R2503

United States Department of the
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 19, 1998
D
Mr. Richard B. Davis, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 2761
Dear Mr. Davis:
Interio,
VV
V
`(26\0
This responds to your letter of April 28, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and .
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed improvements to US 1 Business, from US 1 Bypass to Dabney drive (SR 1267),
Henderson, Vance County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2503). This report provides scoping
information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to
federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for
this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen US 1 Business
from a two-lane roadway to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility from US 1 Bypass to Dabney Drive
(SR 1267). The project also proposes to realign the Welcome Avenue (SR 1138)/Belmont Drive
(SR 1101) intersection to eliminate an offset intersection. The portion of St. Matthews Street
(SR 1143) north of the Welcome Avenue/Belmont drive intersection is proposed to be closed.
First Street (SR 1118) is proposed to be extended to connect with St. Matthews Street.
Representatives of the City of Henderson and Vance County have requested the project limits be
extended at both ends of the project. Local officials have proposed the project begin at Peter Gill
Road (SR 1548) and end at US 1-158 Business (Garnett Street). NCDOT is currently studying
their request.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time.
However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and
to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Henderson 7.5 Minute Quadrangle indicates
that there may be limited wetland resources along the proposed corridor. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion to the
projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
2
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 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 (Corps);
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in Vance County. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the listed species should be
performed. Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In
addition to this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding
protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
3
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
4
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
ohn M. Hefne
Field Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh, NC
NC Division of Water Quality, John Dorney, Raleigh, NC
FHWA, Nicholas Graf, Raleigh, NC
NCDOT, Clarence Coleman, Raleigh, NC
WRC, Frank McBride, Creedmoor, NC
EPA, Ted Bisterfield, Atlanta, GA
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:05/14/98:919/856-4520 extension 32:\r-2503.tip
5
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 12, 1998
MEMORANDUM
Jo I9`$
TO: Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
FROM: Mary Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Coordinator JY\Y-'
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping, DENR# 98-E-0703, DWQ# 12071
US 1 Business Improvements, from US 1 Bypass to Dabney Drive
(SR 1267), and additional project proposals, Henderson, Vance County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the EA document for the road widening as well as any extensions or new road
building associated with realignments:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C . Identify the number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible parry for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G . Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate-for habitat losses.
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

US 1 Business Widening
May 12, 1998
Page 2
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
J. The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
K . The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA for this
project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is
the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land
uses that the EA should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of the EA
should discuss the known relationship between road widening and inducements for
urban development along the project right-of-way. The EA must further address the
long-term environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect
impacts of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment. To
address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor (and what
land use figures were used in this estimate)?
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to existing roads, such as turn lanes and
traffic signs and signals?
iii) Are any cross streets in the project area projected to see additional traffic
flows due to the proposed project? If so, how will land uses along these
secondary roads be influenced by the project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant parcels of land in
the road right-of-way?
vi) Will these once less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this widened road serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.

US 1 Business Widening
May 12, 1998
Page 3
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this widening
encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducement for urban development is predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the EA and should be
considered indirect impacts of the transportation project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to effectively manage development potential along the
road right-of-way to reduce the potential indirect land use changes and
environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from this additional development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The EA should discuss these impacts (and others that are applicable to the
individual project), and quantify them when possible. In addition to
reporting on the types and significance of each direct and indirect impact of
the project, the EA should define how DOT (with their authorities and
resources) and affected local governments (with land use control in the
project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or mitigate these impacts to a
level of insignificance. The SEPA rules and statutes require that prior to
issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts in an
EA be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, the EA should document how the indirect effects of urban
growth are not going to significantly impact water quality and all other
environmental concerns resulting from this proposed project, or a FONSI
should not be issued.
L. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT EA:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the road widening, if the
project will be providing new or improved access to future growth areas that are
currently undeveloped. One typical impact of increased development might include
increasing amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area. Land-
disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development may
also result in increased stream sedimentation. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in the creek, loss of aquatic
habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers, pesticides,
sediment and automobile byproducts) to the stream. These impacts could be of
US 1 Business Widening
May 12, 1998
Page 4
special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and federally
endangered species or if the waters are high quality or nutrient sensitive.
M. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
N. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant call Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mek:\980703; US I Business Scoping

cc - del` - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
dFa--rE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 4, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
G l /e..\c e Cdle
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for US 1 Business, From US 1 Bypass
to Dabney Drive (SR 1257), Henderson, Vance County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-OO1B(1), State Project No. 8.1391101,
TIP No. R-2503
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 December 2, 1997 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental
Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting
or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Clarence Coleman, Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 216.
CC/plr
Attachment
R,60,111)
N
FARO v

