County, NC
ECS Project #11303
Dear Mr. Nelson.
As requested ECS has evaluated the potential consolidation of the native soils at the site
under the anticipated 300 pounds per square foot load.
We understand that the crane pad will consist of 24-foot long oak mats set in two layers
perpendicular to each other, with the joints staggered.
ECS has reviewed the logs of the borings advanced by S&ME, Inc. Based on the
conditions encountered in those borings, it is our opinion that the majority of
consolidation would likely occur in the upper 2 to 3 feet. Therefore relatively
undisturbed samples of the soil were obtained from the surface to a depth of 3 feet by
hand angering and driving Shelby tubes.
The soils recovered consist of a few inches of topsoil underlain by brown fine sandy love
plasticity CLAP'. The CLAY layer was encountered at approximately 2 inches below the
ground surface with a layer thickness ranging from 4 to 22 inches. Below the CLAY
layer, a brown medium to coarse grained SAND was encountered to the depth explored, 3
feet. The depth to the sand layer varied from 6 inches to 24 inches below the ground
surface.
It is our opinion that the majority of permanent settlement will occur in the CLAY
encountered to depths of 6 to 24 inches below the ground surface. The deeper soils are
anticipated to behave in a relatively elastic manner, rebounding after the loads are
removed-
In our opinion, approximately V, to V2 of an inch of settlement will occur under the
specified load. Settlement of up to fl2 of an inch will not, in our opinion, adversely effect
plant growth or other biological functions in the soil over the long run.
Respectfully,
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SER'V'ICES, LTD V-111-
11-01
%
Chris M. Caton Thomas V. Admay, P-E. '1` ••'.
- - - n_-_•_?l r-.-:_.-.e_ 0.ryl? ? 1e (Z0-
P. O. Box 12015. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709' (919) 54A- 1735 - PAX (919) 5dd-0810.1-800-327-5832 • wv

A6r,'e. MD' • AtltrntL GA - Austin. TX - BaMoM MD • 0=181y, VA - Chulottt; NC • CWM9% LL - Comclia. GA* • Dallas, TX - DMVWr VA' • FR3sic)r MD - P>ed.iclabms, VA
GrbmAom, NC - f. rvmville, SC • Naffolk. VA, Rcwmrh Tti"e Park. NC • Richr mad, VA - lteormke: VA . San Aumio. T% • WiYimmzba& VA - Wilmingtrm, NC • Winchesw, VA
'Testing Services Only
TOTAL P.02
-AA 05/14/03 WED 10:00 (TX/RX NO 69681
c
tr
Table 1056-1
Physical Property Test Method 7)pe I Tcpc 2 Type 3 Type 4
(A
ti
l
1056
2
r
c
e
-
1
Class A Class It
Minimum Roll Width 36" (914.4 nut) 36" 1914.4 mm)
Minimum Fabric Wei_eltt I 4 oz./td'
(0.13 kg/w!)
Minimum Tensile Strength _ 90 lb. 200 lb. (890 N) 50 lb, (222 N) 100 lb. (445 N) 200 lb.
1400 N, (890 N)
Elongation 2 80% Max. ISSb Min. 309b Max. 251• Max. --
nlininuun sorer Suenglh (l:P:)
150 psi (103-)
400 psi (2758)
100 psi (684)
18(1 psi ( 1341)
390 psi
(2700)
nlininuuu Puncture Strength 4, 4A for Type 4 45 lb. (200 N) 80 lb. 1356 N) 30 lb. (133 N) 60 lb. (267 N) 80 lbs.
1356 N,
Apparent Opening Size-Max/nlin i 60/100 30/130 30/50 20150 30180
(SUInclard Sieve) (nm) 1.250/0.150) (0.600/0.115) (0.850/0.300) (0.850/0.300) (0.60/0.18)
Mininutt Ultraviolet Exposure 6 80Ib.(356 N) 140 lb. j623 N) 40lb.(178 N) 80lb.(356 N)
Strength Retention
Fungus Resistance 7 No Gromli No Growth No Growth No Growth No Groelh
Mininatu Permeability (Thickness x 8 0.2 cn,fsec --
Permittiticity)
Mininum, Pcrminitivity 8 0. Is Sect 0.15 Sec"
(407 Untin/m') (407 Ununhu
Typical Applications Shoulder Drain Under Rip Rap Temporary Silt Fence For Soil
Stabilization
a
d
W
F
d
o F
o Gzl
00
F a
WW
lf) W
A
W
a
d
U
cn
A
Z
d
a

APPENDIX C
R-210 A Site 16 - Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road
WETLAND BOUNDARY
GI
3g
82+00
u1
{
E
a
0
d
w
m
a j
alico
80 tGp

?? 1 m• ? I I

1
Q
$ y

4 ?/
I

I

I .
l._-

In -
4 W °3?
_
? ?. ???
? ;eo •?

Y?„ o•sr
_ o,

J\
V r

INC,

I ' • ? '? '1
• G •C •I y
` ?
•\
is ? '
og
,
. c
? '\
• E

I "t c

I _

?
.

I I ? ?, t1

NY 0
•
I
•
'd O ? 1 '
'I '.
?
L
? •t :'t 1 a•t a•t a;t ?j
;
- 1- C7+bL -'V-Lb :JN)
0

IN
m
<
F< r? U F•-' F C ?
? ? W WNO ? 4 0l
_ O = ? V
0 , W0 > `t
_ s o
F d U 0
" °
° oHa c ? o '3
w °ho' Q
T F _
U, V
? ?• 4

or
u u??V
H °
IrI
zi oao
n s
~ _
0 °
00
W ?
U O U FU
-+
C Z N 4 ^I
H K ?
°> Y4 U
W
F
?> n F v
1
O .l 5 a. ]
.
K W

p 6
X
m u qq
a u Z G O U h
J j
a 7
Goo
7 3 S ?G 'x
m ? u

H d U N
1 W
P
F r, U -+ Z -•

O w w N O L

to
n

N

N W

w> _I

G I
.
N
Z o
dW F

F?

Q r
E-
F ,(
z
H
• O u >
o
:c p
w CC
C 2 O >
o W . 6 W
C? -' U HZ
7

I
1
I O WN
W .
Z N 0 7
1U
y
3 ?` U
7
?
u ? N a¢ K N
K r
N
P
in r U F
n
N o?
dH
M 2 HU
G
O C O
N
S
? i _
N? O
00
c rv u
o?
c r
'C dZ
UO
N O
u

0 ONNI..?
wFu
Tj q
ZN W N
DW,-,Ne W F
F> C F > 4
} N i L
Z? 8
S m ¢
y
4 U S l0 O N N

rl j

~ 7 V U 07
0 <

u
o <
U N

W m a ? c°a, 4
?

1
i N
?I?
s `_
y1 Q ?' d
? W
?

w
r
Q
?• J

?
e
\
V
Q

v9 ?

82+00
M

W

S a
OLI
J

? ? ul

o_ g
v v

h F

V1 o e
?. h s H

?
Jy
V ? v

QC

V Q C?

?y\ h80too'
`gi
F ?
p b•

J ?
Q
a
J
J
cl.
1

? 'i 1 4 I JJ \`

J

1 YL •9u I
I
l ? 1 I
°
? n C! I
.

S oQ?
i P.
D ^ •ItYa:r :-?1

?
1
'
\ l t r a d
?
°?
? ?

I •
'
? 1
_?
ti
?
t

r. E?

o

•. tto

,
'1

}
r

?

. \
1

` t ??•:... U
I

1- rJ>+bL *VLS 3NnHJ1ylN
-? z
Q
N J
qL
_ 1-
r
.

'
O o 2
W
F r+ U
? ?'
t r F
F
W m 0
W
? -W7 W
U ti O F W J
d •2 0• W >
a
L• s
2 U a H O
-
O

Z U h=.]

F W
2r [J
4

O S
c O F n
¢
z
o s
,H-1 W h ¢ fi/1 }
4 S O
WW
' ? a?
w
z
u 0
U o m
?u,v?
Z
V?
a
2 N w e vIC
LI
O W, h a W F
0> a F O C a W .2 W
°
Z ° S
=
m q
u.U SFIO _
m

a z J
Guo K
is

a 7 3 5? C 7

U u

11
J ?
1
J ?
? N
Z
ti 113 W
y h
? F
1 y F 4 U v
U 2
10
4

1 7
p F
K C
C K

V W W m D 41
L
D
J Z w> o
?aK.L°tt.
1
o
' O
0.
w

(?
i 4 H
2 ] K .'
° C O v l Z '
? j
" hq O L.
Z 00 7

a U 0-
O

-'
'0
O ?vlNwm Qp,
U O U W F U .+
41CZ
11,
FN C 4
OwHVIa W
F

U
' W
O S d
u ?xmo
h
= o °
3 ?
F Z ?
1

f z L u o

_ ? tr
o ono F ,

U ?

< 41
°
J
a
w

Q
39
82too
W
d
'3 1
E
0
d
° W
?m
811?Q

$o too
i.?

q I a
?? s ?.. I ' f
i
? ?1 I

7
J• ? ? 1

'. D I
T A
ad
?
° I Z L
? 5
C1
?
I
Y I

? ! 1
?
I
J I F._-
?
?t? ?? •/
/ yW ''`
W r I )? P
?

511 :. °•SY
x % n
..
-16 : ,
1
. t .

= w ?

.1 L?, 1, '•, ?

I I '1 f `g/.

µ

I I
r b E+
Y
°
NY ° ` N 1

Z-1 i O'L D'
- I- CJ J ?- bL -G'.LS -NI lrljj-)Vvj
.z
°Z

0 0 _
2

_ f
C G W
W W vl ° C
W
-/
-W? m
W I

_ H = r1 _? ? ?'
S '• Hu, O 7 _
ItNJ
F ?
' W Z
4 r

K H N a -, n
?r oao? 0
aw r ¢vEi?x ? o
00
z
o
o??wm

\
u0 U o vWic Z?H a ~
T ?n
it > W e
(C(?? E O W i in K
O .? rt a v' W F
2 W
O H
zo O
x m ¢ u 4 W
au mo U N
.?

J

h Gj
J ??U 7
•
7 ? S<N 7.
u ° ?? _ Y J
-J U it
vi
Q

0

0
0 o
ti 0 7F~F
d
?, u ? m 417 . ?
,+
W K

m n
Q o
vl l p
T
i. m > 0
W Ll

1='
d

F"

J
a
F ToK.WY•

•OH j
0
x O
I\
p W
° <°>

W wo

T
?
E _
> - ?1 K Yll
U
? ?
• ar
K w? K^
l? ,?
H 4 ? `
Q 0 x z??? LIna
r

?
o
x l
?W
cO W =2 c°?
Y' .
v Ik W E ¢ v
i?r 2 O
a o
¢o
o a
o
441

F'? U a u
N [-u ?
w W E
W wv
?
N° ?.
Fr
i C
pp
o N 6 la W
o
.
>XKin ..a
F. ¢ a
U E
W
zo r w
wu?mo m
N

o °

T_
J
J
E 7
U- oz
d
S
u
-u? O

G J J

1 1 _ ?.1.• u}

I l a
. d

F

BRIDGES / rage vi
?,ti?oR. - d2?o?E L ?&4-au cs
finish, we can provide you with a bridge that will meet your needs (and budget). Give us
a call to demonstrate what we can do for you! Many sizes in_st__ock and ready to roll.
wa Innk fnrWarnl to ieannct from Ifou soon!

http://www.prsx.com/bridges.litm 3/11/2003
D?
z/? /3e?o./ycs W X 9=?/ sior6y s?mC
(27a, X loin)
1 SLR , z
/ (30
41 C
co 64
a M Z v O ao
E-4 0
o z F o
1-4
Ik \ a` U
\ w zi
li \ ? ?i A ? A A
/* 3k / 1 1 \
/ \ 1
1
'? ` ddb 1 \
2 kA
=lk i" ?\ 1 p
/i0/ \\ ,?
JW \ i
\ 1
w
i C
I z? I
OL\i F
I NP
m
rv
OPZ
? ?oaV
z ?

?••

?• r

h+l ?1

r? O
• N N
• B

W /
i q
y
Z F
I FM
H W O O
=
f N
<<?
N
"N
N
NNN
NN
N *
• 3 ?v x O
® ® Urn
-
. <
, "
N N N 0' ` cr
I V
I I " N N N N N N N 1? 1u
Nd7 & I N " 0_ ?•") O a

I"i•.
N N}??p

N
N'
N " A

0-1 E-4

a as
W
=W
v~i ?? ci ??
a u.6' ,, v a I A a Mw?1
n. ?
a u?iLK • W' 1 .
.. •
.
?fF' a' '? i . ?y µi`r ?I ?I ?I ?
?
Q
.
}

t; , X-1

A •' • a

I it ? w ?L ?V
U aY aY
_
? a b. ffi ?i ;H ;il
?H
, E

?
C. s N

m .)
N '?
ID aY

¢
'l/ 0

0 39
IG aY 91
L N AI ?I ?I 0 0

2
u
;ii ?V 7iI .14 ?
a ? ;X 9! ;H ? T rl1
rlJ
J
bow
n

? J

e.
to '
°xaY
*
?I O
Z

W

>N N

co
w y'

I
ix
a

Z
LL W

H Q >Z =0

- UJ w ?Zr
?
x
?-
IN W
u U) -1
(D

co
•
b
I
"
03 w
I'LL W U
HZ

X O
ON

?

ui
?

J
N I
I

o
?. w
o Z=
oW (f) Z o
w o
O
M #
#

# #
i ?? #.

D

PROP. LAT 'V' DITCH
Si'4TriY ????\
SPECIAL TYPE 'A' SILT BASIN \\
W1 PERFORATED GOOrrm CS /56
RISER / TEE
-------------
I l; ?I I 1
. / r
\ BAR RANCH
DB 530 PG 988
DB 453 PG 618
\ 4 7??
AYES
+34pp.0pp00 -L- '
r ?f547?64JijT)
FST. 9.A m 7(1NG
CLASS ' RIP RAP
25 mq FILTER FABRIC
(?REFea..-ev
T t u2 NoL6
W/ ILTER FABRIC
400 CS 2Gt W/
w) ELbo` * FLAT GRAT
as • x 2\A 2C[ 'v DETAILLI I ISUMP ` vV

hloP,17-OMTAL SL.ALE
ME= mom=
O 10 20 ADM
OE.NOT ES FILL IN 1.)ci LAND.
?• DENOTES FILL IN SURFAG- WATe?,.
p p p p p p p DENOTES TEMP? =MYAC.T IN 1.,)F-'TL-AND
pp p p 6 p p p DLIETO MEG(-kANIGAL. GLEA0.)n1G-
5E.YOND GONSTKLIC_TIDtl Ur11'f5.
SITS IVO, / 5
SEE 6TTCFi OET711 -'A'-
SEE PROFILE
L -SE W/A9 m' FILTER RFr
N-a }
f'
f
tT^
AW
1

YHO]'.
HEADWALL
SUMP
t?
Z 37' 31
7'!7
O C.5
,.•?zo SL PE
i ?-
T
i'• SEE PROFILE A A' Ct-' A
W?2 m FILTER FABRIC Per•.coCt,?r
Wow
000 (RT>,wUi?. I WOODS
HoRIwm-rAL SCALE
BE= S7/ rr ?q
o ID 20 ADM
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPC
DEN DTC.i FILL IN I.,IETLA.vD, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE COUNTY
_ B.T560302
DENOTCS:lLLit`I SURFACF_ WATEP- PROPOSED GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE,
1p p,p p p p p PEL10TCi TEMP. MMPACT IN WETLAND CULVERTS, STRUCTURES, SIGNING, PAVE!
pp 666666 DLIETD MEGWANICAL- GLEARIn1G- MARKINGS, AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U.
fn'_YDND ?Dti1S-rKUCTIDN uMITI>: BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO D
4]
iJ

SLOPE
.a

J
OD
O
15
N O.G
NAD U
R
J
O
0

2GI w/
' i I
j ""

{
FLAT GRAT ???y•?
w
450
?
/
'
_ 'x> Q
4 s. w p IZeFo2h.L.E
D E
SCO f ELYfN P .
«. • • • 4
Q
t }..•?LJ? _ .r. L
CLASS 'B' R1P RAP
W/ 6 m' FILTER FABRIC CLAS PRA.-.•
w/ B.mR.f.
/ ,
A
=
W76
Y s? m
FRTE FABRIC
M Y N LAN '? / TOE PROTE CTION
_• i ,-;.:.-' SITE 2! _
•......
:• - , • ? • .
+40:•000 -t- ( f.
'-
^•
, .
5.000 fRT1
C4-)?'

( < .•• w/ R7 m= FI
A
•- - .
- ....
LTER-FABRIC' ?.
?
<

... ?.•
•
?... ?y?
EER
? PL IS CL (:REEK
...?...
'

. ?
?....?
• .
.:. ._..... ,•-?. ?
t, CR

. ?

.... ?
._ .. ._ . ..
fi
/ ,

REDGA R. THOMAS
D8 133 PG 406.
S(TE 2(
SCALD
T 20111 10 0 201ti
j DLNOM- PILL1N WlTLANI)
- ; J I)I;NO'CL••S FILL IN SURFACE WATUt
a .0 0 0 n A 6 DENO.17-s'ITNUt. INUTACr IN WILTLAND
A A A A A A UUIS TO ANIECIIANICAI. CLEMUNiI
BEYOND CONSTILUC7I0N LINUTS
SITE #16
SCALE
20M 10 0 20M
® DENOTES FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION IN WETLANDS
.•• DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMP. IMPACT IN WETLAND
DUE TO MECHANICAL CLEARING
BEYOND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS

1 N = w
9 \ 1n
1 C 9 39 4
1 LA \? 4
1 7g
1
1 GS c+ '
(l1
3 /
? 1 !! ®?
t
W ?4r ? I r
It x
-? A40A
z >
N
i
IK 10
%. IK 00
1
O / Of
O
'Moll
et .10
L C7 CJD
r O
tAj
Pwq
\ was r ° ? ? ?1 '?'? , gc ? 1\ o .?
PON
ZN'? ?'^o+ ?' o '? coo n z
0 co
ootno? pax .:; ??R•° ?' ? ?? ? ? H o ?y.? ° C c co
p f h A iti p FO ?'C? prA rr o? M. cm c""u 0 G.C
r?i, C~D P A A `C A ?p A `ri G' G. to m 1
41
p? P"? ;. C? ?,; p p' C o coo (??Qp* m cr w
_ 0
,T ? A
orn

12905ft^2
I<.? % ?l 1199 m^2
l J'?
20.00 m /
mat area per plan sheet 23 of 37
ioriginal plan
13619sf
1265 m^2
7,11
20.00 m
proposed revised plan
L ,
listed mat area for plan and proposed details are
calculated areas taken from plan sheets 23 of 37
digitized and scaled to scale listed on plan sheet
cc?
N
Project: 6.569006t Etc. S.T. Wooten Corporation
Lee-Moore Counties Date: April 4, 2003
Permit Modification Site No. 16
Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road
Sequence of Construction for Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road
We plan to construct a 12m wide haul road as shown on the attached
Drawing No. 2. We plan to haul approximately 185,000 cubic yards
out of this Borrow Site. We figured hauling this material with off road
equipment. We had an environmental impact study completed by
Mr. Jan Gay with Environmental Services, Inc. to identify any wet lands
that might be encountered on the haul road. Mr. Jan Gay identified an area of
impact containing only 0.009 hectares. Please note the location on Drawing No. 1
and No. 2.
2. Please note this is only a temporary impact. We plan to hand clear the
small area in question and place Type 2 filter fabric under the crane
mats as shown on the detail on Drawing No. 2. In addition, we intend
to place temporary silt fence on either side of the crane mats. The
crane mats will be butted together. (each mat 25'x5') We will station
a laborer there to make sure no dirt contaminates this area.
3. This material will be hauled from around April 15, 2003 to March 15,2003.
Once the borrow hauling is completed we propose to replant the wet land
area with pine seedlings on 8'-center to center to replace the ones we have
to hand cut. This area will be reclaimed.
4Z)4
e
s

i
i

SITE #16

i?
Y. r. / i 1! it
4! l; ?•':
/
SCALE
20M 10 0 20M
® DENOTES FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION IN WETLANDS
DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMP. IMPACT IN WETLAND
DUE TO MECHANICAL CLEARING
BEYOND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS

i •
i •?
ZIP
,. 8
+r
ap-
tj #/ /
o ? v
/
/
0
0
rr ?l r?..
rq? a?
SGd
? ??oPo

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE COUNTY
gowo=Wp if,'S9eo4i FTc,
PROPOSED GRADING. PAVING. DRAINAGE. FENCING
CULVERTS. STRUCTURES. SIGNING. PAVEMENT
MARKINGS. AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1825
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET29OF e8
D!!T, 41-,'l ¢ Zvoo
GD?.oW W& All/
I ) 7'
L \ b
c p o
rh ?l y y
a. y a ?
o
U
Q ? n C
o `? 2
C ? C c
u r
? ? n o
? b
h
I

^.
c ?
c?
? p t
p

_ J L

C? IG

f rut
vA ? ? tft E# ? t{a?
?
fa tV ?C `7` N }? ??
1 ?
t- a \
N I? Y
t, n `i. ?L

i #

.- 11 r

tA,

k

rz,
r I 1 ? , ?.

4
-. r Z L7

"G
l

t.

y
h
k ?

1

J
L
1
a?
h
`o
3
a
y

?y° s n•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
'VaAaINDS1401
APR ( 2003
SATE- QUALITY SECTIC?
DEPARTMENT OF Du NSPORTAnoN
NIICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECREApril 7, 2003 V t ' ff?)
MEMORANDUM TO: Art C. King
Division Operations Officer
FROM: Marry C. Tillman i' `?+?src
Resident Engineer
SUBJECT: Permit Modifications for Site No.1(Bridges @ Little River)
and Site No.16(Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road)
Site No. 1
The Contractor purposes to construct the main temporary bridge as shown on original
permit (Spans A through G). Then use temporary timber mats to drive steel piles and set
girders while continuing ahead with his temporary structure (Spans G through O) instead
of coming in from the north side. The contractor feels this method will be safer to the
traveling public and could reduce the impact time by approximately two months.
Site No. 2
The Contractor plans to use this area as a borrow pit, a portion of his haul road falls in
wetlands and he therefore requests to use fabric and crane mats to cross this area with his
haul trucks. Once the haul road is no longer needed, they plan to replant the area with
pine seedlings.
Please promptly review these Permit Modification requests and notify us of the results of
your investigation.
cc: File
P.O. BOX 429, SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA 27330
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
""I AuNOS/401 O OUp
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA APR 1 0 2003
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI o r i7, QUALITYsECN
MICHAEL F. EASLEY ? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDo TIPPE
GOVERNOR ' SECRETARY.
O?
April 7, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: Art C. King
Division Operations Officer
FROM: Marty C. Tillman
Resident Engineer
SUBJECT: Permit Modifications for Site No.I(Bridges @ Little River)
and Site No.16(Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road)
Site No. 1
The Contractor purposes to construct the main temporary bridge as shown on original
permit (Spans A through G). Then use temporary timber mats to drive steel piles and set
girders while continuing ahead with his temporary structure (Spans G through O) instead
of coming in from the north side. The contractor feels this method will be safer to the
traveling public and could reduce the impact time by approximately two months.
Site No. 2
The Contractor plans to use this area as a borrow pit, a portion of his haul road falls in
wetlands and he therefore requests to use fabric and crane mats to cross this area with his
haul trucks. Once the haul road is no longer needed, they plan to replant the area with
pine seedlings.
Please promptly review these Permit Modification requests and notify us of the results of
your investigation.
cc: File
P.O. BOX 429, SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA 27330
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

April 4, 2003

Mr. Marty C. Tillman, Resident Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 429
Sanford, North Carolina 27330
Re: Project 6.549008T, Etc.
Lee/Moore County
Subject: Request Permit Modification for Site No. 16 Harbour
Borrow Pit Haul Road
Dear Mr. Tillman:
WETL4NDS1401 GROUP
APR 1 0 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
S.T. Wooten
Corporation
Please find attached (8) eight copies of the permit modification we are requesting
at Site No. 16 for the purpose of hauling 185,000 cubic yards of borrow. S. T. Wooten
Corporation would greatly appreciate approval in this matter as soon as possible. In
talking with Mr. Richard Spencer with the Corp of Engineers this permit modification
should include all the information that is required for the review process.
Your prompt attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If any additional
information is needed please advise.
Sincerely,
S. T. Wooten Corporation
Gregory N. Nelson
Vice President
GNN/dsb
cc: John Brown
'dC PIpN'
? 00
o
d`? os
APR 0 7 2003
DIVISION 8
®N?N OF HIGHWAYS
RESIDENT ENGINEER
PO Box 2408 • Wilson, NC 2 7894-2408 • 252.291.5165 • FAX [phone]

WERAWS1401 GROUP
APR 1 0 2003
?'UTER QUALITY SECTION
April 4, 2003
Mr. Marty C. Tillman, Resident Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 429
Sanford, North Carolina 27330
Re: Project 6.549008T, Etc.
Lee/Moore County
Subject: Request Permit Modification for Site No. 16 Harbour
Borrow Pit Haul Road
Dear Mr. Tillman:
S.T. Wooten
Corporation
Please find attached (8) eight copies of the permit modification we are requesting
at Site No. 16 for the purpose of hauling 185,000 cubic yards of borrow. S. T. Wooten
Corporation would greatly appreciate approval in this matter as soon as possible. In
talking with Mr. Richard Spencer with the Corp of Engineers this permit modification
should include all the information that is required for the review process.
Your prompt attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If any additional
information is needed please advise.
Sincerely,
S. T. Wooten Corporation
Gregory N. Nelson
Vice President
GNN/dsb
cc: John Brown

g?Fag
p.*y 4??E
APR 0 7 2003
DIVIsION 8
Drf14N OF HIGHWAYS
R'SIDENT ENGINEER
PO Box 2408 • Wilson, NC 27894-2408 • 252.291.5165 • FAX [phone]

Project: 6.569006t Etc. S.T. Wooten Corporation
Lee-Moore Counties Date: April 4, 2003
Permit Modification Site No. 16
Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road
Sequence of Construction for Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road
We plan to construct a 12m wide haul road as shown on the attached
Drawing No. 2. We plan to haul approximately 185,000 cubic yards
out of this Borrow Site. We figured hauling this material with off road
equipment. We had an environmental impact study completed by
Mr. Jan Gay with Environmental Services, Inc. to identify any wet lands
that might be encountered on the haul road. Mr. Jan Gay identified an area of
impact containing only 0.009 hectares. Please note the location on Drawing No
and No. 2.
2. Please note this is only a temporary VMFt. We plan to hand clear the
a2 small area in question and place Type 2 filter fabric under the crane
mats as shown on the detail on Drawing No. 2. In addition, we intend
c1Lxi A o place temporary silt fence on either side of the crane mats. The
crane mats will be butted together. (each mat 25'x5') We will station
a laborer there to make sure no dirt contaminates this area.
3. This material will be hauled from around April 15, 2003 to March 15,2003.
Once the borrow hauling is completed we propose to replant the wet land
area with pine seedlings on 8'-center to center to replace the ones we have
to hand cut. This area will be reclaimed.

`7 w Utitit44G?,??A w ?,0 fSf-
4o' x ;?9'
Zs
IF
ZIP
?1 O I ?? fir',/, -%ri i ;; 1.'• '±'
r`x in,
r~ ff
'7- 1
ilo? ;o
7 4 ? ? // R
4 /' ? ' ? 17 r
l 7: 7 i' (i Q /
(j 46
SITE #16 i ?/P P I
SCALE
20M 10 0 20M
DENOTES FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION IN WETLANDS
DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATER
°ooo DENOTES TEMP. IMPACT IN WETLAND
DUE TO MECHANICAL CLEARING
BEYOND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE COUNTY
&Nwgnw d, 45940o7-zrc ,
PROPOSED GRADING. PAVING. DRAINAGE. FENCING
CULVERTS. STRUCTURES. SIGNING. PAVEMENT
MARKINGS. AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1825
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET210F-L8 ST, ltlo ?/ C'oC,ooc-7
OATS ??rl ZOG3
P&4.JI-16 All s/
o ?
K ,V o? II
M
o?
rl
O v
\O \
v
C
?`\J C
V
J
C

3
T ?

2

?I -

-41
41

IZ.
a e r n
e;l

? k N e
U
J
J
r_
y
U
cr
z
V
U
? ?
I
V U
U

c

\
V 1
o
O N 3
v! o
O
3 w ?
? ° b il
?
ti F ? y
o

?
4 O O O ?
1

U

LA

April 4, 2003
S.T. Wooten
Corporation
Mr. Marty C. Tillman, Resident Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 429
Sanford, North Carolina 27330
Re: Project 6.549008T, Etc.
Lee/Moore County
Subject: Request Permit Modification for Site No. 1 Bridges at
Sta. 25+19-L-+ Over Little River
Dear Mr. Tillman:
Please find attached (8) eight copies of the permit modification we are requesting
at Site No. 1 for the purpose of the new construction of the dual bridges. S. T. Wooten
Corporation would greatly appreciate approval in this matter as soon as possible. In
talking with Mr. Richard Spencer with the Corp of Engineers this permit modification
should include all the information that is required for the review process.
Your prompt attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If any additional
information is needed please advise.
Sincerely,
S. T. Wooten Corporation
Gregory N. Nelson
Vice President
GNN/dsb
cc: John Brown
p?C PIN*
41
r
?
s
o ?
6?> oa
redly ou
APR 0 7 2003
DIVISION 8
M"ON OF HIGHWAYS
RESIDENT ENGINEER
PO Box 2408 • Wilson, NC 2 7894-24 08 • 252.291.5165 • Fax [phone]
At"
April 4, 2003
S.T. Wooten
Corporation
Mr. Marty C. Tillman, Resident Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 429
Sanford, North Carolina 27330
Re: Project 6.549008T, Etc.
Lee/Moore County
Subject: Request Permit Modification for Site No. 1 Bridges at
Sta. 25+19-L-+ Over Little River
Dear Mr. Tillman:
Please find attached (8) eight copies of the permit modification we are requesting
at Site No. 1 for the purpose of the new construction of the dual bridges. S. T. Wooten
Corporation would greatly appreciate approval in this matter as soon as possible. In
talking with Mr. Richard Spencer with the Corp of Engineers this permit modification
should include all the information that is required for the review process.
Your, prompt attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If any additional
information is needed please'advise.
Sincerely,
S. T. Wooten Corporation
Gregory N. Nelson
Vice President
GNN/dsb a
E..
cc: John Brown rr
nCT
APR 0 7 2003
?yC PrN?? DIVISION 8
Dr*WON OF HIGHWAYS
1 o0: RESIDENT ENGINEER
??' °?a PO Box 2408 • Wilson, NC 27894-2408 • 252.291.5165 • Fax [phone]
f_
Project: 6.549008T, 6.569006T, 6.569007T
Lee, Moore Counties
Permit Modification to Site No. 1
Bridge Construction at Little River
Original Permit Date 9-26-02
Sequence of Construction for the Dual Bridges over Little River
Phase I Construction for the Temporary Bridge and new Dual Bridges
We will construct the main temporary Bridge as shown on original permit.
Once this is complete, we purpose to use the Temporary Timber Mats to drive the
steel piles and set the concrete girders. Please find attached the
soil compaction results prepared by Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd.
based on the maximum loading capacity of 3001bs per square foot the
settlement will be about 1/4" to %2". This will not adversely affect the plant
growth or other biological functions over the long run. As shown on drawing no 2
Type 2 filter fabric will be placed under two layers of 24'x5' crane mats set
perpendicular to the temporary bridge with joints being staggered. The
Phase I construction consists of installing 650' feet of temporary work bridge
to construct the new structures from Span A through Span G.
Phase II Construction for the Temporary Bridge and new Dual Bridges
1. We will proceed removing the 650' feet of temporary bridge from Span A to Span
G. Each span of the temporary bridge will move forward working from Span G to
Span O until the completion of the other half of the temporary bridge.
As in Phase I, we will use fabric and temporary mats as shown on drawing
No. 1 to drive piles, and set the concrete girders. We chose this method because
we do not want to endanger the traveling public by hauling materials on old US 1
to construct phase II of the temporary bridge. This procedure also cuts about of 2
months of additional time from the construction schedule at this location. Once
the new dual bridges are
completed we will remove the 650' feet of temporary bridge from Span G to Span
O at End Bent # 2.
Notes: The temporary mats will not be used if we our not driving piles
or setting concrete girders.
The construction schedule for this location is from April 15, 2003 to
March 1, 2005.

