20110136 Ver 1_Complete File_20051216

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number County Date Received Date Response Due (firm deadline)
po`3 o ex?- 3 n 1 a? a
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water - Marine Fisheries
- Fayetteville Water - Coastal Management
Mooresville Groundwater ,-Wildlife --k <",e,
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources
Washington Water Resources - Environmental Health
- Wilmington -Parks & Recreation _ Solid Waste Mgmt
Winston-Salem -Water Quality Radiation Protection

Air Quality - Other
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Rdviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
- No objection to project as proposed
No comment
- Insufficient information to complete review
- Other (specify or attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental. Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
NC 211 IMPROVEMENTS
From NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Pinehurst, Moore County
WBS Element 34504.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-211(5)
State Project No. 8.1560601
TIP PROJECT R-2812
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
APPROVED:
,? 7 ./ " .,AO O
at /CP Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., + nvironmental Management Director
t;roject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
?1?3/aT
-W, aL,
Date John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division
Federal Highway Administration
. NC 211- IMPROVEMENTS
From NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Pinehurst, Moore County
WBS Element 34504.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-211(5)
State Project No. 8.1560601
TIP PROJECT R-2812
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
May 2007
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:

S. Eric Midkiff, P. E., CPM
`?

Project Development Unit Head •
SEAL
-
,
_
19791 -

Elmo Vance
Project Development Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS
- I. TYPE OF ACTION 1
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1
M. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL/ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 2
IV. COORDINATON AND COMMENTS 3
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment 3
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment 4
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing 5
D. Section 404/NEPA Merger Team 9
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9
A. Project Commitments 9
B. Environmental Assessments 10
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 11
FIGURES
Figure 1-Vicinity Map
APPENDIX
Appendix A-Comments received in response to the Environmental Assessment
Appendix B-Public Hearing Notice and Handout
Appendix C-NEPA/Merger Team 3 and 4A Packets with signed concurrence forms
Appendix D-Mobile Source Air Toxics

Roadway' Design'and Traffic Engineerin
NCDOT will "investigate the queues to determine if a cross-over is warranted between the
intersections of Archie Road and Horner Lane. If 'it is not feasible to have cross-overs at
the` requested .locations, two U-turn cross-overs exclusively "designed for a WB-50 truck
will be recommended.
Roadwav`Desien Unit and Division 8
Yadkin Road-Markers # 1 and #2 are located outside of the proposed right of way. If ,
upon completion of the proposed project, the road markers are determined to be a safety
hazard NCDOT will consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to
determine an -appropriate course of action.
`Roadway Design Unit;;Traffc Engineering and Division8
',The intersection of NC 211 and Juniper. Lake Road (SR1216) will be converted from,
being a stop; sign ;controlled to a signal controlled intersection. "This project' has been
added to the Spot Safety "On Hold" for funding for the.signal.
Proie&D.evelument and Environmental; Analysis Branch;>Roadway'Design Unit,
Program Develoument-Municiaal Agreements
NCDOT. investigated the Village of Pinehurst's request for-the inclusion of three (3)
-,pedestrian tunnels-along NC 211. NCDOT will share in,the,.construction costs for one (1)
pedestrian tunnel 'along' NC 2.11 on an 80/20 cost sharing" basis with the :Village of
Pinehurst. The Village of Pinehurst will be required to accept responsibility for the,
maintenance and liability of the tunnel once it is constructed. A municipal , agreement
between:NCDOT and the Village of Pinehurst will berequirti ,.prior to the
the tunnel The"-pedestrian tunnel will be located just east"of"ahe interseciion:of NC 211
and Rattle-snake/Gun Club Road. This "location will:allow;the pedestrian tunnel to link the
=area,north of NC 211, which.is primarily-residential. development, to the ;R"assie"Wicker
Park- located immediately south of NC ,21.1 : in "the vicinity of this intersection. The
estimated construction cost for this tunnel is$275,000.
Since . the` completion of the environmental assessment, there has been additional
coordination between Roadway and the Village bf Pinehurst concerning the location of `the
pedestrian tunnel: On April `13, 2UD6, ; representatives from :Roadway ,Design and
Hydraulics ,conducted an on Yatte..meeting wtth Mr Jay _Gibson, -Village .of . Pinehurst
Directorof Engmeenng;-to explain why 'the- requested locatitons were not, conductive, for
placement 'af a pedestrian tunnel. .The topog"raphy.in:'close proximity to Rattlesnake Trail.
proh bits ,the placement of ,a pedestrian.tunnel without the emplacement •of pumps, to
remove -stormwater. -.A ;consensus was reached in the field that a more feasible location
for a,pedestnan tunnel would be inproximity. to'th ' 11Memonal Drive intersection. After
the field meeting'the Village; of Pinehurst;indicted_via letter, the preferred location for, a
TIP, Project R-2812, . Page 2 of .4
Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI)
May 2007
pedestrian tunnel is in the area of Rattlesnake Trail. NCDOT, Roadway Design, noted
that the following conditions should be satisfied before considering a pedestrian tunnel in
the area of the Rattlesnake Trail intersection.
• NC-DOT will start design of the pedestrian tunnel (underpass) once a municipal
agreement is executed.
• The Pillage of Pinehurst will be responsible for all costs associated with the
design,'construction and maintenance of the pumps.
• The Village of Pinehurst will assume all liability:
• Design of the pumps and grades on the underpass should be completed and
provided to Roadway Design and the 'Hydraulics Unit no later than four months
"before the ,completion of the hydraulic design for the proposed project. The
drainage,design is scheduled for completion by October 2007, the pump and grade'
designs should be completed and submitted to the aforementioned NCDOT units
noi:later• than July 2007.
• As per the Pedestrian Policy Guidelines, Pinehurst is responsible fora percentage
of the• cost of the underpass. "The percentage will be determined by the population
of Pinehurst at the time of executing the agreement. The Village of Pinehurst will
be responsible of 100% of all cost and maintenance of the pumps; will,donate all
required additional right of way ; and easement necessary to construct the
underpass and ramps.
•' :Other conditions from NCDOT or from Pinehurst maybe added as the agreement
develops.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (Office of Natural
Environment)
-'An updated survey of the Michaux's sumac will be conducted prior to construction.
Roadside-Environmental Unit and Program Development Branch
The Village of Pinehurst is interested in introducing special landscaping in the median
along "NC-211. NCDOT will continue to correspond-with the Village of Pinehurst through
the final'design..A municipal'agreement will',, required between the Village of Pinehurst
and NCDOT for maintenance andlandscaping-purposes.
-Roadway Design: Congestion Management"and Dvison 8
NCDOT will- determine whether to signahie NC'211 / Memorial Drive intersection prior
to construction.
Divison 8 and Roadside`Environmental-"Unit
In order to preserve the `red-cockaded woodpecker habitat; no.unnecessarycutting of any,
-pine trees ten-(10) inches or greater inrdiatneter at breast height, beyond slope stake limits
is to occur Between "th e following stations: 96+W thin 15+00, 214+00< tim 264+00,
285+00 thru'329+00 and 339.4M thru 415+b0.:
T.LP: Pfojec[ R 2812 Page 3 of 4
Findhigaf No,Significant Impacts (FONSI)
• May 2007 _
NC 211 IMPROVEMENTS
From NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Pinehurst, Moore County
WBS Element 34504.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-211(5)
State Project No. 8.1560601
TIP PROJECT R-2812
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the October 28, 2005 Environmental Assessment,
which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the
accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
H. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to
widen NC 211 to a four-lane divided facility with a 16 foot raised, grassed median and 14 foot
outside lanes from NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst (see Figure 1). The
length of the proposed project is approximately 7.2 miles. The proposed project is included in
NCDOT's 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with right of way
acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, mitigation scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2009 and construction scheduled for (FY) 2010.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the level of safety along NC 211 and
to improve the traffic carrying capacity of the roadway to meet the needs of existing and
anticipated development in the project area.
The 2007-2013 (TIP) has allocated $32,063,000 for the proposed project including
$363,000 for mitigation, $5,700,000 for right of way acquisition, $25,200,000 for construction,
and $800,000 for prior years spending. The total estimated cost for the proposed
improvements is $32,063,000.
II. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are listed in Section
IV of the Environmental Assessment (EA). An updated summary of project impacts for the
recommended alternative is shown in table 1 below.
Table 1 Summary of F.nvironmantal Tmnon+?
Widening Alternative/Typical Section Best Fit/Curb &Gutter& Shoulders
Preferred
Wetlands .81 acre
Stream 1009 feet
Noise Receptors 14
Hazardous Material Sites 14*
Prime Agricultural Lands 0
Forest 12.2 acre
Protected Species 1**
Historic Properties 0
4 Properties 0
Churches 0
Schools 0
E.J. Communities 0
Air Quality No
Critical Water Supplies No
Relocatees (Residents) 13
Relocatees Businesses 1