ATTENTION
For all those planning to attend the R-2503 scoping meeting, please note that the
Transportation building, along with the majority of the NCDOT buildings, have recently
installed card access security systems. Due to the new security systems, all visitors will
need to enter the building through the main entrance (Wilmington Street) where they will
register with the Security Guard and receive a Visitor's Badge. This badge will need to
be visibly worn at all times while in the building. Upon leaving the building, all visitors
will be required to sign out with the Security Guard and return the badge.
Thank you for your cooperation. If there are any questions regarding the new
visitor's procedures, please contact the Security Section at [phone], or Clarence
Coleman, Project Planning Engineer, at [phone], ext. 216.
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 10-31-97
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2503
State Project # 8.1391101
F.A. Project # STP-001 B (1)
Division 5
County Vance '
Route(s) US 1 Business
Functional Classification US 1 Business is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial within city
limits, and as a Rural Major Collector outside city limits.
Length 4.827 km (3.00 mi.)
Purpose of Project: To upgrade the capacity and safety of US 1 Business for existing and
future traffic volumes.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major elements of work: To widen US
1 Business from a 2-lane roadway to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility from US 1 Bypass to
Dabney Drive (SR 1267), in Henderson. It is also recommended to realign the Welcome
Avenue (SRI 138)/Belmont Drive (SR 1101) Intersection to eliminate offset intersection. The
portion of St. Matthews Street (SR 1143) north of the Welcome Avenue/Belmont Drive
Intersection is proposed to be closed. First Street (SR 1118) is proposed to be extended to
connect with St. Matthews Street.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Environmental Study Schedule: FA Regin- 10-1-97, Complete- 5-1-99
FONSI Beain: 7-1-99, Complete: 12-1-99
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or 1%)
How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: (Proposed) Full Partial X None
Number of Interchanges 1 Grade Separations 0
Stream Crossings 0
Typical Section: Existing 2-lane facility
Proposed 5-lane facility
Traffic (ADT): Current (1996) 14, 300 Design Yr (2020) 22, 700 %TTST 3 %Duals 2
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: Existing 80 km/h ( 50 mph)
Proposed 80 km/h (50 mph)
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies ...... $ 7,500,000
Right of Way (including relocation, utilities, and acquisition) ....... $ N/A
Force Account Items ........................................................................... $ N/A
Preliminary Engineering ...................................................................... $ 200.000
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE ...................................................... $ N/A
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction .................................................................................
Right of Way ........................................................................................
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .........................................................
$ 4,050,000
$ 1, 720, 000
$ 5,770,000
2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED N COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface ............................................................................... $ 1 904.890
Base .................................................................................... $
Milling & Recycling ........................................................... $
Turnouts .............................................................................. $
Shoulders
----Paved ................................................................................. $
?arthen ............................................................................... $
Y_Earthwork ..................................................................................... $ 891 960
Subsurface Items .................. :...................................................... $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ...................................................... $ 994 991
Y rainage (list any special items) ............................................... $ 900.000
Sub-Drainage ............................................................................... $
Structures
Bridge Rehab ..................................................................... $
New Bridge ........................................................................ $
Remove Bridge ................................................................. $
New Culvert ....................................................................... $
Culvert Extension ............................................................... $
detaining Walls .................................................................. $
Noise Walls ......................................................................... $
Other Misc ......................................................................... $
_X _Concrete Curb & Gutter (2'-6") ................................................ $ -100,000
Concrete Sidewalk ..................................................................... $
X Connector and Realignment .................................................... $ 110,000
Fencing
W.W .................................................................................... $
C.L ...................................................................................... $
X Erosion Control ............................................................................ $-77,2L 0
Landscaping ............................................................................... $
