20010404_NO COA00995_20100726

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
" NO. COA00-995 a
Department of Transportation v Blue Moore 99CVS911-14
NOTICE OF MAILING OF PRINTED RECORD ON APPEAL
Appellant's brief is due within thirty (30) days after the clerk of the appellate court
has mailed the printed record on appeal to the parties [Rule 13(a), North Carolina Rules
of Appellate Procedure as amended].
The parties to the appeal are hereby notified that the printed record was mailed
from the clerk's office on the 26th day of September 2000.
This the 26th day of September 2000.
Office of the Clerk
North Carolina Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 2779
Raleigh, NC 27602-2779
Telephone: [phone]
COPIES OF THIS NOTICE MAILED WITH
RECORD TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:
s
cc:
Mr. Stephen S. Schmidly, Attorney at Law, For Mack & Brenda Blue
'Mr. Fred Lamar, Assistant Attorney General, For DOT
C Mr. Douglas W. Hanna
Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Marsh Smith, Attorney at Law, For Mack & Brenda Blue
FILED
0912612000 0:27 PM
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK, COURT OF APPEALS
OF NORTH CAROLINA
C
^ COA-76
Revised (Sept. 26, 1997)
NO • COAOO-995 NINETEEN-B DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ) FROM MOORE COUNTY
Plaintiff, }
V. ) 9.9 CVS :9111, 912, ; 913 and 914
MACK BLUE and wife, )
BRENDA C.
BLUE,
.
Defendants.
71.
;.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ) = }
Plaintiff, ) -
V. } 99 CVS 9166 .* . ',
PIERCE B IRBY, ET AL., ?
Defendants. )

,,...- RECORD ON APPEAL
f• ?f
LL,
INDEX

LJ iSttatement of Organization of the Court
(i,:Ynec _ ~, ?
1
41 Ztipulat•ion of Documents Contained
4 £ ?> in Record on Appeal . . . . . .
=
?6 '2
sr> w
?
omplaint, Declaration of Taking and
-, U- Notice of Deposit. for 99 CVS 911 4
v Complaint, Declaration of Taking and
Notice of Deposit for 99 CVS 912 . . -10
Complaint, Declaration of Taking and
Notice of Deposit for 99 CVS 913 . . . . . 17
Complaint, Declaration of Taking and
Notice of Deposit for 99 CVS 914 . '23
Complaint, Declaration of Taking and
Notice of Deposit for 99 CVS 916 . . . . ..29
Answer and Counterclaim . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Motion to Consolidate . . . . . . . . . 125
Amendedn Notice of Motion (s) to
Consolidate 127
Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim 129
Motion to Join Necessary Parties . . . . 135
Motion to Strike to Strike Defendant's
Second Defense . . . . . . 138
Stipulation of Counsel as to
Discovery Exhibits . . . . 143
Stipulation to Admissibility of
Exhibits for 99 CVS 916 . . 144
Stipulation to Extend Answer to Defendants'
Written Discovery Request for
99 CVS 911, 912, 913 & 914 . . . . . . . 145
Exhibits from Defendants' Discovery
Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Affidavit of Thomas R. Kendig . . . . . . . . 210
Order of Judge Catherine C. Eagles
(10 March 2000) 213
Motion to Modify Order or, in the
alternative, To Certify Pursuant
to Rule 54(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Plaintiff's First Notice of Appeal
(12 April 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Order of Judge Catherine C. Eagles
(28 April 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Affidavit of Don J. Voelker . . . . . . . . . 224
Affidavit of Ben Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Affidavit of Carl Goode . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Order of Catherine C. Eagles
(30 May 2000) . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 256
Defendants' Notice of Appeal . . . . . . . . 258
Plaintiff's Second Notice of Appeal . . . . . 260
Defedants' Motion for Extension of Time
to Serve Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Order Granting Extension of Time
to Serve Record On Appeal . . . . . . . 265
Plaintiff-Appellant's Assignments of Error 266
Defendant-Appellees' Cross-Assignments
of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Stipulation and Settlement of
Record on Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Counsel of Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Certificate of Service of Proposed
Record on Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11 ii
NO. NINETEEN-B DISTRICT
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
*************************************
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )
Plaintiff, )
V. )
MACK BLUE and wife, )
BRENDA C. BLUE, )
Defendants. )
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )
Plaintiff, )
V. )
PIERCE B. IRBY, ET AL., )
Defendants. )
FROM MOORE COUNTY
99 CVS 911, 912, 913 and 914
99 CVS 916
This appeal is being taken by Plaintiff from an Order of the
Honorable Catherine C. Eagles entered originally on 10 March
2000, which allowed Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss; denied
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Second Defense; allowed
Defendants' Motion to Consolidate Cases for purposes of discovery
and N.C.G.S. § 136-108 hearing purposes; and denied Defendants'
Motion to Join Necessary Parties. After a hearing on Defendants'
Motion to Modify Order where Judge Eagles also certified the
matter for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the N.C.
Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Eagles made a minor modification
to the 10 March 2000 Order on 30 May 2000. The 30 May 2000 Order
being appealed addresses the same issues arising from five (5)
separate condemnation actions filed by Plaintiff North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). In each of the five (5)
cases, defendants' prepared identical Answer and Counterclaim.
Each motion filed by Plaintiff and Defendant until this point has

been identical for each case except with reference to the name of
the defendant(s) and any specific identification of subject
property. ( F: IJ S - z8 -- 00- JDC Ke+4 1-15-00 ).
U
-002-
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES do hereby stipulate and agree that
the proposed Record on Appeal contains, when applicable, only one
copy from one case of those documents that are identical in each
of the other four (4) cases (except as to Defendant.(s) name and
identification of subject property). Accordingly, counsel for
the parties stipulate and agree that the documents contained in
this Record on Appeal are all from 99 CVS 916, except for the
Complaint, Declaration of Taking and Notice of Deposit and when
non-identical documents were filed in the separate cases.
red La ar
Assistant Attorney General
96uglas W. Hanna
Assistant Attorney General
N. C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
J ?
f? ?I
Marsh Smith, Esq.
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Caro?ina 28387
Stephefi S. Schmidly; Esq..
Moser, Schmidly, Mason & Roose
Centura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

-003-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NIOORE
DEP..kRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Plaintiff,
MACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE.
Defendants.
GE c R ?i OURT OF JU,-STiCE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-CvS-
COtNTPLA1NT

Now comes the Department of Transportation, plaintiff herein, and for its cause of action says and alleges:
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its princinalWficen Raleigh,
North Carolina, and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminent domairr,?*vesfea in it by
the General Assembly of North Carolina.
i
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes. and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto, and made a part hereof. for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
5.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names
and-addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by
reasonable diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property
described in said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said
Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief that said property is subject only
to such liens and encumbrances as are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that just compensation for the appropriation herein set forth be determined according
to the provisions and procedures contained in Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes and for such other relief as to
the Court may seem just and proper.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O. CRAWFORD. III
Project No. Special Deputy Attorney General
6169004T
/s/ RICHARD G. SOWERBY
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
Parcel No. Transportation Building
029 P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
I.D. No. Telephone No. [phone]
R-21 OA

-004-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA G..,ER.AL COURT OF.IUSTICE
COUNTY OF ?IOORE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-CvS-
DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 9 r' Vi 0 1 1
Plaintiff.
DECLARATION OF TARING
AND -
NOTICE 4F DEP.OSIT'
NIACK BLUE. ET UX.
Defendants.
The plaintiff, Department of Transportation, declares as follows:f
t.
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principal office in Raleigh.
North Carolina: and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminent domain, vested in it by
the General Assembly of North Carolina.
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes, and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
5.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names
and addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by
reasonable diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property
described in said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said
Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff has estimated the sum of 548,405.00 to be just compensation for said taking; and that by voucher
number 458277, the plaintiff has this date deposited said sum with the Superior Court of the county in which the action is
pending, and the defendants herein may apply to the Court for disbursement of said money as full compensation, or as credit
against just compensation, to be determined in this action.
7.
That the said interest and area as described in said Exhibit "B" are hereby appropriated and the said interest and
area, together with the right to immediate possession thereof, are hereby vested in the plaintiff, Department of Transportation.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O. CRAWF RD. III
Project No. Special Deputy Attorney General
6.569004T
/s/ RICHARD G. SOWERBY
Assistant Attorney General
Parcel No. North Carolina Department of Justice
029 Transportation Building
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
I.D. No. Telephone No.[phone]
R-210A

\ -005-
EXHIBIT "A"
N'AyMES
:ADDRESSES
Mack Blue and wife. Brenda C. Blue----------------------461 Main Street.
Vass. N.C. 28394
Depanmem Jt Transportation--------------------------------Raleigh. N.C.
Town of Vass--------------------------------------------------- Vass. N.C.
County of Moore ------------------------------------------------ Carthase. N.C.
DISABILITIES OF DEFENDANTS: NONE.
LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES:
All taxes for the County of Moore and Town of Vass for the year 1999 and all orevious years.
Existing right of way for highway purposes - Deparmlent of Transportation.
Project Rio.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: 029
I.D. No.: R-210A
-006-

11
EXHIBIT "B"
DESCRIPTTOy OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Those certain lands lying and being in McNeill
Township.'vloore County, ;`forth Carolina and being more particularly described as follows:
BEING that land conveyed to George M. Blue bv deed dated December S. 1945, and recorded in Book
1Y3. Page 33=9. Moore County Registry: said description being specifically incomorated
herein by reference.
INTEREST OR ESTATE TAK Ni:
Fee simple title to right of way and. a slope easement for providing lateral support to the highway. or
land adjacent thereto, which area will revert to the owners at such time as said owners lower or raise the
elevation of the land adjacent to said highway to the extent that such lateral support is no longer needed
and, in addition. a temporary construction easement to continue until the completion of the project at
which time said temporary construction easement area will revert to the owners. :access is controlled as
indicated by control-of-access (C/A) lines on the plan sheet attached hereto with the right of the
abutting property owners to access, to, from, or across the areas within the control-of-access (C'A) lines
to be controlled and limited solely to those points at which access may be permitted and there will be
no access from the property abutting said highway right of way to, from, or across the areas within the
said control-of-access (C/A) lines except by public road connections.
AREA TAKEN
That area sufficient to acquire for Department of Transportation Project 6.669004T the right of way _
shown over and upon Parcel 029 on Plan Sheet 12 of the above-mentioned project, plus such additional
areas as indicated as a temporary construction easement and as a slope easement on said plan sheet.
The aforesaid plan sheet is attached hereto for the purpose of identification of the areas taken and for no -
other purpose. Said areas taken will be more specifically described on the plat provided for in G. S.
136-106.
Project No.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: '029
.D. No.: R-210A
L1

-007-
99-320:
02 -- I
?? _?`? y la! d
Q5T
pp
J? A 0 9 H ' J W .ya
q H
3E I i ? as °o y ? ?? .3. ) yj ? . Fo I
im o ob
m m G 1 r
L 9 L. I 1
d ri°i s
s gam 1', 7
.:.. ,
4S. 3400
W b q m? ? I r f' I
z ? I
_ m C W 11 / Cb
i 4
0 o r. ? I
?? a a m
? IFS ,? ? •s.
•s y
! I

-008-
EXHIBIT "C"
DESCRIPTIOy OF PRO.IECT 6.569()1)4T..NIOORE COUrTY: From south of SR 135,3 north of
Lakeview to SR 2005.

Project No.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: 029
i.D. No.: R-210A
320- -
-009- 99'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Plaintiff.
MACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE.
Defendants.
GENERAL COURT OF.IUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-r,VS 009?
COMPLAIN
Now comes the Department of Transportation, plaintiff herein, and for its cause of action says and alleges=
1.
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principal off itrin Raleigh.
`forth Carolina. and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminent domain. vested in it by
the General Assembly of North Carolina.
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes, and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto. and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names
and addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by
reasonable diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property
described in said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said
Exhibit "A". -
6.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief that said property is subject only
to such liens and encumbrances as are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that just compensation for the appropriation herein set forth be determined according
to the provisions and procedures contained in Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes and for such other relief as to
the Court may seem just and proper.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O. CRAWFORD. III
Project No. Special Deputy Attorney General
6.569004T
/s/ RICHARD G SOWERBY
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
Parcel No. Transportation Building
027 P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone No. [phone]
I.D. No.
R-2 I OA
J
S/ • 'LJ? .y +wI
-010-
ST_ATF. OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF.*IOORE
DEPARVAENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Plaintiff.
MACK BLUE, ET UX.
Defendants.
The plaintiff. Department of Transportation. declares as follows:
DECLARATION OF TAKING
AND
NOTICE:DF DE-P,.OS1Y
L
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principa -officnin Raleigh.
North Carolina: and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminent domain, vested in it by
the General Assembly of North Carolina.
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes. and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names
and addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by _
reasonable diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property
described in said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said
Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff has estimated the sum of S48,200.00 to be just compensation for said taking; and that by voucher
number 454836, the plaintiff has this date deposited said sum with the Superior Court of the county in which the action is
pending, and the defendants herein may apply to the Court for disbursement of said money as full compensation, or as credit
against just compensation, to be determined in this action.
7.
That the said interest and area as described in said Exhibit "B" are hereby appropriated and the said interest and
area, together with the right to immediate possession thereof, are hereby vested in the plaintiff, Department of Transportation.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
./s/ ROBERT O CRAWFORD, III
Project No. Special Deputy Attorney General
6.569004T
/s/ RICHARD G SOWERBY
Parcel No. Assistant Attorney General
027 North Carolina Department of Justice
Transportation Building
I.D. No. P.O. Box 25201
R-210A Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone No-[phone]
-011-
G- .ERALCOURT OF.IUSTiCE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION

r
EXHIBIT "A"
NAMES
ADDRESSES
`,lac` Blue and wife. Brenda C. Blue----------------------461 Main Street.
Vass. N.C. 25394
Department of Transportation-------------------------------- Raleigh. N.C.
Town of Vass ---------------------------------------------------- ass. V.C.
County of Moore----------------------------------------------- Carthasze. N.C.
DeBerrv Land and Timber Co.. Inc.-------------------------Carthage. N.C.
DISABILITIES OF DEFENDANTS: NONE.
LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES:
All taxes for the County of Moore and Town of Vass for the year 1999 and all previous years.
Existing right of way for highway purposes -- Department of Transportation.
Timber Deed dated September 29, 1997 to DeBerry Land and Timber Company, Inc., recorded in
_ Book 1308, Page 197, Moore County Registry; said Deed was assigned to Fidelity Bank in Book 1308,
Page 203, Moore County Registry.
Project No.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: 027
L.D. No.: R-210:?
-012-
EXHIBIT "B"
DESCRIPTION OF SU13-TECT PROPERTY:. Those certain lands lvnns and beinJ in McNeil!
Township. Moore County. North Carolina. and being more narticulariv described as follows:
BEING those lands conveyed in the followinz deeds: (1) Being Tract 1 as described in deed dated
W2ust. 194; to George Blue. recorded in Book ::8. Daze 4=8.'loore County EZesistrv; and t') deed
to Mack Blue dated Auzust 31. 1995. recorded in Book 1 1 1:. °aze 319; said descriptions being
specifically incomorated herein by reference.
INTEREST OR ESTATE TAKEN:
Fee simple title to right of way and a temporary construction easement to continue until the completion
of the project. at which time said temporary construction easement area will revert to the owners. and.
in addition, an easement. in perpetuity for drainage for all purposes for which the plaintiff is authorized
by law to subject the same.
Access is controlled by the Department of Transportation as is indicated by control-of-access (CIA)
Lines on the official project plans for Highway Project 6.669004T and there will be no access to; from,
or across the areas within the control-of-access (CIA) lines to the main traffic lanes, ramps, or
approaches from the property abutting said highway right of way except by way of the access provided
by local traffic roads and/or local traffic lanes as shown on said project plans.
AREA TAKEN:
That area sufficient to acquire for Department of Transportation Project 6.569004T the right of way
shown over and upon Parcel 027 on Plan Sheet 11 & 12 of the above-mentioned project, plus such
additional areas as indicated as temporary construction easement and permanent drainage easement on
said plan sheet. The aforesaid plan sheet is attached hereto for the purpose of identification of the area
taken and for no other purpose. Said areas taken will be more specifically described on the plat
provided for in G. S. 136-106.
Project Flo.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: 027
I. D. No.: R-2 OA
-013-

4
0
I rf
I?1,ZeN'^
I^PO??` C,I n •?
Iv ?nw
I' _ 3
I'P -p! 4 1
ie...ado Ol?•Ob
?n as«: s
1
?lf S?•1 BSI :3^l• r
Ir }J •'•1!
O ?
.P
? V
' W a ? ? i ? l -•?
FAR n
00-7NOltal:
2l 133HS J1 iHl 'H7lan
k '? I!!It 11'f'
II'•I '
Prig= 'T?i' I
1
A
? I
n /
z I I
31'65.5 / ? I e
IZ
r
W?
o-
0
zQ
J?
V N
3
-014-

?J
-C
"Y
i. I

II.
Is I 00.0,
1
I \

I la
e ,++?w
CO-Sk
r Z.oo
? ® 1, 3ar?'Fi
(.
-015-
J tic
as

• M
9 O
as
c?

EXHIBIT "C"
DESCRIPTION OF PROTECT 6.569004T. MOORE COUNTY: From south o SR 1853 north of
Lakeview to SR =005.
Project No.:.6.569004T
Parcel Rio.: 02:
I.D. No.: R-21 OA
-016-
sr7' iJ ? O
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUNTY OF MOORE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
CvS
DEPARTMI ENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 9 9 C V
Plaintiff.
V. COMPLAIN'T'
-NIACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE -
Defendants.
Now comes the Department of Transportation, plaintiff herein. and for its cause of action says and allege-s':-
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principal otfic?in Raleigh.
North Carolina; and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminent domain. vested itrif by
the General Assembly of North Carolina.
2.
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes, and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto, and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
5.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names and
addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by reasonable
diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property described in,
said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief that said property is subject only-to
such liens and encumbrances as are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that just compensation for the appropriation herein set forth be determined according to
the provisions and procedures contained in Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes and for such other relief as to the
Court may seem just and proper.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O. CRAWFORD, III
Project No. Special Deputy Attorney General
6.569004T
Is/ RICHARD G. SOWERBY
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
Parcel No. Transportation Building
076 P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
I.D. No. Telephone No. [phone]
R-210-A

-017-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTYIENT OF TRANSPORTATION,.
Plaintiff.
:r1ACK BLUE. ET UX
Defendants.
GENERAL COURT OF .JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-CvS-
DECLARATION OF TAKING
AND
NOTICE OF DEPDSrF
The plaintiff, Department of Transportation, declares as follows:
1. =
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principal offire.in Raleigh.
North Carolina; and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminent domain, vested inJt by
the General Assemblv of North Carolina.
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes, and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
5.
- That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names and
addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by reasonable
diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property described in
said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff has estimated the sum of 524,445.00 to be just compensation for said taldng; and that by voucher
number 454837, the plaintiff has this date deposited said sum with the Superior Court of the county in which the action is
pending, and the defendants herein may apply to the Court for disbursement of said money as full compensation, or as credit
against just compensation, to be determined in this action.
7.
That the said interest and area as described in said Exhibit "B" are hereby appropriated and the said interest and area,
together with the right to immediate possession thereof, are hereby vested in the plaintiff, Department of Transportation.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O. CRAWFORD, III
Project No. Special Deputy Attorney General
6.569004T
/s/ RICHARD G. SOWERBY
Assistant Attorney General
Parcel No. North Carolina Department of Justice
076 Transportation Building
P.O. Box 25201
I.D. No. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
R-210-A Telephone No.[phone]

-018- 99 -323-
E\-iBIT ".k"
v. AMES ADDRESSF_S
vlack Blue and wife, Brenda C. Blue----------------------461 Main Street,
Vass, N.C. 28394
Department of Transportation------------------------------Raleigh, NN.C.
Town of Vass ------------------------------------------------- Vass. V.C.
County of Moore---------------------------------------------Carthage, N.C.
DISABILITIES OF DEFENDANTS: NONE.
LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES:
All taxes for the County of Moore and Town of Vass for the year 1999 and all previous years.
Existing right of way for highway purposes -- Department of Transportation.

Project No.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: 076
1. D. No. R-210-A
1% -019- 99 -323
EXHIBIT "B"
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Those certain lards lying and being in _fcNeiil
Township, Moore County, North Caroiina and being more pariculariv described as follows
BEENG tracts nos. =, and 4' as described in a deed conve,.,:.: _c ylack Blue and wife. Brenda C Blue
dated September =6, 1971 and recorded in Book 3-;-;, Page 4=4, Moore County Registry; said
desc^ption being specifically incorporated herein by reference.
INTEREST OR ESTATE TAKEN-
Fee simpie title to right orIwav for all purposes for which the olaintiti is authorized by law to subject the
same.
AREA TAKEN
That area sumcient to acquire for Department of Transportation Project 6.569004T the right of way
shown over and upon Parcel 076 on Plan Sheet 30 of the above-mentioned project. The aforesaid pian
sheet is attached hereto for the purpose of identification of the area taken and for no other purpose.
Said area taken will be more specifically described on the plat provided for in G. S. 136-106.

Project No.: 6.569004T
- Parcel No.: 076
1. D. vo.: R-210-A
?? -020-

? itt a 9 t?j"

I'a

, s
z
1J , t:

as
zi
?I J....
32
1' 1 cc,f
_
iS I I'; I' 1 i,

.? I
y a`
T -4. I
`
Y ??.? pp.gl /? I
f I
? s2s"0 G
?: E st 1 I
3
_ • ¢y!
pp-U n II , Q
t
r• ?I II I ^3A
y ? 1 7,
II , n
I II E
I
1
p ? I
i
..ti
O II ?g
allj
'I

Jf' i?be Xno
.
a ?!
? 04 N
G<..

1
U"'J? ...,.- -
Zt 133"5 01.3Nt?"?1 m
Y® '1tl
-021-

EXHIBIT "C"
DESCRIPTIOy OF PROJECT 6,569004T, NIOORE COL"iTY: From south of SR 13-53-north of
Lakeview to SR 2005.

Project Rio.: 6.569004T
Parce! No.: 076
* -022- 99-323
STATE OF ;NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Plaintiff.
V.
HACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE,
Defendants.
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-CvS-
(14 i CIS 00914
COMPLAINT
Now comes the Department of Transportation, plaintiff herein, and for its cause of action savs and al eWges:
1 1
1. N
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principal of ce i A Raleigh,
North Carolina; and that it possesses the powers. duties and authority, including the power of eminent domain,?reste4jn it by
the General Assembly of North Carolina. t
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes, and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto, and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and.the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
5.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names-
and addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by
reasonable diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property
described in said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said
Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief that said property is subject only
to such liens and encumbrances as are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that just compensation for the appropriation herein set forth be determined according
to the provisions and procedures contained in Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes and for such other relief as to
the Court may seem just and proper.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O. CRAWFORD, III
Special Deputy Attorney General
Project No. /s/ RICHARD G. SOWERBY
6.569004T Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
Parcel No. Transportation Building
076A P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
I.D. No. Telephone No. (919) 7334185
R-210A

V -1 q.5 Z . ;
Q 9 -023-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Plaintiff.
MACK BLLUE, ET UX,
Defendants.
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-Cvs-
9 L^, 00914
DECLARATION OF TAKING
AND
NOTICE OF DEPOSI -
The plaintiff. Department of Transportation, declares as follows: v ^'
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principal iz!'licefZ Raleigh.
North Carolina: and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminent Uomain'uveste it by
the General Assembly of North Carolina, c?
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes, and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
5.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names
and addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by
reasonable diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property
described in said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said
Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff has estimated the sum of S 814.00 to be just compensation for said taking; and that by voucher
number 454838, the plaintiff has this date deposited said sum with the Superior Court of the county in which the action is
pending, and the defendants herein may apply to the Court for disbursement of said money as full compensation, or as credit
against just compensation, to be determined in this action.
7.
That the said interest and area as described in said Exhibit "B" are hereby appropriated and the said interest and
area, together with the right to immediate possession thereof, are hereby vested in the plaintiff, Department of Transportation.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O. CRAWFORD, III
Project No. Special Deputy Attorney General
6.569004T
/s/ RICHARD G. SOWERBY
Parcel No. Assistant Attorney General
076A North Carolina Department of Justice
Transportation Building
I.D. No. P.O. Box 25201
R-21 OA Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone No.[phone]

-024- J "i
EXHIBIT "A"
NAtMES
ADDRESSES
Mack Blue and wife. Brenda C. Blue-----------------------------------461 Main Street.
Vass. N.C. 23394
Department of Transportation -------------------------------------------- Raleivh. N.C.
Town of Vass--------------------------------------------------------------- Vass. N.C.
County of vtoore-----------------------------------------------------------Carthage. N.C.
DISABILITIES OF DEFENDANT : NONE.
LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES:
All taxes for the County of Moore and Town of Vass for the year 1999 and all previous years.
Existing right of way for highway purposes -- Department of Transportation.

Project No. 6.569004T
Parcel No. 076A
9 9 •324
I.D. No. R-2IO.N
-025-
EXHIBIT "B"
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Those certain lands lvinz and being in McNeill Townshit:.
Moore Countv, North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows:
BEING Tract No. l as described in a deed dated September =6. !97'_ to Mack Blue and wife. Brenda C. Blue.
recorded in Book Page -24, Moore County Registry: said description being specifcaily incorporated herein
by reference.
INTEREST OR ESTATE TAKEN: Fee simple title to right of way for all purposes for which the plaintiff is
authorized by law to subject the same.
AREA TAKEN: That area sufficient to acquire for Department of Transportation Project 6.569004T the right of
way shown over and upon Parcel 076A on Plan Sheet 30 of the above-mentioned project. The aforesaid plan
sheet is attached hereto for the purpose of identification of the areas taken and for no other purpose. Said areas
taken will be more specifically described on the plat provided for in G. S. 136-106.

- Project No. 6.569004T
Parcel No. 076A
' I.D. No. R-21oA., -026 9 9- 3 2 4
? -

yt11
00+81
n
t T
O
r ? Q1
a< ?
? d
? ?H3

W
It W e
?D N
3J c
co
W V d ?
N ti
J< N
mz 1
bew CO
am °

• _ A?tl •lSli3
f" i???1S609
I ? ? Ofl ?
5 I ~ ? T
I
i° i y.?.
= CL W ?rrlrsii
2 ,
00'+'11 I I ??
?o 41
j ? m v: 41
Q I I JoG? P,
( 7 3
I I I •0 - a?
"' •OSX6f5 Q
' IW Ua u
<z
VIW? ? t V4^?
26 7? !.?? q
05 0
" I tiJ f:~l N - r •a.-If
?.•-
o as
I I f?i o zzoty' .

-02 /'
EXHIBIT "C"
DESCRIPTTOy OF PROTECT 6.569004T NITOORE COUNTY: From south o[ SR 1.353 north
or Lakeview to SR '00?.

Project No. 6.569004T
Parcel No. 076A 9 9 -
1 3 2
.D.: No. R 1
Otti%, -029-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Plaintiff,
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR.; W. DANIEL PATE, Trustee,
Defendants.
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-CVS-
q9r 5
COMPLAINT
A
Now comes the Department of Transportation, plaintiff herein, and for its cause of action says and alCeges:=
1.
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principal office iii Raleigh.
North Carolina; and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminent domain,-,vest clin it by
the General Assembly of North Carolina.
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes, and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto, and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
5.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names
and addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by
reasonable diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property
described in said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said
Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief that said property is subject only
to such liens and encumbrances as are set forth-in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that just compensation for the appropriation herein set forth be determined according
to the provisions and procedures contained in Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes and for such other relief as to
the Court may seem just and proper.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O CR.AWFORD III
Project No. Special Deputy Attorney General
6.569004T
/s/ RICHARD G SOWERBY
Assistant Attorney General
Parcel No. North Carolina Department of Justice
081 Transportation Building
No.
D
I P.O. Box 25201
.
. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
R-210A Telephone No. [phone]

- ??
-029-
9 9
STATE OF. NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Plaintiff,
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR., ET AL,
Defendants.
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-CVS-
DECLARATION OF TAKING
AND
NOTICE OF DEPOSITS
The plaintiff, Department of Transportation, declares as follows:
1. 1
That the Department of Transportation is an agency of the State of North Carolina with its principal office jg Raleigh,
North Carolina; and that it possesses the powers, duties and authority, including the power of eminentldomain yest d in it by
17
the General Assembly of North Carolina.
2
That pursuant to the authority vested in the plaintiff under the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes, and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Transportation duly passed, it is necessary to condemn and appropriate certain
property described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for public use in the construction of that certain
highway project described in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3.
That the plaintiff and the defendants have been unable to agree as to the purchase price of the property herein
appropriated.
4.
That the property which is the subject of this action, the interest or estate acquired, and the area appropriated are all
described in said Exhibit "B".
5.
-That the plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges upon information and belief, that those persons whose names
and addresses are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, are, insofar as the same can, by
reasonable diligence, be ascertained, the only persons who may have or who claim to have an interest or estate in the property
described in said Exhibit "B", and that said named persons are under no legal disability except as may be stated in said
Exhibit "A".
6.
That the plaintiff has estimated the sum of 5245.00 to be just compensation for said taking; and that by voucher
number 454800, the plaintiff has this date deposited said sum with the Superior Court of the county in which the action is
pending, and the defendants herein may apply to the Court for disbursement of said money as full compensation, or as credit
against just compensation, to be determined in this action.
7.
That the said interest and area as described in said Exhibit "B" are hereby appropriated and the said interest and
area, together with the right to immediate possession thereof, are hereby vested in the plaintiff, Department of Transportation.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
/s/ ROBERT O. CRAWFORD III
Special Deputy Attorney General
Project No.
6.569004T
/s/ RICHARD G SOWERBY
Assistant Attorney General
Parcel No. North Carolina Department of Justice
081 Transportation Building
No
I
D P.O. Box 25201
.
.
. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
R-210A Telephone No.[phone]
I'll
-030-
EXHIBIT "A"
NANTES ADDRESSES
Pierce B.:rby, Jr.________________________________________________331 Church Street.
Vass, N.C. :839-
W. Daniel Pate, Jr., T rustee------------------------------------ Attorney at Law,
15 Chinquapin Road.
Pinehurst. N.C. ?837-
Department of Transportation ---------------------------------- Raleigh. N.C.
Town of Vass --------- -------------------------------------------- Vass, N.C.
County of Moore-------------------------------------------------Carthage. N.C.
DISABILITIES OF DEFENDANTg- NONE.
LIENS AND-ENCUMBRANCES:
All taxes for the County of Moore and Town of Vass for the year 1999 and all previous years.
Existing right of way for highway purposes -- Department of Transportation.
Deed of Trust to W. Daniel Pate, Trustee for First Bank dated February 18, 1992, recorded in Book
822, Page 215, Moore County Registry.

Project No.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: 081
I.D. No.: R-21 OA

-031-
?9 3251
EXHIBIT "B"
DESCRIPTTON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Those certain lands lying and being in McNeill
Township. Moore County, North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows:
BEING that property conveyed to Pierce B. Irby, Jr. and wife, ,Marian Cameron Irby by deed dated
.-august 26. 1970. recorded in Boot: 330. Page 350. Moore County Registry; said description being
specifically incorporated herein by reterence. BEING that property conveyed to Pierce B. Irby, Jr. and
wife. Marian Cameron Irby by deed dated august 26. 1970, recorded in Book 330. Page SSO. Moore
Countv Registry; said description being specificaily incorporated herein by reference.
INTEREST OR ESTATE TAKEN:
cee simple title to right of way for all purposes for which the plaintiff is authorized by law to subject
the same.
AREA TAKEN
That area sufficient to acquire for Department of Transportation Project 6.569004T the right of way
shown over and upon Parcel 08lon Plan Sheet 31 of the above-mentioned project. The aforesaid plan
sheet is attached hereto for the purpose of identification of the areas taken and for no other purpose.
Said areas taken will be more specifically described on the plat provided for in G. S. 136-106.

Project No.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: 081
I.D. No.: R-21 OA

-032-
?9-3
w OJ
L

U u?lvl

V >IU
?
CL)
E

O
? L i
a
V11
Q
dILO ' L
==
'

rla F- i
r?l
LAA
J -H
:Lu
:'-
L? (Qy
l
?
l
dm E w
E '? ?
)N
>V1 V'IiJ\ Z?
WV1 3 -
r3 ?
i
!1>i? 01 Y 0Z
Y
q
3
V WI ? Z
Nr '- .I
ti ? K
r 1
1
ti,'
NIH
O`;o r? ti?Q
?pQ1 WIN
C cc
tl?... Q)?
RIC
L
S
;1 Z
v
n
WLB-

C
7 ?
m CD
F? CL
Q1 O
to
W ?.
U f9
? O -
W
a.
-033-
E`CHIEIT "C"
DESCRIPTION OF PRO.IECT 6 569(10.3T 'NtOORE OUyT'f'• From south of SR 113-53 north of
Lakeview to SR 2005.

Project No.: 6.569004T
Parcel No.: 081
I.D. No.: R-21 OA
-034- `'
STATE OF NORTH C.aRULINA FILE =JO CVS 91 c
COU TY OF NIOORE THE GENER-.L COURT OF J-USTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; ) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLALM
Plaintiff;; )
Mlotion for Prehminarv Iniunction
V. )
Motion for Declaratory Judgment
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR. and W. DANIEL )
PATE, Trustee, ) - -
Defendants. )
Now comes Defendant Irby who by way of answering Complaint of Plaintiff all s ardsavsas 77
<T
follows: 1
1. FIRST DEFEN
1. Defendant admits the allegations offs 1, 3, 5 and 6 of the Complaint.
2. Defendant denies the allegations of Is 2 and 4 of the Complaint.
3. In further response to Plaintiffs allegations, Defendant avers that Plaintiff has deposited
insufficient funds with the Clerk of Court such that the deposit does not constitute just and
fair compensation.
4. In further response to Plaintiffs allegations, Defendant avers that, if allowed to proceed.
Plaintiff will effect damages to all of Defendant's property, part of which is shown in Map
Sheet I attached to the Complaint, not just the portion needed for right of way.
11. SECOND DEFENSE
5. The Plaintiff is not entitled to condemn Defendant's land because it has enuaged in
1

-03 5-
arbitrary and capricious agency action and has abused its agency discretion for reasons
described below.
Defendant, by way or further answer and counterclaim, alleles and savs the followin;:
III. 1NTRODUCTTON
6. This counterclaim challenges Plaintiffs s selecting alternative A to build a by-pass around
the towns of Vass and Cameron for the US Highway 1 (US 1) corridor in Moore and Lee
Counties, North Carolina.
7. Plaintiff admitted that Alternative A, the route of the US 1 by-pass selected by Plaintiff,
would have major and significant environmental effects, including the destruction of more
than ninety acres of wetlands in the Little River watershed, three hundred and eighty-five
acres of natural land supporting wildlife,: and one hundred and fifty-eight. acres of prime
and important farmland. Firnal Er?virunmental Impact Statement (FEIS), S-6.
8. The proposed US 1 by-pass traverses the Little River Watershed, an area described by the
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, as "a remarkably diverse
system". FEIS, D-12.
9. David R. Lenat also noted in the above cited comments dated April i, 1990 that Little
River was proposed for a High Quality Water (HQW) designation and might be
Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), the highest designation of water quality bestowed
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR, now NCDEN-R). Id.
2
-036-
10 As remarkably civerse as the Little River ecosvstem was, and is, the Division of Parks and
Recreation noted in its comments that it knew of "no evidence that much of this area has
ever been searched by biologists, and there is potential for many [rare species] " Ft!S, D-
I I The North Carolina Chapter of the Mature Conservancy has identified areas within the
Little River watershed that score as high with respect to botanical diversity as any areas in
North America. Rare attd E'ftdatt,ered Platit Sttn,ey and Alatrtral Area hn?entory jur Fort
Brcr a- and C amn Mackull Military heservatioias, North Carolina, Russo, Morrie, van
Eerden, et al, (1993 ).
12. The proposed US 1 by-pass will increase the difficulty of effecting any transportation
planning other than that which involves four-laving the remaining portions of US 1.
13. Both the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, NCGS § 1 I3A-1 et seq., (NCEPA)
and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 and 4347 (NEPA)
required environmental impact statements (EISs) for the project described above and
designated as R-21 0 ("by-pass")
14. In essence NEPA and NCEPA set minimum standards for government agencies in
informing the decision maker, and the public, of the consequences of, the alternatives to,
and a comparison between alternatives to a proposed action. Sec 1 NCAC 25.0601 and
25.0603(4).
15. "The purpose of an [environmental impact statement] is to provide the responsible state
agency with a useful decision making tool" (hr the mower of Etivironmuntul Mcnrugement
('ommia:rion Fittctl Order, 53 N.C. App. 135, 280 S.E.2d 520, 527 (198 1)) and to inform
3
I'll
`? -037-
the public. 1 NCAC 25.060 1.
l6. The purposes of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA). include: 1) a
mandate for State a<_encies to take an active role to conserve and protect the State's
natural resources and to create and maintain conditions in which man and nature can exts:
in natural harmony (hi the mauer of FnWrorununtui Management Commiscioll Finai
Or(ier, 53 N.C..-'app. 280 S.E.2d 520, 527 (1981) citing NCGS § 113A-3),.and') a
requirement for state agencies to consider and report upon environmental aspects and
consequences of their actions which involve the expenditure of public moneys. Id.
17 . `The primary purpose of an EIS is 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. It should provide a full and fair discussion of
significant environmental impacts and should inform decision-makers and the public of `
the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the
quality of the environment." 1 NCAC 25.0601 (emphasis added).
18. Plaintiff violated NCEPA and NEPA in the following ways:
NCDOT selected the route of the by-pass prior to completing the EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement) process.
2. NCDOT prepared a misleading cost benefit analysis for R-210 by using a
design with at grade intersections to figure costs and using a freeway
design (grade separated intersections) to figure benefits.
3. NCDOT prepared a misleading safety analysis when it failed to count the
accidents that would continue to occur on the current US 1 as part of the
total of accidents that would occur in the corridor if NCDOT built the new
by-pass.
4. NCDOT misrepresented municipal government support for R-210 by
claiming in the EIS that the towns of Vass and Cameron supported the
4

prooosed routing, when, in fact, neither of them did. Cameron
subsequently passed a resolution opposing the by-pass, and Nlayor Charles
Mangers of Pinehurst (also in Moore County) wrote a letter of support for
Cameron's position.
>. NCDOT inflated both traffic volume measurements and projected traffic
growth to justify R-210 in the EIS. Some of the alleged data for present
traffic volume in the EIS were 80% higher than the numbers for the same
year in NCDOT's own ADT maps for Moore and Lee Counties.
6. NCDOT failed to consider cumulative impacts of the by-pass.
1. NCDOT failed to consider induced traffic. NCDOT assumed that the
traffic on US I will grow at the same rate no matter how much new
roadway it builds.
8. NCDOT failed to consider induced growth. In the R-210 EIS NCDOT
disposed of induced growth's environmental effects -in several paragraphs -
- saying induced growth is too hard to predict. But then, when forecasting
economic impact, NCDOT predicted large amounts of economic growth
caused by new construction.
9. NCDOT's EIS failed to consider the adverse effects of R-210 on locally
owned businesses.
10. NCDOT refused-to evaluate numerous reasonable alternatives and failed to
consider important impacts of the by-pass by restricting the scope of the
EIS process to only the 10- 15 mile length of the by-pass and not
a. Either broadening the scope of the EIS for certain alternatives (e.g.,
rail alternative) and consequences (e.g., cumulative wetland
impacts) for the entire US I corridor;
b. Performing a Programmatic EIS (PSIS) along the entire corridor;
or
c. A combination of both.
11. The EIS evaluated only secondary alternatives (i.e., where will the road
go?), but cursorily evaluated only one primary alternative (i.e., can the
transportation purpose be met through other means?) before dismissing it
out of hand.
12. NCDOT considered public transportation as only one alternative, when, in
fact, many alternatives were made known to it.
13. NCDOT did not consider traffic reduction techniques -- car and van
5
??. -039-
pooling, car & van pool databases, park & ride lots, incentives to
businesses for staggered employee work schedules, incentives to businesses
for employee carivan pooling, rural road frontage conservation easements
to prevent congestion-inducing sprawl, etc.
NCDOT did not consider a combination of methods such as a combination
'`TSivf'
of spot improvements ("Transportation Systems Management" or
alternative), land use controls and traffic reduction techniques.
15. NCDOT changed this project substantially without preparing a
supplemental EIS or other public document to fairly inform the public and
the decision maker.
!6. NCDOT promised to consider comments of citizens concerning the above
problems with the EIS and then failed to do so.
17. NCDOT ignored comments and suggestions by State and Federal agencies.
18. NCDOT failed to fully characterize the environmental consequences of
building the by-pass.
19. NCDOT has never prepared a PSIS for the roads identified in NCGS §
136-179 (which identifies, inter alia, US 1), even though NCEPA required
it to do so'.

19. This counterclaim seeks 2 declaratory judgment finding that Plaintiff has engaged in
arbitrary and capricious conduct, abused agency discretion and failed to comply with
NCEPA as follows:
a. By preparing an inadequate site-specific final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) as follows:
i. By misrepresenting data.
NCGS S 113A-4(2) required what amounted to a PEIS for
proposed legislation (See Exhibit A, attached hereto)
and was amended in 1992, eliminating the requirement
for a "legislative PEIS". The Highway Trust Fund Act
was ratified in 1989, after extensive involvement and
reports by NCDOT personnel.
6
-040-
ii. By not adequate '.v responding, or not responding at all, to comments.
iii. By not fully and adequately considering the reasonable alternatives to and
impacts of the proposed by-pass;
iv. By segmenting the proposal to make US I a four lane highway from
Henderson. N.C. to the South Carolina state line; and
v. By omitting data relevant to the decision maker and to the public
discussion of the proposed by-pass;
b. By not preparing a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in light of new
circumstances and information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on
the proposed by-pass,
c. By not preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PSIS) for
Plaintiffs' plan to four lane US l from the Virginia to the South Carolina state
lines:
d. By not complying with NEPA;
e. By not preparing a PSIS on each and every other corridor or loop identified in
NCGS § 136-179; and
f. By not preparing adequate project specific EISs in every other corridor or loop
identified in NCGS § 136-179.
20. The counterclaim also seeks an injunction to prohibit all construction and construction-
related activities, including right-ofway acquisition, for the proposed by-pass until:
a. Plaintiff prepares a PEIS for the US l corridor from the Virginia to the South
Carolina state lines;
7
` -041-
b .-fin adequate site specific Environmental impact Statement is prepared.
21. The counterclaim also seeks an injunction requiring Plaintiff to comply with NCE DA by
remedying anv deticiencies found by this Court and prohibiting Plaintiff from proceeding
Curther with projects in all corridors found to need a PSIS or from proceeding with
specific projects found to have inadequate environmental documents.
TV. JURISDICTION .AND APPLICABLE LAW
22. This counterclaim arises under NCEPA and concomitant regulations.
23. North Carolina "courts have rendered few decisions clarifying [NCEPA]". In the matter
of Enviratmental Management Commission Final Order, 53 N.C.App. 135, 280 S.E.2d
520 (1981).
24. Our appellate courts have approved the use of federal law under NEPA to interpret
NCEPA. Id
25. Where a State agency is required to prepare environmental documents under NEPA or
other federal law, said environmental documents must also meet the provisions of
NCEPA. NCGS § 1 13A-10, Mullin v. Uiunur, 756 F.Supp. 904 (E.D.N.C. 1990).
26. Plaintiff prepared environmental documents for said by-pass in attempted compliance with
NCEPA and NEPA.
27. Not raising this counterclaim in this action constitutes a waiver. ,State v. Williams and
Hessee, 53 N.C.App. 674, 680, 281 S.E.2d 721, 726 (1981) citing NCGS 1 A-1. Rule
12(b).
28. Both NEPA and NCEPA apply to this counterclaim.
8
-042-
=9 This Court has Jurisdiction over thi; ccxinterc!aim.
V. PARTIES
A. Defendant
30. Defendant is a citizen and resident of Moore County, North Carolina.
31. Defendant owns and lives on a farm, a portion of which Plaintiff seeks to condemn for the
by-pass, and such constitutes "sufficient geographical nexus to the site of the challenged
project that he may be expected to suffer whatever environmental consequences the
project may have." Orange ('ounty v. North Carohna Department of 7ra»avortation. 46
N.C.App. 350, 362, 265 S.E.2d 390, 899 (1980) citing City of Dc nis i> ('olemem, 521
F.2d 661, 671 (1975).
32. Defendant will be adversely affected and irreparably harmed and injured by the action of
the plaintiff acting on -the inadequate FEIS - the construction of the by-pass through the
Little River watershed -- and by the action of the plaintiff in making US 1 a four-lane
highway from the Virginia to the South Carolina state lines without preparing either an EA
(as to the need for a PEIS), a PSIS, or an adequate EIS, and by the taking of Defendant'.s
land -- an arbitrary and capricious action and an abuse of discretion by Plaintiff.
33. Defendant's interests in this action tall within the zone of interests protected by the laws
sought to be enforced in this counterclaim.
34. Defendant has standing; to raise this counterclaim and to object to Plaintiffs violation of
NCEPA and NEPA, includinty raising objections based on comments of persons other than
himself.
9
-043-
B. Plaintiff
3;. Plaintiff North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is a state agency within
the ambit of NCGS § l 13A-9(9), and is attemotina to take Defendant's land with its
power of condemnation.
VI. FACTUAL SUMMARY
36. Plaintiff (through the use of a consultant, as provided by 15A NCAC IC.0404(c))
prepared a DEIS dated September 1 1, 1991, a FEIS dated December 1, 199-5, and a
Record of Decision ("ROD") dated March 21, 1996, and such documents constitute
environmental documents within the ambit of NCGS § 113 A-9(2).
37. Plaintiff is the State Project Agency responsible for ensuring compliance with NCEPA
pursuant to I NCAC 25.0210(a).
33: Plaintiff has repeatedly asserted.that the North Carolina Highway Trust Fund Act (NCGS
§ 136-179) -- which provides for, imer alia, the funding of the four-laning of US 1 from
Henderson, NC, to the South Carolina state line -- obviates the need for it to evaluate
alternatives to the proposed by-pass that don't involve 4-laning.
39. The Hon. James B. Hunt, Jr., the governor of North Carolina, has stated to Defendant's
counsel in a letter dated May 22, 1996, that "[t]he Highway Trust Fund Act of 1959
mandates the Department of Transportation to four-lane US I from the Virginia border to
the South Carolina border", which letter implied that the alleged legislative --mandate"
obviates the need to consider alternatives other than 4-laning.
40. H. Franklin Vick, in his capacity as an employee of Plaintiff, has indicated by letter to
10
All, -044-
Defendant's counsel dated June ! 096, that NCDOT will "four-lane existing, US[ tram,
the Vir_inia state line to the youth Carolina state line." 1)gftidant s f=irst Set of :Z'rtrr?;r
Discovery To Planuiff, Exhibit 1'.
41. Garland Garrett, formeriv the Secretary of Transportation, the Plaintiir, and in his former
capacity as a:encv head -- a "state official" within the ambit of NCGS 113A-9(10)-- has
indicated by letter to Defendant's counsel dated April 30, 1996, as follows:
The environmental studies for the project were developed in accordance
with federal and state re<,ulations. We have reviewed the ROD and FEIS
and disagree with your assertion that it (sic) is fundamentally flawed.
Therefore, we have no intention of requesting the Federal Highway
Administration to withdraw their (sic) approval of the documents.
Defendarit s First Set of Written Discovery To Plaintiff, Exhibit E.
42. On information and belief, plans for the construction of the proposed by-pass of Vass and
Cameron called for matching funds from the FHWA to the NCDOT, as evidenced by a
federal FEIS and other environmental documents.
43. Even. though Plaintiff prepared a federal EIS, it has shifted funds so that the by-pass will
be built without federal funds. Defendants First Set of Written Di.Ycovery To Pluintiff,
Exhibit A, but seep Id., Exhibit X.
44. On information and belief, on at least one prior occasion (the Broadway Project in
Asheville, NC), Plaintiff has shifted hinds on a project coming under NEPA/NCEPA
scrutiny.
45. Plans to four-lane US I from the Virginia state line to the South Carolina state line and the
plans to build the proposed by-pass of Vass and Cameron have the following
characteristics:
11
1-1
-045-
a. They amount to action by a state agency (i.e., the Plaintiff),
b. They will have a potential environmental effect upon either natural resources,
public health and safety, natural beauty, historical or cultural elements of the
State's common inheritance,
c. They involve the expenditure of public monies or use of public land, and
d. They are within the ambit of NCEPA and NEPA.
46. Both proposals -- the corridor-length proposal to four-lane US 1 and the by-pass -- require
EISs under NCEPA and NEPA.
47. Said proposals are neither exempt nor excluded from NCEPA or NEPA.
48. Plaintiff has received extensive comments regarding the proposed by-pass, including but
not limited to the following:
a. -Written comment during an informational meeting at the Vass-Lakeview
Elementary School in Vass, North: Carolina - previous to the 11/19/91
public hearing -- which suggested the purchase of development rights
(through conservation easement acquisition) to forestall increased traffic on
US 1 from highway strip development along undeveloped portions of US 1;
b. Testimony at the November 19, 1991 public hearing at the Cameron Elementary
School in Cameron, North Carolina, an excerpt from which is attached as Exhibit
B;
C. March 11, 1992 letter to NCDOT Secretary Thomas Harrelson, to which
Secretary Harrelson responded with a letter dated March 23, 1992, and in which
Secretary Harrelson stated "[y]our thoughts will be considered during preparation
12
?? -046-
of the [rEiS]" (I)gjelicicuu'.Y 1•'ir.cr Sclf of lVrrrtc ii Niscoverv To Plamulf. L:.:011hltl
iW (C N) ,
d. April 27, 1992 letter to Secretary Harrelson, to which L.J. Ward, Llanatier of
NCDOT's Planning and Environmental Branch• responded with a letter dated Mav
5, 1992, stated "[yjour sti,TQestions will be considered as the [FEIS] is prepared"
(Dcsf?rrciarrt '? Fh:?t ,Set of Wr ittrrr Discovery To Plairuiff, Erhihits• L & fig
e. Auaust 23, 1994 written comments of Joe k1cDonald to NCDOT officials
(D .feuciuw'., Firm Sept of'Writteu Discovery 10 f'lumtr ff, L:rhjhit PV)-, and
f. September 6, 1994 letter to H. Franklin Vick, the successor to Mr. L.J.
Ward in NCDOT's Planning and Environmental Branch. Defcrularn'S First
&I of Written Discovery To Plaintiff, Exhibit 1.
49. On April 22, 1993, four and a half months after comments were due on the Draft EIS
(DEIS) (December 5, 1991) and over two years prior to publishing the FEIS; Plaintiff
announced that it had selected Alternative A for the proposed by-pass. FEIS, E-4.1.
50. Even though environmental documents are "intended to assist the responsible agency in
determining the appropriate decision on the proposed action," pursuant to NCGS § 113A-
13, Plaintiff decided on the route of the by-pass while the work on the FEIS was in
progress.
51. The ROD was documented on March 21, 1996, even though the Division of
Environmental Management objected to the FEIS. Dcfenc/urrt •.Y Film Sot of•Written
Discovery 7o f'/uintiff fxhihil D, p. 2 (next trr /arl'): 1lU/), 1 '24'96 Nlertro from Eric
Gulamh of N(' Division of*I:n??irunmcntcrl.McrrraJ,?c?mctrt.
13
1-1
?`? -047-
??. The analyses of alternatives, the early elimination of the TSNI and \vlassTransit
alternatives, and the discussion of impacts (including, secondarv impacts analysis) were
essentially unchanged between the DEIS and the FEIS.
VTT. yI1SUSE/N0NUSE OF SITE SPECIFIC EIS
53. Plaintiff did not have a FEIS when it had its engineering firm publish its selection of
Alternative A on 4/22193.
54. Plaintiff issued a news release announcing that it had selected Alternative A on April 22,
1993 and, on information and belief, Plaintiff did, in fact, select Alternative A, as its news
release said.
55. Said selection was a premature decision violatin= NCEPA (NCGS § 1 13A-4(2); Matter
of Envirortnierual iWartagemetil Commixvion Final Order, 53 N.C. App. 135, 280 S.E.2d
520 (1981); 15A.NCAC IC.0402(a)), which essentially made the FEIS apasr hoc
rationalization for Plaintiffs prior decision.
VTII. SITE SPECIFIC EIS INADEQUATE
A. Mislendins Cost-Benefit Analysis
56. The FEIS indicates that the cost of alternative A will be approximately 545.8 million
(FEIS. Table 11-8), with construction costs of S37.9 million (Id., 7cthle .S'-1).
57. Since publication of FEIS on December 1, 1995, Plaintiff NCDOT has made public
statements that the statewide costs of highway construction have exceeded their estimates.
58. As a consequence of cost overruns thr0u_,h0ut the State, the North Carolina State
is
?'? -048-
Leuislature authorized and the voters approved a 5950 million bond referendum to, mic i- -
alicz. accommodate said overruns.
?Z9 In an EIS 'or another. nearbv segment of US I in Richmond Countv of simiiar len<_th.
throuah a similar area of the Sandhills region. Plaintiff estimated the cost For the project
(TIP TR2501) to call between S 12*1 million and S I-20 million. R1501 JEIS. Tczhlc S-1.
60. On information and belief, $45.8 million ?_rossly underestimates the cost of buiidinsz
Alternative A. the proposed by-pass of Vass and Cameron.
61. Plaintiffs commissioned the preparation of a document entitled the "Cost Effectiveness
Technical Memorandum for U.S. I Environmental Impact Statement R-210" (C/E Memo)
and dated September 5, 1990.
62. Once Plaintiff calculated a benefit/cost ratio, Plaintiff had, and still has, a duty to correct
inaccuracies in such ratio, regardless of whether Plaintiff was required to prepare such a
ratio under NEPA or NCEPA.
63. On information and belief, said document inaccurately reflects the benefit/cost ratio of the
proposed by-pass, as detailed below.
Incorrect Speed Estimates
64. The CIE Memo relies, in part, on the differences in estimated average speed between the
current US I and the by-pass to generate Plaintiff's claims of benefits.
65. On information and belief the C/E Memo fails to take into account the increased distance
traveled by those vehicles taking the by-pass instead of the current US 1.
66. The C/E Memo indicates that the design speed of the portion of US 1 proposed to be by-
passed is 40 miles per hour.
15
N -049-
o-
68
69
70.
7 1 .
72
73
On information and belief; the de?iun speed of said poi ion o[ US I exceeds -'0 miles per
hour.
The CIE Memo in Appendix A uses 3 5 miles per hour as an average running, speed for the
portion of US 1 proposed to be by-passed.
Said average running speed, on information and belief, does not accurately reflect the true
average running speed on said portion of US 1.
Inaccurate AveraLze Daiiv Traffic Volume
The CIE Memo also uses traffic volumes to generate projected savings claimed for the by-
pass.
The CIE Memo based its projections on 1990 traffic measurements inflated above the
figures reported by the traffic measurement unit of Plaintiff.
On information and belief, the CIE Memo failed to accurately reflect the average daily
traffic volume (ADT) for the portion of UST proposed to be by-passed.
The CIE Memo claimed that, in 1990, US 1 had the following ADTs at the following
locations:
. LOCATION ADT
a. SR 1173 to SR 1007 (Lee County) 8,300; and
b. SR 1824 to SR 1825 (Moore County) 8,300.
74. In NCDOT's Division 8, the division in which the proposed by-pass will be built, Plaintiffs
traffic measurement unit measures ADTs annually for the same locations on US', and
found the 1990 ADTs for said locations to be as follows:
16
N,
.
-050-
LOCATION .-ADT
a. SR l 173 to SR 1007 (Lee County) 1,400; and
b. SR I S=4 to SR 1825 (Moore County) 6,200.
-?. On information and belief; Plaintiffs' 1990 ADTs used in the DEIS and FEIS are not
accurate and have produced inflated estimates of future ADTs on the portion of US 1 in
question
No Benefit/Cost Analvsi for Primary alternative
76. Plaintiffs did not perform a benefit/cost analysis on the TSM or Mass Transit alternatives.
Failure to Consider Effects of Present US 1 on By-pass
77. Plaintiffs failed to consider the portion of future ADT that would continue to use the
present US 1 rather than the proposed by-pass, and thus overestimated the benefit/cost
ratio for said by-pass by assuming that the entire ADT would use-only the proposed by-
pass.
78. Plaintiffs failed to consider the accidents that would continue to occur on the present US 1
(by adding them to the build alternatives' predicted accidents) after the proposed by-pass's
opening and thus overestimated the benefit/cost ratio for said by-pass.
Failure to Consider Intersection Delav Costs
79. On information and belief, Plaintiff failed to consider intersection delay costs for the new
intersections needed to service the proposed bypass as additional delays for roads
17