-?? _ ?•.? FULVIl iaiiy aucctcu anu will not necessarily be impacted by the project.
"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the project "may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect" the red cockaded woodpecker.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for this project in November 2005.
For the purposes of evaluating impacts to the physical and natural environment, the alternatives
were evaluated using the best fit alignment with two typical section alternatives. Alternative
one (curb and gutter) and alternative two (grass shoulder) proposed to carry the two typical
sections independently from project terminus to terminus, NC 73 in West End to the traffic
circle in Pinehurst.
After analyzing the environmental impacts, the "Best-fit" Alignment with a
combination of alternative one (curb and gutter) and alternative two (grass shoulder) typical
sections was determined to be the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative consists of a
four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter to begin at the traffic circle in Pinehurst,
extending along existing NC 211 and terminating at SR 1291 (Archie Road). From SR 1291
(Archie Road), the recommended alternative will continue as a four-lane divided facility with
.grass shoulders and will extend along existing NC 211 to the project terminus at NC 73 in
West End.
The best fit alignment consisting of a combination of alternative one and alternative
two typical sections has allowed impacts to wetlands to be reduced from 1.46 acres to 0.81
acres and stream impacts to be reduced from 1116 linear feet to 1009 linear feet. Up to 13
residences and 1 business will require relocation as a result of the proposed improvements to
US 211. No impacts are anticipated to architecturally or archaeologically significant sites.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that 1 protected species, the red cockaded
woodpecker, may be affected by the project. Finally, no impacts to historic properties, 4(f)
properties, churches, schools, low income populations or minority populations are anticipated.
An increase in the noise level for properties adjacent to the project is anticipated. A
total of fourteen (14) receptors will be impacted by highway noise; however, there were no
substantial noise level impacts anticipated by the project. The predicted noise level increases
for this project range up to +6 dBA.
The project is located in Moore County, which has been determined to comply with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment
area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to
create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
Fourteen (14) regulated facilities were found along the proposed project. Ten (10) were
underground storage tank (UST) facilities, three (3) were other potentially contaminated
properties, and one (1) was a Superf ind. The Superfund Site, Stanley Furniture, is currently
being monitored by a private environmental firm. None of the regulated or unregulated
landfills or dumpsites is within the project limits. If further design studies necessitate the
taking of additional right of way from the noted facilities, a preliminary site assessment for soil
and groundwater contamination will be required prior to the purchase of the additional right of
way.
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Divisions of Highways and
the FHWA on November 2, 2005. The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to
the following federal, state and local agencies for review and comment. An asterisk (*)
indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence
received are included in the Appendix A of this document.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency_
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Administration
*N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
*Division of.Water Quality
N.C. Forest Service
3
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Town of Pinehurst
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection A ency
Comment: This is a 7.2 mile widening Merger project (CP 1 8/9/01 & CP 2 4/11/02).
There are two `best-fit' alternatives remaining under consideration including Alternative 1
(curb and gutter) and Alternative 2 (grass shoulder). Jurisdictional impacts to wetlands and
streams are 0.81 / 1.46 acres and 1009 / 1116 linear feet, respectively. Overall impacts as
shown on the page ii summary table are very similar for most key environmental indicators.
EPA notes the fairly large number of potential hazardous material sites (14), including one
Superfund site (Stanley Furniture). - EPA also notes the slight impact to RCW foraging area
and the FWS MA-NLAA determination. EPA has no preferred alternative at this time and
would welcome comments and issues from NCDOT and other agencies on their preferred
alternative at the LEDPA CP 3 meeting. EPA is requesting a copy of the FONSI when it
becomes available. EPA also noted the very insightful NEPA Scoping Comments letter from
Marsh Smith, Esq. dated 3/30/2000 in Appendix A. Hopefully, some of the past key issues
have been addressed by FHWA and NCDOT.
Response: Comments noted. Additionally, as noted by the EPA, comments were received
from Mr. Smith during project scoping in a letter dated 3/30/2000. Those comments were
considered during the development of the project and during preparation of the Environmental
Assessment, along with other comments received from state, federal, and local government
agencies, and the public. Since that time the Environmental Assessment has been approved
and circulated for review and comments. No additional comments have been received from
Mr. Smith concerning this project following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment.
FHWA and NCDOT assume that all scoping comments have been adequately addressed
through the NEPA project study as detailed in the Environmental Assessment, unless otherwise
notified
N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (Natural Heritage Program)
Comment: As indicated in the EA for this project, several clusters of the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Federal and State Endangered, are located close to NC 211.
As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (pages A-51 and A-52) concurs with the N.C.
Department of Transportation that "the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely impact
the RCW ", we support that the decision and have no additional comments on this project. The
Natural Heritage Program has no record of other rare species, significant natural communities,.
or priority natural areas along the corridor of the project area.".
' Response: Comments noted
4
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: ' Two active Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) clusters are located
within the project study area. The USFWS has concurred with the Biological Assessment
conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Red-cockaded
woodpecker. NCDOT should minimize the removal of foraging habitat by only removing
vegetation necessary for construction and allow vegetation to remain within the right of way
where possible. Furthermore, the EA adequately addresses mitigation measures for
unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands.
Response: The preferred alternative uses a curb and gutter typical section near the area in
which the Red-cockaded woodpecker clusters are located. A twenty-three (23) foot raised
island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is recommended and steeper fill slopes (2:1)
will be used along the curb and gutter section. The preferred alternative narrows the project
footprint and simultaneously minimizes environmental impacts. Moreover, in order to
preserve the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, no unnecessary cutting of any pine trees ten
(10) inches or greater in diameter at breast height, beyond slope stake limits is to occur
between the following stations: 96+00 thru 15+00, 214+00 thru 264+00, 285+00 thru 329+00
and 339+00 thru 415+00.
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Comment: Thank you for your letter of December 5, 2005, transmitting the Environmental
Assessment for the above project. We believe the assessment adequately addresses our
concerns for historic resources.
Response: Comments noted
Division of Water Ouality
Comment: All of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS)
waters, WS-III. Therefore, the potential for impacts to waters that are used for municipal
drinking water is possible. Please locate and identify all water intakes in the project study area.
In addition, please include their locations in all future documentation. It should be noted that
alternatives to avoid impacts upstream of any water supply intakes would need to be
considered during the development of the project.
Response: Comments noted
Comment: All of the streams in the project area are classified as Waters Supply (WS)
waters, WS-III. Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project
implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" throughout design and construction of the
project.
Response: Comments noted
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing
A Combined Public Hearing for the proposed project was held on April 10, 2006. The
hearing was conducted in the Multi-Purpose Room of West Pine Middle School from 4:00 pm
to approximately 9:00 pm. Representatives from the Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, the Roadway Design Unit and the Division 8 Office were available to explain
the project, answer questions, and receive comments. Approximately 117 citizens attended the
hearing. The following is a summary of the comments received along with NCDOT's
responses:
Comment: Several citizens and Eugene B. Horne, Jr., representing the Fuel Mate (BP)
Convenience Store, is concerned with the increased traffic volumes at the intersection of NC
211 and Juniper Lake Road (SR 1216) necessitating the need to convert the intersection from
stop-sign controlled to signal controlled.
Response: The Division Traffic Engineer conducted a traffic study that found vehicular
volumes at the intersection satisfied traffic signal needs criteria. The study found a total of
three crashes occurred at the NC 211 and Juniper Lake Road (SR 1216) intersection between
January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005. All of these crashes are the type potentially
correctable by installation of a traffic signal. Typically, new traffic signal installations are
funded through the Department's Spot Safety Program, and this project will be added to Spot
Safety "On Hold" list to wait funding. This project will be competing for funding with
numerous similar projects throughout the state. The NC 211 widening project, scheduled to let
in 2009, may be a possible source of funding. It is currently not possible for the Department to
provide a funding approval date at this time.
.Comment: Ray MacKay, representing the Seven Lakes Civic Group, is concerned about the
median, maintenance of the proposed facility, emergency vehicle access and additional median
breaks. A median break was requested between Stations 55+00 and 14+00. This median break
would be used exclusively for emergency vehicle access. Moreover, he requested planting at
various locations within the median and increasing the proposed speed limit from 45 mph to 55
mph.
Mr. MacKay also proposes that the project begin at Hoffrnan Road instead of NC 73 to
facilitate flexibility in designing the future widening of NC 211 through or around West End.
Response: As per the NCDOT Landscape Planting Policy, a preset funding level that is
three-fourths of a percent (0.75%) of the total construction cost is available for landscaping.
Plantings at various locations within the median will be considered.
Two additional median cross-overs will be proposed between Stations 55+00 and 140+00.
The environmental assessment and the preliminary plans propose a design speed of 50 mph
with an anticipated speed limit of 45 mph. Increasing speed limit :to 55 mph will increase
negative impacts to the environment by increasing curve - lengths and right of way widths.
6
Additionally, construction costs would increase. During the final design phase, a 50 mph
speed limit will be considered for the shoulder typical section portion of the project. The curb
and gutter section will have a 45 mph speed limit.
Currently, there is not a funded TIP project to widen NC 211 through or to bypass West End.
In the event funding becomes available to widen NC 211 through West End, the currently
proposed NC 211 widening project would not limit alternatives in the West End area.
Comment: More widening should occur on the south side of NC 211 from Hoffman Mill
Road to the end of the project.
Response: Due to safety concerns, additional right of way can not be acquired from. the
railroad located along the south side of NC 211, thus, requiring the majority of widening to
occur on the north side of NC 211 through this area. The Roadway Design Unit will minimize
the amount right of way acquisition of said property as much as feasible during the final design
phase.
Comment: Egress and ingress to Westgate Business Park should be reviewed. The existing
dirt roadway should be paved to Beulah Hill Church Road for outbound traffic and the western
drive should be right in right out. A left-over should be proposed at the eastern drive.
.Response: Because the projected traffic counts are not predicted to produce long queues on
NC 211 at this location, NCDOT proposes a full movement cross-over at the eastern drive. and
not the western drive.
Comment: Mr. Bruce Pritchard indicated that truck traffic would have difficulty accessing
the Blue Monkey and Pinehurst Patios and requested a center turn lane in these areas.
Response: A median cross-over is proposed at Archie Road and Horner Lane. The spacing
between these intersections is 2200 feet. Adding a cross-over between these two intersections
violates NCDOT Roadway Design' standards. However, NCDOT Congestion Management,
will investigate the queues to determine if a cross-over is warranted. If it is not feasible to have
cross-overs at the requested locations, two U-turn cross-overs exclusively designed for a WB-
50 truck will be considered.
Comment: Mr. Andy Wilkinson, Village of Pinehurst Manager; Mr. Jay Gibson, Village of
Pinehurst Director of Engineering; and Mr. and Mrs. Daniel and Amy Oates requested a
pedestrian tunnel near Rattlesnake Trail or Memorial Drive.
Response: On April 13, 2006, representatives from NCDOT's Roadway Design and
Hydraulics Units conducted an on site meeting with Mr. Gibson to explain why the requested
locations were not conducive for placement of a pedestrian tunnel. The topography iri close
proximity to Rattlesnake Trail prohibits the placement of a pedestrian tunnel without the
emplacement of pumps to remove stormwater. A consensus was reached in the field that a
more feasible location for a pedestrian tunnel. would be in proximity to the Memorial Drive
intersection. After the field meeting the Village of Pinehurst indicted via letter, the preferred
location for a pedestrian tunnel is in the area of Rattlesnake Trail. NCDOT, Roadway Design
Unit, noted that the following conditions should be satisfied before considering a pedestrian
tunnel in the area of the Rattlesnake Trail intersection:
• NCDOT will start design of the pedestrian tunnel (underpass) once a municipal
agreement is executed.
• The Village of Pinehurst will be responsible for all costs associated with the design,
construction and maintenance of the pumps.
• The Village of Pinehurst will assume all liability.
• Design of the pumps and grades on the underpass should be completed and provided to
Roadway Design and the Hydraulics Unit no later than four months before the
completion of the hydraulic design for the proposed project. The drainage design is
scheduled for completion by October 2007; the pump and grade designs should be
completed and submitted to the aforementioned NCDOT units not later than July 2007.
• As per the Pedestrian Policy Guidelines, Pinehurst is responsible for a percentage of the
cost of the underpass. The percentage will be determined by the population of
Pinehurst at the time of executing the agreement. The Village of Pinehurst will be
responsible of 100% of all cost and maintenance of the pumps; will donate all required
additional right of way and easement necessary to construct the underpass and ramps.
• Other conditions from NCDOT or from Pinehurst may be added as the agreement
develops.
Comment: Several citizens requested that the curb and gutter typical section begin at
Archie Road (West of Pine Middle School) and that sidewalks with pedestrian crossings be
considered at NC 73 and NC 211.
Response: The Village of Pinehurst has requested sidewalks on both sides of NC 211 from
the traffic circle to Beulah Hill Church Road and on the south side from Beulah Hill -Church
Road to Glasgow Drive. If Moore County agrees to participate in the cost and maintenance of
sidewalks on the north side of NC 211 from Beulah Hill Church Road to Archie Road, the curb
and gutter section can begin at Archie Road with the approval of the environmental agencies.
Pedestrian crossings and sidewalks can be considered at NC 73 if Moore County agrees to
participate in the cost and maintenance.
Comment: Can the proposed highway be widened on the south side rather than the north
-and closer to residential properties at Village Acres?
Response: The proposed project utilizes existing right of way where possible. The existing
right of way was used in the noted areas. The proposed right of way width is greater on the
south side of NC 211 and varies in various locations along the proposed project.
8
Comment: Will storm water be directed to the backyards of the residences of Village
Acres?
Response: There will not be additional stormwater runoff as a result of this project.
Comment: Can the Edgewood Terrace crossing be closed? If the crossing can not be
closed, install grade crossing signals and provide a concrete crossing surface.
Response: Closing the crossing will be considered during final design. Ed Lewis,
NCDOT-PDEA-HEU, will initiate a meeting with property owners in the vicinity of the
crossing at Edgewood Terrace to determine the most effective means of closing the crossing.
Comment: Mr. Phillip Brown owns of an apartment complex at Sta. 278+00 Lt.
Renovations to the building were completed in the winter of 2006. Behind this apartment is
others and plans are in process for more apartment buildings on this property. The existing
roadway design will impact the apartments. NCDOT Roadway Design Unit revised the
alignment to avoid these apartments; however, the revised design will impact approximately
37, 000 square feet of wetlands and brings the proposed highway closer to the Pinewild Dam.
The existing roadway design, which was created in collaboration with the environmental
agencies and NCDOT, avoids impacting the wetlands and is a safe distance from the Pinewild
dam. Mr. Brown requested that NCDOT Roadway Design review the plan revisions again
with the environmental agencies.
Response: NCDOT reviewed the proposed design in this area. No changes to the proposed
improvements are recommended. Revisiting the design in order to avoid the apartment
building would impact additional wetlands and would move construction closer to the Pinewild
dam, possibly jeopardizing the structural integrity of the dam.
D. Section 404/NEPA Merger Team
A Merger 01 team meeting to determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDA) and Avoidance and Minimization'(4A) was held on October 26, 2006;
concurrence was reached on both points on this date.
The LEDA consists of the "Best-fit" Alignment with a combination of Alternative 1 (curb and
gutter) and Alternative 2 (grass shoulder) typical sections.
A four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter will begin at the traffic circle in Pinehurst and
will extend along existing NC 211 to terminate at SR 1291 (Archie Road) (Alternative 1). A
:four-lane divided facility with grass shoulders will begin at SR 1291 (Archie Road) and will
extend along existing NC 211 to the project terminus at NC 73 in West End (Alternative 2).
Potential impacts to the red cockaded-woodpecker habitat within proximity of the Pinehurst
Traffic Circle were discussed, and it was determined that with the selection of the LEDPA, the
project's footprint was reduced, minimizing impacts to the natural environment within the
project area, thus, minimizing impacts to foraging habitiat.
9
During the LEDA meeting, updated stream impacts were provided. These stream impacts were
presented, along with the measures for minimization and avoidance, in the Concurrence Point 3
/ Concurrence Point 4A meeting handout. Concurrence Point 4A (Avoidance and
Minimization) was achieved on October 26, 2006. Minimization measures for the project are
listed below along with the.updated stream and wetland impacts tables presented during 4A
discussions (see Appendix C)
• Leave current drainage structures in place and accommodate widening by extending the
two existing culverts
• The preferred alternative will use a curb and gutter typical section for a portion of the
project which.narrows the project footprint.
• The preferred alternative will. reduce the typical section by using curb and gutter section
instead of shoulder sections along a portion of the project.
• Steeper fill slopes (2:1) will be used along the curb and gutter section, reducing the
project footprint.
• A twenty-three foot (23') raised-island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is
recommended. This median width will reduce the project's footprint.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Project Commitments
In order to preserve the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, no unnecessary cutting of
any pine trees ten (10) inches or greater in diameter at breast height, beyond slope stake limits
is to occur between the following stations: 96+00 thru 15+00, 214+00 thru 264+00, 285+00
thru 329+00 and 339+00 thru 415+00.
Closing the pedestrian crossing at Edgewood Terrace will be considered during final
design. Ed Lewis, NCDOT-PDEA-HEU, will initiate a meeting with property owners in the
vicinity of the crossing at Edgewood Terrace to determine the most effective means of closing
the crossing
B. Alignment Alternatives
NCDOT investigated the Village of Pinehurst's request for the inclusion of three (3)
- pedestrian tunnels along NC 211. NCDOT will share in the construction costs for one (1)
pedestrian tunnel along NC 211 on an 80/20 cost sharing basis with the Village of Pinehurst.
The Village of Pinehurst will be required to accept responsibility for the maintenance -and
liability of the tunnel once it is constructed. A municipal agreement between NCDOT an d the
Village of Pinehurst will be required prior to the construction of the tunnel. The pedestrian
10
tunnel will be located just east of the intersection of NC 211 and Rattlesnake/Gun Club Road.
This location will allow the pedestrian tunnel to link the area north of NC 211, which is
primarily residential development, to the Rassie Wicker Park located immediately south of NC
211 in the vicinity of this intersection. The estimated construction cost for this tunnel is
$275,000.
Since the completion of the environmental assessment, there has been additional
coordination between Roadway and the Village of Pinehurst concerning the location of the
pedestrian tunnel. On April 13, 2006, representatives from Roadway Design and Hydraulics
conducted an on site meeting with Mr. Jay Gibson, Village of Pinehurst Director of
Engineering, to explain why the requested locations were not conductive for placement of a
pedestrian tunnel. The topography in close proximity to Rattlesnake Trail prohibits the
placement of a pedestrian tunnel without the emplacement of pumps to remove stormwater. A
consensus was reached in the field that a more feasible location for a pedestrian tunnel would
be in proximity to the Memorial Drive intersection. After the field meeting the Village of
Pinehurst indicted via letter, the preferred location for a pedestrian tunnel is in the area of
Rattlesnake Trail. NCDOT, Roadway Design, noted that the following conditions should be
satisfied before considering a pedestrian tunnel in the area of the Rattlesnake Trail
intersection:
• NCDOT will start design of the pedestrian tunnel (underpass) once a municipal
agreement is executed.
• The Village of Pinehurst will be responsible for all costs associated with the design,
construction and maintenance of the pumps.
• The Village of Pinehurst will assume all liability.
• Design of the pumps and grades on the underpass should be completed and provided to
Roadway Design and the Hydraulics Unit no later than four months before the
completion of the hydraulic design for the proposed project. The drainage design is
scheduled for completion by October 2007, the pump and grade designs should be
completed and submitted to the aforementioned NCDOT units not later than July 2007.
• As per the Pedestrian Policy Guidelines, Pinehurst is responsible for a percentage of
the cost of the underpass. The percentage will be determined by the population of
Pinehurst at the time of executing. the agreement. The Village of Pinehurst will be
responsible of 100% of all cost and maintenance of the pumps; will donate all required
additional right of way and easement necessary to construct the underpass and ramps.
• Other conditions from NCDOT or from Pinehurst may be added as the agreement
develops.
C. Air Quality Analysis
On page 62 of the environmental assessment, the following is an update to the
Air Quality Analysis since the completion of the document.
11
The project is located in Moore County, which has been determined to comply
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an
attainment area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this- attainment area.
D. Flood Insurance Involvement
On page 60 of the environment assessment, the following information is an
update to the Flood Insurance Status for Moore County since the completion of the
document.
Moore County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Both Joe's Fork and Board Branch are located within a limited detailed
flood study reach in a flood hazard zone designated as Zone AE, for which 100 year
base year flood elevations and non-encroachment widths have been determined
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental
Assessment and upon comments received from federal, state and local agencies and the public,
it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the human or
natural environment. The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint. No
significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. The
proposed project is consistent with local plans and will. not disrupt communities. In view of the
above evaluation, it has been determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for
this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental
analysis will be required.
12
APPENDIX A
Comments Received in response to the
Environmental Assessment
TIP Project No. R-2812
Page 1 of 1
From: [e-mail] (Chris Militscher)
To: [e-mail]. nc.us, [e-mail]
cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]. gov,
[e-mail]
Date: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:50AM
Subject: Federal EA for R-2812, NC 211 Improvements, Pinehurst, Moore Co.
Fl.mo/Eric: EPA has completed its review of the above referenced document
and offers the following comments:
Th s is a 7.2 mile widening Merger project (CP 1 8/9/01 & CP 2 4/11/02).
't`ne.r.e are two 'best-fit' alternatives remaining under consideration
;ncluding Alt. #1 Curb & gutter and'Alt.#2, Grass shoulder. Jurisdictional
impacts to wetlands and streams are 0.81/1.46 acres & 1,009/1,116 linear
legit, respectively. Overall impacts as shown on the page ii summary table
are very similar for most key environmental indicators. EPA notes the
fa.ir.ly large number of potential hazardous material sites (14), including
one Superfund site (Stanley Furniture). EPA also notes the slight impact
to RCW foraging area and the FWS MA-NLAA determination. EPA has no
preferred alternative at this time and would welcome comments and issues
from NC:DOT and other agecnies.on their preferred alternative at the LEDPA
CP 3 meeting. EPA is requesting a copy of the FONSI when it becomes
available. EPA also noted the very insightful NEPA Scoping Comments letter
from Marsh Smith, Esq. dated 3/30/2000 in Appendix A. Hopefully, some of
the past key issues have been addressed by FHWA and NCDOT. Thank you for
,he opportunity to comment.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
_. et t_ nt .,..1..,,;1?l..,,;l;tcr „?f?(?Tnhnxl/f 1'1T1(1T1RF.AC'?7Fll?C R5?.57(1T?9f1 1/10..006