4101? E7
April 1, 2003
O Wilson, C 087894-2408
RE: Estimate of Consolidation Under Crane Mats at US 1 and Little Creek, Moore
County, NC
ECS Project #11303
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
Geotechnical v, Construction Materials e Environmental
Mr. Gregory Nelson
S.T. Wooten Corporation
Dear Mr. Nelson:
As requested. ECS has evaluated the potential consolidation of the native soils at the site
under the anticipated 300 pounds per square foot load.
We understand that the crane pad will consist of 24-foot long oak mats set in two layers
perpendicular to each other, with the joints staggered.
ECS has reviewed the logs of the borings advanced by. S&ME, Inc. Based on the
conditions encountered in those borings, it is our opinion_.that the majority of
consolidation would likely occur in the upper 2 to 3 feet. Therefore relatively
undisturbed samples of the-soil-were obtained from the surface to a depth of 3 feet _by
hand augering and driving"Shelby tubes.
The soils recovered consist of a few inches of topsoil underlain by brown fine sandy low
plasticity CLAY. Below the CLAY layer, a brown medium to coarse grained SAND was
encountered to the depth explored. The depth to the sand layer varied from 6 inches to 24
inches below the ground surface.
It is our opinion that the majority of permanent settlement will occur in the clay
encountered to depths of 6 to 24 inches. The deeper soils are anticipated to behave in a
relatively elastic manner, rebounding after the loads are removed.
In our opinion, approximately t/4 to %2 of an inch of settlement will occur under the
specified load. Settlement of up to %2 of an inch will not, in our opinion, adversely effect
plant growth or other biological functions in the soil over the long run.
y`,ttytl.et?J.JI !!!
GA4g
y\
Please call if you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance.
Respectfully, m SEAt_
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD = e 2 2 7 4 5
a 4
AF,
S v.
Chris M. Caton Thomas V. Admay, P.E.
Engineering Geologist Principal Engineer
P. O. Box 12015, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 • [phone] • FAX [phone] • www.ecslimited.com
Aberdeen, MD* - Atlanta, GA - Austin, TX - Baltimore, MD - Chantilly, VA - Charlotte, NC - Chicago, IL - Comelia, GA* - Dallas, TX - Danville, VA* - Frederick, MD - Fredericksburg, VA
Greensboro, NC - Greenville, SC - Norfolk, VA - Research Triangle Park, NC - Richmond, VA - Roanoke, VA - San Antonio, TX - Williamsburg, VA - Wilmington, NC - Winchester, VA
*Testing Services Only

o ? H N ?
zo HCa rya
O O U n' S
a °i-] z
0
z
u
\/

E
I o-?„ ? I
N ??l
o i.l
J
'K
3
3
r
0
a

Z
I;toaG?
wIA.
?
"r-
o?
N
m
h
J
0
e
h
m?
ti
m F
? N
W
R
O
M
E h
b h M
? m 1
0
U
h ?
J
O
N
0
0
N
Wo
Q^
QW
?m
W?
JZ
jF
Q
2W
?W

Q
td
V

W-"
a?
J h
Z
h?
?o
z?
oI
°mm
ao
EW
M?

z

0
o
N W ? N
0

2
z
Q y h

?
"W Q ?Q ro
b V
Q3 mW
JC h VV
j

Q
W

V
? .J
Ilk
^ t o
*-
M
o i(1
M
t
?O
2
Q
h\
O
?W
R`
h
m
N??
M ?
UO
U ?y
0
t
I - ` # ..? f

imp
L
CD
m
r.
N
m
m
z
m
p nL'IN
A '.
D
QQQ? W .+
C?Wp#p
1
0
S
OflUa'?}
}`r3 ao
y

o$i o

CA

x
Z - ?

N X
9

o
+? N
N
AL M
i-J
X 10 ? i
stvx I F
8 R?1 F?.? +.
v
Q! 6
rn
,.. C O r'U r"w

w \` 1171_.77U MVC x j
y 5i?Q T, RAT ? . ? ..
r
_
Oil 'V
z
o

in X

7.870rtt T
NVC -+i m y
m x
Z T M ?
-i X r
V?
ix9 m
PP a V
ED a
W g4I -4 I r-
0 O 1 rti n N I N to
V V O '? Z A
o O GGGyA 1b 2bxo
'il ?I pgrn ? I yr .. OCY
°? morn 'Std I rnrn ?_ n Olt is
?
?Q ., v
v 9 NNm lD Zy bl.
m m o$ ??y?
N ZO ( r Zm
ZC z
r-m
N I ? N
m
.I o
Z
0
N
rn
( v
c?
. 1
??o-crow ? i .

'
t
e?

M r 'N
Z O
i.+

i
i
I?f
w foCDto
aCOOO-?+.?+:21 I
NPW000N AMWONfi
-n4 0
g
w
In
? 'n•3 rn
F <
~ omr, D C,
c? >?
? ?+t 1 c 0
o ??x I ? 1
po
... Q g n
.4 V.
to
. W?
w W
ulp, ?m? ? N
of 'a 1 ae
.. g D 1
MX r
P_ I
NN1
Re
x 0 3
N
' ON??? X fh0
? it s
.,?.
co
M
z
z
^

9 0
z
-+ z -+
er ? ? N
-p ?
x wri
F, s
k z rn

rn
?o , m
po
m W

1
OM
!M 0
Fin
M M

u? m

a,

? x

94

m -4
-4
rn
$
o
n <
w
?
-

\ $
El
r
7.770 MVC x v
Q RT. RAIt
? a

? r

o rn
0
1?+

7_g70m $
MVC -
? ,? w
X D

M
R p rti V
oy
t ? rH?
?X p?N
g? gee
N
a
r
oo
f?I to M! U)
Flo >
O
4

o 2
M
N
M ?.o
z
0,
,
rr, N? ;a r 0
1

A? ? M

o
rn

Cn Cl ?? .
D
,?a? ? N
?
' ?
fF oo
'
I o

vm V 1
rAl
6

1
o ,
O
?
'
n
?

p
V p
1'
o
OgZ N ,
?
Z
. .
D Q
' ZZ?
G ??^'
G 0 ??mA

o ? 9 Nam

H
V
rn "a
w
O
m
4? $
F

W N ? ?X I
rQ I

? I

al

1
a ?-?ro
N
a t, qu C1
CM
O W m ?1
Q' co J 1
G 10
V

I
I

m?
D , w

m
l
MZ
4

?.
El ,

Z?
m O
V1R J
0

H X
?
Z '
7?0
O
m
v

d??E4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?J

MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 19, 2001
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office W G 3 3?
Post Office Box 1890 010404
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
FILE COPY
SUBJECT: INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR US 1 FROM NORTH OF
LAKEVIEW TO SOUTH OF SANFORD, MOORE/LEE COUNTIES,
TIP NO. R-210.
Please find enclosed the permit application and drawings for the subject project.
The proposed roadway is a four-lane divided freeway tying into the existing US 1 four-
lane facility south of Camp Easter Road (SR 1853)/ Aiken Road (SR 2175) in Moore
County to Wild Life Road (SR 1180) in Lee County. Full control of access will be
maintained. The 12.8 mile freeway will be on new location, but parallels existing US 1
corridor for the last 2.6 miles of section C. An analysis of various alternatives and the
explanation of the preferred alternative is detailed in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) signed December 1, 1995, by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). The state project number is 8.T560302 and the Federal Aid Project number is
NHF-0001(3).
The project is currently divided into three sections. Table 1 lists the sections and
the projected let dates.
Table 1. Proiect Sections and Let dates
`t7

Section Let Date Description Length (mi)
R-210 A 10/16/01 US i from SR 1853/SR 2175 at Lakeview to NE of SR 5.2
1825 (Cranes Creek Road)
R-210 B 10/16/01 NE of SR 1825 to N of SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd) 5.0
R-210 C 9/18/01 N of SR 1182 to US 1 S of SR 1180 S of Sanford 2.6
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND 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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Wetlands. The proposed project will impact fifty-four jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetlands were delineated using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual. The initial wetland delineation was performed within the
Preferred Alternative corridor by NCDOT consultants. These wetland delineations were
verified by Mr. Jeff Richter of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office on March 2, 1995.
During the design phase of the project, additional wetlands that were not
identified in the original wetland assessment were delineated. These additional impacts
were due -to slight shifts in the roadway, faulty mapping, or because some wetlands were
simply missed during the original assessment. These additional wetlands are denoted by
an asterisk in Table 3 in Appendix A.
The Division of lh?a tf QutLlity ,(D`•WQ) rating system was applied to each wetland
site. Each wetland was ;also elaksifipol -according to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Wetland Classification (Cowardin, 1979) system and the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management; Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (Report No. 96-01, 1996). The
most frequent community type impacted by the project is an intermittent or perennial
stream with wetlands of varying widths adjacent to the stream. Ground water seeps are
the main hydrologic force to these wetlands although they also receive varying degrees of
over bank flooding. These wetlands do not fit well into either the Seep or Headwater
Forest classification listed in the Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands. Therefore, the
classification Linear Seep was created to describe these wetland types.
Table 3 in Appendix A indicates the wetland communities, quality analysis, and
acres of impact for each section of the project. The "Acres Impacted" column in Table 3
reflects permanent fill, excavation, and Method III mechanized clearing in wetlands and
are further itemized in the summary sheets in Appendix B. All areas where excavation in
wetlands is proposed have been considered impacted in their entirety except in those
areas where stream relocations were cut into the wetlands at a depth matching the original
stream elevations. Drawings detailing and tables summarizing the wetland and stream
impacts are included with this application in Appendix B. They are grouped according to
Sections, A, B and C. Please note that drawings reflecting impacts to Section A Site 1
(Little River) are included in Appendix C.
The crossings of Crane Creek (Site 21 - Section A) and an unnamed
tributary (UT) to Little Crane Creek (Site X - Section B) will result in 0.49 and 0.32 acre
of temporary fill in wetlands, respectively. These impacts are necessary to facilitate the
bridging of the riverine wetlands. NCDOT expects wooden mats will suffice for both
causeways since the soil is mostly mineral and little compaction is anticipated. As
insurance, prior to construction, reference elevations will be taken in the temporary
impacted areas. Following construction, all temporary fill will be removed. If necessary
the area will then be restored to its original contour and rough surface texture based on
the reference elevations. NCDOT will revegetate the area according to the Streambank
Reforestation Detail Sheet included in Appendix D. Construction of the bridge over the
Little River and the associate floodplain will be done using a temporary bridge, limiting
the temporary impacts in this area to the footprint of the temporary bridge bents.
Surface Waters. Water resource classifications have not changed since the FEIS
was prepared. The DWQ best usage classification for Little River and its unnamed
tributaries (UTs) is WS-III HQW. The DWQ classification for Crane Creek, Little Crane
Creek, Nancy Dyer Branch, and their UTs is WS-III. The classification for Little Juniper
Creek and its UT is Class C. Class WS-III refers to those waters protected as water
supplies which are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds and are suitable
for all Class C uses. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. HQW (High Quality
Waters) denotes those waters rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics through division monitoring or special studies.
Personnel from NCDOT, USACE, NCDWQ and NCWRC determined
jurisdictional surface waters that would require stream mitigation in a September 30,
1998 field review. Those requiring mitigation are summarized in Table 4 in Appendix A.
The total channel loss for the project is 4880 linear feet. However, 1223 linear feet will
be relocated on site as detailed in the permit drawings, resulting in a net channel loss of
3,657 linear feet.
The Acres Impacted column of Table 4 indicates the impacts to farm ponds that
will be drained as a result of the project. The impacted ponds range in size from 0.09
acre to 5.83 acres. The pond comprising Site 2 of Section B is 4.52 acres in size. This
pond will be drained during construction and 0.91 acre of it will be filled. The remaining
3.63 acres of the pond will be allowed to refill naturally once construction is complete.
Threatened And Endangered Species. As of June 16, 2000, the following species
are listed as threatened or endangered in the respective counties:
• Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). Endangered. Lee and Moore
• Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Endangered. Lee and Moore
• Harperella (Ptilimnium nudosum). Endangered. Lee
• Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Endangered. Moore
• American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana). Endangered. Moore
A Biological Conclusion of No Effect has been rendered for all species. In the case of
harperella, Michaux's sumac, and American chaffseed, little suitable habitat exists for
these species. Those few areas were surveyed and are detailed in the FEIS. Cape Fear
shiner and its associated Critical Habitat are not documented within the range of this
project. The project drainage area is south and east of the ridge area that supports the
Cape Fear shiner.
Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates performed a survey for the red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) in the project area and issued biological conclusion of No Effect in a
report dated October 1, 1994. The area was resurveyed on March 17, 1999 by NCDOT
biologists to identify potential changes in habitat since Dr. Carter's report. The results of
the NCDOT survey revealed that habitat conditions had not noticeably changed. In
addition, the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
was consulted and revealed no listing for the RCW within one mile of the project area.
Cultural Resources. In a letter dated March 23, 1995, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) has concurred there are no effects on the National Register-eligible
properties located within the project's area of potential effect as well as the McNeil
Farmstead and the Ferguson House. These are two properties that were determined to be
eligible for the National Register.
The archaeological findings are detailed in the December 15, 1997 report
"Follow-up Archaeological Survey, Testing and Assessment of Revised Sctionas os
Alternative A, U.S. Highway 1, Moore and Lee Counties, North Carolina. The report
concludes the following:
a. The two cemetery sites, 31Mr105 and 31MrIO6, are significant historic and
archaeological resources which are eligible for listing in the national Register of
Historic Places, however they will not be disturbed by the highway project.
b. None of the archaeological sites that will be disturbed or destroyed by construction
within the Revised Corridor East of Cameron were determined to be significant.
c. None of the archaeological sites investigated within the Wetland Avoidance Corridor
were determined to be significant. However, complete evaluation of sites 31Mr300
and 31Mr205 was not possible because the property owners denied access. NCDOT
has made a commitment to follow-up with an archaeological assessment of these two
areas.
d. Site 31Mrl66 is not archaeologically significant and no additional investigation of the
site is recommended.
e. Site 31Mr169 is not considered to be archaeologically significant.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. Mitigation of jurisdictional impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include
avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and compensating for impacts.
Avoidance & Minimization. During adoption of the Preferred Alternative, there
are many avoidance and minimization strategies employed to reduce impacts to natural
resources as well as many other concerns. These strategies are detailed in the FEIS.
Once the Preferred Alternative is identified, another attempt to further avoid and
minimize impacts is initiated. Field reviews were conducted on September 30, 1998 and
October 24, 2000. As a result of these field reviews and multiple in-house meetings, the
jurisdictional impacts were further reduced throughout the project. They are described
below.
Section A
Site 1(Little River). The Little River and the associated wetland system are of
extremely high quality. It is generally agreed that it is very difficult to provide mitigation
that would replace the functions that would be lost by permanently impacting these
systems. Therefore, NCDOT has agreed to extend the original bridge from 393 feet to
1,308 feet. This design will avoid directly impacting 2.81 acres of wetlands that would
have been impacted from the original bridge design. This design also bridges the "active
floodplain" of the Little River, as determined during a field review, while still providing a
safe sight distance with the proposed intersection tying back into existing US 1 near
station 29+00.
Unfortunately, this design will still impact 4.7 acres of high quality wetlands.
However, by removing the old road bed and adjacent areas that have been filled, NCDOT
will not only restore 6.4 acres of the same high quality wetlands, but will provide a
hydraulic opening that restores the "active floodplain" that is currently blocked by the
existing road. This is clearly evident in Figure 1 which, along with a written explanation
that depicts and itemizes the acreage, of impacts and restoration, can be found in
Appendix C, the Little River On-site Mitigation Plan.
In addition to the restoration efforts, NCDOT is in the process of purchasing, or
has purchased, remnant parcels adjacent to the r ight-of-way, as depicted by the circled
numbers 2d, 2e, and 6 in Figure 1. This will preserve an additional 8.4 acres of high
quality wetlands. NCDOT has also encompassed the power lines and accompanying
easement within the side slope of the road to the extent practicable, as opposed to ten feet
beyond the toe of fill. This significantly reduces the area of maintained wetland within
the power line easement. No right-of-way fences will be placed in the wetlands.
Site 10. This UT to the Little River and associated wetland is a high quality
system. One hundred seventy four feet of the UT has been relocated utilizing
bioengineering techniques to the extent practicable, considering the design constraints
posed by the topography. NCDOT will revegetate the area according to the Streambank
Reforestation Detail Sheet included in Appendix D.
Section B
Site 9. This site, along with Site 10, received a water quality rating of 64 and are
the highest rated wetlands on this section of the project. NCDOT has implemented an
alignment shift that reduced wetland impacts by 2.22 acres.
Site 10. This is a linear seep associated with an UT to Little Crane Creek. The
same alignment shift that reduced impacts to Site 9 was extended through Site 10. In
addition to the shift, the original bridge over the CSX Railroad, which runs adjacent to
this wetland, was extended 154 feet. This resulted in no impacts to the UT and reduced
wetland impacts by 1.89 acres.
Section C
Site 4 and 5. This is the highest quality system on Section C. NCDOT was able
to relocate' 980 linear feet of the UT to Little Crane Creek, which runs through both sites,
utilizing bioengineering techniques. NCDOT will revegetate the area according to the
Streambank Reforestation Detail Sheet included in Appendix D.
Site 12. The original design had the service road running parallel to US 1 looping
out and through 1.07 acres of this wetland in order to tie into Eakes. Road (SR 1181) and
provide access to adjoining parcels. The redesign kept the service road adjacent to US 1
and reduced wetland impacts to 0.05 acre. In addition, while the 0.05 acre impact area
received a DWQ rating of 46, the original 1.07 acres impact area received a rating of 61.
Table 2 is provided to summarize the site-specific avoidance and minimization
described above.
Table 2. Results of Avoidance/Minimization
Site Original Impact Redesigned Impact Net Avoidance . Net Minimization
Section A - Site 1 7.52 ac wetland 4.71 ac wetland 2.81 ac wetland
Section A -Site 10 574 ft stream 574 ft stream 174 ft stream
Section B - Site 9 3.02 ac wetland 0.80 ac wetland 2.22 ac wetland
Section B -Site 10 2.90 ac wetland
715 ft stream 1.01 ac wetland
0 ft stream 1.89 ac wetland
715 ft stream
Section C - Site 4 &. 5 1118 ft stream 1118 ft stream 980 ft stream
Section C - Site 12 1.12 ac wetland 0.05 ac wetland 1.07 ac wetland
Compensation - Wetlands. The total wetland impacts, from Table 3 is 41.5 acres.:
Aside from the ephemeral wetland (Section B - Site 4), all impacts are essentially
riverine impacts. NCDOT is proposing to offset the 4.7 acres of high quality impact at
the Little River by offering 4.7 acres of on-site restoration (1:1 ratio) and 8.4 acres of on-
site preservation, as described in Appendix C. This on-site mitigation effort will be
packaged with the entire SALT (Sandhills Area Land Trust) Mitigation Site.
The SALT Mitigation Site is an approximately 327-acre site located near Lobelia
in Moore County that is being offered, in total, to offset wetland impacts associated with
the project. The SALT Site represents an ecosystem approach towards mitigation since it
not only has restoration, enhancement, and preservation of wetlands, but it also contains
upland restoration of long-leaf pine forests in an effort to restore the ecosystem to its
historic assemblage.
As mandated by Section 401 regulations, a minimum of 1:1 wetland restoration or
creation must be provided for every acre of wetland impact. As stated above, NCDOT
proposes to meet the 1:1 requirement for the 4.7 acres of high quality impact at the Little
TABLE 3. US 1 Wetland Communities, Quality Analysis, and Total Impacts
Site Cowardin
Classification NCDENR - DWQ
Classification DWQ
Rating Acres
Impacted
Section A
1 PFOIE Bottomland hardwood forest 92 4.71
(Little River)
2 PFO1C Linear Seep 35 0.36
3 PFO1 C Bottomland hardwood forest 87 3.16
4 PFO1 C Headwater Forest 39 0.62
5* PFO1C Linear Seep 23 0.02
6 PSS1D Linear Seep 30 1.19
7 PSS1D Linear Seep 15 0.06
8 PFO1 C Headwater Forest 40 0.97
9 PFOIE Bottomland hardwood forest 31 0.21
10 PFOIE Bottomland hardwood forest 78 2.84
l l * PSS 1 C Headwater Forest 28 1.41
12 PFO 1 C Linear Seep 15 0.28
13 PFO 1 C Linear Seep 15 0.09
14 PFO 1 C Linear Seep 15 0.15
14a* PSS1D Headwater Forest 36 0.64
15* PF01C Linear Seep 43 0.21
16 PFO1C Linear Seep 43 0.75
17 PFO1C Linear Seep 24 0.38
18 PFO1 C Headwater Forest 30 0.40
18a* PF02C Linear Seep 37 0.52
18b* PF02C Linear Seep 25 0.32
19 PFOIC Bottomland hardwood forest (Crane Ck.) 39 0.06
20 PFO1C Bottomland hardwood forest (Crane Ck.) 39 0.15
21 PFO1C Bottomland hardwood forest (Crane Ck.) 73 1.34
22 PFO1D Linear Seep 30 0.82
22a* PF02C Headwater Forest 42 0.17
23 PF02C Linear Seep 27 0.32
25 PFO1C Linear Seep 43 0.68
SUBTOTAL 22.83
Section B
1 PFO1 G Wet Flat 19 0.05
2 PEM1E Linear Seep 20 0.56
3 PF02C Linear Seep 41 0.50
4 PFOIE Ephemeral wetland 28 0.42
6 PF02C Linear Seep 53 1.26
7 PFO1C Linear Seep 35 1.07
8 PFO1 C Linear Seep 42 1.26
9 PEM1E Linear Seep 64 0.80
10 PFO1 C Linear Seep 64 1.01
11 PFO1 C Linear Seep 15 0.08
12* PFO1C Linear Seep 26 0.43
13 PF02C Linear Seep 28 0.62
14 PFO 1 C Linear Seep 51 1.28
15 PFO 1 C Linear Seep 29 0.51
16 PF02C Linear Seep 27 0.48
17 PFO1 C Linear Seep 19 0.20
SUBTOTAL 10.53

Section C
----
----------------------- -
--------------
1 PEM1C Linear Seep 36 0.37
2 PEM1C Linear Seep 23 1.83
3 PF02C Linear Seep 46 0.49
4 PFO 1 C Linear Seep 76 1.20
5 PFO1 C Linear Seep 76 2.77
6 PFO1C Linear Seep 37 0.27
7 PFO 1 C Linear Seep 29 0.79
8 PF02C Linear Seep 27 0.18
10* PF01C Linear Seep 23 0.10
l l * PFO 1 C Linear Seep 23 0.07
12* PFO1C Headwater Forest 46 0.05
SUBTOTAL 8.12
TOTAL 41.48
* - Indicate additional impact sites due to slight shifts in the roadway, incomplete mapping, or not
identified during the original assessment.
River by providing 4.7 acres of high quality restoration on-site. NCDOT proposed to
mitigate for the remaining 36.8 acres through the SALT Site. Based on groundwater
models, the SALT Site currently has 49 acres of wetlands that will be restored to its
historic hydrology by methods outlined in the mitigation plan. In addition, including the
10 acres of upland long-leaf restoration, approximately 82 acres will be planted with
native vegetation in an effort to restore the ecosystem. The details of these plantings and
the mitigation plan are in the Wetland Mitigation Plan - Salt Mitigation Site, dated
August 2000 and provided to the resource agencies in a letter dated August 16, 2000.
Compensation - surface waters. The project will impact 4880 linear feet of
jurisdictional streams. These streams are in the Cape Fear River Basin, Cataloging Unit
03030004. NCDOT proposes to mitigate for these impacts at a 2:1 ratio except for those
sites where on-site mitigation will be supplied. These sites will mitigated for at a 1:1
ratio, as noted in Table 4 in Appendix A. In a letter dated April 1, 1999, the North
Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) agreed to provide the mitigation for these
streams for in-lieu payments in the amount of $125/linear foot. A copy of this letter is
included in Appendix D.
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized through a Section 404
Individual Permit. By copy of this application, the NCDOT requests that the NC
Division of Water Quality review the proposal for authorization by a 401 Water Quality
Certification. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please
contact Mr. Michael Wood at [phone].
Sincerely,
3RWilliam D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Purdue, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMF
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Susan Cauley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer

TABLE 4. US 1 Relocation - Stream Impacts
Site Water Body Channel Channel Proposed Acres
Impact Replaced Mitigation* Impacted
(linear feet) (linear feet) (linear feet)
Section A
111 OQL 1
? UT to Little River 341 0 682 0
5
? UT to Little River 7 0 14 0
10 UT to Little River 574 174 574 0
12 UT to Crane Creek 13 0 276 0
13 UT to Crane Creek 26 0 52 0
14 UT to Crane Creek 39 0 78 0

_ jiL- 15 UT to Crane Creek 256 0 512 0
V 16 UT to Crane Creek 600 0 1200 0
17 UT to Crane Creek/Farm Pond 223 0 446 5.83
19 UT to Crane.Creek 259 0 518 0
21 UT to Crane Creek 223 0 446 0
22 UT to Crane Creek 43 0 86 0
24 Farm Pond 0 0 0 1.12
SUBTOTAL 2729 174 4884 6.95
Section B
1 Farm Pond 0 0 0 1.31
2 Farm Pond 0 0 0 0.91
4 Farm Pond 0 0 0 0.12
5 Farm Pond 0 0 0 1.09
6 Nancy Dyer Branch 213 0 426 0
9 UT to Little Crane Creek 167 0 334 0
12 Farm Pond 0 0 0 0.09
14 Farm Pond 0 0 0 1.57
15 Farm Pond 0 0 0 1.59
SUBTOTAL 380 0 760 6.68
Section C
3 Farm Pond/ 282 0 564 0.20
ss UT to Little Crane Creek
U 4 UT to Little Crane Creek 472 449 472 0
5 UT to Little Crane Creek 646 531 646 0
6 UT to Little Crane Creek 276 0 552 0
9 Farm Pond 0 0 0 0.67
G 10 Little Juniper Creek 39 0 78 0
11 UT to Little Juniper Creek 56 0 112 0
SUBTOTAL 1771 980 2424 0.87

TOTALS 4880 +i 1154 . 8068 14.50
* - A 2:1 multiplier was applied to each impact site, except for those with on-site relocations
TABLE 4. US 1 Relocation - Stream
Site Water Body
Section A
l?? ?QZ 1 UT to Little River
5 UT to Little River
?
10 UT to Little River
12 UT to Crane Creek
13 UT to Crane Creek
14 UT to Crane Creek
15 UT to Crane Creek
16 UT to Crane Creek
17 UT to Crane Creek/Farm Pond
19 UT to Crane Creek
21 UT to Crane Creek
L
22 UT to Crane Creek
24 Farm Pond
SUBTOTAL
Channel
Impact
341
7
574
13
26
39
256
600
223
259
223
43
0
2729
Channel
Replaced
0
174
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0`
174
Section B
1 Farm Pond 0 0
2 Farm Pond 0 0
4 Farm Pond 0 0
5 Farm Pond 0 0
6 Nancy Dyer Branch 213 0
9 UT to Little Crane Creek 167 0
12 Farm Pond 0 0
14 Farm Pond 0 0
15, .Farm Pond 0 0
SUBTOTAL 380 0
Section C
3 Farm Pond/ 282 - 0
Sys. ?y UT to Little Crane Creek
4 UT to Little Crane Creek 472 449
5 UT to Little Crane Creek 646 * 531
6 UT to Little Crane Creek 276 0
9 Farm Pond 0 0
G 10 Little Juniper Creek 39 0
1.1 ._UT to Little Juniper-Creek- - - - - - 56 - - 0
SUBTOTAL 1771 980
Proposed Acres
Mitigation* Impacted
(linear feet)
682 0
14 0
574 0
276 0
52 0
78 0
512 0
1200 0
446 5.83
518 0
446. 0
86 0
0 1.12
4884 6.95
0 1.31
0 0.91
0 0.12
0 1.09
426 0
334 0
0 0.09
0 1.57
0 1.59
760 6.68
564 0.20
472 0
646 0
552 0
0 0.67
78 0
- 112.._ - -0- -
2424 0.87
TOTALS 4880 -i 1154 806814.50
- A 2:1 multiplier was applied to each impact site, except for those with on-site relocations
TABLE 4. US 1 Relocation - Stream
Site Water Body
Section A
vc?, pi A02 1 UT to Little River
5 UT to Little River
10 UT to Little River
12 UT to Crane Creek
13 UT to Crane Creek
14 UT to Crane Creek

V,y 15 UT to Crane Creek
16 UT to Crane Creek
17 UT to Crane Creek/Farm Pond
19 UT to Crane Creek
21 UT to Crane Creek
1
22 UT to Crane Creek
24 Farm Pond
SUBTOTAL
Section B
1 Farm Pond
2 Farm Pond
4 Farm Pond
5 Farm Pond
6 Nancy Dyer Branch
9 UT to Little Crane Creek
12 Farm Pond
14 Farm Pond
15 Farm Pond
SUBTOTAL
Channel Channel Proposed Acres
Impact Replaced Mitigation* Impacted
inear feet) (linear feet) (linear feet)
341 0 682 0
7 0 14 0
574 174 574 0
13 0 276 0
26 0 52 0
39 0 78 0
256 0 512 0
600 0 1200 0
223 0 446 5.83
259 0 518 0
223 0 446 0
43 0 86 p
0 0 0 1.12
2729 174 4884 6.95
0 0 0 1.31
0 0 0 0.91
0 0 0 0.12
0 0 0 1.09
213 0 426 0
167 0 334 0
0 0 0 0.09
0 0 0 1.57
0 0 0 1.59
380 0 76 0 6.68
Section C
3 Farm Pond/ 282 0 564 0
20
fig. UT to Little Crane Creek .
4 UT to Little Crane Creek 472 449 472 0
5 UT to Little Crane Creek 646 531 646 0
6 UT to Little Crane Creek 276 0 552