?? -051-
;ntersec:in_ said by-pass and thus o,,eresumated the benefit/cost ration for said by-pass=
30 lfPlaintiffcalculated the costs of the by-pass usum, at-`ride intersections. then Plaintiff
should have caicuiated the benefits taking, the benefit reduction caused by at-tirade
intersections into account.
`Cooked" Books
81. On information and belief, Plaintiffs computed the benefits of the oroposed by-pass using a
design with costly grade-separated intersections and used an estimated cost based on a
design with "at grade" intersections, which are reiatively inexpensive.
Results of CT- Memo Misled Public and Decision Maker
32. Plaintiffs used the above mentioned results of said C/E Memo in the FEIS.
83. Said results would have misled a decision maker (who actually used the FEIS to assist in
the agency decision) and misinformed the public discussion about the proposed action in
violation of the purposes of an EIS. See 1 NCAC 25.060.1.
B. Misrepresentation
- 84. The FEIS misrepresented positions of the local governments of Vass and Cameron, stating
that both Vass and Cameron "have expressed support for improvements to U.S. 1,
particularly Alternative A...."
85. On information and belief, the Town of Vass has not expressed support for Alternative A
prior to the drafting of this counterclaim.
In other words, a by-pass paralleling the existing US1
will necessarily entail additional intersections for
roads running perpendicular to the by-pass and existing
US1.
18

\?`? -052-
Vic. The elected __overnment of the Town of Cameron has not changed its position with
respect to the by-pass since passin<, i resolution opoosin`J the by-pass in 1990
S%. On information, and belief, the Town of Cameron has never expressed supoort for the
proposed by-pass through acts of its elected officials.
SS. Plaintiff was informed of said misrepresentations and refused to correct them prior to
instituting this agency action against Plaintiff. even after Plaintiff's employee, H. Franklin
Vick, implicitly admitted in a letter dated June 1 .1996 that Vass and Cameron
government officials hadn't supported alternative A. D) fitr dcwt '.v First Set of Wi-itterl
Dkvcovery to Plairu ff, Frxhihit., O rr l'.
39. The site specific EIS is inadequate for reasons including those set out above, which violate
the requirement of NCGS § 113A-4(2a) to consider written comments from units of local
government (and citizens) as well as the duty to not misinform either the decision maker
or the public. I NCAC 25.0601..
C. Imoroner Segmentation
90. Plaintiffs prepared a site-specific FEIS for the proposed by-pass.
91. Plaintifr-s refused to analyze cumulative impacts despite a request by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. I )rfundcutt 's l•7r:?•t yet of Wi iuc•rr 1)iscnvery, F_rhihit
G. II,S'L•PA Letter (?f I.23.90 i-om Hein. Mrellei% p.
27
ROL), § L•'.1.
92. In said FEIS Plaintiffs eliminated Mass Transit alternatives without a corridor-len,-,th
analysis of its feasibility and without consideration of the existing rail corridor roii_;illy
paralleling the US 1 corridor. See 1-1.Y S and Dgfetrc%rm 'S Firm Sul of Writtc;n Di.?cu»e-ry Tu
l'luintiff, Frhihit IV, pp. 3-3.
19

.
-053-
3 Reuuiarons per;aining to i;i<<hway projec;s provide that an action evaluated in an EIS
shall:
a. Connect logical termini and have sufficient lentrth to address environmentai
matters on a broad scope,
b. Have independent utility; and
c. Not restrict consideration of aiternatives for other reasonabiv foreseeable
transportation alternatives.
23 C.F.R. 771.111
(f).
94. The above federal regulations apply in this action because. the EIS process was a federal
process and compliance with the federal process is required by NCEPA. Mullin tip.
Skjwier, 756 F.Supp. 904 (1990); l NCAC 25.0402.
95. Even though Plaintiff proposes to four-lane US I all the way to the SC State line, the short
(10-15 miles) portion of said proposed by-pass evaluated in the FEIS: `
a. Did not have sufficient length for the FEIS to address either environmental
consequences or reasonable alternatives on a broad scope;
b. Restricts consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable
transportation alternatives; and
c. said FEIS did not discuss such environmental consequences or all reasonable
alternatives, as required by NCGS ti 113A-4(2)(d) and I NCAC 25.0603(4) & (6).
D. Inadequate Discussion of Impacts
96. With respect to secondary imacts enuendered by the proposed by-pass -- and required to
be evaluated pursuant to NCGS § l 13A-4(2) and 1 NCAC 25.0603(6) -- the FEIS
20
\'` -054-
discussion ur secondar,impacts:
a. Did not respond to comments violation of MLUr uliu NCGS § l 13-=(3a); -
b Amounted to no more than a brier conclusory assertion about said secondary
impacts in violation of Ititrr ulici NCGS § i 13A-4 and I NCAC -_';.0603(6)(b.)-. and
c. Remained essentially unchanued from the DEIS in violation of imei- alia NCGS
113 A-4(2a).
97 The proposed by-pass will engender environmental, economic and social impacts
interrelated to the natural and physical environment in the subject area.
98. The FEIS did not adequately discuss such environmental, social and economic effects, in
violation of inter alia 1 NCAC 25.0003(4)(e), for instance:
a. The FEIS contained no discussion about the tendency oflocally owned
businesses to be displaced by large national corporations typically attracted to sites
near interchanges on roads such as the proposed by-pass; `
b. The FEIS contained no discussion of the increased service and infrastructure costs
to county and municipal governments typically associated with growth engendered
by hi;hway projects such as the proposed by-pass;
C. The FEIS inadequately discussed growth that the proposed by-pass will likely
cause, claiming, on the one hand, that such secondary growth is difficult to predict,
but, on the other hand, the FEIS confidently predicted that the proposed by-pass
will produce a salutary growth effect on the local economies; and
d. What discussions one finds in the FEIS of secondary growth, social effects and
economic impacts are cursory, conclusory and without any supporting studies.
21
`, -055-
Plaintiri had avaiiabie to it studies. such as the 1-40 stL'dv done throu-uh UvC-Charlone.
that cast doubt on the economic e Fees predicted (without sucoortin(z data) by Plaintiff, in
the DEIS and FEIS.
E. Inadequate Discussion of alte?•n•ttives
100 The FEIS eliminated the TS;1' and ,Mass Transit alternatives from further consideratioct
after a brief discussion of claimed shortcominus of said alternatives.
101. Said brief discussion did not chan-,e from the DEIS to the FEIS.
102. Said discussions of the TS;I and ;lass Transit alternatives were merely conclusory and
without factual support.
103. Said discussions failed to consider comments.
104. Plaintiffs claimed to have eliminated the TS;I alternative because "implementation of these
TSM measures would not adequately address the purpose of this project." (FEIS, p. II-2).
105. Letters from croverrnment officials make clear that by "purpose of this project" Plaintiff
means only the very narrow purpose of four-laninU US 1. See Defendant's First ,Set of
Writtetr Discovery, Fxhihits h, ,11, 11.
106. Plaintiffs failed to Fully characterize the TS;1 alternative with grade leveling, turn lanes,
purchase of development rights, slow vehicle turn outs, and car & van pool t"acilitation, as
requested during the comment period (Dgfendant'.%* First,1'et of Written Discovety TO
Plaintiff, Erhihit 1) and by resolution of the Town of Cameron (1)q/endant '., Firyt.kei of
Written Discovery To Plaintiff, I rhihit .S).
The TSM or "Transport?ation Systems Management"
alternative essentially provided for spot improvements
on existing US1.
22

-056-
107. Plaintiffs claimed to have eiimuiated the Nlass Transit alternative because "(uliven ti;c
rural character of the area, a mass transit system would not adequateiv serve the purpose -
R
of and need for the project." (FE1S, p. 11-3).
108. Plaintiffs faiied to fully characterize the Mass Transit alternative with car & van pool
facilitation, frelLht by rail, commuter rail, and conventional rail passenger service.
109. Such inadequate discussions violated NCEPA's mandate to the contrary. NCGS 113A-
=(2); l NCAC 25.0603(4).
F. inadeaunte Discussion of Partial Alternatives
110. "Partial alternatives" are those that, when taken together, can provide reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action. Aluntral Reyo ircu.r Dgfeti.yu (.'urnicil v. Hud 1, 865
F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 1988), Aluskci v. Ancfrirs, 580 F.2d 465 (1978).
111. Partial alternatives to the proposed action include the following:
a. Mass Transit, as described above;
b. Traffic reduction techniques, as described above:

C. Land use controls;
d. Purchase of development rights, as described above; and
e. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) or "spot improvements", including
grade leveling, slow vehicle turn outs, modifications to increase sight distances, and turn
lanes.
112. Plaintiff refused to consider land use controls as an alternative or partial alternative to the
proposed by-pass.
113. Plaintiff claimed that it did not do so because it had no control over land use controls.
2J
-057-
sine councies and municipaiities have the power to zone. r e rclCrlr!.1' ,1?CUllc! ,1?r ?!
6f/rruen L)rsc:n??rv %u ,°,cn!r!Ijf l?.rhrirrr af, i c !rrr jr'nnr Su rc[crrv onmry -aurrc:[sv/l slates:
March 3, 1992.
114, Land use controls constituted viable aiternatives or oartial alternatives that NC=DA
required Plaintiff to explore and evaluate. I NCAC 25.0603(4)(a).
1 15. Plaintiffs did not consider partial alternatives in the FEIS violation of NCGS 1 i 3-=
and 1 NCAC 23.0603(4).
G. Inadequate Response to Citizen and Agency Comment
116. Plaintiff, during the EIS process, repeatedly tailed to address agency comments and
comments of the public.
11'. The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, through
John Dorney of the Water Quality Section raised concerns about the by-pass going
through the Town of Cameron's well-field (FEI.S. 1)31.0, but Plaintiff did not address
such comments.
118. The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources through David Brook noted that
"several issues transmitted to you... remained unaddressed...." FFLI , 1?-32.1.
119. The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources through Don Robbins noted "heavy
impacts to forest resources" and pointed out that Plaintiff failed to address all of the
Division's scoping comments and failed to address protection of remaining trees. FELY, D-
20.
120. For instance, the FEIS did not contain responses to comments made concerning the use of
conservation easements to forestall future traffic congestion on US 1.
24
?? -058-
l2I NCDOT oti;iciais -- irciuding its Secret; rv (at the time) Thomas Harrelson -- premised to
consider comments made on the proposed by-pass, but did not do so..Sc c? D?.jitt:ciortt'.r _
Fit-v Set of 6Vivt en 1)i.rcuuer?, Erhihit.v N. A4. L, and 1C.
122. The FEIS ianguaze eliminating the TSvl and Mass Transit aiternatives prior to the
exhaustive comparison process used for the build alternatives and the no-build alternative
did not chance from the lancuaUe used in the DEIS despite comments received by
Plaintiffs.
123. The FEIS discussions of secondan, impacts, the TSM alternative, and the LAass Transit
alternative remained essentially unchanged from tile DEIS.
124. Such inadequate responses to comments violated, ittler cilia, NCGS 113 A-4(2a).
H. No Discussion of Certain Imlincts
Cumulative Impacts
125. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested. that Plaintiff address cumulative
impacts of the by-pass and other road projects in the North Carolina Transportation

Improvement Program. FFIS', D-33?, letter ref Heirr_ ,,Wu 11ei- ROD, 1.23-96 letter of
Heinz Mueller, 11S£:I14 ctttcl3 1; )( rc.vpuir..c ,from H. Franklin Tick, t CDOT.
126. Plaintiff refused to address cumulative impacts of the proposed by-pass conjoined with
other projects along the US l corridor, despite NCEPA's clear mandate to the contrary. I.
NCAC 25.0603(6)(c).
127. On information and belief, Plaintiff seldom, if ever, has addressed cumulative impacts in its
environmental documents for any project.
Cameron's Well f=ield
25
`?, -059-
l_S The FEIS C i to address the im. ;he bI pass would have on the Town of Cameron
with respect to its water supply
129, Plaintiff received comments from the DEHNR Water Quality Section (FEIS, D-3:. and
from the DEHNNR Favetteville Re-ional Ofrice (FEIS, D-30) expressing concern over
impacts to the public water suppiv.
130. On information and belief, the by-pass would destrov or damage 50% of the Town of
Cameron's well field.
131. On information and belief, the Town of Cameron still has not established replacement
wells.
Wetland Impacts
132. Since the FEIS and the ROD, on information and belief, Plaintiff has discovered chat the
acreage of wetlands adversely affected by the by-pass is approximately 20% greater than
previously thought,
133. The FEIS did not discuss the impact of destroying a much larger acreage of wetlands than
noted in the FEIS.
(1 1
ency expressed concern by letter
134. Heinz dueller of the U.S. Environmental Protection A.
dated January 23, 1996 at the process by which NCDOT had calculated a smaller number
of acres of wetlands a6ected by the by-pass, essentially saying that the reduction in
wetland acreage claimed by Plaintiff made it impossible to accurately compare Alternative
A to other alternatives as to wetland loss. /)c jer?cluut'.r Firv Seel of Wrilteu I)isuov-ery,
Exhibit G.
Freshwater Mussels
26
:? -060-
13 `. On mformation and belief; no study exists to determine the presence or endangered
freshwater mussels in the Little River's watershed.
136 On information and belief, a substantial population of freshwater musseis within the Little
River watershed exists and may contain endangered species of freshwater musseis.
137. Plaintiff has refused to discuss the possible impacts of proceeding with the proposed by-
pass without knowledge of whether endangered species of freshwater mussels exist in the
Little River water shed.
St Francis Satvr
135. On information and belief a federally endangered species of butterfly -- the St. Francis
Satyr -- occurs a few miles downstream of wetlands in the Little River watershed which
the proposed by-pass will destroy.
139. On information and belief the St. Francis Satyr's habitat includes successional conditions
which may occur in wetlands- affected by the proposed by-pass, particularly wetlands
containing a certain species of sedge (Carex).
140. The FEIS did not contain discussions of the potential impacts to the St. Francis Satyr from
the proposed by-pass.
Endanvered Plant Survev
141. Plaintiff claims, in the FEIS, to have performed an endangered plant survey.
142. On information and belief, certain species of endangered plants, including Michaux's
Sumac and Roush Leaved Loosestrife, occur near the proposed by-pass on the Ft. Bragg
Military Reservation in habitat similar to that effected by the proposed by-pass.
143. On information and belief, accurate identification of Michaux's Sumac and Rough Leaved
27

??. -061-
Loosestrife depends on the time of year ::urine, which one performs the endangered plant
survev -- for instance, one can more easily identity Rough Leaved Loosestrife in the spring
than in the dead of winter.
144. The FEIS did not indicate when such endangered plant survev occurred.
145. Plaintiff has refused to indicate when such endangered plant survey occurred.
146. On information and belief, Plaintiffs performed the endangered plant survey at an
unsuitable time of vear, thus precluding accurate results.
147 Said FEIS contains no discussion of the possible impacts from proceedin-g with the
proposed by-pass without an accurate endangered plant survey.
Bio-diversity in Little River Watershed
143. Plaintiffs' FEIS failed to discuss the impacts of the proposed by-pass on the Little River
watershed's botanical diversity, in light of comments made by the Division of
Environmental Management and the Nature Conservancy inventory mentioned above.
No Survev for State Listed Species
149. Plaintiff was supplied with a list of rare species of plants designated pursuant to the North
C irrolina Plant t'rotection caul Uottvvi-i-,ation Act (NCGS §§ 106-202.12, et.veq.) and rare
species of animals designated pursuant to the Article 25 of Chapter I I') of the NCGS
(collectively referred to as "state-listed species") that were likely to be in the project area.
150. On information and belief, Plaintiff was asked to survey for state-listed species that were
not also designated pursuant to 1iic E*n(Jangurud ,. I)ccies Act.
151. Plaintiff had a duty to search for non-federally designated state-listed species in order to
assess the by-pass's impact. NCGS 113 A-4.
23

-062-
1-' On information
and beiiet; Plaintiff did not search for non-federally designated ;tate_;istz;;
species.
153 On information and belief, Plaintiff has seldom. if ever. searched for non-federally
designated state-fisted species in any of its projects.
1 15 4. Plaintiff has often refused requests by State agencies
_ to search for such species.
Mi iQ ti n
155. Plaintiffs' FEIS omitted a reasonably complete discussion
required by Ruhc?rtson v. ; of mn?gation measures as
1,Icthuw Lallj?y C'iti?c?rs Cormcil, 490 U.S. 332 (1989), NCGS
1 13A-4(2)(c) and 1 NCAC 2',
? 060,(4)(4)
156, The US EPA pointed out this need to Plaintiff in a letter dated December 4, 1991, saying,
utter alia, "it is important that NCDOT at least develop a conceptual mitigation plan now
rather than wait until [after the EIS process ends]." FEIS: D-33.3, see also ROD, L`21'96
.
letter of Heirr_ Mueller, (ISEN. acid 174196 resputrse from H. _
157. Without such a discussion of mitigation measures neither the Plaintiffs nor other interested
parties could properly evaluate the severity of the adverse effects of
which violates i»te?r alia the mandate of NCGS the proposed bypass
§ 113A-4(2)(c) and 1 NCAC
25.06044)(d).
158. Because the mitigation "plan" was nothing more than a clai
m of intent to mitigate, the cost
could not be and was not included in the benefit/cost analysis.
159. The above lack of both a full characterization of the affected
areas of the environment and
discussion of certain impacts violated, inter alai, NCGS § 113A-42
() and i NCAC
25.0603.
29
-063-
IX. SUPPLENIENTAL EI yECES CRY
160 The misleading„ wrong and inaccurate intormation in the FEIS and the new circumstances
that have arisen make it necessary to supplement the FEIS, and this information includes:
a. .VDTs siunificantly below those shown in the FEIS for the base vear of 1990:
b Accident rates for build alternatives that did not take into account accidents
occurring on the present US I caul the proposed bypass:
C. The projected .VDTs that nearly double the 1990 ADT volumes, while the
population of Moore and Lee Counties will only climb by 20°'o to 25%-
d. NCDOT's reports of significant cost increases associated with highway
construction, unaccompanied by recently revised figures for building the proposed
by-pass,
e. The discovery of significantly more (20%) wetlands adversely affected by-the
project compared to the acre-ate evaluated by the FEIS;
F. The destruction of between 25% and 50% of the Town of Cameron's well field
which was not evaluated in the FEIS;
The Village of Pinehurst's letter, through its mayor, opposing the proposed by-
pass:
h. The Cameron Town Council's resolution opposing the proposed by-pass and
su<,?estin?, basically, a TS?l alternative; and
i. The lack of any evidence that Plaintiff searched for state-listed species as detailed
above.
30
-064-
161 Said new circumstances, as well as previously identified shortcomings of the FEIS, present
a seriously different picture of the impacts of the proposed project from what was
previously envisioned and require a supplemental EIS. Hickory Neighborhood Defwise
League v. Skinner, 893 F.2d 58, 63 (4th Cir. 1990), Hughes River Watershed
C'onrervancy >> Glickman, No. 95-3056 (4th Cir. 1996).
I PEIS NE SSARY
162. Plaintiff was asked to prepare a PEIS for the US 1 corridor four-laning from the Virginia
state line to the South Carolina state line. Defendant' First-Set of Written Discovery To
Plaintiff, Exhibit I. Page 3.
163. Plaintiff was required to prepare what amounted to a PEIS for each and every road slated
for "improvement" by the Highway Trust Fund Act, as identified in, inter alia, NCGS
136-I79, pursuant to NCEPA. (specifically the then current version of NCGS § 113A-
4(2), see Exhibit A attached hereto), but did not-do so.
164. Four-laning the entire corridor is a state action covered by NCEPA and requiring an EIS.
NCGS § 113A-4(2); 1 NCAC 25.0108.
165. A rail line parallels the US 1 corridor for its entire length through North Carolina.
166. Mass Transit and freight by rail alternatives, especially those Mass Transit alternatives
utilizing rail, can best be analyzed along the entire US I corridor.
167. In both the DEIS and FEIS. Plaintiffs claimed to have eliminated Mass Transit alternatives
from further consideration because the population of Moore and Lee Counties will remain
below 200,000 persons, the level below which Plaintiff claims Mass Transit will not prove
31

` . -065-
practical.
168. In neither the DEIS nor the FEIS did Plaintiff analyze the degree to which tragic reduction
techniques such as car & van pool facilitation to ir,c;ude providing car & van pool data
bases and park & ride lots and stav_`ered shu=ts at businesses whose employees use the
US I corridor can reduce the average daily traffic volume along US 1, even though Plaintit
received comments to that effect, violating itiler cilia NCGS 1 13A-=.
169. Traffic reduction techniques, "freight by rail, and Mass Transit:
a. Can best be considered and evaluated along the entire US 1 corridor; and
b. Are reasonable and reasonably foreseeable transportation alternatives.
170. No such consideration and evaluation occurred, even thou(-,h Plaintiff has commissioned
such analyses on other road projects.
171. Economic impacts of four-laning the entire US I corridor will occur along the entire
corridor.
172. To evaluate corridor length economic effects, Plaintiff must conduct an analysis of
economic impacts along the entire US I corridor.
173. No such analysis was done, even thoti?,h Plaintiff was familiar with such studies and had
such done previously in conjunction with other road projects.
174. Four-lapin; the entire US 1 corridor will have cumulative impacts on, in[er ulia wetlands,
water quality, air quality and the economic life of North Carolina.
175. Such cumulative impacts can best be analyzed along the entire US I corridor.
176. No such analysis occurred.
177. Plaintiff could have addressed and adequately analyzed Mass Transit alternatives, partial
32
-066-
alternatives (such as traffic reduction techniques and purchase of deveiooment riLhts).
economic impacts and cumulative impacts in a PSIS for the entire US 1 corridor without
the formulation of more detailed, site-specific plans for various segments of US I .
17 S. On information and belief Plaintiff has neither prepared a PEIS nor prepared an EA
(environmental assessment) addressing the need for a PSIS.
179. A PEIS is necessary for compliance with NCEPA.
XI. CONCLUSION
180. The above-described acts and omissions constitute arbitrary and capricious conduct and
abuse of discretion by Plaintiff and entitle Defendant to declaratory relief, injunctive relief
and an order dismissing Plaintiffs condemnation action against Defendant.
XU- MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
181. Defendant adopts Sections I -- XI above and the affidavits attached as Exhibits C-R
182. Pursuant to NCGS §§ 1-253 cal .seq., NCGS § 1 A-1, Rules 57 and 84(15) Defendant is
entitled to Declaratory relief as set out in the prayer for relief herein for the reasons set out
above.
XM- MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
183. Defendant incorporates Sections I through XI above.
184. Defendant adopts by reference the attached affidavits in support of his motion for
injunctive relief.
33

-067-
is; On information and beiief the Moore County Board of Commissioners has recenti\
requested the Plaintir; to expedite the construction of the by-pass, which is currently stated
to have construction beunn in the veer 2000, and a substantial likelihood exists that
cons:: action of the by-pass will begin prior to the resolution of this case.
I S6 Defendant is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.
IS ". Defendant will sustain irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction does not issue, and a
preliminary injunction is needed to protect Defendant's rights during the course of this
litigation.
183. Pursuant to, inf r cilia, NCGS § IA-I. Rule 65, Defendant requests injunctive reieif as set
out in the prayer for relief herein for the reasons set out above.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Court:
i. Consider the attached affidavits in support of Defendant's, motion for injunctive relief. `
2. Issue a Preliminary Injunction enjoining Plaintiff from taking any irreversible actions prior
_ to the Court holding a full hearing on the declaratory and injunctive relief requested
herein.
3. Issue a declaratory judgment finding that the Plaintiff has violated NCEPA, engaged in
arbitrary and capricious conduct and abused its discretion by the following actions or
inactions:
a. Not preparing a PETS on the proposed four-lanin? of the entire US I
corridor;
b. Preparing an inadequate EIS for the proposed US I by-pass of Vass and Cameron;
34
'` -068-
Not preparing a supplemental +
EIS based on new and changed circumstances.
d. Preparing inadequate EISs for projects in other corridors identified in NCGS
136-179; and
e. Not preparing PEISs for each and every such corridor and "improvement"
identified in NCGS ti 136-179
4 Issue a Deciaratorv Judgment holdirt-, that Plaintiffis not entitled to condemn Defendants
land until it remedies its violations of NCEPA in the US I corridor.
Issue a mandatory injunction requirin:_ Plaintiff to cornply with the provisions of N
?D
Cc.A
in the US I corridor and in all other corridors identified in IN-CGS 136-179 including:
a. supplemental EISs where it is shown to this Court that existing EISs in thosev
corridors are deficient; and
b. PEISs for each and every listed corridor where it is shown to this Court that no
PEIS has yet been done.
6. Issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Plaintiff from taking any action toward the
_
construction of the project, including right of way acquisition, until it has complied with
NCEPA's requirements;
7. Dismiss Plaintiffs condemnation action against Defendant;
8• Allow Defendant to recover the costs of this action, including expert witness and attorney
fees pursuant to NCGS §§ 136-1 19, 6-19.1, and other provisions of law;
9. In the alternative that the Court denies Defendant relief under his counterclaim and allows
the condemnation by Plaintiff to proceed, award Defendant a jury trial to determine the
issue of damages over the entire tract frum which NCDOT seeks to acquire a part; and
35

-069-
10. SuC,I other re!'-- as the Cou, ; oee; I ; dust and preoer
This day day of
CUN, NINGHgM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & S?vQ , H.
LP
?ttornevs For Der
cant Irov
../, /
BY
Marsh Smith (NC Bar T 16828)
PO Drawer 1468
SOI.Ithern Pines, NC 28388-1468
910-695-0800
910-695-0903 FAX
(:F*-R't'II-IC'i\Tli OI SI:It VIC'I: ON ATTORNEY
This i. to cx?rtifti that I hay e this (lac see-1-Vt1 cuun,?l 16r 1110 UppU?tllf, patl%• III the IurCLU
envelope with adequate IIIL' [lla([rr (tIth
this AISWEjl &CO UNTERCLAIM ht' dehcse Un itcxl State.,; pasta PC Ulere(m. in the I na ititun? III ? (lie
Mail. a ec?ll Of sanlr in a properly addressed
he Rule m ()f ale Ftules (I San] it Pr(x a eap} of
This day: edurc.
Marsh Smith
CC:
COL Pierce Irby
W- Daniel Pate, Esq.
J
-070-
..enibit A _
§ 113A-3. Declaration ei Z14te• a virazzaxntal rollcT. -The General
Assembly of .tiorth Carolina. recogrsiz:ag.th- orafound iat3uence of tmsn's acn-nty
on the fits=-l emrof+enent, and desiring, in its role as trustee for future genera-
tions. TO assure that an environment of high quality will be maintained for the
heaktr and well-be' -oi; all. deeiares that it shall be the continuing policy of the
State of North urolina to conserve and-pratact :ts nate:s! resources and to create
and maintaus condiuc s under whicir nran and nature can, exist in prvduc-ive
barn-cony. Further, it shall be the oolicv.oi.:'se.c,= sr-1:_ for all of its eiti--M
mie, healdhful. productive =d. =t:?c mUy pleasing surroundings : to attamn the
widmt rzrr- of beneficial uses of ,he environmenr ?thostt degradation. risk to
health or safety ; and to preserve the inmpot'tant historic and cultural cleamestts of
tats- common inheritance. (1971. a 1243, s.11
g 1134-4. C.wparatiea of Zf=cier, reports; wuUbiiftp of iator:sL-
tiau.-The General Assembly -authorizes and dire= that, tp the fullest extent pos-
ale:
(1) Tae paticis.:c;ulaaons. and public laws-of this State shall be .werpreted
and administered in accordance with the polices set forth in this Ar-
ticle: snd-
(2) Any State agtwt shall icchde in emy recotn1n0"Wion or aet't=
p?ros_all for to is!ation and action- involving. 'i"putditure of public
moneys for projects an programs signiaantlr.attecuag the quality oi..
the envirotonemst of this Stat& a-4eu%kd statement by the responsible
official setting forth the followitmg: _
& The environmental imp= of the-proposed action :
b. Any significant adverse environnmenW ei ncts which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implenteated
c. XitipU=- rmeasarrs proposed to minimize the impact ;
d. Alternatives to theprogosed action ;
e. 7 he relationship weep the short-term uses of the environment
involved ' in the proposed action and the- nuinterance and en-
hancement of long-term productivity : and
I. Any irreversible and irretrievable emin.%urental changes which
would be- involved in the proposed action should it be imple-
mented. .
1
1
-071-
PUELIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
R-210/ US 1 Sanford
NOVE11Bm-1 19, 1991
W. A. Garrett, Jr.: Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen, and welcome to the public hearing on the proposed
improvement to US 1 in the Moore-wee County area. Can'
an everyone
hear this all right? Okay. How about that? well I may have to
ask you to move down in some of the empty seats on down front
because this system is only going to get so loud and then that's
going to be it so if you can't hear in the rear, if you would,
please move on down a Kittle closer. I would appreciate it.
Before we get into the hearing itself I would like-
ike to introduce
some others that are here representing both the Board of
Transportation, the Division of Highways, and I should say also
the private engineering firm that's been involved with the
project. First I'd like to introduct Mr. Stuart Paine who is the
member of the Board of Transportation for this particular
division of the state. Thank you, Mr. Paine. Representing the
Division Office we have Mr. Fred Whitesell, the Division
Engineer, and Mr. Buck Clark, the Division Construction Engineer.
From our Location Unit we have Mr. D. P. Wilson and Mrs. Terry
Lynn Foppe. From the Roadway Design Unit, Mr. Greg Brew and Mrs.
Lisa Hamburg. From our Planning and Environmental Branch, Mr.
Rob Hanson. And representing the private engineering firm of
Hensley Schmitt we have Mr. Paul Griggs and Mr. Stephen Thomas.
All of these--I shouldn't say all of these--I won't require Mr.
Paine to join in with us tonight but the rest of us with the
Division of'Highway are available to answer- questions that you
may have as we get into your segment-of the hearing and I will be
more than glad to refer questions to any of our representatives
we have here tonight. . If we can not answer a question for you
we'll certainly tell you so but try to get an answer for you.
And if you ask us a question that we have to get back to you on,
please make sure we have a name, address, phone number or
whatever before you leave tonight so we have a means of getting
it back to you-. Now the purpose of our hearing is exactly as
that name implies. It is to give you, the citizens of this area
in which the project is being proposed, an opportunity to
continue to be a part of the planning process and I say continue
because there have been several meetings held on this and I'm
sure quite a few of you have attended those earlier meetings. in
fact, it's been in the planning stage now for I believe about two
years. I think the first meeting was back around November of
'89,'then one in '90, and then we just had one on the 12th to
give you a chance to give you a chance to get familiar with what
we are presenting here tonight and an opportunity to formulate
your statements, your questions and so forth. In a few moments
we'll get into your segment of the hearing and give you an
opportunity to do just that. When I do open it to you--I did not
ask people to sign up in advance--we do not have a cut off time
for the hearing. We'll be here as long as you would like to make
statements. We are recording the statements however and due to
that I must ask that if you have something to say that I would
like for you to come forward, use either the microphone that I'm
-072-
i-kl ternative B. Lee County's adcpted lard development plan calls
nor efforts to protect valuable, farm land. I wholeheartedly
support that effort. I realize that this study committee and the
Department of Transportation have a difficult task in choosing
the possible plan for the required improvements to US Highway 1.
However, it is a belief of the Board of Commissioners for Lec
County and it is my belief that one of the alternatives used in
the existing Highway 1 corridor should be selected. Thank you.
W. A. Garrett, Jr.: Thank you. The gentleman
back here that had his hand up, and then we'll came to you, sir.
Marsh Smith: Mr. Garrett, ladies and
gentlemen, good evening. My name is Marsh Smith. I live over
near Southern Pines near the airport and probably like most of
you all, I've been driving US 1 for years and years and I have
some questions. First I would ask that you extend the comment
period for 60 days and hold another public hearing. At this time
of year, most folks here are working folks and those folks who
live in these. corridor areas are working folks and it's getting
to be around the holiday season. Your EIS is about this thick.'
It's at places that aren't always open after-working hours. And
I would ask that you extend the comment period and allow another
public hearing after folks have more of a chance to digest what's
in the Draft EIS that you have at some libraries in the area. I
would also move to ask that you reconsider the no-build or the
limited-build alternative. With either of these alternatives I
would ask that you figure the cost of buying conservation
easements, which. are. authorized-by North Carolina General
Statutes Chapter 121 section 4, article -4, in the existing
corridor so that development that goes along with the highway as
it now exists can be limited so that the highway can maintain a
longer period of usefulness. With the no-build and limited-build
alternatives, I would ask that you reconsider the use of rail for
replacing tractor-trailer traffic and other alternative modes of
transportation to alleviate further crowding on *the existing
corridor. Especially in light of the issue DOT has made of
safety, I would ask that you consider the rail alternative for
tractor-trailer rigs being eliminated from this road or curtailed
by increased use of rail transportation. And looking at your
Environmental Impact Statement I noticed some discrepancies in
the number of accidents that occur on the road as compared to
national averages, specifically your abbreviations. I'm not sure
whether they mean 100 million motor vehicle miles or a million
motor vehicle miles. A more specific statement of the safety
problems on this road and the national average for this type of
road would help folks who are reading your Draft EIS consider and
address the alternatives that you have eliminated at this point.
I would also ask that you do three further studies. Number one,
I would ask that you do studies based on growth projections of
traffic other than in the 1980s. After talking with the
engineers associated with this highway, I was struck by the fact
that you used traffic growth in the 1980s to project growth into
the year 2010. As you and all of the rest of us here know, in
the 1980s we had some very explosive growth in this area. I
` -073-
7
don t k.ZOW that
it will l continue to ..he year 2010. It c.._ ..a_nly
doesn't seem to be doing It'
t over the last ter.
here. T T
You would do alternative studies within thisar or so lar
interest based on lower growth rates, supplemtenting aor a o?
replacement of tractor-trailers with rail as already mentioned,
supplementing autos for local trips with bicycle
paths
alternative transportation systems al ; and other
use a rail system, commuting inbetween Raleigh and thCor to
e?area she e,
as many folks do. Additionally T. would ask -that you do an
up-to-date traffic flow study. After talking with the engineers
+ uriduY?:;L.1rld L11,1L Lhu inu!•t I.CCL,11L LralLic: flow Ludy dclicus.?t.1rug
between local traffic and through traffic is over five years
I believe we need to have a more recent study in order to°ld,
consider how best to attack the traffic problems that confront us
with this stretch of road. Finally I would ask that you do a
more in-depth and detailed safety' study to further address the
problems on US I. And now with respect to environmental affects
of the development of US I. As you develop these other corridors
you're going to engender growth and building
corridors: shopping centers, national chain stores cominge into
the area, and I believe that you, as ' a member of DOT, and DOT
must comment on the environmental affects of malls and things of
that nature that development of these alternate corridors might
engender in the area. There's a case on (inaudi.bl) Davic C.
Coleman. It's about a fifteen year old case that says
do it. Also; since this is part of Gov. Martin' r You must
program with strategic corridors and what not which ois intended
to promote economic growth, I believe that there must be a study
to see what really, the affects,. economically
area the highways will have and I believe hat theme gIS is thes
proper forum to address them. There is the President's Council
on Environmental Quality which has
put out
and they say when social, economic regulations for EISs
interrelated and environmental affects are
, you must address all of them in your EIS. And so I
would hope that you would look at the economic affects that will
happen when you put in these bypasses. National chains might
move into the area, local businesses owned by local families
might be supplanted by large chain stores such as Wal-Mart. I
know that a hardware store in Southern Pines is no more. I don't
know if Wal-Mart had an effect on it
leaving
things are considerations that must be taken uin oe ac oundt. of
Finally, I haven't had time to look at
but we all know that Richmond Coun your worst case scenario
remaining for the low level radioactive s waone of the
ste facili two sites
ty. If you
take the western route, if there is a wreck along the
Little
River watershed by one of these trucks carrying low level
radioactive waste, it could completely contaminate the water
supply that Vass depends on. I think you must consider this in
your EIS. Finally, I didn't see in the limited time I had to
review the Draft EIS what affect the highway will have with
respect to the watershed regulation which the Environmental
Management Commission has promulgated. Just brief i
they limit economic development in a watershed to 10% of he land
mass. If economic development is engendered outside of Vass or
Cameron by that road within the watershed, that takes business
-074-
development oppert?.sities away -tram the downtown cen-ers o=
Cameron and Vass and to the extent it does this, _ don't t. :ink
it's fair and I don't think it gives an adequate opportunity to
the locality to plan for their economic growth. Thank you.
W. A. Garrett, Jr.: Thank you. I had a
gentleman back here had his hand up and then we'll come to you,
Ma'am. And while you're coming down I would like to address the
request on the extension of the second puhlic hearing. The
extension is no problem. In fact, I think that with the nature
of the project here and the timing of the year that we will go
ahead and make an extension of 30 days, make it a 30 day period
as opposed to the two weeks period. As far as a second public
hearing, unless something comes out or the hearing here, I do not
foresee us having a second corridor public hearing as such but we
can give the extended period of time for input into this process
as far as giving them more opportunity to get to those EISs. All
right, sir, go right ahead.
Edgar Waddell: Ladies and gentlemen, my
name is Edgar Waddell. What I would like to say is that plan B
interferes with me as well as' a lot of other people. Before I
ever bought where plan B is, I studied the situation carefully
because I knew in years to come they would four-lane US 1 and
when I bought land, I wanted it far enough off so when they ever
did four-lane it, if they did it in my lifetime, it wouldn't
interfere with me because noise interferes with me drastic trying
to sleep. I'm very sensitive to noise. So where did I buy? In
the middle of corridor B. Okay. To start with, I read the
newspaper every day but I have yet to see 'an -ad "land
manufactured". All I ever see is "land lost". Okay, what makes
more sense to me is follow existing highway as close as possible,
take the least land you can take, leave the rest of the people
alone--because you can take less land. I pay taxex. Everybody
else pays taxes. I'm willing to pay more taxes if I need to. If
it costs more-, fine. Everything else is costing us more. What's
the difference? Put it where it'll do everybody the most good.
And that's about all I wanted to say.
W. A. Garrett, Jr.: Thank you, sir.
Edgar Waddell: One more thing, I do have
388 signatures opposing plan B.
W. A. Garrett, Jr.: All right, sir. Thank
you.
Laura Younts: My name is Laura Younts.
As a teacher at Cameron Elementary Middle School, I, along with
many others, am concerned that alternatives B and D, improving
the existing US 1, are adjacent to Cameron School's football
field and school property. Alternative B, the corridor west of
the existing US 1, is approximately 1000 ft. from the school and
will have a diamond interchange with (inaudible). Four lanes of
major highways will cross over 24-27 with this diamond

-075-
`Xn_o_: C
STMT:. OF NORTIH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION;
V.
Plaintiff
PIERCE B. MEY, JR_ and W. DANIEL
PATE, Trustee,
Defendants.
FILE '99 CVS 916
7I-M GENERAL, COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT L. MORRIS
Analyzing the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for U.S. 1, TIP T R-210, in Lee
and Moore Counties. North Carolina
Robert L. Morris, after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Robert L. Morris, I am at least eighteen years of age and I am under no disability
which would preclude me from being a witness in a court of law.
2. I am a civil engineer and act as a consultant in transportation planning and traffic engineering.
I have been retained by counsel for the defendant in this case and have prepared this affidavit
at his request.
My qualifications are attached as Exhibit I and I incorporate them by reference herein.
Introduction
4. I have examined the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated 12/1195, for
NCDOT project TIP : R-210, the US l by-pass of Vass and Cameron in Moore and Lee
Counties, North Carolina.
5. The subject FEIS, contains serious flaws and otherwise lacks adequacy, especially in the way
it interprets the underlying data.
6. These serious flaws render the FEIS useless.
7. Despite the FEIS's flawed analyses, the underlying data make it clear that No-Build with
modifications and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) are feasible, satisfactory, and
more cost-effective alternatives.
8. Among the FEIS's flaws are:

-076-
Invalid traffic forecasts
* Improper traffic analyses
Misleading accident analyses
* Faiiure to analyze feasible alternatives
9. These flaws are discussed below.
Invalid tra le forecasts
Exagserated raw data
10. The invalidity of the traffic forecasts is readily apparent from a comparison of the assumed
1990 volumes with the actual 1990 volumes on US 1:
Lee Moore
0.3 mile north of Lee/Moore Line 0.3 mile north of S.R. 1825
FEIS (Ex I-2) 8,300 8,300
Actual (NCDOT) 4,400 6,200
11. If the FEIS had projected 2010 traffic volumes from the proper 1990 base counts, their
forecasts would have been substantially lower.
12. An examination ofNCDOTs annually-reported Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes in Lee
and Moore Counties, from 1979 through 1990, is illuminating. From 1979 through 1990
(the base year for the FEIS), Lee Countys annual growth rate was less than 1%, while Moore
County's rate was 3.4%. The FEIS uses the annual growth rate of 4.5% for both counties,
a 350% overstatement for Lee County, and a 32% overstatement for Moore County. The
table below shows the effects of the inflated 1990 base ADT and the inflated growth rates.
Moore County Forecast
Actual 1990 ADT, actual rate of increase
Actual 1990 ADT, NCDOT's rate of increase
NCDOT's 1990 ADT, actual rate of increase
NCDOT's 1990 ADT, NCDOT's rate of increase
Lee County Forecast
Actual 1990 ADT, actual rate of increase
Actual 1990 ADT, NCDOT's rate of increase
NCDOT's 1990 ADT, actual rate of increase
2
10,412
11,780
18,648
22,000
5,180
8,360
10,030