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Dcputy Secretary
December 16, 2005
MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbcek, Administrator
r ti
C n(', LrCS
r?
p?ViS1C?10F , ?J.
E?V per
Office of Arcltives and f1isiory
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ?NwVtAew<4J
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment for NC 211 from NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in
Pinehurst, R-2812, Moore County, ER 05-2876 and ER 00-8790
Thank you for your letter of December 5, 2005, transmitting the Environmental Assessment for the above
project. We believe the assessment adequately addresses our concerns for historic resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. -
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27679-9,,17 [phone]/733-8153
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Senviec Cxnter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-481)1
SURVEY do PLANNING 515 N. Blount street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mad Serr-ice (.1-rater, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 (')19)733-6545/715.48(11
OF W ATER
?O? QG
? r
O '<
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Polly Lespinasse
JAN 2006
RICENO
BRA
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 6, 2006
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment for Proposed Improvements to NC 211 from NC 73 in West
End to the Traffic Circle in Pineburst, Pinehurst, Moore County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-211(5), State
Project 8.1560601, WBS Element No. 34504.1.1, TIP Project R-2812, DENR Project Number 06-0193
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that
the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based
on review of the aforementioned document:
A) This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team member, the NCDWQ will
continue to work with the team.
B) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is
respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and
streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation will be
required for this project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation will be required in
accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules t 15A NCAC 211.0506(h)(2)). .
C) In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 214.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the Environmental
Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506 (hx3)), the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
D) As part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application process, NC DOT is respectfully reminded to include specifics for
both onsite and offsite mitigation plans. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it
should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. We understand that NC DOT will request compensatory mitigation through
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program for offsite mitigation.
E) Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue to include an itemized
listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
F) NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to
jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in
addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application.
G) . Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
tMad Carolina
undly
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Internet h2o enrstate.rxus . Mooresville, NC 28115
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ph6w.[phone]
Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunilylAffimtive Action Employer- 50% Recycled/1 0% Post Consumer Paper
Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas
could precipitate compensatory mitigation
I) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater
management: More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
J) All of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, WS-III. Therefore, the potential for
impacts to waters that are used for municipal drinking water is possible. Please locate and identify all water intakes in the
projects study area. In addition, please include their locations in all future documentation. It should be noted that
alternatives to avoid impacts upstream of any water supply intakes will need to be considered during the development of the
project.
K) All of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, WS-III. Given the potential for impacts to
these resources during the project implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (I SA NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the
project
L) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may require an
Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be
advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDQT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent
on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development
of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project Should you have any questions or require any
additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse [phone].
cc: US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, EPA
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
File Copy
i
JAN 2006
PACEM
t
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission RE
MEMORANDUM Richird B. Hamilrnn, l cecutive L)irector
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 6, 2006
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed improvements to NC 21 i from NC 73 in West
End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst, Moore County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-.
2.812, SCH Project No. 06-0193
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of'this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (442 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen NC 211 from NC 73 to Pinehurst utilizing a best fit alignment
with two alternative options either Grass Shoulder or Curb and Gutter. The total project length is
approximately 7.2 miles. Impacts to streams vary with alternatives, and are expected to total
approximately 1009 to 1116 linear feet of stream impact. Impacts to wetlands vary from 0.81 to
1.46 acres.
Two active Red-cockaded woodpecker (Ficoides borealis) clusters are located within the
project study area. The USFWS has concurred with the Biological Assessment conclusion that
the project may affect, but is not. likely to adversely affect the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
NCDOT should mini ize the removal of foraging habitat by only removing vegetation
necessary for construction and allowvegetation to remain within the right of way where
possible. Furthermore, the EA adequately addresses mitigation measures for unavoidable
impacts-to streams and wetlands.
Memo 2 January b, 2006
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this BA. If we can be of any further assistance please call meat [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Brian Wrenn, DWQ, Raleigh
Richard Spencer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington

NCDEN.R,
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
January 11, 2006
. 44 *
MEMORANDUM o ?00
rn?
TO, -Melba McGee
FROM: Harry -LeGrand, Natural Heritage Program S'
SUBJECT: NC 211, from NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst - Widening to
a Multi-lane Facility; Moore County; TIP Project R-2812._
REFERENCE: 06-0193
As indicated in the EA for this project, several clusters of the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), Federal and State Endangered, are located close to NC 211. As the U.S. Fish.
and-Wildlife Service (pages A-51 and A-52) concurs with the N.C. Department of Transportation
that "the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely impact the RCIN", we support that
decision and have no additional comments on this project. The Natural Heritage Program has no
record of other rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas along the
corridor of the project area.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsnarks.net/nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the appropriate topographic quad maps. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
North Carolina
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor a
7'+__ William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
JAN 2006
MEMORANDUM iitygp
g
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 06-0193 EA for Proposed Improvements to NC 2:1 in Pinehurst,
Moore County
DATE: -January 18, 2006
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmadve Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
North Carohna
Natifidi4
our
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
January 20, 2006
Mr. A.L. Avant
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development
1534 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Dear Mr. Avant:
Re: SCH File # 06-E-4220-0193; EA; Proposal to widen NC 211 to a four-lane divided facility with a
16 ft raised, grassed median & 14 ft outside lanes from NC 73 in west end to the traffic circle in
Pinehurst
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Attachments
cc: Region J
Mailing Address:
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
Sincerely,
U _
Ms. Chrys aggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Telephone: [phone]
Fax[phone]
State Courier #51-01-00
e-mail [e-mail]
Location Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW ?n
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRIANGLE J COG
STATE NUMTiER :
06-E-4220-0193
DATE RECEIVED: 12/15/2005
AGENCY RESPONSE: 01/10/2006
REVIEW CLOSED: 01/15/2006
X23456 ,?? r .`.
JAN 2006 0 ??G
? ell?
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
(Y1no? C?, .
ERD: Environmental Assessment
DESC: Proposal to widen NC 211 to a four-lane divided facility with a 16 ft raised,
grassed median & 14 ft outside lanes from NC 73 in west end to the traffic circle
in Pinehurst
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-13=i.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (•919)807-2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE : ?' ? b
RECEIVED
DEC 21 7005
'DE
APPENDIX B
Public Hearing Notice and Handout
TIP Project No. R-2812
NOTICE OF A COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO US 211
FROM NC 73 IN WEST END TO THE TRAFFIC.CIRCLE IN PINEHURST
WBS No. 34504.1.1 R-2812 Moore County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a pre-
hearing open house and a combined (location and design) public hearing on April 10,
2006 in. the Multi-Purpose Room of West Pine Middle School, 144 Archie Road, West
End, NC, 27376.
Department of Transportation representatives will be available at the Pre-Hearing
Open House between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to answer questions and
receive comments relative to the proposed project. The opportunity to submit. written
comments or questions will also be provided. Interested citizens may attend at any time
during the above mentioned hours.
A formal presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m. The presentation will consist of an
explanation of the proposed location, design and right of way and relocation
requirements/procedures. The hearing will.be open to those present for statements,
questions and/or comments. A transcription of the presentation and comments will be
taken.
This project proposes to widen US 211, west of Pinehurst, to four travel lanes
with a divided.median from NC 73 in West End to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst..
Additional right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses will be required for
construction. Two alternatives will be presented for public comments. These
comments will be used as part of the process to select alternatives. The project will
improve east-west travel between the wester portions of Moore County. The proposed
transportation improvements cover a distance of about 7 miles.
A map setting forth the location and design of the project and a copy of the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for public
review at the Village Hall located at the Village of Pinehurst Offices, 395 Magnolia
Road, Pinehurst, 28374, and at the NCDOT Division Office located at 902 North
Sandhills Boulevard, Aberdeen, 28315.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ed Lewis, Human
Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone (919)
715-1593, or email [e-mail]. Additional material may be submitted for a
period of thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the-Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Lewis at the contact information above as
early as possible so that arrangements can be made.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The project calls for providing transportation improvements to the existing NC 211 from NC 73 in
West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst (see Figure 1). The purpose of the project>is to improve the
traffic carrying capacity of NC 211 and to improve the level of safety of the roadway to meet the
needs of the existing and anticipated development in the project area.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is one step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning pro cess. NCDOT is soliciting your views
on the location and design of the proposed widening of. NC 211.
NCDOT's planning and environmental studies on the above project are. presented in the
environmental document -Environmental Assessment. For the last 30 days, copies of this report and
today's hearing map have been available for public review at the Pinehurst Village Hall located at 395
Magnolia Road, Pine hurst, and at the NCDOT Division Office located at 902 North- Sandhills
Boulevard, Aberdeen.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Several .representatives of NCDOT are present at this meeting. Any of these people will be happy to
talk with you, explain.the design to you and, answer your questions. Now that the opportunity is here,
you are encouraged to participate by voicing your comments to the NCDOT:. representatives at this
meeting, by writing them on the comment sheet and leaving it with one of. the representatives, by
mailing them in by April 28t', 2006, or by recording your statements during the formal hearing tonight.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. Ed Lewis, Senior Public Hearing Officer
Human. Environment Unit
NCDOT
.1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh; NC.27699-1583
FAX: [phone]
Email: elewis@dot:state.nc.us
Everyone: present. is urged to participate in the'proceedings. It is important, however, that THE
OPINIONS-OFALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY.
MAYBE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such,.-are out of place:at-public hearings.
Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a. POPULAR. REFERENDUM to determine the..alignment
-by a majority, vote of those present.
A post-hearing meeting will be. conducted after the comment period has ended. NCDOT staff
representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Division, and Right of Way along with the Federal Highway
Administration will attend this. meeting.. When appro priate, local govemmental.offcials also attend..
All spoken and written issues are discussed;at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post
hearing meeting. The Department of Transportation considers safety, costs, traffic service, social .
impacts and public comments. in making decisions: Complex issues may require additional study avid
may be reviewed =by. higher. management, Board of Transportation Members and/or he Secretary:of
Transportation
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are :prepared and this,summary is available to the: public. You
may request this document on the attached comment sheet
Additional coordination about the project with federal and state agencies such as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources will be done to obtain
their comments about the project.
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
"Capacity" is the number of cars and trucks that :pass through a roadway section: in an hour.
depending on .the ,roadway and traffic conditions:. So capacity is measure of -how well- a road can
serve the amount-of cars and trucks that"use it. This. measure is broken. into six levels of service; or
LOS; with A'being the' best and F being the worst. 'For example,- a big increase in the number of cars.
and trucks on a section. of road can cause. congestion that decreases the capacity leading. to a drop
in the. ;LOS grade. NC. 211 is operating at LOS. D, and by the Year 2025 would operate at LOS E. If
additional. lanes were added, the-LOS grade would:.improve to LOS B in 2025.
In a recent three-year period, 173 accidents occurred along the studied section of NC 211. The
proposed multi-lane widening and intersection improvements will reduce the. potential for the majority
of accidents that are occurring on the studied. section of NC.211:
NC 211.16 a major east--west connector road for Moore County. To the west, it connects to US 220A
- in ,Montgomery County,. which is part of theproposed- 1-73/1-.74 Corridor Jr! North Carolina. To the
east; NC 211 provides =a vital link between the western portion of Moore County and th. .'destination
of Pinehurst, Southem Pines,. and Aberdeen in the eastem part of Moore County, along with the
north-south corridors bf U' S 1.5-501 and US 1::
' . PROJECT DESCRIPTION (!
The, project is about 7.7 miles long. The project calls for widening NC 211 to a four--lane media
divided road from NC 73 in West End. to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst.. The project is proposed to be
constructed with either a shoulder on the outside lanes or curb. and gutter on the outside lanes. Curb
and gutter is proposed for the lanes next to the median. See the attached figure 2 that shows
proposed typical sections. The proposed median will be 23 feet wide, the vehicle travel lanes are 12
feet-wide, and sidewalk is proposed on both sides of NC 211 from Beulah Hill Church Road.
(SR 1,210).to the Traffic Circle. The sidewalks will be placed behind the curb for the curb and gutter
option or behind the ditch for the shoulder option.. No improvements are proposed for the Traffic
Circle.
Additional; right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses will be required:,forthis project.
. Great efforts were undertaken to limit the impacts: of the proposed widening. to the homes and
businesses. Although the posted speed limit has not- been finalized at this time, the design speed is.
-50 miles; per hour through the entireproject.
The project is tentatively scheduled to start the right-of-.way acquisition process in August 2007 and
the construction of the project is tentatively scheduled to start in August 2010.
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed`project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and.-thus will be constructed under the State-
Federal:.Aid Highway Program.. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal funds and 20% State
Funds:' The Board :of Transportation is, responsible for the selection and. scheduling: of projects on
the Federal Aid: System, their location, design, and- maintenance -cost. after construction. The. Federal
Highway Administration is responsible for.the review and approval of the.previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal=Aid Project is designed, constructed, and maintained-to.
Federvl=Aid Standards.
PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: .. 7.7 miles
Typical Section:. Four-lane, median-divided with curbs and gutters or shoulders
Right of Way: Variable - From about 150 feet to 200 feet
Construction and drainage easements will be required also.
Shoulder C&G
Relocatees: Residences: 7 6
Businesses: 6 . 3
Total: 13. 9
These numbers may change based ''on final.design.
Shoulder C&G
Estimated Cost. Roadway Cost: $ 21,575,000 $ 23;575,000
Right of Way Cost: $ . 7.1.81.000 $ 4.218.500
Total: $ 28,756,000 $ 27,793,500
Tentative Schedule: Right of Way - August 2007
ConstRiction - August 2009
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES.
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right-of-way limits will be-staked in
the ground. If you are an affected property. owner, a Right of Way Agent will contact you and arrange
a meeting. The agent will explain the plans and advise you as to how the project will affect you. The .
agent will inform you of your:rights as a property owner. If permanent right of way is required,
professionals, who. are familiar with real estate values will evaluate or appraise. your property. The
evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then. the Right of Way ,
Agent will make a.written offer to you. The current market value of the propertyat its highest and
best use when appraised Will be offered as compensation. The Department of Transportation must:
1.: Treat all owners and tenants equally:
2. Fully explain the.ownees rights.:
3. Pay just: compensation in exchange for property rights.
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are a relocatee that is,, if your residence or business. is-to be acquired as part of -the project,
additional assistance inthe- form of advice and compensation is available:.: You will.also be :provided
with assistance on locations of comparable.. housing :and/or.commercial establishments. moving
procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses maybe paid for you: Additional monetary.
compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage increases, increased value of
comparable homes-, closing?costs, etcA'similar program is available to assist:business owners: The
Right of WayAgent .can explain this assistance in greater detail:
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND.RELOCATION
PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SIGN IN TABLE.