Lighting ........................................................................................ $
_ X_Traffic Control ............................................................................. $ 150.000
Signing
New ................................................................................... $
X Upgraded ......................................................................... $ 3.r) non
Traffic Signals
New ................................................................................... $
Revised .............................................................................. $
RR Signals
New ................................................................................... It
Revised .............................................................................
With/without Arms ...........................................................
3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement .....................................................
Roadside Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade .................................................. $
X Pavement Markings
--2aint ................................................................................................. $
X Thermoplastic ................................................................................. $ 60.000
raised Pavement Markers ................................................. ........... $
Delineators ................................................................................................ $
X Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) ....................................... $ 1 794.019
CONTRACT COST Subtotal .............................................. $ 6.522.000
Engineering & Contingencies ........................................................................... $ 97R n nn
-
PE Costs ............................................................................................................... $
Force Account $
Construction Cost Subtotal .....................................$ 7-900,000
Right-of-Way
Will contain within existing R/W? Yes No X
Existing Width 18 m - 30 m (60 - 100 ft)
New R/W needed 30 m (100 ft) Estimated Cost ..........................$ N/A
Easements: Type Width
Estimated Cost .......................... $ N/A
Utilities ........................................................................................................ $/A
Right-of-Way Subtotal ..................................................................... $ N/A
Total Estimated Cost .......................... $ N/A
Prepared by: Clarence W. Coleman, P. E. C4)-6- Date-1 1 /3/97
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date Init. Date
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Ping & Environ.
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer- Precon
Chief Engineer- Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/ Municipality
Division Engineer
Biciycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineering.)
Init. Date
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions or comments here:
, ,?,?? 1 Lc I
5+,e-a,,?, (-,-e SJ 9?93
10 G0'?ej o.(-N (J)le?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
HENDERSON, US 1 BUSINESS,
FROM US 1 BYPASS TO
DABNEY DRIVE (1257)
VANCE COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. R-2503
0 kilometer 3.2 0 mile 2.0
FIG.1
r^"?????LTy.,,•lrD?Cx{?•?\\?\?
f•j ` ? ?''i / ? ? ??` l?/?\ ? \ t./a .'`. ? {' ? 500. '• / / ? ip \ `y Qi ?'' ry : ; ?
oif i f/ I L• \ \\ Schv" i WT(" ?7 v \ T I I/t,/il'!1 r .J
\? ?_ , Tl
.?•;'? `?,\' _,???- .,; i; ?! n\ J END PRC T
AIL
•. ? t -a\ \ v r- p- , ? 1?°_ DABNEY DR. t?•.? ,_ '. '?; ?? O I II
oG{ bf4 SR 1257 ?(?
?• ^/ ?\° ? '? ,r % ?????, {: ', ?' ?•-^50?' ??? • '-•\\?' r i . ? ,? ???1.~' ? h =•?? X11; _ ?•? ??i ??j 2•?
-T1 xf?i? `?iH u V JJ I'
.?l(? \ 4'.:,I ,f•; ' lien Ir>?`?. \\\? t\? -?
E`ra?• •e\h\\ l T^ z?? ?o77 ?L ?? i'.` ; ?• cII. / .,tea
• -?- ? c?yy. ?? ? at?._ °St23:gtt5 { ? `?` ?t-? __?= _ ¦ 1 \ ? o %?• .? vi` (`V %1' ?`? , l ??•-.
iii! ?.
;j i ! .•, ?'".! ',',iii". T.l - A- E
I ?:i--?__ -,'• •'= ??-•? , ?`_,?} ?`?\ It ` ?_
;.,• III 0~?? ?`- :?!ui?'?I.,i ?,, ? ?f??• /? 1 .d ?`? --.?:.•/ c??•?: •i7i8 •?\\. ??i ?-j?? ??
- ?• .? ,:. ?? ?-, _ J? 210 ?, :y_ .??_ s__,T?-./ ?;; a ?/,??? ? \?(? ??
SR 1 i. 3. :•1 ?'-J1-' I. .•? • , ...2m J -J •. ,? . I i ^? V
?NLt. `'' II ' ' r`' 18 1 1 =?? '' ,?: - ,r !4: :; l ii' • n ,
II SR 1210' "'' • • 'Fir
SR 1 'r`'1.
?` v ) l ^ JxT' ilea;-.1
E-_.: _ ?•' O : : I • ; , ° .(, ',, frX nark;; • '
PROPOSED I r `'-Wet¢om: R•': ,"?''??? , .
r'''l\? l I!I CONNECTOR \ ?•\ ' It: Ce
WELCOME AVE.
?!?r
SR 7118 - Sr94. , SR 1138- L :'Yvt,
_u- V
?• ? x011 iu? s? :m':?\ it 7, CLOSE-,'"' ?°°? SQ Z `' : !? I i J / " \ -` S•'' -
?? ?.II. 2s ROAD a `%? eU ,. ; v .? 1' • r, l ?_.
PROPOSED 1 CE - ??
` j?? - o. • pi• -? (u t,
o, C/
REAL! NMENT? ?. I SR1138? J n n. -;r ..? ??; T ii •r.
"Soo
Jr ? ` ?\ --??.I ?? •.. 1 _? 111 . , O
0 mile 1!2
• ? 27E v, ? `? `c0o""?? `i.{ . ? ` \ Q ?? ? Orlive-m _'J-F -_? y. I I '? l; ?? p n
Acm?
h,; .
q' II ? +.r/`^? ? ? I ? 1 '\ $ /? -`may' .??`,? - \,•
•'YT? ??_ ?y? ?\_ ?,? ?\ 1 ? 1V •.\ ? • / X11: ??. ? ?\^ r . /? .. ll'.
{1 \\\/ ftlF? ?\? N )? ?? ?0 u 1 1 ABMB !!//UU ..G `\.' `?.? 1• ??`-.' ?.• ?r
1:1z 0 . tic
I per. , d7 dl - I
15 • • • , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
On ?• g DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
n??? PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
\? C p n n 'l l IW t O ti+r a m BRANCH
/;\\' ?al 1yJ\?Qv \ / ir'
ti-
?'`.'?? BEGIN PROJECT ?- ?•? HENDERSON, US 1 BUSINESS,
FROM US 1 BYPASS TO
DABNEY DRIVE (1257)
VANCE COUNTY
If rr11--1 `?`'" ??• / '? .`?? (? I. 1yQ T.I.P. NO. R-2503
,a?+, 0 kilometer 3.2 0 mile 2.0
K - YOW
US 1 Business from US 1 Bypass to SR 1267 (Dabney Drive)
Vance County
1996 Estimated Average Daily Traffic
US 1 BUSINESS
D
°60
QO
".900
`o'cM