'? -077-
NCDOT's 1990 :CDT, NCDOT's rate of increase 16,700
13. Even with the exaggerated ADT, it remains inexpiicable as to why it would necessitate a four
lane by-pass. Transportation engineers generally consider a D level of service an acceptable
lower level of service for existing roads. An improved two-lane road could carrv the largest
NCDOT ADT (22,000) at a D level of service.
Missing Induced Growth Analysis
14. The FEIS utterly failed to address traffic growth induced by a new by-pass.
15. This failure to include induced traffic for the Build alternatives significantly distorts the
comparisons with the No-Build alternative.
16. Not orily does the FEIS fail to address induced traffic, it implies an induced decrease in traffic
contrary to all available information.(It is significant to note that the Build alternative would
add 6% to the distance, compared with No-Build (13.45 miles vs 12.64 miles), but the vehicle
miles of travel would purportedly increase by only 20/6 (225,871 vs 220,615)
(Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., "Cost Effectiveness," September 5, 1990, Table 2), implying negative
induced trips.)
17. The FEIS used the same projected traffic volumes for Build and No-Build alternatives,
ignoring the effect of induced traffic with new road construction. As noted on Page 3. of the
letter from H. Franklin Vick- to Marsh Smith, dated May 22, 1996, "The projected traffic
volumes developed during the long-range planning phase are applied to both the no-build and
build alternatives."
18. It has long been recognized in the traffic engineering and transportation planning professions
that new roads, and improvements to existing roads, generate trips that would not occur if
the improvements were not made.
19. The early classic textbook, "Traffic Engineering," by Matson, Smith and Hurd (1955), for
example, noted: "New and improved facilities create traffic in addition to that diverted from
existing facilities. Studies made on both old and new facilities show a substantial total
increase in traffic using both roads when the new facility is completed." (Page 637)
20. The Federal Highway Administration, in its 1974 "Guide for Forecasting Traffic on the
• Interstate System," noted: "When an existing route is paralleled by a much more attractive
highway such as a freeway, the total traffic on the two roads will be considerably greater than
that on the old road before the new one was opened." (Page A-35)
21. A study in California of 14 metropolitan areas found average increases of 6,400 induced
vehicle miles of travel per day for one additional lane-mile of new roads. The increases were
3
-078-
greatest in the larger metropolitan areas (Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Diego) and least in
small towns such as Chico, Redding and Visalia. The Average for the smaller towns tivas
approximately 3,500 inducerl vehicle miles of travel per tlay per lane-mile. ("Do New
Highways Generate Traffic?" by Mark Hansen, .4cce,,?,, University of California
Transportation Center, Fall 1995.)
22. Special Report 245 of the Transportation Research Board, "Expanding Metropolitan
Highways" (1995) notes:
Over time, by reducing travel time and improving the reliability of travel,
highway capacity additions can increase highway use by encouraging more
frequent trips, longer trips, and shims from other modes. (Page 219)_'
Highway capacity additions that improve access to developable land in
outlying areas of metropolitan regions can also induce increased highway use
by encouraging decentralized development that increases trip distances and
travel by automobile. (Page 221)
Appendix B to this report cites examples of induced travel, including:
The opening of the Maine Turnpike, U.S. Route 1, induced a 30%
increase in traffic in the corridor.
In California, a 10% increase in lane miles produced a 5-6% increase
in vehicle mites of travel.
Construction of the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways in
Connecticut induced a 10-25% increase in traffic over what would
have been expected as a result of normal growth.
23. The proposed 13 mile long four-cane by-pass would add 52 new lane-miles to the corridor.
Even using the more conservative induced-traffic factor (3,500 induced vehicle miles per lane
mile) results in an estimated 182,000 induced-vehicle miles per day-caused by the by-pass,
equivalent to 7,000 additional round trips up and down the corridor each clay.
Summary
24. The invalid traffic forecasts caused by exaggerated data and missing analyses cast serious
doubt on the usefulness and legal adequacy of the FEIS.
Im roper Traffic Analyses
25. The essential factors in making a traffic analysis are the numbers of vehicles -- volumes --
using the facility (a length of roadway or an intersection) and the capacity of the facility to
'? -079-
handle traffic.
26. The ratio of volume to capacity gives a measure of the quality of traffic flow, that is generally
expressed as level of service.
27. There are six levels of service, labeled A through F, with the highest auaiity represented by
A and the lowest quality - excessive congestion - by F.
2S. With new road construction. a C level of service is normally planned for.
29. There is no requirement, however, to improve existing roads to level of service C.
30. Level of service D is generally accepted as the lower limit for existing roads, though some
jurisdictions accept E or even F levels of service.
Inflated velocity forecasts
1. As noted above, the FEIS has failed to provide proper traffic volumes for analysis.
32. Likewise, the document has used improper data in determining capacity.
33. For the preferred Build-alternative, for example, it was assumed that the new road would be
a freeway with 70 mile per hour design speed, which would give it the highest. possible
capacity.
34. Yet the road would have numerous intersections (the FEIS shows 5 or 6, the
Hensley-Schmidt report' shows 11) - a gross violation of freeway standards.'-
From 1992 to 1993 there was a sudden increase in the ADT,
possibly reflecting different measurement technology. From 1993
to 1995, the growth rate was 5.5% per year in Lee and 2.1% in
Moore. The FEIS used the annual growth rate of approximately
4.5%.for both counties. This rate might be appropriate for the
long-term trend for Lee County, but it would clearly overstate
the forecast for Moore County, And, again, it is emphasized that
the growth rates must be applied to the proper 1990 base volumes.
Note that the FEIS was prepared in 1991, so that the best
available data would have been the actual 1990 counts shown
above.
See the "Traffic/Accident," Technical Memorandum, June 2,
1990.
It is of interest that in preparing a benefit-cost analysis,
the FEIS used a freeway to calculate the benefits but
at-grade intersections to calculate the costs.
5
-080-
35. And with at-grade, signalized intersections, the FEIS says that the average running speed in
'_010 during off-peak hours would be 60 miles per hour.
36. The peak hour average running speed would be 56 miles per hour. (FEIS, Page fl-25) (The
FEIS notes that one intersection would be grade-separated when the road is opened, and a
second intersection could be grade-separated by the year 2010.)
Lack of improved level of service
37. Both the FEIS and the Hensley-Schmidt report show level of service calculations for 2010.
38- Of the 11 at-grade intersections in Hensley-Schmidt, nine would operate at level of service
E or F without signalizations; with signalization, all I 1 intersections would operate at level
of service A or B. (FEIS, Table 11-5)
39. The FEIS maker almost the same finding for No Ruild: with signals, only one intersection
would operate at a level of service other than A or B. (FEIS, Table 1-1). (See below for
further discussion.)
40. Note that this is a "zero-sum" situation: with signalized intersections, if the cross roads are
favored to improve their levels of service, the average running speed on US 1 would decrease;
conversely, if the signals favor US 1, the cross roads' levels of service would deteriorate.
41. The intersections are too far apart to maintain progressive movement on US I with optimal
traffic flow through the road network..
42. Levels of service for intersections are calculated differently than for roadway segments. with
intersections, the critical factors are number of approach lanes, lane widths, volume of traffic
in each lane, and how the signal operates.
43. As noted above, all but one of the intersections on US 1 with No-Build would operate
at level of service A or B in 2010 if signalized, even with the inflated traffic forecasts
that were used in the FEIS.
44. The one exception is US 1 and SR 1853, which the FEIS says would operate at level -if
service F.
45. But in analyzing that intersection, a 41-second signal cycle was assumed by the preparers)
of the FEIS.
46. Of the 41 seconds, 6 seconds would not be available for traffic flow, as they would be for
yellow clearance time.
6
?` -081-
47. But 41 seconds is a very low cycle lent since typical cycle lengths range from 40 seconds
to 150 seconds.
48. If the cycle len,th were increased only to 90 seconds, the 6 seconds of vellow would reduce
the green time by less than 7%, compared with more than 14% lost green time with the 41
second cycle.
49. The capacity of the intersection, therefore , would be increased accordinszly.
Seriously Misleading CostBenefit Analysis
50. The FEIS benefit/cost analysis completeiv ignores another zero-sum reality.
51. The FEIS computes the benefits of the by-pass using a freeway-type by-pass (all
intersections grade-separated), yet computes cost based on a by-pass with at-grade
intersections - much cheaper to construct than a freeway. .
52. Such serious conceptual errors misinform the decision-maker. This alone renders the FEIS
inadequate and legally flawed.
Flawed Capacity Analysis _
53. The capacity of 'a road is a function of many factors, including lane widths, side clearances,
proportion of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream, percentage of no-passing zones, and
distribution of peak hour traffic.
54. It is impossible, or highly unlikely, that all segments of every cross road, and all segments of
US 1, would be identical with regard to these factors, yet, remarkably, the FEIS found all
cross roads of US 1 to be identical, resulting in identical capacities of 610 vehicles per hour
at "appropriate LOS (level of service)." (Page I-6, Table I-2; Page I-9; Page II-17, Table II-
4)
55. Likewise, for existing US 1, each of the 14 segments between SR 1180 and Little River,
according to the FEIS, is identical, resulting in identical capacities of 245 vehicles per hour
at "appropriate LOS." (Page I-5; Table I-1) -
56. And, as already noted, level of service D is generally considered acceptable for existing roads.
57. A further problem with the FEIS analysis of level of service for No-Build is the classification
of the terrain for US 1 as "Rolling Terrain."
7
-082-
5S. The Highway Capacity Manual' lists three types of terrain: level, rolling, and mountainous.
Use of the proper terrain classification can be critical in determining capacity.
Hensley-Schmidt ("Cost Effectiveness, September 5, 1990, page 12) describes US i with
"Vertical grades oft I percent throughout."
59. The Highway Capacity Manual ves the following definitions (page 1-6):
Level to in: Any combination of grades and horizontal and vertical alignment that
allows heave vehicles to maintain approximately the same speed as passenger cars:
this terrain generally includes short grades of no more than 1 to 2 percent.
Rollin; te. gin: Any combination of grades and horizontal and vertical alignment that
causes drivers of heavy vehicles to reduce speeds to substantially below those of
passenger cars, but does not require operation at crawl speeds for any signiacant
length of time.
60. It would seem that "level terrain" would be more appropriate for the No-Build alternative.
If the FEIS had done so, the capacity would have been increased by approximately 37%.
Misleadina?c???Pnt Anal ses
61. First; it is important to note that existing. US l has total accident, fatal aECident, and injury `
accident rates all below the rates for two-lane, undivided roads throughout North Carolina.
(FEIS, page I-11)
62. The rates in other parts of the country, cited by NCDOT, are irrelevant.
63. Indeed, a proper comparison of accidents between two alternatives would include all of the
accidents within the corridor, from the beginning of the project, near SR 1853, to the end of
the project at SR 1180.
64. In comparing accident data, the FEIS analysis of the Build alternative omitted the accidents
that would occur on the parallel US 1, which is an integral part of the corridor. (Tables II-7
and 1T-27)
65. Finally, it is neither reasonable nor proper to predict accidents by arbitrarily applying a
presumed rate to traffic volumes and length of roadway. (Hensley-Schmidt,
"Traffic/Accident," Tables 5 and 6). This uses traffic volume as the only variable, when, in

Special Report 209 of the Transportation Research Board,
1994
8
'? -083-
fact, sight distances (as affected by horizontal curves and grades, for example) and side
tnc'aons (as affected by frequent side roads and driveways, for example) play important roles
in accurate accident forecasts.
66. Using inflated traffic volumes, without applying all the proper criteria, misleadingly inflates
the number of predicted accidents.
67. If safety is an issue, as it most certainly should be, then NCDOT has an obligation to study
the high-accident locations on US l and find mitigating solutions, not simply build a new road
and ignore the problems.
Failure to Analyze Fea easibie Alternatives
68. The most logical and feasible alternative to a new road was dismissed out-of-hand by the
FEIS: Transportation Systems Management (TSM), combined with low-cost modification
to existing US 1.
69. Either the authors of the FEIS- are not familiar with successful TSMs, or they preferred to
ignore this alternative, setting it up as a straw man and then knocking it down in less than half
a dozen sentences.
70. No evaluation of a TSM, of any kind, in included in the FEIS.
71. It is rightly pointed out that capacity and safety are the fundamental issues.
72. Yet, remarkably, the FEIS, with its inflated forecasted volumes, shows that every interjection
on existing US-L except one when signaler would operate at level of service A or B in
2010.
73. And the one intersection falling below A and B levels can easily be improved, according to
the FEIS.
74. The preferred Build alternative would use the existing alignment of US 1 through that same
intersection (with SR 1853). _
75. -And that intersection would operate at level of service A in 2010.
76. . The same improvement could be made to that intersection as part of a TSM alternative, so
that a of the No-Build intersections would operate at level of service A or B, but the FEIS
does not reveal this, which misleads the decision maker.
9
?' -084-
77. On a road 12.64 miles long, such as existing US 1, with 14 intersections, the controiline
factor on capacity is the operation of the intersections, not the links between intersections."
78. Given the above set of facts, the FEIS has essentially made the case that capacity is not an
issue.
79. As far as safety is concerned, as noted above, the FEIS has bypassed the issue, with simplistic
use of arbitrary rates, applied to inflated traffic volumes.
80. The FEIS has not even identified high-accident locations, let alone offered solutions.
81. It assumes that nothing can be done, so the situation should be ignored and a new road should
be built.
82. A TSM alternative, with modifications to the existing US 1, would have many components,
including traffic reduction techniques.
81. Selected road widenings would provide opportunities for passing.
84. If the proportion of no-passing zones could be reduced to 50%, from the FEIS-assumed
100%0, the road's capacity could be increased by 16%.
85. Increasing lane widths from 11 feet to 12 feet and providing six-foot shoulders could increase.
capacity-be more than 300/c.
86. Although US 1 would operate acceptably in 2010 with only minimal improvements to one
intersection, TSM improvements would further facilitate traffic flow.
87. A TSM alterative would go beyond modest improvements to existing US 1 (which was the
limit of NCDOT's consideration).
88. Demand reduction techniques, which have been successful elsewhere, need to be evaluated.
89. These include the development of a data base to determine what proportion of the trips on
US 1 are local, (and to facilitate car- and van-pooling) and what proportion are through trips.
The Highway Capacity Manual states that link analysis "is
usually applied to highway sections of at least two
miles in length." (Page 8-7) The average link length
for US I No-Build would be 0.9 mile. Nevertheless, a
proper link analysis, using appropriate inputs, would
show that even the links would operate at acceptable
levels of service on existing US 1, even with the
inflated traffic forecasts.
10

?? -085-
90. With this information, park-and-ride lots could be provided at appropriate locations and a car-
and van-pool data base provided.
91. Flexible work hours and car-vanpool programs could be promoted among employers and
employees in the corridor and adjacent cities.
92. Alternate transportation modes might prove feasible, if appropriate data were collected.
93. However, the FEIS leaves the decision maker in the dark concerning the public transportation
alternative, because it was dismissed out of hand... as were numerous other reasonable and
feasible alternatives.
94. It should be noted that the FEIS did not respond to comments regarding possible use of the
rail line that parallels existing US 1 for its entire length.
95. There are many reasons why the FEIS should be rejected. If for no other reason, it should
be rejected because of failure to consider and properly evaluate the logical and feasible
alternative of TSM with modifications to existing US 1.
96. Further affiant sayeth naught.
This the day of October, 1999.
Robert L. Morris, afftant
Sworn to and subscribed
before me. This the _
day of , 1999.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
11

?? , -086-
ROBERT
Consultant in
Transportation Planning
a Traf==c =ngineering
P.O. Box 34230
Bethesda, Maryland 20827
301-299-6632
EDUCATION University o: 'far
Y-a•d, 3.5:, Civil =
?
ngineer
ng, 1949
University of
Maryland, M.S.Civil E
i
ng
neering, 1950
Johns Hopkins University, m.4.".
A., Liberal Arts, 1986
Universit
of B
y
altimore, J.D., Law, 1957
EXPERIENCE Head, 'Master Plan Section, Department of Pla
i
nn
ng,
Baltimore
Acting Assistant Commissioner of Traffic
Baltim
S
i
,
ore
en
or Planner - Transportation, Downtown Pro
gress,
Washington, D.C.
Vice President, Alan M.
Voorhees a Associates
PROFESSIONAL
ORGANIZATION Institute of Transportation Engineers - Fell
S
ow
American Society of Civil Engineers - Fellow
American Planni
ng Association - Member
American Institut
f
e o
Certified Planners - Charter Member
LECTURED AT American University
Catholic University
George Washington University
University of Maryland
University of Texas at Arlington
University of West Virginia
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Northern Virginia Community College
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Registered Professional Engineer
Delaware
Inactive status
Virginia Connecticut
Maryland Kentucky
Ohio New Jersey
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
Vermont
New York
Qualified as Expert Witness, Traffic and Transportation
Connecticut New Jersey
Delaware New York
District of Columbia North Carolina
Louisiana Ohio
Maine Pennsylvania
Maryland Texas
Michigan. Utah
New Hampshire Vermont
New Mexico
Virginia

-087-
Scbert i. Mcrris
RF-SPCNS=BLZ S%7D?=S
Downtown _rans=c_ =at_on , C,__`• _?' atior. and :+ccessi:ilitv
Bu:-falo, New :ork
Chicago, _11_^045
Clearwater, Ffcr_a
Fort Lauderdale, ?lor_da
Kansas C_tv, Missouri
:.ouisville, {e ntuckv
Salem, virc?aia
:alt Lake Ci`v, Utah
Rashington, D.C.
New Town Transportation ?fanning
CCII=tbia, M-argland
Fort Lincoln, D.C.
Germantown, Ka_-vland
Lysander, New York
Maumelle, Arkansas
?anther Valley, Pennsvlvania
Reston, Virginia
Soul City, North Carolina
West Valley, Ifliaois
Parking Studies
A-pzapolis
Charles Center, Baltimore
Downtown Baltimore
Inner Harbor, Baltimore
Chicago
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Louisville
Vanderbilt University
Washington, D.C.
Williamsport,.Pennsylvania
Shopping Center Traffic Planning
Various Locations in:
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
New York
Virginia
Pedestrian. Studies
Oklahoma City
Salt Lake City
Washington, D.C.

-088-
R03RR=
Respons4ble Scudies (Ccnt4nued)
Traffic ?larning Scudies
alts Church, t'ir ..ia
Ge =antown, Maryland
'arr=stown, ?ennsylvana
i
iudiciary Square, D.C.
Mat tawoman, Maryland
Montgomery viii age. Maryland
Traffic Impact studies
District of Columbia
Delaware
-Maryland
Baltimore City
Baltimore County
Calvert County
Carroll County
Charles County
Howard County
Montgomery County
Prince George's County
Massachusetts
New Jersey
North Carolina
Pennsylvania .
Virginia
z
Site Access Studies
Philadelphia Bicentennial
Washington Visitors' Center
Battery Park City
Southwest Washington Employment Area
Suitland, Maryland
Restaurant Access Studies
Burger Icing
Gino's
Hamburger Hamlet
La Potagerie
Le Steak
Marriott
Roy Rogers
Chancery Studies
Albania
Algeria France Philippines

Armenia Greece
Italy Saudi Arabia
S

Bahamas
Jamaica lovenia
Thailand
Bangladesh Japan Turkey
Eritrea
_
Malaysia

-Turkmenistan
.stonia Micronesia Kyrgyz Republic
Macedonia
Botswana
-089-
Ro-er= :.. uorr_s
Resmcrsirl_ (Cc„`_,uec)
:ICs=' t31 access st-z d4 es
-orcer-ilk`ns McA4 al -: sz_zu ions
Urivers_ tv
Veterans Ad^tj.^.4
Stx3tiC;1 ?2
DCC , '. ' __ Rock
tors aosmital, Wash" ncton , D C
C arlestCn, W. Va , `!edical .
:.enter
accident and Safety studies
Cornect_c-at
District of Columia
Wary I and
Pennsylvania
New York
Virginia
Transit Plann-; nq
Minibus in Downtown Washington
Columbia, Maryland
Bus Cirvulation Plan, Washington
Subway Alignment, Washington
Germantown Transit
Fairfax Minibus
=-270 Corridor
Highway Planning
Tray=4c Assignment, Jones Falls expressway
Major Arterial Plan, Baltimore
Gravity Model Analysis, Baltimore
Prince George's Freeway Analysis
Montgomery County ?i--te:ials
Environmental impacts
Connecticut
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin

`? -090-
Robert ?. Morris
?-`3L:=AT:CNS
Mcvov, ], , Walter Thabi
a' 30cer_ MOrrl "p°de
Wav Business Distr. _s,' -he A.ner_ _ s _ s -an
can C???, Marc.. l9Z
Voor^ees, Alan M. , and Robert • Morris, ....valuat_nc and ?orecas t:nc
Travel for Baltimore by Use of a Mathematical Mode
Hic_ hwa` Research Board Bu" g%- '
-?- - 22 4, 1059
Booth, James, and Robert L M
the ,u ° ,? °" -ransit versus :+uto Travel .
tare, Journal of in
Mav 1959 - e American Tnstit?-e of Planners,
Morris, Robert L., "Evaluat:n _
g the Requirements for a Downtown
Circulation System," Hichwav Research Board Bulletin 347,
1962 -
Morris, Robert L. and S. B. Zisman, "The ?edestr'ian, Downtown, and
the Planner," -
August 1962 Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
Morris, Robert L., "Automobiles, Rap4 d Transit and
the Fut;-_
American Motorist, September 1962
Morris, Robert L., "Traffic Considerations ? ;
Business D1Stricts•," _z= c Central
Traffic Engineering, June 1964. (As
Chairman of ITc__CQ=ittee 65-62 )
Morris, Robert L., "The Motor Veh'cle and Megalopolis U.S.A.,"
Law & Order, June 1965
Morris, Robert L. , »•r? ?
"The Na..t; _ona_ Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws
and Ordinances,,. Traffic Encineerin
g, March 1966
Morris, Robert L., "The Handsome Semaphore of London," Traffic
Engineering, August 1966
Morris, Robert L., "Pioneer Profile, William L. Potts," Traffic
Engineering, September 1966
Morris, Robert L., ..The Signals of San Francisco,,' Tra°=ic Encin-
eering, March 1967
Morris, Robert L., "J. W. Arch Bollong," Traffic Encineerinc,
June 1967
Morris, Robert L., "Why Malls?" T_a_° ric Engineering, 1
August 967
Morris, Robert L., "Downtown; Par- 1. The Pulse," Nation's Cities,
October 1967

-091-
Robert Mc_-_s
publications (Continued)
•'' cr--s, Robert ... *Do%.;_t3w_ Par
t ?.-t 5 Nervous
'
Nation's es, Nove.ber _ „wr ?vst_n,
.O,
Morris, Robert L.., 'The u _ Or
_
ncineer_nc November 1957 he renter
Morris, Robert L., "Downtown: part 1. The
Ci pedestrian," Vatio
'ties, December 1967 r. ;
Morr=s Robert ...,.
-7., -cans
portat:on ?l
^i
Research Board Record 293, 1969. ng for New Towns," Highway
.
Morris, Robert L., "Traffic Control," Nati n'
o s C_t:
es, January 1959
Morris, Robert L., "New Towns and Old Cities: Part•I '^ r
Th
of New Towns," Nation's Cities, April 1969 e `mpac?
Morris, Robert L., "New Towns and Old C' ties:
?a
-t
? 2
Cities -
.
Learn from
om New Town -Experienc
?"
' What Can the
e
Nation
May 1969 s Cities,
Morris, Robert
Coexist L., "New Towns and Old
Cities: Part 3.
"
Prospects fo

ence,
Nation's Cities, June
1969 r
Morris, Robert
Publi L., ..Transportation Planning
W f
or a New "
Communit
"
c orks, October
obe_ 1969 y,
Morris, Robert

Svst L., "Social Considerations of

"
Urban :anspo
"'_?
tation
ems
Numb ,
Transportation Encineerin
- -=
==
Journal, _
ASC".
volume 96
er 3, a gust
gust 970 ,
,
Morris, Robert L., "Sidewalks Are `.
t.ze City Nation's Cities,
A-aril 1971
Morris, Robert L., "Traffic Planning Considerations in Location of
C.B.D. Parking Facilities," Traffic Encineering, June 1971
(As Chairman of ITE.Committee 6U)
Morris, Robert L., "Changing Transportation Planning .oncepts „
Nation's Cities, April 1972
Morris' Robert "A Measure
? of Shopping i,. Center Trip Distribution
"
Trat-_ Engineering, October 1974
Morris, Robert L., "Transportation Problems of Urban America,"
F?earings before the Subcommittee on Transportation of the
Committee an Public works, U^ited States Senate, page 976,
Juiv 18, 1975

-092-
Robert :.. Mor__s
Pt l_cat_cns (Cont_nued)
Freeways ::e D Dcwntown?"
- :1at_cr s _ _es
Nove^.•,er !9-!:z
!!cC2 .. W. , W. a. S:.itpscn - Cohen,
,may^-_ sr
, G. . <in c, and `".crr:
-on-Red, vole me - • o S
Federal Hichwa - --na1 Technical Report,"
y yc^ti..ist_aticn, Mav _976
MOrr:5, Robert L. , ,Traf=
T -_C as a ='U=tion of SLp` 1
y a.... Demand, "
ra- c Cuarterly, Cctober 1977
*!orris, Robert L. , "AA Levels of
Votes Of aerv:ce on the Level?" Technical
:1st=tute o: T ansportation
Engineers, Mara 1978
Morris, Robert L., "Community Planning as a
` in the Conservation
of Transportation =ne_ '• ,. TO°i
'gyp paper delivered bef
American Association
Texas, 7 ,Tanua: ore the
lg7gfor the Advancement of Science, Houston,
:!orris, Robert L., Book review: "The Second Battle of New Orleans: A
History of the Vieux Ca_rre River= ont-Expressway Controversy"
by Richard 0. Baumbach, Jr. and William E. Borah, Journal
of the American °lannin Association, Octobe-
Morris, Robert L., "on -
Cammusication," Newsletter of t1he Washington,
D.C. Section of t'ze Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Winter 1982
Morns, Robert L., "Level of Service F," Newsletter of the Washington,
D.C. Section Oi the institute of Tr •,
Winter 1984 anspo_??_on Engine°rs,
i
Morris, Robert L., On Average Trip Generation Rates, Letter, IT:.
Journal, October 1986
-093-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORS
DEPA.11771"Y1ENT OF
TRANSPORTATION;
Plaintiff-,
V.
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR. and W. DANIEL
PATE, Trustee;
Defendants.
FR,E 99 C V S 916
THE GENERAL" COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF HOPE SULI. ANL
NOW COMES affiant, Hope Sullivan, who after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Hope Sullivan, I am at least eighteen years of age and I am under no disability
which would preclude me from being a witness.
2. I served as Director of planning for the Village of Pinehurst, which is the second most
populous municipality in Moore County, North Carolina, from August of 1996 until
September 17, 1999.
3. I have recently been hired to-serve as Principal Planner for Palm. Springs, California.
4. I have a Bachelor of Arts from Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.
- 5. I received a Master of Regional Planning degree from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel M1 in 1992. "
6. I have been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1993.
7. I have attended numerous continuing education seminars and courses to improve and keep
current my training as a planner.
SECONDARY EFFECTS
8. My training and continuing education as a planner has included evaluating development
impacts of human activities, such as the construction of roads and buildings.
9. These activities have direct effects, or direct impacts, on the environment, and such
activities will usually cause Secondary Effects.
10. New or improved roads almost invariably cause Secondary Effects.
11. One of the most notable cases in North Carolina occurred when the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) had to construct a new US Hwy 421 by-pass
around North Wilkesboro when the older US Hwy 421 by-pass became too congested by
traffic attendant to the strip development attracted by the older by-pass; in other words,
NCDOT had to by-pass the by-pass because of the Secondary Effects of the older by-pass.
12. Secondary Effects, also known as Indirect Effects and Secondary Impacts, are caused by a
proposed project and which occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other
1

?? -094-
effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth
rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including -^osvstems.
40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(b).
13. In other words, a Secondary Effect is an environmental effect of an action discussed in an
EIS caused by the action, but which is not directly caused by the action itself and which is
a foreseeable consequence of the action.
14. 1 NC AC 25.0603(6)(b) requires an EIS to contain an analysis of such effects.
15. The analysis of Secondary Effects in the 8210 FEIS lacks the detail needed to allow for a
meaningful evaluation.
16. For instance, the R210 FEIS contains numerous conclusory comments that do not appear
to be supported by any empirical analysis:
a. "In most cases, the construction of a roadway like U.S. I positively impacts the
future of the region as a whole."
b. "Growth most likely would result in positive socioeconomic impacts such as
increased tax base, new employment opportunities, and expanded cultural
opportunities."
C. "Yet, the potential for a positive impact would be greater under any of the Build
Alternatives, including Alternative A- the Preferred Alternative."
FEIS, pp. IV-90 through IV-91.
17. As an example of the unexamined nature of these comments, comment "b." above
forecasts "increased tax base" as one of R210's "positive socioeconomic impacts", but in
North Carolina the most prevalent type of land use change induced by new or expanded
roads is residential development in rural areas. While this type of development may
increase the tax base, it also increases the cost to county government ofproviding
services, thus producing a net tax loss unless property taxes are raised -- hardly a "positive
socioeconomic impact."
18. In the report attached as Exhibit 1, one fords an analysis of growth's fiscal impacts in
another North Carolina County, but which has general applicability to the rest of North
Carolina. The analysis concluded that "under existing levels of service, the existing
County tax base will have to subsidize new growth's demands for Countywide services."
Exhibit 1.
19. The other type of development that a new or expanded road attracts is highway
commercial.
20. Highway commercial development typically depends on high visibility to attract the
necessary number of customers, and highly visible highway commercial development often
adversely effects the aesthetics of the countryside within viewing distance of the new or
expanded road.
21. Moore County is especially vulnerable to adverse economic effects from such highway
commercial development, because the largest part of its economy is tourism dependent,
and diminishing aesthetic beauty can reasonably be expected to diminish the amount of
tourism dollars spent in Moore County.
22. Secondary Effects from 82.10 will adversely impact agriculture, which is a substantial part
of Moore County's economic base.
23. The FEIS did not evaluate either of these probable Secondary Effects of 8210; indeed, it
-095-
.
appeared to make the unreasoned and conciusory assumption that R210 would have
exactly the opposite effect.
INCONSISTENT WITH MOORS COUNTY LAND USE PLAIN
24. 8210 is inconsistent with Moore County's land use plan because 8210 cuts through 'Land
which Moore County has zoned rural agricultural (RA) or rural equestrian (RE).
25. Moore County is currently cooperating with NCDOT to adopt an updated transportation
plan with a goal of implementing the County's recently adopted land use plan.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
26. Cumulative impacts are those which result from the incremental impact of the action
evaluated in an EIS when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time. 40 CFR § 1508.7.
27. NCDOT plans other major road projects in the same geographic area and watershed --
four-laning US 1 to the South Carolina Line, the Fayetteville outer loop, four-laving of NC
Hwy 24/27 and four-inning NC Hwy 87, for example.
28. As detailed above in the Secondary Effects section, new or expanded roads will likeiv have
an adverse effect on agricultural and tourism - two key components of Moore County's
economic base - in Moore County, as well as adversely affecting environmental quality.
29. The more roads which are constructed or expanded, the greater these adverse effects will
be.
30. The FEIS contained absolutely no evaluation of such adverse impacts.
INDUCED TRAFFIC
31. Additional lane miles of new roadway in a given transportation corridor induce new
vehicle trips that would not otherwise have occurred.
32. Planners commonly refer to this phenomenon as "induced traffic", and it is a well
documented phenomenon among professional planners and traffic engineers, as
documented by Robert L. Morris in his affidavit. Morris Affidavit, Is 14-23.
33. Studies throughout the world have documented the induced traffic phenomenon, as
illustrated by the attached articles (Exhibits 2-4) by the Surface Transportation Policy
Project.
34. The articles report, among other things, that for each 1% increase in lane miles in a given
transportation corridor, one can expect traffic to increase by 0.9%.
3 5. The phenomenon of induced traffic has forced responsible planners to consider other
options to solve traffic congestion problems, because new or expanded roadways actually
cause the congestion that will, in a few years, obsolesce them.
36. Responsible planners often consider the measures suggested by the Town of Cameron in
its resolution opposing R210, which is attached as Exhibit 5.
37. The 8210 FEIS appeared to ignore such measures or eliminate them after only cursory
evaluation.
38. The R210 FEIS totally ignored the phenomenon of induced traffic, as evidenced by its use
?? -096-
of the same projected :CDT for the no-build alternative as for all of the buiid alternatives.
CONCLUSION
39. The following documents attached hereto as exhibits:
1. Evaluation of the costs of urban and non-urban services for New Hanover County,
North Carolina:
2. Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) article ?1;
3. STPP article 1,2,-
4. STPP article and
5. Resolution of the Town of Cameron in opposition to RZ 10.
4
'` -097-
40. Further atnant saveth naught.
This the day of September, 1999.
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the Z- 3 day of September, 1999.
Hv /t-
tare Public
My Commission Expires: My Commission Expires M-2004
Hbpe Sullivan.Afiant

5
-098-
F• . SSOCLATES, INC.
isc
• omi(
st of Urban and Nonurban
Services are Evaluated
The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County,
North Carolina hired TA to evaluate the fiscal
impact of providing public services in 1998 and
2010. Impacts were evaluated for Countywide
services (provided by New Hanover County), Ur.
ban services (provided by the City) and Nonurban
services (County provided service costs that de.
crease with a loss of unincorporated County). In
addition, for certain facilities and services, the
impact of a higher service level was evaluated,
Service Areas Evaluated
The impact of three geographic service areas was
aralyud. These three service areas are described
briefly below.
Both the ON and County benefit from
the Cin !froridinq Urban sern•ic•es
Coun"ide Countywide services art those ser-
vices which the County provides to all residents
of New Hanover. These services include Schools,
Community College, Human Services, General
Government. Libraries, Parks and certain court
related Shriff functions.
Nonurban: The Nonurban Service Area is com-
prised of those parts of the unincorporated county
TA Completes Innovative
!=kcal Equity Study
At the request of the Commission on Alternative
Futures. Shelby County, Tennessee contracted
with Tischler & Associates, Inc. (TA) to prepare
fiscal equity snidy. This study focuses on whethei
Cvrurnv sen•ite casts are reater
than faces paid 12Y City residents
City of Memphis residents and businesses that pal
County taus art: receiving commensurate Co
ezPenditutes. TA evaluated 16 public sernm.
(...corrtinurd.on page 4,
Twin Cities' Metro Council
Launches nation-Lea-ding
Regional Fiscal Impact Stuayr
St. Paul - The Metropolitan Council has given the
go-ahead for the first-of--its-kind Regional Fiscal
Impact Study. The study will analyze and com-
pare the public costs associated with current de.
velopment trends, as welt as more compact de-'
veloptnent encouraged under the Council's re-
gional groom PW (--continued on page 2)
Uttigtte regional fiscal impart
stttdr lattnc)red
(..wotttinued on page 2) 'Fnvm Metropolitan COuncil Press Releare
Fiscal Results in 1998 and 2010
Under Existing Levels of Service
$30.000
$20.000
20 o slo.ooo - ---•-. .-.-- _ ---
SO $1.442
Set 1998
--? -. 2010
(S 10.000) . .
(S10,tta) (58.7821
(520.000) --
Countywide . Nonurban Urban
Service Area Service Area Service Area

--------------------
..., Ti ER &
-099-
?:n

Wilmington / New Hanover County(...continued from page 1)
et are not receiving urban services from the City.
n: crazy for Nonurban services set Inc levels of
.crv;ce provided for Countywide services. The
cost to provide certain Sheriff services (patrol) and
General Government services (Planning and En-
;tncering) will decrease as the City provides
urban services to rapidly urbanizing parts of
the County.
ar paters :rill have to subsidize new
11t,tt•th's demand for Cvunn,ride services
Countywide Service Area
• The County's provision of current levels of
service to new growth results in net revenues
of S20.000 in 1998. A major reason is that there
are no major capital facilities constructed in
1998. In 2010. a net deficit of S 10.1 million is
generated. The debt service payment alone in
2010 for schools. community college, parks
and libraries are more than total rvenues gen-
erated From new growth.
Urban: The City of Wilmington. three proposed
annexation areas and an urbanized portion of the
County comprise the Urban Service Arts. The
services include General Government. Parks and
Recrcation. Roads. Fire. Poli= and Develooment
Services.
Fiscal Impact Results
The fiscal.impacts of providing services to the
Countywide, Nonurban and Urban service arras in
1998 and 2010 are shown in the chart on page 1.
Fiscal Impact Highlights
van Service-Area
• r.lthough the results for the Urban Service Area
are fiscally neutral in 1998. the analysis clearly
shows that in 2010 the City benefits from ex-
isting economies of scale that allow the provi-
sion of urban services to contiguous geogra-
phies. The individual service eras that com-
prise th, Urban Service Area generate com-
bined net revenues of 525.4 million in 2010.
Stunmary
•
Both the City and County benefit from the City
providing urban services in lieu of the
Nonurban services (certain Shen[T and Gen.
oral Government services) provided by the
County. One major reason is the cost econo-
mies from the City providing these same ,r-
vicrs previously provided by the County. The
second major reason is that although the
County no longer provides these Sheriff and
General Government services, it receives the
same tax revenue. thereby realizing a signiu-
ant cost savings of about S 1.4 million in 2010.
• The analysis shows that under earring levels
of servi= the existing County tax base will •
have to subsidize new growth's demands for
Countywide services.
Nonurban Service Area
• When it is assented that the County loses a
portion of it's tmintOcporared am (Phase L IL
and III annexation arm) to the City in 1998,
revenues of SIA million are generated.
• In 2010. the Nonarbaa - F
County generates a as
deficit of almost 58.7 deficit
would be about S I0.1 million if urban services
assumed provided by. the City were not ex-
Growth generates fiscal deficits
outside the City tended to an additional portion of the unincor.
porated County in 2010. The result of the
County no longer having to provide certain
services in this area results in cost savings of
$1.3 million in 2010.
Net Fiscal Results in '1998 and 2010
City and Urban Service Areas
$15.000
510.000
?
I
CL 55.501 Q 1998
$5.000 SZ 605 162 Mow S1.499 ! M 2010:
I
so (s)
u
(sts

Existing Phase I Phase 11 Phase III Urban
city Remainder
' Does not Deco" uroan sarvcs area wait 2010. i
The fiscal findings for the Countywide and
Nonurban Service Areas indicate the need for
New Hanover County to consider new sources
of revenue to subsidize new growtlL If addi-
tional sour= are not found. or existing sour=
increased. new growth in the County will be
subsidized by the existing development base.
A condnuuiaa of this trend could lead to de•
creased levels of service in the f=m
?` -100-
1VMqJPtAU1ESS
' me WII, Nndw 2
Munil 1998
From the Director's Choir
Do New Roads
Cause Congestion?
by Hank Dittmar, Executive Director
f you spend enough time
around people whose busi-
ness is transportation. soon
sooner even diverted air auality
or later you will hear two tru-
?: 'you Can't build your way
out of congestion" and "the era
of road building is over-it's now
time to manage what we've got."
Common sense supports both
sratemenM after all we have
more roads per capita than my
rieveloped nation and more con-
ion. These principles have
been cornerstones of STPP's
advocacy, for an IS"I'EA rend
that continues the original law's
emphasis on rehabilitation (Fix It
First!) and funds a more bal-
anced transportation system.
It would be a mistake to
believe that just because a loc of
transportation professionals
mouth these traisms, that the
transportation institutions they
inhabit have taken these lessons
to heat in much of Americo,
the vovernmental inkastructure
Can transportation remains dedi-
cated to buildin roads and co
the futile task of. g3ring to build
me's way out of congestion.
rom New Mexico t? Georgia,
Tansportation o?ei2ls are busy
,ning two lane roads
-...gh small towns and rural
yeas and planning and con-
?cting bypasses and loop roads
round cities and suburbs. in

Charlotte-Mecklenburg,
North Carolina, the DOT
funds to build part of its
outer bypass.
WG are snick in an era of
road buildint' (?ewe 1,
3RStiC[IdQ at cow
MMPor-tition fends don't bow
how to do invtbia else.
En'eeria? driven, developer
and road builder backed, chore
agenees use an.elaborate set.of
outdated mode-7 and design
standards to deliver oreordained
ofun aver the objection
of local ofB?d vr;?
ISTEA provided the tools for
?, bet all too many state
DOTs and Mrt 2 i,,•,..
Planning or
i913OMr1 these tools re will
cave to be forced upon these
agencies by an outraged dtizeaty
aV d empowered local offi i2L
Change is ocursing,
although it is painfully slow
Moray states and MPOs have
embraced the concept of trans-
portation choice. Across the
Atlantic, the British have been
remalting their transpormtion
policy, beginning under the
Major government and continu-
ing under the Blair government
The move to an "integrated
transport poilicy" was led by ad-
zen our: age over various road
building schemes, buttressed by
research demonstrating the flaws
in existing assumptions, and
characterized by a willingness to
consider new ways of delivering
transportation service, from pri-
vate sector involvement to
pedestrianizadon. Dozens of
road proposals have been
scrapped and the new
Department of Environment,
T=Volt and the Regions is
adopting a national road traffic
reduction plan.
This issue of Prvoretr ezarn-
ines the eme ng 2n, 'Cal evi-
dence that bui1, fno roads ener-
ates traffic. W_e also look at the
corollary: the move to a more
balanced set of transportation
choices can reduce con=rion
and ir'A !the local economy.
The next big challenge will be to
get the transportation establish-
ment to heed this evidence and
build it into their models and
assumptions. We would do well
to pay close attention to what's
happening in Great Britain.
n rV
4 ..
-101-
In this
Issue
ug9in9
Roads in
Nahanni
Praia
page 3
Induced
Thr4
page 4
Reduced
irorel
page 5
Pao -0yofCALTRANS
IT IN ?.Jfld It, They
Why we Can't build ourselves out of congestion
by Donald D. T_ Chen, S7TP Research A
Tanager
L
s4
pi"M CA?&
LG Jcc:u
buiid it, they will
e." This slogan is reas-
suring if you want to build a
baseball field. But for the high-
way engineer, it's a disaster. The
fact that so many new roads get
congested so quickly has long
baffled road builders whose goal
is to ease gridlock, not worsen it.
This phenomenon-often
called induced rr c-is well
known to the transportation sec-
tor. Studies on induced traffic in
the U.S. have been conducted
since the 1940s, and it is now
7defy acknowiedged that build
crag more roads does not relieve
con aon. Across .the Atfanac,
the British government is in the
midst of reinventing its transport
policy after its own =Pert panel
concluded that `induced travel
can and does o==-, Major
pop 4
ELn('inP included evidence that
"hale expanded road capacity
enables vehicles to travel faster,
tithe savings are wasted because
people drive more--so much
that on avenge, half the time
savings are lost in the short run
and Perhaps all in the long nin.
These ftndin have led UK
Transoort 1?Iinister av --
-an
to state -? `in Sn
that ?Tlre fact of the
matter is that we cannot tackle
our traffic proble 2s
.new reads.r --building
Despite this, induced traffic i
is
not given much weight in U S.
?Ponztton derision making.
In fact, many highway planners
Stz7I operate according to the
p?umption that building new
roads is an efr=ive way to
reduce congestion and even
clean up the air. Why the dis-
connect between what we )mow
and what we do;
Eariv research on induced
traffic calls into several cate-
gories, the most common of
which were studies ofspe•fic
routes and area-wide anaivses.
Many of the former, which
looked at newly built Highways
like the Merritt Parkwav in
Connecticut. the Maine
Turnpike, and the Dan Rvan and
Eisenhower ?resswavs in
Chico , concfuded that traffic
increased nrially-by about
30 percent nn rf+. M ..._
Turnpike _shortfv after the
roads wr.,..;P d. In the 1950s
and 1960s, these observations
were met with skepticism, partly
because of the inability to distin-
guish new traffic induced by
upanded capacity from redis-
tributed traffic, groom the
number of drivers, or responses
to land use changes.
In recent decades, empirical
research has improved, as more
studies have been designed
`dish== inducd true from
other Zrowth factors understand
system-wide impacts, and
improve the' reliability of data.
NeRrb all
that new roads generate new
traffic. Even the Federal
"14hway Administration found
evidence of this their recent
study of traffic in Milwaukee,
where researcher= estimated that
continued page 6
Si PP Progress • March 1993

0
-102-
i ney vv?lt ?t e i7-om-P,2 a .t
induced trzmc accounted for 11
-'= a of the area's traffic growth
be;we-_n 1963 and 1991.
T-ne strength of these find-
ings have led today's researchers
to be less concerned about
whether induced traffic exists,
and more focused on determin-
ing the magnitude of its imoa
One of the most comprehensive
new studies covers 30 urban
counties in California from 1973
to 1990. The authors, UC
Berkeley researchers Marie
Hansen and Yuanlin Huang,
found that at the metropolitan
level, every I% increase in new
lane-miles generates a 0.9%
increase in traffic over four
years.
Their findings also showed a
greater induced traffic effect on
the regional scale than on indi-
vidual highway segmer tr,, which
supports widely accepted theo-
ries about travel demand under
congested conditions. When
drivers perceive an increase in
either navel time or travel cost,
(e.g. because of gridlock, con-
struction detours, etc.), they typ-
ically cope by altering their
route, traveling at a different
time of day, switching to a differ-
ent mode, or traveling less.
,??ad 2RE . is expanded
near congested routes, the oppo-
site happens-drivers far and wide
will flock to the new facility ho
ing for reduced tt7vel times,
thereby increasing the total
amount of traffic in the region.
In spite of these gains, trans-
portation officials have failed to
apply new research findings to
decision .caking. For example,
evidence of induced traffic is
rarely used in travel modeling,
where it could have a big imaa
Modeling provides a forecast of
eafnc volumes-a major factor
determining roadway design,
how much a project costs, and
most iniportandy, whether it ge
?' bunlL Most models do-not
account for induced traffic
efFe_..a? a of the
=enhower-en assumption that
travel and vehicle use increased
only with nooulation and eco-
nomic growth-not
travel times
man By extension, model-
ers also believed that buildin
new roads had no effect of travel
demand.
-?hough these assum bons
have been thorer,si,i„ discredit-
ed. ??e h
mud. -While a
fea? planning agencies have tried
OJmprove. modeling techniques
by including dynamic factors,
such as land development and
alternative modes, the inclusion
of induced traffic is still quite
ram. ers icall do not
feed data on induced traffic and
lengthened trios back into their
models to de ne future traf-
fic voI??g to UC
Davis Chas Robert
Johnston and Raju Ceerfa, this
common practice under esti-
mates not only traffic levels, but
"SO Sons and travel costs,
and is therefore .`biased' in favor
of build alternatives."
Fortunately, many communi-
ties are deciding not to wait for
travel forecasters to-catch up
with the rest of the field. They
have parlayed the oppor??,
costs of building new roads
pop 6

n ? ?
-103-
towards more promising mea-
sures to manage congestion,
ct including a combination of cave!
demand management. pricing,
in incentives for taking transit,
wafldng and bicycling, and
selected road improvements.
Land use measures also play an
unportant role in reducing auto-
mobile dependence and conges-
tion. Studies have shown that
communities that are dense and
possess a mix of uses (residential,
commercial, civic, etc) exisibit
less automobile use. A recent
analysis of land use and trans-
portation in Portland, Oregon,
for example, found that house-
holds in low-density car-re iant
suburbs make roughly 7.7 vehicle
trips per dry when households
in dealer, transit-oriented neigh-
borhoods make 6.05 trips peT
day. This corresponds with
FHWA Director of Environment
and Planning Kevin Heanue's
observation that "as densities
decline, so do the opportunities
for malting non-motorized
trips ....the number of motorized
trips and probably trip lengths
go up_.."
Given these trends, it may
not be long before findings on
induced traffic become not on1),
widely accepted, but also widely
applied to decision making.
Metropolitan areas from Seattle
to Miami are now making plans
to build new pedestrian facilities,
bike lanes, and in some cases,
light rail lines to address worsen-
ing congestion-the types of pro-
jects for which the "if you build
it, they will come" siogan is
more hopeful than damning.
STPP Pragrtsi • Math 1995

xemove It And -
They ?1 D
W Will Asa ear
by building new roads 1sn t always th
by Jill Kruse. STPP Research Coordinator the answer
W1111 e induced travel has cl-" Accordi

countered the notion tha
i n
t engineer g to Londons chief
, "three
c
year; later the
ties can build th
had sti1I n
c
d s
of
ongestion, reduce
tnvel has
em ot returned to
i o ?
R
l level
erged to further challenge the .
esearchers
also found
tha
way local officials think about t when Part of
London's noto
i

road building. Whereas induced
travel is chara
" r
ous ring road,
the "
ring of steel," was dosed i
cterized as
build it
and ihev will come
" reduc
d n
1993
' traffic fell 40 percent, and
,
e
travel cakes
this one step further
i
" air Pollution dropped 15 percent.
London's
Hamm
w
th
remove it and they will
disappear" ersmith Bridge
provided further evidence when

lying in the face of c it was determined
incapable of
onven_
tional wisdom
, new
evidence ca
carrying its load of 30,000 vehi-
des a da
Th
shows h
at
closin roads can
l q.
e bridge was
dosed to all tr
ffi
e
iminate f.,
- ? A British study, a
c etcept buses
and cyclists
i

due for release this month, is
2d s
nce I
London's T an February,
nnsport de
y creating a buzz in trans-
tittles
Th
- partment
surveyed
People who used the
.
e stu
found that clos bridge a few drys befo it
re
ing
s actua ly
cuts driving` The research dosed, and then contacted the

team anal
yzed 60 cases world- same
people in the week foIlow-
ing the clos

wide where roads were closed, or
their ability to carr
, t
ffi ure. Of the com-
muters who used the bridge to
ra
y
c was
re
reduced. ?
Or avers e
20
crc
get to work, som

e switched to
b
,
ent
P
of the traffic vanished wh pu
lic
transit and others
chose co
en a
road was closed. In some walk or bike. Overafl
' 21 Per-
cases, cent no longer

an
astonis
lrivin lung 60 percent of the

g cps disa
e
d ve to work.