1230 v

pow
---
?
,?
am, an
21 -
+r..6w
-Me 1

1 r
' - 7?- fir,..
:. O / I ? ?.• ?
?'?+?'? 1 /

` ? , ?
1
? ; • j TAI

1 / 111 II

?
5 r
\• ?? 1?? /
r ..
-p
POWN
VULACA
-:4,

?
` eI 1

' •I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEN.ELOPMENT'AND .
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Pinehurst
. NC 211, from NC 73 in West End
to east of SR 12-08 in Pinehuist
Moore County
TIP Project No. R-2812.
FIGURE L
. «I.d .
Y ._ 1 3
WAN
22
+I .•
8.4
rc.
POP. PAN A
1 'v
ANW?
NoRm CAROtNA CWARVAMW
OF TRANSPORTAT ON
DIVISION OF NIMMAVS.
FROJCT DMILOPMENT AND
NC 211 from NC.73 m West End-
to east of SR 1208 in Phwhum
Po TIP tgectNNW-2812
FIGURE' 2
COMMENT SHEET
NC 211 from NC 73 in West End to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst .
Combined Public Hearing - April 10, 2006
TIP Project No. R-2812 Moore County Project 34504.1.1.
NAME:..
ADDRESS.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
{Please include your thoughts about the curb and gutter option and the shoulder option along with
your comments and questions
Comments must be received by April :28th, 2006. Send comments 'to:
.E,d Lewis,- Senior Public Involvement Officer
Human Environment Unit .
N C. Department Of Transportation
1,583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
APPENDIX C
NEPA / Merger Team 3 and 4A Packets with
signed concurrence forms
TIP Project No. R-2812
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative. (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative
Selection Concurrence Point 3 and Avoidance and Minimization Concurrence Point 4A
Meeting
Purpose of Today's Meeting
The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the proposed alternatives and to select the
LEDPA/Preferred Alternative. Moreover, if time permits, we will discuss avoidance and
minimization efforts, Concurrence Point 4A. Formal concurrence on Concurrence Point Three and
possibly Concurrence Point 4A will be requested upon conclusion of this meeting; this will be
accomplished by the signing of the concurrence form.
.Purpose of Proiect
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the .level of safety along NC 211 and to improve
the traffic carrying capacity to meet the needs of existing and anticipated development in the project
area.
Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 211 from NC 73 in West
End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst, Moore-;County. Two different cross sections are proposed; a
four-lane divided curb . and gutter section and a four lane divided shoulder section. Both cross
sections will have a raised median with median.breaks at.ma or intersecting roads. The project is 7.2
milesin length. The project location _is shown on the attached map
Project Status Matrix
Activit . Date Completed
Sco in Meetin October 1, 1998. .
Concurrence Point One August 9, 2001
Citizens Informational Workshop January 30, 2002
Concurrence Point Two Aril 1 L, 2002
2° Concurrence Point Two Meeting December 11, 2002
Concurrence Point 2A Waived per Merger Team recommendation on May 26, 2004
Public Hearin Aril 10, 2006
Concunence. Point Three October 26, 2006
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
One alignment alternative for the widening of NC 211 was carried forward in the EA,- the "Best-fit"
Alternative. This altemative proposes to widen NC 211 to a multilane facility from NC 73 in West
End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst and utilizes a combination of north side, south side, and
symmetrical widening in order to avoid and minimize impacts to the existing natural and human
environments.
Four wetland areas along existing NC 211 in the vicinity of the project were identified. In the area
of these four wetlands, NCDOT studied four widening altematives for each wetland area;
Symmetrical widening, North-side widening, South-side widening, and a "Best-fit" widening
al-temative. Wetland impacts and property impacts were calculated for each alignment alternative.
The alignment alternatives and their associated impacts at each wetland were reviewed by the
environmental resource agencies and a recommended widening alternative was developed. The
recommended widening alternative in the vicinity of each wetland was then incorporated into the
one "Best-fit" alignment alternative.
Alternative 1 (Best Fit) proposes to widen NC 211 symmetrically from the western terminus at NC
73 to approximately 175 feet east of the NC 211/NC 73 intersection. From this point," Alternative 1
proposes north side widening of NC 211 to its intersection with SR 1004 (Hoffman Road), a distance
of approximately 4450 feet. North side widening was chosen for this portion of NC 211 due to the
close proximity of the Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railroad, located immediately south of existing
NC 211. East of SR 1004 (Hoffman Road), the widening transitions back to a symmetrical widening
scheme for approximately 1850 feet. From this point to the NC 211 intersection with NC 5, the
widening of NC 211 transitions between north side widening and south side widening to minimize
impacts to. existing properties, wetlands, and streams. From the NC 211/NC .5 intersection, the
project proposes to widen NC 211 symmetrically to the intersection of NC 211 and SR 1208 (Page
Road). From SR 1208 (Page Road) to the eastern project terminus at the `traffic circle in Pinehurst,
the project proposes north side widening of NC 211 to minimize impacts to existing residential
properties located on the south side, immediately adjacent to NC 211.
The Village -of Pinehurst requested a pedestrian tunnel. NCDOT will share in the cost of
constructing this tunnel with the Village of Pinehurst.
Typical Section Alternatives
Two typical section alternatives were. studied for the proposed project; a four-lane median divided
facility with curb and gutter, and a four-lane median divided facility. with grass shoulders. The
typical section alternative, which includes curb and gutter, will require approximately 100 feet of
right of way; the grass shoulder alternative` will require 150 feet of right of. way. Temporary
construction easements of both sides of the project may be required.. Permanent drainage easements
may be required in'- some areas along the proposed project. Sidewalks have been requested by the
Village of Pinehurst.
Table ble 1. Anticipated Impacts for Alternatives
Category Curb and Gutter (Alt. #1) Grass Shoulder (Alt. #2)
Length 7.2 miles 7.2 miles
Wetlands 1.00 acre** = 1.:l2,acre** t
Stream 353 feet** >T f X39 f ** ?: yam:;
Noise Receptors 14 14
Hazardous Material Sites 14* 14*
Prime Agricultural Lands 0 0
Forest 12.2 acre 12.2 acre
Protected Species 1*** 1***
Historic Properties 0 0
4 (f) Properties 0 0
Churches 0 0
Schools 0 0
ET Communities 0 0
Air Quality No No
Critical Water Supplies No No

Relocatees, (Residents)
13 d'f
tt t, ``
Relocatees (Businesses)
*These UST's are potentially attectect and will not necessaruy oe impaciea oy me prupuseu prgtcc:t
**Denotes a revision of the wetland and stream impacts since the completion of the environmental assessment. The
revisions are a result of reviewing the latest proposed "curb and gutter" and "shoulder" section designs.
***'The US Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the project "May affect but is not likely to affect" the red
cockaded woodpecker

Table 2. Preliminary Hydraulic Design for Stream Crossing of US 21
Existtntruc L Proposed Structure Type`
1
Crossing yam
o T "ve
' . ?
-`
r
w Z
- a, ww s
6