9
Farm Pond
0
0
0 0

G
10
Little Juniper Creek
39
0
78 0.67

- - - -
- I 1
UT to Little Juniper Creek - -

_ _.
- - 56

.---
-p ---

-
-----112 0

_.. _ -
-
- - --
SUBTOTAL 1771 .
980 2424 0
0.87

* TOTALS v4880,;A 1154 8068 14
50
?
- A 2:1 multiplier was applied to each im pact site, except for those with on-site relocations .
,

Ei z
Jt l 6 C
?z d
I CO Q t
C4 9 t C
?aco? d m m m m mm
d d LTj
N a Q E E E E E„i W
7 E
t Z
E° a EEE E E EEE EE Ey m
e U ? ? m
E E E 5 5
N 6 e
e y ? ? v
E' ?' F' °' ; z j D Fj W
R WQ ? ?? ??m?a H
? ? < W W 9t ? ? °? m
O
F?
F U F ? o
F O
?` O O C
CZ
? ?a3 ? _ O < ? ? ? O W V a
r N W
Z O
tj V O m ? ? a? U? o,. a fa y
?? ? ? yy N
F ? ? 1"' n ?? N N N M
a ? a Qom[. pa I"'[-,? {0?'
IM V N j
yr U9 ? ?
? ? ?
?s-
t
V !°
j IN 61.11
a. x?
z
H? -
a
€?; ?1_ ?
APPENDIX C
Little River On-site Restoration Plan
Little River On-Site Restoration Plan
Improvements and Widening to US 1
From North of Lakeview to South of Sanford
TIP No. R-210

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Systems Unit
February 2001
1.0 Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a four-lane
divided freeway tying into the existing US 1 four-lane facility south of Camp Easter Road (SR
1853)/ Aiken Road (SR 2175) in Moore County to Wild Life Road (SR 1180) in Lee County. As
part of the project mitigation, a restoration effort will be undertaken at the current US 1 crossing
of the Little River.
1.1 Wetland Resources
Wetlands were delineated by NCDOT consultants using the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual" (1987). Mr. Jeff Richter, of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington
office, verified the delineation on March 2, 1995.
The Little River and the associated wetlands within the floodplain are very high quality. Despite
the construction of a 1308-foot bridge, the proposed project will impact 4.7 acres of these
wetlands. A temporary bridge will be used to construct the bridge over the Little River and the
wetlands.
1.2 Summary of Mitigation
Construction of the 1308-foot bridge over the Little River and floodplain coupled with the
removal of the existing US 1 bridge and causeway will allow NCDOT to restore 6.4 acres of
floodplain and wetlands. The 6.4 acres includes 4.3 acres of fill that currently makes up the
existing causeway (areas 1 a, 2a, 2b, 2c) and 2.1 acres of remnant fill (areas 1 c, 1 b, 3) that was
likely deposited during construction of the existing road. Besides restoring this 6.4 acres back to
its original elevation, the hydraulic connectivity of the active floodplain, which is currently
blocked by the existing road and causeway, will be restored. In addition, 8.4 acres of adjacent,
remnant wetland parcels are being included as a preservation component.
2.1 Site Description
There are many parcels making up the site. Each parcel, as well as some other areas, has been
assigned a circled number and the acreage calculated as shown on Figure 1. Following is a
description of each area:
1 a - Existing road bed on the west side of the bridge and extending back to the wetland
boundary and proposed end bent
1 b - Filled area within DOT right-of-way that will be restored to existing floodplain elevation
It - Filled area beyond DOT right-of-way that will be restored to existing floodplain
elevation
2a - Existing road bed on the east side of the bridge and extending back to the wetland
boundary on either side of the old road bed.
2b - Small sliver of road fill that is beyond DOT right-of-way that will be restored to existing
floodplain elevation
2c - Small sliver of road fill that is beyond DOT right-of-way that will be restored to existing
floodplain elevation
2d - Remnant parcel of existing wetlands and a portion of the Little River that will be
preserved
2e - Remnant parcel of existing wetlands and a portion of the Little River that will be
preserved
3 - Filled area within DOT right-of-way that will be restored to existing floodplain elevation
4 - Wetland impacts that will be avoided by construction of the elongated bridge
5 - Wetland impacts that will be avoided by construction of the elongated bridge
5a - Wetland impacts that will be avoided by construction of the elongated bridge
6 - Remnant parcel of existing wetlands that will be preserved
The floodplain wetland adjacent to the Little River is characterized as bottomland hardwood
according to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management; Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (Report No.
96-01, 1996) but also has many trees typical of swamp forests Dominant vegetation includes
water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichium).
The soils are mapped by the Soil Survey of Moore County, (MRCS, 1995) as the Wehadkee
series, which is a hydric mineral soil that forms from recent alluvial sediment and is frequently
flooded.
2.2 Methodology
The goal of the mitigation plan is to re-establish a wetland community as described in the Field
Guide to North Carolina Wetlands. The 6.4 acres identified above and shown in Figure 1 will be
graded down to an elevation of 74.5 feet, which is an average elevation from the surrounding
floodplain wetland. The area will then be planted as detailed in the Wetland Reforestation
Detail Sheet, which is attached. It is anticipated that this will restore 6.4 acres of high quality
floodplain wetlands and restore much of the historical sheet flow of floodwaters across the flood
plain.
Most of the grading work is expected to be performed in Spring 2004 since traffic will have to be
maintained on the existing road until the new facility is completed. Therefore, the planting and
monitoring will not take place until the 2005 growing season.
2.3 Monitoring
Hydrologic monitoring will occur throughout the growing season in the wetland area. Two
groundwater gauges will be placed on either side of the river in the restored wetland. Hydrology
will be monitored by using 40-inch groundwater gauges. Success will be based on saturation or
inundation within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season
during years of normal rainfall.
Vegetation monitoring will be based on visual observation of plant establishment and recorded
using photo reference points. Stem count, species composition, and plant health will be recorded
annually at the end of the growing season. Success will be based on survival of 320 trees per acre
in year three with a target survival of 260 trees per year in year five.
3.0 Mitigation Credit
The site is expected to generate 6.4 acres of restoration and 8.4 acres of preservation. All of the
wetland preservation and 4.7 acres of the restoration are going to be used to compensate for the
4.7 acres of high quality impact that will result from construction of US 1 (TIP R-210) across
this floodplain. The remaining 1.7 acres of restoration is anticipated to be used to compensate
for impacts associated with the Sanford Bypass (R-2417).
3.1 Final Dispensation of Property
NCDOT will retain ownership of the mitigation site until all monitoring requirements are
fullfilled and an appropriate recipient is identified. If and when the deed is transferred,
restrictions will be placed on the property to ensure protection in perpetuity.
L V L V I O
f?f z z z z
e ? h v? v rwn t/? ? ',
f?
i `? ?o o'o m ac G'r' n
i? z G C z z z z (:,, ?>
i 0 {p?iFZ?? U C, ? ? e
iY < K C
E Z? F 0 A? 6
C e
S S ? ? F.I
OO F em d h L-V '? y D
C ? F 3 U
S ? ? a O a c'.
m
z ?
m s °' oa vi r3 h °
v i•
{5^ pz C
F
5 O ?.
a d
? a O
` 6 U U
?3z1 a
omm fit
o"I
F pZ i ? i ?'
? cc
1
z
Gr z
?f
Ig!?
I
r?
C
?? ? i ? ? I s t1 it X 1 1
I , ) J
ai ??' , `, a I II 1 91W0
? 7 a I? t I ?? l -
y ' ..f
.,,
•;00 1 i I
u rTl <~
I -T,
Nil
? ? r• ?,
N
II II II I If II II If I1 II II II II II I
o -P, aaaa
O) OJ cn (D (D OD Q 'V O W CF) (n U7 N i
-A W (D ?l O ?! N cn A W O m w W ?bE ::ljij r C) I'
v O D O -P M N W W N (D -? GO D
C? D D C-) D D A D D D D D D
m n n >o n n n n n n n n b C.) r i tt , U)
N ?. 7
M X m m :33 X ao m m x m x ao ? ?' t zd c '
m m m m m m m m m m m m
dd ,
O / r -
(D C
W Q] p7 'I ?? . op
M 37 Q
.
L7 O 27t0°
IT!
m m V
cr
N D -I m Q X O -I /' \ 1
m z C x m m 7o p ao - 1
+ p --I p H p s.
N m m r c
0 m O r z . H H
U3 Cl - I x z
+ -I Ec m -i m D D m
D+ o r o r H o fir; ci r
H z m z
z D O S 710 X R
o O m H I? D H O -I r v ti t s t
N X?
rW-+ m Z 0 m
n
0 Z
p z D r m H ?mQD
.
+ D r O o t Yom`` \
N rz p o z r
ao z -1 m
z C:
a) :10 m
o -
? ^ ?1? •:I ? • -? ?? - ? _ _ - - _ y0. ,". 2\?
• ;a ? as _t _ r - - _ ?
•? - -
--------------- ---
1-4 1
All!
SWE
1:r'I Nib ' '\
i •. ? P ' ? : mot.
jlO " `.
tit ,e, Wyy
Zda 3 Z1 c7 1?? M-a6h
V, 4' tA,
44t+u"_.w? - t?`N Q ----------- -- 715.9 39 `}' -- ----

i?
dk. 3N0 tie&T
-7-01 c-;,

4??-777-6?Zs
--
-- - --=- rc.lfnb _.._/ o?,?se a .sE? S eaN ?'oRa _Ca car is -°!-(I-- 775 - 7 ?8L
V7L
Nc?4 uJ -

__l
,.
----- --------
???_
51 -) 03
_ 2 : o ?k t ( v ri

GL
Gm w
h, A?

Les kt-a L rc ..? - c .-1^r d.c t t Rn.4 ?S
L, tc,5 141

? d S?1c fluri,
I
SI
?f
?"`? 2

March 12, 2003
S.T. Wooten
Corporation
Mr. Marty C. Tillman, Resident Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 429
Sanford, North Carolina 27330
Re: Project 6.549008T, Etc.
Lee/Moore County
Subject: Request Permit Modification for Site No. 21 Bridges at
Sta. 81+00-L-+ Over Craines Creek
Dear Mr. Tillman:
Please find attached (8) eight copies of the permit modification we are requesting
at Site No. 21 for the purpose of hauling dirt, as well as, bridge construction. S. T.
Wooten Corporation would greatly appreciate approval in this matter as soon as possible.
In talking with Mr. Richard Spencer with the Corp of Engineers this permit modification
should include all the information that is required for the review process.
Your prompt attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If any additional
information is needed please advise.
Sincerely,
S. T. Wooten Corporation
>dtj-7 A- t-4"?
Gregory N. Nelson
Vice President
GNN/dsb
cc: John Brown
pbC PI#*
s
o0
o a
PO Box 2408 • Wilson, NC 2 7894-24 08 • 252.291.5165 • Fax [phone]

March 12, 2003 O
, M 0
WETUANQS 1401 GROUP
APR 1 0 2003
"Xilk I' QUALITY SECTION
S.T. Wooten
Corporation
Mr. Marty C. Tillman, Resident Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 429
Sanford, North Carolina 27330
Re: Project 6.549008T, Etc.
Lee/Moore County
Subject: Request Permit Modification for Site No. 21 Bridges at
Sta. 81+00-L-+ Over Craines Creek

Dear Mr. Tillman:
Please find attached (8) eight copies of the permit modification we are requesting
at Site No. 21 for the purpose of hauling dirt, as well as, bridge construction. S. T.
Wooten Corporation would greatly appreciate approval in this matter as soon as possible.
In talking with Mr. Richard Spencer with the Corp of Engineers this permit modification
should include all the information that is required for the review process.
Your prompt attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If any additional
information is needed pleasel advise.
Sincerely,
S. T. Wooten Corporation
Gregory N. Nelson
Vice President
GNN/dsb
cc: John Brown
Pl##
x f
o0
??' °? PO Box 2408 • Wilson, NC 27894-2408 • 252.291.5165 • Fax [phone]
1
DETAILS OF PERMIT MODIFICATION SITE NO. 21
PHASE I (See Attached Drawing No. 2) Temporary Haul Road at
Craines Creek for Hauling 175,000 m3 of Dirt:
1. Place temporary filter fabric Type II under timber mats as shown on detail
"A" drawing No. 2 and temporary silt fence adjacent.
2. Place temporary work bridge 27m x 6m attached to timber mats. Temporary
rails 1.067m in height with Type II filter on either side up 605mm to prevent
any earth spillage into Craines Creek in addition, (1) one Laborer will be at
the site with shovel to keepsnaterial from any excess1uildup.
G Temporary impact for this change is only 0.029 ha increases the impact area
by 0.005 ha with the deletion shown of the areas in the original permit.
4. All temporary mats and temporary bridge will be removed. Therefore, the
placing of timber mats will proceed for the construction of the left and right
lane bridges. (See attached Drawing No. 3)
PHASE II (See Attached Drawing No. 3) Timber Mats for Bridge
Construction
1. The timber mats will be placed as shown on Drawing No. 3, which reduces the
original impact of 0.224 ha to 0.200 ha. Once the concrete girders are set on both
the left and right land bridges the timber mats will be removed only in between
the (2) two bridges. This will enable us to construct the deck and barrier.
2. Bridges are complete, remainder of timber mats are removed and area reclaimed
to original condition.
1
u9
82+00
p
r
W
d
1
E
0
N d
C, "l
_j
I/
SHOO
80 too

7 ';r

a 5 J
? J
'
q .w._
i a

J ? ?
V 1 I
'
C1
1
,
I
Gt •9oa
! i
_ +

T 1
C
I• I I

? a
i o

..
'.•
x`11 it ?y F
?

tit

•
3 ? z u--ao?
o
W ?
,
Y
- T

? u y ? ?? `y 1 ? 1•
'y ?

•
g:
W
' ?
•'
I ? ri '
?
Y o
Hy 0
, M 1
I
I •s•d ° Y l 'l

?
? •I
I z•z ? a•z °•z . •z 3j
n
(- V%t4L -V1b ?IN1 IY1Jlyw

z "C U N r
H W ?
cY W 2 • C . rt
- K W W N O W \
a W ?z w
Z RwW0 7
?
d
F
a •
O ? ?
? 1
W
O "[ U
H
Kz0>
?H
W

h a
Z G
z
S u za
HNO
7
\? ?
-
h ?
•/ Y a W "C N d ?
ELI 3:
N
2 r
l
zH
x =
q
oK°N z
l
s p ? 1?
0 1^ N =
O
0 ON
U u
i V
U O U ° W FU4'm 4 ?i'I
2 ?/HI W b O w H +/NI 6 w h
> F s
w N
O a 2 w
Z? T 0 q
q
t1 u T g O N N
GUO •i
J ? ?U• 7
-?u IZ
. ? JVO •n
ul
3

F
1
F ,,
U
O E" K W T C K
Ul ? W WNO 41
m n (? -w z
O
I`l
?{ N W>
? G
^ d
• F
a U40
K a w l _
> O
? ? r" ? •ou °
z D
p ?z0>
f ?l W ? ?Ham
F Zn.? p
W
Q ? T .. zN0"?
-
T
3 1
\
E"
>
4 W
I
i•
' • N
a W C

\ ;
i 2N
zr -
w
° ?
u ZO 1. L

?
Nz
°c°
1 . r
z
(
?
•V W F f
C vFl
x = I..
00
0 Z 4
O N
O O
uo u ?a t?4aa,,
a

xI
W ? zN
0WHNK 4
W F
N
O N
ED Fj
x F
m O .-1 ..x((?
a U Y w 0 K LJ
U

7 ?
7

I z
a _
7 V U O
g ? d
7 > > T-r
_` V 0 Q
7 _ I ,a a _U

W J r

F i < 4Jr ?

o C
l
.
< ? w
e t°
a
a<
,? C-1
Q
W
r
1:
0

J
?

Mry?
"V

y

E
3+
4
u9
? ?
o
J

Bz+oo

h
E

i ? d
d

IAN
0 $
v ? V
1 r? y ? _ni ? ,
p

F 7

o
n
?

h
\?
R

v %

80 too

ti
f
v ? v

I J I
i In• r I
r ?Y r`r I f ? ?
I i ? ?J
~i Irk
3 11 u? c rv ? ~
a
11
la ° I K1

ut r7,
'
,? i ? r
P Fr w I I

? ? 3 1' C? G? I ' I ' 4P
r
Y tt
y
r .
m

• :
; h

_ o.
? l
tfl
rl'
o•s?

l11
J?
?Lt.'
n*
I
'r? ' m
v
, L Q•St

o
• N.;'Y Sr i . r J \ ¢ l' og 1\

- \ 7
xl

I I < 't i?s??p Y

I 'L . 15 -

ur n °n1 \
? 1 r
i a r I ,? .• • ? Ij

i '1 r
I FZ 1 0'L 0'1 'I
I \, ..?
•;I'1 i. J ?
.lu \ ll'.-.
r
r ,
v
J
h
- I- C7 ? + b L '71-;n :lN I I I'I J1IM
N J
?. W

• U
O
H O 2 •C
H W ?
?
[., 11 U H S
0 .'
w
•
.
?
a
W
N
a ww
n
w W `
-wo
?
wwo
? F +"
~
l OI
?
.
t ? ry

F ^
Z O 1
^
W - 4 U0
G O /rh1 ? 1I
F

O

? H ? W
1
l `
`
W

w
'"a
G
y `

W n
'-H ?
7 1?
F V

U
0=
u U Fr
aurn V
;nI
zz a??ran i
F D =
?
0a0
d z o o ?
?- W m u
I
4 q`y1
U0
H U WFU
/ Y'I
S r
/1
6> w
n b
F 1 a
O W H ?
O ."1 rL w a W r
R W .
°a z m a'u ao U? X.

a 7 ? j

'
bug

? 7 j
2 C
?t .
J
o

e
D
{I

?J H ? I m
K a W

v
w W
n O
T
J Ll

i_I
I
J ``
f h w>
L) o F.
+ W w
>
I ? ? 4 H H ?H L
o
u?
. V ?Q r ? W
e u Hh ?
- 'n4 w
U
,
d?. rowan
,`l ? rv
J u iu? L
`Y•
(? O O F rv
az ? o Una D m o O
? nw
?yI ?`1
UO U n
H ? Q
W E-0

F
m n K n
? Z
?1
r
W

W
a
?
OH [O, h •
i
n
a
a
¢ j W
- Z? S U
n
;
W 2m WO vi v=i
Q ?
J 7 `
} -7
}
a - ?3?
a Z t,uO
H
o <

U °
l ? U Q
J _=U
? .
k = a o ono P..

GG??i ? ? ? N

w
r-

39
82f 00
W
l -y
a
0
d
C, W
m
a j
8HOO
80 too

1 7''`r I _
!
X [
-
00

4
'? 4
?
$ I
m• 51 °?

'C

z I ?I
q m

1 i
{ a:
°• 4 irl t?.., a•s?

I 1
?•
?
?
'L 1 , r

9
'1 ? _ 6
• *
a?? x t ? ?

U

I ?F• ,, 4C 1

?¢?
g I • .i 1 _ 1

I ?
I
Ilv a ? tj
L `
Y "
c X'• 1
5'd a I t
I { ? Z-1 - I- V74-bL -V-LS JNI IYI?-LVVY

'Z
Z

O K
O T
K r o
\?
F .t .
U .? r N
tl? a W 2
W 0 .
¢
W
- K
a W N O
Wiz w
" ?RO° W ? of
F 0
H 2 O
00
H
.

O H
rI
W .. O
H

S
F 13,
4
OS S z r
O (y?

KH irv
FI
"C ?l `w
V 1` (?
Y
S O W ? N S
H-1 W F 9 °2 O
00
o O O v u
U O O W F U'" m 4 "1'1
H
S N
W b N C 2 N
O W H N K
W F
C> 8 F w 'a
O 0 ? W
a x m a
d u 4 a 0 . h h
J li
• F Gu° K
J uU• 7
J 3 _u? ?i
7 ? Z C 'L
_uz
j2 O IL
It

0
?
n,
• V
N
?f
ar
• V ,,, F
O Q
0 4
° O N r
I V -1
1 z. .t
J P
p
.: ?
C`?
p
` O F a 41Z
n D 4
W
m A
1
1 1
JCC
0
°
_ I
W
-wiz
W >
O
m

? ? ?
4
?
?` -!

J •?

F 'CwW

1'y • a u W
> 0
°
°

?
333 43
o
u
oNau
_

J Z u rz..4 O

W o? z u"? ? III
Hx aC
WN. _
Q 00 7
q
o

o _
U'n T 2 p
oN N
'

. z
u
a u °
NU,w -
N.Z
41

2 N W
FH C N

a>?KN .Wa

W
O H S F U
C= S

Z O S ..o

G.UY N

N
`?,{

'I

i 7 ( u O
F 0 1 -
Jc
>< o

__ o 0
o
V
! ,o

t`
14 J
a J
=?a•
?

I an ?mX'Li

w
RIDGES 1 "S„ - vl ?
?11* Z?IG'or-6 (?' &"?t"cS CA_ASR__'L
finish, we can provide you with a bridge that will meet your needs (and budget). Give us
a call to demonstrate what we can do for you! Many sizes in stock and ready to roll.
We look forward to hearing from y_ou soon!
a? -
?r A
http://www.prsx.com/bridges.htm 3/11/2003
(2? /3 eia/qcs 89 'x 9_ j
(z7, ' <?or oj sac
k 1? m)
r
Physica/P?Opein
U
C!
Minimum Roll Width
Nliainlum Fabric Weight
Minimum Tensile Strength
Elongation
Alininunn Burst Strength t4:Pai
Minimum Puncture Siren_th
Apparem Opening Size-Max/Min
(Standard Sieve) own)
Minimum Ultraviolet Exposure
Streneth Retention
Fungus Resistance
Minimum Permeability (Thickness x
Permit tit i vily)
Minimum Permittitivity
Typical Applications
Table 1056-1
P/>rsical Properties of E
-i
i
neer
n.
ng Fabrics
Test t\lethod

(A Type 1 Tvpe 2 i
Ty
e
7
rticle lU?
o-2 1 p
i Class A Class 1S
-- -- -- 30" t914.4 mm) 36" (914.4 nun)
1 4 oz./yd2 -- __ --
13 .kg/m')
9016. 200 lb. (890 N) 50 lb. (222 N) 100 lb. (445 N)
(400 N)
8W." Max. 1555 Min. 309, Max. 25mr NL1x.
3 150 psi (1034) 400 psi (2758) 100 psi (684) 180 psi (1241)
4, 4A for Type 4 45 lb. (200 N) 80 lb. (356 N) 30 lb. (133 N) 60 lb. (367 N)
5 60/100 30/130 20/50 20/5(
(.250/0.150) ROOM. 115) (0.850/0.300) (0.850/0.300)
6 8016. (356 N) 140 lb. (623 N) 40 lb. (178 N) 80 lb. (356 N)
7 No G'omli No Gowili No Growth No Growth
8 0.2 c111/sec
8 0.15Sec' 0.15Sec"
(407 L/ntin/m) (407 L/min/rn )
Shoulder Drain Under Rip Rap Temporary Silt Fence
o - o

T, pr 4 5 .J 0
_o or?•C
"J ? GA
a ? Q

C
cs c A

La
?00 )b. ^
(890 N) z
•
-- O W ^?
5 0
390 psi ti y
2700) O O
801bs. E+ a a v
(356 N) U W 0.Q

30/80 W
A rs
o°
v Y
(0.60/0.18)
? U
T t;r

r7
a a
A `0
•o

No Growth
a w
o ._

w ? •-
U

~ a U ,7,
.
For Soil y.,
1 cy
Stabilization ? ? F

ems:.
NCDENR.
JAMES S. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR !s
WAYNE.MCDEvir r
SZCRZTANY.

:.DIRECTOR.---
4%: : V r
' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
April 1, 1999
Mr. Dave Timpy
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Timpy:
Subject: NCDOT Project #R-210 C/A/B
Lee County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North
Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is willing to accept
payment from the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) for stream impacts associated with the subject project in
accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the
NCWRP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Based on information
supplied by the NCDOT in a memorandum dated March 26, 1999, the
impacts associated with the subject project are as follows: 9,000 of
streams. Assuming a 2:1 ratio for compensatory mitigation, the
NCWRP will provide the amount and type of required mitigation in
Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River.
If you need additional information I can be reached at 919-733-
s.

?y
K. x
Y,t.?
n---IAN
5219.
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Ferrell
Program Manager
Wetlands Restoration Program
cc: John Dorney, Wetlands/401 Unit
David Robinson, NCDOT
P.O. BOX 29535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
ANT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND;
1 '
BRMX T. CVNN=H"t, ik
JUCHABD R DBDMOND
AMC. PZrZRSBN- OR CO(NNM
910 695 0903;
i DEDMONQ, PETE
kTORMn AM Coy
i : =3 NOM.Aww"ar
M'?N Pa?Ea? Noffi C
010)"64M
FACOIMII.E TRAN$MI
DATE : l 4
TO: FAX #
FROM:
SUBJECT :
REMARKS:
210 ?S 4'Dl
FEB-i8-01 5:26PM; PAGE 1
N & SMITH. L.L.P.
AT JAW
MAII.M ADDRESS
PA. BOX 14"
8O1TrHMN FWW Nc 1"a
FAX NO. [phone]
FB `? ? 2
9 ?.?,33? ? ?'s9
336 6L? -?ov}

PAGES. L s
including this cover pa a. If you do not, receive all
pages, call imm diately to (9;0) 695-0800. T nsmission is being made from
[phone].
The pages coWriaing thij faasimile tr alaission 0ontafn eorifidential
intormetion lraB the law olf3.c* of CUnnfnghm Dedmond, Petersen and aaith.
This inlassostioa is intended sb1rly for use by the individual entity n aund as
tho rs"yient hereof. Zf YOU " not the in recipient, be aware that
any di#clasuse, copying, dim?ribution, or of the contento of this
transla><ssion is ytohibitod. : you Nava rscei this tra nodasion in error,
please notify us by telephotne f=Ssd4^taly so my arrange to retrieve thin
twansm issi,on at no cost to yon.
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDM60;

EMUC@ T. CUNNINGI [AM, ,IR.
RICHARD E. DEDMOND
MARSH SMITH
Of Cound: ANN C. PETERSEN
910 695 0906;
CUNNINGHAMe.DEDMOND, PETI
ATtoRNEYS AND COUNSEL
1225 NORTH BENNETT
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CA
1910) 695-0800
Via First
Division of Water Quality, Water
Attention: John Hennessy
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
1$ February 2001
s Mail and Fax (9
Lab
FEB-18-01 5:27PM;
PAGE 2
N & SMITH, LLP
T t.Aw
28387
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES, NC 28388
FAX NO. (91o) 09S-o908
19-733-9959)
RE: Comments on ;401 Water Qualif,- "i for 8210
Dear Mr. Hennessy_
As counsel for MooreFORCL,
of Vass and Cameron (R210), I have
(1' EIS) for 12210 and believe it falls sly
make a decision on whether to issue a
As set forth in more detail bel(
North Carolina Environmental Policy
(NPPA), DWQ must use an environm
Statement (EIS), as a decision making
the FEIS/ROD prepared by NCDOT f
require that DWQ can't use the preser
discussion of cumulative impacts, use
secondary impacts, fails totally to add
not evaluate mitigation (only promise
mitigation). DWQ must directly consi
mitigation in deciding on a 401 permi
I've enclosed a Record on ApI
before the NC: Court of Appeals. I wo
Inc. and several con cmnces affected by the US I bypass
oviewed the Final E vironmental Impact Statement
>rt of what the Divi on of Water Quality (DWQ) needs to
401 Water Quality P rmit.
w, in order to live u to its responsibilities under the
ket (NCEPA) and National Environmental Policy Act
.ntal document, sue as an Environmental Impact
tool in deciding wh ther to issue a 401 Permit, However,
Ir R2101'ails so far sport of what NEPA and NCEPA
t FEIS as a decisionrtaking tool because it totally omits
"boilerplate" (also scd in the R1030 FE1S) to address
ess impacts to the Town of Cameron's wel I rield and does
to minimize impact and to perform unspecified
ler groundwater imp cts, cumulative impacts and
15A NCAC 2H.05 6(b)(3), (4) & (6).
Dal in one of the co cmnation cases that is currently
dd ask that you revi it in conjunction with the I2210
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND;
ROD & FETS and this letter, esi
pp 76-124). After this review, I
EIS from NCDOT.
910 695 0903; FEB-i8-01 5:27PM; PAGE 3
y the affidavits of v 'ous state and local officials (Record,
it that DWQ not issu a 401 permit without a supplemental
STAT
A. NORTH CAROLINA
NCEPA establishes that "it shA
safe, healthful, productive and aestheti
beneficial uses of the environment wi
the important historic and cultural ele
further purpose is to require agencies
aspects and consequences of their aeti'
re Environmental Management Comni
Orange Water and Sewer Authority, 2
remand, 341 S.E.2d 588 (N.C.. Ct. Apo
(hereafter "Orange Water and Sewer
Y
NVIR.ONMENT POLICY ACT
11 be the policy of th -. State to seek, for all of its citizens,
Lally pleasing surro dings; to attain the widest range of
iout degradation, Li ' to health or safety; and to preserve
ents of our commo inheritance." N.C.G. S. 113A-3. "A
f the State to consi and report upon environmental
ns which involve expenditure of public moneys." In
'•n Final Order Gra ing a Certificate of Authority to
0 S.E.2d 520, 524 ( .C. Ct. App. 1981), appeal after
: 1986), review den' d, 346 S.E.2d 139 (N.C. 1986)
uthority"), To fulfi i?
r
i
l these policies, NCEPA requires that
(N.C.G.S. 113A-4(2)):
Every State agency shall inchi a in every recomme elation or report on any action
involving expenditure of public moneys or use of p blic land for projects and programs
significantly affecting the quality of the environme it of this State, a detailed statement by
the responsible official setting- orth the following:
a. The environmental impact of the
b. Any significantadverse envi
should the propbsal be imvlc
c. Mitigation meaiiires proposed to
d. Alternatives to (he proposed action;
e. The relationshilibetween the short-
in the proposed,' iction and the main
productivity; ar>
£ Any irrevcrsibl4:and irretrievable
2
action;
effects which cannot be avoided
the impact;
uses of the environment involved
ice and enhancement of long-term
changes which would be
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND; 910 695 0903; FEB-19-01 5:27PM; PAGE 418
involved in the Otoposed action shot Id it be implemented.

