U-3421_complete file

A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVED
S_"
Er 2 ®1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
oqe r!rH
SUBJECT: SR 1427 (Robeson St./Bragg Blvd.), from south of Rankin St. to south of /
NC 24-87-210 (Rowan St.), Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal-Aid
Project STP-401(7), State Project 8.1442401t U- (k
This project was assigned state application nu 0541. S ping
comments on this project were requested from the Stase o ebruary 15,
1996. We have received comments on this project from ate agencies.
This project was to b e processed as a federal environmental assessment.
However, our environmental review indicates this project will have minimal impact on
the environment. In addition, no major concerns were raised during the state
clearinghouse scoping process and no opposition to the project was expressed at a
citizens informational workshop for the project. Based on this, we intend to process the
project as a categorical exclusion. Therefore, no further clearinghouse action will be
required.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding the proposed
project, please feel free to call Jay McInnis, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844 ext.
248.
HFV/jam
RECEIVED
SEP 31996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
(9
r
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 4, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: SR 1427 Widening from Rankin St. to Rowan St.
Cumberland County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3421)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of February 15, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies in their permitting and/or
certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the widening of Robeson St./Bragg Boulevard from three lanes to five
lanes, converting the roadway from one-way operation to two-way operation, and
reconfiguring the existing "scissors" intersection of Walters St.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend
that every effort be made to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance.
Opportunities to protect target areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
Regarding avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend that
proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways,
utility corridors, or previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat
fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided. Crossings of
streams and associated wetland systems should utilize existing crossings and/or
occur on structure wherever feasible. Where appropriate, culvert structures that
maintain natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding
fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway shoulder and median width
should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas
should be stabilized by utilizing appropriate erosion control devices and/or
techniques. Wherever possible, construction in sensitive areas should occur
outside of anadromous fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.

We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands and
borrow areas, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing,
ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact acreages should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification
scheme of the National Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be
determined by using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Cumberland County. Habitat
requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species
should be performed, and survey methodologies and results included in the
environmental documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the environmental document regarding
protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;

b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative
effects area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action
and depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential
effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed rule.
These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened
or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a candidate
species. This change would place the species under the full protection of the
Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its status in the project
corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for the project to avoid any
adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species under State
protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
Sincerely yours,
Katherine Doak
Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-1-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:U3421.SCP
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Cumberland County
Birds
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Insects
St. Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchelli francisci) - E
Plants
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - E
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Clams
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2*
Birds
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
Insects
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana) - C2
Plants
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - C2*
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - C2
Boykin's lobelia (Lobelia boykinii) - C2
Conferva pondweed (Potamogeton confervoides) - C2
Georgia leadplant (Amorpha georgiana georgiana) - C2
False coco (Pteroglossasois ecristata) -C2*
Loose watermilfoil (Myriophyllum laxum) - C2
Panhandle lily (Lilium iridollae) - C2
Pickering's morning glory (Stylisma p. var. pickeringii) - C2
Pine barrens boneset (Eupatorium resinosum) - C2
Pondspice (Litsea aestivalis) - C2
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia) - C2
Sandhiils milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii) - C2
Savanna cowbane (Oxypolis ternata) - C2
Smooth bog-asphodel (Tofieldia Ig abra) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna) - C2
Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - C2
Wavyleaf wild quinine (Parthenium radfordii) - C2
Well's sandhill pixie-moss (Pixidanthera barbulata
var.brevifolia) - C2
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
..
Melba McGee
March 26, 1996
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to'approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. ..To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after'
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method og;,,
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:,
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
11195.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of. Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 26, 1996
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM:. Monica Swihart; Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #96-0541; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to SR 1427 in Fayetteville,
TIP#U-3421, Cape Fear Subbasin 03-06-15
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental ,
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in thee'
environmental documents_prepared.on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear.feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed. DEM recommends that no weep holes be
installed in bridges that drain directly into surface
waters.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands-been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized? -
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETi' JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State.Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Fayetteville, SR 1427 (Robeson Street/Bragg Boulevard)
from South of Rankin Street to South of NC 24-87-210
(Rowan Street), Cumberland County, State Project
8.1442401, Federal-Aid Project STP-401(7), TIP Project
U-3421
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to SR 1427 (Robeson Street/Bragg
Boulevard). The project is included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina Trans- .F`
portation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal
year 1998 and construction in fiscal year 1999.
The proposed project involves widening the subject portion of Robeson
Street/Bragg Boulevard from three lanes to five lanes and converting the
roadway from one-way operation (southbound traffic only) to two-way
operation. Also proposed is the reconfiguring of the existing "scissors"
intersection of Walters Street.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by April 1, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation
of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Jay McInnis, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at
[phone].
HFV/pl r RECEIVED
Attachment FF6 2 0 196
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
3"' *2