N. Lynncgnk R
?S 1 gypos?
9,800
1j_C ? , 1E00
j3_.v r ' ? 1000
0
1 13,900
1:1 ?
1000) \ X600
1;00*11 C300
aI J 14,300
c 4400
x
v 300
N 10,200
?M a
300 ;'
G
8,500
?-
0
500
1 900 600
x
0
n
q , 7
6,600
c
US 1 BUSINESS
I
r
i
5,000 Shopping Center
1,100 `Nelcome PNe.
4,700 1P.joylotRd-
I prJ
Beo? p?
d R?
LEGEND
moot - .oe
DM, _ D.'.. NevM vdw.? py
-? - D:.o:on d 0
CKA - 0..a1 L..da. t1Sra p4
AM - Nw hd.
M _ M M4
DNV N D
NOT TO SC-LE
R - 2503
US 1 Business from US 1 Bypass to SR 1267 (Dabney Drive)
Vance County
2020 Estimated Average Daily Traffic
US 1 BUSINESS
?v6
0
y
\O
00
uIV'A
6 0cj(?
S. trnbank W6.
NI -
\S1%val,
16,000
=co I x`500
7000 3500
0
,o
20,000
?o
1800, `1000
4800 C700
0
1
s 221700
C
5900
(-800
i
mn
N 117,600
1800 t I + 2900
20001 (1400
16,300
N
O
4800 r
1500
e
a 13,000
O
US 1 BUSINESS
i
i
LEGEND
)0= - wa
DNr - D«;gn K-+, V.&._ N
D - OW-i, m Fl- rq
-? - Dk?a;en d D
OVO - 0-1 T,.6, Tms(%4
AM - AM F_k
?M - FM P-k
ONV D
u
NOT TO SCALE
8,000 Shopping Censer
Welcome NNe•
3,8()13 6,700 JP.IQjW Wd.

6SO
6eo? pond Rd.
o?
Nod ,
O
04

p v?\
9 P d d
O
0
0
P o p
0
0
O

D

0
0 0
0
? o
O o
O v s ?
o O
O
0
0 Q
0
Q
•
0? • ACZF
•
0 O •
h p
4
o Q
O
0