And remarkably, congestion in Sm Fm,,w
rbe -
a""""°!-'-f -how ZwkM
?'
C=ZQa
pp
are
.
But where does the traffic
go.
zr the surrounding
g areas has not
markedly increased
argtunent that new
roads hel

nile transportation planning
?od
i

interim
?ort by the p to
revitalize ue lected a
?' -ne
c
s would
usume that traffic
-ill shift o British Standing
Adv
isory report sugn
that roads
d
nto other roads and
ru Committe? on T
rurik Road eed to rind ;r,bs i
into areas
st con gestion elsewhere
, Assessment (SAC I A
o
? °.f unemolovm nt can
OG1? now posit that in many
ses i es one
? g
see
Further, concluding that instead result in fewer
er emoloy-
t actually disappears.
Due to structural
robl closing roads in cirv centers can
b inept opportunities and that
closing roads
p
ems,
;wer Bridge in London was oost the lost econo _---?

that converse! ' nd can create down
_
town lobs.
red in 1994 and became a lead to iob losses Aoads can
s
t
ritish
B officials are increas-
ample of "reduced tray- e
out to investigate the ag? ingly disenchanted by the idea of
dro
---------- _
Mnunued page 7
'109rris • hiv"h 1998
`l n 1 PQ9e S
-104-
11
e Will Disa ei_ fr p
orn age ?
huilding more roads. A Pro-
sed 1999 Road
maior change in traffic patterns, Instead of
TnEBc
Reduction Bill would require the like a road closure, the hostile, dud-end
appears co be environment, the bavside now
Government co cut cailrc levels the 8ezibility of the transorn- boasts
an inviQn9 promenade,
ystem, study Commuters,
up co 10% by 2010, get [nude British system.'
in the bathed in light. Aleny
travel improve-
of the roads and boost public had a variety of ments followed the freeway's -"ansport, cycling and walking. Options co indu choose from, demise, includin
citizens and local officials are or working public g the placement
transit, walking, of historical markers alon
calling for large scale changes ng from home. I'he wate g the
study dernony?tes _ rfrvnt• an overhaul of the
also, including the pedestrianize- that a ba!- c t n of Parliament Square and a ced approach to Building Depot to serve as
planning not only transportation an ry interMocial hub
Trafalgar Square, better serves a light ' installation of
and e=panded its citizens, but nil line, and a boom in rs_
Public transit. Tne British goy- improved meows for idential and comm
ernment is poised co change its ?affic rnana ?? ac?vity.
gemeac In Portland, Oregon, citizens
transport poGry, as new studies In 1989' the Lorna Prieta made a conscious decision to
continue to shake up toppled San reclaim
don tnnsporta- Francisco's Embaradero the rsverfront from
Planning models. Harbor Drive, a six-Iay
Here in the U.S Freeway. The citizens and local abutting
U.S., evidence of °fE? decided not to rebuild the the rive- In Place ofreewa
reduced travel has surfaced, but it-d freeway, a 37-acre waterfront
it has been met with ske a ' ap=m the cries of impend- park was built and now hosts
or ignored entirely. p ?' mg doom. Although en
-r.. U.S. around the B gravers everts throughout the year,
equivalent of SAG'I RA, a tom- tuff c ay Area predicted a attracting citizens and tourists to
'tee .of the Transportation disaster • the chaos never
what is Proudly ref
materialized, S. "Portland's backyard.- erred as
'ate Board, made the deci- when the Yard-" Ba ecause
sion to exclude empirical evi_ upp even ?-of San years later, of the hard'wcrk of the citizens,
deuce of road closures and trzfBc Prams unstable Central downtown is a d
recaray was fora down, loaf li estination. The
calming in their 1995 report, officials again ght rail system is a testament to
c=parading M?polisarr Higbet Predicted a grim the success of downto
If they had considered such ev? Picture for Bay Area ?? But bons; as its wn's attrac-
i- once mo erves a higher rider-
dence they would have found rialized more, gridlock never mate- ship on the weekends than dur-
stories such as the West Side 'prompting citizens and ing the wed
Hi hwa local oEliciais to all for its com- a3' rush.
g y in New York City. Plate removal. Many local officials have
In 1973, one section of the P A stark lesson found that deetdng road
Highway coIla ed emerged from both inddeaq capacity and
Ps , resulting in namely the =! oention of the for public transit, wallansit, wal i options
the closure of most of the route, h
In I976 NYDOT did a freeway's importance is the bikin are g, and
he remaining portion of high- trans
In the portation system, cities. As cities-around rejuvenating the world
-
"aY Traffic counts ulcer three case of the wrestle with titan
'ears before the closure and two ?barcadero Freewa g traffic conges_
Y, people also under tion, evidence of reduced travel
esti
ears after revealed that 53 per- mated how the city helps show
would transorm once it was that a balanced, equi_
tnt of the trips disappeared, and crated fromEthe concrete b lib- table
Lem is the most effective
F chose trips, 93 percent did not Once shrouded in natter. lutzon.
:appear elsewhere-only seven darlmess and
:rcenc of the lost rnfiic was noise, downtown San Francisco's
now-exposed waterfront has
For more iaiorm"jon on indoad and
onto parallel roads. enjoyed a revival ever since the redoced tmyeL our
1 :,e ke•r? to accommodating a concrete structure please see . bibGog-
came down, mph r on page 4.
P'og?ets • Mach 1998
pogo 1
-105-
RESOLUTION APPOSING THE PRESENT ROU'^IVG OF THE ,
THE US f? B?-PASS
WHEREAS, the Town
State of North CarolinainCtherOn' a munici
°
near US :i1 hwa coUgunlty Pality in the
g y #1 (hereinafter " Of Moore is located
WHEREAS, )? and,
clean the - -own °f Cameron p a
environment, high quality r-des itself for having a
and qualities commonly associatedf lime' and other benefits
municipalities, and, with'smaller rural
WHEREAS, the North Carolina
(hereinafter -NCDOT• ) plans to lpar..m nt of Transportation
consume hundreds of acres build a USI b
wetlands, and wildlife habifatoods, high qualit Pass that will
p farmland,
and,
WHEREAS, the Town of
within the proposed re-routfnero has drinking water wells
g Zone,, and,
WHEREAS, NCDOT has at few
managing the traffic in a manner suitable to
route of US1 such as, . if any alternatives for
. the present
1) An improved two. lane
bed of USI with slow highway in the existing road
turn lanes at
Points traffic turn outs at various 2 leveling at dangero intersections
us , and/or
) Assistance with c intersections; grade
31 Purchase of develcr and van pools;
route of USI outsideent rights along the
prevent increased conof existin Present
9estion g town limits to
deve:--pment in rural areas" from more intensive
and,
WHEREAS, NCDOT's Present
US1 will Cameron's r lladversely l ePlans for ,-routing
affect a the outing and tour
laning reasons, quality a for of life that
the e aforementioned
-NOW, pbpecit hereby, resolved
strongly o s NCDOT s that the Town of Cameron
existing USI r,d XCDOT Plans to re-route vigorousl things: I' urges NCDOT and tour lane the
to do the following l? I 1) UtiI - the present ro
2) ImPi''. "e the existin ute of US1;
turr,:::lts, turn-lanes two lane USI with slow vehicle
3) Avoi. four laning USland grade leveling:
4) Prot':, *:e for the purchase of development rights from
wil: ; ;,q Property owners ad
in order to a jacent to the m
duce increased traffic" present US1
5) Provide assistance for users of and,
car avid van pools. U.
who wish to use

-106-
This the 6th day of Harch, 1996.
Town of Cameron
c
Isabel HcIC?ithen Tham&8,
Mayor
Carol Lucas, Town clerk

-107-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION:
Plaintiff.
V.
PIERCE B. MBY, JR and W. DANUL
PATE, Trustee;
Defendants
FILE -99 C V S 916
TrM GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF DENNI TS STEW-ART
NOW COMES aftiant, Dennis Stewart, who after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Dennis Stewart, I am at least eighteen years of age and I am under no
disability which would preclude me from being a witness in a court of law.
2. I worked for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) for 12 years
and, in the early 1990s I served as the Manager of WRC's Habitat Conservation Program.
3. In this position, I served as WRC's principal reviewer of environmental documents, such
as environmental. impact statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA), that
other agencies promulgated and submitted through the State Clearinghouse for review and
comment.
4. I worked for the WRC from 1982 to March of 1994 and either reviewed or coordinated a
review for environmental documents on WRC's behalf for the majority of this time.
5. In my position as a reviewer of environmental documents I reviewed numerous
environmental documents prepared for or by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT).
6. I reviewed the Draft EIS (DEIS) for 8210 and my comments, which are attached hereto
as Exhibit 1, were submitted through the normal channels.
7. I did not comment on the Final EIS (FEIS) on R210 because I had left WRC for a position
with the US Fish & Wildlife Service by the time the FEIS was submitted for review and
comment.
STATE LISTED SPECIES
North Carolina maintains a list of species of plants and animals that are provided certain
protections under the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Wildlife Species of
Special Concern legislation, NCGS §§ t 13-331 to 337, and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act, NCGS §§ 106-202.12 to 202.22 -- so-called "state listed species."
Some of these state listed species also appear on federal lists of species prepared and
maintained pursuant to federal law (Endangered Species Act of 1973), but some species
appear only on the North Carolina list.

-108-
10. State listed species that aren't federally iisted constitute an important and valuable part of
North Carolina's natural heritage.
11. Whiie the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ?`NEP) supplies NCDOT with lists of
state listed species that may occur in a proposed project's area, these lists don't constitute
a survey of the project area for state listed species.
12. Such a survey is needed in order to adequately describe the impacts of a proposed project.
13. Without such surveys, many state-listed species are likely to have been and to continue to
be destroyed without such an impact ever being evaluated by environmental documents.
14. NCDOT was reluctant to send its personnel or contractors to search a project area for
state listed species, even when there was the potential in the project area for many state
listed species to occur and when there existed no evidence of surveys for said species ever
being done, as Michael P. Schafale observed in a 2/9/90 letter to NCDOT's consultant.
FEIS, p. D-11.
15. 1 do not recall either NCDOT or its contractors ever searching for state listed species that
were not also federally listed as part of preparing an EIS during my tenure with the WRC.
16. Impacts to state listed species are environmental consequences required to be evaluated
pursuant to 1 NCAC 25.0603(6).
MITIGATION
17. 8210 will destroy between 75 and 124 acres of wetlands, mostly at crossings of Little
River, Crane Creek Little Crane Creek and their tributaries, according to the memo from
me (Dennis L. Stewart) to Melba McGee. FEI.S, p. D-23.1.
18. NCDOT is usually required to mitigate for wetland impacts, through permit conditions
under § 404 of the federal Cleatr Water Act.
19. Mitigation can include protection or enhancement of existing wetlands, restoration of
drained wetlands, or creation of wetlands.
20. NCDOT does not normally evaluate wetland mitigation in its EIS's.
21. In the past, NCDOT's EISs contain language indicating that it will avoid wetland impacts
when possible and mitigate for the losses when they are unavoidable. Such statements,
while stating an intent to mitigate, do not constitute a mitigation plan subject to
meaningful evaluation.
22. A mitigation plan should, at a minimum, include location of the mitigation area in relation
to the destroyed or degraded wetlands and the way in which the mitigation will protect,
restore, or create wetlands to mitigate for losses caused by a project.
23. NCDOT often mitigates for wetland impacts using a mitigation site remote from the area
where the wetland damage occurs, which, while better than no mitigation, leaves the
project area without benefit of mitigation upon implementation of the proposed project.
24. Without such evaluation in an environmental document the public never gets to comment
on the suitability of a mitigation plan during the NEPA/NCEPA review process and a
mitigation plan's cost does not get figured into any benefit/cost analysis done in an
environmental document.
25. Appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the alternatives must be analyzed
pursuant to I NCAC 25.0603(4)(d).
2
-109-
SEGiVMNTATION
26. NCDOT often plans a number of related actions -- such as four-laning US 1 from
Henderson to the South Carolina Line - but nearly always decides to prepare impact
statements on each action individually rather than prepare an impact statement on the
entire group.
27. This decision creates a "segmentation" or "piecemealing" problem.
28. A common example is a highway planned to connect two cities which the highway agency
divides into two segments. It then prepares an EIS covering only the first segment, which
does not create environmental problems. The second segment does create environmental
problems because, for example, it goes through a wilderness area. An objection may be
made that by preparing an EIS only on the first segment of the highway, the agency has
committed itself to a continuation of the highway through the wilderness area. If both
segments of the highway had been considered together, the cumulative impact of the
highway on the wilderness area could have been considered as could the location of the
highway away from the wilderness area or the use of a primary alternative such as a rail
tine. In such an example, the segmented EISs have allowed the highway agency to subvert
the purpose for preparing EISs in the first place.
29. In the case of US 1, other segments of US 1 that have had little direct impact on the
environment have been completed, such as the segments from just south of Raleigh to just
north of Sanford, where most of the right of way for four-laning was obtained years ago
and where most of the right of way was already prepared for a four-lane facility.
30. However, sensitive segments, such as 8210, have been saved for late in the process.
31. The smaller scope of the R210 EIS hides the impacts which the entire project will have
and prevents or frustrates the consideration of broader alternatives that could conceivably
obviate the need for the project.
32. An adequate alternatives analysis is the heart of an EIS and is required pursuant to I
NCAC 25.0603(4).
SECONDARY EFFECTS
33. Secondary effects, also known as Indirect Effects and Secondary Impacts, are caused by a
proposed project and which occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other
effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth
rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(b).
34. In other words, a secondary effect is an environmental effect of an action discussed in an
EIS caused by the action that is not directly caused by the action itself, but which is a
foreseeable consequence of the action.
35. 1 NCAC 25.0603(6)(b) requires an EIS to contain an analysis of such effects.
36. NCDOT, in past environmental documents with which I'm familiar, did not evaluate
secondary or indirect effects of new or enlarged roads as a standard practice.
37. Typically, NCDOT claimed at that time, since it's up to the county and municipal zoning
authorities to control land use, NCDOT doesn't have to evaluate any changes that a new
or enlarged road may cause.
3
`. -110-
8. The evaluation of secondary effects in the R-1 10 DEIS is not susceptible to meaningful
evaluation, and the FEIS's evaluation of secondary effects is essentially unchanged from
the one found in the DEIS.
39. Additionally, the 8210 FEIS contains numerous conclusory comments that do not appear
to be supported by any empirical analysis:
a. "In most case, the construction of a roadway like U.S. I oositively impacts the
future of the region as a whole."
b. "Growth most likely would result in positive socioeconomic impacts such as
increased tax base, new employment opportunities, and expanded culturai
opportunities."
C. "Yet, the potential for a positive impact would be greater under any of the Build
Alternatives, including Alternative A, the Preferred Alternative."
F`EIS, pp. IV-90 through 91.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
40. Cumulative impacts are those which result from the incremental impact of the action
evaluated in an EIS when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively signi$cant
actions taking place over a period of time. 40 CFR § 1508.7.
41. NCDOT plans other major road projects in the same geographic area and watershed -- the
Fayetteville outer loop, the four-Ianing of NC Hwy 24/27 and NC Hwy 87, for example.
42. However the FEIS contains no analysis of the cumulative impacts of these projects on the
environment, although 1 NCAC 25.0603(6)(c) requires such an analysis.
43. Further affiant sayeth naught.
CONCLUSION
L-t'4 -
This the _ day of October, 1999.
Dennis Stewart, Af5ant
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the r day of O ober, 1999.
Njotary Publi I
My Commission Expires. Xo q LM-L-a?

38. The evaluation of secondary effects in the 8210 DEIS is not susceptible to meaningful
evaiuation, and the FEIS's evaluation of secondary effects is essentially unchanged from
the one found in the DEIS.
39. :additionally, the R Z 10 FEIS contains numerous conclusory comments that do not appear
to be supported by any empirical analysis:
a. "In most case, the construction of a roadwav like U.S. 1 positiveiv impacts the
future of the region as a whole."
b. "Growth most likely would result in positive socioeconomic impacts such as
increased tax base, new employment opportunities, and expanded cultural
opportunities."
C. "Yet, the potential for a positive impact would be greater under any of the Build
Alternatives, including Alternative A, the Preferred Alternative."
FFJS, pp. IV-90 through 91.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
40. Cumulative impacts are those which result from the incremental impact of the action
evaluated in an EIS when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time. 40 CFR § 1508.7.
41. NCDOT plans other major road projects in the same geographic area and watershed -- the
Fayetteville outer loop, the four-laning of NC Hwy 24/27 and NC Hwy 87, for example.
42. However the FEIS contains no analysis of the cumulative impacts of these projects on the
environment, although 1 NCAC 25.0603(6)(c) requires such an analysis.
43. Further affiant sayeth naught.
CONCLUSION
This the 4 - day of October, 1999.
&A4?, 4&? -
11 Dennis Stewart, Affiant
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the r day of 0 ober, 1999.
"r\ ? `,
Notary
My Commission Expires: ?a 'r i 2-00 o
4
\ -112-

DEC 1991 --
?
?
7Z r. -;
OPC_
,r
CCA ?yl
?

_\,q'ortiH Carolina Wife Resources Corn= sion
;12 N. Saiiscu"i S--e=, Norm CarcUm 1'7604-1188, 919-733-3391
C=aries tZ ullwoor, aceeunve Director
M E MORIA-NDL-M
TO: Melba McGee, DEH R
Division of Planning and Assessment
'ROM: Dennis L. Stewart, Manager
habitat Conservation Program /
DATE: November 5, 1991
SUBj-zCT: Administrative Action Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for US 1, Lee and Moore Counties, North
Carolina. State Project No. 6.569001T, T.I.P. No.
(R-210).
The subject document was reviewed by professional biologists
on the Wildlife Resources Commission staff and a field review was
conducted on 29 October 1991. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
The proposed project involves construction of approximately
12 miles of 4 lane highway, starting at the existing four lanes
at S.R. 1853 at Lakeview to the existing four lanes at S.R. 1180
south of Sanford. Five alternative routes are described-and
addressed in the document. These range from constructing the
highway along a completely new corridor to using up to 9 miles of
the existing highway corridor. All alternatives include a bypass
of the Town of Vass. The Wildlife Resources Commission will,"in
general, prefer an alternative which utilizes the existing
corridor to the greatest extent possible.
v
.7
Based on observations made during our site visit and
?`_ollowing a thorough review of the subject document, NCWRC found
the DEIS to be grossly deficient in covering rare, threatened and
endangered species impacts and impacts to wetlands. Most
disturbing was a sentence regarding the endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker (p. III-47) that states, "...required critical habitat
is not presently available within the study area or within the
adjacent one-half mile area.' Wildlife Commission biologists are
aware of at least two cavity t=ees within 100 ft. of the Jexistinc
highway. One has three remnant cavities while the otner has a
D-23.1
? -113-
- %C
? r?
memo .ace _
:nber ", _cc
IN -
well-developed cavity with evidence ezf recent activity. A local
resident told us there were additional cavity trees in the area.
A casual drive-throuch reveals the presence of many mature mine
stands in the region which constit•.:tes potential red-cockaded
nesting and foraging habitat. An in depth studv to evaluate -he
presence of pi.-.e habitats and the associated impacts to red-
cockaded woodpeckers should be redone to allow a for a thoreuch
analysis and ccmparison among corridcr alternatives.
.k1so of concern to this agency are the impacts of the
proposed protect to wetlands. Sixty wetland sits lving in one or
more of the prcmosec corridors were identified in the DE=S.
xpected wetland I=P_acZs range from 75 to :24 acres, depending an
the alternative chosen. Most wetland impacts will be at
crossings of Little River,. Crane Creek, Little Crane Creek and
their tributaries. This agency seeks assurance that every e fort
will be made to avoid or minimize wetland impacts before other
mitigative methods are employed. This would include minimizing
the amount of wetland fill and the spanning of wetlands, where-
ammropriate, to avoid wetland degradation.
There will be major impacts to fore-sted lands, ac r-icultT.ira?
lands, wetlands, floodplains, stream quality, and, potentially,
endangered species, as a result of this project. As stated
previously the doc,.zment is deficient with regard to surveys for
and expected impacts to endangered, threatened, and special
concern, species... One statement in the Environmental Consequences
section clearly identifies the cursory treatment given to
_mrotected species:
As a result cf this lack of suitable habitat both
at this site and elsewhere in the ;study area, it was
concluded that the species [red-cockaded woodpecker3
is not supported in the proposed project area. This
conclusion was substantiated by the fact that, no
woodpeckers were observed during the field survey.
(Page'IV-81)
NCWRC is of the opinion that the field survey (two days) was not
adequate to appropriately address the existence of rare,
threatened and endangered species and their habitats.
Additionally, the lack of a sighting (ie.,.red-cockaded
woodpeckers) in no way "substantiates" a conclusion drawn from a
?o study of aerial photographs. The proper time for in depth
surveys is before a single alternative is chosen so that the
presence or absence of significant resources may be weighed in
the decision making process. In the study of rare species, we
can never be absolutely certain that a species is absent, but a
reasonable effort must be made to determine such.
Due to the above-mentioned deficiencies and in light of the
fact that cavity trees of the red-cockaded woodpecker are known
to occur on the aroject site, we recommend that a subsequent
draft or major amendments to t`:is DEIS be prepared. Regardless
D-23.2
?? -114-
Memo Pace veneer
of improveme. ?s which may be :wade in the drat or final this
agency is not likely to concur with a Finding of No Significant
Impact due to the extensive and irreparable loss c° uciand and
wetland wildlife habitat, degradation cf stream quality, impacts
to ficodplain values, and potent=al impacts to threatened
endancered specJes twat wi_' occur as a result of ti 4 s pro-- ec- .
Thank you for the opporzun=tv tc review and comment on t6,;
..-s
DDS. we can provide further assistance please advise.
CC: Stephen Pczzanghera, zac-tat Conservation 3ioloc'_st
{en K. _c:.t, District o Wildl_fe Biolccist
?ar''v :?arlic?c, District 5 Wildl..e Biolocist
i
1
0
o
t
w
D-23.3

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTvIENT OF
TRANSPORTATION;
Plaintiff.
v.
FILE -199 C V S 916
i HE GENER-AL. COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF STEPHEN H.-%.LL
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR. and W. DANIEL
PATE, Trustee;
Defendants.
NOW COMES affiant, Stephen Hall, who after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Stephen Hall, I am at least eighteen years of age and I am under no disability
which would preclude me from being a witness.
2. I work for the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation ("the Division") as a
principal reviewer of environmental documents ("ED"s), such as environmental impact
statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA), that other agencies promulgate
and submit through the State.Clearinghouse for review and comment.
3. In 1987 I received a PhD. from the University of North Carolina in Biology and, for two
years thereafter, served as a visiting lecturer in the University's Biology Department.
4. I have worked for the Division on a full-time basis since 1990, having served as an
independent contractor for the division prior to 1990.
5. In my position as a reviewer of EDs I have reviewed numerous environmental documents
prepared for or by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
STATE LISTED SPECIES
6. North Carolina maintains a list of species of plants and animals that are provided certain
protections under the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Wildlife Species of
Special Concern legislation, NCGS §§ 113-331 to 337, and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act, NCGS §§ 106-202.12 to 202.22 -- so-called "state listed species."
7. Some of these state listed species also appear on federal lists of species prepared and
maintained pursuant to federal law (Endangered Species Act of 1973), but some species
appear only on the North Carolina list.
8. State listed species that aren't federally listed constitute an important and valuable part of
North Carolina's natural heritage, and an adverse effect on such species clearly constitutes
an "impact".
9. NCDOT consistently refuses to search for state listed species that aren't federally listed
when preparing EDs.
10. While the KH? supplies NCDOT with lists of state listed species that may occur in a
proposed project's area, these lists don't constitute a survey of the project area for state
-116-
listed species.
1 1. Such a survey is needed in order to adequately describe the impacts of a proposed projec:.
I Without such surveys, many state-listed species are likely to have been and to continue to
be destroyed without such an impact ever being evaluated by environmental documents.
!3. NCDOT seldom, if ever, has its personnel or contractors search a project area for state
listed species.
1-11. Even though the project area potentially has many state listed species, there exists ro
evidence of surveys for said species ever being done, as Michael P. Schafale observed in a
2/9/90 letter to NCDOT's consultant. rE,S, p. D-11.
15. In the FEIS for 8310, for example, it's apparent from statements on-pp. III-+3 through
III-51 that NCDOT and its contractor searched for only federally protected Endangered
and Threatened species.
16. The FEIS also only discusses searching for federally listed Threatened or Endangered
species. FEIS, P. IV-72.
17. Table IV-13 on pp. IV-64 through IV-71 lists slightly over fifty state listed and federally
listed species repeatedly and states that the species listed in Table IV-13 "may occur
within the study area" for 35 of the 53 species in the table, but there is no evidence that
either NCDOT or its contractor(s) searched for any of the state listed species that did not
have the federal status of Threatened or Endangered.
MITIGATION
18. 8210 will destroy between 75 and 124 acres of wetlands, mostly at crossings of Little
River, Crane Creek- Little Crane Creek and their tributaries, according to the memo from
Dennis L. Stewart to Melba McGee. FEIS, p. D-23.1.
19. NCDOT is required to mitigate for wetland impacts by the federal Clean Water Act.
20. Mitigation can include protection or enhancement of existing wetlands, restoration of
drained wetlands, or creation of wetlands.
21. When NCDOT evaluates the need for wetland mitigation in EDs, such as EISs, it doesn't
include a detailed plan, so the eventual mitigation plans never go through the public
review process through which an ED goes.
22. Controversy exists among concerned citizens and environmental professionals as to (1) the
type of mitigation (preservation, restoration, enhancement, or creation), (2) the location,
and (3) the ecological context (whether other natural wetland communities remain in the
area).
23. The "best" mitigation type, location and configuration can vary from one project to
another, so it's important for the public, NCDOT, and other state agencies to be able to
review and comment on a relatively specific mitigation plan.
24. Without such evaluation in an ED the public never gets to comment on the suitability of a
mitigation plan and a mitigation plan's cost does not get figured into any benefit/cost
analysis done in an ED.
SEGMENTATION
25. NCDOT often plans a number of related actions -- such as four-laning US 1 from
Henderson to the South Carolina Line -- but nearly always decides to prepare impact
statements on each action individually rather than prepare an EIS on the entire group.
\ -117-
26
2
2s
29
30
This decision creates a "segmentation" or -piecemealing" problem.
A common example is a highway planned to connect two cities which the highway agency
divides into two segments. It then prepares an EIS covering only the first segment, which
does not create environmental problems. The second segment does create environmental
problems because, sav, it goes through a large, unfragmented block of wildlife habitat. An
objection may be made that by preparing an EIS only on the first segment of the highway,
the agency has committed itself to a continuation of the highway through the iarge,
unfragmented block of wildlife habitat. If both segments of the highway had been
considered together, the cumulative ',;,pact of the highway on the wilderness area could
have been considered as could the location of the highway away from the wilderness area
or the use of a primary alternative such as a rail line.- In such an exampie, the se_emented
EISs underestimate the overall impacts.
In the case of US 1, other segments of U S I :hat have had little direct impact on the
environment have been completed, such as the segments from just south of Raleigh to just
north of Sanford, where most of the right of way for four-laning was obtained years ago
and where most of the right of way was already prepared for a four-lane facility.
However, sensitive segments, such as R710, have come late-in the process.
The smaller scope of the R210 FERS obscures the impacts which the entire project will
have and hinders the consideration of broader alternatives that could conceivably obviate
the need for the project.
31. Further afffant sayeth naught.
This the day of October, 1999.
CONCLUSION
? 4?0
Stephen Hall, Afflant
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the (5 day of October, 1999.
V' Nota , Public
My Commission Expires: 7i ),,2,. 1'L EGG i

-118-
7 ?..
STATE OF NORTH C.AROLiNA
2-FILE ;=99 C V S 916
COUNTY OF MOOR-
T H'-= GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SU-PERIOR COURT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION:
Plaintin;
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR. and W. DANIEL
PATE, Trustee;
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF BRUCE SORPJE
NOW CONIES aftiant, Bruce Some, who aster being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Bruce Sorrie, I am at least eighteen years of age, and I am under no disabiliry
which would preclude me from being a witness.
2. My education consists of B.S. in zoology from Cornell University, Ithaca, New York in
1967 and graduate courses in systematic botany from Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts in 1982-' .
3. I am self-employed as a botanical consultant, and have been so employed for many years.
4. My experience as a botanical consultant includes performing natural area inventories and
rare plant surveys.
The natural areas inventories and rare plant surveys I have performed include such
inventories/surveys for the following areas: Ft. Brasg/Camp Mackall; Sandhills Gameland;
Holly Shelter Gameland; and the North Carolina Zoo.
6. I have served as an expert witness for the United States in Federal District Court in San
Juan, Puerto Rico, in litigation concerning the U.S. Navy's Vieques Island Bombing
Range.
7. I was one of the principal preparers of the document entitled Rare and Enda»gerod Plant
Survey and Natural Area hrvcntoryfor Fort Bragu and ('amp Mackall Military
Reservations, North Carolina, Russo, Some, van Eerden, et al, (1993).
8. In conjunction with preparing the above-named inventory/survey, I have extensively
examined the ecosystem(s) in the Little River watershed (LRW), within or along
boundaries of Ft. Bragg.
9. The inventories/surveys which I've mentioned, are time consuming and labor intensive.
10. For example, the inventory/survey mentioned above took approximately four trained
botanists, working full time, two (2) years to do.
it. The LRW is a remarkably diverse ecosystem that contains many rare or endangered plants,
as well as many unusual and rare plant communities.
12. While the LRW is now known among botanists to be remarkably diverse, it lacks
extensive plant surveys off of Fort Bra;;.
-119-
13. As an example of the rarity of plant species harbored in the LRW, one can consider
Georgia Indigo, Aniorpha root riana, a globally -are plant ranked as giobally rare (G3
designation) by the Nature Conservancy, which was historically known to be slightly back
from the banks or the Little River, between the Lone Point Rd brid_¢e and the CSX trestle
over Little River.
14. Catesby's Trillium, Trillium cazeshaai, is another example of an unusual plant that the
LRW contains, which occurs on the nosh racing sieoes of Little River.
I Catesby's Triilium is a very unusual piani to find in the Coastal Plain or the Sandhiils.
! 6. The LRW also contains many populations of vtountain Laurel, C'almia larrfoha, which
normally occurs in mountainous regions of the State, not along rivers in the Sandhiils.
17 Even more striking than these plants, one finds along the wet, seapy vertical wails next to
Little River, a plant known as the roundleaf sundew, Drosera rotundafolia, which
normally occurs only in the mountains and is very rare in the Sandhills region.
18. The LRW also contains examples of rare plant communities.
19. Plant communities are assemblages of plants which occur together in certain
environments; flora within these communities often have interdependent, or even
symbiotic relationships.
20. Some examples of rare plant communities within the LRW have come close to being
extirpated by development outside of Ft. Bragg, such as examples of the Little River
Terraces.
21. The Little River Terraces are quite rare, with only a handful remaining on Ft.Bragg, and
with only one greatly degraded example, known to me, remaining off of Ft. Bragg.
22. The.degraded example of Little River Terraces mentioned.above has been heavily
impacted by residential development.
23. The Little River Terraces, as their name implies, are pine fiatwoods on the first level up
from the normal water level in Little River.
24. It takes a substantial amount of rain to induce Little River to flood the Little River
Terraces, but they, nevertheless, are subject to periodic flooding.
25. The Little River Terraces also periodically get burned, both from controlled burns and
occasional lightning induced fires.
26. Historically, the Little River Terraces were burned with periodic regularity by lightning
induced fires, prior to the road network and extensive settlement in the Sandhills.
27. The Little River Terraces are unique because their periodic exposure to flooding and fire
favors a diverse group of flora, with some of these being quite rare, such as the Georgia
Indigo mentioned above.
28. The Little River Terraces rank as high as any natural areas in botanical diversity in North
Carolina, and, perhaps, North America.
29. Examples of other rare plant communities within the LRW occur on both Ft. Bragg and
on private lands.
30. Such plant communities and the plants within them are native species, not exotic, invasive
species that have become prevalent since settlement in the Sandhills.
31. Rare plant communities on private land have little or no protection, especially when no
individual members of these communities are federally listed pursuant to the Endutigered
.Species Act of 1973.
2
-120-
32. 1 have oertormed botanical surveys in many areas of '.North Carolina, and, in my
experience, development, and all its ramifications, is the leading threat to native piar,ts and
native plant communities in North Carolina.
33 Further atiiant saveth naught.
This the day or October, 1999.
Bruce Some, Afh-ant
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the day of October, 1999.
& zxz?
otary Pub1Yc
My Commission Expires: My ComwAssi0n Expires 3.8-2004
3
-121-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUN'T'Y OF MOORS
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION;
Plaintiff:
V.
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR. and W. DANIEL
PATE, Trustee;
Defendants
FILE -99 CVS 916
THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF THE HON. ISABEL
MCKEITHEN THOMAS
NOW COMES affiant, Isabel McKeithen Thomas, who after, being duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
1. My name is Isabel McKeithen Thomas, I am at least eighteen years of age, and I am under
no disability which would preclude me from being a witness.
2. I have lived in Cameron, North Carolina all my life, except for eleven years in Hamlet from
1966 to 1977 when my husband was there with the railroad and the time I was away in
college from 1939 to 1943.
3. I currently serve as the mayor of the Town of Cameron, having been last elected in 1997.
4. I have served as mayor of the Town of Cameron since approximately 1991.
5. During my tenure as mayor, the Town Council passed the resolution opposing the route of
the US 1 by-pass, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
6. Since passing said resolution in 1996, the elected government of the Town of Cameron
has not held any votes which adopted a position contrary to the said resolution.
7. I am unaware of the Town of Cameron's government ever taking a position supporting
the presently proposed route of the US I by-pass.
8. Further affiant sayeth naught.
This the _ day of October, 1999.
/ / ?-?, z
Isabel McK ithen Thomas, Aff ant
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the a( Tti day of October, 1999.
106tary Public
My Commission Expires:
-122-
EKHIBIT ? -
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PRESENT ROUTING 0£ THE US #1 B°-PASS
WHEREAS, the Town of Cameron, a municipality in the
State of North Carolina in the county of Moore is located
near US Highway #1 (hereinafter "US1"), and,
WHEREAS, the Town of Cameron prides itself for having a
clean environment, high quality of life, and other benefits
and qualities commonly associated with smaller rural
municipalities, and,
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(hereinafter "NCDOT") plans to build a US1 by-pass that will
consume hundreds of acres of woods, high quality farmland,
wetlands, and wildlife habitat, and,
WHEREAS, the Town of Cameron has drinking water wells
within the proposed re-routing zone, and,
WHEREAS, NCDOT has attempted few if any alternatives for
managing the traffic in a manner suitable to the present
route of US1 such as:
1) An improved two lane highway in the existing road
bed of US1 with slow traffic turn outs at various
points, turn lanes at intersections, and/or grade
leveling at dangerous intersections;
2) Assistance with car and van pools;
3) Purchase of development rights from willing property
owners on a voluntary basis, along the present route
of US1 outside of existing town limits to
prevent increased congestion from more intensive
development in rural areas; and,
WHEREAS, NCDOT's present plans for re-routing and four
laning US1 will adversely affect the quality of life that
Cameron's residents cherish for all the aforementioned
reasons, -
NOW, be it hereby resolved that the Town of Cameron
strongly opposes NCDOT's plans to re-route and four lane the
existing US1 and vigorously urges NCDOT to do the following
things:
1) Utilize the present route of US1;
2) Improve the existing two lane US1 with slow vehicle
turnouts, turn-lanes and grade leveling;
3) Avoid four laning US1;
4) Provide for the purchase of development rights from
willing property owners on a voluntary basis,
adjacent to the present US1 in order to reduce
increased traffic; and,

-123-

5) Provide assistance for users of US1 who wish to use
car and van pools.
This the 43'777 i day of March, 1996.
Town of Cameron
Isabel Hc?eithen Thomas, Mayor
Carol Lucas, Town Clerk
-124-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FILE 999 CVS 916
COUNTY OF MOORE THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
D E P A R T M E NT
TRANSPORTATION; )
P.laintif%
V. ) MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR and W. DANIEL )
PATE, Trustee; )
Defendants. )
TO PLAINTIFF by and through its attorney of record:
TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will brio this motion on
for hearing before the Court in Carthage on,° .,anuary 2000 at
10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the Court may hear it.
Defendant Irby moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for
the consolidation of this case with civil actions number 99 CVS 911-914 and respectfully shows the
Court:
1. These actions, all pending in this division of the court, involve a common question of
law or fact in that they all make the same counterclaim and affirmative defense which involves the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA). NCGS §§ 113A-1, et seq.
2. That consolidating these actions for the purposes of discovery and hearing(s)
involving discovery matters and violations ofNCEPA will avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
WHEREFORE, movants pray that these actions be consolidated for the purposes of discovery
and hearing(s) involving discovery matters and violations of NCEPA.
This the 30 day of November, 1999.

-125-
MOSER, SCHM7DLY, MASON & ROOSE, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Irby
BY: S Y?? /t J G
Stephen S. Schtitidly
Centura Bank, Suite 400 l
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
336-626-8000
336-626-8007 (fax)
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Irby
BY: 4. /IZ7 ? L, L
Marsh Smith (NC Bar # 16828)
PO Drawer 1468
Southern Pines, NC 28388-1468
910-695-0800
910-695-0903 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON ATTORNEY
This is to certify that I have this day served counsel for the opposing party in the foregoing matter with a copy of
this ANSWER & COUNTERCLAIM by depositing in the United States Mail, a copy of same in a properly addressed
envelope with adequate postage thereon, in the manner prescribed by Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
This day: R /,0"2
Marsh with
2
-126-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - FILE 999 CVS 916
COUNTY OF MOORE - THE GENERAL COURT OF RJSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT - - .. --` ), , .. ...
TRANSPORTATION; )
r'3?laintiff•
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION(S)
V. ) TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR. and W. DANIEL )
PATE, Trustee; )
Defendants. )
TO: Fred Lamar, George Autry, and Richard Sowerby
Attorneys for Plaintiff
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will bring its previously filed, served and
incorrectly noticed motion(s) to consolidate certain Moore County civil cases - file nos. 99 CVS
911-914 and 99 CVS 916 - on for hearing before the court at Carthage, North Carolina, on the
10th day of January, 2000 at 10 o'clock AM., or as soon thereafter as the court can hear it.
This day L day of , 1999.
MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
BY: 5/ { t/C J-eXlvw't?
Stephen S. Schmidly 04
?6 .
Centura Bank, Suite 400 G /n
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
336-626-8000
336-626-8007 (fax)
1
-127-
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMI Mi, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
BY: L?. It,
Marsh Smith (NC Bar # 16828)
PO Drawer 1468
Southern Pines, NC 28388-1468
910-695-0800
910-695-0903 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON ATTORNEY
This is to certify that I have this day served counsel for the opposing PAY the foregoing matter with a copy of
this AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION(S) TO CONSOLIDATE CASES by depositing in the United States Mail, a copy
of same in a properly addressed envelope with adequate postage thereon, in the manner prescribed by Rule 5 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure.
This day: 16 Decxmber 1999.
cc:
COL Pierce B. Irby, Jr.
Marsh Smith
2
-128-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - }N .THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF ?100RE 99 CVS 916
DEPARTNIENT OF TR.\NSPORTATION
1
Plaln[Itc.
V MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM
PIERCE B. IRBY. JR. W. DANIEL ?
PATE. Trustee: 1
Defendants. 1
NOW COME PLAINTIFF North Carolina Department of Transportation (hereinafter,
"NCDOT"), through counsel, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and laches
move the Court to dismiss the Defendants' Counterclaim on the grounds that the Court lacks
subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction in this matter and that Defendants are estopped from
being granted the relief they request for detrimentally delaying this action.
FIRST DEFENSE
(State Sovereign Immunity)
In support thereof, the Plaintiff shows unto the Court the following:
1. That on or about June 26, 1999, Plaintiff NCDOT filed a complaint against
Defendants in Moore County Superior Court. The complaint is a condemnation action filed
pursuant to the procedures contained in Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General
Statutes.
`?, -129-
That the Plaintiff and Detendants do not agree as to the purchase prig of the
property appropriated pursuant to this action and identified in the original complaint.
That on or about October =6. l vay. Detendants ;-led and :knsw-- and
Counterciaim in this action.
1. That Detendants' Counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff violated the North Carolina
environmental Policy .pct. N.C.G.S. S,§ i 13,A-1 er seq. (NCEPA) and the National
Environmental Policv Act of 1969. 4 U.S.C. 1 and -13- 7 (?iEPA) with re_ard to the
preparation of environmental documents reiatinQ to Plaintiff s transportation improvement
project. R-=10. of the North Carolina Transportation improvement Program.
5. That the State of North Carolina can only be sued with its consent through clear
terms and conditions spelled out by the State lawmaking body:
The State and its governmental units cannot be deprived of the
sovereign attributes of immunity except by a clear waiver by the
lawmaking body. The concept of sovereign immunity is so firmly
established that it should n6t and cannot be waived by indirection
or by procedural rule. Any such change-should be by plain,
unmistakable mandate of the lawmaking body. Orange Countv v.
at , 282 N.C. 292, 296, 192 S.E.2d 308 (1972).
6. That "[w]hen statutory provision has been made for an action against the State, the
procedure prescribed by statute must be followed, and the remedies thus afforded are exclusive."
Bailev v. State of North Carolina, 330 N.C. 227, 235, 412 S.E.2d 295, 300 (1991) (emphasis
added), quoting Insurance Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Com, 217 N.C. 495, 499, 8
S.E.2d 619, 621 (1940), overruled on other grounds.
I
"k, -130-
\
That Defendants' Counterclaim is brought under NCEPA and NEPA. which do
not explicitly provide for suit against the State or prescribe a procedure to be rollo"ve
SECOND DEFENSE
i Lack or Subiect Maiter and Personal "urisdiction)
The Court has neither subject matterjurisdiction over the Counterclaim nor personai
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff under the North Caroiina Rules of Civii Procedure 12(b)( 1) and
l.(b)(=), respectively. (?;.C.G.S. IA- l. Rule 1=).
THIRD DEFENSE
(Failure to Comply with NCAPA)
T"ne Defendants failed to comply with Article 4, Judicial Review, of the North Carolina
Administrative Procedure Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 150B-43 through 150B-52.
FOURTH DEFENSE
(Equitable Estoppel and Laches)
The environmental documents, which are the subject matter of Defendants'
Counterclaim, were prepared and acted on by Plaintiff over three years prior to the Defendants'
Counterclaim. Plaintiff and affected property owners have relied on the finality of Plaintiff's
action, as a result of the right-of-way acquisition process. Plaintiff has incurred extensive
expenses in furtherance of the road improvements associated with project R-210. Defendants
have long had notice of Plaintiffs action and have detrimentally delaved taking action against
Plaintiff.
3
-131-
FIFTH DEFENSE
iAuainst Public Poiicv
To allow the Det--ndants to raise their COLintercialm in his action wouid be contrar• to
.he ;unction and purpose or the eminent domain powers and the condemnation provisions of
article k) of Chapter ! .6. P\uads and Hizhwavs. of the North Carolina (general Statutes.
SIXTH DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim Upon which Reiief may be Granted)
Defendants have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be ?ranted under the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (N.C.G.S. 3 lA-1, Rule 12).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, motioning this Court to dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim,
prays that the court order:
(1) That Defendants' Counterclaim be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA-I, Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6);
(2) That Defendants' Counterclaim be dismissed for failure to compy with the North
Carolina Administrative Procedure Act;
(3) That Defendants' are estopped from alleging their Counterclaim. because they
have detrimentally delayed their action.
4
?, -132-
t4) That Defendants' Counterclaim be dismissed. because it would be against oublic
policy: ind contrary :o the eminent domain powers and condemnation procedures afforded
Maintiff by Mate Statute.
That the costs of this action be assessed a_ainst the plain[ifE
6) For such further relief as the Court may deem iust and proper.
Respectfuily submitted. this the 2?1 day of December. 1999.
.IICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
l f
Fred Lamar
Assistant Attorney General
George B. Autry, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
North Carolina Department of Justice
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
5
-133-
CE.RTIFIC.\T E OF SER` IC7
( hereby certit%- That a copy of the Core,-going _ Notion to Dismiss Defendants
Counterciaim: Notice of Hearin-:: nd Calendar Request 11 the above captioned Cause i;as neen
served on the attorney(s) for Defendants by first-ciass mail. postage prepaid. addressed as

Marsh Smith
Cunninsham. Dedmond. Petersen & Smith
=25 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines. North Carolina 28357
Stephen S. Schmidly
Centura. Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5536
This the ?/day of December, 1999.
Fr,-d Lamar
Assistant Attorney General
(if: 29209)
6
?' -134-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORS
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION;
Plaintiff;
V.
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR. and W. DANIEL
PATE, Trustee;
Defendants.

FILE -#99 C V S 916
THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

MOTION TO JOIN NECESSARY
PARTIES
TO: Plaintiff through its Attorney of Record, Fred Lamar, Esq.:
Please take notice that the undersigned will bring this Motion on for hearing at
10 a. m. on Monday, January 24, 2000, or as soon thereafter as the Court may
hear it, in the Superior Court in Carthage, North Carolina.
Defendant Irby shows to the Court that David McCoy, the acting Secretary of Plaintiff
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and William D. Gilmore, the manager
of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of NCDOT, are subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court and necessary parties to this action if complete relief is to be accorded
between those already parties, for the following reasons:
1. This is an action initiated by Plaintiffs condemnation of Defendant Irby's real property in
which Defendant Irby has defended, and counterclaimed, on the basis of arbitrary and
capricious agency action and agency action which abuses the agency's discretion, which
actions or inaction involves violations of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(NCEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
2. David McCoy is the acting Secretary of NCDOT and, among other things, oversees the
activities of the various NCDOT branches to insure compliance with state and federal
laws;
3. William D. Gilmore is the the manager of NCDOT's Project Development &
1
-135-
Environmental Analysis Branch and is, on information and belief, directly responsible for
NCDOT'S compiiance with NCEPA and NEPA;
4. David McCoy and William D. Gilmore are sought to be added in their official capacities
and are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to two well-established
exceptions to the sovereign immunity doctrine -- to wit: (1) when public officers whose
duty it is to supervise and direct a State agency invade the personal or property rights of a
citizen in disregard of law or (2) where a citizen has asserted his or her status as a
taxpayer and is trying to prevent the expenditure of money that would otherwise be
expended in violation of law. Orange County v. North Carolina Department of
Transportation, 46 N.C. App. 350, 378, 265 S.E.2d 890, 909 (1980),
5. Movant prays that this verified motion be received as an affidavit.
Wherefore, Defendant Irby moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 19 and Rule 15 of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order directing that David McCoy and William D.
Gilmore be joined in this action as defendants and allowing Defendant Irby thirty (30) days after
service of the summons and amended complaint on David McCoy and William D. Gilmore in
which to file a crossclaim against them or, in the alternative, add them as plaintiffs and give
Defendant Irby thirty (30) days in which to file an amended counterclaim against them.
This day 6??day of 000.
MOSER, SCHMMLY, MASON & ROOSE, LLP
Attorneys for Defe ant rb
BY:
Stephen S. Schmidly
Centura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
336-626-8000
336-626-8007 (fax)
?. -136-
CUNMNGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Irby
NORTH CAROLINA
MOORE COUNTY
By?
Marsh Smith (NC Bar #r 16828)
PO Drawer 1468
Southern Pines, NC 28388-1468
910-695-0800
910-695-0903 FAX
. VERIFICATION
Marsh Smith, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing motion
and same is true and correct of his knowledge, except as to those matters and things therein alleged
on information and belief, and as to those, he believes such to be true.
This the 5 day of January, 2000.
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the day of January, 2000.
Ae? W.
otary Public
Marsh Smith
My Commission Expires: 3 - y'-2-00 ?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON ATTORNEY
This is to certify that 1 have this day served counsel for the opposing party in the foregoing matter with a copy of
this MOTION TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES by depositing in the United States Mail, a copy of same in a properly
addressed envelope with adequate postage thereon, in the manner prescribed by Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
? coo ,
5
'zd
This day:
Marsh Smith
cc:
COL Pierce B. Irby, Jr.
W. Daniel Pate, Esq.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLIN.-\
COUNTY OF MOORE
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Si_;PERIOR COURT DIVISION
c)U CVS 1) 16

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Plaintiff.
?. MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDAN*7S
SECOND DEFENSE
PIERCE B. IRBY. JR. & W. DANIEL
PATE. Trustee: 1
}
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF North Carolina Department of Transportation (hereinafter, "NCDOT"),
through counsel, pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, moves
the court to strike the second defense of Defendant Pierce B. Ibrv, Jr., which is also referred to as
Defendant's counterclaim in Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim, and all defense exhibits
relating to the preparation of environmental documents including, but not limited to Exhibits A -
H attached to Defendants' Answer and Counterclaim and Exhibits A - Z referred to in
Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim but attached to Defendant's First Set of Written
Discovery.
In support thereof, counsel shows the court as follows:
1. That on or about June 26. 1999; Plaintiff NCDOT filed a complaint against
Defendants in Moore County Superior Court. The complaint is a condemnation action filed

-138-
.
pursuant to the proce:iures contained in Article `) OCOILipter 1=v or tie \,,'ortll larolina Generai SMEU[es.
That the Plainuff Lind Derendums 0 Il()[ : Lr US t0 the fall' '1LiChe[ '. LiIUe Of file
pCODCCiv l OtlQemned Ol1CSUaR[ IO Cllls ac[lon Lind identified in the original cUlnDlalnt.
That on or about November =3. i OQP. Derenciant Peirce B. Irby'. Jr. tiled Lind
Answer and Counterclaim in this action.
4. That Defendant's combined Defense and Counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff
violated the North Carolina Environmental Poiicv Act. N.C.G.S. §§ 113A-1 et seq. (NCEPA)
and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 3§ 4321 and 4347 (NEPA) with
regard to the preparation of environmental documents relating to Plaintiffs transportation
improvement project, R-210 of the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program.
5. That Defendant's defense is irrelevant and immaterial to the present
condemnation action against Defendants, and the Defendant's defense of failure to comply with
NEPA and NCEPA is not related nor connected to the present cause of action of the Plaintiff
NCDOT.
6. That Defendant's defense is time barred by Article 4, Judicial Review, of the
North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act (NCAPA), N.C.G.S. §§ 150B-43 through 15OB-
52.
7. That Defendant's NEPA and NCEPA defense was voluntarily waived by
Defendants for failure to petition for judicial review of the relevant environmental documents
prepared by NCDOT within the time prescribed by the NCAPA after the Record of Decision.
2
-139-
?. To ailov, the Defendant Peirc: B. (rb?..Jr. to raise their defense m this action
0Uid he con[rarv Ill '.he CWICtioll a11d r)UrnoiC oC tl1C ?-'minem -iomain po%vers and the
,xndemnation provisions of A-,Zicie ,> or Chapter 130. Roads an(4 141'_(1ways. of the X-orth
Caroiina Generai Statutes.
WHEREFORE. the Plaintiff. motionin?3 this Court to strike Detendant's defense. prays
that the court order:
( i ) Strike Defendant's Second Defense for being unrelated. irrelevant and immateriai
to the condemnation action.
(2) Strike all portions of Defendant's exhibits and attachements which are based upon
NEPA and NCEPA and not based upon the issue of value of the Defendant's property, which is
the subject of this condemnation action;
(3) Strike Defendant's defense for failure to compy with the North Carolina
Administrative Procedure Act;
(4) Strike Defendant's defense because it would be against public policy and contrary
to the eminent domain powers and condemnation procedures afforded Plaintiff by State Statute;
and
(5) For such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Tr
Respectfully submitted, this the _L' fL day of February, 2000.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
3
-140-
i
reu Lamar
kSSIJtallt .\ttwrI'e% lJenerai
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
North Carolina Department of JUStIC,-
P.U. Box 21;201
Raiei`_ii. North Caroiina ="61 1
???19? __-:MI6
4
-141-
?:ERTIFIC.\TE F <E"?. ICS
I herth% :z:rtir% that a wpb or,he rore_oin_ Motion to Strike Defendant's
Second Defense has heen served on the attornev(s) ror Derendms by rirst-Mass maii. -Posta_e
prepaid. addressed as follows:
Marsh Smith
Cunningham. Dedmond. Petersen & Smith
21-5 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines. North Carolina 2838
Stephen S. Schmidly
Centura Bank. Suite -400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-> j 3 5
This the _Lj??day of February, 2000.
red Lamar J
Assistant Attorney General
(If:
5
`'+ -142-
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES do hereby stipulate and agree that
the following written discovery exhibits, A-Z, from Defendants'
First Set of Written Discovery to Plaintiff are part of the
proposed Record on Appeal only to the extent allowed by the
following previously entered stipulations of the Parties with
regard to the admissibility of said discovery exhibits based upon
their relevance to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendants'
counterclaim and/or strike Defendant's second defense.
);,/
Fred Lamar
Assistant Attorney General
Douglas W.-HannatAssistant Attorney General
N. C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR-THE PLAINTIFF
I
IA4 11.4 --1
arb mit Esq.
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina ?8387
S ephen`S-? c midly, Esq.
Moser, Schmidly, Mason & Roose'A
Centura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
-143-
ST \ T'E OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNT'V OF \100RE
DEPARTMENT OF i R.-VvSPURT.-\TIOV
P!au?[iff.
1V THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTiC
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
?y C V S k) 16
t ,ll
STIPULATION TO .ADMISSIBILITY
OF EXHIBITS
PIERCE B. IRBY. JR. & W. DAi? IEL
PATE. Trustee: i
Defendants.
The undersigned Fred Lamar. Attorney for Plaintiff North Carolina Department of Transportation

t vv
(NCDOT). does hereby stipulate and agree that no objection will be made to Defet)dant Pierce B. Irbv's ?-.
SS1 C b r t5 is1
exhibits and attachments provided as part of Defendant's counterclaim iReWdine-thetdiscovery wfar-r-ad -e-
in the matter above as to their admissibility against Plaintiffs motion to dismiss
defendant's counterclaim and/or strike defendant's defense (presently scheduled to be heard on February 28,
2000), so long as such documents are relevant to Plaintiffs arguments to dismiss and/or strike.
This the `- day of February 2000.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY By /"'/G/
ATT RNEY GEt ERAL Marsh Smith, Esq.
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith
By 225 North Benne treet / 111771,,-Vl4w?7 Fred L mar Sotlhern Pinl, o Car na 28387
Assistant Attorney General 1
By Gam.
N.C. Department of Justice Stephen S. Schmidly, Esq.
Transportation Section Moser, Schmidly, Mason & Roose
Post Office Box 25201 Centura Bank, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27611 115 S. Fayetteville St.
Telephone: [phone] Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
ATTORNEYS FOR NCDOT
29981
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
* -144-
ST.-\TE OF NORTH C.\ROL(N:\
0011 NTY OF MOURE
DEP.-\RTNIENT OF TRANSPORTAT10N.
Plaintiff.
MACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE. ?
Defendants
1N THE 6ENER:\L COURT OF JUSTICE
SLPERIOR COURT DIVISION
STIPULATION TO EXTEND .-ANSWER
TO DEFENDANTS' WRITTEN
DISCOVERY REQUEST
The undersigned Fred Lamar. Attorney for Plaintiff North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), and Marsh Smith and Stephen S. Schmidly, Attorneys for the Defendants Mack Blue and wife.
Brenda Blue, do hereby stipulate and agree that the time for Plaintiff NCDOT to respond to Defendants'
written discovery request, which includes Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Production
of Documents, is extended until 15 days after adjudication of Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss (if the outcome is
against PlaintiffNCDOT), said motion presently scheduled for February 28, 2000.
Plaintiff NCDOT further stipulates, through its undersigned attorney, that no objection will be made
to Defendants' exhibits and attachments provided as part of Defendants' counterclaim -acluciAg.tlzatdiscovery
.fefawad to;
:n the matters above as to their admissibility against Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss the defendants' counterclaim and/or strike defense, so long as such documents are relevant to
Plaintiffs arguments to dismiss and/or strike.
This the _ day of February 2000.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTO N EY GENE L
By
red La ar
Assistant Attorney General
-145-
V.C. Department Ot JlutlcL
Transportation Section
Post Office Box =_ =U 1
Raieiuh. N-C -'761 1
reiephone: (y I Q) i6
ATTORNEYS FOR NCDOT
Marsh Smith. Eso.
Cunningham. Dedmond. Petersen ?Yc Smith
_2; North Bennett Street
Southern Pines. North Carolina '-83,8
By ' ?..? r I
Stephen S. Schmidly, Esq.
Moser, Schmidly, Mason & Roose
Centura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
2
?? -146-
L&H IBIT A
STATE OF NORTH CAMUNA
DEPARTMENT OF T RANSPOR=ON
JAn1ES B. HUNT Jrz
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GAtutM Jp
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-Ml SECRETARY
August 20, 1996
1VIr. Marsh Smith
Cunningham' Dedmond, Petersen & Smith, L.L.P
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
22S North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
Dear Mr. Smith:
Based on the 1997-2003 Transportation 1Mprovemeot prngrMn, the letter from
1VIr. James C. Thomason III is correct. The prngmm? adopted by the Board of
Transportation in June of 1996, indicates Project R-210 va be consavcted with North
Carolina Highway Trust Funds.
I apologia if some comment I may have made cheated any coon. I lmew we had
developed a Federal Environmental Impact Statement, there re, mating the project eligible
for federal aid funding. Since federal-aid funds have been spear on planning for this Project,
we will be designing and budding it to federal standards. This wM also leave open the
option to later utilize federal funds for some portion of the project if it is determined to be
in the best interest of the public.
Thank you for y(r r interest in our +.-.Aasportatim pwgrm.
Y,
Calvin W. P.E.
Director, sad programming
CWIJah
cc: Mary Hayes Holmes, Member, Board of Transportation

-147-
U-F f XZ:?. /
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GAU= JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 27, 1996
Mr. Marsh Smith
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen and Smith, L.L.P.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Post Office Box 1468
Southern Pines, North Carolina 283 88
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding improvements to US 1 in Moore and
Lee Counties (TIP Project No. R -21o).
The Department of Transportation followed all required procedures in the
formulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and the Record of Decision (ROD) for the o
R-210 project. We have coordinated every stage of this project with the Federal Idighwayd,y? s (I
Administration using their guidelines for the preparation of environmental documen
As I have stated in earlier correspondence, the Department is ed by the 0 0
lEghway Trust Fund Act of 1989, to four-lane existing US a Virginia state Line to
the South Carolina state line. This entire section of US 1 currently has multi-lanes or is OC a
under construction except for two projects, the R-210 project and the R-2501 project m f /
Richmond County. As far as the logical termini for this project is concerned, an EIS for
the entire US 1 corridor is not required.
We stand by our decision to proceed with this project and believe that it will
improve the transportation needs of Moore and Lee Counties in the future.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
-148-
Mr. Marsh Smith
June 27, 1996
Page 2
Thank you again for your interest in this important highway project.