1
Joe's Fork
RCBC wi 72" CSP extension Remove. extension and retain and
extend existing RCBC

2 Tributary of Joe's
RCBC w/ CSSPA extension Remove extension and retain and
Fork extend existin RCBC
RCBC Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
CSP Corrugated Steel-Pipe
CSSPA Corrugated Structural Steel Plate Arch
Table 3. Potential Stream Impacts
Joe's Fork
(-L-Sta.245+00
Trib. to Joe's Fork
(-L-Sta. 269+00)
Board Branch
(-L-Sta. 340+00)
100 ft 38-ft
.149 ft
19 ft 48 ft
Table 4. Potential Wetland Impacts
amass tS .'
121 ft
.181 ft
50.00 ft
47 ft
Wetland 1
-L=Sta.245+00 0.34 acres 0.15 acres
- .0.45 acres 0.22 acres
Wetland 2
(-L-Sta. 269+00)
0.26 acres
0.27 acres
Wetland 3
(-L-Sta. 277+00) 0.08 acres 0.08 acres
Wetland 4
(-L-Sta. 340+00) 0.12 acres 0.14 acres 0.08 acres 0.01 acres
Wetland Description
Four wetlands are found in the project study area. Three of these four wetlands are adjacent to small
streams and are classified as streamhead pocosin. These wetlands may also fit the description of
`coastal '.plain small stream swamp variant,' which. is found geographically downstream, of
streamhead pocosin communities as streams become larger. The coastal plain small stream swamp
variant as represented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) describes streams draining from streamhead
pocosins that are characterized by exhibiting an abundance of dense pocosin shrubs with a canopy
conprised of predominately_Nyssa biflora, and Acer rubrum.
Dominant species in.the wetlands include swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora) and red maple.(Acer
rubrum) with tulip poplar and sweetgum (Ligttidambar siyraciflua) on slightly higher ground. Pond
pine (Pinus serotina) is also commonly found- in :these wet areas. Shrubs such as °ti-ti (Cyrilla
racemiflora), sweet pepperbush '(Clethra alnifolia), horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), fetter-bush
(Lyonia lucida), blueberry; bayberry (Myrica heterophylla), chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), possum
havfViburnum nudum) and the woody herb, giant cane.(Arundinaria gigantea) were characteristic
of these systems.. Other wetland herbs such as rushes (Juncus spp.); cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), nodding
ladies' tresses (Spiranthes cernua) and the vine, laurel-leaved greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) occurred
throughout the wetland. When standing water. was present, emergent herbs. such as: golden club
(Orontiuin aquaticum). and arrow-arum (P,eltandra vir - ica) flourished.
Wetland 1- The majority of Wetland-.1' `occurs on'the south.side of NC 211, and is intact and
relatively undisturbed: To the.north is a pond.(and adjacent. wetland) created by the damming of
Joe's Fork:
Wetland 2-- South of NC 211, an unnamed- tri butary to Joe's Fork originates from an upstream lake.
Wetland-2 is associated with this tributary and this wetland occurs on both sides of NC 211.
Hydrology. in this wetland (south side) is likely supplemented by groundwater seeps as the wetland
boundary extends far uphill from. the tributary. ` ., Evergreen-shrubs, typical of _ sireamhead pocosins,
are found here along with poison: sumac. North of NC 211, the. tributary and adjacent wetland are
heavily impacted with sedi t, perhaps' due to construction' of a water, line and fill from- a newly
constructed and abandoned apartment dwelling.
Wetland 3 - This wetland, located north of NC 211, is created by a partially blocked pipe seeping to
the north, side of..tfie road. T4is wetland' contains: many of the species: listed above with the addition
of poison sumac (Rhus vernix). 'This. wetland is' contiguous: o a small pond situated close to the
road.
Wetland 4 - Board Branch is braided and meandering, south of NC 211 and is'more characteristic of
a wetland than a stream.. Board *Branch is contiguous with Wetland-4 and this wetland contains. an
abundance of Chinese privet, an invasive species. The emergent macrophyte, arrow-arum, is found
throughout the wetland in standing water.
Stream Descrintions
Thfee-streAms are crossed by.NC 211 and would be affected by: the highway widening. All
streams-are -located in the, Cape Fear, Basin in subbasin 114, (03-0644 . _ The three streams in the
projectstudy area include Joe's Fork (Index No. 18-23-3-1), which is associated with Wetland-1, an
unnamed'tri butary to Joe's Fork associated with Wetland-2, and Board Branch (Index No.18-23-3-1-
1) which is associated with Wetland-4. Board Branch is also referred to as McLeod, Branch and
Broad Branch on some maps. All streams on the project empty into Joe's Fork. North of the project
study area, the unnamed tributary flowsfor less than 0.5 mile before reaching Joe's Fork, and Board
Branch flows a little over a mile before reaching Joe's Fork. Joe's Fork then flows into Nicks Creek
which joins the Little River, and eventually empties into the Cape Fear River.' .
B est Usase Classification
The NC Division of Water.Quality (NCDWQ) assigns streams a best usage classification.
The three streams on this project carry the Classification of WS III (NCDENR 2002). The
cl assification of WS III refers to those waters protected as water supplies that, are generally in low to
rmoderately developed watersheds. Local programs to control non-point source and' stormwater
pollution are required. Water Supply III waters are also suitable for all Class C uses, such as aquatic
lifepropagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
Joe's Fork - Joe's Fork is 4 ft wide with fast-flowing clear water, 9 to 24 inches depth. Stream
substrate was sandy with abundant woody debris.
Urnarned; tributary to Joe's Fork South of NC 211, this unnamed tributary to Joe's Fork originates
from a_n:upstream lake. This stream (Ut-1) is 5.0 ft wide and up to 1 ft deep, with clear water and
fairly swift. flow. North. of NC 211, this tributary and adjacent wetland are heavily impacted with
sediment,, perhaps due to construction of a water line and fill from a newly constructed and
abandoned apartment dwelling.
Board Branch - Board Branch is braided and meandering,. south of NC 211 and is more characteristic
of a wetland than a stream.- Board Branch is contiguous with Wetland-4: This stream has a more
defined channel as it approaches NC 211, and flows under' the road to.the north. It then appears.
channelized and flows. through a poweriine ROW 'before entering woods. Board Branch is
approximately 5.0 ft wide and up to 18 in deep.
Project SchWule/Cost
Improvements to NC 211 are federally funded. This project is included in NCDOT's latest approved
Transportation.Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled in the 2006-2012
TEP for federal fiscal year 2007 and construction is scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year 2009.
Minimization
Minimization efforts have taken place continually throughout the planning process. NCDOT studied
various widening scenarios that achieved the purpose of the proposed project and minimized impacts
to the environment. NCDOT developed the "Best Fit" alignment with the Merger Team in order to
minimize impacts to the human and natural environment. The Merger Team reviewed the
preliminary' plans on December 11, 2002 and concurred that the "Best Fit". alternative was the
preferred.
Other minimization to date:
=Leave. current drainage structures in place and accommodate widening by extending the two
existing culverts
-The NCDOT preferred-alternative would use a curb and gutter typical section for a portion of the
project which narrows the project footprint.
-The NCDOT preferred alternative would reduce the typical section by using the curb and gutter
instead of a shoulder section along a portion of the project.
-S teeper fill slopes (2:1) were used along the curb and gutter section, reducing the project footprint.
-A D-foot raised island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is recommended. This median
w idth. will. reduce the project's footprint.
N CDOT Preferred Alternative
NCDOT prefers an alternative that is a combination of Alternatives 1 and 2.
From the Traffic Circle to Archie Road, NCDOT prefers Alternative. 1, a 44ane divided facility with
curb and gutter. The majority of this section of NC 211 is located within the Village of Pinehurst
and is more urban in character than the rest of theproject. The Village is interested in incorporating
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations within their jurisdictional area. Pedestrian accommodations
are more easily provided along a 'curb and gutter facility. Also, the West. Pine Middle School is
located within this section, and.Moore County has expressed interest in pedestrian.accommodations
near the school. Additionally a curb and gutter facility dictates a slower speed limit (45` mph or
less), that is in line with the Village's vision and promotes safety for.bicyclists and pedestrians. The
Village of Pinehurst and the Triangle J Council of Governments support a curb and gutter facility in
this section of. the -project.
From Archie Road to NC 73, NCDOT prefers Alternative 2, 44ane divided facility with shoulders.
This section of NC 211 is more rural in character with very little pedestrian and bicycle activity.
The proposed speed limit along this section of NC 211 (50 mph) is more conducive to a shoulder
section facility, and sidewalks are not anticipated to be part of the, project's construction through this
area.
Potential environmental impacts with NCDOT's preferred alternative care similar to the impacts for
the curb and gutter alternatives:
Public Hearing Comments
The.. Combined Public : Hearing; ,was held on April 10, 2006 at the West Pine `Middle School "in.
Pinehurst. Approximately. 115 citizens attended the public hearing. Public Hearing Maps showing
both design alternatives detailing the proposed widening alignment, the construction limits; and
ylines for homes and businesses were available for the public's review: The majority
existing;propert
of the comments received at hearing pertained to impacts to individual properties.
• Seven Lanes Civic Group. recommended a .shoulder. section for the western end of the project for
a higher posted speed. limit: - The group also wanted to shift the proposed. alignment to the south
from West End to the Westgate .Commercial area.
• Some business owners were concern that the proposed median would reduce access; therefore,
hurting businesses.
.1
uw - ?.• ?A Z -
wHISPLUNG
3
A :w: I
f ?
' POP. 1"734

W.0 bnR -
1217 L,r - -
'? L - 7• _ V Gum
Alryeq

12C9 m- -
73
Fl"

IM,

',•
.. '.\ TAYLORTOWN
707."" IVt i!
-
O? y 3
r --
/ ? `'f
0`•
r '?
?, I / / • ?arCn nNEMURST
POP. 7.106 .
! =- - - •
FOkfIRE • ?! 1122
' I f
VKLACA
POP. 383
_ is _ - •,j ? r
/• •-? f• -
J`
00. 1112 /. - \.
Ilyl \-
NORTH.CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS : .
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Pinehurst
NC 211 from NC 73 in West End
to east of SR 1208 in Pinehurst
Moore County
TIP Project No. R-2812
. SCAU FIGURE I
0 1 2 3 4
A{IIES
psrnnq ). , , ,,?,
SOUrMERFI ?UJES
_
1o7. 9A76 o ,

Ad.- H-W

- SAPONILLS
_ .

]

POP. 2. 9

'A F1
SECTION 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3 - Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
Proiect NoJTIP NoJName/Description:
State Projeq Number: 8.1560601
Federal Aid Number: STP-211(5)
TIP Number; R-2812
TIP Description: Widen NC 211 to a multilane facility from NC 73 in West End to
the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Recommended alternative:
The "Best-fit" Alignment is a combination of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
A four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter will begin at the traffic circle in Pinehurst and will
extend along existing NC 211 to terminate at.SR 1291 (Archie Road) (Alternative 1). A four-lane divided
facility with grass shoulders will begin at SR 1291 (Archie Road) and will extend alonj existing NC 211
to the project terminus at NC 73 in West End (Alternative 2).
The Project Team has concurred on this date of October 26. 2006 with the selection of the `Best
Fit' as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for TIP Project No.
R-2812 as stated above
U. S. An-ny Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
c

?t

SECTION 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A - Avoidance and Minimization
Proiect No./TIP No./Name/Description:
State Project Number: 8.1560601
Federal Aid Number: STP-211(5)
TIP Number: R-2812
TIP Description: Widen NC 211 to a multilane facility from NC 73 in West End to
the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Avoidance and Minimization: .
Minimization efforts have taken place continually.. throughout the .planning process. NCDOT studied
various widening scenarios that achieved the purpose of the proposed project and minimized impacts to
the environment. NCDOT developed the "Best Fit" alignment with the Merger Team in order to
minimize impacts to the human and natural environment. The Merger Team reviewed the preliminary
plans on December 11, 2002 and concurred that the "Best Fit" alternative was the preferred.
See attached sheet for continued Avoidance and Minimization Efforts.
The Project Team concurred on this date of October 26. 2006 with the avoidance and minimization
measures for TIP Project No. R-2812 as stated above.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
_ N.C. DENR-DWQ
. Federal,Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation

October 26, 2006
R 2812'Concurrence Point 4A-Avoidance and Minimization Efforts to date
1. -Leave current drainage structures in place and accommodate widening by extending
the two existing culverts
2. -The NCDOT preferred alternative would use a curb and gutter typical section -for .a
portion of the project which narrows the project footprint.
3. -The NCDOT preferred alternative would reduce the typical section by using the curb
and gutter instead of a shoulder section along a portion of the project.
4. =Steeper- fill slopes (2:1) were used along the curb and gutter section, reducing the
project footprint.
5. -A 23-f6ot raised island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is recommended:
This median width will reduce the project's footprint.
APPENDIX D
NEPA / Mobile Source Air Toxics
TIP Project No. R-2812
+?Eo?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTTNEIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR June 5, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO: Elmo Vance
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Bobby Dunn
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Section
SUBJECT: Air Quality Analysis for R-2812
NC 211 From NC 73in West End to SR 1208, Moore County,
State Project # 8.1560601, F.A. Project # STP-211(5)
Mobile Source Air Toxics
LYNDO TIPPETr
SECRETARY
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA
also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources,
non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or
refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are
compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and
are emitted to the air when the fuel. evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from
the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine
wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities regarding
the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of
the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards,
its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and. gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty
engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020,
FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of
benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway
` diesel-PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph:
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT*N FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 2728 CAPITAL BLVD
1583 MAL SERwcE CENTER WEBSITE WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699.1583
2
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020
VMT
(trillionslyear)
6-r
Emissions
(tonslyear)
Benzene (-57%)
00,000
aPM+DMG (47%.
F01MOMIYO cis,;
AatMINde (0%,
t"Ibdbhe Em,
ACD11h (44
0
00.000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE
proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content
are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual
growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental
carbon, organic carbon and S04 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at
10.0 microns.
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to
further control MSATs: The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 2020) that will
address these issues and could adjust the full 21 and the primary 6 MSATs.
Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available
technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated
with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with,
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete: Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from
MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling,
dispersion modeling in order to estimate
ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate
human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on
the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science
that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.
Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key
variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context-of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used
to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a
trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds
for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a
specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation,
MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on
the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For
particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT
emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for
both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology
vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with
MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2
is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives
for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller
projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current regulatory
models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose
of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. 'The
performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur
at some time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict
accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to
assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and
other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate
methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general
public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a
lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background
concentrations.
Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs
could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis
preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts.. Exposure
assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near
roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at
a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because
unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle
technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties
associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-
dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of
these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much
smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such
assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against
other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs:
Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of
studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through
epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that
animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.
- - Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure
applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure,
the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to
a national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA
Integrated Risk Information System (ERIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from
exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at
http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from
the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries.
This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current
evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.
Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for
an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.
Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient
evidence in animals.
1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and
female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.
Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures.
Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel
exhaust organic gases.
Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard from
MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as
cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these
studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health
Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major
series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of
mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several
years.
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes --
particularly respiratory problems'. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the
full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies,
but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties
listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to
this project.
Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable
Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical
approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community: Because of the
uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on
human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict
relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from
each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project
alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted
above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for
smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse
impacts on the human environment."
In this document, FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various
alternatives, (or a qualitative assessment, as applicable) and has acknowledged that (some, all, or identify by
alternative) the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations,
although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health
effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.
As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions -and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect
to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However,
even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it
5
is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative
analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing
the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment
presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating
Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at:
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmentlairtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm
For each alternative in the EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or
VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for
each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional
capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation
network. This increase in VMT will lead to higher MSAT emissions for the preferred alternative along the highway
corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along parallel routes. The emissions increase is
offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions
model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs, except for diesel particulate matter, decrease as speed increases. The
extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be
reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives presented in the EA are nearly the same, it is expected
there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also,
regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result
of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000
and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover,. VMT
growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even
after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in
nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some
traffic. closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas
where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build
Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along NC 211,
From NC 73in West End to SR 1208 in Pinehurst. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of
these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent
deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the
localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative,
but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower
MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on
a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial
reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done
will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce
the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists
or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure
Study-II (2000); Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24
Studies on the relationship between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in
- the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles,'
Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited
therein.
NC 211 IMPROVEMENTS
From NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Pinehurst, Moore County
WBS Element 34504.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-211(5)
State Project No. 8.1560601
TIP PROJECT R-2812
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
APPROVED:
at ,::D Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Iffnvironmental Management Director
groject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
6-63/61
W. Q(,
Date .? John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division
Federal Highway Administration
. NC 211 IMPROVEMENTS
From NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Pinehurst, Moore County
WBS Element 34504.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-211(5)
State Project No. 8.1560601
TIP PROJECT R-2812
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
May 2007
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:

?f
"l
. i
•
Q
S
3_ ?b 7 .
.e_-7
1?.?,.
?' .
SS/
\
?
;
S. Eric Midkiff, P. E., CPM _ • ??'
?