SCALE
?-? ?- '0 tr?aF
f
tMA1N YOKTATION
?. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FAYETTEVILLE
SR 1427 (ROBESON ST./BRAGG BLVD.)
FROM S. OF RANKIN ST.
TO S. OF NC 24-87-210 (ROWAN. ST.)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3421
FIG.1

?,.??,,? ? ? X996 ES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 16, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager %Z?,y
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for South US 401 Business
(Robeson St./Bragg Boulevard), from south of Rankin
Street to south of NC 24-87-210 (Rowan Street),
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, Federal-Aid Project
STP-401(7), State Project 8.1442401, TIP Project U-3421
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for February 7, 1996 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Jay McInnis, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. L
'???y?.? d ?` CeiS . ?i? l/Zo OL' ?C'
JM/pl r A/N ? C-/
Attachment c? _ vv ??5
5

_?
?`
?:
i it •j? r 1 ?? ,a? - ? M
???? a•. ? •,' ?, ,/ /• `. ? O/ _- A BOO
?? ?? •• Bich 3ch. - - A VVV
VAL
7 • ' r ,o ??
.1. I
?• J • N
F o?•• • J: ,,???iol?t ? r to ?o
Radio ;?• - s' ?? p
A . Tgver • ?s _
T ' A -(WPAU'
ation P) \ / 1 ,v i
1 • %11. :iP II
? p+ ? ••••.• • 4 p?• ?- O I? X11, ?
y 111 ? ? = ,? 1
• END
PROJECT
P qN 0 • Gib " ?? ®'O ® 9
l °
2
t p
a u L o ? '* ?%i?, II
i h Ho it 1
411 0o t ' 1 ••.. • u h
EF tV • j? • • it
P('r ail +r / •• +
? CoZ ? use 'rye:' + a.
.BEGIN ? ? ?? eR ?e .. R a .•°
4
5 PROJECT // • a
a e
p e s r
. r • + f y o 1 ,I•
Q \ •\ .•R,, \H 1. ? •• /111'1 a 4 tl ? L ?? \ +
=;Ch a err'T
• °•• \ ?// ' '' y?' ?y nL ``NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF I ?i?•?
^~ -?1 i% ? ./ ?? z• TRANSPORTATION •
-i +" r is ` ?• '• _ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS IC•
>? • ?C " 9ER E _ - ?;, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL a?
•1 _.. ?:^' \ --- „ BRANCH ',`
rl a
ate SOUTH US 401 BUS.(ROBESON ST/BRAGG BLVD.)
?' e I x
io FROM S. OF RANKIN ST.
TO S. OF NC 24-87-210 (ROWAN ST.)
\r FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
q •v, ;i i ??' TIP PROJECT U-3421 ••
FAYETTEVILLE AND+VANDERS
QUADRANGLES
/__ k/so 1:2000.1
"'_?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: January 5, 1996
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
?Programming
®Planning
?Design
TIP # U-3421
PROJECT # 8.1442401
F.A. PROJECT # STP-401(7)
DIVISION: Six
COUNTY: Cumberland
ROUTE: SOUTH US 401 BUS. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Urban
Principal
Arterial
LENGTH: 1.3 Km (0.8 mi.)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Improve access to Highsmith-Rainey Hospital and other
properties along the subject section of Robeson Street.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: Project extends along Robeson St./Bragg Blvd. from south of
Rankin Street to south of NC 24-87-210 (Rowan St.) and involves converting Robeson
St./Bragg Blvd. from a three and four-lane, one-way street to five lanes with two way
traffic. Project also involves reconfiguring the existing intersection of Walters St. with
Robeson St./Bragg Blvd.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environmental
Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA Completion: January, 1997
FONSI Completion: July, 1997
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes El No
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($) , or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full? Partial El None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges None Grade Separations None Stream Crossings None
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: Rankin Street to Hay Street: Three 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes with curb
and gutter. Hay Street to Rowan Street: Four 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes with curb and
gutter (Two-way traffic north of Walter Street).
Proposed: five 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes with curb and gutter
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (1996): 7,600
Design Year (2019): 12,000
% TTST 2% DUAL % DHV 10%
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ® 3R ?
DESIGN SPEED: 60 km/h (40 MPH)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) . ...................... $ 1,050,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation,
utiMities and acquisition) .....................$ 2,175,000