Garland B. Garrett, Jr.
GBGA&
cc: Mary Hayes Holmes, Member, Board of Transportation
Isabelle Thomas, Mayor of Cameron
Ted Bisterfeld, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Don Voelker, Federal Highway Admiiaistrahon
Rodney E. Slater, Federal Highway Administration
David Cox, N.. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
John Dorney, N. C. Department of Environmental Management
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
-149-
- BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM. IR.
RICHARD L DEOMOND
ANN C. PETERSEN
MARSH SMITH
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP G
C?
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW k
225 NORTH BENNETT STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28187
(910) 695-800
June 21, 1996
H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental, NCDOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Don Voelker
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES. NC 28]89
FAX NO. (91016954)903
Re: Traffic forecast for the US 1 by-pass of Vass and Cameron
Gentlemen:
Mr. Vick has informed me that regression. equations for traffic
generation were not used in the forecast for future traffic volume
on US 1. He has also indicated that no destination surveys were
done. Please let me know how the persons preparing the
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) arrived at the traffic
forecast for the various segments of US 1. At present, I do not
know what basis for the traffic forecast FHWA and NCDOT had.
In addition to telling me how your folks arrived at the traffic
forecast, I would like to "see the numbers". This has importance
to my client(s). Since Mr. Vick tells me that NCDOT plans to begin
a right-of-way acquisition in July of 1996, I would ask that you
expedite supplying me with the methods and raw data your folks used
in preparing the EIS's traffic projections.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
CUNNING , DEDMO , PETERSEN & SMITH L.L.P.
Marsh Smi
MS/ka
cc: Robert L. Morris
Harry Huberth
The Hon. Isabelle Thomas
-150-
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Managem
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
/••
ant
EDEHNR
e
June 6, 1996
Mr. Marsh Smith
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen and Smith
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, NC 28387
Subject: Jacksonville Bypass, Northern Wake Expressway, and US 74 Improvements in
Robeson and Columbus Counties
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your letters dated, April 30, May 2, and May 2, 19% on the US 74
Improvements in Robeson and Columbus Counties, Jacksonville Bypass, and Northern Wake
Expressway respectively. All of the letters requested a public hearing for the subject projects.
To our knowledge, you are the only individual that has responded to the public notice for
these projects, it may be more beneficial If we met to discuss your comments rather than
hold a public hearing.
We share your concern about the entire problem of wetland destruction. In late 1994
and early 1995, the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) held public hearings for our
proposed wetland rules. It was dear that the majority of those in attendance supported the
rules and were against wetland destruction. Specific comments were thoroughly studied and
incorporated into the wetland rules where appropriate.
All of your letters questioned the alternatives that are proposed for construction for
these roadways. The Department of Transportation (DOT) routinely sets up Steering
Committees that oversee the elimination of preliminary alternatives. The remaining
alternatives are presented in an environmental document. I suggest that you participate on
these committees. Once the environmental document is written, the public is invited to
comment on the alternatives. This would be another opportunity for your participation. These
subject projects predate our involvement on Steering Committees but we did comment
extensively on the documents.
Mr. Eric Galamb has inspected all proposed wetland impacts associated with the
Northam Wake Expressway. There were several locations where he had concerns; namely at
Falls of the Neuse Road, and at the Neuse River. DOT is investigating avoidance options for
the Falls of the Neuse location. Since the City of Raleigh did not limit the development at this
location, houses have encroached: leaving little "wiggle room". The wetlands are the only
undeveloped property. DOT is investigating extending the bridges at the Neuse River. The
results of this investigation have not been released
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535
An EQud OPportWrty Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
SM recycled/ 10% Poet-consumer paper
-151-
Mr. Marsh Smith
June 6, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Galamb also has inspected all wetlands that would be impacted by the 4-laning of
US 74. Wetland impacts have been reduced by widening an existing highway rather than
constructing one on new location. The issue then becomes a minimization effort. DOT has
agreed to reduce the median width from 68 feet to 46 feet across the significant wetlands.
DEM had requested that the median be further reduced. DOT has stated that a 22 feet
median barrier causes a safety problem. DEM is leaning toward approval of the 401 Water
Quality Certification for the 46 feet median and the proposed Little McQueen compensatory
mitigation tract that will become part of the Lumber River State Park.
DOT studied two alternatives for the Jacksonville Bypass. DEM did not object to the
alternatives studied or preferred. The difference in wetland impacts was only 4 acres. This
small acreage in the coastal plain is not significant to warrant an objection to the preferred
alternative. !r.terestingly, the vuretiand acreage of impact increased somewhat in the FONSI
compared to the EA. Usually the acreage decreases. Due to the limited information on
waters avoidance, DEM did not concur with a FONSI. DOT has provided additional
information attempting to alleviate the concerns *on the FONSI. Mr. Galamb subsequently
inspected all wetlands that would be impacted by the preferred alternative. DOT has agreed
to bridge a substantial acreage with a 22 feet barrier median. However, our concerns have
not been fully addressed and our objection to a FONSI remains. Further bridging options
must be evaluated especially on the wetlands adjacent to the New River. Our office is still
reviewing the mitigation plan.
On May 15, 1996, you verbally requested a public hearing for US 1 MP R-210) and
wanted a status report. DEM commented on the FEIS in January 1996. Once again, DEM
did not concur with the document Little coordination has occurred since this objection and
DOT has not yet applied for the 401 Certification.
As you can tell, DEM conducts extensive reviews of DOT projects. Since these
reviews (both office and field) by Mr. Galamb have been so extensive, we believe that public
hearings on these projects are not warranted. However, we are prepared to meet with you
individually to discuss one or all of those projects. Should you have any questions or desire
to meet with DEM staff, please contact Eric Galamb or John Domey at [phone].
Sinc ly,
A. Preston How
Director
smith.ltr
cc: Eric Galamb
Scott McLendon, Wilmington COE
Eric Asymeyer, Raleigh COE
David Foster
Frank Vick, DOT
-152-

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. Marsh Smith
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkmspoRTATION
PO. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
April 30, 1996
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your recent letter requesting a recision of the Record of Decision (ROD)
and revision of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
to US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties (PETS) for the improvements
(TIP Project No. R-21 0).
The FEIS was completed December 1, 1995, and the ROD signed March 21, 1996. The
environmental studies for the project were developed in accordance with federal and state
regulations. We have reviewed the ROD and FEIS and disagree with your assertion that
it is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, we have no imitation of requesting the Federal
Highway Administration to withdraw their approval of the documents. We intend to
proceed with implementation of the project as outlined in the FM.
If I can provide additional information with regard to our plans to move forward with this
needed transportation improvement project, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Garrett, Jr.
GBG/hfv
cc: Mary Hayes Holmes, Member, Board of Transportation
Nicholas L. Graf, FHWA
E. A. Smith, Senior Deputy Attorney General (Attu; Grayson Kelley)
Larry R. Goode, Ph.D., RE:, State Highway Administrator
Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Director, Planning and Progiamming
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

-153-
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
225 NORTH BENNETT STREET
BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, )R. SOUTHERN PINES. NORTH CAROLINA 28387
RICHARD E. DEDMOND
ANN C. PETERSEN [phone]
MARSH SMITH
April 12, 1996
REQUEST FOR RECISION OF R.O.D.
AND
REVISION OF F.E.I.S.
The Hon. Garland Garrett, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
The Hon. Federico F. Pena, Secretary
United States Department of Transportation
400 7th St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
:?x I,;d.f?
MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES. NC 28388
FAX NO. [phone]
Re: REQUEST FOR RECISION OF R.O.D. AND REVISION OF F.E.I.S. for
U.S. Hwy 1 By-pass project from Lakeview to Lee Co.; FHWA-
NC-£IS-91-13-(F)
Dear Secretary Pena and Secretary Garrett:
My firm represents Moore FOR a Clean Environment (MooreFORCE) --
a citizens' group comprised of Moore County, North Carolina,
citizens who either live in the area affected by the proposed US
1 by-pass of Vass and Cameron, North Carolina, or who will
otherwise be affected by the proposed by-pass. I now formally
request that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) withdraw the
current Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of
Decision (ROD), pending the completion of a FEIS completed in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
accompanying federal regulations. My clients contend that the
current FEIS is fundamentally flawed.
Preliminarily, let me state that, to the best of my knowledge,
none of the people involved with MooreFORCE, including myself,
and none of the people involved with CARE Moore, another group
opposing the proposed by-pass, received notice of either the ROD
or the publication of the FEIS until mid-march of 1996. I now
offer these comments on behalf of MooreFORCE.
1
-154-
Piscemealing -- No Cumulative $ffects Analyzed
In order for NEPA to accomplish its purpose all of the effects of
a proposed action must receive consideration so that the
decision-maker can make an informed choice among appropriate
alternatives. NEPA itself requires the evaluation of the "long-
range character of environmental problems.," and so the effects
addressed must include cumulative effects to address the long-
range character of environmental problems and, also, in order
that a project cannot be segmentalized into insignificance.
Additionally, since the FEIS itself makes clear the intention to
4-lane US 1 from the Virginia border to the south Carolina
border, appropriate alternatives, such as public transportation,
may not receive appropriate analysis without the entire US 1
corridor being analyzed in the FEIS.
To further illustrate this point, MooreFORCE has just received
information that NCDOT is in the prelimina
of lannin
ry 4-lane a portion of US 1 between Pinebl fsandeRockingham in
the vicinity of Hoffman, NC. 4-laning this particular stretch of
road will have severe and deleterious effects on the Sandhills
Gameland -- a State-owned, 56,000 acre longleaf pine forest.
Clearly, NCDOT has firm plans to 4-lane all of US 1 within North
Carolina. Clearly, in order to give intended effect to NEPA, the
FEIS for R-210 needs to consider alternatives that involve the
entire corridor and consider the impacts of 4-laning at least all
of the rest of the US 1 corridor that remains 2-lane or improved
2-lane.
The Clean Water Act also makes cumulative effects a "must
consider" item. The U.S. E.P.A. has requested that NCDOT
evaluate cumulative effects in a December 4, 1991 letter (FEIS,
D-33.3). NCDOT refused such an analysis (FEIS, VII-25) on any
level -- state, corridor, or watershed. NCDOT and FHWA should
reconsider and make the appropriate analyses in a revised FEIS.
Inadequate Laalysis of $conomic $ffects
The FEIS postulates positive potential growth-inducing effects of
the by-pass, but totally ignores well-documented negative effects
of such highway-induced growth. First, unsightly and garish
highway oriented commercial growth may have a potential negative
impact on the tourism and retirement businesses that form the
mainstay of Moore County's economy. Next, the proposed by-pass
will have at least two negative effects on local businesses --
(1) re-routing traffic away from existing businesses along US 1
resulting in the loss of "drive by" customers.and (2) competition
from large retailers attracted to expensive property around the
proposed by-pass's interchanges. Finally, the FEIS speaks
glowingly of the "increase in tax base" which a
but ignores the well-documented effects of the pred cted growth g
- government provided service costs outstripping the tax revenue.
2
-155-
In other words, such an increase in tax base often results in a
net tax loss.
The FEIS cannot analyze the positive potentials of the proposed
by-pass and conveniently ignore the host of negative impacts the
proposed by-pass makes possible or likely. Neither NEPA nor its
implementing regulations allow such a skewed analytic method.
Inadequate Analysis of Cultural Impacts
The FEIS totally leaves out a meaningful analysis of the effects
a 4-lane by-pass will have on the rural residents of the
countryside through which it passes. Many of the rural residents
cherish the quietude and relaxed pace of rural living and the
proposed by-pass will either destroy this quality of life for
them or uproot them completely.
Also, the Cranes Creek and Little River watersheds provide many
recreational opportunities for local citizens -- swimming,
canoeing, fishing, hunting, and other forms of outdoor
recreation. One favorite "swimming hole" for people living
around Vass lies in between the present route of US 1 and Long
Point Rd. on Little River. A huge Bald Cypress lies several
hundred feet to the west of this swimming area. This area is so
well-loved by Vass residents that at least one person instructed
his family to scatter his ashes their upon his death.
Other equally unique and culturally important areas exist along
the proposed route of the proposed by-pass -- the old pond on the
JBAR ranch, for instance. NEPA requires a revised FEIS to
evaluate these significant cultural impacts that the current FEIS
totally ignores.
Paltry Secondary Impacts Analysis
Secondary impacts -- indirect effects of the by-pass
constitute a veritable "Pandora's Box" of the most potentially
harmful effects. In addressing such a plethora of potential harm,
this FEIS contains a brief, four paragraph long, conclusory
analysis of secondary growth. Without cites to authority of any
kind, the FEIS begins its analysis by stating in the first of
four paragraphs: "In most cases, the construction of a roadway
like u.S. 1 positively impacts the future of the region as a
whole." (FEIS, IV-90).
Strongly stated assumptions about the growth inducing effects of
highway construction elsewhere in the FEIS give way to statements
such as "[s]econdary impacts cannot be precisely predicted in a
quantitative way" in the secondary impact analysis. NCDOT cannot
have it both ways -- either it can't predict whether the road
will have impacts on the region's growth or it can. It seems
likely that it can, given the thousands of miles of new 4-lanes
3
-156-
recently built by NCDOT. Further, a competent economist or
trained planner could likely quantify the secondary effects of
this proposed by-pass. None of the people listed as assisting in
the preparation of the FEIS, except the Moore County Manager and
the Lee County Planner, who presumably played relatively minor
parts in the FEIS formulation, were degreed planners who could
undertake a thorough investigation of the most potentially
harmful secondary impacts. No person on the list had an economics
degree.
NCDOT did not see fit to analyze the secondary impact generated
by the construction of the by-pass on local areas typically used
for.gravel, fill and aggregate mining. One often finds these
"mines" associated with the Cranes Creek and Little River flood
plains. Compared to the analysis of secondary growth, this
impact is fairly easy to quantify, but NCDOT ignored it.
By refusing to analyze cumulative effects and performing such an
inadequate job on the secondary impacts analysis, NCDOT has
introduced major flaws into this FEIS.
Inadequate Characterization of Alternatives
By not including important elements in the no-build,
Transportation System Management (TSM) or public transit
alternatives, the FEIS was not able to fully consider whether
such alternatives would create an adequate transportation
corridor along the route of us 1.
The no-build alternative did not include purchase of development
rights along the existing corridor in order to forestall
precipitous future increases in the congestion along the
corridor. Development along a highway corridor often occurs
outside of existing towns in the countryside. The 4-laned OS 1
in Lee County provides a telling example of congestion producing
growth locating along existing 4-lanes, or at interchanges along
limited access stretches -of road. Purchase of development rights
would eliminate this potential source of congestion. Purchase of
development rights could also occur as part of TSM or any
alternative.
Such a purchase of development rights would have an additional
beneficial effect in preventing far-flung commercial and .
residential growth that often costs a county government more to
prove-de services to than it pays in property taxes. In this way
purchase of development rights would prevent Moore and Lee
counties from encountering net tax losses from inappropriate
growth.
The TSM alternative did not include grade leveling along the
existing corridor in order to improve safety by increasing sight
distances.
4
-157-
The evaluation of the public transit alternative should have
occurred over the entire corridor, which is, incidentally,
paralleled by the CSX rail line. Had the FEIS done so, rail and
possibly other transit alternatives would have proven more
feasible. Additionally, rail is not just one public transit
option, it is a whole menu of options that contain several
subsets of options -- (1) rail options for moving freight along
the corridor, (2) rail options for moving long-distance travelers
along the corridor, and (3) rail options for moving commuters
along the corridor.
Because the projected total population of Moore and Lee Counties
falls below 150,000 persons, NCDOT did not further evaluate
public transit alternatives. NCDOT did.not analyze areas of
similar demographics, in this or other countries, that supported
public transit. Nor did it present alternative theories that
suggest that areas with our demographics can support public
transit.
The FEIS evaluated neither car/van pools nor bike paths in the
public transit section... or any other section, except to say
that the plans for the by-pass don't include any bike paths.
One of the most glaring failings of the EIS was its lack of
consideration given to interaction between elements of each
different alternative not requiring construction of a by-pass --
no-build, TSM, and public transit. These interactions between
alternatives would increase capacity more than a single
alternative could and reduce projected traffic volume. Taken
together, TSM, some form of public transit and the purchase of
development rights may provide adequate capacity to handle
projected traffic volume... especially when one considers that
such a combination may reduce projected traffic volume (through
purchase of development rights and public transit use), as well
as increasing corridor capacity.
Finally, the FEIS considered none of the beneficial effects of
no-build, TSM or public transit, as NEPA and the implementing
regulations require it to.
Traffic Analysis Problems
Large logical flaws appear to exist in the traffic projections.
While the FEIS projects the populations of Moore and Lee Counties
to increase between 15% and 25%, it projects traffic to increase
by 100% within the same time period.
The FEIS leaves out information on what effect various
alternatives will have on traffic projections. For instance, a
corridor-wide use of rail to assist in moving freight, commuters
and other travelers would reduce the projected traffic level.
Conversely, studies exist that tend to show that building a by-
5
-158-
pass, such as the proposed one, increases traffic levels from
what they would otherwise be. In other words, the area might not
need the level of service a 4-lane by-pass would provide if the
by-pass did not exist.
The FEIS also lacks destination surveys of US 1 users and other
empirical data regarding the composition of traffic. The level
of truck traffic appears to be much higher than the 6.5% rate
assumed in the FEIS. Without this necessary field work, the FEIS
lacks yet another significant connection to reality.
Endangered Species Problems
In addition to being, unto themselves, a precious heritage to
pass onto the next generation, endangered species also serve as
the "canary in the coal mine" for our eco-system -- an "idiot
light" for our countryside. Their presence in an area indicates
a larger problem more serious than even the peril of a particular
species. Their presence indicates endemic problems with how our
eco-system now operates... or fails to operate.
Because of their importance, it is important to evaluate all the
potential endangered species problems with the corridor for the
proposed by-pass. The FEIS lacked data as to whether endangered
freshwater mussels may occupy cranes Creek, Little River or any
of their tributaries potentially effected by the proposed by-
pass.
Additionally, the FEIS did not clarify the time of year during
which personnel searched for endangered plant species. During
some seasons, even the most highly trained botanist may find it
impossible to discern, for example, Michaux's Sumac. Finally,
the only biologist with a graduate degree listed as assisting
with the preparation of the FEIS has only a degree in parasite
physiology. While this might help him evaluate NCDOT (or, some
might say, lawyers) it does not seem helpful for endangered
species surveys. The only other person listed as having a
biology degree of any kind has one in Biology and Civil
Engineering. I question whether such personnel have sufficient
training in the highly unique Sandhills eco-system to adequately
evaluate the necessary endangered species questions.
Clean Water Act
Despite all the time spent in garnering information about
wetlar_ds destroyed or adversely affected by construction of the
proposed by-pass, the FEIS completely ignores information
gathered by the North Carolina Chapter of The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) about the ecological significance of the Little River
watershed during TNC's-natural area inventory -- Rare and
Endangered Plant Survey and Natural Area Inventory for Fort Braga
and Camp Mackall Military Reservations. North Carolina, Russo,
6
-159-
Sorrie, van Eerden, et al, (1993) -- for Ft. Bragg. TNC found
the Little River watershed, which includes Cranes Creek and other
tributaries, to be the most ecologically diverse area studied in
their inventory. In fact they found some biological communities
along the Little River corridor to "score as high in species
richness as any other plant community... in all of North
America." Id., p. 8-56.
Although the TNC inventory could serve as a guide to mitigate the
effects of the proposed by-pass by protecting some of the very
natural areas from further degradation by secondary impacts of
the proposed by-pass, the FEIS lacks any meaningful mitigation
analysis, plan or timetable. It identified no areas for
mitigation or timetable for protecting them.
Finally, with regard to wetlands, the FEIS, because of all the
flaws previously indicated, does not adequately support its
assertion that no other alternative exists to destroying nearly
60 acres of wetlands and concomitant adverse effects on scores of
additional acres of wetlands. A revised FEIS should at least
make an honest attempt to analyze whether workable alternatives
exist and honestly evaluate the magnitude of wetland losses in
the Little River watershed in light of the TNC inventory.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
makes clear that States must consider strategies designed to make
the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities,
consider the overall social, economic, energy and environmental
effects of transportation systems, and consider methods to reduce
traffic congestion and to prevent it from developing where it
does not yet occur (including methods which reduce motor vehicle
travel, particularly single occupant vehicles). ISTEA Sections
135(c)(10-12). As already set out in the previous portions --
especially the inadequate characterization of alternatives
portion -- of this letter, this FEIS is proof that neither MA
nor NCDOT have fulfilled these ISTEA obligations.
Clean Air Act
Sections 108, 110, 174, 176 and 304 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1990 have pertinence to the considerations required
under NEPA as well as the CAA. The CAA requires greatly
increased attention to mobile source emissions: cars and trucks.
Motor vehicles account for 88% of carbon monoxide emissions and
50% of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds.
This project, as previously stated, will likely encourage more
use individual motor vehicles. The FEIS provides no analysis of
such an effect. Additionally, the FEIS states in a conclusory
manner that the by-pass will promote more efficient operating
7
-160-
speeds, also without providing supporting data (to include
support for what speeds deemed most fuel efficient for different
vehicle types). Finally, the FEIS does not consider the chilling
effect of this proposed by-pass on rail, public transit and other
more energy efficient transportation. The revised FEIS must
address these effects at least throughout the US 1 corridor. To
evaluate merely within the geographic confines of this proposed
project will, as previously stated, not conform to NEPA's
prohibition of segmentalization.
Circumstances Differing from Claims in FEIS
Although the Mayor of Vass, Roy Jackson, sent a letter that
appears in the FEIS (D-34) it does not express support for the
proposed by-pass as claimed in the FEIS'-- "The remaining
jurisdictions, Moore County, the Town of Vass, and the Town of
Cameron have expressed support for improvements to US 1,
particularly Alternative A...." (IV-17). To the contrary, Mayor
Jackson's letter expressed opposition to the eastern route --
i.e., alternative A. The subsequent Mayor of Vass, Lois Bullock,
wrote a letter that similarly lacked support for an eastern
route. This letter does not appear in the FEIS.
Also absent from the FEIS are communications of any kind from the
Town of Cameron. Isabelle Thomas has been Cameron's Mayor for
most, if not all, of the pertinent planning period. on March 6th,
1996, Mayor Thomas, along with the Cameron Town council,, passed a
resolution strongly opposing the proposed by-pass and elucidating
an alternative plan that included, basically, the TSM alternative
enhanced with grade leveling at critical points, car & van pool
facilitation, and purchase of development rights from willing
land owners along rural portions of the present route of US 1.
The Mayor of Pinehurst, Charles Mangers, in a recent letter to
Mayor.Thomas, which was also published in the local newspaper,
stated that the Village of Pinehurst was opposed to the proposed
by-pass. Governor Hunt; in a March 18th "town meeting" held at
the Mid Pines Resort in Southern Pines, indicated to the audience
that the needs of Pinehurst were a large part of the reason for
the proposed by-pass. In other words, a significant intended
beneficiary of the proposed by-pass -- the Village of Pi.nehurst -
- neither wants nor needs the proposed by-pass.
The FEIS lacks information on increases in estimated cost of the
by-pass from the time NCDOT announced it.had chosen alternative A
in 1993. Since then, NCDOT has changed the configuration and
design of alternative A, announced that its road-building program
is some $700 million over budget, and indicated that the cost of
road-building materials have increased.
In light of the strong local government opposition, the lack of
need, and the likely increased cost of the by-pass, the FEIS
8
-161-
needs revision to reflect those circumstances which the current
version completely ignores.
Conclusion
MooreFORCE respectfully requests that NCDOT and FHWA cease plans
to begin acquisition of right-of-way (previously stated as June
of 1996), rescind the ROD, and begin revising this seriously
flawed FEIS. My client requests an official response by 5:00
p.m. on Monday, April 22, 1996.
Sincerely
Marsh Smith
cc:
The Hon. Isabelle Thomas, Mayor of Cameron
The Hon. George Blackwell, Mayor of Vass
The Hon. Charlie Mangers, Mayor of Pinehurst
The Hon. Michael Fields, Mayor of Southern Pines
The Hon. John Hawthorne, Mayor of Aberdeen
The Hon. Donald S. Cunningham, Mayor of Pinebluff
The Hon. Michael Holden, Moore County Board of Commissioners
The Hon. Richard Morgan, NC Representative
The Hon. Teena Little, NC Senator
The Hon. Fred Hobbs, NC Senator
The Hon. David Funderburk, US Representative
The Hon. Jesse Helms, US Senator
The Hon. Lauch Faircloth, US Senator
The Hon. James Hunt, Governor
Harry Huberth, MooreFORCE
Lark Hayes, Southern Environmental Law Center
Laura Deaton, NC Alliance for Transportation Reform
Joe McDonald, NC Alliance for Transportation Reform
Bill Holman, Sierra Club
Linda Pearsall,-NC Natural Heritage Program
Mark Cantrell, OS Fish & Wildlife Service
Ted Bisterfeld, US E.P.A.
Mary Hayes Holmes
Robert L. Morris
Prof. Ruth McKinney
Jeff Hudson
Brent Hackney
David-Sinclair
H. Franklin Vick
Nicholas L. Graf
9
-162-
EMUSIT G
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
3ab C:UURTLAN0 STREET. N.C.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
JAN 2 3 1896
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North'Caroli.na Department of Transportation
post office Box 25201
Raleigh,- NC 27611-5201
Subject: U.S. 1 from S.R. 1853 to S.R. 1180 Moore and Lee
Counties; Federal Final Environmental. Impact Statement
TIP Project No. R-210; EPA Reference F-FHW-E40740-NC
Dear mr. Fick:
In accordance with Section 102(2)(C} of the National
Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act,
EPA Region 4 is providing comments on the subject Final EIS.
tru Luui jail" 1-:1
aao rreyarrca p?.-c+yn?•L is !?.LL.eLa,oL?vas !l? 1 XWUI-4
froowai oess£igu=atioa an isz?enaed:att. ?ea?-t- I •,:i "r LISP-- t7.3 -
between the Cit:. P_4 Ai' SnrthE•rn p' ^pQ ??? Ctanfnrc+ •
12.2-miles long
A large portion of the pro' act would be on now aiig:?erit tat the
east side of the present highway.
Responses to EPA comments
We are anticipating recGipt of the Natural Systems Technical
Memorandum as NCDOT ird:Cates it will provide. It is possible
EPA will have additional comments based on that document.
Yv.i.ti L
++
A reoponoo in ti-to doou7nes9%4: +.n 4.Ihe rrx aoa+sn•ni m
that wetland impacts minimization efforts during preliminary
design of Alternative A have reduced t_a t=nate from. 95 acres
to 56-acres. If this represents a right-of- alignment
then this new
wil_•We utilized foztisohinoseiccrr?orgestimates for other
esrimate is not comparable
alternatives in Table IV-16. IS: aCy alig ent wonhnn Altern/aii e
D was considered with similar imp
might become the least impacting alternative. We assume 56-aces
is to be the level of impact to be considered in establ:shingit?Qe
iation mi ti qx1-; ern m, ^^er the Cowpo
appropriate componZ
the alignment and wetland delireat=on.. Also,
sritiyaticu plan for the Final E=5 should ava had compensation
Specified.
( amounts, locations, wetland types,
=i.------- ----------- ------ -163-

We recogni -e the unavo? d :b? e : ozs of forested land cover due
to -lip rrnL?naPri M 7.tt.: 1 C 1 r ....
j1TI? 0I'• + rZ.rwL issw..' .;- ?
L? uvlas Lutes-0 i, we r?comrtenc erccnsive plaings to bene_?t
a?atlacl:iv?, uvizc auacemcnL, nuri-po-nt source water DO1 i t7t'. n!1
air qua11 cy .
we expressed reservation about cumulative environmental
1"1D3Ct:? ut l.t:c north Caro-Iliia 'rrauspormation Improvement Program.
relative to wetlands loss. Although the response to this comment
was that it is beyond the scope of the: present analysis, we
believe the mechanism(s) exist to do such an accounting. NCDOT
utilizes the NC Center for Geographic information and Analysis on
which specific proicct data likely reside. Both ceoa-ach i n anei
tabular data on basic land cove_•-uategories exists for a great
CAA? of the state. Perhaps with tho accictancc of the Corpa of
Engineers wetlands Regulatory and .planning statt, qua-'it+tative analysis of land cove= conversion should be possible. This
iaformatior_ has a place __ the tota' accou.^.tinq of costs and
benefits of t-ansportat-on pro acts.
U _11M
W4A T" i rt-.sin our ial dwcre.e o ao-:cor^ rogardinc the
e lacX of Spec__Ic c car= --rc M- nn -edal.._;anct s
-?..:. L L=0 :save Lcez:
V - Q j tic: due LO Ln ?. r
ealtig.Leius+.
_responded to adequately. fflhe de,: elopr. ent of the final wetlands
mitigation plan should be cocrdin ated with our wetlands Section
- and we look forward to , is comp_r=:6on as ea=16 as possible Ln the
-final project design state.
Thsink v,+» far +-h? nr•.?.-?..? : i.t. _ ,.., .,•........ _+
Please contact Tea 5ister.,_e_d at : 5 - you w--; sh to
discuss our cc=cnts.
Sincer e-
ne_r.7 1'. muc_ler
Chef, Env'ronmenta? Po=icy Sectior.
.6-
cc: wade Wright, Wilmington COE
Howard Hall, USF'RS Ea:e_g^
-- ------•-----------
-164-
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P. O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-S201 SECRETARY
May 3, 1995
Mr. Marsh Smith
Cunningham, Redmond, Petersen & Smith
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Post Office Box 1468
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the proposed improvements to
US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties (TIP No. R-210).
This project was begun in 1989 and since then numerous public workshops,
small group meetings, and a public hearing have been held. The Final
Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) has not been completed due to finalizing
the wetland delineations. Once all wetland areas have been identified, the
design can be revised in order to minimize and avoid as many human and
natural resources as possible.
The Department reevaluated the proposed alignment in the vicinity of
Cameron and has proposed a shift to the east away from the Ferguson and
Funderburk properties near the.proposed US 1 and NC 24/27 interchange. This
shift will reduce the number of relocatees along the project. Once the FEIS
and Record of Decision have been approved, a design public hearing will be
held. The Department and the Federal Highway Administration have determined
that the extensive public involvement program was adequate for this project.
Therefore, no additional corridor studies are proposed.
Thank you for your interest in this important highway project. Please
be assured that the Department will carefully consider all comments received.
and we;comes your continued participation.
Si rely,
Sam Hunt
SH/hfv
cc: Mary Hayes Holmes, Member, Board of Transportation
PHONE [phone] FAX[phone]
T-
'C _
-165-

September 6, 1994
Mr. Frank Vick
Project Manager (TIP No. R-210)
NC Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Widening and Re-Routing US 1 from SR 1180 south of Sanford to
SR 1853 at Lakeview -- Lee and Moore Counties -- TIP No. R-210
Dear Mr. Vick:
The Citizens' Alliance for Roads and Environment for Moore
County -- CARE Moore -- has retained this firm to assist them with
their efforts to persuade the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) of the merits of the no-build alternative
and the spot improvement alternative for the proposed widening and
re-routing of US 1 from Lakeview to Lee County. CARE Moore believes
that the present situation offers opportunities for genuine
citizen-NCDOT cooperation and innovation in serving this area's
transportation needs.
As you already know, CARE Moore's membership consists of a
diverse group of citizens whose homes and businesses lie in the
path of the proposed project, as well as citizens who have no
property at risk but oppose the project based on strongly held
convictions about fiscal and environmental responsibility. CARE
Moore's members -- along with increasing numbers of North
Carolinians -- have become disillusioned with massive, fiscally
draining and environmentally destructive road building projects in
their state. This phenomenon occurred in the State of Maine several
years back and resulted in a complete overhaul of Maine's
transportation laws, which mandated that new road construction be
the last alternative considered when evaluating transportation
improvements.
This project's "no-build" and "spot improvement" alternatives
offer significant opportunities for NCDOT to join with local
concerned citizens and design an innovative approach to serving
this area's transportation needs. Such a collaboration is the next
logical step to take :after the March 30th and August 16th
conferences NCDOT held with concerned citizens, environmentalists
and members of the North Carolina Alliance for Transportation
Reform.
-166-
Frank Vick
September 6, 1994
Page 2
In order to ensure long term viability of spot improvements
along the targeted section of US 1, two steps should occur. First
by relying on local input, analyzing accident reports, and
Performing destination surveys NCDOT and concerned citizens can
produce a list of spot improvements to address existing
Second -- by analyzing projected new building along the xi ting IIS
1 corridor and by analyzing projections of increases in people and
freight using the US 1 corridor --
decide whether NCDOT and concerned citizens can
will acquisition of property-rights along the corridor'
protect the trafficability of US -3. and whether alternative
means of moving people and freight can be cost effective2
Collaboration and innovation do not waste resources. In other
words, not working together is not cost effective. Litigating
serious questions about the legal requirements
Environmental Policy Act), NCEPA of NEPA (National
Policy Act) gWp? (North Carolina Environmental
"The Clean Water Act(Federal Water Pollution Control Act, a.k.a.
)# CAA (Clean Air Act), and ISTEA (Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) will waste a lot of NCDOT's
and CARE Moore's ful and ingenuity that would be better spent on
finding less harm less costly ways of moving people and
freight.
. If NCDOT finds that it cannot collaborate and insists on
attempting the presently proposed
by-pass, many obstacles. A few examples NEPA alone will pose
follow.
1. NCDOT announced that it had chosen the present route in April
of 1992, but the final EIS has yet to issue. In many NEPA
cases the federal courts have held that EIS's are not supposed
to serve as after-the-fact rationalizations of a previous
By using conservation easements enabled under NCGS
Chapter 121, Article 4, the NCDOT can reduce or forestall increased
congestion which might otherwise
projects and encourage business make inadequate any road widening
than in outlying areas. By growth in existing towns, rather
y allowing protected land to remain in
private ownership, conservation easements also allow the land to
remain in the counties' tax base.
` ?__ In such an analysis , , it becomes v o
costs and benefits oX-'` ___'.. imp o to analyse
--alts na' 1*Ve =ail' a`?n t 'corridor for solutions such as
have effects outside ta " - p°O i -because such'`'solutions '"will-
rgetedea of US 1.
-167-
Frank Vick
September 6, 1994
Page 3
decision. However, the EIS on this project appears to be just
such a post hoc rationalization.
2. On August 4, 1994, NCDOT held a public hearing (at the Moncure
Elementary School) about another widening of US 1, in southern
Wake County. This clearly illustrates that NCDOT "piecemeals"
its EISs. NCDOT's own documents indicate that Alternative A
(the presently proposed alternative) impacts 95 acres of
wetlands, 158 acres of prime and important farmland and 113
acres of potential RCW (red-cockaded woodpecker, a federally
endangered species) habitat. What staggering impacts the
entire US 1 corridor improvement program must have? NEPA
requires the entirety of such impacts to be addressed in an
EIS and does not allow the piecemealing now occurring.
3. The EIS t a$tlress secondarx_effects.:p4., he pro ect
;7 of f ects
which'? dor%t ecarl_tha draft EIS addressing,: NCDOT personnel ....1
have indicated that the uncertainty of secondary effects make
them unaddressable by the EIS, but other NCDOT personnel seem
very certain of growth the project will engender3.
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and ISTEA problems also exist
with the project. Members of CARE Moore have addressed these in
statements presented to you earlier this month, and I don't want to
belabor legal issues which I hope we can avoid.
Prior to October, I will send you a notebook containing
correspondence and information which supports CARE Moore's position
and which we hope you will find helpful. You will find, within this
information, issues which need to be addressed by the final EIS. At
this time, CARE Moore asks that NCDOT withdraw its choice of
Alternative A until the final EIS issues and seriously consider the
no-build and spot improvements alternatives.
Sincerely,
Marsh Smith
See, for example, Byron E. Brady's July 29
to Gwen P. Funderburk -- "These improvements to US
Lee counties are needed for the continued economic
area."
1994, letter
1 in Moore and
growth of the
-168-
Frank Vick
September 6, 1994
Page 4
cc:
The Hon. Jim Hunt, Governor
The Hon. Russell Walker, State Senator
The Hon. Howard Lee, State Senator
The Hon. Richard Morgan, State Representative
The Hon. Malcolm Owings, County Commissioner
The Hon. Isabelle Thomas, Mayor of Cameron
The Hon. Martin Pinnock, Mayor of Vass .
The Hon. Michael D. Fields, Mayor of Southern Pines
The Hon. William Marts, Mayor of Aberdeen-
The Hon. Sam Hunt, Secretary of NCDOT
Mary Hayes Holmes, NC Board of Transportation
Dan DeVane, NCDOT
Fred Whitesall, NCDOT Division 8
G. Wayne Wright, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
John Dorney, Wetlands Section, DEM
Mark Cantrell, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Sandhills Coordinator
Melinda Taylor, NC Environmental Defense Fund
Laura Deaton, NC Alliance for Transportation Reform
Harry Huberth, Moore"FORCE
Claudia Madeley, The Pilot
Anita Lillard, The Citizen News-Record
The Sanford Herald
Davvid Sinclair, The Triangle
Fayetteville obsezvWeekly
er
-169-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
}AMEs B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201
July 26, 1993
Ms. Gwen Page Funderburk
CARE MOORE Group
110 Clematis Road
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
Dear Ms. Funderburk:
Congressman Tim Valentine has referred your letter concerning the
rerouting of US 1 to this office.
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
I appreciate your interest in the proposed improvements to US 1 in Moore
and Lee Counties (TIP No. R-210). The Department of Transportation (DOT) has
completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in which many alternatives
to improve US 1 were discussed and evaluated. In the decision to relocate
US 1, impacts to historic properties and wetlands, social impacts, and cost
were considered.
During this planning stage, the DOT received many comments and letters
including petitions regarding the different alternatives. Alternative A,
which has been selected as the preferred alternative, had the most support
from both the citizens and governmental agencies. One petition favoring
Alternative A contained 466 names. Also, there were no governmental agencies
which opposed the preferred alternative.
These improvements to US 1 in Moore and Lee counties are needed for the
continued economic growth of the area. The Department carefully considered
all comments received during the planning process and feels that the chosen
alternative has the support of both the citizens and governmental agencies.
Thank you again for your interest in the proposed improvements to US 1.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or
concerns.
S' c ely,
Sam Hunt
SH/l jw
cc: Congressman Tim Valentine
Mary Hayes Holmes, Member Board of Transportation
G. R. Kindley, Member Board of Transportation
PHONE [phone] FAX[phone]