Thus, NCEPA is triggered when thervire (1 NCAC 25.01( 8):
i.
i•
i.
(1) an expenditure of public monies or use of publi
s•
land; and
(2) an action by a state ageneyisubject to this Chap r; and
(3) a potential environmental effect upon either nae rai resources, public health and
safety, natural beauty, or histofical or cultural elem nts of the state's conunon
inheritance.
Tf these three requirements arelmet, NCEPA manda tes that an agency must prepare either
an environmental asscssrnont (horeaft4f, "EA") or an ETS.I I NCAC 25.0401(a). If an EA is
i?
prepared and the agency determines that the project will n t have a "significantly adverse effect

on the quality of the environment," thi agency must file a F
i inding of No Significant Impact. 1
s
NCAC 25.0401(d). If the agency deteirmines from the EA
i•
hat the project will have a significant,
adverse effect on the environment, thq agency must file an 1S.2 1 NCAC 25.0401(6).
If an EIS is prepared, the agency must first prepare
' draft and circulate it for comments.
s
1 NCAC; 25.0605(a). Before the agcr'cy can proceed, the
gcncy must prepare a final ElS which
incorporates the comments that were 1hade on the draft. 1 'CAC 25.0605(b), (c). The reason
for this is simple. The ETS is intended:. "to serve as a d".?. ; .. ,,iaking tool to ensure that the
purposes and policies denied in [NCIIPA] arc given full c nsideration in the ongoing programs
and actions of state government." 1 *-AC 25.0601.
In discussing how the ETS serv?2s the goals of the N
i. tional Environmental Policy Act
(hereafter "NEW), 42 U.S.C. 4321,1 seq., the Supreme ourt has stated that the EIS
requirement has two principal functioi' . Robertson V. Me ow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S.
1 Where the agency actionfalls below e stablished minimum
criteria, the agency need not prepare a EA or an EIS. 1 NCAC
25.0401. Activities which DENR has con luded will normally be
below NCEPA's minimum crit;er.i.a can he f and at 15A NCAC 1C.0504.
2 The agency can bypass the EA. and
an EIS. 1 NCAC: :25. 0401 (b1:.
with the preparation of
3
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND; 910 695 0903;
' 332, 349 (1989). First, it "ensures thatthe agency, in react
and will carefully consider, detailed information conccrnir.
* *." ibid. Second, it "guarantees that; the relevant inform
larger audience that may also play a redo in both the dccisi
implementation of that decision." lbi(fThus, "by focusin
environmental consequences of a proposed project, NEPA
i
be overlooked or underestimated onlyto be discovered aft
the die otherwise cast" (citations omitted). Ibid.
Finally, before the project can proceed, the agency
(hereailer "ROD"). 1 NCAC 25.0606;; The ROC) must co
i
NCAC 25.0606):
(1) a statement of what the decision was and the
(2) identification of all alternatives considered and
environmentally preferable;
(3) a discussion of why the cb4en alternative is
or technical considerations, orOgency statutory.
environmental and other state 6olicies.
(4) a certification that all means of avoiding or mi
in the EIS will be, incorporated into the project or
While NCEPA and its regulati{ns do not require s
s.
empowered to "review the manner in W" hich an agency de
environmental consequences have beef considered in the
County v. North Carolina Dept of Tr4n sportation, 46 N.,
App. 1980), discretionary review deni6d, 301 N.C. 94 (1
3
B. THE CLEAN WATI~ Pl ACT
The requirement that the NCDIDT obtain a 401 wa
stems froin Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.(
Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to
4
FEB-1A-01 5:28PM; PAGE 5/8
its decision, will have available,
significant environmental impacts
tion will be made available to the
rimaking process and the
the agency's attention on the
nsures that important effects will not
resources have been committed or
prepare a Record of Decision
the following information (1
or program it was for;
those considered
appropriate; based upon economic
>n. and how it balances
nixing environmental impacts set out
)gram, and if not, why they are not.
stantive results, Courts are
lion has been made to ensure that
anner prescribed bylaw." Orange
350, 358, 265 S.E.2d 890, 898 (N.C.
0.
,T quality certification from DENR
1341(a)(1). Soction401 states.
any activity including, but not
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND; 9i0 695 0903; FEB-18-01 5:28PM; PAGE 6/8
i
limited to, the construction or Operation of facilitie which may result in any discharge
into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensi or permitting ageTiuy a uertifiudtion
from the State in which the discharge originates or ill originate * * * that any such
discharge will comply with thc:applicable provisions of sections 1311, 1312, 1313, 1316,
and 1317 of this title.
Section 303 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 131
standards for interstate waters. Accor
1341(a), requires that any person seek
discharge into navigable waters must
such discharge will not result in a via
requires states to a?opt and update state water-quality
igiy, Section _7,1e Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C_
g a federal permit r a project that will result in a
st obtain a certifc ion from the State that provides that
of the State's Water-auality standards.
Before construction on R210 chin begin, the NCDO needs to obtain a permit to fill
wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 3 U.S.C. 1344, from the Corps.
Therefore, since the construction of R? 10 will result in a d seharge to the Little River, the
NCDOT must first obtain a 401 eertitkation from DENR31statinx that the construction and
operation of R210 will not result in Ablations of the Little ivcr's water-quality standards. 33
U.S.C. 1341(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. 121.2(a)b); 15A NCAC 214.1600.
In considering whetherlto approve an appli Lion for certification, DENR trust
first determine whether the proposed 4(ivity will rcinove 4r degrade the body of water's
existing uses. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(a) If those uses win `ut oe removed or degraded, DENR
must issue the certification if the activ`Ity (15A NCAC 2H, 506(b)):
(1) has no practical alternativeunder the criteria outlined in Paragraph (f) of this Rule;4
3 N.C.G.S. 143B-282(a)(1) N.) authorizes the Commission to issue
401 certifications. The commission has delegated that authority
to the Division of water Quality (herea ter " DWQ" ) within DENR.
15A NCAC 2H.0502(a).
4 15A NCAC 21I.0506 (f) pro+ides that a " lack of practical
alternatives may be shown-?by demonstrat ng that, considering the
potential for a reductionin size, conf guration or density of
the proposed activity andall alternati a designs[,1 the basic
project purpose cannot bepractically a complished in a manner
which would avoid or result in less adv rse impact to surface
waters or wetlands."
5
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND; 910 695 0903; FEB-18-01 5:28PM; PAGE 7/8
(2) will minimize adverse impacts to the surface w ters based on consideration of
existing topography, vegetatioi, fish and wildlife r sources, and hydrological conditions
under the criteria outline in patagraph (g) of this R 1e;5
(3) does not result in the degra?fadon of groundwat TOT surface waters;
(4) does not result in cumulati+c impacts, based up n past or reasonably anticipated
future impacts, that cause or vAl l cause a violation f downstream water quality
standards;
(5) provides for protection of downstream water
site storm water control measuK'es; and
(6) provides for replacement o existing uses thn
Subparagraph[] (h)(1) of this AWe.6
Tf any one of these factors cannot be r#t, DENR cannot i
Certainly, the language of 15A, NC;AC; 1C;,0102(b)
previously prepared environmental
which an environmental document
5 Paragraph 15A NCAC 2H.0
impacts may be demonstrat
wetlands are able to cant
project completion, or th
(1) The spatial and
or
uments - "As part
prepared, the
standards through the use of on-
mitigation as described at
the certification.
icitly uuthoriz". TAWQ to rely on
making a decision on a project for
decision-maker shall review
6(g) provide that Minimization of
by showing hat the surface waters or
ue to suppor the existing uses after
the impacts are required due to:
mensional re uirenment$ of the project;
(2) The location of 4ny existing s ructural or natural
features that may di6tate the plac ment or configuration of
the proposed proj ec:t: j or
(3) The purpose of t4 project and how the purpose relates
to placement, cronfig4ration or den ity.
6 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) (1) provides that PENR " shall coordinate
mitigation requirements with other peruL'?.i: ng agencies that are
requiring mitigation for ,specific pro ect. Mitigation required
by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineera aha 1 be considered to
constitute the mitigation !'required by the certification unless
the [agency] determines tl?at the mitiga ion proposal does not
meet the criteria established in Subpar graph (6) of this
Paragraph." 15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)(6) re ires that wetlands be
replaced based on a 1:1 r.:tio at a mini um.
6
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND; 910 695 0903; FES-18-01 5:29PM; PAGE 8/8
the document and incorporate it as past of continuing deliberations." 15A NCAC 1C.0102(b)
k
(cmphasis added). But this clearly cootcmplates an EIS th t addresses the six factors contained
in 15A NCAC 2TI.0506(b). NCDOT r fused to analyze cu ulative impacts of 12210. Franklin
Vick of NCDOT claimed that this w4because NCDOT had "not established an envirotunental
impact tracking system at this time." See Record, p. 245. he "mitigation" plan was only
slightly more "robust." It contained tl-? promise that "all mitigation will be `in-kind."' See
Record, p. 244. If NCDOT didn't anal lyze these factors i the FETS, then either DWQ must do
so now in a supplemental EIS that co0orms to North Car ina law requiring an EIS to address
cumulative impacts and mitigation (1 ?ICAC 25.0603) or . WQ must require NCDOT to rectify
sthese shortcomings.
I should hasten to add that the
directly through the well field for the
field. One cannot find an analysis of
to Cameron's remaining wells. It, the
8210 "does not result in the det;radat
IS completely fai s to address the fact that 8210 goes
,vn of Cameron, taking out 50% of Cameron's well
t Karin the runoff from the completed 11210 will bring
ire, seems quite c ar that DWQ cannot certify that
of groundwater." 11 5A NCAC 211.0506(b)(3).
Accordingly, I request that
Certification from DWQ until NC]
the law.
Sincerely,
All AO? ,
Marsh Smith
Enclosure
cc: Steve Schmidly, Esq.
Fred Lamar, Esq.
? deny NCDOT's jpp1,an tiofor a 401 Water Quality
prepares an adequ to supplemental EiS that conforms to
7
R-210.
Subject: R-210
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:40:43 -0500
From: Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]> FILE UO"'OPY
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Robert Deaton <[e-mail]>
CC: cynthia vanderwiele <[e-mail]>,
Leigh Lane <[e-mail]>
I'll add another comment regarding the "R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water
Quality" document. Although nutrients (i.e., phosphorus and nitrogen) do not seem to be
problematic in this section of the Cape Fear River Basin, sediment and turbity are concerns. The HNTB
focuses on projected land use and very little is devoted to the potential WQ effects except to state that there
will be a modest increase in stormwater runoff.
I suggest the following:
1) the document should address the more conservative build-out density:
a) use Low Density Development and 10%/70% build out scenarios and assume that all commercial and
industrial development will use 70% built upon area; @
b) use High Density Development and 10%/70% build out scenarios and assume that all commercial and
industrail development will use 70% built upon area;
2) since NC 24/27 highway changes will occur (although not sure when), the build out probability of this
project should also be considered; and
3) since sedimentation and turbidity are the pollutant concerns in this drainage area, modeling the effects
of the build out scenarios noted above should not only look at the probability and the effects of increased
stormwater runoff, but, turbidity and sedimentation. What effect will the increased runoff, turbidity and
sedimentation have on the streams and ponds/lakes in the watershed? What methods will be used to
prevent turbidity and sedimentation from not only the road construction, but the subsequent projected build
out of development?
@ Rule 15A NCAC 2B (3)(b)(i)(E) states:
"A maximum of 10 percent of each jurisdiction's portion of the watershed outside of the critical area as
delineated on July 1, 1993 may be developed with new development projects and expansions of existing
development of up to 70 percent built-upon surface area in addition to the new development approved in
compliance with the appropriate requirements of Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) or Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(B) of this
Rule. For expansions to existing development, the
existing built-upon surface area is not counted toward the allowed 70 percent built-upon surface area. A
local government having jurisdiction within the watershed may transfer, in whole or in part, its right to the
10 percent/70 percent land area to another local government within the watershed upon submittal of a joint
resolution and review by the Commission. When the water supply watershed is composed of public lands,
such as National Forest land, local governments may count the public land acreage within the watershed
outside of the critical area in figuring the acreage allowed under this provision.
For local governments that do not choose to use the high density option in that WS-III watershed, each
project must, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize built-upon surface area, direct stormwater
runoff away from surface waters, and incorporate best management practices to minimize water quality
impacts; if the local government selects the high density development option within that WS-III watershed,
then engineered stormwater controls must be employed for the new development;"
Subject:
Re: R-210
1 of 3 1/7/02 '
R-210
Date:
Fri, 14 Dec,2001 06:26;24 0500
From:
Bill Gilmore <bgilmore@dot. state.nc.us>
Organization:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
To:
Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
CC:
Leigh Lane <[e-mail]>, Michael G Wood <[e-mail]>,
Robert Deaton <[e-mail]>,
Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]>
References:
Time line will have to come from Bruce/Mike. Cynthia, I do not understand your comment about
TAZs. Thank you for your attention to this project.
Leigh/Bob, could you fill me in on the TAZ question and suggestion.
Cynthia Van Der Wiele wrote:
Good afternoon all,
I am using email rather than snail mail in an effort to help everyone. I think the meeting today was
helpful. I want to help you with your project and at the same time keep us all out of court.
Issues to be addressed before DWQ can issue the Water Quality Certification:
1. Cumulative/Secondary Impacts
The report prepared by HNTB was fairly good. Small details: Figures 3, 4, and 5 did not contain
keys/legends or labels.
Back in August when DOT and HNTB met with DWQ, we advised that 2 build-out scenarios be
evaluated: the low-density and the high-density option. The report prepared by HNTB only
examines the results of development under the low-density option (which is currently in place).
They did not consider that the
locals could revise their ordinances to a high density ordinance which allows for
more BUA (built upon surface area), nor did they factor in that the local
governments can allow up to 70% BUA for 10% of their jurisdiction w/in the
watershed which could very well be along this highway corridor. Thus, their worst-case scenario
really isn't... I believe an attorney specializing in environmental law and possessing a copy of our
rules would be astute enough to realize this.
HNTB mentioned two methodologies for analyzing growth but said they could
not complete these models due to lack of data. I understand that DOT is going to make some
changes but it will be too late for this project. DWQ's recommendation is that
DOT coincidentally develop their TAZ or, as in this case, RPO, with the highway
r
2 of 3 1/7/02 1:57 P1V
R-210.
project so the data is available concurrently to run the models (whichever one
is best).
2. Compensatory Mitigation
This will absolutely have to be in place before a permit can be issued.
3. Impacts to groundwater
4. Relocation plan for the impacted wells.
5. Legible permit drawings.
These are our comments to date. Steve Zoufaly will send you additional comments/requests for
information based upon his review of the Secondary/Cumulative Impact study.
We realize that you are anxious for the 401 WQC and we will make every effort to review this
material in as timely a manner as possible. Does DOT have a proposed timeline for when DWQ
401 Wetlands Unit can expect to receive this information?
Best,
Cynthia
Steve Zoufaly <Steve.Zoufaly>
Env. Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
DENR
3 of 3 IM02
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER M
Regulatory Division
April 6, 2001
Action ID No. 199300570, TIP R-210ABC, Improvements to US 1 from Sanford to Lakeview,
Lee and Moore Counties, North Carolina.
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-16217
Dear Mr. Dorney:
It is our understanding that you have been provided a copy of the application of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for Department of the Army (DA)
ltLLtiiUliL,clt ClL. [LULL a JLdiG VY'at,C.l ?ualll? t.?iu 1vGtl.lvit W ivriSlluut a ivux Aar:v "i,lded ay o r.
new location from approximately Camp Easter Road (SR 1853)/Aiken Road (SR 2175) in Moore
County to Wild Life Road (SR 2175) in Lee County. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by June 5, 2001, the District Engineer will deem
that waiver has occurred.
140W --
Y:"T
r'
Questions or comments may be addressed to me at [phone].
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
2
'7.x?
"r
x..37
..
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
November 20, 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL: Return receipt requested
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548 FILE COPY
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
DEC-3
Re: Individual Permit Application for Moore and Lee Counties; US 1 Bypass of Vass from north of
Lakeview to south of Sanford; F.A. Project NHF-0001(3); State Project 8.T560302; TIP No. R-
210. $
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) placed the above referenced project on hold on June 1, 2001.
On November 1, 2001, a Public Hearing was held concerning water quality issues. The public
comment period is open until December 3, 2001. However, in order for the Director of DWQ to make
a decision regarding the issuance of an Individual §401 Water Quality Certification, under 15A NCAC
211.0506 "Review of Applications", the following concerns must be addressed:
1. The project will not remove or degrade existing uses;
2. There is no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (f) of this Rule, or
impacts less than three (3) acres of class WL wetlands;
3. The project will minimize adverse impacts to surface waters and wetlands;
4. The project will not result in the degradation of ground or surface waters;
5. The project will not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated
future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards;
6. The project will provide for the protection of downstream water quality standards through the use
of on-site stormwater control measures;
7. The project will provide for the replacement of existing uses through mitigation.
Items that still require resolution before an Individual Permit can be issued are:
1. The secondary and cumulative impacts resulting from the project.
2. Compensatory mitigation for the project.
3. The potential impacts to groundwater from the proposed roadway's close proximity to the adjacent
well fields in Cameron (addressed in the June 1, 2001 hold letter).
4. The relocation plan for the impacted wells (addressed in the June 1, 2001 hold letter).
5. Legible permit drawings (addressed in the June 1, 2001 hold letter).
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 211.0507(a)(4), the permit application will remain on hold until we
are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers
continue to place the permit application on hold. Should additional issues come forth as part of the
public hearing process, we will advise you so that those matters may be addressed.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
- 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
We look forward to working with you to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you
have any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele at
919.733.5715.
Sincerely,
Steve Zoufaly
r
pc: Coleen Sullins, NCDWQ
John Darriey;" NCDWQ
Dave Timpy, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
MEMORANDUM PILE COPY
To: Leigh Lane
Public Involvement & Community Studies Unit
Office of the Human Environment
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation
From: Donal R. Simpson, FAIA, AICP, ASLA
HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Subject: R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality
Date: November 27, 2001
NOY t` ,?9 200"
HNTB North Carolina, P.C., was requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to
review available information related to the R-210 Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) for widening and
realigning portions of U.S. 1 in Moore and Lee Counties. The purpose of this review was to provide information
requested by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) relative to a Section 401 water quality certification requested by NCDOT for the R-210 project.
DWQ requested information related to any downstream water quality impacts that might occur due to secondary and
cumulative effects of R-210.
Our review basically required a two step process:
• Estimate the land use change that might occur as a result of constructing R-210
• ° Calculate the change in surface stormwater flow into the Little River that would result from the land use change
Two authoritative references were used as a basis of the methodology used in this process:
• The Louis Berger Group: "Draft Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina," prepared for State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation/Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, April 2001 (Berger);
• ECONorthwest and Portland State University: "A Guidebook for evaluating the Indirect Land use and Growth
Impacts of highway Improvements, Final Report," for Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon,
and Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2001 (ECONorthwest)
This Memorandum summarizes the information we have been able to determine related to this issue, in six sections:
1. Analysis Area and Impact Areas
2. Methodology Used to Evaluate Potential Land Use Change
3. Evaluation of Potential For Land Use Change
4. Growth Assumptions For Analysis Area
5. Assumed Land Use Change For Watershed Analysis Purposes
6. Watershed Hydrologic Analysis
The conclusion of the analysis indicates that, in the worst case scenario, R-210 might result in an additional built-
upon area (impervious cover) of approximately 129 acres, or less than 0.3% of the potentially affected watershed
land area. The resulting change in the estimated 25 year event future peak discharge would be un-measurable in 5 of
the 8 sub-watersheds, and less than 3% in the other two. The worst case scenario development assumed for the
analysis would be very low density, scattered site development, primarily residential. The interspersed farmland and
woodland should easily provide filtration of any contaminants in the stormwater runoff, so that there should be no
change in the rate of flow into the Little River, and no impact on downstream water quality as a result of the
secondary and cumulative effects of R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 1 of 38 November 27, 2001
1. ANALYSIS AREA AND IMPACT AREAS
Two types of area were considered for this analysis. The first was the overall watershed area that feeds the creeks
and tributaries of the Little River in the area where R-210 might affect land use. This overall analysis area was
necessary for hydrologic analysis purposes, and provided a maximum area in which land use change might occur as
a result of R-210. The second type of area considered was land where development might occur. These impact areas
were related to factors that could be evaluated to make an assessment of the probabi ity of land use change that
might occur because of the influence of the R-210 project.
1.1 Overall Analysis Area
According to the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina," the development effects of a new highway are most often found:
• Up to one mile around a freeway interchange, and
• Up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange.
(Berger, p. 7-14)
The Oregon DOT "Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway
Improvements," was also consulted, as a comparison to the NCDOT "Draft Guidance." The Oregon DOT
"Guidebook" suggested a study area of 1/2 mile around an improvement as the primary area of potential effect, with a
larger area of impact possible for large projects on routes with a lot of through trips. (ECONorthwest, pp. 17-18)
According to the NCDOT Draft Guidance, development beyond areas delineated in long-range infrastructure or
growth management plans is limited or restricted. The Draft Guidance suggests that, in these circumstances, it may
be appropriate to confine consideration of indirect/cumulative effects to a study area coincident with accepted
growth boundaries. (Berger, p. 3-16)
The NCDOT "Draft Guidance" also suggested that complementary land development, such as highway-oriented
businesses (gas stations, rest stops, motels, etc.), is more likely near interchanges in rural areas. (Berger, p. 7-13)
Another possible approach suggested by the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina" is to establish the study area to match potentially impacted
watersheds. (Berger, p. 3-16)
Since the primary purpose of this analysis was to provide input to the Department of Water Quality as they consider
whether R-210 would have secondary and cumulative effects that would adversely impact downstream water
quality, the potentially impacted watershed was used as the overall analysis area. The watershed roughly
corresponds to the two- to five-mile area along major feeder roadways to R-210. The watershed used as the analysis
area is shown in Figure 1.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 2 of 38 November 27, 2001
w?
i
t
LEE
COUNTY
MOORE
COUNTY i
••• Impacted
• /
US 157501 Watershed
i
Carthage Cameron
?? .. R-210
NC 22 NC 24/27
US 15/501 I
US-1
hispering
Pines.
Vass
ort Road
Taylortown o k HARNETT
COUNTY
.od HOLE belia Roa ,,•r
uthern Pines
COUNTY N• ,
------------
Abe e t MILES
N.
Figure 1: Analysis Area
Source: HNTB
1.2 Sub-Watersheds Analyzed
The hydrologic model used in the watershed hydrologic analysis, described in Section 6 of this analysis, required
that the watershed be analyzed by sub-watersheds to conform to the hydrologic model used (TR-55, Soil
Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds). This resulted in a further differentiation of the
analysis by eight sub-watershed areas, as diagrammed in Figure 2. The eight watersheds include a total land area of
approximately 73.8 square miles, or 47,232 acres, as indicated in the table below.
The sub-watersheds also formed the framework for a "before" and "after" hydrologic comparison, based on the
change in stormwater flows that would occur based on the assumptions of land use changes due to R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 3 of 38 November 27, 2001
Watershed and Sub-watershed Land Areas
1 Grains Creek, west of Herd's Creek 14.5 9,280
2 Herd's Creek 9.5 6,080
3 Grains Creek, from Little Grains Creek to Herd's Creek 5.0 3,200
4 Little Grains Creek 19.0 12,160
5 Big Branch 2.3 1,472
6 Grains Creek, from Little Grains Creek to Beaver Creek 3.8 2,432
7 Beaver Creek 14.0 8,960
8 Grains Creek, from Beaver Creek to Lake Surf 5.7 3,648
H
1.3 Potential Impact Area
In order to assess the locations within the analysis area where land development might actually occur as a result of
the r-210 project, four potential impact areas were evaluated. These areas, which were based on the combined
suggestions of the NCDOT "Draft Guidance" and the Oregon DOT "Guidebook," were:
• land immediately around the new interchanges and intersections,
• land on new frontage roads,
• areas along major feeder roadways inside Moore County adopted Urban Services Boundaries, and
• areas along major feeder roadways outside the adopted Urban Services Boundaries.
These four categories of potential land development impact allowed an assessment which was sensitive to the
different economic and location factors which might influence development within the overall analysis area, and
could be correlated to the sub-watershed areas for hydrologic analysis purposes.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 4 of 38 November 27, 2001
Figure 2. Sub-watershed areas
The estimated impact area was based on the following factors for three different conditions:
• Land at Interchanges. For impacts at the interchanges and intersections themselves, the land evaluated was the
property at the four corners of the interchange or intersection. With the DWQ watershed development standard
limiting built-upon area to 24% of the property, 2 acres was considered to be the minimum lot size that would
necessary to accommodate buildings and pavement for highway oriented commercial development at any given
interchange or intersection corner.
• Land along New Frontage Roads. Any currently undeveloped land along the new frontage roads was considered
to be potentially subject to development as a result of R-210. The new frontage roads will occur only where the
R-210 construction is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment. The depth of the impact area was assumed at 300 ft.
deep from the frontage road right-of-way line, which is a typical depth for a broad range of commercial and
light industrial land uses.
• Land Served by Major Feeder Roadways. Land potentially impacted by R-210 was considered to be along the
roadway within either a 10 minute drive from the interchange/intersection, or to a natural or political boundary
that might affect development decisions in relation to the influence of the new U.S. 1. These boundaries could
be a wide floodplain, a creek, a town limits, an urban service boundary, or a large existing developed area.
2. METHODOLOGY USED TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL LAND USE CHANGE
2.1 Factors Used to Evaluate Land Use Change
According to the NCDOT Draft Guidance, empirical evidence indicates that transportation investments result in
major land use changes only in the presence of other factors, including:
• supportive local land use policies,
• local development incentives,
• availability of developable land, and
• a good investment climate.
(Berger, p. 4-1)
Additional factors influencing the likelihood and rate of development near rural interchanges include:
• distance to major urban area or regional center,
• traffic volume on the intersecting road,
• presence of frontage road
• availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure.
If these factors are present, induced growth effects of this type warrant analysis. (Berger, p. 7-13)
For land at interchanges, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Traffic volume on intersecting road
• Availability of water and sewer
For land along the new frontage roads, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use
change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Availability of water and sewer
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 5 of 38 November 27, 2001
For land served by major feeder roadways, the following factors were used to estimate the probability of land use
change:
• Availability of developable land
• Land use policies
• Investment climate
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Availability of water and sewer
The methodology used in assessing each of these factors is described below.
Availability of developable land was estimated by mapping areas within the estimated impact area that were not
suitable for, or not available for development. These areas included 100 year flood plains, wetlands, existing
urbanized areas, existing single family properties, existing farms of 50 acres or less with a residence on the property,
and other land not available for development, such as land trust lands. The presently occupied properties were
determined from Geographic Information System (GIS) data provided by Moore and Lee Counties, and from R-210
project aerial photography. Existing farms of 50 acres was considered an upper range of non-available land, based
on properties advertised for sale and discussions with developers in the area. These properties tend to be large
owner-occupied farms, usually with equestrian activities.
Land use policies were determined by interviews with staff of Moore County, Lee County, Town of Vass, and Town
of Cameron. Current land use plans and zoning ordinances of Moore County, Lee County, Vass and Cameron were
reviewed. DWQ requirements related to land use were determined from a review of the DWQ "Red Book of Rules."
Investment climate was estimated from interviews with staff of Moore County, Lee County, Town of Vass, and
Town of Cameron and representatives of Woodlake. A visual survey the area provided indicators of development
activity or interest, such as recent development, for sale signs, occupancy and activity at existing uses, etc. U.S.
Census data on recent growth indicated areas of development potential.
Distance to major urban area or regional center provided an indicator of commuting influence on an area. In general
a time savings of less than 10% was considered to have no influence on development decisions, and a time savings
of less than 20% was considered to only have a slight influence on development decisions. The time savings were
calculated based on driving times at posted speed limits on the existing U.S. 1, and on the FEIS stated speed limit
for R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road was determined by comparing the FEIS 1990 existing two-way Average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes and Level of Service (LOS) with the FEIS projected 2010 AADT volumes and LOS
for each intersecting road (FEIS Table 1-2, p. I-6). The Table I-2 estimates were compared to the FEIS Table II-4, p.
II-17 estimates for the preferred alternative to determine any differences between the No-Build Alternative and the
Preferred Alternative. This was an indicator of changes in traffic volumes and level of service due to R-210. If there
were no projected differences between the no-build and the preferred alternative, traffic volume on the intersecting
road was not considered to have a secondary effect due to R-210. Only roads that connected directly to the new U.S.
1 at an interchange or intersection were considered.
Presence of frontage road was determined from the FEIS description of frontage road locations, on page 11-8. This
factor was considered only where a frontage road would be present as part of R-210.
Availability of water, sewer and other infrastructure was determined from interviews with staff of Moore County,
Lee County, Town of Vass, and Town of Cameron, and from GIS data provided by Moore County.
Probability of land use change due to R-210 involved scenario analyses based on a judgement of all of the above
factors. This is one of the three methods recommended by the NCDOT Draft "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina." The other two methods involved sophisticated
integrated land use and transportation models based on Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) that were not
available for this analysis. The time frame for the probability scenarios generally, but not rigidly, based on the 2000
to 2010 time frame corresponding to available population projections. These numbers were adjusted upward in areas
where it was thought that there might be a moderate or higher probability of land use change due to R-210. This
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 6 of 38 November 27, 2001
form of analysis provided a reasonable estimate within a foreseeable time frame, since most development decisions
are made on a 5 to 10 year projection. Market forecasting beyond 10 years tends to become speculative.
2.2 Consideration of Cumulative Effects
Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions." As described in the NCDOT
"Draft Guidance," in practice, analysis of cumulative effects has been incorporated with the assessment of
indirect/cumulative effects because many indirect/cumulative effects, including induced development effects, fall
within the definition of cumulative impacts. (Berger, p. I-5)
The consideration of cumulative effects for this analysis focused on the effects that might occur in a 7 to 10 year
time frame, since any downstream effects on water quality would result from development induced by R-210.
Developers generally base investment decisions on a 7-year return on investment. Market analyses and
development pro formas that attempt to project absorption of new land development beyond a 7 to 10 year period
are generally considered speculative. Further, empirical studies have determined that the land use effects of a new
highway project occur within the first 7 to 10 years of the construction of the project.
The other actions that were identified which might affect the 7 to 10 year analysis horizon were:
• Preparation of the Greenwood Area Plan for Lee County
• Preparation of a new Land Use Plan for Cameron
• Preparation of a new Land Use Plan for Vass
• Extension of Moore County water service into the area between Vass and Woodlake
• NCDOT TIP Project R-2529, multi-lane widening of NC24/NC27
The new plans that will be prepared for Greenwood, Cameron and Vass will be bound by the DWQ Class WS-III
Watershed development standards, and will not be able to adopt any land use densities that are inconsistent with
those standards. Consequently, they were not considered to have any cumulative effect on the probability of land use
change.
The extension of Moore County water service could cause some additional pressures for residential development in
the area between Vass and Woodlake. The absence of sewer outside the Vass and Woodlake Urban Service
Boundaries will limit that pressure. The additional pressure that could result within the Vass and Woodlake Urban
Service Boundaries was considered to have a possible cumulative effect. That effect is reflected in the assumed land
use change for the sub-watersheds in this area, as described in Section 5 of this report.
The NCDOT TIP project number R-2529 would widen NC24/NC27 to a multi-lane road from the Carthage Bypass
to NC 87 in Harnett County. NC24/NC27 intersects with U.S. 1 in Cameron, and will intersect with R-210, the
relocated U.S. 1, just east of Cameron. R-2529, however, is an unfunded project, and is not scheduled to proceed
within the 2002-2008 TIP timeframe. Since it will not be built within the 7 to 10 year horizon of this analysis, it was
not considered to have a potential contribution to cumulative effects of R-210.
3. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR LAND USE CHANGE
The potential for land use change was evaluated on case-by-case basis for each major feeder roadway intersecting
with U.S. 1 at an R-210 interchange or intersection. The evaluation was considered in three potential areas of
impact: at the interchange/intersection itself; along the major feeder road inside an urban service boundary; and
along the major feeder road outside an urban service boundary. Potential impacts to the east and to the west along
major feeder roads were evaluated separately, since R-210 will have different effects on travel time in each
direction, and since existing land use conditions tend to be different to the east and west of the new road.
Figure 2: R-210 Impact Area indicates the area described in the following evaluation.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 7 of 38 November 27, 2001
Figure 2
R-210 Impact Area
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 8 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.1 SR 1181 (Eakes Road) Intersection
This is an at-grade intersection on the existing U.S. 1 alignment. U.S. 1 will be widened to 4 lanes divided,
with frontage roads. Eakes Road (SR 1181), which only runs west of U.S. 1, will be unchanged. No road
runs east from this intersection. The intersection could become a grade-separated interchange in the future,
if traffic volumes warrant. That eventuality is far enough in the future that it was not considered reasonable
or foreseeable for this analysis.
3.1.1 Land at Eakes Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Limited, due to existing highway commercial at intersection
corners, and to floodplain to the east and south of the intersection.
Land use policies. Currently zoned Residential/Agricultural. As part of Lee County's on-going
development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the County in more
detail, probably in 2003. The west side of U.S. 1 is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of
the Little River Watershed, limiting non-residential development to 24% built-upon area.
Investment climate. Commercial development at this intersection is supported primarily by the
Quail Ridge development, along with existing single-family residences and family farms on Eakes
Rd. There is a competing, more intensely developed commercial area at the US 151US501
intersection with U.S. 1, approximately 1 i/2 miles north. The frontage along U.S. 1 north of
US 151US501 has been developing through the 1990's with highway oriented commercial
development, dominated by manufactured housing sales centers.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill
"Triangle," which is now about 43 minutes, would be unchanged. Travel time to Southern Pines,
now approximately 22 minutes, would decrease by approximately 3 V2 minutes. Travel time to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by way of NC24/NC27, would decrease by
about 41/2 minutes. These changes in travel time would be in the 10% to 15% range, which could
have only a slight influence on investment decisions at this intersection.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Eakes Rd. at the intersection with U.S.
1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 300 vpd (vehicles
per day) to 400 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to remain at "A." This does not
represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated good
for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water service to
the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate. The market that would support further
commercial development at this intersection already exists. However, the presence of frontage
roads at this location could improve its attractiveness for some additional commercial
development.
3.1.2 Land west of the Eakes Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1/2 mile west along Eakes Rd. to the Cedar Lane Rd. (SR
1182) intersection. Land beyond 1/2 mile is more convenient to US151US501, and will not be
influenced by a change in U.S. 1.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 9 of 38 November 27, 2001
Availability of developable land. Very limited. The Quail Ridge single-family residential golf
course community takes up all of the north side of Eakes Road. The south side of the road is
mostly developed with large lot single-family residences and small family farms.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to 1/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. Development in this area is all residential. Any further development will
predominantly occur in Quail Ridge. Sanford's growth has been and is expected to continue to be
to the north and southeast, not in this direction.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 24 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 1/2 minutes. The time savings are in the
10% to 15% range, which should not be great enough to influence development investment
decisions in this area.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to low, due to the extent of existing
development in this area.
3.2 Frontage Road between SR 1181 (Eakes Rd.) and SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.)
This segment of R-210 is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment, all within Lee County. Frontage roads will
be provided for the R-210 project where it follows the existing alignment, so this area will have frontage
roads. The existing U.S. 1 will be used as one of the frontage roads where possible.
Estimated impact area. From Eakes Rd. south to SR 1182, Cedar Lane Rd., a length of
approximately 2 miles. Land fronting on the frontage road north of Eakes Rd. is already
developed.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 13,700 linear feet of frontage along the
new U.S. 1 frontage roads that are potentially available for development. Assuming an
approximate depth of 300 ft. for non-residential development, there would be approximately 100
acres potentially available for development along the frontage roads. All of this land would be in
sub-watershed area 4.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to a minimum 1/2 acre lot size and maximum 24% built-upon
area. Non-residential uses are limited to a maximum 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. The segment of U.S. 1 between Tramway Road (NC 78) south of Sanford and
US151US501 has experienced a considerable amount of non-residential development since U.S. 1
was widened to a 4 lane divided highway with direct curb cut access. Most of the commercial uses
appear to be businesses that can be supported by on-site septic systems, rather than sanitary sewer.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 10 of 38 November 27, 2001
The availability of continuous access from the frontage roads in this segment of R-210 could be
expected to attract considerable interest in commercial development.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and Lee
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County (the rural southwest area of the County, where the
northern portion of r-210 is located) is planned for the future.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately high to high.
3.3 SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.) Intersection
This is an at-grade intersection on the existing U.S. 1 alignment. U.S. 1 will be widened to 4 lanes divided,
with frontage roads. Cedar Lane Road (SR 1180) will be unchanged. The intersection could become a
grade-separated interchange at some time in the future, if traffic volumes warrant. That eventuality is far
enough in the future that it was not considered in this analysis.
3.3.1 Land at Cedar Lane Rd. Intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection
Availability of developable land. Two of the four corners at this intersection currently have
highway-oriented commercial development.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting non-residential development to 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning for the two undeveloped corners is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same
limitations as the WS-III standards. As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land
Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. With the projected increase in traffic on U.S. 1, there could be interest in one
or two more highway-oriented commercial developments at this intersection. The support,
however, would be mostly from highway traffic, due to the relatively low density of surrounding
residential development. There is a more intensely developed commercial area at the US 151US501
intersection with U.S. 1, approximately 3-1/2 miles north. The frontage along U.S. 1 north of
US 15/US501 has been developing through the 1990's with highway oriented commercial
development, dominated by manufactured housing sales centers.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle," which is now about
45 minutes, would be unchanged. Travel time to Southern Pines, now approximately 22 minutes,
would decrease by approximately 3 1/z minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base, by way of NC24/NC27, would decrease by about 4 1/2 minutes. The travel time
savings are in the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment
decisions at this intersection.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Cedar Lane Rd. at the intersection with
U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 700 vpd
(vehicles per day) to 1,200 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "A" to
"B" This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build
alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated good
for supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 11 of 38 November 27, 2001
an on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.3.2 Land west of the Cedar Lane Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1 mile west of the intersection along Cedar Lane Road. The
area beyond that is more within the influence area of the existing US 151US501 than that of U.S. 1.
Availability of developable land. Limited by flood plain and existing manufactured housing
subdivisions off of Cedar Lane Road, and by existing single-family houses and family farms on
Cedar Lane Road.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to 1/2 acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre. As part of Lee
County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address this part of the
County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. Several manufactured housing subdivisions appear to have been developed
within this area within the last 10 to 15 years. There could be market support for more
manufactured housing subdivisions along this road, if land is available and appropriate zoning can
be obtained.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 21 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 1/z minutes. The travel time savings are in
the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment decisions at this
intersection.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are good for
supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an
on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210.. Low, due primarily to the extent of existing
development in the impact area and the limitations on land availability due to the flood plain south
of and parallel to Cedar Lane Road.
13.3 Land east of the Cedar Lane Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Approximately 1 mile east of the intersection along Rocky Fork Church
Road. The area beyond that is more within the influence area of the existing US 15/US501 than
that of U.S. 1.
Availability of developable land. Limited by flood plain and existing single-family houses and
family farms on Rocky Church Road.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to 1/z acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 12 of 38 November 27, 2001
Investment climate. Several manufactured housing subdivisions appear to have been developed
within this area within the last 10 to 15 years. This would indicate that there could be market
support for more residential development along this road.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to the "Triangle" will be unchanged.
Travel time to Southern Pines, currently approximately 21 minutes, will decrease by
approximately 3 minutes. Travel time to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, by
way of NC24/NC27, will decrease by approximately 4 1/z minutes. The travel time savings are in
the 10% to 15% range, which could be have a slight influence on investment decisions at this
intersection.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are good for
supporting septic systems. Water service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an
on-going continuation of the countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee
County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due to minor changes in travel times to urban
and regional destinations and absence of sewer
3.4 Frontage Road between SR 1182 (Cedar Lane Rd.) and SR 1173 (Pine Forest Rd.)
This segment of R-210 is along the existing U.S. 1 alignment. Frontage roads will be provided for the R-
210 project where it follows the existing alignment, so this area will have frontage roads. The existing U.S.
1 will be used as one of the frontage roads where possible.
Estimated impact area. From Cedar Lane Rd. south to SR 1173, Pine Forest Rd., a length of
approximately 3/a miles, and approximately 1,500 feet south of Pine Forest Rd.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 4,800 linear feet of frontage along the
new U.S. 1 frontage roads that are potentially available for development. Assuming an
approximate depth of 300 ft. for non-residential development, there would be approximately 35
acres potentially available for development along the frontage roads. All of this land would be in
sub-watershed area 5.
Land use policies. This area is in a DWQ Class WS-III Watershed, as part of the Little River
Watershed, limiting residential lots to 1/z acre and 24% built-upon area. Lee County's current