Force Account Items ................................ $
Preliminary Engineering ................. ..'. $ 200,000
Total Cost ........................................ $ 3,425,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction ...................................... $ 1,100,000
Right of Way ..................... . . ...........$ 2,175,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 3,275,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED Q0 COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement:
Surface ........................................ ..$ 891280`
® Base ....................................... . $ _137,200
? Milling & Recycling .............................. . $
? Turnouts ...................................... .. $
? Shoulders:
? Paved ............................:............ ..$
? Earthen ........................................ $
$
57
400
® Earthwork ........................................... ..
, ,
_.
? Subsurface Items ...................................... ..$
? Subgrade and Stabilization ............................... . $
® Drainage (List any special items) .......................... $ 75,000_
? Sub-Drainage ..........................................$
? Structures: Width x Length
? Bridge Rehabilitation x ............... $
? New Bridge x ................ $
? Widen Bridge x ................ $
? Remove Bridge x ............... $
? New Culvert: Size Length .............. $
? Culvert Extension ........................... . $
? Retaining Walls: ............................... . $
? Noise Walls .................................... . $
® Other Misc. Structures ............................ .$ 8,750
® Concrete Curb & Gutter ................................ . $ 68,850_
® Concrete Sidewalk ..................................... $ 88,000`
? Guardrail ......... ................................... . $
? Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. .................t ... $
? Erosion Control ...................................... . $ 4000
? Landscaping ........................................ . . $
? Lighting ........................................... . $
$
500
2
® Traffic Control ........... ......................... ..
, `
2
.
? Signing:
? New ........................................... $
? Upgraded ....................................... $
® Traffic Signals:
? New ...... ...................................$
0 Revised .................. ...................... $ 140.000`
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (Xl COMMENTS COST
? RR Signals:
? New ............................................ .$
? Revised .......................................... $
• ? With or Without Arms .............................. $
? If 3R:
? Drainage Safety Enhancement ........................ : $
? Roadside Safety Enhancement ........................ . $
? Realignment for Safety Upgrade ....................... . $
® Pavement Markings:
? Paint ......................... ................... $
N .Thermo .......................................... $ 16.500

? Markers .................. ......................
$ `
_
? Delineators ............................................. $
®Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc...................... $ 221.520
Contract Cost Subtotal ..... ..................... $ 929.000_
Engineering & Contingencies .................... ............. $ 121,000`
Preliminary Engineering Costs ................................ $
- _200.000_
Force Account ............................................. $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal:...... ......... $ 1,250,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: Annrox. 20 meters(60 feet)
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
Yes ? No X
? New Right of Way Needed: Width Approx. 7 meters (20 feet)..... $
? Easements: Type Width ..................... $
? Utilities:.. .......................... ............... $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: .......................:..... $ 2,175,000*
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 3,425,000
* TIP right of way cost
Prepared By: Date:
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member.
Board of Tran. Member.
Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenande
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer _
Bicycle Coordinator _
Program Development _
FHWA _
Dept. of Cult. Res. _
Dept. of EH & NR _
Others
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.