-170-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION D
P.O. BOX 25201 ERE
RALEIGH 27611-s2o1
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
Mr. Marsh Smith
Lawyer, Environmental Consultant
225 N. Bennett Street
Suite F
Southern Pines, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Smith:
May 5, 1992
28387
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY. JR.. P.E
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Thank you for your April 27, 1992 letter concerning the proposed
improvements to US 1 in Lee and Moore Counties. Your letter was referred
to me by Secretary Harrelson. While I understand and respect your
opinions, some of the proposals you recommend would be impractical to
apply.
As stated in Secretary Harrelson's March 23, 1992 letter, our Department
does not have the staff or resources to prepare an EIS for the entire
seven-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Also, such an EIS
would soon be invalid because our TIP is updated annually.
You also suggested th
`?'°
ro . ect sfidu 1 d-devot
alternatives. • Your-s''
s
Environmental Impact'
Final Environmental
.ll. ` a
nai
us 1
Thank you for bringing your thoughts to my attention. It is always helpful
to hear the concerns of citizens such as yourself.
Sincerely,
L. J. Yard, P. E.,-Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
LJW/RPH
cc: Secretary Thomas J. Harrelson
Mr. Stuart R. Paine, Member, Board of'Transportation
Deputy Secretary Jake F. Alexander
Mr. Jim Sughrue, Assistant Secretary - External Affairs
Mr. William G. Marley, Jr., P. E., State Highway Administrator
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E., Chief Engineer - Preconstruction
Mr. Steven Thomas, Piedmont Olsen Hensley, Inc.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
-171-
5 N. Bennett St.. Suite F
xnhern Pines. NC 28387
Marsh Smith
Lawyer
Environrnen it C;orLVgtcnt
Phone: [phone]M
April 27, 1992
The Hon. Thomas J. Harrelson
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
?FV.
Post Office Box 9075
Southern Pines. NC 28388-1075
Re: 4-laving of US 1 from SR 1853 in Lakeview to SR 1180 in Lee
Co..
Dear Secretary Harrelson:
Thank you for your reply to my comments on the project mentioned
above. I appreciate you and your staff taking the time to write the
thoughtful and polite reply to my lengthy letter.
Because some of your responses indicate to me. that I haven '.t made
my position understood, I wish to clarify my position regarding the
portions to which you responded directly. For brevity and- clarity
I have attached a copy of your letter and will refer. to parts of it
-in this letter. .
Local Goverrm ts1 P0 . es
You stated that DOT had no authori
policies, apparentl tI' over local government
y implying that solutions which local policies
might hold did not merit consideration in the final EIS. In Natural
Resources Defense Council v Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (1972), the DC
Circuit Courtof Appeals held that policies over which a government
agency has no control must still be considered in an EIS as
alternatives and disposed of on their merits -- not on whether the
agency. promulgating the. EIS can control the policies offering a
possible solution. The National and State (of North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Acts (NEPA and SEPA) seek to inform citizens
and government officials of all alternatives by using EISs. To only
consider solutions over which DOT has control would unnecessarily
truncate.the range of alternatives which the framers of NEPA and
SEPA intended for EISstto explore. Not addressed in your letter
were local governments effects on DOT. By eliminating public
hearings this year for Transportation Improvement Program funds,
DOT has reduced these effects.
Rail Alternatives
In eliminating all of the different rail alternatives, you stated
1
Ji P"40Of1
O?OM
-172-
that "low employment density" caused DOT to dee:
"infeasible." Nowhere in the draft EIS did I 'see
between the commuter area which this project would
of low commuter density which have successful mas
low density areas exist, and, if "denser" than this
final EIS should come forward with hard figures for
search for such areas should include Europe and the
as well as the U.S. and - Canada .
Additionally 4_ ,regarding..,,the rail alterna4
iq a 'Break-down''.-of 'the .
relevant portion ' of VS-
?..--- --... - .... ..? :.! Depen i g on
traffic consisting of"-arge trucX5 l, the
could possibly relieve US 1 sufficiently to
improvements.
the
a these options
any comparison
serve and areas
s transit. Such
area, then the
comparison. Any
United Kingdom
xisting rail corridor
eliminate the need for
Precisely. because DOT has tar °
for 4-laving along their entireeien ? certain infra-state corridors
subjected to a comprehensive ?' the entire program must be
(environmental and economics and ? EIS examining both effects
for not performing ? .efficient te?cnativesa' Thus your reasoning
underscores the and economical spot improvements
glaring problem with the $9.1 billion highway
program -- i.e.,' no comprehensive EIS analyzing effects and
alternatives.
Comprehensive EIS for Env- ,.,,,,.. ? I & Fconomic Effects and;.
AlLerna -i Vp? t° P?'esaent D1 ?„e .
I can sympathize wi.th'•DOTI's• staffing. problems..regarding an EIS for
the entire $9.1 billion highway pro
a local grassroots environmental ??' Doing volunteer work for
aware that work always organization has made me painfully
'Ile that w Ys expands to outstrip resources. However,
staffing DOT's problems cannot excuse it from the duties NEPA and
SEPA impose. North Carolinians have the right to know the
environmental and economic effects of the entire. $9.1 billion
highway program, and they have the right to know the alternatives.
The scope of the $9.1 billion highway program is far broader than
that of the proposed project: When one portion of one road targeted
by. the $9.1 billion highway Program will "impact" between 75 and
125 acres of wetlands, between 366 and 427 acres of wild life
supporting "natural systems", and between 158 and 236 acres of
prime and important•farmland, then it becomes even more important
for North Carolinians to know what staggering effect this entire
$9.1 billion highway program will have.
With respect to economic effects, you stated that "our Department
strongly feels an improved highway system will provide economic
benefits to North Carolina...." With all due respect, some farmers
in the path of this project "feel" that their sixth generation
family farms provide important benefits to this State too --
social, spiritual, and economic -- but their "feeling" doesn't
carry weight equal to what your Department nfeels." To be fair and
2
-1731-
objective, Secretary Harrelson, DOT must hire a competent and
unbiased analyst to determine just what economic effects the $9.1
billion highway program will have on local and small businesses.
Such indirect effects as these must be analyzed. We North
Carolinians have a noted professor at the University of North
Carolina in Chapel Hill who-has performed such analyses before.
Thank you again for your cordial letter on a subject for which we
both harbor strong beliefs.
Sincerely,
xar 1 i'. Smith
cc: 'he Pilot (attn. Claudia Madeley)
Ol a Citizen News-Record
Moore County Commissioners (c/o Giles Hopkins,
Labelle :Thomas , Mayor of Cameron
e Vass-Town-Council
.. vffhe%Southern Pines Town Council
Ohe Aberdeen'Town - Council
Whe Pinehurst Village •Council
e9he -Aberdeen & "Rockfish Railroad - `??? 2341
4 !!e .Carolina.: & -Western- Railroad,
-. CSX _:Corporat±bn=y';".,;-. -
6enato=-Tei `X-'Sanford , - .
• iGenator ,Jesse=Hellas
Stepresantative "Bill'-Hefner
dBUte Senator. Russel` Walker
0State*Sentitor-Howard Lee
"torte Representative Richard Morgan
.e9estern North (:.Carolina Alliance
Lark Hayes,:Esq., The Southern Environmental
County Planner)
Law Center "? -
-174-
w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
March 23, 1992
Mr. Marsh Smith, Lawyer
Environmental Consultant
Post Office Box 1075
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388-1075
Dear Mr. Smith:
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the proposed improvements
to US 1 in Lee and Moore Counties. As you know, the Department proposes to -
widen this facility to four lanes from SR 1180 south of Sanford to SR 1853
at Lakeview.
In opposing this project, your letter mentioned many alternatives to a
four lane roadway. You also felt the planning and zoning policies of Moore
County are improper. Local ov? er?}menttpol;icies_are_outside the_ uthority
of the N. C. Departmen o ransportation.
You emphasized that funds should be spent on rail transportation
rather than highway improvements. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation recognizes rail as an important mode of transportation. Our
Department's Rail Program promotes the preservation and development of the
State's railroad system as part of an efficient multi-modal transportation
network. However, the citizens of our State also need good, safe roads for
their traveling and commuting needs. Good roads will help our State
compete nationally as industries and businesses seek convenient locations.
We feel an improved highway system will help improve the quality of life
for North Carolinians.
As part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
improvements to US 1, mass transit and rail alternatives were studied.
These options were determined to be infeasible because of the area's
relatively low employment density.
Our Department views the proposed improvements to US 1 as an important
part of Governor Martin's proposed system of intra-state corridors.
Certain facilities, including US 1, have been identified as having
An EgWI OPPortueity / Affirmaow Aeban Employe
175-
Page 2-- ? --
statewide importance. These facilities are proposed to be widened to four
lanes along their entire length.
You maintain that funds should be spent on small "spot improvements"
for our highways, not major highway improvements. Spot safety improvements
are quite helpful, but alone they cannot provide the type of improved
highways needed in our State.
Environmental issues were also identified in your letter. You
requested an environmental study of the entire seven year Transportation
Improvement Program. Our Department does not have the staff or resources
to simultaneously complete an environmental study of every proposed highway
project. Rather, we complete environmental reviews of individual projects
according to prioritized schedules. Our Department is committed to
completing the Transportation Improvement Program in an environmentally
sensitive manner.
In regard to the economic impact of highway projects, our Department
strongly feels an improved highway system will provide economic benefits to
North Carolina. Economic benefits were one of the key goals of our General
Assembly when the State Highway Trust Fund was established in 1989.
Governor Martin's support of the proposed statewide strategic corridors is
partly based on the large economic benefits these facilities will provide.
You discussed other options for reducing traffic congestion such as
vanpools and_ rpoq.AI These certainly are good ideas. An increase in the
-sa
`re if6ri-' occup
ancy rate would greatly help us manage congestion. NCDOT's
Public Transportation Program currently provides grants to local
governments and regional transit authorities to support ridesharing
programs.
Again, thank.you fqr informing me of your._opini.ons _ garding the. US 1
_project...;Your: thohts--wi i: -_ecbnsi-derecLZkr * preparation of the Final z
Envi ronmentaT°Tmpact -9f ?"ement''for? sec Pl ease e`Tet me know i f -I ` l
can be of assistance in the future.
Yours truly,
Thomas J. Harrelson
TJH/rh
cc: Mr. Stuart R. Paine, Member, Board of Transportation
Deputy Secretary Jake Alexander
Mr. Jim Sughrue, Assistant Secretary - External Affairs
Mr. William G. Marley, Jr., P. E., State Highway Administrator
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E., Chief Engineer - Preconstruction
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager, Planning.and Environmental Branch
Mr. Steven Thomas, Piedmont Olsen Hensley, Inc.
-176-
Marsh Smith
Lawyer
Erwironmentoi Consuitont
Phone: [phone]
125 N. Bennett St.. Suite F
Southern Fines. NC 28387
March 11, 1992
The Hon. Thomas J. Harrelson
Secretary, Department of Transportation
Highway Building
1 South Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
Post Office Box 1075
Southern Pines. NC 28388-1075
Re: personal comments on draft zis for 4-Laninq US SwY 1
between Lakeview and southern Lee County
Dear Secretary Harrelson:
Four laning US Hwy 1 from Lakeview to southern Lee County is nuts.
It will cost more and work worse than alternatives that haven't yet
been adequately considered. It will severely damage human and
wildlife communities. If we do it, we'll wish we'd never heard of
it, and decisions about it are being made in a vacuum.
As a citizen, I find this offensive. As a conservationist and
environmental consultant, I find it tragic.
The whole concept of four-laning is typical of the bad results to
be expected from misdefining a problem, casting the net of
solutions far too narrowly, and reducing the debate to the details
of where to put something that shouldn't•be built at all. (As the
economist Keynes once wrote, if a thing is not worth doing, it's
not worth doing well.)
We ought to start by asking: What are we trying to achieve? and
then: Among the full range of options we can imagine, including all,
their various combinations, which will do that task in the cheapest
and best way? This "end-use/least-cost" approach, which energy
policy analysts already use, has proven a powerful tool for a wide
range of resource issues. In fact most all. of the techniques
offered in this letter were first promoted or pioneered by Amory
Lovins -- the energy policy analyst with the Rocky Mountain
institute -- and have .worked in other places. At any rate, I
believe the end-use/least cost approach applies equally to
transportation.
1
g
ti,°""mM"OWVWW
-177-
Roads are the answer! (But xhat was the question?)
The problem appears to be that large numbers of people are obliged
by their jobs to travel, more or less simultaneously, between where
they work in the southern Moore County Area and where they live --
areas accessed by US Hwy 1. Most of them travel in one-person
private cars. Among the results are road congestion, parking
problems, and turning oil into pollution. It also seems that
increasing amounts of freight are being hauled by tractor trailer
rigs up and down US Hwy 1 rather than by the rail line which
parallels US Hwy 1.
An extremely wide range of options exists to address this problem.
An analysis of these options begins with having Moore County,
Lakeview, Cameron, Aberdeen, Southern Pines and Vass decide what
they want to be when they grow up. Rids don't get bigger forever,
and towns can't either. Decades of nibbling at the bullet of
community goal-setting -- choosing how much is enough, the
prerequisite to managing maturity -- have already changed southern
c:.zua2.rC+d1 c!1':.8? ?i i. _ • -• .1?:+: ?-. .6-Et ax later i::e:=_ ne is ` ,
certainly is late: "... You don't know what you've go 'til it's
gone." A lot is gone. djoi-
Next come all the social and economic factors called "land-use and
housing policy." Development policies which both boost demand and
slash supply for employee housing in the southern Moore County area
directly drive the traffic load. Moore County - and some of the towns
in southern Moore County have had policies that have ignored this
linkage in the past and which continue to ignore it. Indeed,
Aberdeen's -- and, to some extent, Southern Pines' -- capitulation
in the past two decades to greedy, mindless growth has directly
created the housing and commuting problems of which US Hwy i is a.
part. Yet the only resulting direct cost which Aberdeen and
Southern Pines bear is for parking capacity. In fact, by not having
to bear the $50 million cost of 4-laving US Hwy 1, the increased
property tax revenues from mindless growth seem like a windfall to
the very governments which allow the mindless growth (most evident
between Aberdeen and Southern Pines along US Hwy 1).
Even our county government is essentially without any traffic
cutting. goals. At a candidates' forum last year, none of the
candidates for Southern Pines Town Council seemed to have
considered actual traffic reduction (rather than redirection) as a
policy goal. Also last year, the town of Southern Pines refused to
allow a therapist to continue to work from his home due to zoning
constraints. In our entire county I doubt that even 1% of the
workforce walks or bicycles to work. In the more developed southern
part of the county, I. doubt that even half of that percentage
commutes 'other than by car. Today it's still illegal for most
Aberdeen and Southern Pines residents to walk next door to work:
only those who live in a building are allowed to work there (and in
2
-178-
the case of the therapist, he wasn't even allowed to work in the
same, building where he lived). This certainly warrants a re-
examination of the home-occupation rule. Did the DOT even entertain
the idea of helping people live near where they want to work, so
they can avoid commuting altogether?
Irritating constraints in local telecommunications systems, too,
make it hard to telecommute. Rural phone upgrading, and the long-
overdue redrawing of the local-service boundaries, will help some
people to work more at home, as millions of Americans -- the
equivalent of Chicago's population -- already do. This won't work
for restaurant waiters, but it. can work, at least a few days a
week, for many officeworkers.
Another unaddressed opportunity is the timing of working hours.
Businesses' and individual workers' overly synchronized hours,
which encourage or require most commuters to come to and from work
within a very short period, are contributing to traffic jams. Ways
to spread out the road-traffic peak by staggering worktimes need to
Unfortunately, so many of the land-use and housing decisions
already made are essentially irreversible, at least on a timescale
of a generation or two, that a considerable need for commuting will
remain. Having failed to eliminate or localize commuting, we're
already stuck with the third-best solutions -- paying the price of
past political irresponsibility or inattention. But third-best is
better than, say, sixth-best.
Bead vs. Sail
Enter the North Carolina Department of Transportation, which has
hardly,ever met a highway project it didn't like. As Abe Maslow
said, if the only tool you have is a hammer, it's remarkable how
everything starts to look like a nail.
Here, too, a lopsided economic prejudice for roads distorts our
choices. In Moore County as nationwide, highways (and all the
motor-vehicle and oil infrastructure, parking, traffic police,
medical facilities, etc. which they require) are heavily
subsidized. We pay for roads with our income, property, and fuel
taxes. In contrast, such alternatives as railways are virtually
unsubsidized; on -the contrary, they're taxed to help finance
competing highways. Most civilized countries level the transport
playing-field by maintaining public rail networks just as they do
highways. The United States does not.
Our failure to place different transport modes on an equal economic
footing so they can compete on merit has produced the absurdity we
face today: preparing to launch a massive, costly, and disruptive
4-laving project before the wide range of rail-based and other
alternatives has been seriously examined. Now absurd to invest in
3
-179-
capacity increases for US Hwy 1 when a rail corridor that parallels
it could already and more efficiently handle much of the present
and expected traffic. Voters were never given a proper choice --
the voters never approved the present $9.1 billion highway
"improvement" program. In my opinion, no further preparations for
4-laning, including the divisive and expensive design and siting
process, should be undertaken until the voters have had an equal
opportunity to consider fully developed rail options as part of a
long-term comprehensive transportation, not just highway, plan.
Estimates from other areas of -our country suggest that rail will be
tens of millions of dollars cheaper to build, and even more
advantageous in avoided maintenance burdens; will have far lower
impact on people, land, wildlife, and- air; will reduce, not
increase, acid rain and global warming (a typical car emits nearly
its own weight in carbon each year) ; will be enormously more
energy-efficient and -fuel-flexible; will work better in bad
weather; will be far safer and faster; will reduce the public
hazards posed by intoxicated drivers; would enable passengers to
than cars into sout::a=:. Moore County, will reduces rather t:.
increase Lakeview's, Vass's, Aberdeen's and Southern Pines' parking
needs. In short, rail can probably solve all the problems 4-laning
was meant to solve, but better, cheaper, faster, and without making
other problems worse.
Rail isn't just one option
"Rail" as a generic term, however, conceals the richness of the
large menu of rail-based options. For example, General Motors,
Lucas Aerospace workers in England, and other European innovators
have developed versatile vehicles which convert in seconds between
steel wheels for rail and rubber tires for road, or vice versa. GM
is routinely using such "roadrailers," converted from railcars to
semitrailers and back at each end, to ship its parts between
plants. Whether used to relieve freight or commuter traffic on US
Hwy 1 or both, this technique is.available right now.
Flail systems can also be light, medium, or heavy; simple, medium;
or supercomplicated (like San Francisco's BART or Washington DC's
Metro). Many European light-rail systems are beautifully simple,
hence cheap to buy and run. That design philosophy made the Tijuana
Trolley profitable without subsidy. It could work here too.
And let's not forget that all our transport problems relate to each
other. The existing Raleigh-Southern Pines rail link, which would
use the same track (or at least the same road bed), deserves more
support. Also the rail link which connects Aberdeen to southern
Montgomery county -- passing through Piaehurst, West End, and Seven
Lakes -- could, through proper development, eliminate the need for
the "211 by-pass" project and, additionally, serve to transport
Moore county's refuse to the envisioned "Regional Landfill" in
4
_180-
Montgomery County.
Friends and acquaintances of mine who have lived in Europe have
relied much less on personal cars due to the public (mainly rail-
based) transport system. To be sure, rail doesn't make sense for
low-density rural areas. But southern Moore County's traffic
density is higher than many European areas that rail now serves at
much lower societal cost than expanding highways. In fact,.before
World War I, Americans used to be able to travel from Boston to St.
Louis (much of it through rural areas) entirely on trolleycara,
changing in each town. The interurban trolleys averaged 50-60 mph -
- faster, city-center-to-city-center, than today's interstate
highways. Why can't we do that well, and better, today?
Improving the roads.
US Hwy 1 could and should be improved too. Practically everyone
would welcome a limited, carefully designed program of upgrading by
adding passing/pullover/turnout spaces to correct specific
= do:::? : _ a .__, =:.:::: .:_ __ : • , na;:.uzg upgrades
road much faster and safer with low cost and little impact. But
such improvements don't constitute a "megaproject," so perhaps the
roadbUilders don't find them so exciting.
Indeed, as many people said at the time (before the highway
juggernaut rolled over them), such "spot' improvements are what
should have been done on 15-501 south of the Pinehurst traffic
circle. Instead, we're now stuck with many months of delays,
permanent loss of aesthetic values, a gigantic construction cost,
and a daunting maintenance burden (all that impressive engineering
won't look after itself) which will forever drain money away from
smaller, more sensible investments all over North Carolina. But by
providing the form of due process without its substance --
opportunities to comment on decisions already made -- the NC,DOT
contrived to ignore proffered ways to do the job better and
cheaper. DOT thought too big, and we'll all have to pay the price.
Have we learned nothing?
That brings up another sore point. I admire as much as the next
driver the skill and dedication that keep good roads under my
tires. But roadbuilders make mistakes. For many citizens of Moore
County, NC DOT has zero credibility ever since it bungled the
Morganton Road/15-501 "interface". Whoever conceived and designed
that project must have been thinking about something else. We were
told there would be an overpass, until a last minute change (to a
traffic light controlled crossroads) further degraded the
trafficability of 15-501 and made necessary massive excavation of
the existing embankment. Many are asking themselves whether a
Department of Transportation that turns a simple interchange into
a costly calamity can be trusted with 4-caning US Hwy 1.
5
-181-
... another sore point. The draft EIS fails to address the effect
a 4-laned bypass will have on local business. While it may attract
national chain stores with minimum wage jobs, there are studies
from other states indicating that these new jobs are gotten at the
expense of existing jobs provided by locally owned businesses. Such
a change -- from locally owned to nationally owned business -- will
drastically reduce the economic effect of a dollar spent locally,
because much of a dollar spent in a nationally.owned chain store
goes to the corporate headquarters rather than being respent
locally. The final EIS needs to examine this question in detail. I
understand that the State's university system already has faculty
with expertise in such studies. Other states have. already- availed
themselves to our own research resources... shouldn't-we?
This is true for the entire $9.1 billion highway program -- no
detailed study of its net economic effect has been done. It needs
to be done.
Finally, the draft EIS addresses acres of wetlands, farmland,' and
'a
there has never been am r.I:. a3drWsing such ,lose=: = =--= ?- ?--
$9.1 billion highway program. This must be done! If the US Hwy 1 4-
laning. destroys hundreds of acres of wetlands, farmland, and
wildlife habitat, what magnitude of calamity the $9.1 billion
highway program must be for all of North Carolina.
Economic Glasnost: prices that tell the: truth
We can't think. properly about transportation without -making
explicit and responsible choices about who.pays for what. Today,
local and state taxpayers are being asked to pay not for the
cheapest and most benign but for the costliest and most destructive
way to move people. If 4-laving works as intended, it will only
pour more cars into and rumble more tractor-trailer rigs through
southern Moore County. But. the cheaper commuting by car looks to
the commuters -- i. e., the, more the costs they incur are socialized
-- the less incentive they have to do anything. else, and the less
the incentive for those ultimately responsible for their commuting
plight to adopt sensible land-use and community-building policies.
SometN places with traffic problems have tackled the price-signal
issue head-on. An increasing number of American cities isolated by
tunnels or bridges are charging stiff entry tolls, especially for
one-passenger cars. In San Francisco, bridge tolls plus high-
occupancy-Vehicle lanes create a strong incentive to have several
people per car, so lone drivers commonly pull over to pick up
riders from established hitchhiking points outside the city. (The
Belgian government even came up with ingenious "club" arrangements
to make hitchhiking safer, more convenient, and more lucrative for
all involved.) Of course, even a small increase in passengers per
car greatly reduces traffic and parking problems at very-low cost.
Increased car load factor is probably the first priority for US Hwy
6
-182-
I management, and merits detailed attention.
Many proven ways exist to increase the number of people per car.
Some American corporations provide incentives (free parking,
insurance, etc.), and even the vehicles themselves, for vanpooling
or minibuses. Why? Because that's cheaper than acquiring parking
spaces for one-person cars, not to mention other societal costs
avoided. Car- and vanpool or minibus incentives, by the public or
private sector or both, are among the many options that should be
thoroughly tried before considering 4-laving US Hwy I. Such
solutions would solve all the problems created by cars, not just
highway traffic, and would probably cost much less.
You can consider even more radical approaches: one successful West
German experiment, for example, completely relieved people of the
need to own cars, by supplementing public transport with
neighborhood carpools that provided every adult with keys,
maintenance, and a signup system. (Given good public transport, a
r 'Z= for abol?t eve-_y tan L`r3 0 7
?1 - inc udi:;a children, tla--s out to
all n=_-ads fa-: parscra'
operating one's own car costs several thousand doiiars a year, plus
-- in all likelihood -- a comparable public subsidy, practically
any other way of providing mobility will cost less.
Some cities take very seriously the internalization of social costs
of cars. Singapore requires a costly daily driving permit:
everyone, even diplomats and firstrucks, must buy a ticket for each
day's driving privileges. Stockholm introduced a more subtle but
probably even more effective system: residents who want a permit to
drive in the city during any given month must buy a sticker which
happens to be a free pass to the whole regional public-transport
system (subways trolleys, and buses). At that point, drivers have
paid for their public-transit mobility, so might as well use it;
and those who insist on driving will have simultaneously paid its
costs and helped finance the alternative.
These and many variations on the same theme are based not on
socialist ideals but on the most conservative economic principles
of paying all our own costs: if people don't know what something
really costs, they won't know how much, is enough and will
underinvest in alternatives. Yet the least-cost alternatives to
commuter cars have barely been mentioned in the IIS Hwy 1 debate.
Among the questions we should be asking are: What is the full
societal value of a "negamile"? In other words, how much is it
worth paying people -- one way or another -- to stay off the roads
so we needn't build and mend them so much? How can we ensure that
those who directly or indirectly impose transport-related costs
will.pay those costs themselves?
Basic choices
Most fundamentally, it's time we realized that expanding highways
7
-183-
expands t.-affic. The notion that supply can drive demand is hardly
new: In Ecclesiastes 5, for example, we read that
"He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with
silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this
is also vanity. When goods increase, they are increased
that eat them: and what good is there to the owners
thereof saving the beholding of them with their eyes?"
But this old idea isn't just an abstraction. There's a large
literature showing that bigger and better roads make more people
drive on them. More roads, more cars. When will we ever learn?
The highway choice before-southern Moore county is not whether to
have sometimes-crowded roads. Those will always be with us: more if
we persist in subsidizing cars and indiscriminate development, or
less if we revive the rail system and take long-range steps to keep
from having to run around so much.
a _aM", the choic3 is :?ha?uar a Want the c?mcts:: Moore Count-
.c: be rural or urban. Shall we, by fa__'-:s ---
pave paradise and put up a parking lot? --~
Sincerely,
Marsh Smith
cc: The Pilot (attn. Claudia Madeley)
The Citizen News-Record
Moore County Commissioners (c/o Giles Hopkins, County Planner)
Isabelle Thomas, Mayor of Cameron
The Vass Town Council
The Southern Pines Town Council
The Aberdeen Town Council
The Pinehurst Village Council
The Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad
The Carolina'& Western Railroad
CSX Corporation
Moore FORCE
Governor Jim Martin
Senator Terry Sanford
Senator Jesse Helms
Representative Bill Hefner
State Senator Russel Walker
State Sentator Howard Lee
State Representative Richard, Morgan
Amory Lovins, RMI (Attn: Sharon Troyer)
8
-184-
MEMO
TO: Mary Hayes Holmes, BOT /
Frank Vick, NCDOT
Don Voelker, FHWA c
FROM: Marsh Smith ll-i- 5.
DATE: June 18, 1996
RE: OBSERVATIONS ON FRANKLIN VICK'S
RESPONSES TO PARTIAL LIST OF CONCERNS
TIP no. R-210, FA no.*NHF-0001(3)
The following address, in the same order as the previous partial
list of concerns, Franklin Vick's responses to the same:
1. Nowhere in Mr. Vick's response to 11 does he address the
principal concern advanced by it -- inadequate length of
highway corridor for evaluating Mass Transit. This serves
as further evidence that NCDOT needs to do a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PSIS) for the US1 corridor
within North Carolina.
2. Not much to say on this one, other than "I disagree." A
project costing at least $55 million would seem to warrant
at least a destination survey.
3. Research does not support Mr. Vick's contention that
development at interchanges serves the travelling public,
essentially to the exclusion of local folks.
Gas stations, fast-food restaurants, and motels do tend to
develop around interchanges shortly after they are built.
But many other land uses often follow, including employment
centers. The classic case is Route 128 around Boston, that
was built through rural areas and was the catalyst for a
string of R&D projects that completely transformed the
environment.
With regard to newly-generated traffic, reference is made to
the Institute of Transportation Engineers report "Trip
Generation," 5th edition, Table VII-3, page I-27, which
shows that 54% of fast-food trips and 74% of gasoline
service station trips are nM-pass-by. Although these data
game from the Chicago suburbs and may not be directly
applicable to US1 in North Carolina, nevertheless the new
trips that would be generated by these developments cannot
be properly ignored.
The FHWA has noted, "[w]hen an existing route is-paralleled
by a much more attractive highway such as a freeway, the
total traffic on the two roads will be considerably greater
than that on the old road before the new one was opened."
Every new road, and every improvement to an existing road
-185-
results in newly-generated trips. For this reason, the same
trip table cannot be used for build forecasts and no-build
forecasts.
4. From Mr. Vick's response, which did not address 14 of the
concerns, I take it that NCDOT admits that it did not take
into account accidents that will continue to occur on the
present US1 after the by-pass is built. It seems that this
omission requires a supplemental EIS to address the clear
implication that the FEIS misleads the decision maker and
misinforms the public. Do NCDOT and FHWA refuse to address
this?
5. The Highway Capacity Manual, 3rd edition, shows that under
ideal conditions, a two-lane road'can carry 2800 vehicles
per hour, which translates into 22,000 to 28,000 vehicles
per day. Although FHWA and NCDOT probably cannot achieve
ideal conditions on US1, relatively minor improvements could
considerably increase its capacity. Many two-lane roads
carry daily volumes far in excess of 12,000 per day.
6. Mr. Vick's response to 16 seems without basis since the FEIS
lacks a breakdown of the projected traffic growth into local
and through traffic -- yet another compelling reason for a
destination survey. Before FHWA and NCDOT can adequately
address this issue, they need to know the breakdown of the
projected traffic increases into local and through traffic.
And, of course, the bases for such projections need to be
made known.
7. Refusing to evaluate cumulative wetland impacts, over which
EPA expressed concern, because such "is beyond the scope of
the [EIS] for improvements to US1", further demonstrates the
need for a PEIS.
8. Concern #8 dealt with the flawed nature of the Secondary
Impacts analysis-contained in the FEIS. Mr. Vick does not
base his response on facts. An analysis needs to base its
conclusions-on facts. Merely saying that a conclusion is
based on fact -- "[t]his conclusion is based on the fact
that agriculture will remain the dominant land use in the
study area" -- does not make it so. The question remains
whether the proposed by-pass will change the rural-
agricultural character of the area and impact the
-environment accordingly. Claiming that it won't without
basing it on empirical fact and then labelling that claim a
"fact" emphasizes that NCDOT and FHWA remain unwilling to
correctly address secondary impacts.
9. The fact remains, as to concern 19, that Mr. Vick has not
supplied the time of year during which an endangered plant
survey was done.
10. Regarding concern 19, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife service
-186-
Sandhills Coordinator indicates that no survey of the Little
River for freshwater mussels has ever been done and that is
why none are listed. Such a survey needs to be done. With
the number of new species to the area that the Nature
Conservancy found during their Ft. Bragg inventory, NCDOT
and FHWA can't rely on a lack of published findings to
conclude that no endangered mussels exist.
il. Two (2), not one (1) , of Cameron's water supply wells will
be destroyed by the proposed by-pass. If Mr. Vick's
statement as to Cameron having only four (4) water supply
wells is correct, then the proposed by-pass will wipe out
50% of Cameron's well field.
12. :
13: If NCDOT sent the letters it claims to have sent in response
to concerns 112 and 013, then why didn't the FEIS contain
this information?
14. The case law and the regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) indicate that an EIS must
discuss mitigation measures in an EIS. 40 CFR sections
1502.16(h), 1502.14(f), and 15.05.2(2)(c); Robertson v.
Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 Q.S. 332 (1989). In
Methow Valley the US Supreme Court said that the omission of
a "reasonably complete discussion" of-mitigation measures
would undermine NEPA's action forcing functions. The Court
added that without such a discussion neither the agency nor
the interested citizens could properly evaluate the severity
of the adverse effects of the action.
15. It seems that NCDOT and FHWA can't have it both ways. They
forecast a 100% increase in traffic to justify the proposed
by-pass and then claim that noise is not a problem.
This writer appreciates the time and effort that NCDOT, Mr. Vick
and Ms. Holmes took to respond to the concerns of the Town of
Cameron and Moore.for a Clean Environment (MooreFORCE).
Hopefully, NCDOT and FHWA will prepare a supplemental EIS
addressing the flaws in the FEIS and prepare a PEIS to address
cumulative impacts and considerations deemed beyond the scope of
the FEIS.
cc:
Brent Hackney
David Sinclair
-187-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT )R.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRrFARI'
June 12, 1996
Mr. Marsh Smith
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen and Smith
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the improvements to US 1 in Moore and Lee
Counties (TIP No. R-210).
I have attached a list which responds to the 15 questions you submitted to Board Member
Mary Hayes Holmes. Hopefully, these answers will address the concerns and questions
outlined in your recent letters.
I would also like to reiterate that the department is mandated by the Highway Trust Fund Act
of 1989 to four-lane existing US 1 from the Virginia state line to the South Carolina state
line. The department has right-of--way acquisition scheduled to begin on the first section of
US 1 in July 1996 and construction to begin in March 1998.
Again, thank you for your interest in this project,
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFVAh
Attachment
cc: Mary Hayes Holmes, Member, Board of Transportation

-188-
I . As stated on page 11-3 Of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the Mass
Transit Alternative was rejected from consideration due to a number of factors, including the
absence of a concentration of major employers throughout the US 1 corridor and the low
population density within Lee and Moore Counties. Such conditions do not typically support
transit. The rational used in rejecting this preliminary alternative is supported by the discussion on
transit pig contained to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Transportation Planning
Handbook (1992). The handbook states on page 160:
"Public transport works best where travel is concentrated in space and time. It is best
suited for areas with high population and
becomes more dispersed and tcaasit ?°?= des. As densities decline, travel
becomes less effective in serving travelers."
The Handbook also provides general minimum conditions which are conducive to the
development of rapid transit systems. It states that the
of busway systems is an urban area primary determirrartts in the development
at least 400,000. Clearly, the Lee an Moore Population at least 750,000, and a city center population of
County region does not meet these thresholds.
2, Din-destination studies are not tYPically conducted for specific projects. Due to the
low density population is the Lee and Moore County region and the small population base, such
studies were not necessary to determine that transit is not an appropriate solution for the US 1
corridor.
I Controlled access freeways, such as that proposed for US 1, may generate commercial
development at interchanges. This development is generally comprised of traveler services, such
gas stations, fast food restaurants, and motels. S businesses attract traffic already in the
traffic stream, and create only a small amount of newly generated traffic.
4. The occurrence of accidents on existing US 1 is expected to decline substantially, due
to the anticipated decrease in the average daily traffic volumes. Existing US 1 will support
predominantly local traffic, rather than the mix of local and through traffic now using the facility.
S. TSM improvements will not improve roadway capacity to accommodate the traffic
volumes projected for US 1 in the year 2010. Those projections Lange from 16,100 to 22,800
average daily traffic. A two-lane roadway, even with limited driveways,
and turning lanes at intersections can accommodate approximately 12,0000 vehicles per day.
= 6. Van-pooling, car-pooling, and other transit options would have very limited impact on
the US 1 traffic volumes, due to the sparse settlement patterns in the area, and the absence of a
major employment center.
7. The EPA expressed reservation about the cumulative environmental impacts of the
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program relative to wetland loss. An evaluation of
-189-
the cumulative impact of the State of North Carolina's Transportation Improvement Program is
beyond the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for improvements to US 1.
8. The evaluation of the secondary effects of construction concluded that no substantial
unplanned development will result from the project. This conclusion is based on the fact that
agriculture will remain the dominant land use in the study area; and water and wastewater utilities
are not in place to support intensive development.
9. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the biological conclusion of the threatened
and endangered species listed in the FEiS and concurred that the project will have "NO EFFECT"
on any species.
10. There are no threatened or endangered mussels listed for Lee or Moore County.
11. One of the Town of Cameron's four water supply wells is located within the proposed
right-of-way of the project. If the well c=ot be avoided, the NCDOT will replace the effected
well in a timely manner.
12. Mr. James E. Phillips, Mayor of Cameron and Mr Roy C. Jackson, Mayor of Vass
were contacted to serve on the Steering Committee for this project. There was no response from
Mayor Jackson, and Mayor Phillips asked that Moore County Manager David McNeill keep him
informed of the project development
13. Scoping letters for the US 1 project were seat to Mr. James E. Phillips, Mayor of
Cameron and to Mr. Roy C. Jackson, Mayor of Vass. There was no response from either.
14. NCDOT will prepare a wetland mitigation plan during the fihal design phase of the
Project, when the precise wetland impacts are known. Further attempts to minimize wetland
impacts will occur during this phase.
15. Reference is made to the Trafc Noise Analysis Report. Analyses of barrier
installation (noise walls) were conducted for several sensitive receptors listed in the FMS. None
approached or exceeded the noise abatement criteria (NAC) established by the Federal Highway
Administration and the NCDOT. A landscaping plan will be prepared for the roadway which will
include plant materials known to have noise reducing qualities.
-190-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 276115201
May 22, 1996
Mr. Marsh Smith
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
Dear Mr. Smith:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the improve eats to US I in Moore
and Lee Counties (TIP Project No. R-210).
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (PETS) was approved by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) on December 1, 1995. The FHWA concluded that
Alternative A was the least environmentally damaging altaaative; and approved the
Record of Decision on March 21, 1996. Thee the eavironnmeatal analysis phase of
the project is complete and no further alternatives wdl be studied.
You expressed concern regarding the validity, of Table I-1 in the FEIS. The
volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios and subsequent levels of service were calculated according
to procedures specified in the 1985 High%W Ccrpacitymamrg SpeciaReport 209, by
the Transportation Research Board. V/C ratios are calculated from a complicated
relationship of speed, flow, delay, and geometric parameters. Terrain also effects the
ratio, ideal capacity is difficult to achieve in rolling terrain, such as that found in the
project area V/C ratios cannot be. calculated from Table I-1. The Level of Service
figures contained in Table 1-1 are not in error. The definitions for the various Levels of
Service are listed in Appendix A of the FEIS.
Reference is made to your comment regarding the capacity for passing on US 1.
Piedmont Olsen Hensley conducted several "trial nuns„ of the project area to assess traffic
patterns during the peak hours. The results of these field studies indicate that passing is
extremely difficult during the peak hours, due to the volume of traffic on US 1, coupled
with the constrained site distances presented by the area's rolling terrain. Therefore, the
0
-191-
analysis was based on the assumption that safe vehicular passing did not occur during the
peak travel hours. Naturally, passing on US I does occur during off-pear hours, when
adequate gaps in on-coming traffic exist.
Please refer to Chapter II in the FM, which discusses the Transportation Systems
Management (TSK and the Mass Transit alternatives. Both alternatives were rejected
from detailed study, as they were found inadequate to address the present and future needs
of the project area, which include improved safety and operational capacity for this
segment of US 1. US I is planned for multilane improvements from the South Carolina
border to the Virginia state line. The addition of exclusive turning lanes or widened
shoulders will not alleviate the over-capacity condition projected for us I. Mass transit is
not a viable option for the area, given the region's low density settlement and the lack of
concennrated employment centers.
The traffic analysis for the project indicates that although level of service declines
on many of the cross roads at the design year, this is not a result of construction of the
US 1 project, but a function ofincremental ceases in traffic volumes in the area The
project did not significantly effect the levels of service on the cross roads.
Accidents are likely to continue on existing US I once this project is constructed.
However, the accident rate is expected to decline significandy due to decreased traffic
volumes. The rate of accidents on US 1 after the conmwtion of the project is
not relevant to Table II-7, which graphically presents a comparison of projected accident
rates between each of the build alternatives and the n04X& alterative, Posted speeds on
existing US 1 are not expected to be reduced from the current 45 and 55 miiles per hour
sped limits.
In response to your questions concerning portions of the traffic analysis for the
Project, I have enclosed a copy of the "Cost Effectiveness Technical Memorandum"
prepared by Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. in 1990. The memoraadtr was prepared in
accordance with A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of HIghvy and Bus-Tro=t
Improvements, published by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. The analysis did not evaluate the costs associated with each
possible level of service, but determined costs based on peak hour and off-peak hour
traffic volumes.
Trip generation regression equations are generally not used in projecting future
year traffic volumes for a roadway corridor. The application of these transportation
planning tools is generally limited to determinations of traffic generated by a specific site,
such as the location of a proposed shopping center.
Traffic projections are developed using long-range computerized planning models,
such as TranPlan and UTPS. The models require input from local planning agencies
regarding fiiture land use planning, population projections, and travel characteristics to
build a future year traffic volume model. Trip tables are a product of the long-range
-192-
planning proms showing how trips are distributed among large traffic zones. The model
is manipulated to show traffic volumes on existing roadway networks and with a variety of
improvements. In this way, transportation planners can determine the roadway capacity
needs for a community or region.
This type of long-range analysis is conducted well before a project is identified as a
construction need and included in the Transportation Improvement Program for planning,
design, and construction. The projected traffic volumes developed during the long-range
pig phase are applied to both the no4mad and. build alternatives.
If you have any further questions regarding this information, please feel fine to
contact Byron E. Brady, PM, at [phone].
Sm,
F Vide, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Enclosure
cc: Mary Hayes Holmes, Member, Board of Transportation
-193-
PARTIAL LIST OF CONCERNS
ABOUT THE US1 BY-PASS
IN MOORE AND LEE COUNTIES
TIP no. R-210, FA no. NHF-0001(3)
1. FEIS failed to analyze public transit over a suitable length
of the US1 corridor; in other words, for public transit
alternatives to work, many require implementation over a
more substantial corridor length than the 12 mile stretch of
US1 slated for "improvement" -- freight by rail, passenger
train service, light rail, bus service, and, even, car
pooling need evaluation over a substantial length of the US
1 corridor for their effectiveness to receive proper
evaluation.
2. FEIS contains no actual destination surveys done to
ascertain actual percentage of vehicles that public transit,
or other alternatives, would potentially affect.
3. FEIS appears to have used similar projected traffic volumes
for all alternatives, while ignoring generated traffic
inherent to the by-pass's "new road construction."
4. FEIS ignored the accidents occurring on the present US1 in
evaluating the relative safety of the by-pass alternatives
as compared to the non-bypass alternatives; in other words,
the accidents projected to occur on the new road should be
added to those projected to occur on the old road, if the
aim is to compare the relative safety of existing corridor
improvement to a by-pass.
5. FEIS failed to fully characterize the TSM alternative with a
full complement of features one would normally expect in a
TSM alternative, such as grade levelling to improve safety
and allow less restrictive passing, purchase of development
rights from property owners along the US1 corridor to
forestall "stripping out" and concomitant decrease in
corridor efficiency.,
6. FEIS failed to evaluate the use of "partial alternatives" to
make the TSM alternative more likely to work; in other
words, TSM should be combined with "traffic reducing"
measures such as facilitation of car and van pooling,
appropriate public transit, and facilitation of staggered or
_flexible work shifts at businesses and industry along the
-US1 corridor.
7. FEIS preparers refused to evaluate cumulative effects of the
by-pass in the face of a direct request to do so by the U.S.
E.P.A.
8. FEIS secondary impacts analysis is conclusive, cursory, and
vague -- totally inadequate.
-194-
9. FEIS prepares may not have searched for endangered plant
species at the appropriate time of year -- a fall or winter
search for Michaux's Sumac, for example, is entirely futile;
the FEIS does not indicate when searches occurred.
lo. FEIS failed to look for endangered species of freshwater
mussels.
11. NCDOT officials assured Cameron officials that any
construction would spare the town's water supply wells, but
NCDOT now plans to situate the by-pass in a way that will
destroy two of Cameron's drinking water wells.
12. Cameron and Vass, the communities most affected, were not
even included on the steering committee for EIS process.
13. Cameron and Vass were not sent a scoping letter, even though
NCDOT deemed it appropriate to send one to Moore County
Commissioners and Moore County Economic Development
Corporation.
14. No conceptual mitigation plan was included in the FEIS
despite O.S. E.P.A. requests..
IS. No noise abatement measures received evaluation in the FEIS
despite O.S. E.P.A. requests.
-195-
EXHIBIT S
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PRESENT ROUTING OF THE US 41 BY-PASS
WHEREAS, the Town of Cameron, a municipality in the
State of North Carolina in the county of Moore is located
near US Highway #1 (hereinafter "US1"), and,
WHEREAS, the Town of Cameron prides Ltself for having a
clean environment, high quality of life, and other benefits
and qualities commonly associated with'smaller rural
municipalities, and,
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(hereinafter "NCDOT") plans to build a U51 by-pass that will
consume hundreds of acres of woods, high quality farmland,
wetlands, and wildlife habitat, and,
WHEREAS, the. Town of Cameron has drinking water wells
within the proposed re-routing zone, and,
WHEREAS, NCDOT has attempted few if any alternatives for
managing the traffic in a manner suitable to the present
route of US1 such as:
1) An improved two lane highway in the existing road
bed of US1 with slow traffic turn outs at various
points, turn lanes at intersections, and/or grade
leveling at dangerous intersections;
2) Assistance with car and van pools;
3) Purchase of development rights along the present
route of US1 outside of existing town limits to
prevent increased congestion from more intensive
development in rural areas; and,
WHEREAS, NCDOT's present plans for re-routing and four
laving US1 will adversely affect the quality of life that
Cameron's res:ients cherish for all the aforementioned
reasons,
-NOW, be it hereby resolved that the Town of Cameron
strongly oppc"°-s NCDOT's plans to re-route and four lane the
existing US1 :id vigorously urges NCDOT to do the following
things:
1) Util':e the present route of US1;
2) Impr•.•?e the existing two lane US1 with slow vehicle
turn:,,-its, turn-lanes and grade leveling;
3) Avon: four laning US1;
4) Prov::.':e for the purchase of development rights from
wil:;r,g property owners adjacent to the present US1
in or-Ier to reduce increased traffic; and,
5-) Provide assistance for, users of US1 who wish to use
car and van pools.
-196-
This the 6th day of Harch, 1996.

Town of Cameron
?t/2' - , "
d' g zz xz.
Isabel HcK ithen Thomas, Mayor
Carol Lucas, Town Clerk

-197-
E N V l rt u tv ivi t= t'd ' r, t- 16"'
N '7? TTTT /? .r
#EXHIBIT T
N C D O Ti?OlsenHensley. . C 27622
-O6 6
Otttf' qN p "towwa3 RC e,,, 317611. Rh.
R O. /Oi 27tH =01 AexwoOdf Dove. Swe 200
EnjgW9ly rch11@CtSfP1annsn [phone] Fnr. [phone]
NCDOT PROJECT NO. R-210 APRIL 1992
ISSUE NO. 4
DECISION ON ALTERNATIVE

1
On April 22, 1992, a news release was issued by the Public Affairs Division of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. It read as follows:
Transportation officials Choose Alternative A for U.S. 1
Raleigh - State transportation officials said Wednesday a new 12-mile section ofU.S. 1 will u b i $ t along
Alternative A to reduce the impact on the community and environment while saving taxpayers P million
in construction cosm and near to the existing
The proposed route nut about 12 miles between Crystal Lake in Moore County
intersection of U.S. 1 and S.R. 1180 in Lee County. stnccrion chief engineer with _
"Alternative A provides the best balance," said Thomas Peacock Precort
the N.C Department of Transportation. "!t will bring about the improvements we need for U.S. I while
reducing the impact to the environment."
State transportation officials had considered up to five different routes for the proposed new leg of
U.S. 1, which will include four lanes and a median. Construction estimates for the new section total $46.2
miloion. Three of the other routes would have cost from $6 million to $8 million more. transportation officials
Although one proposed route - Alternative B - would cost about the same, determined that the route called for some interchange plans that were viewed as undesairableini.
eight miles will
Four miles of the proposed route follow the existing U.S. 1 alignment. The be built along a new location. 1993. Riglct-of-way
State transportation officials expect to !cold a design public !tearing in early
acquisition is scheduled to begin in 1996 Construction could start in 1998.
???? WHAT'S NEXT ????
The above news release is the final actiMty in the Draft
the
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) phase
project. Next, a Final Environmental impact Statement
(FEIS) will be prepared. The FOS will discuss the selected
Alternative (Alternative A), will further detail the project
impacts, and will address any mitigation efforts that will be
required. The FEIS will discuss and explain why each of the
other detailed study alternatives were not. selected. In
addition, the FEIS will contain responses to comments and
questions from the DEIS reviewers and the corridor public
hearing. Field surveys and preliminary design will begin
which will lead to the Design Public Hearing scheduled for
1993.
LAST NEWSLETTER
This newsletter will be the last one to be coming to you
regarding the project. Announcements will be made in local
newspapers prior to the Design Public Hearing. We've
enjoyed working with the citizens of Moore County and Lee
County on this phase of the Project.
-198-
i a 3
- .4 40 )i4lel, wwmwwm?
HOTLINE
A local telephone number has been
installed in the eonsuttmfs office for thole who
have questions, general or specific. about the
=r of the improvements to us 1. The
is available for project calls from 8:00
through Friday
am to 5:00 pin. Monday
[phone]
written inquiries. comments, or
suggestions slundd be addressed to:
Mr. L Jack ward. Y.E.
Manager
Planning ds Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P. O. !fox 25201
Raleigh. NC 27611
or
Mr. Steven Thomas. P.E.
Piedmont Olsen Hensley
P. O. Box 31388
Raleigh. NC 27622
E-4.1
WHY WAS ALTERNATIVE A SELECTED?
As stated by NCDO'rs Chief Engineer for Preconstruction, Thomas Peacock, Alternative A provides
the best balance. It will bring about the improvements we need for U.S. 1 while reducing lite impact to the
environment." Details of the significant items which influenced the decision to build improvements for
U.S. 1 along the Alternative A corridor are as follows:
Total Project Cost .
Alternatives A and'B are the lowest cost alternatives with only $800,000 separating them (less than 2%
of the construction cost of A). All other alternatives range from $5.8 million to $8.4 million more in
cost for right-of-way acquisition and construction. The anticipated number of relocatees ranges from
30 for Alternative B to 105 for Alternative D. Alternative A is on the low end with 45 potential
relocatees.
Public Involvement
One petition was received bearing 388 signatures which opposed Alternative B and recommended use
of the existing corridor as much as possible. A second petition was received bearing 508 signatures in
opposition to Alternatives B, C, and D. In addition, a petition was received bearing signatures of 466
property owners in Woodlake stating their preference for Alternative A. A majority of the Public had
a preference for an eastern corridor.
Natural Resources
Overall impacts to acres of wildlife habitat for Alternative A are only 501o (19 acres) higher than or
the lowest impact corridor, Alternative D. Wetlands impacts are midrange for Alternative A at 95
acres.
Alternative A has the least impact (113 acres) to potential habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker,
a federally protected species. The other alternatives range in impacted areas from 175 acres
(Alternative E) to 303 acres (Alternative B).
Alternative A has the least impact to prime and important farmland at 158 acres. The next lowest-
` alternative is E at 171 acres; Alternative B impacts the most prime and important farmland of any
alternative (226 acres).
Governmental/Agencies
concern ter-
The Town of Vass expressed concern of possible impacts to the town's water supply due to
native B crossing Little River slightly upstream of Vass' water intake. Vass also expressed oncern to
loss of property from the tax digest with Alternatives A and D. Lee County expressed oPP
Alternative B due to impact on residential subdivisions along that corridor. Federal and state natural
resource agencies expressed preference for use of the existing corridor as much as practically possible.
Design Considerations
Although Alternative B is the shortest route at 11.7 miles, Alternative A is the second shortest at 1
miles. All other alternatives are 125 miles or longer. Alternative B requires an extremely long and
costly bridge crossing of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad near Crystal Lake at the southern end of the
project The Alternative B interchange would complicate traffic movements with existing U.S.1. The ate stages. southern tie-in with t i 1 the accomplished by a shorter, less ccostlyubridge toebe rlocated near, the
crossing of the railroad
Moore County/Lee County line with Alternative A.
Other
The number of noise impacts, potential hazardous waste sites, and potential archaeological sites were
very minimal and approximately the same for each one of the alternatives. There were no impacts on
historic properties eligible for inclusion on the National Register for any of the alternatives.
tedmont Isen ensley
P. O. Box 31388
Raleigh, NC 27622
E-4.2
-199-

NORTH CAROLINA 28394
POST OFFICE eOY. del TELEPHONE (91 9) 245-d6,76
11 December 1991
Mr. Steven Thomas, P.E.
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc.
P. 0. Box 30219
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: US 1 Improvement Study:
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Each member of the Board of Commissioners has studied the five
proposed corridors, and other information set out in the EIS, which
was provided to us in October. Several were in attendance for both
the informational workship and the public hearing in November.
On Tuesday, December 3rd, a soecial meeting was held to discuss
the information which is available to us, and to consider the impacts,
environmental and otherwise, upon our Town and its citizens.
The main concern expressed unanimously was-'the need to protect
the Town's water supply should the western route be chosen. As you
are aware, the water in-take would be located downstream of the high-
way improvements. We therefore request that in the event the western
corridor is selected, you move the Town's water in-take upstream, so
that any runoff or hazardous spills would occur downstream, thereby
avoiding contamination of our water supply.
We are concerned as well that the eastern route will remove
property from an already shrinking ad valorem tax base. In addi-
tion, this route could create pollution from noise and fumes in a
predominately residential area.
Please keep us informed as your plans develop.
Sincerely,
Roy--C. Jackson
Mayor
-200-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON OIsTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. Box 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
January 2, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Hr. L. J. Ward, P.E. , Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:.