zoning is Residential/Agricultural, which imposes the same limitations as the WS-III standards.
As part of Lee County's on-going development of its Land Use Plan, an Area Plan will address
this part of the County in more detail, probably in 2003.
Investment climate. The segment of U.S. 1 between Tramway Road (NC 78) south of Sanford and
US15/US501 has experienced a considerable amount of non-residential development since U.S. 1
was widened to a 4 lane divided highway with direct curb cut access. Most of the commercial uses
appear to be businesses that can be supported by on-site septic systems, rather than sanitary sewer.
The availability of continuous access from the frontage roads in this segment of R-210 could be
expected to attract considerable interest in commercial development.
Availabilitv of water and sewer and other infrastructure. Sewer does not serve this area, and the
County does not intend to extend sewer south of Tramway Road in Sanford. Soils are rated poor to
good for supporting septic systems (though the good soils have existing development). Water
service to the Greenwood Area of Lee County is planned as an on-going continuation of the
countywide water system south of Sanford that was begun by Lee County in the 1990's.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately high to high.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 13 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.5 NC24/NC27Interchange:
This will be a new grade-separated interchange on a new U.S. 1 alignment where it crosses the existing
NC24/NC27 just east of the Cameron Town Limits. This area is in Cameron's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
and the Moore County adopted Urban Service Boundary. NC24/NC27 to the east is Main Street in
Cameron. NCDOT's long range Transportation Improvement Plan reportedly includes the widening of
NC24/NC27 to four lanes divided. However, the time for that widening has not been set, and the alignment
has not been determined. While there could be long-term cumulative effects from the combination of these
two projects, there are too many unknown factors regarding any plans for NC24/NC27 to be able to
reasonably estimate any indirect effects of the combined projects. This analysis is limited to the effects of
R-210, which most likely will occur before any widening of NC24/NC27 takes place.
3.5.1 Land at NC24/NC27 interchange
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. The existing land use at the proposed interchange location
consists of two family farms with owner-occupied residences and related accessory farm
structures. The R-210 project will require taking of some of the property from each of the two
farms, which could result in a change in use from family farming.
Land use policies. Cameron's existing zoning for this area is RA, or one-acre single-family
residential use. Cameron's Historic District is just east of this area, which would most likely
heavily influence any request for zoning change from residential use compatible with the
"gateway" entrance to the town that the new interchange will be. This area is also above an
aquifer, which is the source for two of Cameron's water supply wells. It is highly unlikely that the
town would approve any zoning change at this intersection because of the potential impact it could
have on the aquifer. The impacts of R-210 on the aquifer would be direct effects, and are
addressed separately. The interchange is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area,
which would limit any development to a maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Cameron is not a growth area, and in fact lost population between 1990 and
2000 from 151 people to 93 people, a 38.7% loss in population. Any attraction for development at
this corner, other than single-family residences which might replace the family farms, would be
for gasoline station/convenience stores to take advantage of the crossing traffic on NC24/NC27, an
east-west trucking route. However, there is an existing grade separated interchange at NC24/NC27
and the existing U.S. 1, and no commercial development has occurred there. An existing gasoline
station/convenience store exists in Cameron approximately 3/a miles west of the proposed
interchange, and could probably serve traffic from the relocated U.S. 1 if there were informational
signing.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 1/2 minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips, but is
unlikely by itself to influence any non-residential development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg
and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on NC24/NC27 on the east side of the
intersection with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily
Traffic) of 2,500 vpd (vehicles per day) to 6,400 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to
change from "B" to "D." The AADT on NC24/NC27 is projected to decrease west of U.S. 1, since
the new U.S. 1 alignment will intercept traffic U.S. 1-bound traffic that currently travels
westbound through Cameron.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 14 of 38 November 27, 2001
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Urban Service Boundary, it could have sewer
service within the next 10 to 15 years. There are no current plans to extend sewer to this area.
Soils in this area are rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low, due to Cameron's restrictive zoning and the
low probability of the town approving a zoning change for a gasoline station above their aquifer. If
the existing family farms were to change use, it would most likely be to single-family residential
use, which would not change the built-upon area from the existing farm residences and accessory
structures.
3.5.2 Land east of NC24/NC27 interchange within Cameron Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land along NC24/NC27 within the Cameron Urban Service Boundary,
which is approximately 1 '/2 mile to the east of the new interchange.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 650 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection and within Cameron's Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 300 of these acres are in sub-watershed 5, and approximately 350 of these acres
are in sub-watershed 7.
Land use policies. This area is in Cameron's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. Cameron's existing
zoning for this area is RA, or one-acre single-family residential use. Any residential or non-
residential use would be limited to a maximum 24% built-upon area by the DWQ watershed
standards. Cameron will permit minor subdivisions only in this area, limited to a maximum of 5
single-family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once
every 5 years.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 38.7% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable farms with residences and stable single-family houses.
While there could be an appeal for a development that took advantage of the charm of Cameron's
Historic District, there would not appear to be a measurable market for subdivision development,
considering the lack of growth in the area and Cameron's restrictive development policies. There
are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any notable amount of
development. The investment climate could support some single-family development on large lots,
and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family farms
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 I/2 minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by
R-210.
Availabilitv of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Urban Service Boundary, it could have sewer
service at some time in the future, but there are no current plans to provide sewer in this area.
There are no current plans to extend sewer to this area. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low, due primarily to restrictive
Cameron development policies, and lack of support services for residential development.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 15 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.5.3 Land west of NC24/NC27 interchange within Cameron Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land west of the interchange within the Cameron Town Limits, between
the new U.S. 1 and Little Crane Creek. Land west of Little Crane Creek for approximately 2 miles
along NC24/NC27 is developed land within the Town of Cameron, including the National
Register of Historic Properties Historic District. Since the interchange is actually moving
approximately 11/z miles east of the existing U.S. 1/24-27 interchange, the new road is unlikely to
have any discernable development effect to the west of Little Crane Creek.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 150 acres of land potentially available
for development west of the intersection and within Cameron's Urban Service Boundary. This
land is all within sub-watershed 4.
Land use policies. This area is in Cameron's Town Limits. Cameron's existing zoning for this area
is Residential/Agricultural, which permits single-family residential use with minimum one-acre lot
sizes. The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
development a maximum 24% built-upon area. Any non-residential use would be limited to a
maximum 24% built-upon area by the DWQ watershed standards. Cameron will permit minor
subdivisions only in this area, limited to a maximum of 5 single-family residences, and will
approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 5 years.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 38.7% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable single-family houses, many of them in Cameron's Historic
District. While there could be an appeal for a development that took advantage of the charm of
Cameron's Historic District, there would not appear to be a measurable market for subdivision
development, considering the lack of growth in the area and Cameron's restrictive development
policies. There are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any notable
amount of development. The investment climate could support some single-family development.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 22 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 5
minutes, which is less than 10% and should not be enough to influence development. The travel
time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 6 1/2 minutes, which is approximately
30% and could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by
R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. The area is served by Cameron's water
system. It does not now have sewer. Since it is in the Town Limits, and thus in the Urban Service
Boundary, it could have sewer service at some time in the future. There are no current plans to
extend sewer to this area. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderate.
3.5.4 Land outside Cameron Urban Service Boundary east of NC24/NC27 interchange.
Estimated impact area. Land along NC24/NC27 from the Cameron Urban Service Boundary to a
point approximately 2 !/2 miles east of the interchange at Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek creates a
perceptual change from Moore County to Harnett County, even though it is still in Moore County.
There is little development between Beaver Creek and the Moore County/Harnett County line.
Development along NC24/NC27 in Harnett County consists primarily of some manufactured
houses on large lots.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 16 of 38 November 27, 2001
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 850 acres of land potentially available
for development west of the intersection and outside Cameron's Urban Service Boundary. This
land is all within sub-watershed 7.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Hamett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/2 acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Cameron's population, as noted above, declined by 28% from 1990 to 2000.
The development in this area is stable farms with residences and stable single-family houses.
While there appear to be some recently built houses, most are over 10 years old. There would not
appear to be a measurable market for subdivision development, particularly given Moore County's
development policies. There are limited commercial service businesses in Cameron to support any
notable amount of development. The investment climate could support some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 24 minutes from the edge of the Urban Service Boundary along the existing U.S. 1.
Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 54 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east
of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 4 minutes, which is
less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to
Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 7 minutes, which is a 30% reduction and
could make the area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville,
Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along NC24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are mostly rated poor for
septic systems, with a small area rated moderate for septic systems.
Probabilitv of land use change due to R-210. Moderately Low to Moderate, due primarily to
restrictive Moore County development policies, DWQ watershed standards for development, and
lack of support services for residential development.
3.5.5 Land outside Cameron Urban Service Boundary west of NC24/NC27 interchange
Estimated impact area. Land to the west of this interchange for approximately 2 miles along
NC24/NC27 is developed land within the Town of Cameron, including the National Register of
Historic Properties Historic District. Since the interchange is actually moving approximately 11/2
miles east of the existing interchange of U.S. 1 and NC24/NC27, the new road is unlikely to have
any discernable development effect to the west of Cameron.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 17 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.6 SR 1825 (Cranes Creek Rd.) Intersection
This will be an at-grade intersection on a new alignment, across the railroad approximately 1 mile east of
the existing intersection of U.S. 1 and Cranes Creek Road. The intersection could become a grade-
separated interchange at some time in the future if traffic volumes warrant, according to the FEIS. That
eventuality is far enough in the future that it was not considered in this analysis.
3.6.1 Land at Cranes Creek Rd. Intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Land at all four corners of this intersection is currently farmland,
and could potentially be available for development. This area is not in an Urban Service
Boundary.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of '/z acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. There is no commercial development at the existing U.S. 1/ Cranes Creek
Road intersection, and no evidence of commercial development in this area. This analysis assumes
that there would be highway-oriented commercial at the new U.S. 1/Lobelia Road intersection,
approximately 3 miles south. This intersection will be an exit for southbound U.S. 1 traffic
destined toward Woodlake, which could be attractive for a corner gasoline/convenience store.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 16 minutes from the location of the proposed new interchange along the existing
U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and
interchange east of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2
minutes, which is less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development.
The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the
15% to 20% range and could make the area slightly more attractive for some commute, service
and leisure trips, but is unlikely to influence any non-residential development. Travel to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church
Rd. and NC 24, and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting _road. The traffic volume on Cranes Creek Rd. at the intersection
with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 600
vpd (vehicles per day) to 1,100 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to remain at "B"
This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build alternative
due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Low. No development exists at the current
intersection. No commercial development is anticipated at the intersection due to restrictive Moore
County zoning.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 18 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.6.2 Land east of Cranes Creek Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land between the intersection and the Woodlake community Urban
Service Boundary, approximately 41/2 miles east of the interchange. None of this area is in an
Urban Service Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 2,000 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection. None of this land is in an Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 700 of these acres are in sub-watershed 5, approximately 400 of these acres are in
sub-watershed 7, and approximately 900 of these acres are in sub-watershed 8. About half of the
potentially available land in sub-watershed 8 is in Harnett County.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of 1/z acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Woodlake, a planned community, was started in 1973 as a predominantly
single-family residential golf community. It grew at about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's,
and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has
approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the
approval process. About 600 of these lots have been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake
has not been rapid enough to indicate that there would be investment interest in another large
residential development in this area. Further, the available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb
most of the growth in this area. Any additional development is likely to be some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 18 minutes from the intersection of Cranes Creek Road and Cypress Church Road.
Travel time to the "Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east
of Cameron would reduce the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is
less than 10% and not enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to
Southern Pines would be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 15% to 20% range
and could make the area slightly more attractive for some commute, service and leisure trips, but
is unlikely to influence any non-residential development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base is east along Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church Rd. and NC 24, and would
be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probabilitv of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low to moderate.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 19 of 38 November 27, 2001
3.6.3 Land west of Cranes Creek Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land approximately 3 miles west of the interchange, to NC24/NC27.
Availability of developable land. Land west of the Cranes Creek Rd. intersection was not
calculated, since travel time to urban and regional destinations would be virtually unchanged from
existing travel times.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area, which would limit any
residential development to a maximum of V2 acre lots, and would limit any development to a
maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. There is no discernable development or construction of new houses in this
area.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 16 minutes from Cranes Creek Cemetery, about halfway to NC24/NC27. Travel
time to the "Triangle" is approximately 53 minutes. The new bypass and interchange east of
Cameron would not reduce the travel time to the "Triangle," so would not influence development
related to "Triangle" employment. The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by
approximately 1 minute, which is less than 10% and is not enough change to induce any
measurable development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base is east along
Cranes Creek Rd., Cypress Church Rd. and NC 24, and would increase by approximately 1
minute.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, but no water service is
scheduled for this area. Moore County's policy is to not provide sewer service in this area, since it
is outside of the adopted Urban Service Boundary. Soils in this area are rated poor for septic
systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to low.
3.7 SR 1001 (Main St./Lobelia Rd.) Interchange
This will be a new grade separated interchange between the new U.S. 1 and the existing two lane SR 1001,
which is Main Street in Vass east of the existing U.S. 1, and is known as Union Church Road west of the
existing U.S. 1. Outside of the Vass Town Limits to the east, SR 1001 is known as Lobelia Road. The
interchange will be inside the Vass Town Limits, approximately V2 mile east of the existing U.S. 1. There
will be no frontage roads in this area.
3.7.1 Land at Main St./Lobelia Rd. interchange
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. Two of the proposed interchange corners are currently farms
with houses on them, one is farmland only, and one is a single-family residence. The land is all
within the Vass Town Limits.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 20 of 38 November 27, 2001
Land use policies. This land is all inside the Vass Town Limits, and is zoned R-20 which allows
20,000 sq. ft. (nominally 1/z acre) single family residential lots. For the purposed of this analysis, it
has been assumed that a zoning change to commercial uses could be obtained from the Town of
Vass at this location.
Investment climate. Vass grew more slowly than the rest of Moore County from 1990 to 2000.
The Vass population grew 11.9%, from 670 to 750, while Moore County as a whole grew 26.7%,
from 59,000 to 74,769. This would not indicate a very strong overall investment climate.
However, there are two existing service stations/convenience stores in Vass at the Corner of U.S. 1
and Main St./Union Church Road that appear to be very oriented toward U.S. 1 traffic. These two
stations/stores would indicate that there could be a strong demand for service stations/convenience
stores at the new interchange. These might be either new, competing businesses, or relocations of
the existing businesses. None of the other businesses on the existing U.S. 1 in Vass appear to be
highway-oriented. There are existing highway-oriented businesses at the SR 1853 (Aiken Rd.)
intersection, approximately 1 3/a miles south of this interchange.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 12 minutes from the existing U.S 1 intersection with Main St. Travel time to the
"Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce
the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not
enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would
be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 20% to 25% range and could make the
area more attractive for development. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base
is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Traffic volume on intersecting oad. The traffic volume on Vass' Main Street at the intersection
with U.S. 1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 3,200
vpd (vehicles per day) to 9,950 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "C"
to "E."
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. There is existing sanitary sewer service,
owned by Moore County Public Utilities, in Vass west of the existing U.S. 1. This service is
currently being extended along Main Street to approximately Johnson Road, which is
approximately the location of the new interchange. No sewer service is planned west of the new
alignment of U.S. 1.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. High.
3.7.2 Land east of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection within the Vass Urban Service Boundary
Estimated impact area. Land along SR 1001 from the new interchange approximately 1-1/z miles to
the Vass Urban Service Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 450 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection in the Vass Urban Service Boundary. Approximately 150
acres are potentially available inside the Vass Town Limits, and approximately 300 acres are
potentially available outside the Town Limits but inside the Urban Service Boundary. All of these
acres are in sub-watershed 6.
Land use policies. Land inside the Vass Town Limits is zoned R-20, which would allow 20,000
sq. ft. (nominally 1/z acre) single family residential lots. Land outside the Town Limits and inside
the Urban Service Boundary is zoned Residential/Agricultural, which would allow 2 acre single
family residential lots. The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III watershed area,
which would limit any residential lots to a minimum of 1/z acre, and would limit any development
to a maximum of 24% built-upon area.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 21 of 38 November 27, 2001
Investment climate. Vass grew more slowly than the rest of Moore County from 1990 to 2000.
The Vass population grew 11.9%, from 670 to 750, while Moore County as a whole grew 26.7%,
from 59,000 to 74,769. This would not indicate a very strong overall investment climate within
Vass itself. Woodlake, a planned golf course community approximately 4 1/2 miles east of the new
interchange, grew much more rapidly at a rate of 72.2%, from 790 to 1,360. Woodlake grew at
about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's, and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the
mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another
approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the approval process. About 600 of these lots have
been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake has not been rapid enough to indicate that there
would be investment interest in another large residential development in this area. Further, the
available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb most of the growth in this area. Any additional
development is likely to be some single-family development on large lots, and one or two minor
subdivisions for additional residences on family farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 13 minutes from the existing U.S 1 intersection with Main St. Travel time to the
"Triangle" is approximately 55 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce
the travel time to the "Triangle" by approximately 2 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not
enough change to induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would
be reduced by approximately 3 minutes, which is in the 20% to 25% range and could make the
area more attractive for commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. There is existing sanitary sewer service,
owned by Moore County Public Utilities, in Vass west of the existing U.S. 1. This service is
currently being extended along Main Street to approximately Johnson Road, which is
approximately the location of the new interchange. No sewer service is planned west of the new
alignment of U.S. 1. This area does not currently have water service. However, Moore County is
presently planning water service districts, which will provide water service to this area in the near
future. The water service is intended to serve existing residential development, with predominantly
6-inch water lines and a few 8-inch mains. Moore County's policy is that sewer service could be
provided in this area, since it is inside of an adopted Urban Service Boundary. However, no sewer
service is currently planned for the area. Soils in this area are mostly rated poor for septic systems.
Probabilitv of land use chanize due to R-210. Moderate.
3.7.3 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary east of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land along SR 1001 from the Vass Urban Service Boundary to a point
approximately 4 miles east of the interchange to the Woodlake community. Approximately one
mile of this area, on the north side of Lobelia Road, is in the adopted Woodlake Urban Service
Boundary.
Availability of developable land. There are approximately 1,550 acres of land potentially available
for development east of the intersection. None of this land is in an Urban Service Boundary.
Approximately 850 of these acres are in sub-watershed 6, and approximately 700 of these acres
are in sub-watershed 8.
Land use policies. This area is under Moore County jurisdiction to the Moore County/Harnett
County line. Moore County's Land Use Plan, adopted in 1999, limits development outside the
Urban Service Boundary to minor subdivisions only, which will permit a maximum of 4 single-
family residences, and will approve a minor subdivision for any given property only once every 2
years. The county zoning for the area is Residential Agricultural. Any other use would require a
zoning change, and would not be consistent with the County's recently adopted Land Use Plan.
The entire area is in a DWQ-designated Class WS-III High Quality watershed area, which would
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 22 of 38 November 27, 2001
limit any residential development to a maximum of 1/z acre lots, and would limit any development
to a maximum of 24% built-upon.
Investment climate. Woodlake, a planned community, was started in 197xx as a predominantly
single-family residential golf community. It grew at about 20 houses a year until the mid-1990's,
and has grown at about 30 houses a year from the mid-1990's until 2001. Woodlake has
approximately 2,500 approved lots, with another approximately 250 lots in the early stages of the
approval process. About 600 of these lots have been developed. The rate of growth of Woodlake
has not been rapid enough to indicate that there would be investment interest in another large
residential development in this area. Further, the available lots in Woodlake will tend to absorb
most of the growth in this area. Any additional development is likely to be some single-family
development on large lots, and one or two minor subdivisions for additional residences on family
farms.
Distance to major urban area or regional center. The current travel time to Southern Pines is
approximately 15 minutes from the Vass Urban Service Boundary. Travel time to the "Triangle" is
approximately 60 minutes. The new bypass and interchange in Vass would reduce the travel time
to the "Triangle" by approximately 4 minutes, which is less than 10% and is not enough change to
induce any measurable development. The travel time to Southern Pines would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes, which is approximately 20% and could make the area slightly more
attractive for some commute, service and leisure trips. Travel to Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base is east along Lobelia Rd., and would be unaffected by R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This area does not have water or sewer
service. Moore County is presently planning water service districts, which will provide water
service to this area in the near future. The water service is intended to serve existing residential
development, with predominantly 6-inch water lines and a few 8-inch mains. Moore County's
policy is to not provide sewer service in the portion of this area that is outside of the adopted
Urban Service Boundaries. There are no plans for providing sewer services within the portion of
the Woodlake Urban Service Area that is in the impact area of R-210. Soils in this area are mostly
rated poor for septic systems, with one relatively small area rated moderate for septic systems.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. Moderately low, due primarily to restrictive Moore
County development policies, DWQ watershed standards for development, and ample availability
of residential lots in Woodlake.
3.7.4 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary west of the Main St./Lobelia Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land west along SR 1001 was not analyzed. The land along SR 1001
within the Vass Urban Service Boundary is virtually all within the developed area of Vass, and the
interchange will actually be approximately I/2 mile farther east than the present intersection, which
means that there will be no notable amount of travel time savings that would cause a development
in this direction. This move of the intersection east will make land along SR 1803, the Vass-
Carthage Road, even less accessible than it is now, so there is unlikely to be any development
effect from R-210.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8 Intersection with existing U.S. 1 south of Vass
This will be a new at-grade intersection with the existing U.S. 1 alignment in Vass, approximately 11/a
miles south of Main St.
3.8.1 Land at intersection with existing U.S. 1
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 23 of 38 November 27, 2001
Availability of developable land. There will be little, if any land available for development at this
intersection. The area surrounding the intersection location is virtually all in the Little River 100-
year floodplain, and is further constrained by the presence of the existing railroad tracks.
Consequently, no development is anticipated at this intersection.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8.2 Land east and west of the intersection with the existing U.S. 1 within the Vass Urban Service
Boundary
Estimated impact area. Areas that are potentially available for development in the Vass Town
Limits and within Vass' Urban Service Boundary are accessible from this intersection only by
way of the existing U.S. 1. Since their accessibility due to R-210 would be virtually unchanged,
this intersection is not anticipated to have any measurable effect on growth and development in
Vass.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.8.3 Land outside the Vass Urban Service Boundary served by the intersection with the existing
U.S.1.
Estimated impact area. No land outside the Urban Service Boundary would be served by this
intersection.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.9 SR 1853 (Aiken Rd.) Intersection.
This is an existing intersection in the community of Lakeview, at which U.S. 1 is already four-lane divided.
No change is proposed for U.S. 1 at this intersection, or to SR 1853.
3.9.1 Land at Aiken Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. The four corner properties at the intersection.
Availability of developable land. There is existing convenience commercial development at 2
corners of the intersection, limiting any further development to 2 corners of the intersection. A
typical corner commercial development would require 2 acres of land to be able to build a typical
commercial building and parking within the DWQ maximum of 24%built-upon area.
Land use policies. Any further commercial development would require a zoning change from
Moore County. Any further commercial development would be limited to a maximum of 24%
built-upon due to the Class WS-III watershed restrictions of DWQ, which have been adopted by
Moore County.
Investment climate. The Lakeside community is not large enough to support additional locally
oriented commercial development, particularly with the availability of retail and support services
nearby in Vass. For service to through traffic, the area is close to Vass with its current two
highway-oriented gasoline stations/convenience stores, which could relocate to the new U.S. 1
bypass (see 3.7.1 above). There are additional existing highway-oriented service businesses at
Skyline (Youngs Road), approximately 2 V2 miles south toward Southern Pines. Any additional
commercial development at this intersection would be competing with those two locations.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 24 of 38 November 27, 2001
Distance to major urban area or regional center. Travel time to Southern Pines, Aberdeen,
Pinehurst and other destinations to the south would be unchanged, since U.S. 1 is already two-lane
divided in that direction. Travel time to Vass would be unchanged, since the most convenient
route would be along the existing U.S. 1. Travel time to the "Triangle" would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes from the existing time of approximately 59 minutes. This would be less
than 10% and is not be enough time savings to affect development decisions at this location due to
commuting convenience. Travel time to Pope AFB and Fort Bragg would be reduced by
approximately 3 minutes. This would not be enough time to affect development decisions at this
location due to commuting convenience.
Traffic volume on intersecting road. The traffic volume on Aiken Rd. at the intersection with U.S.
1 is projected to increase from a 1990 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 2,600 vpd
(vehicles per day) to 4,600 vpd in 2010. The level of service is projected to change from "B" to
"C." This does not represent a traffic increase or change in level of service over the no-build
alternative due to R-210.
Availability of water and sewer and other infrastructure. This intersection is in the Moore County
Water Service Area No. 1, which is planned for water service in the near future. It is in the
County's designated Urban Service Boundary, so it could have sanitary sewer service at some
time in the future. No sanitary sewer service is currently planned for this area. Soils in this area are
rated poor for septic systems.
Probabilitv of land use change due to R-210. There is a low to moderately low probability of one
additional highway-oriented business at one corner of this intersection.
3.9.2 Land east of Aiken Rd. intersection
Estimated impact area. Land east of the Aiken Rd. intersection was not analyzed in detail. This
area would not experience any travel time savings to Southern Pines due to the new bypass. Travel
time savings to the "Triangle" would be approximately 3 minutes from the existing approximately
59-minute travel time, which is not enough to time to affect development decisions at this location
due to commuting convenience. There would be an approximately 3 minute travel time savings to
Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, which is unlikely to influence development
decisions at this location due to commuting convenience. The land to the east of the intersection is
approximately 50% to 60% developed as single-family homes and family farms or horse ranches.
Much of the remaining land convenient to the intersection is in large land trust holdings, and
unavailable for development.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
3.9.3 Land west of Aiken Rd. intersection.
Estimated impact area. Land west of the Aiken Rd. intersection was not analyzed in detail. There
is a relatively small area within convenient access to this intersection, and it includes the
community of Lakeside and extensive Little River floodplains and wetlands. Since there would be
negligible travel time savings to major urban or regional centers, as described above, there is
unlikely to be any measurable development influence in this area attributable to R-210.
Probability of land use change due to R-210. None to very low.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 25 of 38 November 27, 2001
4. GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR WATERSHED ANALYSIS AREA
The methodology used as a basis for assuming built-upon residential areas (i.e., impervious cover) involved a seven-
step process:
1. Estimate 2000 - 2010 household growth for Moore and Lee Counties
2. Estimate the watershed analysis area capture rate of 2000 - 2010 Moore and Lee County household growth
3. Distribute the watershed analysis area estimated household growth into the sub-watersheds used for the
hydrologic analysis
4. Develop scenario assumptions of the additional growth in each sub-watershed that might occur due to the
influence of R-210.
5. Calculate the land potentially available for development within each sub-watershed area
6. Distribute the estimated household growth into the calculated land potentially available for development, for
each sub-watershed
7. Calculate the built-upon area (i.e., impervious cover) potentially added to each sub-watershed, as the basis for
the hydrologic analysis
Steps 1 through 3 of this process are described in this Section. Steps 4 through 7 are described in Section 5:
"Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Purposes."
4.1 Estimated 2000 - 2010 Household Growth for Moore and Lee Counties
In order to forecast the amount of built-upon residential area (i.e., impervious cover) added within the watershed
analysis area between 2000 and 2010, population and household growth forecasts were reviewed. The first step was
to retrieve the 1990 and 2000 population figures for Lee and Moore Counties as well as the municipalities within
those counties.
Population Growth Trends
Next, the 2010 population forecast for Lee and Moore Counties was retrieved from the Office of State Planning.
Based on shares of overall county population growth between 1990 and 2000, the municipality and unincorporated
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 26 of 38 November 27, 2001
Note: Woodlake is not incorporated, but is a major subdivision
Note: Much of Sanford's growth was due to annexation
area population forecasts for 2010 were calculated. The 2010 forecasted population by county and municipality was
then converted to households using average household size values in 2000 from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Household Growth Forecast
2000-2010
y11 m
Aro, , +
?.
Hou e. f
ed
Moore County 14,393 2.38 6,047
Aberdeen 623 2.23 280
Cameron -58 2.29 -26
Carthage 817 2.42 338
Foxfire Village 128 2.14 60
Pinebluff 213 2.47 86
Pinehurst 4,212 2.05 2,055
Robbins 183 2.81 65
Southern Pines 1,556 2.19 711
Taylortown 274 2.74 100
Vass 73 2.47 30
Whispering Pines 679 2.15 316
Woodlake* 520 2.20 236
NI?J??iPcorporated?{ Y ' 2 3$ 74
Lee County 7,552 2.61 2,893
Broadway (part) 41 2.54 16
Sanford 8,610 2.64 3,262
n orpo - t1'
.
Am
- 11 AsaI 42ef
* Not yet incorporated, but a major subdi\ision
Source: NC Office of State Planning, HNTB
4.2 Analysis area capture rate of 2000 - 2010 Moore and Lee County household growth
The watershed analysis area includes unincorporated portions of Lee and Moore Counties and the incorporated
municipalities of Vass and Cameron. In order to estimate the analysis area capture rate of the forecasted household
growth within the unincorporated portions of the counties, household growth data for Census Tract 9505 in Moore
County and Block Groups 1, 3 and 4 of Census Tract 305 in Lee County was retrieved from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Data for Whispering Pines and Woodlake in Census Tract 9505 was omitted since these areas are not included in the
analysis area. The boundaries of the Census Tract/Block Group area extend somewhat beyond the analysis area
boundaries, but they nonetheless provide a reasonable indication of potential capture capacity.
After determining the 1990 - 2000 Census Tract/Block Group area household growth, its share (13.5%) of overall
household growth for Lee and Moore Counties during the same period was determined. This percentage was then
applied to the 2000-2010 household growth forecast (8,940) for these counties that was determined previously in
order to estimate the number of households added (1,206). Therefore, of the 2,174 additional households forecasted
for unincorporated Moore County between 2000 and 2010, the 30 additional households forecasted for Vass, the -26
additional households forecasted for Cameron, and the -421 additional households forecasted for unincorporated
Lee County, an estimated 1,206 households are within the analysis area.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 27 of 38 November 27, 2001
Household Forecast & Share, 2000-2010
Counties & Estimated Imoact Area
23.
49,1791 58,11
Of Counties 10.3%1 10.8%1 N/Al N/,
Source: Office of State Planning, HNTB
These 1,206 households are the projected growth in the analysis area due to normal population growth and in-
migration, and do not necessarily reflect any additional influence on household growth due to R-210.
4.3 Sub-watersheds estimated household growth
The estimated household growth for the overall watershed analysis area was next distributed into the sub-watersheds
used for the hydrologic analysis. Initially, each sub-watershed was identified by the rivers, creeks and tributaries on
USGS quad maps of the watershed analysis area. The land area of each sub-watershed was then measured from the
USGS quad maps in square miles. The land area was translated into acres for each sub-watershed, and calculated as
a percentage of the overall watershed analysis area, by sub-watershed. This percentage formed the basis for
distribution of household growth by sub-watershed, proportionate to the land area of the sub-watershed in relation to
the overall watershed.
Two of the sub-watersheds appeared to have a disproportionately high percentage of household growth based solely
on a percentage of land area. Specifically, sub-watershed 4 at 26% of the total household growth, and sub-watershed
7 at 19% seemed higher than observation of apparent growth and building trends in the area would indicate. Further,
sub-watersheds 5, 6 and 8 seemed disproportionately low. To compensate for this apparent discrepancy, the
percentages were adjusted to make the distribution of household growth into sub-watersheds 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 more
equal.
The adjusted percentage of households were then multiplied by the total projected household growth of 1,200, which
was rounded from the calculated 1,206 households to provide an estimated 2000 - 2010 household growth by sub-
watershed. This household growth is the projected growth by sub-watershed due to normal population growth and
in-migration, and does not necessarily reflect any additional influence on household growth due to R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 28 of 38 November 27, 2001
5. ASSUMED LAND USE CHANGE FOR WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS PURPOSES
5.1 Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
The assumptions of land use change due to R-210 were based on a calculated distribution of households by sub-
watershed. An initial distribution of households based proportionately on sub-watershed land area was adjusted to
conform to the Potential for Land Use Change assessment. These distributed households were then translated into
acres, assuming 1/2 acre per household, the minimum lot size permitted by DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards.
The built-upon area was then calculated at 24% built-upon area, the maximum built-upon area permitted by DWQ
Class WS-III Watershed Standards. Even though local zoning might require a larger lot size than 1/2 acre, the ratio of
24% built-upon for a 1/2 acre lot was considered to be consistent with the built-upon area that would occur with
larger lots. The 24% built-upon area on a 1/2 acre lot represents a 3,000 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with a two-car
garage, driveway, front entry walk, and 800 sq. ft. patio, swimming pool, or other impervious outdoor area. This
would be a fairly typical residence in this area, regardless of lot size.
Non-residential built-upon area was derived from the assumed land use change analysis, with the built-upon area
being calculated at 24%, the maximum built-upon area permitted by DWQ Class WS-III Watershed Standards.
As suggested by the NCDOT "Draft Guidelines," several scenarios were considered for the assumed additional
growth in the sub-watersheds that might occur due to the influence of R-210. These scenarios assumed a percentage
increase in households over the household growth that was projected by the Office of State Planning. These
scenarios were:
Scenario 1: "Probable Scenario", which was a judgement based on professional experience, observation of the area,
and the interpretation of the analysis. This scenario resulted in a total assumed built-upon area of 47 acres due to the
influence of R-210. The 47 acres represents 0.1% of the total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area
are shown in the following table.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 29 of 38 November 27, 2001
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 1: Probable Scenario
Scenario 2: "Conservative Scenario," increased the assumed percentage of growth in each sub-watershed due to R-
210 by a factor of 3 for sub-watersheds 5, 7 and 8, and by a factor of 2 for sub-watershed 6, to account for any
unanticipated growth or any possible additional influence on growth resulting from R-210. This scenario resulted in
a total assumed built-upon area of 92 acres due to the influence of R-210. The 92 acres represents 0.2% of the total
watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area are shown in the following table.
Scenario 3: "Worst Case Scenario," increased the assumed percentages of additional growth due to the influence of
R-210 by a factor of 4 in sub-watersheds 5, 6, 7 and 8 over Scenario 1. For this worst case scenario to occur, major
changes in current Moore County and Lee County land use policies would have to occur. While this seems unlikely
because of the relatively recent adoption of land use plans in Moore County and Lee County, there is an outside
possibility that the political climate might change in one or both of those counties. The worst case scenario resulted
in a total assumed built-upon area of 129 acres due to the influence of R-210. The 129 acres represents less than
0.3% of the total watershed analysis area. The calculations by sub-area are shown in the following table.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 30 of 39 November 27, 2001
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 2: Conservative Scenario
Assumed Households and Built-Upon Area Due to R-210
Scenario 3: Worst Case Scenario
5.2 Built-Upon Area Added by R-210
As shown in the table below, the worst case scenario calculation described above provides a total assumed built-
upon area of approximately 129 acres in the total watershed. This represents an approximately 0.3% increase in
built-upon area for the watershed affected by R-210.
These built-upon areas were used in the watershed hydrologic analysis to calculate the increase in stormwater
discharge due to the secondary and cumulative impacts of R-210. They are summarized in the following table.
Built-Upon Areas Added by R-210 (Worst Case Scenario)
Source: HNTB
5.3 Land Potentially Available for Development by Sub-Watershed
The computer model used for the hydrologic analysis required that the estimated households be located in the
general area of each sub-watershed. The model calculates runoff based on the runoff distance and time from the
source (in this case, new households) to the affected creek or tributary. To locate the assumed sub-watershed
household growth, land not currently built-upon was used as a basis for locating new households.
To identify land not currently built-upon, a generalized analysis of currently built-upon land and land not available
for development was prepared. This analysis identified existing "urbanized" areas in the Towns of Vass and
Cameron and in the developments of Woodlake and Quail Ridge. These areas are shown in Figure 2, R-210 Impact
Area.
Floodplains and wetlands were assumed to be land that would not be available for development. Using information
from Moore County and Lee County GIS systems, and from Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM maps), this land
was mapped in combination with the existing "urbanized" areas. The combined "urbanized" areas, floodplains and
wetlands are shown in Figure 3, R-210 Floodplains and Wetlands. As stated, this is a generalized analysis, and this
map should not be used as a reference in relation to any specific floodplain or wetland impact analysis.
The third type of land considered to be currently built-upon was land outside the "urbanized" areas that has existing
single family residences, manufactured houses, or farms with a residence. For purposes of this analysis, only farms
of 50 acres or less with a residence were considered to be "currently built-upon." This land was added to the map
with "urbanized" areas, floodplains and wetlands, as shown in Figure 4, R-210 Floodplains, Wetlands and Built-
Upon Areas.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 31 of 39 November 27, 2001
The remaining land was considered to be the area where any growth influenced by R-210 might occur. It is shown in
Figure 5, R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-Watersheds. Since the Evaluation of Potential for Land Use Change had
indicated that any growth effects of R-210 would be most likely to occur east of the new road, only impact areas east
of R-210 are shown, other than an area in Cameron just west of the new road. The land area available, as shown
below, is over 35 times the land needed for the worst case scenario, indicating that even in the worst case, any
growth influenced by R-210 would be extremely low density.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 32 of 39 November 27, 2001
Figure 3
R-210 Floodplains and Wetlands
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 33 of 39 November 27, 2001
Figure 4
R-210 Floodplains, Wetlands and Built-Upon Areas
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 34 of 39 November 27, 2001
'.?? ?
Union C1