.i

We have reviewed your letter of December 4, 1989, requesting
information for "US 1, From Existing Four-Lane Section North of
Lakeview to Existing Four-Lane Section South of SR 1180 (South
of Sanford), Project No. 8:15603019 (R-210), Moore-Lee Counties"
and offer the following comments.
The hydraulic effects on the 100-year-frequency flood plains
Should be evaluated for all stream crossings for the selected
corridor.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water I.Pt of 1977, as amended, will be
required for any discharge of excavated or fill material into waters
of the United States or any adjace and/or isolated wetlands during
construction of 'the proposed projec It is recommended that the
roadway be designed to minimize vetland impacts by choosing the
alternative requiring the least amount of fill material to be placed
in wetlands and/or waters. s• Zt:!'appears "that-iridening- of -the existing
'ZZ•nave:less' eaviroameatal"°lmpact"than 'construction along
01 ants. tFinal construction plans, with a written description
of the proposed work, should be forwarded to Ms. Kathy Trott, Corps
of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Raleigh Field Office, 11413 Falls of
the Neuse Road, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587, when they become
available. Ms. Trott can be reached at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact
US*
no rely,
RECEIVED
6 j ren a W. Saunders
JAN 0 8 1990
Chief, 1 ng Division
1 E GRONER COMPANY
-201-
Talking Points
CareMoore Meeting with DOT
U.S. 1 By-Pass
Moore and Lee Counties
TIP-210
August 23, 1994
We have an agenda, and we don't want to conceal it from
you: We want to stop this project. We want to convince you
that we are right in our position and we want to enlist your
support in our effort.
North Carolinians have always believed in good roads and
good education as the ticket to prosperity. We agree. But the
world is changing, the state is changing, and DOT needs to start
changing also. Barry Jenkins said the other day at the
Environmental Roundtable that highway engineers tend to have
entrenched positions and that they need to listen to others.
Well we hope you are prepared to really listen today.
Our countryside is being consumed everyday with developmen
and road projects. We have reached a Doint in North Carolina's
histor of development wee we have to pay greater attention "to
conserving our vanis 1.111119 coup rysa e a s op tree ing
t oug It were in mite expen ab e. we can no o on orever
swingin four- ane by-passes ou across ever widenin orta.ons
_O the landscape without destroying the rural lifestyle tha is
o prized b many Americans. We have to start using our
engineering skills to make be er use o existing corridors and
facilities. T at is probably your reatest challenge today.
The U S Con ress recognized the same points I have t
de when they eased the Intermodal Surface Transportation
ig?fxciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). We hope and trust tha you are
prepared to follow the terms of this law and to help us reap its
benefits.
Please keep in mind that the handiwork of DOT has a great
nd ermanent impact on the coun rysi e. ou destroy much w ile
ou are eatin a new ig way. o w' e s t r o y omes -and
businesses and you w1 ragment and diminish wildlife habitat,
permanently. We have to be absolutely sure that we make the
r ht decisions on new ig way construction because future
enerations will not be ab a to c3-6--in-and take it out and undo
what you have one. The effects are permanent.
-202-
;sn't it about 48 acres per mile that are consumed by
interstate hways? What about a four-lane by-pass? ust
be something similar. I rea somep ace at about-26 million
acres of America's rural land have been consumed by
transportation systems. -Please,-iFaep in mind that our rural land
is not infinite. It is finite We all have to develop a strong
•cons is uness of that fact.
Keep in mind also that the construction of new roads has a
mulative effect. New roads lead to new developments which
ads to the need or add t ona roads. is con ri u es to
urban sprawl and the Turther destruction of our rural
And that brings me back to ISTEA. Section 135(c) says:
f"IL_Stawte shall u'or a e a continuous transpor a ion p Wing
rocess hich shall, at a minimum consi er e o 0
... (10) Transportation system management and investment
strategies designed to make the most efficient use of existing
transportation facilities. IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS LAW, WE ARE
ASKING YOU TO RECONSIDER THE NO-BUILD OPTION AND THE IMPROVEMENT
OF THE EXISTING U.S. 1 CORRIDOR INSTEAD.
••• (11) The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental
effects of transportation systems. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO
CONSIDER THE FACT THAT OVER 1200 PEOPLE SIGNED A PETITION ASKING
YOU TO CANCEL THIS PROJECT AND THIS WAS DONE OUT OF A LOVE FOR
THEIR HOMES, FARMS, WOODS, CREEKS, WILDLIFE, AND RURAL
LIFESTYLES.
... (12) Methods to reduce traffic congestion and to prevent it
from developing in areas where it does not yet occur, including
methods which reduce motor vehicle travel, particularly single
occupant motor vehicle travel. WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS
PROJECT FLIES DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF THIS LAW. YOU ARE NOT
MAKING ANY EFFORT AT ALL TO REDUCE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, BUT YOU
ARE ENOURAGING MORE OF IT. AND, YOU WILL CERTAINLY CREATE
DEVELOPMENT AND HENCE CONGESTION WHERE IT DOES NOT NOW OCCUR.
ISTEA further states in Sections 134 and 135 that
transportation decisions must be made according to a list of
specific considerations pertaining to community quality,
environmental protection, economic efficiency, and energy
conservation.. TAKING EACH OF THOSE ITEMS ONE BY ONE, WE .3
THAT WE CAN SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS PROJECT VIOLATES
THE SPIRIT IF NOT THE LETTER OF THIS LAW ON EVERY COUNT.
-203-
We are also very concerned about Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 and we will be working very closely with the
Army Corps of Engineers as they evaluate the significant impact
of this project on Little River and Cranes Creek. We note,
incidentally, that Lawrence W. Saunders, Chief, Planning
Division of the Wilmington District in-his 2 January 1990 letter
to Yr. Ward, said: *It appears that widening of the existing
U.S. 1 will have less environmental impact than construction
along new alignments.' Now that is an understatement, but is a
true statement nonetheless. Incidentally, we intend to
vigorously contest the statement on Page IV-60 of your draft EIS
which says that 'a greater potential for impacts to the Little
River is realized under the No-Build Alternative.' Whoever
wrote that statement must have had his tongue not only in his
cheek, but practically pushing a hole through his cheek. In
general, the impact on wetlands is a major consideration in this
project.
Sections 108, 1109 174, 176 and 304 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 are also pertinent to consideration of this
project. The Clean Air Act requires reatly increased attention
Jo mobile s urce emissions: --cars, uses, an trucks. Motor
venxcles account Tor OH% of carbon mono
n cogent an vo r anic compound
poly encourage more use of indivi ua m
nothing to promote mass transit systems
Preservation of historic sites is
will be working closely with the State
Office in the NC Department of Cultural
sites.
. This pros ect
also a concern and we
Historic Preservation
Resources on several
do
Taking all of the above in consideration, I want to read
you the petition that was signed by over 1200 citizens of the
area where this project is scheduled to go. (Read it.) (See
attached.) Now, I would like to ask a rhetorical question; I
realize you can't really answer it: How many signatures would
you think would be enough to justify your cancellation of this
project? How much evidence do you want of citizen oopposition?
And so, our agenda is simple. We are fighting to save our
countryside and the very lives tfiat we have known and that we
hope hour children will know. We respectfully request that you
consider our position and support us to the extent you can.
-204-
March i, 1833
PUBLIC PETITION
TO: Governor Jim Hunt
Secretary of Transportation Sam Hunt
We fhe undersigned believe that the proposed project to
build a Q.S. Highway One bypass around Vass and Cameron,
identified as R-210 in the current Transportation Improvement
Program for Division 8-,.should be cancelled.
This project will do permanent and irreparable damage to
valuable farmland, woodland, wetland, homes, and personal.
property. It will have an adverse effect on business in Vass .
and Cameron. It is an unnecessary waste of the taxpayer's
money, which could be better spent on education, crime control,
health care, and other useful projects.
We therefore urgently request that for the sake of our
homes, property, environment, children, and.grandchildren you
remove.this project from the Transportation Improvement Program.
Thaink you.
-205-
i
I
In *vMr,DOT3c7Mr-lo
G7 O
mj F
- CD - CD -n= m0O ow O>
M r.L cc CL C&
Ct°o CC ::M (M Co co aa0) cD ID @ 0 0) r - 61
?o a> P4 ? ?? d v0 y d
L m
d
M =tny m o O
U3 w _0
5* M CD
m 3 ? tD
03 0 'D cu coo
? co 0
OCD 3>>= 3
= co
-n
T
eo Wa
a
? CD O
tat 41 ?
D D
CL Q.
Cl) Cl)
%C %<
N N
N
to 3
-1of/f(f1NwommmOzzz
o v -0 C) =n T --I MMM
cc >
M
2ScC- wNmc
M
o
M
z
z
c
o
i
i
a
cu FE c
M* 0
2).
01
W
d d d W 0 N N
:E
H
0 tD 41

tD
o > > d ?? a 0 ?=
^'m L. ?-o
To o 0 U)c D
G)o d ? c o fto
c.3 w

CL d?ton0
° 3 0
0 co
O O
> > O
m ? (AM
TT =?D d 3 co

to t°o r
C

m m CD
,?
? 3 y
tD d ?
7 ?
M -? o
co
tD 3

a

-w -
N! O n
Z
n -4 o C
0
2 c> > m -,
?tno Z
C?
3 ?
n
?
o ?
mo m

o N N O F
fC 0 N =
n
= N O
O z
O
.
?
• -•1
0 40
Z O
s
?oas OU
O
t
y c1
0
-
0
1
M CA
d 0
3
a
i
0
-4-
=
?a0Z -4
m
a
N
z -4
m
C; M -
0 o

O
oT n
't in ? "A 2m N0O0 n
D
0 E
C) 6L
z 0-nk o
2D
M O
z
?z z?0 z
n0 DO O
3
ro(A rr=Z r *OZ O
m
O
G)
`m 0
0
_M n
-4
W -mlzo=
?
>
•iDS

O O z
Z 10
=In
NO Z
to MZ
a
2
a
'
o
2 d T-nO

V 0 -4-0 -4
°
c =Z aOZa
?

A tr r

?.-.Z
.
O0 :nr0
To m a+? 3 G)
or
am m`tn
C 5zm M Ci -Aii m
m o Oa +..=a
?
' =1N-1
0
°.° -4M
'
°c CD Oy
00
a non 00
•c c OO?cry COD
:.yr
to
O 1
a
in
O
roD2. c_z Z
o N C ° (n Sn?
a N Oyu
p c-,m
.
z
cn

d 0 ommm
05
w H z=L O
MNan10?Z =
- =OZZ
o;; c O
02 =s
o CT O
;?N31°oQ co
Q 5> m
O -C
Z
_ 0a
m o ? =c

CL 2-1 CZ
m C;

Ea.
IGy? cn

mQ
=
n c>> A zm cc
"
1
o
'??
3
.c m
IA
?o to
?
?° ^a
N wni =
O
N
C
??? O
d oo > -
i
m > > w
nOO
c 0 CA
-
-
-p
m cs y
0 CAN
0) W-0a0EOC,C4 t7 Tto-n -
TT?Z T
(n
nC C W
C z xa .?..7 m OpN z _
I
o ° e Q ?$??'°? -O tai. 0 rm
-2 ° N 0 4A 0 CA' C m
w m m C
,a
o ?ow?to?
^; •c 3 o 0
o
to D
= m
0 C

N 0 C
51
to W d

(A

co
W
-206-
S
D
O
0
Z
N
•
Z
A
m
Z
?p
D
m
m
O
L
m
A
p
s
a
O
O
O
S
v
A
z
m
x
m
D
A
m
m
M
m
z
O
c
z
N
N
a
L
V
x
A
r
m
z
O
O
z
N
A
m
m
F
S
m
ro
A
m
m
0
m
z
O
e
C
N
NP
O
p
Y
s
O
N M
OZ
Cm
xS
MC
Z (A
Z
z
m
N
C
u
a
C
N
p> N
-Z4 0
Z?
Sr
N
C
C r
C?
0
m=
zO
m N
S
SN
pw
p
m
m

N
0 m 1
z0
In Fj
CO
V O
T T
P t.r
z
toll
M n
T
,fir, D
{
r
N r
V 41
O N
AS
zp
0
mO,
z?
> D
N O
PN
AS m T
QN
- X p. Z
4 .4
CTO Z 0
z
in to
O
8i P
A
m
.A
m
C
Oyl
s
SSA
N
mma.
m M N
On
CNS
x
z2
0' m
A§*
2 4
5gm
mmo
g > z
x_30
00,
>m
O N
I N
zas y?
-fV Z 3
COT Z z
p
=D
z
cn (A
OI O
aw
C)
CA $ P
m
N
Z
r
b
cn c
4 'A
mm1 "
C
?Z
Om
mm
Xo
-mZi m
to z
0
m

z
m
c
N
V,
z
C
0
z
N
I
i
T
8
z
r
O
N
O 0
b?
-4 M
O to
>?
m
cc
? -+
O
A N
Az
m
x
z
co
!1
m
m
z
+ V
A N
V
(Nif
8
ASO?
_
Mm
ca x 0
IVGz
m 2 2
T z
G)
1 ?
z{
4
I
N
T T 71 2
< m
pP {Od O
N m
n
A I
s
N
V
.? I
N
0
c>ll
O
m m
T m
D?
A y
F2_1 tJl
K N
O
z
V '
OmI
z
O
0
0
>
r N
V
iJ
N li
AS
Z
-46
n
z
.4-1
m
N O
N N
-4 -1
m m
D
m m
A
N
a
N
V
N
s
N
by
O
D -o,
?
0
Dm
CE
T
zm
mm
>?
Ay
O
m
z
r
m
O W
yN
O!
m
z0A
2=
Co.,
amo
OAT
'D =!D
Oz{
m
1
i m
TIO
NO
-4 -4
D
N N
A
N
a
V
H
C"
D
A
r
Z m
m
*>
IA
I-
Co
Dm
.+ r
?o
0
N
S
N
mI
m
as A.
O f4f
N
fWi/
O
MZX
C co
1
omo
OAT
'0 W D
Oz?
m
1
-4 1
Oi O
-V -0
y0
m m
w m
N
0
N
C p
z
:O
M
Z (n
oz
0
D
>
G C
0
O
Cm
cH
'4 2
r
rp 0
m M
mm
41 O
j Y
O
8
AS 0 T
Zp w
(A y p Z
c T p
?D
zj
-4-4
v N
o (A -n N ?
2
-(K c T
P W + o
N A
ym
N
r I r I
A
N
0
?00
Z r-
ySS
DOO
0Z.A
05
mmm
?c
p*0
0 C'"
>MO
ozc?
z
?O
N
11
C -4
ON
T?
go
%J O
CD
qN
O
000 as m
ZZZ=_
40 W Co -4 0
C C C
111
z z z
7SO
01 N
ID
2 Z
<--TC<>
.88 O O
0 O O C 0
W;; N
M
PNN
=! in
O N
z
O
c
V-)
O
z
O
r
O
A
z
>
z
0
O
m
N
A
S
O
z
_ r
?0
m
= 1 ?
CyOe>-
? I
A_
= 0 0
C 1 ?
H
0
S
x
m
ac
cz
O
nZ
mp
m
w
A
11, 'A
4 I
a
on
c
am
G)
YI
O
M
m
O
'C
Z
-207-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
September 2, 1999
Mr. Marsh Smith, Attorney at Law
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen and Smith
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
Dear Mr. Smith:
SUBJECT: TIP No. R-2001, Improvements to NC 11, Lenoir County
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Thank you for your recent comments addressed to the State Clearinghouse in response to the
Environmental Bulletin's solicitation of comments. The Environmental Assessment for
improvements to NC 11 from SR 1194 north of Pink Hill to-NC 55 at Jackson's Store in Lenoir
County, TIP No. R-2001, was approved in October 1990 and the FONSI approved in May 1992.
Much of the project is under construction. The current document is an addendum to the 1992
FONSI which describes proposed wetland minimization, mitigation and restoration for the 2.68
mile bypass of the community of Deep Run, TIP No. R-2001 B. The solicitation was for
comments related to the proposed wetland plan.
Your letter suggests a comprehensive and programmatic analysis of secondary and cumulative
impacts of proposed highway projects. NCDOT recognizes the effects of highway construction
are far-reaching, well beyond TIP project - limits, and is starting to address issues on a more
broad scale basis. For instance, we are `developing wetland and stream mitigation plans by river
basin and we are taking a. programmatic approach to protecting certain threatened and
endangered species.
Thank you again for your interest in this highway project and for taking the time to share your
concerns with us. We will take your comments into consideration in future project planning. _
Yours truly,
Cindy Sharer, P. E.
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Ms. Chrys Baggett, State Clearinghouse, Ref: SCH File # 99-E-4420-0825
David Smith, Program Development Branch
-208-
t•
Exhibit Z
§ 1136.3 Declaration of State waW=Z=&ZW poli@7. -The General
Assembly of North Carolina, recognizing th& profound influence of marts activitY
on the natural enviloninet. , and desiring, in its role as trustee for future genera-
tiotis. to assure that an environment of high quality mil be maintained or the
haute and wdl-bei:+s•oi ail. deciares that it shall be the continuing policy of the
State of North Carolina to conserve andVrottec its -Mtursi resources and to create
and maintain enadiu= under whicir ratan and nuvre an axis: is productive
harmony. Further, it shall be the policy of.she.S== jo seek. for all of its cruzens.
ssife, healthful. productive and. aestherieally pleasing surroundings: to stain the
widest range o beneficial uses of The environment without deMdation. risk to
health or safetn ; and to preserve the impottaat historic arsd adtttwl elemats of
our common Wheritaoca (1971. a 1203. A. 12
§ 113A-4. Cooper&U= of tgmd tt; reports; awaa'IabilRT of informa-
tion.-The General Assembly authorizes and directs thm to the fullest octet pm-
sible:
(1) The policies. reruktions, and public laws-of this State shall be interpremd
and administered in atxordance with the policies. sec forth in this Ar-
ticle aad- _
(2) Any state agars shall kcb:&- is etvetY rttaoma+atdation oe ?
d public
grooosal tar egtshtt?ion and sellout- ia?Matg..e?petsditnee 0i
--?'? mareys for projects ass programs the gtssiicv of
the envirotmtea o[ this S siipi?aa t c .b
State: >rdetaled satignen ematt by rapotrst to
official setting forth the following: -
s. The environmental impact ofotlsrproposed action:
b. Any significant adverse cavircomeasal effects which esttaot
avoided should the proposal be implemented;
r- Mitigation proposed to minimize the impact;
d. Alternatives to theproposedaction.
e. The relationship between the short-term met of the eavisonmenc
involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and a"
hancesnent of long-terns productivity; and
f..Any irreversible and irretnevahle etrairoulnewal changes which
would u involved. is the proposed action should it be unple-
mented. " -+
-209-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NIOORE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Plaintiff.
v. ?
MACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE. )
Defendants )
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )
Plaintiff. )
V. )
MACK BLUE and wife, BRENDA C. BLUE. )
Defendants )
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )
Plaintiff, )
V. )
MACK BLUE and wife, BRENDA C. BLUE, )
Defendants )
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )
Plaintiff, )
V. )
MACK BLUE and wife, BRENDA C. BLUE, )
Defendant )
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )
Plaintiff, )
V. )
PIERCE B. IRBY, ET AL., )
Defendants )
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
99 CVS 911
99 CVS 912
99 CVS 913
99 CVS 914
99 CVS 916
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS R KENDIG
I, THOMAS R. KENDIG, being first duly sworn. do hereby depose and say:
1. I am emploved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (hereinafter,
"NCDOT") as the Unit Head for the Consultant Engineering Unit in the Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch (hereinafter, "PD&EA Branch") of NCDOT.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
-210-
3. 1 have worked in the PD&EA Branch since about July 1989. and presently oversee
the PD&EA project planning managers for the Consultant Emineerin__ Unit.
4. I am tamiiiar with the NCDOT's Transportation Improvement Program ("TIP")
selection process and with project R-210. the improvement of US 1 north of Lakeview to tour
lanes at SR 1180 south of Sanford with part construction on new location.
5. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for R-210 was published
and approved by NCDOT (and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration) on September 11.
1991.
6. According to the R-210 public participation file. a public workshop was held by
NCDOT's consultant, Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., on November 12, 1991 at the Cameron Elementary
School.
7. NCDOT provided prior public notice of a corridor hearing for R-210 and said
hearing was held for the interested public on November 19, 1991.
8. The Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") was published and approved
by NCDOT (and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration) on December 1, 1995.
9. NCDOT provided prior public notice of a design hearing for R-210 and said
hearing was held for the interested public on March 21, 1996.
10. The Federal Highway Administration approved NCDOT's selected alternative in
the Record of Decision ("ROD") executed on March 21, 1996.
The information contained in this affidavit is based on information obtained from the files
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the personal knowledge of the affiant.

-211-
This the Z ? day of February. 2000.
FRED LAMAR K2^
Notary Public THOiv AS R. KEND[G
Curnem County Unit Head for Consultant Engineerin_ Unit
Stu* at Noah Carolina
North Carolina Department of Transportation
---------------------
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this day of i,,;?1-2, N40 , 2000.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: sl',?'C?VY?CIt_ Q J 7.003
-212-
STATE OF NOR7H CAROLINA
COL^1i'Y OF MOORE
Department of Transportation.
P lainta
v
Mack Blue and Brenda Blue,
Defendants.
IN TI-EE GEivERAL. COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
99 CvS 911
99 CvS 912
99 CvS 913
99 CvS 914
99 CvS 916
ORDER
Department of Transportation,
Plaintiff
V.
Pierce b. Irby, et aL,
Defendants,
This matter came on for hearing at the February 28, 2000, term of Court for
Moore County Superior Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendants'
Counterclaim; Plaintiff s Motion to Strike Defendants' Second Defense; Defendants'
Motion to Consolidate Cases; and Defendants' Motion to Join Necessary Parties. The
Court reviewed the pleadings and heard oral argument from counsel.
The State contends that the Court should dismiss the Counterclaim and strike the
Second Defense because of lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff
also contends that the counterclaim fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted
and that the second defense is legally insufficient.
It appears to the Court that the defendants have properly asserted their right to be
heard at a hearing held pursuant to N.C.G.S. §136-108 on their claim that plaintiffs
actions were arbitrary and capricious. It appears to the Court that the appellate courts
have indicated that the trial courts should consider a wide variety of issues at such
hearings, depending on the nature of the case at hand, including, inter alia, safety, see
State v. Williams, 111 N.C.App. 861 (1993), and whether violations of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.E.P.A.) make the state's actions arbitrary and
capricious. See State v. Williams and Hessee, 53 N.C.App. 674 (1981). The Court has
-213-
not considered the merits and does not intend to preclude any sumrnarv judgment motion
in the future based on the facts of this case, including aches.
The harder question concerns the counterclaim. In their counterclaims the
defendants assert :hat plaintiff did not comply with the requirements o'N.C.E.P.A. in
:taking its decisions about the highway at issue. The plaintiff contends that there was a
procedure available to defendants to challenge any violations ofN-C.E.P.:_ and that
because defcndarns did not avail themselves of it, their claims here should be dismissed.
The defendants contend that there was no procedure by which it could obtain
administrative or judicial review o; the plaintiffs actions and inactions and that artachir.¢
their claims as counterclaims to the condemnation proceedings is appropriate. v
The General Assembly has the power to provide by statute for appeal from
administrative boards and agencies, but if the applicable statute does not provide for an
appeal from an administrative decision, none exists. In Re Halifax pane: Co., 259 N.C.
589 (1963). When a procedure is provided, this procedure is the exclusive means for
obtaining such judicial review. Snow v Board of Architec?ure 273 N. C. 559, 570-71
(1968).
The N.C.E.P.A. states that "[a)n environmental document required under this
Article is a necessary part of an application or other request for agency action.
Administrative and judicial review of an environmental document is incidental to, and
may only be undertaken in connection with, review of the agency action. No other
review of an environmental document is allowed." N.C.G.S. § 113A-13. This
contemplates that alleged violations concerning environmental documents can receive
judicial or administrative review at the same time the underlying decision is reviewed.
The plaintiff contends that the judicial review provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) apply here. The APA does apply to plaintiff, N.C.G.S. § 150B-1(c)
('This chapter applies to every agency except:....,
" listing other agencies but not
plaintiff); Davis v. HiatT, 92 N.C.App. 748 (1989), and the APA has been interpreted as
providing a broad avenue for review of administrative decisions. $Se Empire Power Co.
v. DEHNR 337 N.C. 569, 581-582 (1994). The judicial review provisions of the APA
are available only in certain cases, however. N.C.G.S. §150b-43. That statute sets forth
five requirements that a parry must satisfy before review of an adverse administrative
determination is allowed: "(1) the person must be aggrieved; (2) there must be a
contested case; (3) there must be a final agency decision; (4) administrative remedies
must be exhausted; and (5) no other adequate procedure for judicial review can be
provided by another statute." Meads v. N C Department of Agriculture, 349 N.C. 656,
669 (1998); Huang v. N.C State Q iv , 107 N.C. App. 710, 713 (I992).
Here, the defendants are certainly aggrieved and there is certainly a final agency
decision, which everyone agrees was the "Record of Decision" issued in March 1996.
The Court has found no other procedure for review in another statute and neither the
plaintiff nor the defendants have suggested one. It appears there is a contested case.
While this matter does not tit the statutory or usual definition of a contested case, =
N. C.G.S. §150B-2(2); Meads, 349 N.C. at 670, and though the administrative framework
has changed somewhat since 1980, the reasoning and holding of O=Zz Countv v N.C
O.T., 46 N.C.App. 350, 373-376 (1980) still apply. In that case the Court of Appeals
found that the Department of Transportation's decisions concerning location of a
highway did give rise to a "contested case" when violations of N.C.E.P.A. were alleged.
-214-
Read arty other way, the defendants would have no remedy for judicial review, a result
inconsist ent with the broad tenor of the -PA. See I?;Ilp Powe- - wra.
While the defcrulants meet four of the five requirements, it is clear that the
defendants did not follow the requirements of the .A-P.A for obtaining timely review of,,,e
plaintifTs decision concerning the decisions at issue and thus have not met the fifth
requirement for exhaustion of remedies. The counterclaim must therefore be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court is not persuaded however that failure to exhaust administrative
remedies should preclude defendants' affurmative defense to this condemnation action.
Sr State r, Will'AM and Hesse, suers. This Court obviously has subject :natter
Jurisdiction over the condemnation case and obviously has personal jurisdiction over the
plaintiff, who filed the case, for resolving all issues raised in the condemnation case. The
defendants' second defense properly raises the question of whether plaintiff has acted
arbitrarily and capriciously, a well-established defense to condemnation cases. However,
the defendants cannot obtain full-fledged judicial review of all of plaintiffs actions and
N.C.E.P.A. itself precludes judicial review of the environmental documents at issue out
of context from the underlying agency decision. N.C.G.S. § 113A-13. Within these
constraints, however, defendants may put forth their evidence at the N. C.G.S. § 136-108
hearing that the plaintiff acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
The Court is-not unsympathetic to plaintiffs policy arguments. The plaintiffs
remedy for those concerns however is with the legislature not the courts. Sire H' hwav
comMsion v Tboraton, 271 N.C. 717, 238 (1967).
These five cases share a common defense and should be joined for proposes of
any discovery and for handling other pretrial issues. It would seem appropriate to have
one hearing pursuant to N. C.G.S. § 136-108 and then to separate the cases for trial on the
compensation issue.
The motion to join necessary parties is denied, in view of the Court's granting of
the Motion to Dismiss.
It is therefore ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim is
ALLOWED.
2. The Plairttifrs Motion to Strike Defendants' Second Defense is DENIED.
3. The De&ndants' Motion to Consolidate Cases is ALLOWED for
of discovery and the N.C.G.S. § 130-108 hearing. purposes
4. The Defendant's Motion to Join Necessary Parties is DENIED.
l0?
This day of 2000.
Superior Court Judge Presidi
-215-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
PIERCE B. IRBY, JR. and W. DANIEL
PATE, Trustee;
Defendants.
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION;
Plaintiff;
V.
MACK BLUE and BRENDA BLUE;
Defendants.
FILE NOS. 99 CvS 911-914, 916
THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER
or, in the alternative,
TO CERTIFY PURSUANT TO
RULE 54(b)
NOW COME Defendants Pierce B. Irby, Jr., Mack Blue and Brenda Blue, who move this Court,
pursuant to Rules 52(b), 54(b), 59(e) and 60(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure, to modify and amend its order dated 10 March 2000 and filed 14 March 2000
(hereafter "3/10/00 Order', including allowing Defendants' counterclaims to proceed, or, in the
alternative, certifying their dismissal for immediate appeal. In support of this motion, Defendants
show the Court as follows:
"The appropriate remedy for errors of law committed by the... court is either appeal or a
timely motion for relief under N.C.G.S. Sec. 1A-1, Rule 59(x)(8) (1983)." Elrod v.
Elrod, 125 N.C.App. 407, 410, 481 S.E.2d 108, 110 (1997) citing HaQwood'v. Odom, 88
N.C.App. 513, 519, 364 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1988).
2. Rule 59(e) provides that an order or judgment may be modified on any of the grounds
fisted in subsection (a), N.C.G.S. § IA-1, Rule 59(e) (1990), including errors of law
"occurring at the trial and objected to by the party making the motion." N.C.G.S. § lA-1,
Rule 59(a)(8) (1990). The motion seeking a modification must be "served not later than
10 days after entry of the judgment" or order. Elrod, supra, citing N.C.G.S. § IA-1, Rule
-216-
59.
4
Rule 52(b) provides that "[u)pon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after
entry of judgment the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may
amend the judgment accordingly." Citation omitted.
The Court made the following findings of fact to which Defendants take issue:
a. On page Z of the Order the Court found that "everyone agrees [that the final
agency action] was the `Record of Decision' issued in March 1996." However,
neither Defendants nor defense counsel have represented that such was the
decision giving rise to counterclaim. Defendants represented to the Court that the
agency action (as NCGS § 113A-13 uses "agency action's in this case was
bringing the condemnation actions against Defendants.
b. On page 2 of the Order the Court found that "defendants contend that there was
no procedure by which it could obtain administrative or judicial review of the
plaintiff's actions and inactions and that attaching their claims as counterclaims to
the condemnation proceeding is appropriate" when Defendants actually claimed
that counterclaiming and availing themselves to Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the
NCGS, especially NCGS § 136-108 was the proper procedure and so argued
orally and in their memorandum.
C. The Order did not include a finding as to how Defendants were "served with a
written copy of the decision" as required by NCGS 150B-45 to begin the running
of the 30 day period specified by said statute.
d. The Order did not include a finding that the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed
by FHWA personnel but no NCDOT personnel signed it.
e. The Order identified the ROD as neither an environmental document, of and in
itself; nor, in the alternative, as a part of the FEIS, which is itself an environmental
document'.
1 NCAC 25.0401(a) provides as follows:
(a) Unless a project falls below the threshold established in an
agency's approved minimum criteria, compliance with this Chapter
will be achieved through the preparation of one or more of the
following environmental documents:
(1) an environmental assessment (EA);
(2) a finding of no significant impact (FONSI); or
(3) an environmental impact statement (EIS) ; and
(4) a record of decision (ROD).
2

-217-
f. The Order should specifically find that the Court considered matters outside the
pleadings during the heating on Plaintiffs Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
g. The Order should specifically find that Plaintiff is exempt from the contested case
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The 3/ 10/00 order contains the following errors of law
a. The conclusion that the Record of Decision(ROD) was either the final agency
decision or the underlying agency decision.
b. The implicit conclusion that a Final Environmental Impact Statement is a decision
making tool for only a single underlying agency decision ("[NC GS 113 A-13 ]
contemplates that alleged violations concerning environmental documents can
receive judicial or administrative review at the same time the underlying decision is
reviewed." Order, p.2, emphasis added; "NCEPA itself precludes judicial review
of the environmental documents at issue out of context from the underlying
agency decision." Order, p.3, emphasis added).
C. The implicit conclusion that the judicial review provisions of the APA apply to this
case ("it is clear that the defendants did not follow the requirements of the
APA...." Order, p. 3).
d. The implicit conclusion that the 30 day time Emit of NCGS 1508-45 applies to
Defendants, rather than the time limits specified by Article 9 of Chapter 136.
e. The conclusion that the "defendants did not follow the requirements of the APA
for obtaining timely review of the plaintiff's decision." Order p. 3.
f. The failure to treat the Rule 12(b)(6) hearing - with the Plaintifs submission of
affidavits and the parties' stipulation allowing the Court to consider items outside
the pleadings - as a summary judgment hearing, pursuant to Rule 12(b).
g. The failure to grant partial summary judgment for Defendants as to:
i. The insufficiency of the FEIS;
ii. Plaintiff's defenses enumerated in its motion to dismiss.
6. In the alternative that this Court denies this motion to the extent that it still dismisses
Defendants' counterclaims, Defendants are entitled to certification for immediate appeal of
said dismissals, pursuant to Rule 54(b), which permits the Court to determine that "there
is no just reason for delay" and release the dismissal for immediate appeal before the
litigation is complete as to all claims or all patties. Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Cor., 561 F.2d
434 (3rd Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086, 98 S.Ct. 1280, 55 L.Ed.2d 791 (1978);
Tridvn Industries. Inc. v. American Mut. Ins. Co 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E.2d 443, 447
(1979).
WHEREFORE Defendants pray the Court as follows:
Amend the findings of the 3/10/00 order:
a. to show how the Plaintiff "served [the Defendants] with a written copy of the
decision".
-218-
b. to show that the Record of Decision (ROD) was not signed by NCDOT personnel,
c. to correctly identify the ROD as either an environmental document or part of the
FEIS,
d. to correctly state the Defendants' contentions as to the proper procedure to follow..
e. to show that the Defendants did not agree that the ROD was either a final agency
decision or the underlying agency decision,
f. to show that the Court considered matters outside the pleadings during the hearing on
Plaintiffs Rule 12(b)(6) motion;
2. Amend the 3 /10/00 order such that it no longer dismisses Defendants' counterclaims;
3. Grant Defendants partial summary judgment as to:
a. the insufficiency of the FEIS, and
b. Plaintiff's defenses enumerated in its motion to dismiss;
4. In the alternative that the Court denies this motion, in whole or in part, that the Court
certify this matter for appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and
5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
This day 20th day of March, 2000.
MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE, LLP
Attorneys for Defen Blue and Irby
BY:
Stephen S. Schmidly
Centura, Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
336-626-8000
336-626-8007 (fax)
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Blue and Irby
BY: 2:Lla :!?L
Marsh Smith (NC Bar # 16828)
PO Drawer 1468
Southern Pines, NC 28388-1468
910-695-0800
910-695-0903 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON ATTORNEY
This is to certify that I have this day served counsel for the opposing party in the foregoing matter with a copy
of this MOTION by depositing in the United States Mail, a copy of same in a properly addressed envelope with
adequate postage thereon, in the manner prescribed by Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
-219-
This day: March 20. 2000,
cc: The Hon. Catherine Eagles
Robin Jones, Trial Court Administrator
COL Pierce Irby
Mack & Brenda Blue c1o Art Blue, Esq.
W. Daniel Pate, Esq.
Fred Lamar, Esq.
5
Marsh Stith
-220-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY QF 'vIOORE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Plaintiff.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF ;tSTIC2-
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
99 CVS91i
99 CVS UI_
99 CVS 9131
99 CVS 914
99 CVS 916
V.
MACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE. 1
Defendants. i
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION j
Plaintiff. )
V. )
PIERCE B. IRBY, ET AL., )
Defendants. 1
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA:
The Plaintiff, North Carolina Department of Transportation, pursuant to Rule 3 of the
North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, hereby gives notice of appeal to the North Carolina
Court of Appeals from the Order signed on March 10, 2000 by the Honorable Catherine C.
Eagles, Superior Court Judge Presiding and filed on March 14, 2000.
Respectfully submitted, this the day of April, 2000.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
/16vz4zK
red Lamar
Assistant Attorney General
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
North Carolina Department of Justice
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
-221-
C FRTTFTC-\TE OF S RV(C=
i hereby certify chat ; have this date served a copy of the fore loins NOTICE OF
APPEAL upon the attorney(s) of record for the Defendants cv oiacino same in the United States
Maii. First Class postage prepaid. addressed as follows:
Marsh Smith. Esq.
Cunningham. Dedmond. Petersen & Smith
"'; North Bennett Street
Southern Pines. North Carolina =5387
Stephen S. Schmidly, Esq.
Moser, Schmidly. Mason & Rose
Cenrura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
I 'V
This the 'day of April, 2000.
red Lamaz
Assistant Attorney General
31136
?? -222-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORS
Department of Transportation.
Plaintiff,
V.
Mac;; Blue and Brenda Blue,
Defendants.
N THE GEVERAL, COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
99 CVS 911
99 CvS 91
99 CvS 913
99 CvS 914
99 CvS 916
ORDER
Department of Transportation,
Plaintiff
V.
Pierce b. Irby, et al.,
Defendants,
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Modify Order or in the
alternative to Certify Pursuant to Rule 54(b). The Court has reviewed the Motion and
requests that counsel consult with each other as to whether they wish for the Court to
decide the Motion on the papers, after a telephone hearing, or after a hearing in person.
The Court's next civil term in Moore County is May 22, 2000, but the Court can hear the
matter out of county if counsel agree. After such consultation, counsel shall inform the
Court of their agreement, if reached, or if not reached, of their positions.
This a? day of Y41 22000.
Superior Court Judge Presiding
-223-
.., .c. mar
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MOORE COUNTY
Department of Transportation, )
Plaintiff,
V. )
Mack Blue; and Wife, Brenda C. j
Blue, )
Defendants.
?p
Department of Transportation, )
Plaintiff, )
V. }
Col. Pierce B. Irby, Jr., )
Defendant )
910-r 7-0903 P.2
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
99 CVS 911; 912; 913; and 914
99 CVS 916
AFFIDAVrr OF DON J. VOELKER
After being duly sworn, the affiant deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Don J. Voelker.
2. 1 work for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as. the Assistant Division
Administrator for the North Carolina division office in Raleigh, North Carolina.
3. 1 am the custodian of records kept in the Raleigh division office.
4. The twenty page attachment is a true and accurate copy of the Record of Decision
found in the files of FHWA's.Raleigh division office.
5. Further affiant sayeth not.
This the ZZ day of May, 2000.
1
POM4t' Fax Note 7671
n. r 916 - Pnone . / - & SZ -,
Fax v
-224-
10.

Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the ' ? day of May, 2000.
No Public
910 -r'-S-0903 P-3
N
Don J. Vclker, Affiant
My Commission Expires:
2
-225-
M
A
•••srON CO??a•?•
rll?-? --oo?C3?
US.Dapa"MWI
atiftwa,o m
Memorandum
sublem Record of Decision
°a* March 21, 1996
FHWA-NC-EIS-91-13-F
US 1 Corridor in Lee and
Moore Counties, North Carolina
From: Reply to
Director, Office of Planning and Attn . at
Program Development'P-04
To: Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator (RDA-NC)
Raleigh, North Carolina
C
This documents the Record of Decision (ROD) (as required by 40
CFR 1505.2) for the subject project. This record incorporates
the Federal and state project files and the memorandum (attached)
of March 15, 1996, from Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, Division
Administrator, which served as a. preliminary ROD. ased upon the
Environmental Impact Sta ut the Fe. era
olg Y a on (FFiwA) and the u.,,.+.?, Carol na Department
on o<rI hwa M..,
.+04s«uiea ;axr %.Lr natlVe A is t
alternative. The preliminary ROD
alternatives considered, measures
necessary monitoring requirements.
°^+.ad Altarn:tfva z FWA has
he environmentally preferable
contains a description of the
to minimize harm, and all
The correspondence received between the FEIS and the date this
ROD was signed is as follows: A January 23, 1996 letter from tha
U-S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a January a6, 1996
letter froa the Division of Environmental Management of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (Dm=),
and a January 24, 1996 letter from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission of the DEM. Copies of these letters and
responding letters from the NCDOT are attached. Based on a
review of correspondence received, we find that there have been
no new, substantive issues or impacts identified. Therefore, the
FEIS and the attached ROD remain valid.
hn S. Humeston
Attachments
3A i 16
Data
-226-
0l-?G-5b 09,40 Ain FROM OCi-rr"^.WA
0 -
MR~
a?anipanaa,

Memorandum
SuOM: Record of Damao, TJ9 1,
MWAAlCrM"l-13-P, TIP No. &210
Loe and MGM Cvun&* North Carolina
From: DkWdOQ l iWFINI sI m
AalwF% Noetb CKZHna
To: W Low N. Laceon
Rigicodredadmol"y
A. ai strator(EIT-04)
AdMa, Georgia
Date: March 15, .19%
Reply to
AM et: E O-NC
Attached Is a mvited Rowd afDecision (ROD) end lertten in response to EPA's and DW;
oomtnents on the F39S as pet yon coatmau on the ROD. We are requee6q an a peditious
review sod I m Ell entIII-I of ft ROD. If you have any quest M please contact Mr. Dan
Rug= at (919)8564350.
ICU Md.,
=Nf ? Gnu P.B.
-227-

RECORD OF DUU10N
LTS 1 Carrfdor, Lea and Moors Comttia, North CrtrWhw
P?derd Atd P"40* Na NHF4W1(3)
state Pk* No. LTMO302
TIP. No. R-210
A. DZC'ISI©N
. y V
MW Pied action for the Bavironmental Impact Statement
U.S. 1 from the existing divided section south of SR 183 ?? g of ins tbg gxi ate to
four ? d vidod sMUM at SR 1180 loath of S=&rd. A majoriq of heb pr to the existing
occur ot: new loestion.; ? the iOtProrotaeats ?
each of the project's tctmiW, roadway corridor will be utilised to tie Into the highway at
foot median t 7be Pr0?t will consist of a fta-lams, divided
Outhe project length, Mapt near Ib southern terminus ? With a .
R?bere the median will be reduced to 46-feet. The Little River
Along ? p?eierted
the alft motet ? A. M* 91temadve ad its aa oomtaucted
the Final n vii preferred M nt (FES). Zbe ZW Iddeenndfies see fully diwusead in
mvirome Alteraativa A as the
L AL?zKUTtjFjB CONstumm
Alternate aetbot» vonsidered for this project include five build alternatives and
alber>sativ?. Trawpcrtation gystatns M &ttld"
existing alignment (witt are anagemestt 73M. Mass Transit; and imprwetaenb to the
F) aheraates mere considered and rejected oar
development proms". ° . ?? in the project
The EM UXAMW an adegUAN detailed statement of the fo
purpae; probable inspect 'Of the proposal; ahs=UM unle advens edelCli uvftonmentla
effecb; short term iMPGM ve. bag term benefits; invRnible and irrettiwabi sommitt=w of
roaonraes; and maaswes ao minimise environmental harm. The State's air quality itppkmeatation plan and the Na*xW Ambient Air 0=4 Stan tQsth the
or alaadon will not, tube land froth a pubii*.a? park or here
likable Tbm?, the prwiuons of 49 C 303 are tktlfllle& Tbg ImILL
a,d icable i i? 3,6 CFE SW Tall be filmed subs"Ut to ri&-of wgy Uqubition, a
completed due to lack of aebea to the propeC ty qw .'That testier had not been previov ly
After mueb discussion ad aoordiaation with the Public.
vacs and Camsron, Lee CouDty? and Moore C "°d elected o?ctalt from the T'ovres of
Alterastivs. In s eons °?Y, Alternative A rues seLetcd as the Presorted
perison of the &1C build ghtnativet, A ternative A requires tbt f"Ut
number of rzlocatsea, ba the least MOP= on prima and important
favored by the pubk Alternative A deal not affect farmland sorb, and is most
any property or rite, the remaining &its to be.te:ted?thsing,
Public information meetfnge' on the Proposed improvement were held on November 2E. 1989.
-228-
15 - 0.5 011:1GO IFY FROM ..AT-H-9A oJ,
June 5,1990, and Nowetmber 12, 1992. Public hearings were aoaduated on Novsntber 19, 1991
sad July 186 1995. Two-petitiom wares presented during the first public heaft Ones petition
stated opposition tv Ahernat M B, Co and D cmuined 508 signatures. 11m semad patitim in
opposition to AtterrA*m B, contained 388 signatures.
C. 1188ABi= Towt3m= HALM
I• poise Impsars
Noise impacts are not expKto to be sipffi oat as a result of axis action. No Imp or dome
mwcnw de+?clopmeatt..hospitak, hbrarles, or other facilities sensitive to lamer noise It:vels
exists along this selected aiternativs alignment. Individual residsaoes aro scattered throughout
the ww alignment. Candmetion of noise. abatcarent walls was determined not to be oast
effisam du ft the amuse of the noise angmes. however, possible, mite abatement measures to
mftdu anise irnpaots too ataa residents will be revisited during the flag design phase.
_ Eft" sad anllslativa Comw
8urfsm waters wilt be wed dnrft oomtruction hough strict adltst*m to the North
Carolina Department of Thzpmtation't Dsie Mart 1'nteriori for Prexecdort of Ssvfares'
ww m. Suiteat erosion control manumes w be ut1'Iized both dining and alter. construction.
North Catohna regulations, Dra+ggm Sftndo* it, &rnUw Waterhok (11A NACA 948. OW) will
be Heeded for this portions of the project within one-nn7e and draininS to a EEO Quality Wamr.
3. Wsdmd wpm-!-.
Wetland Impacts bavo been MWmi erd through $h& in the slipsnsat of the telecmd dmmadvc
to
for avoid wetiaads abets pose. Purtht r minimization of wetland impacts•wM be aaoompllshed
t6u ution through tars me of best muWment practices &w4 the Baal &Op pbam
Mitigation maasuccs for ansvoidable wetland impacts racy include a=MWM sad snltaaoemcat
or resmra*m of degraded metland sites adjacent to or near ttm proposed right-wq anwer
=SUM of wattands. Theses mitigsSCO MIGAsures Will be fid r defansd Ong the permitting phase
and bd midption pl=iag for the prOJOCL .
4. FJOwPtts =
Ptoodplain et MMbI t" hnPOts wfil be mWmiwd ti: ovo adequate Wttatlic design of
ttru=res. AD pramimbk tadasnrzs Will be taken to avoid Increases in the
a this &=O& a a mutt
Project. However, if impactz era ti mUdable, no rise in the 8o049ain greater than ono-
foot will occur. No regulatory floodways currently exist in the, project -run
.
8. Afttiork _sad Amh"ol4esl Raoum"
The proposed action ariliAM no affect on air histotie stmcWu aiigibls for or listed on the.
National Rspstsr of Historic Places. A labor stating thin SEE?as ooaranrsnea an the project's
a&ct is included in ft FSO App o tc D. Phase 11 testing of two raourm sites
(3111fr166 and XW69) resulted in the dDw=dnwion that the tires we not oak for the
NatimW 'Slitter of Historic Places. Archaeoiogicai site 311462 is incased within tbC Profaned
Alternative ocFridoc, but is svvided by the preliminary rasda?ay design and, therefore will riot be
-229-
'?-!:-9o 01:40 PY ROM
_JO.-Z'WA.
P?.P
tested. It W" recommended that site 312dr300 be tested for its a
Register C" Historic Fleece. $oNever, teitluug could sot be ??q? for the Natiaaal to the
1?CDOT vW oompleto the requirement= of Section 11005 ofd the Nad lack
tioa Acs by te#tfft vita 31Mr3oo
MUCmic
maderst ooestsuotlon. As noted is the ubsequaat to nSht-of-way P=base tad prior to
impacted, is would be FM, if ails 31Mr300 is bout;d to be si?itlgaat and is
Ca a mate ul important for data racvetys rather thaw praarvetion in p(t?, no N?
letter fnc e in Preservation Officer bas eoaainsd a?!th the Bndtutg<, M ttfdicstad is a
Appandis D of the FBIS. ,
wow Queft
Measara to mfaimifce water quality degradation wM U chide °n`i"ero''"'? beasibl?. OT w?iII stri Gluda the use of bK p
w,dr In SeaiMr W (ISA NCAC 94? adhere to North Carol ?gdtdana, DRS?n I*W the *Prov?etnena within one mile B .0024) throughout do:q;a aW Mott of
water. and draiaiag to the Uttle Riper, a dusted gb Qualfty
'f• 111removsga. pfd AWWMwed •pedes
? ? the federal protection, status of Tl reateaed (7) or
' Endangered Species Act of 1973, as aineoded, MWIted in
buoJogical ?AOlasiot of he
no eft?a
with this fig and :per that theme all:11POdeL The U.S. Figh and Wildli5e Serriw coawrred
the Act in its latter to the partraaat had ed the requirements of Section 7 of
Depactmeat, dated Mar;* S g ,, 199 1993.
D- 1190 AM Et4MRCFa1ZNT PROGRAMS
Subs cd= &L within the Summary of the FM O=tsias a at
NMOT, as desk below: of oammitmsnts mmde by the
1. NCD47r w9 rGOWuae ft need fbr and fean ' ' of dal notes
phae of the Proleca, based on imai alignment, grades, slid att and fjU
ffil
2 NCDOT, WM.Mwmize kworm water quell
Sac "aaaPm=t Pract?s as date MW by i AW s?pWgo W.
deeL °f NCDOT
3. NCDOT s9 eruct, adhere to North Caroline regWatsons,
&vMv WOWUdi (15A NCAC 948.0024) thr'Omt de Doi, j?vfi&
"C m
64,
and ooastrnedon
witlsin one tldk and draining to Fr* Qcaltty Waton.
4. NCDOT WD M'mize wetlasids kLhVMfnt throush
7 the Baal des the jt>dldous dsweiopment of
. fga pbtse of the project,
s. A final cued W,Midgstion Plan will be dmloped regulatory and resource a adu du permit ato wordiaation with the appropriate
? ? permmit PPUatioa.
6. NCDOT win axrdinata with the U.S. Fish attd Wife Service MW the N
-230- orth
.. .. .. - „ -. ...- I ? - _u .-I, -c. I?_-FU7 Wong
Qi- 5-96 CIAO IN HOM -j.,DO?-ML?WA
CafOlim VAMUfs Resotuoes Commission on stream relocation. Stream crossing 811
wM oomplf with NMC T Best Management Practices and Death $and&* jv?
Smd&V N'lsserAak (13A NCAC 04B .0024).
DQQ
I NCI= will 102intain all oaastrucdon equipment to compo with applicable standards
for noire and embsims.
S. NCMT I ?l **kMent meesures.to reduce localised degradation: of air quality during
oonstrnadoa. Burning of any debris will =Wly? with local laws and ralpWiens.
9. NCDOT IM ensures coordination with appropriate state and local officials during the
utility twocation pheae of construction.
1a NCDC7T wit .tarot pr "boas to protect standing hoes outside the oonatttrotion limits
of tlae project.
11. If impaaa to Podolia nsarkm become evident durbg the Anal design phase, the
Department wM consult with the North Carolina Deparmiont of En+?ltonmentt, He"
and Natural.Resmca, Divialon of Land Rosa== to determine the appropriate
actions.
12. bast RUM XMing item Auistence wig be provided as necessary, to uW= any
shortages of.ovanparable replacement housing for displaces.
13. Arvbaeologtcai sur" won not oompleted oa Ow treat of land dues to lack of access.
This tract wM be surveyed ,kep right-of-way is acquired
The eonstnaoticn staff 0ENaM and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will enforce
all pertinent specifications and contract prwutoas, in scoordancz with the intent of this 2rinal
Eaviroannentai Impact Staternrat and the public welfare. In addition. alppropm perssonnsl
from ties Division Of m wilt participate in the development of indfviduat projeab to ensure that
the tavironMOUNI aozntnitnneats arc incorporated ism the project design and eoMnation plans.
FHWA Area and District Rawneers wm review the plan, BF-6.40 a____ and estimates "am
for all Federal-aid hWwq pr*m to easuse that all om*cnmental oantmitments have been
tmpianrented
E. oo ? ON TIM FM
71* fl ?M oWJNnb od the Final Environzacntal Imgaet Statement have bean recetved from
various state and fedora] resource agenew..
1. United Scala gWd nmentsl Protection Agency, Regfon IV
Letter Data: Jaatu ty 23, IM
Commeat;
'A response in ft.dmment to the EPA comment makes a point that tweed impacts
mWniizatiou efface daring preliminary design of Alternative A have reduced the estimate
from 95 aorta to *acres. If this reprawnts a right-of-way allpment that wtU be utilised
-231-
1 3- ?? to
;?- 96 01 40 Ply ROM V.JOT-; MWA tn
far establiel? ft W initi=ation. then this new estimate is not comparabis to those
vorridor estlmaees for other slternatives in Tabu I V-16. If an alignment ?vitWn
Altermttive b wan oomiderod with similes impact minimiution Muff, It
the least impactin* alternativc. We assume 56-ages is to be the level of Impact mJ& b==6
to be
Vol omwe ed in Mobliahiag the appropriate wapenaion snltip on since the Carps has
c
alipent and wetland delineation. Also, the =Mpp ai "UMOM oa Phtn for
tbs Find SM should have had compensation amounts, lovadons, w0d ad typos, at0.9
zPad
? ' the Unavoidable bas of forested Isod =W due? to the proposed ptoject.
to beac8 aat thetlcs, noise abaUv= is tement, noon int gw we end aa?ewsiv phn4nV
q?.• Po water polh:t#on ao+oL
and air
Rwp?
Wnwim Of 6%"CW wadwtndr betwawt Awe A ( j gads h...hr D
(75-MM) d0od_ in Mi V 0 - N sa *8 pia say iv coxwww wQS picas as noted
admawd to widrin d w Ahrnadw A =rider, ar d9lowd re &w DEI$ wrx
a mri+'eatsl?' 95-ac m 7u '
MWORMN wM m .10 Ow . d in Ow spoor
w*iralt is d agar ev at jai pew"bwy
120ftaw. Of "Marie aft _Miwfim it ,
dw to
fo
G ou On* nudend Vom aw daW mM Lids G..
1 ,A D' f? "W ? ?WNW in lox WW &Voc% At Ahmmaw
sebrrnrt* lp" 41PIooa "Altsmal" A Am ?d bxprc% w' Ma* in
1mn Aspwk Aftarrattuie D-AM little win
At
awed In the ndt4v 4w plan conathW wain ac jPM4 auk Mit.
POPOk
6otAanadend**
hN 6'=d ?+? asa?+spi W 6y thii p.vf act MM balnaentt and
w*h am w and Ag* headwami &MW Pawible
I (P lie I
GansG'n? .Cy+iea"Mod e in ?1? &COW ow?ar? des loins of ON Li* ?j Ltair
?t ? die?rlo?prAat of ? "'abWOu SO MI wfa b. dearnaned
wforr
pcatk r""a'g ?? deep p haw Pt??.r MwlncbgMW MRW."M
anwww wiff be /fnattwd upon wmpkdm of d„ e? #rd kchwed in
'41i a,.: few
7h NCWTJbmdttre Envoomnowi unit dvekw i<„d=appt pelt e
dr+wd?ora 111w. ft Z7w plaw pnwagy "?'? ? now tar and Sn
n?ras?u idgind
ook
2' Snrlesa?'ronment, A••lth, and NmhwW
Berov, Dhisiva or
Latter Date: lanuM. ?A, 19%
Comaensa
MEM offers the ferllewina Mfi,w?.?b• -232-
0:-!:-90 01:40 PM FOOM _.:0r-:=WA