l
US 15/50

150 AC
300 AC
T700 AC
400 AC
900 AC
Cypress
Church
Figure 5
R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-Watersheds
5.4 Assumed Land Use Change
To assume locations within the sub-watersheds for supporting the hydrologic analysis, the probable impacts
described in Section 3 were compared to the land presumed to be available for development, as described in Section
5.3 above. The resulting assumptions, as shown in the following table, provided a relatively specific location of
assumed land use changes, which were used in the hydrologic model to calculate distance and time of runoff.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 35 of 39 November 27, 2001

ajor Feeder Road

ocation
Sub- Probability of
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed
hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Assumed
Built-
upon
Acres
Eakes Road (SR 1181) At the intersection 7 Moderate One two-acre comer commercial use 0.5
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon area (impervious cover)
West of the intersection 7 None to Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 7 N/A N/A 0.0
Frontage Road between 4 Moderately High to 100 acres of non-residential uses 24.0
Eakes Rd. (SR 1181) and High Direct access from frontage roads
Cedar Lane Rd. (SR 1182) 24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
Cedar Lane Road (SR 1182) At the intersection 5 Moderate One two-acre corner commercial use 0.5
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon
West of the intersection 4 Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 5 Low None 0.0
Frontage Road between 5 Moderately High to 33 acres of non-residential uses 8.0
Cedar Lane Rd. (SR 1182) and High Direct access from frontage roads
Pine Forest Road (SR 1173) 24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
NC24/NC27 At the interchange 5 Low None 0.0
East of the interchange, in 5 Moderately Low 40 single family residences 4.8
the Urban Service 1/2 acre lots
Boundary (USB) Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, in 7 Moderately Low 32 single family residences 3.8
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange, in 4 Moderate 24 single family residences 2.9
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 7 Moderately Low to 70 single family residences 8.4
outside the USB Moderate 1/2 acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange, None to Very Low None 0.0
outside the USB
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 36 of 39 November 27, 2001
Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Major Feeder Road Location hed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Acres
Cranes Creek Road (SR 1825) At the intersection 4 Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 5 Moderately Low to 92 single family residences 11.0
Moderate 1h acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the intersection 7 Moderately Low to 42 single family residences 5.0
Moderate 1h acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the intersection 8 Moderately Low to 101 single family residences 12.1
Moderate 'A acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the intersection None to Low None 0.0
Main St:/Lobelia Road At the interchange 6 High Two two-acre comer commercial uses 1.0
(SR 1001) Commercial uses
24% built-upon area
East of the interchange, in 6 Moderate 108 single family residences 13.0
the USB 1/2 acre lots
Lots predominantly located in the first mile
east of the USB
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 6 Moderate 204 single family residences 24.5
outside the USB 1h acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
East of the interchange, 8 Moderately Low 79 single family residences 9.5
outside the USB 1h acre lots
Lots spread randomly throughout the area
24% built-upon area
DWQ-standard on-site septic system
West of the interchange 3 None to Very Low None 0.0

Existing U.S. 1, south of Vass At the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
East of the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
West of the intersection 6 None to Very Low None 0.0
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 37 of 39 November 27, 2001
Assumed
Sub- Probability of Built-
Waters Land Use Change Assumed Land Use Change for Watershed upon
Major Feeder Road Location bed (from Section 3) Analysis Purposes Acres
Aiken Road (SR 1853) At the intersection N/A Low to Moderately One two-acre comer commercial use 0.5
Low DWQ-standard on-site septic system
24% built-upon (impervious cover)
East of the intersection N/A None to Very Low None 0.0
West of the intersection N/A None to Very Low None 0.0
Total Assumed Built-Upon Acres 129.5
The location of these impact areas and the sub-watersheds is shown in Figure 5: R-210 Impact Areas and Sub-
Watersheds.
6. WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
6.1 Hydrologic Analysis Methodology
A preliminary hydrologic study was performed for this project to estimate the proposed increase of stormwater
discharge due to the construction of project R-210 and associated future developments.
Based on the preliminary alignment for R-210, and an estimation of future development occurring within the impact
area, a hydrologic model was created using TR-55 (Soil Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds), for the existing and proposed conditions. The 25-year storm was used as the storm event for the
models. The drainage areas, runoff coefficients, and time of concentrations were derived by using USGS Quad maps
and aerial photography.
The majority of R-210, and the future developments, will occur within the watersheds of Crane Creek and its
tributaries. Crane Creek ultimately flows into Lake Surf, where the discharge is detained/retained and released over
time into the Little River. Very little of the future developments are believed to be located along the Little River near
Vass, NC.
The future developments will consist of mostly individual residences and scattered residential minor subdivisions
(four houses or less), with some minor commercial development occurring adjacent to R-210. Increases in
impervious areas are less than 0.3 percent in regards to total watershed areas, and the associated increases of
stormwater peak discharges will be less than 3 percent in relation to the existing peak discharges, as described in the
following section.
6.2 Estimated Hydrology Effect of R-210
As indicated in the table below, the hydrologic model indicated that there would be very small increases in the
estimated 25 year event future peak discharges resulting from the worst case scenario increased built-upon area that
could result from R-210. Sub-watersheds 1, 2 and 3 would have no change, since none of the assumed land use
change would occur in those sub-watersheds.
Sub-watersheds 4 and 7, even though they could experience an increase in built-upon area due to R-210, would have
changes in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges too small for the computer model to calculate.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 38 of 39 November 27, 2001
Sub-watersheds 5, 6 and 8 would have changes in the estimated 25-year event future peak discharges in the range of
2.7% to 2.8%.
Effect of R-210 (Worst Case Scenario
e
a-
' Zi_
F
4 19.0 15,940 27 0.2% 15,940 0.0%
5 2.3 2,413 24 1.7% 2,479 2.7%
6 3.8 3,188 38 1.6% 3,277 2.8%
7 14.0 11,099 18 0.2% 11,099 0.0%
8 5.7 5,658 22 0.6% 5,819 2.8%
ides Residential and Commercial Development. Acreages are total built-upon Ompervioous cover) areas.
Source: HNTB
6.3 Estimated Effect on Downstream Water Quality
The above flow rates will occur as a result of primarily single-family residential development which, due to local
planning and zoning requirements, will be in scattered site development. The remaining farmland and woodland
should easily provide filtration of any contaminants in the stormwater runoff from these developments before it
reaches the watercourses. Additionally, Woodlake (Lake Surf) provides a retention area, which will limit the rate of
flow into Little River. Consequently, there should be no change in the rate of flow into the Little River, and no
impact on downstream water quality as a result of the secondary and cumulative impacts of R-210.
R-210 Secondary and Cumulative Effects on Downstream Water Quality Page 39 of 39 November 27, 2001
dM 5U73
1 ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION-OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April, 8 2003 WETL'iNDS1401r;o Up
140
Memorandum To: Richard K. Spencer APR 2003
Regulatory Division US Army Corps of Eq,a, QUALITySc TlQlY
A'
John Hennessy / Cynthia Van Der Wiele C?ill
401 Wetlands Unit NC Division of Water Quality
From: Art King
NCDOT Highway Div. 8
Subject: Permit Modifications for T.I.P. No. R-210A, R-21 0B & R210C
Lee & Moore Co.
Project No. 6.549008T
Included for your review are five requests from S.T. Wooten Corporation and one request from
Sanford Contractors, for permit modifications for T.I.P. no. R210A, R21 0B & R21 0C, in Lee and
Moore Counties. One copies of all the requested modifications are being forwarded to the
Regulatory Division, USACOE and seven copies of each request to the NC Division of Water
Quality 401 Wetlands Unit.
If you require any additional information or assistance, please contact me.
P.O. BOX 1067, ABERDEEN NORTH CAROLINA 28315
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

14; a

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY.
February 14, 2003
PROJECT: 6.549008T
CONTRACT NO.: C200428
T. I. P. NO.: R-21 OA, R-210 B& R-21 0C
- COUNTY: LEE & MOORE CO.
DESCRIPTION: US-1 From South of SR-1853 & SR-2175, North of Lakeview, To
SR-1180 South of Sanford.
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. W. F. Rosser, PE
DIVISION ENGINEER
ATTENTION: Mr. Art C. King
DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
- FROM: Mr. M. C. Tillman
RESIDENT ENGINEER
SUBJECT: Permit Modifications
Attached, for your review and further handling, is S.T. Wooten Corp. request to modify
the existing permits on the above project.
Please review and expedite the attached information, and forward to Mr. Richard
Spencer - US Army Corps. Of Engineers for approval. If you have any questions, please
advise.
MCT: rvc
Attachments
Cc: File (Correspondence -Permits)
Filename: memo-modification.doc
P.O. Box 1067 / Aberdeen, N.C. 283 15 / 910-944-7554 / Fax: [phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
"ETLANDS1401 GRGUp
APR 1 0 ?003
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTUALITMT
MICHAEL F. EAsLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS TT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April, 8 2003
Memorandum To: Richard K. Spencer 0pq--?40.
Regulatory Division US Army Corps of Engineers
John Hennessy / Cynthia Van Der Wiele
401 Wetlands Unit NC Division of Water Quality
From: Art King Ate.
NCDOT Highway Div. 8
Subject: Permit Modifications for T.I.P. No. R-21 OA, R-21013 & R21 0C
Lee & Moore Co.
Project No. 6.549008T
Included for your review are five requests from S.T. Wooten Corporation and one request from
Sanford Contractors, for permit modifications for T.I.P. no. R21 OA, R21013 & R210C, in Lee and
Moore Counties. One copies of all the requested modifications are being forwarded to the
Regulatory Division, USACOE and seven copies of each request to the NC Division of Water
Quality 401 Wetlands Unit.
If you require any additional information or assistance, please contact me.
P.O. BOX 1067, ABERDEEN NORTH CAROLINA 28315
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
6
Nt .T
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
February 14, 2003
PROJECT:
CONTRACT NO.:
T.I.P. NO.:
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION
MEMORANDUM TO
ATTENTION:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
6.549008T
C200428
R-21 OA, R-210B & R-21 0C
LEE & MOORE CO.
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
US-1 From South of SR-1853 & SR-2175, North of Lakeview, To
SR-1180 South of Sanford.
Mr. W. F. Rosser, PE
DIVISION ENGINEER
Mr. Art C. King
DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
Mr. M. C. Tillman
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Permit Modifications
Attached, for your review and further handling, is S.T. Wooten Corp. request to modify
the existing permits on the above project.
Please review and expedite the attached information, and forward to Mr. Richard
Spencer - US Army Corps. Of Engineers for approval. If you have any questions, please
advise.
MCT:rvc
Attachments
Cc: File (Correspondence -Permits)
Filename: memo-modification.doc
P.O. Box 1067 / Aberdeen, N.C. 28315 / 910-944-7554 / Fax: [phone]
o?OF \ NA
TF?QG
C1 `C
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
April 23, 2003
CERTIFIED MAIL: Return receipt requested
Mr. Art C. King, Division Environmental Officer
NCDOT Division 8
902 North Sandhills Blvd.
P.O. Box 1067
Aberdeen, NC 28315
Dear Mr. King:
Re: Modification Requests to the Individual §401 Water Quality Certification for Moore and Lee
Counties; US 1 Bypass of Vass from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford; F.A. Project NHF-
0001(3); State Project 8.T560302; TIP No. R-210A, B, and C.
On April 10, 2003, the Division of Water Quality received the following modification requests to the
§401 Water Quality Certification for the aforementioned project:
1. Sanford Contractors Request to modify the temporary causeway for constructing two bridges at Sta.
151+13.609 -L- dated November 5, 2002.
2. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 21, Bridge Sta. 81+06.460 -L- Left Lane and Bridge Sta.
80+88.540 -L- Right Lane dated November 8, 2002.
3. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 21 Bridges at Sta. 81+00 -L- over Craines Creek dated
March 12, 2003.
4. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 16 Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road dated April 4, 2003.
5. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 1 Bridges at Sta. 25+19-L- over Little River dated
November 8, 2003 and April 4, 2003.
6. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 1, Bridge Sta. 25+19.700 -L- Left and Right Lanes dated
November 8, 2002.
Review of these applications was not possible. The application appeared to contain requests for six
modifications to the §401 Water Quality Certification. The organization of the application(s) was such
that the location and detail of the proposed changes was unclear. It was not possible to discern many of
the requested design changes. Two of the requests had more than one design proposed for the same
impact site. Many of the designs had different dates on the correspondence, further complicating the
review. DWQ staff have been unable to review the application. Please provide DWQ with an accurate,
detailed, and organized listing of the modification requests by site, with the proposed design changes, and
all other supporting documentation justifying the requested changes. DWQ requests a meeting with
appropriate NCDOT staff to present and discuss the modification request.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(3), the permit application is placed on hold until we are
supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC Division of
Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers continue to place
the permit application on hold.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlandS/
We look forward to working with you to expedite the review of these modification requests. If you have
any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele at
919.733.5715.
Sincerely,
- Dorney
Quality Ce 'fi ation Program
pc: USACE Wilmington Regulatory Office V
Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager, NCDOT PDEA
Coleen Sullins, NCDWQ
Paul Rawls, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ
W.F. Rosser, P.E., Division Engineer, Division 8
Marty C. Tillman, Resident Engineer, Division 8
Central Files
File Copy

micnam r. easiey, Uovemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
July 19, 2002
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-154-8
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: Water Quality Certification Pursuant to §401 of the Federal Clean
Water Act, US 1 from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford
(Vass Bypass), Moore/Lee Counties
TIP No. R-210
DWQ Project No. 010404
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3344 issued to The North Carolina Department of
Transportation dated July 19, 2002..
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Public Hearing Attendees
Central Files
File Copy
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NO 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NO. 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893'(fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. This certification authorizes the NCDOT to incur the
following permanent impacts: 41.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands through permanent fill, excavation,
and mechanized clearing; 14.50 acres of surface waters (anthropogenically-created ponds) fill; and 4,880
linear feet of stream channels in Moore and Lee Counties, as described in the Application dated 19
February 2001, and additional information dated 12 February 2002 and 15 March 2002. The project shall
be constructed pursuant to the application dated February 19 filed to construct improvements to US 1
.from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford (Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210).
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters of the state
with the proposed development will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application. Should
your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ in writing; and you may be required to 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 this project incurs
additional wetland or stream impacts, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval, to remain valid, you are required to comply with
all the conditions listed below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits
before proceeding with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three (3) years from
the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as, expiration date of the corresponding
Corps of Engineers Permit, whichever is sooner.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. The applicant must follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or
exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more
appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central
Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,.
installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure
compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams
and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater
classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. NCDOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March
1997), specifically using all applicable preventive and control measures during the design,
construction and maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
3. During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(a)-(d)], within the entire
project corridor.
4. Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and shall not be routed directly into
streams. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse
flow.
5. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 10 days of
ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of High Quality Waters) to provide long term
erosion control.
6. NCDOT shall adhere to the requirements for High Quality Waters [15A NCAC 2B.0224]
7. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The final designs for the
Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401
Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for
the basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no
later than 30 days after the construction is completed.
8. The bridge(s) required for this project shall be designed according to Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March 1997). Specifically, the bridge decking shall not
discharge storm water directly into the receiving water.
9. Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan-for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project.. The NCDOT shall
be required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control
devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of
sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed
and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
10. Any bridge demolition work required by this project shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
11. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has
hardened.
12. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this Certification. If this occurs, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water.and aquatic life unless it can be shown
to DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other
structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall
be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
14. NCDOT shall mitigate for the loss of two water supply wells for the Town of. Cameron by
constructing a municipal supply well or wells capable of yielding a minimum of 70 gallons per
minute (gpm). The Utility Relocation Agreement was entered with the Town of Cameron on October
26, 1998.
15. Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1 restoration or creation of lost
wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(6). A report must be submitted to the NC
Division of Water Quality that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for this
project within two (2) months of the issuance of the 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
a. Wetland impacts of 41.5 acres include riverine wetlands. NCDOT will mitigate these impacts by
providing the following:
¦ 4.8 acres of on-site restoration (1:1 ratio) in the floodplain of the Little River as described in
Appendix C of the Application.
The monitoring plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the
first year and every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ 8.4 acres of on-site preservation as described in Appendix C of the Application.
¦ Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT) Mitigation Site.(a 327-acre site in Moore County) being
offered in total to offset the remainder of wetland impacts (36.8 acres) associated with the
project. This site includes a maximum of 49 acres of wetland restoration.
NCDOT shall place groundwater gauges on the site such that they will accurately measure
the drainage effect of the existing ditches at the SALT site. Before the additional monitoring
and.re-modeling of the groundwater table of the SALT Site occurs, NCDOT shall meet.iwith
DWQ personnel to agree upon the details of additional studies. If the resulting hydrological
modeling demonstrates that less than 36.8 acres can actually be restored, NCDOT shall obtain
wetland mitigation through in-lieu payments to Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP).
b. Stream impacts total 4,880 linear feet in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030004).
NCDOT proposes to provide compensatory mitigation at a 2:1 ratio except where on-site
mitigation will be provided. The on-site mitigation sites will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio as
detailed in Table 4, Appendix A of the February 19, 2001 Application. Compensatory mitigation
_...: ._...r.-
consists of the following:
¦ 1,154 linear feet of on-site stream relocation/restoration, with 50-foot buffers, using natural
channel design.- The natural channel design specifications shall be calculated from field
measurements of an unimpacted section of stream (reference reach). The plans must include
reference reach data including a sketch map, the range of values (pattern data), and all
calculations (including the determination of bankfull). The channel design should include a
floodplain terrace at stream bankfull.
The stream relocation shall be built and maintained according to approved plans before any
mitigation credit is given. If this Office determines that the stream restoration or associated
riparian area has become unstable, the stream shall be repaired or stabilized using only
natural channel design techniques if possible. Additionally, the vegetation in the riparian
shall be maintained.and/or replaced according to the. approved plans. Rip-rap and other hard
structures may only be used if required by the Division of Land Resources or a Delegated
Local Program. Additionally, all repair designs must be submitted to and.receive written
approval from this.Office before the repair work is performed.
Since the restored stream is proposed as compensatory mitigation for stream impacts, the
restored portion and associated riparian area shall be preserved in perpetuity through a
preservation easement or some other legally binding mechanism or agreement. The above
easement or other legally binding mechanism or agreement must be in place before any
mitigation credit shall be given. Additionally, the stream physical and biological monitoring
plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the first year and
every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ The remaining 8,068 linear feet of stream mitigation shall be provided via in-lieu payments to
Wetlands Restoration Program as agreed on April 1, 1999.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy our'compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). Until plans are received and approved
for the stream relocation using natural channel design, wetland or stream fill shall not occur.
16. 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 parry shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of -the Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
17. The Applicant shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms. of this
Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless ;the .above
conditions: are made conditions of the Federal Permit., .
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 fora hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 150B. of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This the 19th day of July 2002
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY

Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
WQC No. 3344
.
Certificate of Completion
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
County:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
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, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650. 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
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, the approved
plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Agent's Certfication
Date:
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my. abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the approved
plans and specifications, and other-supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
Date:
I, ., as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically; weekly, full time) the construction of
the project, fqr 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, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature Registration No.
Date
MS?q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 28, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
FROM: Steven D. DeWitt, PE
State Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Minutes to the Joint Committee Meeting
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
The Joint Cooperative Committee of the AGC-DOT met at 3:00 PM on April 15, 2002, in the
Board Room of the Transportation Building.
Members and attendees present included:
Mike Long
Berry Jenkins
Gene Conti
Fabrice Voisin
Len Sanderson
Richard Vick
Drew Johnson
Don Vaughn
Jack Reynolds
Victor Barbour
Don Goins
Len Hill
Steve DeWitt
Randy Garris
Ellis Powell
Jimmy Travis
George Gibson
Ron Hancock
Walker Moffitt
Bill Copeland
Greg Keel
Mr. Richard Vick opened the meeting by welcoming those present and asked attendees to give
their name and the company they represented.
REMARKS BY THE CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY
Mr. Gene Conti mentioned that the state is in serious trouble with its budget shortfall. However,
he also noted that the Department has a separate source of funding than other state agencies. The
Department is close to the budget estimate that was made last year. There has been no major
downturn in receipts and receipts have been fairly steady. Other agencies are not doing so well;
however, and look longingly at the Department's funds. In consideration of the state's budget
shortfall, the Department has contributed an additional $80 million from the Trust Fund. This
brings total Department contributions to $250 million. There were discussions with the Budget
Director regarding this new level of contribution (the additional $80 million) on the Department's
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION UNIT 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1543 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1543
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 2
May 28, 2002
behalf, that it might become an annual event. Secretary Lyndo Tippett protested this move and
insisted that the Department's contribution remain at its current level. The Budget Director
concurred with the Secretary. The Department is continuing with its cash management program
in pursuing pavement rehabilitation per the recent actions by the Legislature.
The latest information from the staff at the Legislature is that the Department is not being
strongly considered for additional contributions for the next couple of years. That, of course,
does not prevent the Department from being reconsidered. It is the Governor's position, as well
as the Department's, that our current resources are necessary to provide the public with the
services that are needed.
The question was put forth about the issue of permits delaying project lettings and therefore
causing the Department's cash balances to rise. These cash balances hold strong appeal to other
agencies that are looking for funds. Mr. Conti stated that the Department desires to go from
$1 billion in construction to $1.5 billion over the next year or two. This would help to spend
some of the Department's cash balance.
Mr. Berry Jenkins asked if the new permitting ground rules from the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) are slowing down the letting process. He was concerned that if
the let schedule was delayed as a result, the cash balance would be spent at a slower rate. This
would allow other agencies a longer period to take note of the balance and perhaps inquire
further into the tapping of that fund to finance their own programs. Mr. Conti responded that the
Department would try to manage its way through these issues and work them project by project.
Mr. Jenkins added that the April and May lettings have already been affected and that there is a
resulting economic impact on the Contractors if this trend continues. With business slowing
down, Contractors may have to lay off employees.
In response, Mr. Conti stated that the Department is trying to lessen the impact and that the
Secretary is doing what he can to see that the work gets out on the street.
Mr. Jenkins asked if his industry could help in any way. He emphasized that this is becoming a
serious issue with the Contractors.
Mr. Richard Vick added that if it were not for his company getting some commercial work, they
would be laying off people today. Moreover, once those people are laid off, it is very difficult to
get them back.
It was also stated by one representative that they might have to start laying off foremen. The
delays due to the environmental permit issues are having a direct impact.
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 3
May 28, 2002
Mr. Len Sanderson had Mr. Len Hill look at the projections for 2002. Mr. Hill found that there
are a few projects impacted by the recent changes in the way permits are issued, but most of the
projects appear to be in good shape. The impacted projects will require more qualitative and
quantitative analysis. The Department is moving ahead with these analyses on US 1 South near
Vass and the Knightdale Bypass.
Mr. Sanderson also stated that there is the issue of buffers. The Department must work toward
keeping projects out of the buffer zones adjacent to designated river basins. Fill resulting from
bridge construction must stay out of Buffer Zones 1 and 2. Three basins in particular were
mentioned: Neuse, Tar-Pam, and the Randleman Watershed. These will require longer bridges
in order to keep' fill out of these zones in these basins. We are looking from now to June 2003 at
some purchase order projects as well as 20 TIP projects. All of these are bridge replacement
projects except for three: the Knightdale Bypass, I-540 between US 1 and US 264, and Guilford
College Road. Some of these bridges will need to be lengthened significantly, particularly on
I-540. On these three projects, the bridges will have to be redesigned. Moreover, with these
three projects, the Department is trying to stay on schedule as much as possible. The Department
is investigating to see what can be done to fast track these changes.
Mr. Sanderson stated that the US 1 Vass Bypass was scheduled for May 2002, but slipped due to
a legal challenge to the environmental document. Division of Water Quality is not issuing a 401
water certification until the challenge has been resolved.
Mr. Hill added that there is also a legal challenge in New Hanover County from a conservation
group. They are challenging our stormwater program there.
Mr. Jenkins asked if there have been any other suits filed.
Mr. Sanderson responded that one other had been filed on US 1. In addition, there is an
indication that there may be a suit filed on I-26 to slow it down or stop it. However, I-26 is still
moving forward. Mr. Sanderson advised that the Department is optimistic for high numbers
before the year is out. Once we work through some obstacles, we will have a significant number
of projects to be let.
Mr. Jenkins asked if relief could be four or five months away. Mr. Sanderson responded that is
possible.
Mr. Jenkins advised that actual construction may still be a year off. Some people could be
unemployed for about another year. He asked if DENR is getting their work done.
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 4
May 28, 2002
Mr. Hill advised that DENR is trying to grapple with their workload issues and that this has been
a problem for some time.
Mr. Conti stated that Secretary Tippett is concerned about the lawsuits. He asked if the AGC
had considered filing suit based on the negative economic impact that these permits and lawsuits
are having on the state.
Mr. Jenkins stated that, as an industry, they are looking into that. He also asked if anyone knew
what had precipitated these new environmental ground rules. Mr. Conti advised that DENR
would probably argue that these regulations have been in plan for three or four years.
Mr. Jenkins then asked if anyone knew what had brought on their sudden enforcement of these
regulations. Mr. Conti advised that the Department did not know. Mr. Sanderson suggested that
these issues be explored at the next meeting between the two Departments.
Mr. Jenkins inquired if DENR had considered the negative economic impact of their recent
decisions. Mr. Steve DeWitt advised that DENR has also been resistant to the Design-Build
process. Mr. Conti advised that filing lawsuits by these outside organizations is easily done, but
the repercussions are difficult to deal with. He asked the members of this committee to keep the
Department informed as they also discuss these issues with legislators.
Mr. Sanderson advised that Secretary Tippett had considered the economic impact. He also
advised that the Secretary had been advised that we need to let money flow to help stimulate the
economy. In addition, he asked the Secretary if he would talk to DENR to see if they would
work with our Department toward resolving these permitting issues.
AST WARRANTY
Mr. George Gibson opened by handing out a memo by Mr. Don Goins entitled "Asphalt Surface
Treatment (AST) Warranties" dated March 26, 2002, which had been distributed to all Division
Engineers. He advised that when the Department receives poor workmanship, it pays for the
damage. At this time, most AST work is done through the purchase order process. The
Department is pushing more toward pavement preservation. With these warranties, the
Contractor will be required to make any repairs other than those excluded in the warranty. The
Contractor will be responsible for the finished product for two years after completion of the
work. Specifically, the warranty begins immediately following the final inspection. There is no
direct payment for the warranty and the warranty does not extend contract time.
Mr. Berry Jenkins asked if any of this work would have any federal funds. Mr. Gibson advised
that only 5.xx and 7.xx projects would be effected, not 8.xx and 9.xx projects.
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 5
May 28, 2002
Mr. Jenkins asked when we would see this in the contracts. Mr. Gibson and Mr. Goins advised
that we could see these provisions in contracts as early as July of this year.
DESIGN-BUILD LEGISLATION
Mr. Len Sanderson opened this discussion by stating that the Department proposed Design-Build
in 1998. Three projects per year were included in the original legislation. A revision to this
legislation proposed that the Department be allowed to pursue unlimited Design-Build projects.
This proposed legislation has now been changed from unlimited to 20 Design-Build projects per
year.
Mr. Victor Barbour asked if the Department has taken a position on this amended version.
Mr. Sanderson advised that the Department had not officially taken a position.
Mr. Berry Jenkins asked what the official Department response to this legislation was.
Mr. Sanderson stated that the number of projects still remains to be determined, but the
Department would like to have the authority to do more than three projects and probably more
than 20. But, the Department has the capacity to do a limited number and has to be practical and
realistic. Mr. Sanderson advised that there is no indication at this time that it will move to amend
the Legislation.
Mr. Richard Vick advised that he is working on two Design-Build projects concurrently. He
further advised that the company could do this on a temporary basis, but they cannot pursue
multiple Design-Build projects for the long term. He stated that they will have to change the
way they operate in order to accommodate concurrent projects, which would not be easy.
Mr. Sanderson also responded that the Department must reorganize to handle numerous Design-
Build projects. He stated that people within the Department are discussing how many projects
each can reasonably handle.
Mr. Drew Johnson advised that there is much up-front work that is both costly and time
consuming with Design-Build. Some members acknowledged that they did not realize how
much up-front effort would be involved with Design-Build.
Mr. Sanderson also pointed out the primary advantage in Design-Build is the issues on the
project can be addressed immediately.
Mr. Steve DeWitt stated that he was aware of the high cost involved in submitting for Design-
Build. The Department wants Contractors to propose, but realizes that if a Contractor loses two
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 6
May 28, 2002
or three bids, it may lose that Contractor as a future bidder since he cannot get a return on his
money.
Mr. Johnson advised that once a Contractor wins a Design-Build contract, he may have to go
back and repeat tasks to get them settled if right-of-way or permits have not been acquired. That
could require an extended timeframe. Meanwhile, the Contractor is spending money without
immediate reimbursement.
Mr. Sanderson stated that the Department would not be letting many projects without permits.
Mr. DeWitt stated that Florida has been letting Contractors handle environmental permits, but
they offer financial incentives. Mr. Sanderson also stated that Florida identifies the areas
impacted and the Florida Legislature sets a fee per acre. The Department is unable to operate in
this manner at this time. Also, North Carolina is a much more heavily regulated state by
comparison.
Mr. Vick advised that providing permits would be costly for the Contractor. He continued by
stating that Contractors typically spend around a quarter of a million dollars bidding on Design-
Build contracts. Contractors have to win enough projects to get a return on their investment.
Otherwise, he stated, they will have to find work elsewhere.
Mr. Jenkins advised that the AGC is attempting to get a representative from Florida to come
speak on the Design-Build program they are using.
DESIGN-BUILD STATUS
Mr. Steve DeWitt began by stating that the Department has its 401 permit for the Knightdale
Bypass and is still waiting on the 404 permit. There is a technicality delaying issuance.
Mr. Randy Garris advised that the 404 package should be going out tomorrow (April 16).
Mr. Len Sanderson added that the Department would have all the necessary permits before it
seeks technical and cost proposals from Contractors.
Mr. Drew Johnson advised that the Department needs to make sure that Contractors have time to
determine quantities, as they likely will have changed.
Mr. DeWitt stated that both I-85 near Ruin Creek Road and I-85 in Mecklenburg County will be
advertising shortly.
Mr. Berry Jenkins asked if threatened legal action on one of these projects was a serious matter.
Mr. Sanderson advised that no actions have been taken so far.
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 7
May 28, 2002
Mr. Sanderson advised that in October 2002,1-85 in Mecklenburg County will be presented to
the Board. That project is estimated at $50+ million. Mr. DeWitt stated that the I-85 in
Mecklenburg County project will be advertised in the next Purchase Directory posting. In
addition, Mr. Sanderson advised that I-85 in Mecklenburg County was a 2004 project that is
being let ahead of schedule. Moreover, I-77 is also being let a year ahead of schedule. The
Department is funding these projects by borrowing against the Highway Trust Fund's cash
balance. If the Legislature dips into this fund to help with the state's budgetary problems, it
could affect the schedule for I-85.
Regarding permits, the Department is developing what is being termed a "Footprint Permit
Process." The Department is struggling with permits because DENR desires to see all the details
prior to issuance. The Department's objective is to give the Contractors our plans at 25% design
to help facilitate Design-Build. The Department intends to give financial incentives to the
Contractor to reduce the footprint, require less mitigation, and have less impact on environmental
areas.
Mr. Sanderson advised that in order to obtain a permit, the Department either must avoid impacts
or minimize them. However, once you get through the footprint, most minimizing has occurred.
The Department is proposing financial incentives if the Contractor can minimize it further.
Mr. DeWitt added that at the 25% design point, the Department would approach DENR and
show them what the anticipated impact will be. That would be the footprint that the Contractor
would work from. The Contractor must build within that footprint or minimize it further.
Mr. Richard Vick asked if Contractors would still have to provide a finalized permit. Mr.
DeWitt answered affirmatively and added that even with the footprint, DENR would not know
the exact location of ditches, etc.
Mr. DeWitt stated that the Department still needs to review its requirements for Design-Build
proposals to make sure we are not asking for too much. The Department wants to ensure we are
not asking for more than we need. Mr. Johnson advised that the answer to this question depends
on how much Contractors are asked to design. Mr. DeWitt advised that the Department will be
going through an evolutionary process and as we work through projects, we may find that we do
not need as much information as we thought we did at first. He requested that Contractors be
patient with the Department as it works its way through this.
Mr. DeWitt asked Mr. Bill Copeland about I-77 with regard to Design-Build and how that
project was progressing. Mr. Copeland stated that I-77 was going very well and that there have
been only a few "road blocks" along the way. He added that they have met every date on their
schedule and the Resident Engineer has worked well with them and that has been the key. They
are happy with the partnership with the Department and have been able to compress turnaround
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 8
May 28, 2002
times with this project. He also offered that the Department has been open to innovations along
the way. He advised, however, that a Contractor can only do so many of these a year, as they are
quite involved. As a footnote, he added that the Resident Engineer, Jim Cravens, will be leaving
the Department soon to work in the private sector.
Mr. DeWitt stated that so far the feedback has been positive regarding I-77. The Resident
Engineer is not having to deal with the minor details that often present themselves on a
project. He has been able to spend more time on the higher level issues with Design-Build.
Mr. Copeland concurred with these comments as did Mr. Sanderson. Mr. Sanderson also added
that as soon as the Board of Transportation awarded the project, the Contractor was able to start
work the next day.
Mr. Copeland advised that they have a web site where they post information related to the
project located at http://www.bhme.com/construction/I77/default.htm.
WORK ZONE SAFETY
Mr. Jimmy Travis opened the discussion by distributing a handout to the group entitled 2002
Work Zone Safety Program: Trucking Video for Work Zone Safety Proposal. He advised that
the Department would like to develop a 12-15 minute Work Zone Safety video targeted at the
trucking industry. It would be suitable for distribution to Contractors, private companies, driver
training schools, and government agencies. There would be accompanying materials and
promotional items to be distributed with the video. Professional actors will be used to produce
the video. The Department has set aside $25,000 in its current work zone safety budget to co-
develop, produce, and distribute this video along with $5,000 for promotional items. It is
anticipated that approximately $50,000 will be necessary to complete this item.
Mr. Travis advised that the objectives for the video were to emphasize the "Speed a Little, Lose a
Lot" initiative; implement the new initiative, "Pay Attention or Pay the Price" which focuses on
distracted drivers; emphasize the Three R's (Recognition, Reaction, and Responsibility); and
provide a tool for industry to educate drivers about work zones.
Mr. Travis outlined the budget items for this project as well as the sources of funding.
Mr. Travis stated that the Department already has two partners to help finance this project: the
North Carolina Forestry Association and the North Carolina Trucking Association. Together
they are contributing $7,500, which leaves an uncommitted amount of $15,000 for video
production.
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 11
May 28, 2002
ESCALATION IN INSURANCE COSTS
Mr. Ellis Powell distributed a handout which showed results from an e-mail survey he conducted
on the issue of insurance escalation costs. He sent the survey to all the other 49 state
Departments of Transportation, as well as, Puerto Rico. He asked two questions in the
survey: 1) Has this topic been discussed in your state? and 2) How will your state address this
issue?
Mr. Powell indicated 12 states did not respond. The respondents gave replies such as those listed
below: instead of employing escalation clauses, California Transportation is investigating the
feasibility of Alternative Insurance Products, particularly Contractor Controlled and Owner
Controlled Insurance Programs; Michigan is against escalation clauses; New York's AGC is
assembling a task force on this issue; other states have not done much with this except look at
alternatives and some studies; and some say it should be included in overhead.
Mr. Richard Vick stated that costs are going up and it is just a matter of how you are going to
deal with it.
Mr. Berry Jenkins stated that escalation helps to reduce contingency and it gives the Contractor
some level of protection.
Mr. Len Sanderson suggested scheduling a meeting in the future to discuss escalation of
insurance costs after we see what effects begin to occur.
OTHER ISSUES
Mr. Richard Vick asked if there were any other issues.
Mr. Berry Jenkins stated that the group might want to consider moving the day of this meeting,
since this meeting happens on the day before the electronic bid.
Mr. Jenkins, on a similar note, inquired as to how subcontractors would be able to contact
Contractors without the bidding being at the Hilton. He offered that they might be able to
accomplish this via the AGC web site. Mr. Len Sanderson concurred. Others mentioned that
subcontractors could leave their name, phone number, and e-mail address at the site and that
Contractors could do the same.
The next meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2002, at 3:00 PM in the Board Room of the
Transportation Building.
AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Members
Page 12
May 28, 2002
SGK:efh
ec-
Mr. Manny Marbett
Mr. L. A. Sanderson, PE
Mr. J. D. Goins, PE
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, Jr., PE
Mr. Roberto Canales, PE
Mr. B. G. Jenkins, Jr., PE
Mr. R. L. Hill, PE
Mr. C. L. Jones, PE
Mr. V. J. Barbour, PE
Ms. D. M. Barbour, PE
dti?
i
a
r
F
c4i
?oM= ?a Am f a?a,.
?3 - dssC 5ils C s,nz?? ? l?
4g4
r

JI/2 7/b 3
bJ?1en'? r rcd? ? ? C' ?1 Cc'
X0,55 X55 (?SFhfe J S
` a? d.SLQ C.,rBS? ?s ?urn?
Y1A?' te?kn3 i uJ I A2@,r?? ?ce.? ? ?--
kAd WAA jtjk?03 0
47w? t"CS?-/i4QtJ?- Y?A? rR.?YbJ? CW1DG?1W1.
? ?s w
Sa??a?5 .ax.
avk i?Ne?C rLI)C45
cJ,
dyv
Id,
Loll
K • Zt a URS5 BYPASS
3?? v? geh
Ru-?e? - rr?e,a
0- v
? c9e?,e.e.! y?,Q. ,?Ca.? q ?w'? s ? •,rk? ?- • pct` ,d?•rv?.? r-vz?`e?cc. ????
Q?rn?ija,c,7`
l ?7sU,6s I . ACAn"
. Ac:) VA -
• ,r?e??re e ,(.?b.u.?' ? v?,?.a?, Av?,G? ? ?ia? urr.{.? .?f`,?e c?a(??uc..A.Q?P ?
uv C/

a
3• W"4/ q ?2ovn» v?r?-? 2
_ SENT ?9Y: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND;
BRUCE T, CUNNINGHAM. JR.
RICHARD E. DEDMOND
MARSH SMITH
CUN
910 695 0903; 1 MAR-8-01 5:42PM;
I:DEDMOND, PETER?EN & SMITH, LLP
IdRNEYS AND COUNSELOASkAT LAW
Z25 NORTH BRNNETT S7 EET
ERN PINES, NORTH CARD A 28387
f:
t : {9101 695-0800 y
i
Of Counsk ANN C. PETERSEN
1
Via First Cd
i
Division of Water Quality, Water Ql 211
Attention: John Hennessy
1650 Mail Service Center j
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Request for Public Hea
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
As counsel for MooreFORCE,
of Vass and Camcron (TIP #R-2 10),
public hearing here in Moore County
Quality Permit.
Sincerely,
.W
Marsh Ssnith
cc:
Stcvc Schmidly, Fsq.
Fred Lamar, Esq.
8 March 2001 a
sss Mail and Fax [phone])
ity Lab
sing on 40l Water Quality Permit for R-210
PAGE 1 /1
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES, NC 28388
FAX NO. 19101895-0903
inc. and several cor?demnees affected by the US1 bypass
:request that the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) hold a
wfore making a decision on whether to issue a 401 Water
s
i
C
1

M
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
225 NORTH BENNETT STREET
BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR. SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28387
RICHARD E. DEDMOND
MARSH SMITH [phone]
Of Counsh ANN C. PETERSEN
8 March 2001
Via First Class Mail and Fax [phone])
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Lab
Attention: John Hennessy
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Request for Public Hearing on 401 Water Quality Permit for R-210
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES, NC 28388
FAX NO. [phone]
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
As counsel for MooreFORCE, Inc. and several condemnees affected by the US 1 bypass
of Vass and Cameron (TIP #R-210), I request that the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) hold a
public hearing here in Moore County before making a decision on whether to issue a 401 Water
Quality Permit.
Sincerely,
1? Z5?
Marsh Smith
cc:
Steve Schmidly, Esq.
Fred Lamar, Esq.
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND; 910 695 0903; APR-4-Oi 11:21AM; PAGE 1/4
t .
HAUCZ T. CUNP DMKAM, JL
RICHARD L DSaMOM
MARSH SAfM
CUNNiNGHAM, DEDMONO,
225NORM Nan
SOUTE BM PROM. fkwau
("n"r"
N & SMITH, LL.P.
AT IAW
P.O. BOX too
MUTMM PII M NC 213"
Vcsi lz
DATE: 9/
TO: ??Cn K,?55 FAX #:
FROM:
SUBJECT :
REMARKS:
APR 6
? C 'qtr-t / 12
I
PAGES: including this cover
pages, call itmeaately to [phone].
[phone].
"The pages c=prizinq this facsimile tra
information from the 1aM office of curA%inglum
This infcsmation is int+Rded solely for use by
the zecipient hereof. Zf you are not the int
any disclosuzs, =wing, distribution,
transmission is prehibited. If you have recei
please notify us by telephone U msdiately so• i
transmission at no cost to you."
. If you do not receive all
ismission is being made from
swission contain confidential
DedmwA, Petersen and Ami tit .
the individual entity named as
nded recipient, be aw"-w that
- of the contents of this
ad this transmission in araor,
t may arrw*o to retrieve this
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND;
BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR.
RICHARD E, DEDMOND
MARSH SMITH
Of Counsel: ANN C. PETERSEN
910 695 0903;
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
225 NORTH BENNETT STF
SOL1THFRN PINFR, NORTH CAROU
19101 645-0800
APR-4-01 11:21AM; PAGE 214
& SMITH, LLP
LAW
28387 MAILING ADDRESS
F.U. 6UX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES, NC 263373
FAX NO. 19I01 695.0903
4 April 2001
Via First Class Mail and Fax (9"-733-9959)
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Lab
Attention: John Hennessy
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE:
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
As counsel for MoorcFORCE, Inc. and several
ofAltcrnativc A, US1 bypass of Vass and Cameron (R-21
that the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) hold a public hf
making a decision on whether to issue a 401 Water Quality
explain my reasoning.
Since issuing a 401 Permit for R-210 triggers NCI
issuing a 401 permit for R-210 will have a significant adv
NCAC 25.0401(c)), an EIS must be prepared. Id.
DWQ's decision on whether to issue a 401 Permit
NCAC 2H.0506(a) and (b). For the sake of brevity and ch
list them as seven questions, as follows:
1, Will R-210 remove or degrade the water body'
2. Does a practical alternative to R-210 exist?
3. Will R-210 degrade groundwater or surface
4. Will R-210 result in cumulative impacts that wil
Knees affected by the construction
I requested (by letter dated 3/8/01)
ng here in Moore County before
;mit. I would like to briefly
(See 1 NCAC 25,0108) and since
effect on the environment (See 1
on seven factors found at 15A
, I'll paraphrase these factors and
uses?
cause a violation of downstream
water quality standards?
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND; 9i0 695 0903;
S. Will R-210 minimize adverse impacts to su
6. Does R-210 protect downstream water quality
7. Does R-210 provide for replacement of existir.
In order to issue a 401 pennit, DWQ must answer "Yes" to
"No" to the last three questions (5-7). An EIS, which NCEI
decision making tool on 401 Permits, must therefore
use to DWQ.
While the North Carolina Administrative Code
existing EIS prepared by another agency to serve as its de
I C:.0102(b)), the Environmental Documents (DEIS, FEIS
little if any analysis of R-210 and its alternatives that wu,
questions. See 2/18/01 Letter Addition
for R-210 are now more than five years old_
According to the Council on Environmental Quali
should be carefully reexamined to determine if' they shoe
46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18036 (1981). Because the analyses
the DEIS (published 9/11/91), the FETS "data" and analy:
the FEIS was published. The data and analyses in the
therefore, are now nearly ten years old, if not older.
Clearly DWQ needs to have at least a supplemental
the 401 Permit. DWQ need not prepare such a document it;
use an environmental document prepared by another agenc
NCllOT's project, and DWQ should require NCDOT to pr
decision making tool.
APR-4-01 11:21AM;
waters?
on site storm water controls?
uses through mitigation?
the first four questions (1-4) and
A mandates DWQ to use as a
PAGE 3/4
these seven questions to have any
icitly authorizes DWQ to use an
sion making tool (See ISA NCAC
id ROD) prepared for R-210 provide
u'we.p DWQ address these seven
ly, all the Envirotunental Documents
" ElSs that are more than 5 years old
be supplemented. FoM Questions,
mined essentially unchanged from
were more than live years old when
?nmental Documents for R-210,
S on which to base its decision on
-if, since its regulations allow it to
as discussed above;- R-210 is
an EIS adequate to serve as a
2
SENT BY: CUNNINGHAM DEDMOND;
910 695 0903;
A second purpose of Environmental Documents is
Metho& yallev Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,349 (1985
Management CWWi5sion Final Order, 53 N.C.App. 135,
25.0601. Accordingly, DWQ should hold a public hearing
inform the public of the seven questions it must answer to
and to receive information from the public relevant to thes
light ol'the existing Environmental Documents' serious in
contained in them, and the new information presented in NI
After the public hearing, DWQ can decide to require NCD(
issue a 401 Permit or to deny a 401 Permit. Regardless of tl
the 401 Permit for R-210, such a public hearing will make i
better one.
Sincerely,
wK
Marsh Smith
cc:
Steve Schmidly, Esq.
Fred Lamar, Esq.
Mack & Brenda Blue, c/o Art Blue, Esq.
Bonnie Grider
George Billiard
COL Pierce B. Irby, Jr.
Clinton & Kay Peele
Sam & Kathy Stout
Linda Paige Burns
4 NCDOT has found wetlands in the path of R-210
and NC)OT now indicates that R-210 will re-route
channel, whereas the PF,'T$ indicated that R-210 i
3
APR-4-01 11:22AM;
inform the public. Robertson v.
; in the matter c),f Environmental
90 S.E.2d 520 (1981); 1 NC:AC
the 401 Permit application to
PAGE 4/4
whether to issue the 401 Permit
questions - especially important in
lequacies, the age of the "data"
's 401 Permit Application,*.
to prepare a supplemental EIS, to
substance of DWQ's decision on
.atever decision DWQ reaches a
that it previously overlooked
one-fifth of a mile of stream
could re-route no streams.
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax : [phone] May 21 '01 14:04

w* w w•*• N 4
To jr; . Froh? JL, ,C ? 00
Y
QoJDep1. Co.