A) DEM a =marred that DOT is prapo iq to ooutmat a nvim road; oa botb sides
of 'he elda road Wadand site = is a %a are (within Row) vommuaity that
is of moderate; to high quality (Table M-19). An proposm41044 acres will be
impacted (T" N-14). It wMas roads ware not eoasmuud (i.e. oamtruct nut
eapressweq the wetlated i qmm would be reduced The rationale for service
roads -should be dikwsed.
"B) As a Now-up to A above, the site m nhaiq for Tables M-19 and IV-14 should
be the um so that comparisons of wetland qualhy gut be made.
"G) We are ooncarned than brides openings were desiped o* to ,aaoommodats the
minimum tequiromeat for hydraulics and no consideration *a wade for wetland
avaidanoe. DM should be min that bridging of wetlands Is an alternative that
avoids M sad lengthening bridges will probably be requested during the permit
*V) Tba prof x*VU db&ued in an intaralmW meeting on Septemlor 219 1995.
Dwitlg their meeda& DOT informed the agettaia that aids slopa ia'wedands
wets at.321. The document states that the silo Aver are 2:1 In wedaade. What
is ft ootteat answer to tbs side slope issue? In addition. the draining of wetlands
b' latent &WnW ditches had not been factored into the wedaad impacts. A
deUdw gnawer on the lateral diedrs will be required prior to the 404/401
permit application. DBM vVressed m mm abort tbese items during that
ma+dnS geed therefore the statement that the eganaia Weed that all pmWoable
ei'lbtts had been made to avid and miainliae impacts to wetlands to rAt corm cs.
"E) Sinus DOT is praposing service roads, a disassion of secondary development gad
is related impecti to wetlands is necesearp to con= with this tips of aty.•
mw6 sac pmpmd fiW rht p?r/snsd nlt+n aft Doran* a r
"'Y 10 Po" 40= to P12P"* dent woctld odlawis be!C01 U laeddoalwd a s MR* of
cORWW" of she aooWoue,d-saes fac j. M mien ends air foes" at site Rardsem
end of at p1414 wises the ptopossd 4ew ioca*n fmoy, paw m adttretg US 1. T ?
fm"Aw key d OR tack 81& of des fnww A null =Wend *SR lld2 (Cwdar Lens
Read) to SR 1181 aAAW Rued) for a idtetan= of all mft 7ho US ?
road V If *Sgftd a dw aerwas on t1u ash side fpWandfimft f Do tae mad
serves POP* on the on* 816 of SR 11AZ or a dbwm of aPP?+?tab? 0 MWIA M
aardwm a+d 2225 scat of M"Cu *,min two wedged sot hood at des
of dw
AOr+ k m4*40 dive M*k W-19, W*kh iiedtarm than Sid 22 ar site Little River ho 96 2
ore M e?Jkio the IM P& wnr*m f Ahs nghw A gut D. Thir wedouk sft it arsswwkd
with sine Lads Aftn at the aomOmm sad of the project & swim lards aw ptepoW in thin
ova
?Ins wf*W stk *9 war cheeWd Mvmn *# D&S WW the F= Ant sro?dapeeY
ahwmatw for s Station 4(j? pvFerrY ma dr4kpa oeetm& ,gf the OqW IN&foot corridor
-233- =hWquuu to the D&.% which altered Bee nwnberOv .n =en a of the rM dmW wine rz m.
..-?C UlAU ?J( FROM uSDCT-NgWA
*40d RAW IfAA*pd m dK Wit WM*IW MW no locssed *t*'n At dvOidEnm 4th" OW had 0 be e ' wb t prlfr
? 4 m k to A* mgmA Me?no+.,d..,.? f-.& e ?+at 16M rhagbm
11b+Mstton raft *6 oad quffilly WON Ow fir. burr
y?dmalic ?e+giuinen>en ==*p do* to dcovllowr Odws ach Ovemis
ah"Wom e*
NCDQ?' B ma&w d6o pvcm aad w it Ae we mpawft
Z>?r awns P sells jvr ?:1 si?dr jiww is "Nord QWA
10 ?a+t to rks jb? . oI die 11N,r*p? latml d0?a si+e r?nw?Tly
bmim of imW A%*.
P"R*Ily be lts"so NdOW mm De am no
irt6W Au* f w6
dam, • 1
?IL
p? zhat
nth Wmmd d ak so
low Mpp f for B AS US 1. ho in
4W h°"+*"ez loyal of lebeh -tadlWr OW mkft etlol
d?
lb =**"fbr that
or waxamw adU*s am ang" %whP ° `°w9AqdfdMft . „o weer
e *KfvJamt *#MbGW Da" dw fihd dw4p p"^ N NOT mW oW maAWS
s
of d 0W fmft "m* baw=,U 1182 mW SR 1181, to m tks
OP
p'atwMh Nmom&jy w*rlaad pia **go st11
P DPW rm'D*tmnm *9 4W XW8hW# Me 4*WWR& of #W SW W" MW& go
Mftkfbp
3• NaeKh Csroltua:l tit Raeourres Commtsdwt
Latter Data: J=mutry 24, 19%
Comments
q% 80*4
tt Wit!' dt aumm bencSts, nodal hnpecW end traffic analysle of
W Aatlffg reeoc = from cons of tht f `?? ?ddpazod a
CnVd i ?° aftsTnatlvs, Atternl:dm A.
libmwer, tbw dooement provkWd Htdle qwQMG infvnaatlon
to *vdands, .water juWlty, wlld % Habitat, protected ea
mtq teak from ovaetruaioa oa naR looatioa. °t' or Wmg. 'n INW um that
There abo was no
f mrw?Wtd that may matt ae a rent of ft fiva ep raids
ty of the Ltttla Rivsr aass4w
T w dootaamW e"" tho'l**=Uc etruemm were
* ° m4uitgme NCDOT should be awa° ? mat t NC NC'9V1tRC meat the mis,q a
K? y a
mftifatirc.tne?, for avoidance of wetiaad impacft
?apncntatjo?t, 'hare amo b and to mtniraise wijdltte habitat
39 - that 8a s some eod=h m reprCung Bit stopen & v??etlanda, It is our
widen
i ,CPU WE be a miaimum of 2:1 in wednasde in aoaordw= whh
NCDOT Dw Msnsymm it Praw.
hboft"W ' b^f w& m We ar,& and wrtW
?i1 d+wlopn1eru
-234- i"wd +e:??dcs roadr as not an*iacted I?. Z
,j fi

drs,acsn, "' t+ddiAee a„d ro do Tosvm of V
an sad coa ave. wo LtV ,arls
a /irnd we it 49MW by lft* Okink awmg AWWO to stpasl
Prole km w an am 0 *c fimbtred to *6 d6w a f ets a f the pr0jea Swvim goads an
socks t W the mw At Atom md Z" I*e n?igo'"* i 3 I "?„?r wN be wsd a j*pA g iwd 12 a SR 1 ffi JVo
ae,? a roads wi11 m stets of a* new oor+wrwcAt .
Gala m cm be fwd er o dd ?` ?1°"' t0 a wi?ttika WO&
sd
A% *MMW ar was located Whim On Af EenagGi?w A ooffi*r. Bomm
*e1wh?k ss s c=wvhd
bripor.•e bdMm a ?eArd tv be mftWW
s y, d we a nre?,
B Pope b tins l r R as Duos of ?
'K bt t MN*ww o to 'O'Lw and Ab slopm We mqn* that
Ws w ?l oowlder sews:! nWpxm wakood b pry, w*sn the dart k svt p uh
dt+?c'rrsi drae W*W Auft alb 1rd duip phm afd+t prvJect asd w?l
o*?= at 2-11 j dwke do Pbt N=n p04
!r b oprstiaeet aide in mden&
7Lc final statat m is in Qo>Zfo =am with the applicable prmWm of 23 CPR m. It
satisfactot* addf6fted the aatiaipatad wjr?
the propowd sodloo, impacts, both phyaia3rapo and a>ltural, of
-235-
..-. _-
A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQ10144 4
345 GOURTLANO STRQT. N.!
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3OUS
W 2 3 194
Mr . 8. Franklin Sick 'jo 2 6
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation rd - : iC'' ?` ?;
Post Office Box 25202 ?Oeo ??•
Raleigh,. NC 27511-5201
subject: D•s' 1 from S.R. 1853 to s.R. 1180 Moore and Lee
Counties; Federal Final Environmental Impact Statement
TIP Project No. R-210; EPA Reverence F-PEN-240740-NC
Dear Mr. Vick:
In accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National,
$nvirO=e`ntal Policy Act and Section 309 Of the Clean Air Act
EPA Region 4 is providing commea:s on the subject Final EIS.
The Preferred project is Alternative A, to four lane in
freeway configuration
11.2-miles long between the*c ? aof SouthernoPianes u and 1 forte
A large portion of the project would be on new all ent Sanford.
east side of the present highway. Dent to the
$lADQnses to EPA comments
we are anticipating receipt of the Natural, Systems Technical
Memorandum as NCDOT indicates i= will provide. It is possible
EPA will have additional cotmeents based on that document.
A response in the document to the SPA comment makes a point
t ai wetland impacts minimization efforts daring prelimin
gn of Alternative A have reduced the estimate from 95 ac es
tc 56-40re2. If this represents a right-cf-way will be utilized for establishing final mitigation, then ntthi thatnew
estimate is not comparable to those corridor estimates for other
alternatives in Table Iv-16. Z+ as
D was considered with similar.g?eat within Alternative
`
might become the least Fact minimization scrutiny, it aZtern is to be the level of impacttt gbe coaeadered in os asevan s56-acres
appropriate compensation mitigation since the corps
the allgnaeat and wetland delineation. Also the c has verified
mitigation plan for the Final EIS should have had con.
locations, wetland types, etc., specified.

-236-

-2-
We recognize the unavoidable loss of forested land cove= due
to the proposed project. While plantings of hardwood trees
be considered, we recommend extensive lan ' is to
ngs
wce wat toe r bpollut
aesthetics, noise abatement -non-point p source
control and air r pollution
quality.
We expressed reservation about c naulativs environmental
impacts of the North Carolina Trrnsportatioa n3prOv
relative to wetlands loss. ement Program
was that it is beyond the scope ofQ-the response to this comment
believe the mechanisms ex Present analysis, we ist utilizes the ![C Center for GaoO do such as accounting. PICDQT
which specific project data likely Information and Analysis on
tabular data on basic 1 'k°`y reside. Both geographic and
and cover categories exists for a great
deal of the state. perhaps with the assistanea of the Corps of.
Engineers Wetlands Regulatory and P:.anning sAta42f, quantitative
analysis of land cover convess;on should be ?ossib. This
info=mation has a place in the total accoun+i a of
benefits of trausportat= cn y=aieets. 3 costs and
Ws maintain oar ini "- al" dec ree of concern regarding the
project due to the lack o:"spec=4c com tmeats on wetlands
mitigation. Other EPA cc=ents?On tbLe gre_t •
responded to adequately. T E+s have been
The deve-o=
ont of the final wetlands
mitigation plan should be coordi.mated with our Wetlands Sect on
and we look forward to : ts ccmp:etie= as ea=ly as possible is the
final project design stace.
Thank you f or the oaoort-:.:_ _y to co=en. an the
Please contact Ted Sister`feld at 404/347-3775 if vtr wishttolS.
discuss our comments.
Sincerely,
le:m,z or. Mueller
Ch_ e_, EV-I rc=ental Policy section
cc: Wayne Wright, Wilmington COE
Howard Hall, IISPWS Raleigh

-237-
vv Y?O$d
NORTH CAROLINA STATE L-EARINGMOUSE
r ?`5 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JCNES STREET
x_96 RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 2160-6=3
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REYIEw CCMMaNTS JAN 3 0 !moo
s
E C T C FR C r. ..? ----
.
=EPT. OF TRANSPCRTATION Mw S. CKRYS BA'GGE"Ttr"?
4=B8
ts?,:tTO?e `C
RAM DEV. BRANCH C k STATE CLEARI?lGHCC:Sc ?f
SPCRTA71ON 8LCG./INTER-CFF i?-ell
? V• i
ECT DESCRIPTION
- IMPROVEMENTS TO US It FRCM EXISTING FCUR-LANES SCUTH OF SA
AT LAKEVIE69 NC TO EXISTING, F::UR-LANES AT SR 1130 SCUTN CF '
CRC (TIP R-210)
NC 96=4ZZ00436 PROGRAM TITLE - FEIS
A3CVE FRCJECT HAS BEEN SUilMITT=Z TC ThE NCATM CA2CLIUa
RGCVERNMENTAL REVIEW PRCCESS• AS A AEESL'LT CF THE PSVI_w -T-HE F:'LLcwr-NG
USIM ITTFD ( ) NC CCMM;NTS MEFit ; ECE.IV=-
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
LL YCU KAVE'ANY CUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL ThIS OFFICE (919) 733-7Z3:6

i
REGIONS J b K 1 ,e
A
-238-
y.-.
151 22
hieft , ? ? memo
{.. c
JU 1r/ 24,1? •
not aorrom
E) Sma DQT Jq rig service -melds, a discussion of mcandag development
and itft re iestpacts to wetlands is necoseaq to concur wdh is type of
Due to the ms$r Issues.-m sed, OEM does not concur with the FEIS. DOT is
tsmtnco that' r?att of a FriS: ny DLM would rmt preciude. the denial of a 4M
Cer?Ik;at w.uQgetc mon N wetitnd and water impacts have not boon avoided and
mInlmized to the ria?u0mvm extent pri&icabla
Ouaettioras?a rdi?. th?e 401 Caotiflcatlon should be directed to Eric Qalamb (735-
17M in DEI?Ts V?i9 Duality Environmental Sciences 9nand•?.
us1 moore.fei
c:a &cm COE COE
Monica tww?srt

J
i
r
I
I
I
i

-239-
JiN 26 196 It: 22
tC 1 HC:!' .1-Ht.,.y I.HKL
I CL : %J l V- . -0-JO-37 .0411 Ld 7? • VV %%W ..rvv 1 . vv
North Carolina W k life Pysour= Commission 0
312 N. Uisbury Shift Raie56 NamkCmAft27604-1188.919.733-3391
M 40RANMW
TO: Melba MCGee
Office of jntergovemme l Ud Le$islattvc A8!? M DEHNR
FROM: i)avid Cox. frisinlny Project C
Mar
HaMte Consor ndai Prog?am r,
DATE: January 24,199x,
SMICT: Final Lrniri:lottazmtal lapses Sftkment (S) for US I, tom SR 1853 at
Lakeview to SR 11$0 loath of Seafoe+d.K?oa+s cod Lot counties, North
Carolina. 23P No. R•210, SCH Projaot No. 96-0436.
Staff biologim with the N. C. 3i?-&ifo R'a=ces C=minion MCWRC) have
ravinwed the mbjeat Fl,S and we faud1lse vbhbsbWvdm is the Quc atra, The
pmupC" ofthis rvi w was to MU %? IMOMMm fkh aid oa. our
comments are provided is ce with m tads pcovbbms of the Natinoal
Laviroatahnsel Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2xc)) and OW Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 SUL 401, as 16 U.S.C. 661.6674
The proposed gro!!'ru "Walves *- rov=ants to U81 imhums t6 upgrade of
thanrucks of=sdnwUS 1 and cline m1'1is cf rmw to the eaa of existing US•l .
Mw pvposed zWwgy *01 be a fm-Wm median A----fd m ml of anal "way
Wm ? at locatiM W ft mgm Vd% movOats and grade sepandoos at
num Oros coach. Tm pwjwt lung t is J= cans.
11a subj= document Idemuteiv diMMM bad, social iatptco, and tmmc
TN &nmm
Alostasslve A.
Howes. the docWumt pmVidrd little ?peciSc it rntmtdm regseditlQ secandltry
iaspset3 to wetlands, wakr quality, arlld>z£allabiptt, peotetxedspecias, or changes in land
we that may mWtt ftmm co sned on on new location. There also ma no sped& 4cd -
roade dbe pro' m jod is the vxda't1? awl PAVW mining.
ft
The doctmseats stets that h7dmt11 d be awsr a ?? NCWRC ? vnws
minim= h?yd wA!c mquitlealtala. =
-240-

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
rs s. Hut lc. owwwr
r ftr McCain. Srctstaq
January 19, 1996
Nicholas L Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Siam Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: FEIS, Improvements to US 1, Lee and Moore
Counties. Federal Aid Project NHF-0001(3),
State Project 8.T560302, TIP R-210, 96-E-
4220-0438
Dear Mr. Graf:
Diwiora of AtCWVM and Him"
Jeffm J. Clow, Director
We have received the final environmental impact staternlnt concerning the above
project from the State Clearinghouse and offer the following comments,
As noted on pages IV-22 and IV-23 of the document, additional archaeological
investigations are necessary at site 31 MFt30O due to problems of access. These
investigations will take piece after acquisition of the property containing the site but
prior to project implementation. We look forward to further consultation regarding
this project and receipt of the archaeological testing report for those sites affected
by the project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 500.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
coneeming the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 9191733-4763.
Sincerely,
?Oavrd 9rook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
08:31W
. V
cc. State Clearinghouse
H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
K. Robinson
1091= Joe" Street • iWleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
-241-

01:40 N FR0,M i?a

Arr,
1
n?

SurZ or NoIZTH TUNA
JAMES B. Nvcvr)0. DEPART ENT OF TRANSPORZ nON GovauvoR L7IVYSION OF HI
GHWAYS GARCwo B. GwRRm
P.Q SOX 2M SIGN. N.C Tl611--slot
sCUTAW
Match 14, 19%
Mr. Eric Galamb
Division of EnvirornaMMI Management
North Carolina Department of Enviromnent Health, and Natural Resources
Poet 0111ce Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0635
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Improvements to US I in Moor and Lee Counties. State project No.
8.T560302, TIP Project No. R•210
Thaah You for your memo eommenting on the Final Envirotuttental Imp=
Statement for the subject project. Several design iswes were raised which we "Wd IBce
to cla ifj , the location of aervice ro84, tale Proposed side idoplm, the use of Iaenl dhche
and the length of bridges and other structures.
Service roads we nMsary near the ,
to the property that would Pt'olcet s northern tecmirnrs to provide arcs OdWwi As you know, the p WoWdd n u be landaocked ass, reeult of Mjeet =Muctlon.
iticility be an ticip y with W cooft of .
Three service roads wrR be d
readt of the placement of s, as o not a Minate induced iopmot as a
devdoPmart is not antici ua row' Local Plaaniaa of$aiala it dieate dust
P for the northern portion of the proj@M Fwtbw, no P *Hc
water and wastewater uWitin are available in tW ar,en. Thar
the northern portion of the Project lees desirable for most • lack of atvadeb?y msfoes
. mtenaive Laced aces.
The VdIting US 1 roadway will be udkw for one ofthe setvios:Dada,
remaining two pn11 involve new construction. while the
Two service reads Wi,U be loca W on each
side of the ProPosed facility for a distance of
(Lakes Road) sad SRI 122 (cedar bane epproaroately 2.s?1sa, ?? SR 2181
service read in this at+ee. The third ' E'aa?'g US. 1 arttl :? as the wtem
service road is approo =* 0,65-01e6 in INgth,
"
constr inguction PMPO'y on the south side of SR 1182. WO 06te that the smote road
aPPraximately 2.25 acres of wetlands. No service rows are
Proposed in the vicatity of the Little River, at the southern aced of the project
-242-
03= 16-96 G! 4G' Pld FQGM JCi'-' n
The alignment of the service roads will be reevaluated during the p-qsct, s Baal
daian phase in an attempt to ==gw wetland impacts. Fwther, we will eralu" the uae
of discontinuous service roads between SR I I a 1 and SR 1182 to reduce the vpp=.nity
for secondary impacts to wetlands.
North.CarviinLD*pam=U of Tiampartahoa Bat
(SNP's) cells far utlli&itiou of 2:1 side slo ? Practicss
of 811 material. This ratio will be applied in ? to ?? w? to raw the p
design of the project. We impacted etlaad sits durit? the final
ratios in wetlat:d areas during the Steep em 2.I, 1 m the 7' d ?n an on slope
meeting
The 8MP's also recommend against the use of lateral ditches in wetlands„ due to
the possibility of drainage. Therefore, the use of latent ditches in wetland am will be
avoided durinS the fired design.
As noted in your memo. the bridge openings illustrated in the
designed to accommodate the hydraulic conveyance. We are aware the lengthening
nep
bridges to avoid v.etlands is s mitigative action which is l&@Jy to be requested during the
permitting phase ofthe project. We will evaluate the feasibility oftengthening structures
at that time.
We have included a response to your memo in the
you have further questions, please contact Byron Brady, P.E.,at 133rd ofDecision. If
AXM;?Hft Vick, P.-EE., Maaagvr
Planning and Emiront3tewal Broach
HFV/tp
Federal Highway Administration
-243-
NOW
STATE OF NOM CAUUNA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. Hur+r jR
GVMWo1? DMSION OF HIGi iW
Pa MS AYS C"AND 8. CAiutarr IA.
RALEIGH. N.C 27611. 1= SVJWARV
March 14, 1996
Mr. Heinz J. Mueller
Chia( Enviromurttai.Poucy Section
Federal Activities Breach
United States Emvironmeuai Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
SUBJECT: Iraproveme:zts to US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties, State Project No.
8. T560302, TIP Project No. R-210
Dear Mr. Mueller:
TbAnk you fbr yaw comments on the Final Environmental Imgm statement for
the subject project Your letter stated correctly that the comparison of *aciaed wetlands
bens a A&ermttve A (36-acres) and Alternative D (75-arse) cited in response to as
earlier letter was ineompubble. The wetland impacts within the Alternative A corridor, as
defined in the Drs$ Bnvironatental Impact tatenor, were estimated to be appro4matd
95-acres. The mmaaization effoty referenced in the y
adju:tieueats previous responds tet>:c3 to
to the preliminary design within the Alteve
impacts to a final esdrnate of 3 A corridor, which reduced the
unpacd to aria ' 6-eons. Most ofthis reduction is d= to effam to reduce
high quality wetland system assmated with Little Crane Creek.
The
antlers. Th cm=ptLW on an providedi the FEIS nets tW W mitigation
fAWWNWA
39-acres of bottomisrtd hardwood by ? Pd'oJ°? utdtsde
orees and 17-=u of impoutidtrtetts. Several
possible mitigation sites were identified in the field, located in the floodplains ofthe Little
River, Little Crane Creek, and Crane Creek. The wlilingneu &W is unknown at this time. Eftu will be made to determiao of the a qty oown=
f these
situ ad the final ther appropriate mitigation sites in tba project am dui the developmeat of
mitigation plan. These activities will be Section, as well as the U.S. cootdueated with the EPA's We#lattd
Army Corps ofBnginews mad the North, Carolina Deparmm
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
-244-
FROM ?,oT Ty?

..t
Further dbrq to Miniavm
Phase of the project, 'menfore, the impacts wiU occur during the Etna dew
me
leas. The total compensation proleer?a level of wetlands irttpa? ? be S
design, uId will be included in the mod be fitietiZed man eo ??+ or
fiaW mitigation plari.M of of the Anal
We concur with your roaommendati
hat Iaadaca
P1+ts to provide aeat sdc benefits, no on t
in abatem rum Plans ia?luda a vanety of
qgj?
quality. The NGDOT Roadside Environment,,
co and imptbved air
P of ?which incorp,orees & variety of Planting ntalsti*ls Will develop a IW W"g PUn for the
Veaca Uy for theca
We uadentaad Your concern
the North Carolina T wing the cwnuhLt ve ?
astabliahed an envtto ?sponation improvement Pro ° ? impacq of
"mental impact tracking system ta?ever' wa have cot
working with state and federal resource Our. Department is
on site, as well as develo I agencies to mitigate unavoidable wetland i
efforts. P arge-scale wedand. mitigation banks. mpacts
Particularly those involving wetlands restaratiott, will palliate theme that these
impacts of our Program. cumulative
We have included e
You have further questions p°nse to your letter in the project's Record ofDecision. If
Please contact ByTon Brady, P,E,, at (919) 733-314).
Fpvltp
Sin
CI; PY
? Marzaget
P!?
=Mal Branch
?u7
-245-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MOORE COUNTY
Department of Transportation, )
Plaintiff, )
v. )
Mack Blue. and Wife, Brenda C. )
Blue, )
)
Defendants. )
Aug
Department of Transportation, }
Plaintiff, )
V. )
Coi. Pierce B. Irby, Jr.. )
Defendant. }
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
99 CvS 911: 912; 913: and 914
99 evs 916
AFFIDAVIT OF BEN WILSON
After being duly sworn, the affiant deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Benjamin Vann Wilson, I am 47 years of age and I am under no disability
that would prectude my testifying as a witness in a court of law.
2. My curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference.
3. My job requires me to have familiarity with the process of applying for and receiving a
401 water quality permit and/or a 404 dredge and fill permit. which are required for
projects impacting waters of the United States and/or for projects impacting wetlands
by the Clean Water Act (CWA).
4. The North Carolina Division of Water Duality (DWO) is the permitting agency for 401
permits.
-246-
5. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is the permitting agency for 404 permits.
6. In evaluating a 401 permit application for a given project, DWQ
environmental documents, such as EAs and EISs prepared for that t, as (y uses
making toots. project. as declsior?
7. Although environmental documents don't constitute the only decision-making
by DWQ, when such documents have already -- forOject pe tool used
rmitted by
DWQ these documents provide important infix maticn to asssistrin DWp dec
ision on
whether to issue a 401 permit.
8. Such environmental documents have typically been prepared for earlier decisions by
other agencies, such as, for example, NCDOT's decision on whether, where and how
to build a road project.
9. The COE typicalty uses the same environmental docu
on whether to issue a 404 ?? that DWQ uses in deciding
permit for a project to which DWQ has issued a 401 permit.
10. Further affiant sayeth not.
This the _IS day of May, 2000.
V* le-
lx??Z:z
Sworn to and subscribed before me, Y.
4bry da of May, 2000. e`,µ?ll?uuu ????'
bNorAqr
My Commission Expires:

A4
11110116,11 tol\
2
TOTAL P.03
-247-

BENJAMIN V. WILSON, P. E.
Principal EngineerlVlee President
Education
Bachelor of Sacace in Engineering - Duke University 1976
Master of Science in Engineering - North Carolina State University 1988
Additional post-graduate study in geotechnical engineering - Duke University
Additional Training
ASTM Phase I Environmental Assessment Training
Corps of Engineers Prototype Wetlands Delineation Coutsc
40 Hour OSHA Hazardous Training
Registration
Professional Engineer
North Carolina Registration #10361
South Carolina Registration #9275
Virginia Registration # 15977
Certified Envaonmental Specialist # 12794
Environmental Assessment Association
Professional Activities
American Society of Civil Engineers
National Society of Professional Engineers
Groundwater Professionals of North Carolina
National Water Well Association
Christian Business's Committee
Representative sampling of key assignments and experience
Mr. Wilson has over 23 yells experience irrNorth Carolina and is a principal engineer for the Research Triangle
Park branch of ECS, Ltd.. His duties include direct project responsibilities and overseeing a staff of over thirty
engineers, geologists and scientists providing geotcchnical, environmental and construction materials work
primarily in North Carolina but also all over the United States.
• GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING - Mr. Wilson has experience in subsurface exploration and design of
shallow and deep foundations, segmental retaining walls, reinforced earth structures, and other geotechmeal
projects.
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ENGINEERING - Mr. Wilson has performed numerous Phase 1
and Phase U Environmental Assessments with such pollutants as gasoline and diesel fuel, heavy metals,
solvents, and land fill leachate. including computer modeling of natural attenuation and biodegradation of
contaminants.
NATURAL. RESOURCE PERMITTING - Mr. Wilson has significant experience in consulting with clients
and performing wetland identification delineation and, U.S. Army Corp of Engineer's verification. Mt. Wilson
has experience in identifying different varieties of wed and eco-system and has experience with N.C. state
permitting rcquiremcats and regulations, including Neuse River Buffers and Coastal Area Management Act.
Mr. Wilson has provided design services for wetland replacement for one of the first mitigation sites permitted
in the Research Triangle Area.
-249-
B-- .JAMIN v. WILSON. P.E.
Senior Engineer/Vice President
• BUILDING ASSESSMENTS - Mr. Wilson has conducted building assessments to evaluate lighting, building
structure, drainage. and other requirements for Building Condition Surveys.
• CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND NiATERIAlS TESTING - Mr. Wilson has managed numerous
construction services projects throughout the states of North Carolina, Virginia and South Carolina, including
mule-story office buildings, large commercial developments, institutional development projects, and
government projects.
• EARTH DAMS AND WATER RESOURCES - Mr. Wilson has been involved in the design, evaluation.
inspection or repair of over 100 dams in the southeast, including computer hydraulic and hydrologic analysts
and structural stability studies and permitting. Mr. Wilson is also a certified scuba diver and has inspected
underwater works on numerous dams.
E,YVntONVIENTAL PROJECTS
EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY/SCRAP BATTERY LANDFILL - Geotechnical exploration and analysis,
hydrologic and geohydrologic analysis and design of secure landfill for scrap batteries. Design includes triple clay
linen, double leachate collection system and monitoring. Additional work includes design of upgrade to Subtitle D
status under new regulations.
D. K. TAYLOR OIL COMPANY/EASTOVER STTE - Comprehensive Site Assessment and Corrective Action Plan
and installation of Remediation System for gasoline contaminated site. NOTE: Fire sueendd groundwater
closure in North Carolina.
ASHEBORO WAL-MART - Phase I environmental assessment and wetlands delineation for SO acre Wal-Mart site.
Wetlands work consisted of delineation, confirmation, mapping and 404 and 401 pertrutfmg through US Army
Corps of engineers and NC Division of Water Quality.
BOULEVARD PROPERTTES/WATKINS LAKE - Earth dam design and permitting, wetlands evaluation. and
permitting, and design of replacement wetlands and permitting, and stormwater detention and sediment control for 7
acres of ponds and created wetlands for 200+ acre development in Durham County.
ENVIROCHFM PART B Hazardous Waste-Ttaasfer and StoraWFaeihty -Engmeer of record for final permitting
and construction of facility. Preparation of contingency plans and ongoing grounwater monitoring and other duties.
HIGH POINT LANDFILL - Wetlands delineation and 40I/404 permitting of mitigation for expansion of erostiag
landfill. Mitigation consisted of field investigation and evalution of alternative designs for wetland creation. Final
design consisted of engineering of new wetlands in existing sediment control basins and preparation of plans and
specifications including water budget analysis planting plans etc for permitting through the US Army Corps of
Engineers as well as the NC DENR Division of water quality.
W. R- BONSAL COMPANY - MiMNG PERMIT - Performed engineering analysis and prepared mining permits
and plans and specifications for 800 acre sand and gravel nine. Permit included sediment control, SPCC plans as
well as safety berms, slope stabWry and other pertinent construction.
CAMP LEIEUNE LANDFILL CLAY CAP - Borrow source investigation and evaluation for clay cap for landfill
closure at US Marine base in Onslow county. Borings and ASTM constant and falling bead permeability testing to
confirm clay with properties suitable for closure under. state and national regulations.
CAROLINA ENTERPRISES - Tank closure. Comprehensive Site Awcssment, and Corrective Action Plan for
acetone and toluene solvent spill in eastern North Carolina. Installation of remediation system including vacuum
system, air sparging and bioreactor, , and in-situ bioremedianon using infiltration galleries.
-249-
I IANMN V. WILSON, P.E-
Seu.or Engineerfvice President
OIL COMPANIES - Numerous comprehensive site assessments and corrective action plans for small oil jobbers in
eastern central and western North Carolina, including installation of monitoring wells, hydrogeologic assessments,
groundwater modeling and preparation of corrective action plans.
METAL CONTAMINATION . Comprehensive site assessment including hydrogeology groundwater flow,
groundwater modeling and corrective scuon plans for multi-layer aquifer systems with metals contamination.
installation of groundwater monitoring wells for assessment for presence of metals contamination.
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM - Numerous Comprehensive Site Assessments (CSAs) to determine location of
groundwamr contamination plumes for gasoline, fuel oil and motor oil, and recotrimendanons for corrective action
plan for clean-up, including cost estimate, etc. and actual installation of remedianon systems.
RANDOLPH COUNTY LANDFILL - Subsurface exploration, oeotechnical analysis geohydrologic and hydrologic
studies and design and preparation of plans and specifications for four (4) expansions of the Randolph County
Landfill in 1980 and 1986-1992. Design plans and specifications included all configuration operational plan,
erosion control and closure plan for 200 acre landfill permitted through 1996. Continuing consulting services.
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EASTERN REGION - Project Manager and Senior Technical
review and design of CAPS and installation of remedial action systems for multiple sites in eastern North Carolina.
PHASE 1, PHASE lI AND PHASE III ENVTRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS - Performed over 100 Phase I, Phase
U and Phase III environmental assessments to determine environmental liabilities for-Real Property Transiers. Have
performed environmental liability assessments in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey.
LAGOON LIVER DESIGN - Laboratory and field reevaluation and design for various lagoon lining system
including HDPE linen. PVC linen, clay liners, soil cenaenr bentonioc liners and combinations for municipal and
industrial wastewater lagoons.
METHANE CONTROL SYSTEM - Exploration and pump test for methane recovery and migration control for two
landfills in Ctmnberland County, Notch Carolina.
SPRAY IRRIGATION AND OTHER INFILTRATION SYSTEMS - Subsurface exploration and geotechnical and
hydrogeologic analysis and design ofinfiltration galleries and spray irrigation fields for industrial municipal and
private wastewater treatment systems.
PUBLICATIONS
"In-situ Testing and Prediction of Settlement of Footings on Residual Soils", Masters Thesis, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1988.
-Biotemediadon of Organic Contaminates", Benjamin V. Wilson, P.E. and Ronald Manila, P.E., Virginia
Environment, May 1994
"Environmental Regulatory Compliance Audits", Thomas D. Myers. Pb-D. and Benjamin V. Wilson, P.E., Virginia
Environment, December 1994.
TOTAL P.05
-250-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY" OF MOORE
DEPART\/IENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Plaintiff.
MACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE.
Defendant ?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION i
Plaintiff.
V. )
PIERCE B. IRBY. ET AL., )
Defendant
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
99 CVS 911
99 CVS 91:
99 CVS 913
99 CVS 914
99 CVS 916
AFFIDAVIT OF C A-RL GOODE
I, CARL GOODE, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say:
I am employed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. (hereinafter,
"NCDOT') as Manager of the Citizens Participation Unit of NCDOT.
2. I have worked in the Citizens Participation Unit since 1989.
I. My present responsibilities include, among other things, the managing and
coordinating of citizens participation hearings for NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
(hereinafter, "TIP") projects.
4. As part of my responsibilities, I am familiar with the NCDOT citizens
participation files associated with certain NCDOT TIP projects, and I am able to access and
review such files.
5. The TIP is prepared by NCDOT and is a compilation and identification of
proposed and approved transportation improvement projects in the State of North Carolina.
-251-
?. TIP Pro.iect No. R-210 (hereinafter. "R-210") has been identified in the TIP prior
to 1988 and is ?_enerally described in the l U99 TIP for 2000 - 2006 as "North of Lakeview to tour
lanes at SR 1 180 south of Sanford. Widen Roadwav to four lanes. part on new location."
7. I have reviewed information and documents in the citizens participation file for R-
210 as it relates to this .affidavit.
8. According to information available in the R-210 citizens participation rile, the
Record of Decision approving NCDOT's selected alternative. "Corridor A." (or Alternative A)
was executed on ivlarch 21, 1996.
9. NCDOT provided public notice of the proposed roadway design within "Corridor
A." which had been previously identified along with other proposed corridors, in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement published on December 1, 1995.
10. The NCDOT public notice announcing the public design hearing explaining the
selected alternative appeared in the Sanford (NC) Herald newspaper and The Pilot (Southern
Pines, NC) newspaper on February 29, March 7 and March 14, 1996 and was entitled "Notice of
Public Hearing on the Proposed Design for the Improvement of US 1 to a Multilane Roadway
from North Lakeview to South Sandford."
11. A true copy of one of the original published aforementioned notices is provided as
Exhibit A.
12. According to information available in the R-210 citizens participation file, the
design public hearing for selected and approved "Corridor A" was held on March 21, 1996 at

-252-
30 PM in the Cameron Elementary School :-\ud'torium at the intersection of LS 'I and NC 2Y-"7.
The information contained in this affidavit is based on information obtained from the tiles
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the personal knowled-Je of the atfant.
This the day of Llav. 2000.
i
Na; Y C.?RL GOODS
Durham Cu.-:y Manager of Citizens Participation Unit
Stete Of North Ccrciina North Carolina Department of Transportation
Sworn to and subscribed before me
?f
this day of /14r , ?000.
r
i otary Public FA-c-Z LAKAA.-
ivly Commission Expires: 5 ?,'Zc?o3
(Aff: 31640)

-253-
EXHIBIT A
(NCDOT PUBLIC NOTICE OF DESIGN HEARING FOR R-210)
-254-
JNT - Northern: 7Onight. parr, -lousy ??w LO :o 25
ouo
:rtai prooa

,
Y with 30 percent chance of t snow oevemo,ng. 1,gn 35 :o r
In anon;
,them: Tonight. increasing clouds. Low in lower 20s. =riday. mostly judge
rnent. that C
Jy.with 30 percent chance of light snow developing. High 35 to 40. pav ouruti?
MOUNTAINS -Northern: Tonight, becoming cloudy. Low 25 to
30
=r.' aehais alre:
.
AY. cloudy with 50 percent chance of light snow,
possibly mixed with
f a crunltnal t
Sa
some
reezing rain or sleet. High 35 to X30 nta ?c
.
Central: Tonight, becoming cloudy. Low in teens. Friday. cloudy with 30 Sim
Alar
percent chance of light snow. High in mid-30s ps
on
a
.
Southern: Tonight. becoming cloudy. Low in mid-20s. Friday. cloudv
with 50 percent chance of li
ht jeopardy
iawsuitt i or
°
g
snow. possibly mixed with some treezin
rain or sleet. High in mid-30s. g doesn't invc
Person tic
NOTICE
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
DESIGN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF US 1 TO A
MULTILANE ROADWAY FROM NORTH OF LAKEVIEW
TO SOUTH OF SANFORD. 11
Project 87560302 R-210 Moore and Lee Counties I '
i C.
Personnel of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the above public hearin
g
on March 21, 1996 at 7:30 PM in the Cameron Elementary
School Auditorium, intersection of US 1 and NC 24-27 Choose
. to incluc
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the
ro
osed run - bor
p
p
project, right of way requirements and procedures or come
,
relocation advisory assistance and State-Federal
Relationship. The hearing will be open to those present
for statements, questions, comments and/or submittal of
material pertaining to the proposed project. Additional Advertisi:
material may be submitted for a period of 15 days from the your sale,

= date of the hearing to: Mr. W.A. Garrett, Jr., P.E., P.O.
Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 is 53.75.
. each addi

The proposed design is a four lane divided highway with credible a
one incon
- a.60' median on a minimum 300' of right of way. The The Hera
section from Lakeview to Cedar Lane Road (SR 1182) f
i
north of Cameron will be on new location east of US1 pt o
rece
.
From this point to the existing four lanes, the new lanes
will be on the west side of and adjacent to US 1. The
existing US 1 will become a service road for this section
.
The location is within Corridor A as presented at the loo

November 19, 1991 Public Hearing. 11 o-Spec
120-Pecs
- A map of the proposed location and design of the project 1 ao-Four
and copies of the Final Environmental Impact 15o-Cart
Statement are available for public review at the NCDOT 160-In M•
Division Office, located on US 1 - one mile north of the 170-Tick'
US 15-501/NC 211 intersection - in Aberdeen. Anyone 19o-Marc

' desiring additional information on the public hearing 195-Flea
. may contact Mr. Garrett at the above address or 919/ 2(
250-4092. 210-

NCOOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled 220-Car
Car
230-car
persons who wish to participate in the proceedings. To 240-Cars
25o_ i ruc
receive special services, please contact Mr. Garrett at the 260-Van
above number. Please give adequate notice so 270-MOt•
arrangements may be made. 280-Pv=
2.29:3.7.14) 255-Ne2
r
1
-255- ??? I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
. . -Gt? - --
Department of Transportation.
Plaintiff,
V.
Mack Blue and Brenda Blue,
Defendants.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
99 CvS 911
99 CvS 912
99 CvS 913
99 CvS 914
-- 99 CvS 916
ORDER
Department of Transportation,
Plaintiff,
V.
Pierce b. Irby, et al.,
Defendants,
This matter came on for hearing at the May 22, 2000, term of Court for Moore
County Superior Court on Plaintiff s Motion to Modify Order or in the Alternative to
Certify Pursuant to Rule 54(b). The Court reviewed the pleadings and heard oral
argument from counsel
It appears to the Court that its Order signed March 10, 2000, should be modified
by deleting the words "everyone agrees' from the second line of the last paragraph on
Page 2 of the Order. At the time the Order was prepared by the Court, the Court
apparently recalled that defendants did so agree, but defendants dispute that. There is no
copy of the transcript available at the present time and the Court no longer has any
recollection of the particular point. The Court is not finding that the defendants did not
agree but will simply make no finding one way or the other.
This appears to be a matter appropriate for certification for immediate appeal
pursuant to Rule 54(b). The Court's dismissal of the Counterclaims is final and there is
no just reason for delaying the appeal.
-256-
t '
It is therefore ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff's Motion to Modifv is ALLOWED in part, specifically, the
Court's Order signed May 10 is modified to delete the words "everyone
agrees' from the second line of the last paragraph on Page 2 of the Order.
The Motion to Modify is otherwise DENIED.
The Motion to Certify for Immediate Appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure is ALLOWED.
3. The Clerk shall provide a filed copy of this Order to all counsel.
This 30th day of May, 2000.
Superior Court Jua'g Presiding

-257-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MOORE COUNTY
Department of Transportation.
Plaintiff,
V.
Mack Blue. and Wife. Brenda C.
Blue,
Defendants.
N
Department of Transportation,
Plaintiff,
V.
Col. Pierce B. Irby, Jr., et al
Defendants.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
99 CvS 911; 912. 913; and 914
99 CvS 916
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Defendants Mack Blue, Brenda C. Blue and Col. Pierce B. Irby, Jr., give notice of appeal from the
orders of the Honorable Catherine C. Eagles filed on 14 March 2000 and 1 June 2000, dismissing
Defendants' counterclaims and affirming said dismissal, respectively.
This the17 day of June, 2000.
MOSER; SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
BY:
/--2"-
Stephen S. Schmidly (NC Bar ' 8011)
Centura Bank, Suite 400
1
-258-
1 15 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro. NC 27203-5535
336-626-8000
336-626-8007 FAX
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
BY:
Marsh Smith (NC Bar 16828)
PO Drawer 1468
Southern Pines, NC 28388-1468
910-695-0800
910-695-0903 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day served Fred Lamar, Esq., counsel for the opposing
party in the foregoing matter, with a copy of this notice of appeal by depositing in the United
States Mail, a copy of same in a properly addressed envelope with adequate postage thereon, in
the manner prescribed by Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
2,14-
This the day of June, 2000.
Marsh Smith
cc: ,
COL Pierce B. Irby, Jr.
Mack & Brenda Blue, c/o Art Blue, Esq.
W. Daniel Pate, Esq., Trustee
2
-259-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
IN 'THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
99 CVSQ11
99 CVS 912
9Q CVS 91;
Q9 CVS QI-
99 CVS 916
DEPARTMENT OF TP-ANSPORTATION
Plaintiff. 1
MACK BLUE and wife. BRENDA C. BLUE. )
Defendants
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )
Plaintiff. )
V. )
PIERCE B. IRBY, ET AL.,
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA:
The Plaintiff, North Carolina Department of Transportation, pursuant to Rule 3 of the
North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, hereby gives notice of appeal to the North Carolina
- Court of Appeals from the Order signed on March 10, 2000 by the Honorable Catherine C.
Eagles, Superior Court Judge Presiding and filed on March 14, 2000.
Respectfully submitted, this the /day of April, 2000.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
r red Lamar
Assistant Attorney General
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
North Carolina Department of Justice
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919)7;;-3316
??. -260-
CERTIFT ?T? t?F > Qyr F
I hereby certit? that I Igave this date served a copy of the fore?goin? VO"I'ICE OF
APPEAL upon the .utorneyts) Of record for the Detendants by placing same in the United States
Mail. First Class postage prepaid. addressed as follows:
Marsh Smith. Esq.
Cunningham. Dedmond. Petersen & Smith
North Bennett Street
Southern Pines. North Carolina =8387
Stephen S. Schinidly. Esq.
Moser. Schmidly. Mason & Rose
Centura Bank.- Suite '.00
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
This the 1'day of April, 2000.
Fred Lamar '
Assistant Attorney General
31136
-261-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
MOORE COUNTY
Department of Transportation, p`
Plaintiff,
V. ) 99 CvS 911; 912; 913; and 914
Mack Blue, and Wife, Brenda C. )
Blue, )
Defendants. )
AM MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Department of Transportation, )
Plaintiff, )
V. ) 99 CvS 916
Col. Pierce B. Irby, Jr., )
Defendant. )
Now come Defendants, pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure (NCRAP), Rule 27(c)(1), and move this Honorable Court for an
extension of time in which to serve a proposed record on appeal on counsel for
Plaintiffs. In support of this motion, Defendants show as follows:
1. The notice of appeal by Defendants was given on June 13, 2000;
Pursuant to Rule 11(b) of the NCRAP, the time for service of the proposed
record on appeal by Defendants expired on July 18, 2000;
3. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has dismissed without prejudice a
previous motion for extension of time in this case because no initial thirty-
-t-
-262-
day extension was granted by the trial court, and a copy of that 7127/00
order is attached hereto;
4. Counsel for Defendants had to prepare for a number of hearings and
handle at least two client emergencies during the week of July 17' and
thought that time for service of the Record on Appeal expired on July 26th;
and
5. Plaintiff does not object to granting this extension of time.
WHEREFORE Defendants pray that this Honorable Court grant thirty (30) additional
days from 18 July 2000 in which to serve the proposed record on'appeal.
Respectfully submitted this day: July 28, 2000.
MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE, LLP
Attomeys `for Defendants
BY: 21'-)
Stephen S. Schmidly (NC Bar # 8011)
Centura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
336-626-8000
336-626-8007 FAX
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP
Attorneys for Defen ants
BY:
MarsK Smith (NC Bar # 16828)
PO Drawer 1468
Southern Pines, NC 28388-1468
910-695-0800
910-695-0903 FAX
-2-
-263-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day served Fred Lamar, Esq., counsel for the
opposing party in the foregoing matter, with a copy of this motion for extension of time
by fax [phone]) and by depositing in the United States Mail, a copy of same in a
properly addressed envelope with adequate postage thereon, in the manner prescribed
by Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
This the V day of July, 2000.
Marsh Smith
cc:
COL Pierce B. Irby, Jr.
Mack & Brenda Blue, c/o Art Blue, Esq.
W. Daniel Pate, Esq., Trustee
-264-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MOORE COUNTY
Department of Transportation,
Plaintiff,
V.
Mack Blue, and Wife, Brenda C.
Blue,
Defendants.
AND
Department of Transportation,
Plaintiff,
V.
Col. Pierce B. Irby, Jr.,
Defendant.
= IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

99 CvS 911; 912; 913; and 914
99 CvS 916
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO
SERVE PROPOSED RECORD ON APPEAL
THIS CAUSE coming on for hearing and being heard by the Undersigned
judge at the 31 July 2000 term of Moore County Superior Court and for
good cause shown, hereby grants a 30 day extension of time - nunc pro tunc for
18 July 2000 - to serve a proposed Record on Appeal 'in this matter.
This the day of July, -265-

PLAT T' IFF-A PET-LANT' S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Plaintiff-Appellant Department of Transportation assigns as
error the following:
1. The Court's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
Defendants' Second Defense. Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
2. The Court's Order allowing Defendants to put forth
their evidence at the N.C.G.S. § 136-108 hearing that the
Plaintiff acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Record, pp. 213-
215 & 256-257.
3. The Court's Order allowing Defendants' Motion to
Consolidate cases. Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
-266-
DEFENDAN'T'-AP T T RF ' EXCEPTIONS AND CROSS ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Defendant-Appellees cross assign as error the following:
1. The lower court's conclusion that "... if the applicable
statute does not provide for an appeal from an administrative
decision, none exists." Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
2. The lower court's conclusion that "when a procedure is
provided, this procedure is the exclusive means for obtaining
judicial review." Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
3. The lower court's finding that "...there is certainly a final
agency decision, which [the words 'everyone agrees' were removed
by the lower court's order of 1 June 001 was the "Record of
Decision." Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
4. The lower court's finding that "...it is clear that the
defendants did not follow the requirements of the APA for
obtaining timely review of the plaintiff's decision concerning
decisions at issue and thus have not met the fifth requirement
for exhaustion of remedies." Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
5. The lower court's conclusion that "the conterclaim must _
therefore be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
6. The lower court's conclusion that "...the defendants cannot
obtain full-fledged judicial review of all of plaintiff's actions
and N.C.E.P.A. itself precludes judicial review of the
environmental documents at issue out of context with the
underlying agency decision." Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
7. The lower court's conclusion that "within these
constraints... defendants may put forth their evidence at the
N.C.G.S. Section 136-108 hearing that the plaintiff acted
arbitrarily and capriciously." Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
8. The lower court's dismissal of defendants' counterclaims.
Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
9. At the lower court's denial of defendants' motions to join
necessary parties. Record, pp. 213-215 & 256-257.
-267-
STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT OF RECORD ON APPEAL
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the parties hereby settle the Record on Appeal by
consent. 41
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
ILI
Marsh Smith, Esq.
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
GZ
Stephen S. Schmidly, E
Moser,-Schmidly, Mason & Roose
Centura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
This the ?i day of August, 2000.
A
Fred Lamar
Assistant Attorney General
r
Douglas W. Hanna
Assistant Attorney General
N. C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
-268-
Attorney General's Office
By: Fred Lamar, Assistant Attorney General
By: Douglass W. Hanna, Assistant Attorney General
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Marsh Smith, Esq.
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
Stephen S. Schmidly, Esq.
Moser, Schmidly, Mason & Roose
Centura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
-269-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this date served a copy of the
foregoing Proposed Record on Appeal upon counsel of record for
the Defendants by placing same in the United States Mail, First
Class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Marsh Smith, Esq.
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith
225 North Bennett Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28387
Stephen S. Schmidly, Esq.
Moser, Schmidly, Mason & Roose
Centura Bank, Suite 400
115 S. Fayetteville St.
Asheboro, NC 27203-5535
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
This the day of August, 2000.
Fred mar'
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
34119
-270-