Phone ??
Phone i 4 33 - (cl
Fax #6 Fax #
P. 01
4•* i? R E 4
UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT
a
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIOHWAY.PR€ ACT NO. 6.669003T
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. NO. R-2108
A
aL7 2,C?zl??l??r? r., , r J
Alloor?/Le$
COUNTY
*•• a a o o• M o t•• M t o N N M 0 11 A* •.,M 44 M• N** a a•* * a w r** u•
This agreement maths this It'd . day of d 19U .. by and
between the Department of Transportation, .'an agency. of the State of North
Carolina, hereinafter referred to as the. DEP.,ARTWISIT; and the
hereinafter referred to as the TOWN:
W I I hi g E'J H:
THAT WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT v111. submit a project for construction as
follows:
US 1 from 1625 in Moore QLM to- 6B.1.1112- In Lee Q9M0&y
known as route US I in • . Moore&ee County, North
Carolina to be designated as N. C. State Highway Project 0.609003T /
and;
WHEREAS, the construction of said .:project will require certain adjustments
to be made to the existing facilities of the'. TOWN.,
NOW, THEREFORE, in order to facibteto. the. orderly and expeditious
relocation of the said facilities of TOWN,"-the. DEPAOTMENT and the TOWN have
agreed as follows-

I
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
Fax:[phone] May 21 '01 14:05 P.02
I . That the scope, description, and location of work to be undertaken by the
TOWN is as follows: Conirtructionof r rAwply well OLw!Wls capA?Le
yielding minimum 70 aom to renlac6Aha'tu ri.-wxist q:, ""reIts that will he whandnnarl di
ld hJWh a State wa - -
2. That any work performed Ender .'this, agreement shall comply with
DEPARTMENT's "POLICIES AND Pi16CE©tAES FOR ACCOMMODATING UTILITIES
ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY," dated'-January 1, 1975, and such amendments
thereto as may be in effect at the ' date -of:; this agreement. The work to be
performed by the TOWN shall conforrsi witft Federal Highway Administration's
Federal-Aid Policy Guide; Subchapter 6, ;Fait: 645. -Subpart A hereinafter referred to
as FAPG dated December 9, 1091, .and....such amendments thereto as may be in
effect at the date of this agreement.: - The.;, provisions of said FAPG and
amendments thereto are Incorporated 4n ;this agreement by reference as fully as if
herein set out. Any work performed under this 'agreement not in compliance with
FAPG shall constitute unauthorized' work. ari & the -DEPARTMENT shall be relieved of
participating in the costs. of such unau, thorkeid work unless such work is done
pursuant to a supplemental aWeernert ;attsc6d to and made a part hereof.
3. That the TOWN will. prepare; an, estimate, broken down as to
estimated cost of labor, construction overhoad,, Materials and supplies, handling
charges, transportation and equipment,.: rights of Way,, preliminary engineering and
construction engineering, including an iieM-kation- of. appropriate credits for salvage,
betterments and accrued depreciation, :aII:.IR. sufficient detail to provide the
DEPARTMENT a reasonable basis for analysis:. Eli?li costs., such as broad gauge
units of property, may be used for estimating.'. purposes where the TOWN uses
such units In its own operations. The:.. T01NN. • will - also prepare plans, sketches or
drawings showing their existing facilities, temporary : and permanent changes to be
made with reference to the DEPA,RTMENT's new. right of way using appropriate
nomenclature, symbols, legend, notes, color coding, or the like. The before
mentioned estimate and plans are attached..-hereto, snd made a part hereof. The
DEPARTMENT will not reimburse the TOWN: for -any utility relocations or changes
not necessitated by the construction of the.. highway project, nor for changes
made solely for the benefit or convenience of. the TOWN, its contractor, or a
highway contractor.
4. That the DEPARTMENT`s authd.rtty,' obligation, or liability to pay for
relocations as set for in this agreement is-:based. .o' the TOWN's having a right
of occupancy in Its existing location byrreason,.of:.holding the fee, an easement or
other real property interest, the damaging or taking of which is compensable in
eminent domain.
5. That payment for all work ;done ;hereunder shall be made in
accordance with the requirements of 0APG--: unless.-payn ent is being made pursuant
to a supplemental agreement attached to and' made 8. part of this agreement.
2
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] May 21 '01 14:05 P.03
6. That the 'construction work provided for in this agreement will be
performed by the method or Mpth?ds as specified below:
ly TOWN'S a, he TOWN
regular construction or maintenance .clews anal personnel at Its standard schedule
of wages and working hours in accordance with the terms of its agreement with
such employees.
TI O R ACT- The TOWN
proposes to use an existing writean ;cohti hung 'contract under which certain work
as shown by the TOWN's estimate, lg..reguiarly: performed for the TOWN and
under which the lowest available costs are developed.
-X- ox C ?T ?rI: The. TOW does not have adequate staff or
equipment to perform the necessary wrack :with its own forces. The TOWN
Proposes to award a contract to the -.lowest : qualified bidder who submits a
proposal in conformity with the requireniar- :and: specifications for the work to be
performed as set forth In an appropriate solicitation for bids.
7• a• It is contemplated by the parties. hereto that the construction
of this State Highway Project will begin.' on or about the
er, 200o. __I_
day of
b• Based on the best . informetlon available at the present time to
the TOWN, indicate applicable paragraph 6elati+v;
_2L _ Materials are available 8'
6d -'It - !s', ''expected that work will be
complete prior to' liig)iway, construction.
All work will take place.. dqr..:
8. highway construction and
arrangernents for 'said: 'work wig be coordinated with highway
construction operations. at "p, "I
conference.
Work will begin
ryramptly.:upon...notification by DEPARTMENT ;
however, it is not eitpected ' to be
construction . complete prior to highway
qny rema nirig'.Wor.k wh1, be coordinated with
highway construction operatlons e> PrOcOnstruction conference.
Other (Specify)
a. That the method used by.ttie: T'011WN-10 developing the relocation
costs shell be as indicated by Paragraph '(jy, '(.bj '.or..(c) es follows:
3
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] May 21 '01 14:06
P. 04
a. Actual direct and.:.related incrwect costs accumulated in
accordance with ' a. woFk order accounting procedure
prescribed by.' he.::applicoble Federal or State regulatory
body.
9.
b. Actual direst..and :related - indirect costs accumulated in
accordance -with an.:estabOshed accounting procedure
developed. by --the.' TOWN -.arid approved by the
DEPARTMENT.
c. _ On a .lump-sum basis where the estimated cost to the
DEPARTMENT • 40as: not. exceed $100,000.00. Except
where unit costs are., used . -and approved, the estimate
shall show such. tletalls a man-hours by class and rate;
equipment ch®tgea by type, size, and rate; materials and
supptles by. items afld,. price; and payroll additives and
other overhead: factors.
Indicate if (a), (b) or (cy is applicable:
a. J_ That the replacement..fadIty is not of greater functional
capacity or capability :than, the one it replaces, and
includes no TOtNN -betterments.
b. That the rep.IacsM*r)t: facility involves TOWN betterments,
or is of greater -functional. capacity or capability than the
one it replaces.
C. That the re9l8c6m*1t.:18eiiity is other than a segment of
the TOWN's service, distribution, or transmission lines,
such as a .building,; puMlI q, station, filtration plant, power
plant or suFbstationi„prududdon or transfer of storage
facilities and other-, similar' operating units of the TOWN's `
physical plant or °.operating, facilities.
If (c ) is applicable, set forth credit `to . the protect for the accrued
depreciation of the facility being replaced:
10. That the total estimated cost 'of the work
proposed herein, including all cost to. the , DEPARTMENT
and TOWN less any credit for salvage, is :'estimated to
be $203.485.00
The estimated non-betterment cost to the- DEPARTMENT,
including aH cost less any credits for salvage, betterments,
accrued depreciation and additional work stone by' the
TOWN will be S203.4$5'00
4
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] May 21 '01 14:06 P.05
"'IV
The estimated cost to the TOWN including betterments,
accrued depreciation and any additional work done by
the TOWN will be ----------------------_----
(The above costs shall be su h~
pported by -attaLhed estimate and plans)
11. That in the event it is determined. there, are changes in the scope of
work, extra work, or major changes from. tie : statement of work covered by this
agreement, reimbursement shall be limited to .costs, covered by a modification of
this agreement or a written change or extra- woOk .order approved by the
DEPARTMENT.
12. Periodic progress billings of-.inc'urred costs may be made by TOWN to
the DEPARTMENT not to exceed nmonthly. lntervala; however, total progress billing
payments shall not exceed 95% of the `:approved. men-betterment estimate.
Progress billing forms may be obtained from,: 'the . State Utility Agent. One final
and detailed complete billing of aN costs: shall' be made by TOWN to the
DEPARMENT at the earliest practicable date 4fter: com, pletion of work and in any
event within 8 months after completion :of work.. Tice statement of final billing
shall follow as closely as possible the order. of tMs. item's in the estimate portion
of this agreement.
13. . That the DEPARTMENT shall'.-have the right to inspect non-reusable
materials of the TOWN recovered on this'.pi-glact.- prlor to disposal by sale or
scrap.
14. That the DEPARTMENT shall. have th&. right to inspect all books,
records, accounts and other documents of` the:, TOWN' pertaining to the work
performed by it under this agreement. at any time.....fter work begins and fora '
period of 3 years from the date final payment ..has beerti received by the TOWN.
15. That if, in the future, It becomes;, necessary due to highway i
construction or improvement to adjust or.telocste. VtlKties covered in this
agreement being relocated at DEPARTMENt 4Xpanse•?-that are crossing or otnerwisa
occupying highway right of way, or to .provids. Or- -suostitute additional well' or
wells in order to achieve the volume. of water.. pOdvided In Item 1 of this
agreement, the non-betterment cost of same wilf be that -of the DEPARTMENT.
16. That the TOWN agrees to relinquish : their rights in that portion of
right of way vacated by their existing facilities now absorbed within DEPARMENT
right of way.
17. That the DEPARTMENT agrees t0-%0h»btlrs&the TOWN for time spent
inspecting the construction of the said pro);ect:''..Reirnbursesnent shall be at a rate equal to
that of the TOWN's employee performing the inspections. The TOWN or the employee of
5
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] May 21 '01 14:07 P.06
the TOWN shall be responsible for keepinga log of the all time spent inspecting the
project.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the. parties hereby. have affixed their names by their
duly authorized officers the day and year Atst above written.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
n . r
By:
MANAGER OF RIGHT 0 WAY
ATTESTOR WITNESS
I'1'I: E};rJC T - C( ?/Lrry
TOWN OF CAMERON
By:
Isabel Mcl( an Thomas, Mayor
ATTW'OFI WITNESS
Cerallucas; .yawn Clerk
?•?SEAL:... .

6

NCDOT/nE BRANCH Fax:[phone] May 21 '01 14.0( F'.U(
r.

,1
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
225 NORTH BENNETT STREET
BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR. SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28387
RICHARD E. DEDMOND ),elf MARSH SMITH [phone]
Of Counsl: ANN C. PETERSEN
18 February 2001
Via First Class Mail and Fax [phone])
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Lab CIO
Attention: John Hennessy \I, N,\-- 0 ?e
1621 Mail Service Center t/ lz? -%?

FEB MAIL?gpC RESS
P.O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES,, NC-28388
FAX NO. [phone]
LV? 11
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 irk V If
f` ? ?
RE: Comments on 401 Water QuAity Permit for R210
Dear Mr. Hennessy:

As counsel for MooreFORCE, Inc. and several condemnees affected by the US 1 bypass
of Vass and Cameron (R210), I have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for 8210 and believe it falls short of what the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) needs to
make a decision on whether to issue a 401 Water Quality Permit.
As set forth in more detail below, in order to live up to its responsibilities under the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), DWQ must use an environmental document, such as an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), as a decision making tool in deciding whether to issue a 401 Permit. However,
the FEIS/ROD prepared by NCDOT for R210 falls so far short of what NEPA and NCEPA
require that DWQ can't use the present FEIS as a decision making tool because it totally omits
discussion of cumulative impacts, uses "boilerplate" (also used in the R1030 FEIS) to address
secondary impacts, fails totally to address impacts to the Town of Cameron's well field and does
not evaluate mitigation (only promises to minimize impacts and to perform unspecified
mitigation). DWQ must directly consider groundwater impacts, cumulative impacts and
mitigation in deciding on a 401 permit. 15A NCAC 21-1.0506(b)(3), (4) & (6).
I've enclosed a Record on Appeal in one of the condemnation cases that is currently
before the NC Court of Appeals. I would ask that you review it in conjunction with the R210
T
ROD & FEIS and this letter, especially the affidavits of various state and local officials (Record,
pp 76-124). After this review, I request that DWQ not issue a 401 permit without a supplemental
EIS from NCDOT.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
A. NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
NCEPA establishes that "it shall be the policy of the State to seek, for all of its citizens,
safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically pleasing surroundings; to attain the widest range of
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety; and to preserve
the important historic and cultural elements of our common inheritance." N.C.G.S. 113A-3. "A
further purpose is to require agencies of the State to consider and report upon environmental
aspects and consequences of their actions which involve the expenditure of public moneys." In
re Environmental Management Comm'n Final Order Granting a Certificate of Authority to
Orange Water and Sewer Authority, 280 S.E.2d 520, 524 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981), appeal after
remand, 341 S.E.2d 588 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986), review denied, 346 S.E.2d 139 (N.C. 1986)
(hereafter "Orange Water and Sewer Authority"). To fulfill these policies, NCEPA requires that
(N. C.G.S. 113A-4(2)):
Every State agency shall include in every recommendation or report on any action
involving expenditure of public moneys or use of public land for projects and programs
significantly affecting the quality of the environment of this State, a detailed statement by
the responsible official setting forth the following:
a. The environmental impact of the proposed action;
b. Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
should the proposal be implemented;
C. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact;
d. Alternatives to the proposed action;
e. The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment involved
in the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity; and
f. Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would be
2
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
Thus, NCEPA is triggered when there are (1 NCAC 25.0108):
(1) an expenditure of public monies or use of public land; and
(2) an action by a state agency subject to this Chapter; and
(3) a potential environmental effect upon either natural resources, public health and
safety, natural beauty, or historical or cultural elements of the state's common
inheritance.
If these three requirements are met, NCEPA mandates that an agency must prepare either
an environmental assessment (hereafter "EA") or an EIS.1 1 NCAC 25.0401(a). If an EA is
prepared and the agency determines that the project will not have a "significantly adverse effect
on the quality of the environment," the agency must file a Finding of No Significant Impact. 1
NCAC 25.0401(d). If the agency determines from the EA that the project will have a significant,
adverse effect on the environment, the agency must file an EIS.2 1 NCAC 25.0401(e).
If an EIS is prepared, the agency must first prepare a draft and circulate it for comments.
1 NCAC 25.0605(a). Before the agency can proceed, the agency must prepare a final EIS which
incorporates the comments that were made on the draft. 1 NCAC 25.0605(b), (c). The reason
for this is simple. The EIS is intended "to serve as a decision-making tool to ensure that the
purposes and policies defined in [NCEPA] are given full consideration in the ongoing programs
and actions of state government." 1 NCAC 25.0601.
In discussing how the EIS serves the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act
(hereafter "NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., the Supreme Court has stated that the EIS
requirement has two principal functions. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S.
1 Where the agency action falls below established minimum
criteria, the agency need not prepare an EA or an EIS. 1 NCAC
25.0401. Activities which DENR has concluded will normally be
below NCEPA's minimum criteria can be found at 15A NCAC 1C.0504.
2 The agency can bypass the EA and begin with the preparation of
an EIS. 1 NCAC 25.0401(b).
3
332, 349 (1989). First, it "ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available,
and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts
* *." Ibid. Second, it "guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to the
larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the
implementation of that decision." Ibid. Thus, "by focusing the agency's attention on the
environmental consequences of a proposed project, NEPA ensures that important effects will not
be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or
the die otherwise cast" (citations omitted). Ibid.
Finally, before the project can proceed, the agency must prepare a Record of Decision
(hereafter "ROD"). 1 NCAC 25.0606. The ROD must contain the following information (1
NCAC 25.0606):
(1) a statement of what the decision was and the project or program it was for;
(2) identification of all alternatives considered and specifying those considered
environmentally preferable;
(3) a discussion of why the chosen alternative is most appropriate; based upon economic
or technical considerations, or agency statutory mission, and how it balances
environmental and other state policies;
(4) a certification that all means of avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts set out
in the EIS will be incorporated into the project or program, and if not, why they are not.
While NCEPA and its regulations do not require substantive results, courts are
empowered to "review the manner in which an agency decision has been made to ensure that
environmental consequences have been considered in the manner prescribed by law." Orange
County v. North Carolina Dep't of Transportation, 46 N.C. 350, 358, 265 S.E.2d 890, 898 (N.C.
App. 1980), discretionary review denied, 301 N.C. 94 (1980).
B. THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The requirement that the NCDOT obtain a 401 water quality certification from DENR
stems from Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1). Section 401 states:
Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not
4
limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge
• into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification
from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate * * * that any such
discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 1311, 1312, 1313, 1316,
and 1317 of this title.
Section 303 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1313, requires states to adopt and update state water-quality
standards for interstate waters. Accordingly, Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1341(a), requires that any person seeking a federal permit for a project that will result in a
discharge into navigable waters must first obtain a certification from the State that provides that
such discharge will not result in a violation of the State's water-quality standards.
Before construction on R210 can begin, the NCDOT needs to obtain a permit to fill
wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344, from the Corps.
Therefore, since the construction of R210 will result in a discharge to the Little River, the
NCDOT must first obtain a 401 certification from DENR3 stating that the construction and
operation of 8210 will not result in violations of the Little River's water-quality standards. 33
U.S.C. 1341(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. 121.2(a)(3); 15A NCAC 2H.0500.
In considering whether to approve an application for certification, DENR must
first determine whether the proposed activity will remove or degrade the body of water's
existing uses. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(a). If those uses will not be removed or degraded, DENR
must issue the certification if the activity (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)):
(1) has no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (f) of this Rule;4
3 N.C.G.S. 143B-282(a)(1)(u) authorizes the Commission to issue
401 certifications. The Commission has delegated that authority
to the Division of Water Quality (hereafter " DWQ" ) within DENR.
15A NCAC 2H.0502(a).
4 15A NCAC 2H.0506(f) provides that a " lack of practical
alternatives may be shown by demonstrating that, considering the
potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of
the proposed activity and all alternative designs[,] the basic
project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner
which would avoid or result in less adverse impact to surface
waters or wetlands."
5
I
(2) will minimize adverse impacts to the surface waters based on consideration of
existing topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions
under the criteria outline in paragraph (g) of this Rule;5
(3) does not result in the degradation of groundwater or surface waters;
(4) does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated
future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality
standards;
(5) provides for protection of downstream water quality standards through the use of on-
site storm water control measures; and
(6) provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation as described at
Subparagraph[] (h)(1) of this Rule.6
If any one of these factors cannot be met, DENR cannot issue the certification.
Certainly, the language of 15A NCAC 1C.0102(b) implicitly authorizes DWQ to rely on
previously prepared environmental documents - "As part of making a decision on a project for
which an environmental document has been prepared, the agency decision-maker shall review
5 Paragraph 15A NCAC 2H.0506(g) provides that " Minimization of
impacts may be demonstrated by showing that the surface waters or
wetlands are able to continue to support the existing uses after
project completion, or that the impacts are required due to:
(1) The spatial and dimensional requirements of the project;
or
(2) The location of any existing structural or natural
features that may dictate the placement or configuration of
the proposed project; or
(3) The purpose of the project and how the purpose relates
to placement, configuration or density.
6 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(1) provides that DENR " shall coordinate
mitigation requirements with other permitting agencies that are
requiring mitigation for a specific project. Mitigation required
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be considered to
constitute the mitigation required by the certification unless
the [agency] determines that the mitigation proposal does not
meet the criteria established in Subparagraph (6) of this
Paragraph." 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(6) requires that wetlands be
replaced based on a 1:1 ratio at a minimum.
6
• the document and incorporate it as part of continuing deliberations." 15A NCAC 1 C.0102(b)
'(emphasis added). But this clearly contemplates an EIS that addresses the six factors contained
in 15A NCAC 211.0506(b). NCDOT refused to analyze cumulative impacts of R210. Franklin
Vick of NCDOT claimed that this was because NCDOT had "not established an environmental
impact tracking system at this time." See Record, p. 245. The "mitigation" plan was only
slightly more "robust." It contained the promise that "all mitigation will be 'in-kind."' See
Record, p. 244. If NCDOT didn't analyze these factors in the FEIS, then either DWQ must do
so now in a supplemental EIS that conforms to North Carolina law requiring an EIS to address
cumulative impacts and mitigation (1 NCAC 25.0603) or DWQ must require NCDOT to rectify
these shortcomings.
I should hasten to add that the HIS completely fails to address the fact that R210 goes
directly through the well field for the Town of Cameron, taking out 50% of Cameron's well
field. One cannot find an analysis of what harm the runoff from the completed R210 will bring
to Cameron's remaining wells. It, therefore, seems quite clear that DWQ cannot certify that
R210 "does not result in the degradation of groundwater." 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(3).
Accordingly, I request that DWQ deny NCDOT's application for a 401 Water Quality
Certification from DWQ until NCDOT prepares an adequate supplemental EIS that conforms to
the law.
Sincerely,
Marsh Smith
Enclosure
cc: Steve Schmidly, Esq.
Fred Lamar, Esq.
7
`o?Or "' ? ? ? e,?QG
> y
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
b Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 26, 2003
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Qual't
)P-VAI
From. Beth Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator fP
Subject:. US 1 relocation (Vass Bypass) for north of Lakeview to south of Sandford, Moore/Lee Counties.
TIP No. R-210. DWQ Project No. 010404.
The Individual Water Quality Certification issued to NCDOT on July 19, 2002 contains conditions necessary to
provide protection to the water supplies in the area as well as to respond to public concern for those water
supplies. In particular, we would like to remind NCDOT of Conditions Nos. 3, 7, and 9 of the 401 Certification
(repeated below):
During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(x)-(d)], within the entire project corridor.
7. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for.all stream crossings. The final designs for the Hazardous
Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 'Wetlands Unit
prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for the basins shall be
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after the
construction is completed.
9. Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project. The NCDOT shall be
required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control devices
shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and
erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade
restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
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 Beth Barnes at 919.715.8394 or John Dorney at 919.733.9646.
Cc:
File copy
Central files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.u6/ncwetiands/
0? W A rFRQG
r
U 'C
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 24, 2003
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: Beth Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: US 1 relocation (Vass Bypass) for north of Lakeview to south of Sandford, Moore/Lee Counties.
TIP No. R-210. DWQ Project No. 010404.
The Individual Water Quality Certification contains conditions necessary to provide protection to the water
supplies in the area as well as to respond to public concern for those water supplies. NCDOT is particularly
reminded of the Conditions of Certification Nos. 3, 7, and 9.
3. During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(a)-(d)], within the entire project corridor.
7. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings.. The final designs for the Hazardous
Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit
prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for the basins shall be
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after the
construction is completed.
9. Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project. The NCDOT shall be
required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control devices
shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and
erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade
restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
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. We urge you to follow all of the
conditions of the Water Quality Certification. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Beth Barnes at 919.715.8394 or John Dorney at 919.733.9646.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
OK cRQG
C/) r
> .. l
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W: Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 26, 2003
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Qual't
From: Beth Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator P
Subject:. US 1 relocation (Vass Bypass) for north of Lakeview to south of Sandford, Moore/Lee Counties.
TIP No. R-210. DWQ Project No. 010404.
The Individual Water Quality Certification issued to NCDOT on July 19, 2002 contains conditions necessary to
provide protection to the water supplies in the area as well as to respond to public concern for those water
supplies. In particular, we would like to remind NCDOT of Conditions Nos. 3, 7, and 9 of the 401 Certification
(repeated below):
3. During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(x)-(d)], within the entire project corridor.
7. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for. all stream crossings. The final designs for the Hazardous
Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 'Wetlands Unit
prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for the basins shall be
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after the
construction is completed.
9. Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project. The NCDOT shall be
required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control devices
shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and
erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade
restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
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 Beth Barnes at 919.715.8394 or John Dorney at 919.733.9646.
Cc:
File copy
Central files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.u6/ncwetiands/
F WgTF Michael F. Easley, Governor
`oho RPG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7
r- Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
> -i Division of Water Quality
July 19, 2002
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: Water Quality Certification Pursuant to §401 of the Federal Clean
Water Act, US 1 from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford
(Vass Bypass), Moore/Lee Counties
TIP No. R-210
DWQ Project No. 010404
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3344 issued to The North Carolina Department of
Transportation dated July 19, 2002.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Public Hearing Attendees
Central Files
File Copy
OEM
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 211, Section .0500. This certification authorizes the NCDOT to incur the
following permanent impacts: 41.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands through permanent fill, excavation,
and mechanized clearing; 14.50 acres of surface waters (anthropogenically-created ponds) fill; and 4,880
linear feet of stream channels in Moore and Lee Counties, as described in the Application dated 19
February 2001, and additional information dated 12 February 2002 and 15 March 2002. The project shall
be constructed pursuant to the application dated February 19 filed to construct improvements to US 1
from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford (Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210).
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters of the state
with the proposed development will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application. Should
your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ in writing, and you may be required to 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 this project incurs
additional wetland or stream impacts, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with .
all the conditions listed below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits ,
before proceeding with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three (3) years from
the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding
Corps of Engineers Permit, whichever is sooner.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. The applicant must follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or
exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more
appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central
Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,
installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure
compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams
and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater
classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. NCDOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March
1997), specifically using all applicable preventive and control measures during the design,
construction and maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
I During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(a)-(d)], within the entire
project corridor.
4. Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and shall not be routed directly into
streams. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse
flow.
5. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 10 days of
ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of High Quality Waters) to provide long term
erosion control.
6. NCDOT shall adhere to the requirements for High Quality Waters [15A NCAC 2B .0224].
Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The final designs for the
Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401
Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for
the basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no
later than 30 days after the construction is completed.
8. The bridge(s) required for this project shall be designed according to Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March 1997). Specifically, the bridge decking shall not
discharge storm water directly into the receiving water.
Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management ,facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project. The NCDOT shall
be required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control
devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of
sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed
and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
10. Any bridge demolition work required by this project shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
11. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has
hardened.
12. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this Certification. If this occurs, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life unless it can be shown
to DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other
structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall
be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
14. NCDOT shall mitigate for the loss of two water supply wells for the Town of Cameron by
constructing a municipal supply well or wells capable of yielding a minimum of 70 gallons per
minute (gpm). The Utility Relocation Agreement was entered with the Town of Cameron on October
26, 1998.
15. Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1 restoration or creation of lost
wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(6). A report must be submitted to the NC
Division of Water Quality that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for this
project within two (2) months of the issuance of the 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
a. Wetland impacts of 41.5 acres include riverine wetlands. NCDOT will mitigate these impacts by
providing the following:
¦ 4.8 acres of on-site restoration (1:1 ratio) in the floodplain of the Little River as described in
Appendix C of the Application.
The monitoring plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the
first year and every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ 8.4 acres of on-site preservation as described in Appendix C of the Application.
Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT) Mitigation Site (a 327-acre site in Moore County) being
offered in total to offset the remainder of wetland impacts (36.8 acres) associated with the
project. This site includes a maximum of 49 acres of wetland restoration.
NCDOT shall place groundwater gauges on the site such that they will accurately measure
the drainage effect of the existing ditches at the SALT site. Before the additional monitoring
and re-modeling of the groundwater table of the SALT Site occurs, NCDOT shall meet with
DWQ personnel to agree upon the.details of additional studies. If the resulting hydrological
modeling demonstrates that less than 36.8 acres can actually be restored, NCDOT shall obtain
wetland mitigation through in-lieu payments to Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP).
b. Stream impacts total 4,880 linear feet in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030004).
NCDOT proposes to provide compensatory mitigation at a 2:1 ratio except where on-site
mitigation will be provided. The on-site mitigation sites will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio as
detailed in Table 4, Appendix A of the February 19, 2001 Application. Compensatory mitigation
consists of the following:
¦ 1,154 linear feet of on-site stream relocation/restoration, with 50-foot buffers, using natural
channel design. The natural channel design specifications shall be calculated from field
measurements of an unimpacted section of stream (reference reach). The plans must include
reference reach data including a sketch map, the range of values (pattern data), and all
calculations (including the determination of bankfull). The channel design should include a
floodplain terrace at stream bankfull.
The stream relocation shall be built and maintained according to approved plans before any
mitigation credit is given. If this Office determines that the stream restoration or associated
riparian area has become unstable, the stream shall be repaired or stabilized using only
natural channel design techniques if possible. Additionally, the vegetation in the riparian
shall be maintained and/or replaced according to the approved plans. Rip-rap and other hard
structures may only be used if required by the Division of Land Resources or a Delegated
Local Program. Additionally, all repair designs must be submitted to and receive written
approval from this Office before the repair work is performed.
Since the restored stream is proposed as compensatory mitigation for stream impacts, the
restored portion and associated riparian area shall be preserved in perpetuity through a
preservation easement or some other legally binding mechanism or agreement. The above
easement or other legally binding mechanism or agreement must be in place before any
mitigation credit shall be given. Additionally, the stream physical and biological monitoring
plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the first year and
every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ The remaining 8,068 linear feet of stream mitigation shall be provided via in-lieu payments to
Wetlands Restoration Program as agreed on April 1, 1999.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). Until plans are received and approved
for the stream relocation using natural channel design, wetland or stream fill shall not occur.
16. 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.
17. The Applicant shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
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, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This the 19th day of July 2002
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
WQC No. 3344
Certificate of Completion
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
County:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
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, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the approved
plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the approved
plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of
the project, for the 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, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature Registration No.
Date
Warrant No. 1123738
IF INCORRECT RETURN TO
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date 02 - 21- 2 0 O1,
RAI_FIGH NC 27699-1515 43381 0661 004
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE PUR HA E Ro
OR CONTRACT INVOICE AMOUNT (-) DISCOUNT (+) FREIGHT NET AMOUNT
02-1572001 475.00 475.00
I
i
5 k