Project Development Unit Head -
'a SEAL
_
791

Elmo Vance
Project Development Engineer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TYPE OF ACTION 1
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1
III. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL/ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 2
IV. COORDINATON AND COMMENTS 3
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment 3
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment 4
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing 5
D. Section 404/NEPA Merger Team 9
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9
A. Project Commitments 9
B. Environmental Assessments 10
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 11
FIGURES
Figure I -Vicinity Map
APPENDIX
Appendix A--Comments received in response to the Environmental Assessment
Appendix B-Public Hearing Notice and Handout
Appendix C-NEPA/Merger Team 3 and 4A Packets with signed concurrence forms
Appendix D-Mobile Source Air Toxics
Roadwav Design' and Traffic Eneineerin
NCDOT will investigate the queues to determine if a cross-over is warranted between the
intersections.of Archie Road and Horner Lane. If it is not feasible to have cross-overs at
the.' requested .locations, two U-tum cross-overs exclusively designed for a WB-50 track
will be recommended.
Roadwav,Desi0m Unit and Division 8
Yadkin Road Markers # 1 and `# 2 are .located outside of the proposed right of way. If
upon completion of the proposed project, the road markers are determined to be a safety
hazard NCDOT will' consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to
determine an appropriate course of action. '
Roadway: Design Unit, _Traffic Ent ineerim and Division 8
The intersection .of'NC 211: and Juniper Lake.Road '(SR1216) will be converted from
being a stop-sign ;;controlled to a signal controlled intersection. This project has been
added to the"Spot Safety "On Hold" for funding for the signal. ,
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis`Branch, Roadway Design Unit,
Prograi Development-Municiyal Agreements'
°NCDOT investigated the Village of Pinehurst's request for the inclusion of three (3)
pedestrian tunnels along NC 211. NCDOT will share'in<the construction costs for:one (1)
pedestrian tunnel along NC 211 on an 80/20 cost sharing basis with, the 'Vill'age of
Pinehurst: The Village ;of Pinehurst will, -be required to accept responsibility ;for the
maintenance` and liability of the tunnel once it is constructed. A municipal agreement
between NCDOT and the Village of Pinehurst will'be.required prior to the?construction of
the tunnel:"The pedestrian tunnel will be located just east of the intersection of ,NC 211
and Rattlesnake/Gun Club Road. This, location will allow.the.pedestriantunnel`to:link the
area north -of NC 211, which is primarily: residential development; to the ;Rassie,'Wicker
Park located immediately south -of NC .211 in ''the, vicinity of this intersection. The
estimated construction cost for°this tunnel is $275,000:
Since the completion of the environmental assessment, theme. has been additional
coordination between Roadway and :the Village of Pinehurst,conceminatheJocation,of 'the
pedestrian tunnel. On'April'?13; 2006;`,representatives' fnom,_Roadway Design and.
:Hydraulicsconducted an on ? rte,.meetmg:` wrth .'..Mr , Jay -Gibson; Pillage of Pinehurst
Director. of Engineering; `to explain°ivhy `the: requested :locations were-not conductive for,
placement of a pedest 4an tunnel. ,>The:topography in close °proxtmi y to Rattlesnake Trail
-prohibits the placement of a pedestrian -tunnel without the emplacement of pumpsgto
remove _stormwater. " A consensus was reached in the field that a, more feasible location ,
for a,':pedestrian tunnel' would be in proximity. to the Memoriai'.Drive intersection. After
`the field- meeting -the Village of,Pinehurst indicted_via letter,.the preferred :location fora
T.I.P.'Pr6jectR-2812 Page. of 4
Finding of No Significant'Impacts (FONSI)
May 2007 ;
NC 211 IMPROVEMENTS
From NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Pinehurst, Moore County
W13S Element 34504.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-211(5)
State Project No. 8.1560601
TIP PROJECT R-2812
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the October 28, 2005 Environmental Assessment,
which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the
accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to
widen NC 211 to a four-lane divided facility with a 16 foot raised, grassed median and 14 foot
outside lanes from NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst (see Figure 1). The
length of the proposed project is approximately 7.2 miles. The proposed project is included in
NCDOT's 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with right of way
acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, mitigation scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2009 and construction scheduled for (FY) 2010.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the level of safety along NC 211 and
to improve the traffic carrying capacity of the roadway to meet the needs of existing and
anticipated development in the project area.
The 2007-2013 (TIP) has allocated $32,063,000 for the proposed project including
$363,000 for mitigation, $5,700,000 for right of way acquisition, $25,200,000 for construction,
and $800,000 for prior years spending. The total estimated cost for the proposed
improvements is $32,063,000.
II. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are listed in Section
IV of the Environmental Assessment (EA). An updated summary of project impacts for the
recommended alternative is shown in table 1 below.
Table 1 Summar of Environmental Im acts
Widening Alternative/Typical Section Best Fit/Curb &Gutter& Shoulders
Preferred
Wetlands .81 acre
Stream 1009 feet
Noise Receptors 14
Hazardous Material Sites 14*
Prime Agricultural Lands 0
Forest 12.2 acre
Protected Species 1**
Historic Properties 0
4 Properties 0
Churches 0
Schools 0
E.J. Communities 0
Air Quality No
Critical Water Supplies No
Relocatees (Residents) 13
Relocatees (Businesses) 1
-L nuSe ua s are potenuany arrected and will not necessarily be impacted by the project.
"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the project "may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect" the red cockaded woodpecker.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for this project in November 2005.
For the purposes of evaluating impacts to the physical and natural environment, the alternatives
were evaluated using the best fit alignment with two typical section alternatives. Alternative
one (curb and gutter) and alternative two (grass shoulder) proposed to carry the two typical
sections independently from project terminus to terminus, NC 73 in West End to the traffic
circle in Pinehurst.
After analyzing the environmental impacts, the "Best-fit" Alignment with a
combination of alternative one (curb and gutter) and alternative two (grass shoulder) typical
sections was determined to be the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative consists of a
four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter to begin at the traffic circle in Pinehurst,
extending along existing NC 211 and terminating at SR 1291 (Archie Road). From SR 1291
(Archie Road), the recommended alternative will continue as a four-lane divided facility with
grass shoulders and will extend along existing NC 211 to the project terminus at NC 73 in
West End.
2
The best fit alignment consisting of a combination of alternative one and alternative
two typical sections has allowed impacts to wetlands to be reduced from 1.46 acres to 0.81
acres and stream impacts to be reduced from 1116 linear feet to 1009 linear feet. Up to 13
residences and 1 business will require relocation as a result of the proposed improvements to
US 211. No impacts are anticipated to architecturally or archaeologically significant sites.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that 1 protected species, the red cockaded
woodpecker, may be affected by the project. Finally, no impacts to historic properties, 4(f)
properties, churches, schools, low income populations or minority populations are anticipated.
An increase in the noise level for properties adjacent to the project is anticipated. A
total of fourteen (14) receptors will be impacted by highway noise; however, there were no
substantial noise level impacts anticipated by the project. The predicted noise level increases
for this project range up to +6 dBA.
The project is located in Moore County, which has been determined to comply with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment
area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to
create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
Fourteen (14) regulated facilities were found along the proposed project. Ten(10)were
underground storage tank (UST) facilities, three (3) were other potentially contaminated
properties, and one (1) was a Superfnnd. The Superfund Site, Stanley Furniture, is currently
being monitored by a private environmental firm. None of the regulated or unregulated
landfills or dumpsites is within the project limits. If further design studies necessitate the
taking of additional right of way from the noted facilities, a preliminary site assessment for soil
and groundwater contamination will be required prior to the purchase of the additional right of
way.
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Divisions of Highways and
the FHWA on November 2, 2005. The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to
the following federal, state and local agencies for review and comment. An asterisk (*)
indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence
received are included in the Appendix A of this document.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Administration
*N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
*Division of Water Quality
N.C. Forest Service
3
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Town of Pinehurst
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Comment: This is a 7.2 mile widening Merger project (CP 1 8/9/01 & CP 2 4/11/02).
There are two `best-fit' alternatives remaining under consideration including Alternative 1
(curb and gutter) and Alternative 2 (grass shoulder). Jurisdictional impacts to wetlands and
streams are 0.81 / 1.46 acres and 1009 / 1116 linear feet, respectively. Overall impacts as
shown on the page ii summary table are very similar for most key environmental indicators.
EPA notes the fairly large number of potential hazardous material sites (14), including one
Superfund -site (Stanley Furniture). EPA also notes the slight impact to RCW foraging area
and the FWS MA-NLAA determination. EPA has no preferred alternative at this time and
would welcome comments and issues from NCDOT and other agencies on their preferred
alternative at the LEDPA CP 3 meeting. EPA is requesting a copy of the FONSI when it
becomes available. EPA also noted the very insightful NEPA Scoping Comments letter from
Marsh Smith, Esq. dated 3/30/2000 in Appendix A. Hopefully, some of the past key issues
have been addressed by FHWA and NCDOT.
Response: Comments noted. Additionally, as noted by the EPA, continents were received
from Mr. Smith during project scoping in a letter dated 3/30/2000. Those comments were
considered during the development of the project and during preparation of the Environmental
Assessment, along with other comments received from state, federal, and local government
agencies, and the public. Since that time the Environmental Assessment has been approved
and circulated for review and comments. No additional comments have been received from
Mr. Smith concerning this project following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment.
FHWA and NCDOT assume that all scoping comments have been adequately addressed
through the NEPA project study as detailed in the Environmental Assessment, unless otherwise
notified
N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (Natural Heritage Program)
Comment: As indicated in the EA for this project, several clusters of the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Federal and State Endangered, are located close to NC 211.
As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (pages A-51 and A-52) concurs with the N.C.
Department of Transportation that "the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely impact
the RCW", we support that the decision-and have no additional comments on this project. The
Natural Heritage Program has no record of other rare species, significant natural communities,
or priority natural areas along the corridor of the project area.'
Response: Comments noted
4
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: ' Two active Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) clusters are located
within the project study area. The USFWS has concurred with the Biological Assessment
conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Red-cockaded
woodpecker. NCDOT should minimize the removal of foraging habitat by only removing
vegetation necessary for construction and allow vegetation to remain within the right of way
where possible. Furthermore, the EA adequately addresses mitigation measures for
unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands.
Response: The preferred alternative uses a curb and gutter typical section near the area in
which the Red-cockaded woodpecker clusters are located. A twenty-three (23) foot raised
island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is recommended and steeper fill slopes (2:1)
will be used along the curb and gutter section. The preferred alternative narrows the project
footprint and simultaneously minimizes environmental impacts. Moreover, in order to
preserve the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, no unnecessary cutting of any pine trees ten
(10) inches or greater in diameter at breast height, beyond slope stake limits is to occur
between the following stations: 96+00 thru 15+00, 214+00 thru 264+00, 285+00 thru 329+00
and 339+00 thru 415+00.
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Comment: Thank you for your letter of December 5, 2005, transmitting the Environmental
Assessment for the above project. We believe the assessment adequately addresses our
concerns for historic resources.
Response: Comments noted
Division of Water Oualitv
Comment: All of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS)
waters, WS-III. Therefore, the potential for impacts to waters that are used for municipal
drinking water is possible. Please locate and identify all water intakes in the project study area.
In addition, please include their locations in all future. documentation. It should be noted that
alternatives to avoid impacts upstream of any water supply intakes would need to be
considered during the development of the project.
Response: Comments noted
Comment: All of the streams in the project area are classified as- Waters Supply (WS)
waters, -WS-III. Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project
implementation* the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" throughout design and construction of the
project.
Response: Comments noted
5
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing
A Combined Public Hearing for the proposed project was held on April 10, 2006. The
hearing was conducted in the Multi-Purpose Room of West Pine Middle School from 4:00 pm
to approximately 9:00 pm. Representatives from the Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, the Roadway Design Unit and the Division 8 Office were available to explain
the project, answer questions, and receive comments. Approximately 117 citizens attended the
hearing. The following is a summary of the comments received along with NCDOT's
responses:
Comment: Several citizens and Eugene B. Horne, Jr., representing the Fuel Mate (BP)
Convenience Store, is concerned with the increased traffic volumes at the intersection of NC
211 and Juniper Lake Road (SR 1216) necessitating the need to convert the intersection from
stop-sign controlled to signal controlled.
Response: The Division Traffic Engineer conducted a traffic study that found vehicular
volumes at the intersection satisfied traffic signal needs criteria. The study found a total of
three crashes occurred at the NC 211 and Juniper Lake Road (SR 1216) intersection between
January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005. All of these crashes are the type potentially
correctable by installation of a traffic signal. Typically, new traffic signal installations are
funded through the Department's Spot Safety Program, and this project will be added to Spot
Safety "On Hold" list to wait funding. This project will be competing for funding with
numerous similar projects throughout the state. The NC 211 widening project, scheduled to let
in 2009, may be a possible source of funding. It is currently not possible for the Department to
provide a funding approval date at this time.
Comment: Ray MacKay, representing the Seven Lakes Civic Group, is concerned about the
median, maintenance of the proposed facility, emergency vehicle access and additional median
breaks. A median break was requested between Stations 55+00 and 14+00. This median break
would be used exclusively for emergency vehicle access. Moreover, he requested planting at
various locations within the median and increasing the proposed speed limit from 45 mph to 55
mph.
Mr. MacKay also proposes that the project begin at Hoffinan Road instead of NC 73 to
facilitate flexibility in designing the future widening of NC 211 through or around West End.
Response: As per the NCDOT Landscape Planting Policy, a preset funding level that is
three-fourths of a percent (0.75%) of the total construction cost is available for landscaping.
Plantings at various locations within the median will be considered.
Two additional median cross-overs will be proposed between Stations 55+00 and 140+00.
The environmental assessment and the preliminary plans propose a design speed of 50 mph
with an anticipated speed limit of 45 mph. Increasing speed limit to 55 mph will increase
negative impacts to the environment by increasing curve. lengths and right of way widths.
6
Additionally, construction costs would increase. During the final design phase, a 50 mph
speed limit will be considered for the shoulder typical section portion of the project. The curb
and gutter section will have a 45 mph speed limit.
Currently, there is not a funded TIP project to widen NC 211 through or to bypass West End.
In the event funding becomes available to widen NC 211 through West End, the currently
proposed NC 211 widening project would not limit alternatives in the West End area.
Comment: More widening should occur on the south side of NC 211 from Hoffinan Mill
Road to the end of the project.
Response: Due to safety concerns, additional right of way can not be acquired from the
railroad located along the south side of NC 211, thus, requiring the majority of widening to
occur on the north side of NC 211 through this area. The Roadway Design Unit will minimize
the amount right of way acquisition of said property as much as feasible during the final design
phase.
Comment: Egress and ingress to Westgate Business Park should be reviewed. The existing
dirt roadway should be paved to Beulah Hill Church Road for outbound traffic and the western
drive should be right in right out. A left-over should be proposed at the eastern drive.
.Response: Because the projected traffic counts are not predicted to produce long queues on
NC 211 at this location, NCDOT proposes a full movement cross-over at the eastern drive and
not the western drive.
Comment: Mr. Bruce Pritchard indicated that truck traffic would have difficulty accessing
the Blue Monkey and Pinehurst Patios and requested a center turn lane in these areas.
Response: A median cross-over is proposed at Archie Road and Homer Lane. The spacing
between these intersections is 2200 feet. Adding a cross-over between these two intersections
violates NCDOT Roadway Design standards. However, NCDOT Congestion Management,
will investigate the queues to determine if a cross-over is warranted. If it is not feasible to have
cross-overs at the requested locations, two U-turn cross-overs exclusively designed for a WB-
50 truck will be considered.
Comment: Mr. Andy Wilkinson, Village of Pinehurst Manager; Mr. Jay Gibson, Village of
Pinehurst Director of Engineering; and Mr. and Mrs. Daniel and Amy Oates requested a
pedestrian tunnel near Rattlesnake Trail or Memorial Drive.
Response: On April 13, 2006, representatives from NCDOT's Roadway Design and
Hydraulics Units conducted an on site meeting with Mr. Gibson to explain why the requested
locations were not conducive for placement of a pedestrian tunnel The topography in close
proximity to Rattlesnake Trail prohibits the placement of a pedestrian tunnel without the
emplacement of pumps to remove stormwater. A consensus was reached in the field that a
more feasible location for a pedestrian tunnel would be in proximity to the Memorial Drive
intersection. After the field meeting the Village of Pinehurst indicted via letter, the preferred
7
location for a pedestrian tunnel is in the area of Rattlesnake Trail. NCDOT, Roadway Design
Unit, noted that the following conditions should be satisfied before considering a pedestrian
tunnel in the area of the Rattlesnake Trail intersection:
• NCDOT will start design of the pedestrian tunnel (underpass) once a municipal
agreement is executed.
• The Village of Pinehurst will be responsible for all costs associated with the design,
construction and maintenance of the pumps.
• The Village of Pinehurst will assume all liability.
• Design of the pumps and grades on the underpass should be completed and provided to
Roadway Design and the Hydraulics Unit no later than four months before the
completion of the hydraulic design for the proposed project. The drainage design is
scheduled for completion by October 2007; the pump and grade designs should be
completed and submitted to the aforementioned NCDOT units not later than July 2007.
• As per the Pedestrian Policy Guidelines, Pinehurst is responsible for a percentage of the
cost of the underpass. The percentage will be determined by the population of
Pinehurst at the time of executing the agreement. The Village of Pinehurst will be
responsible of 100% of all cost and maintenance of the pumps; will donate all required
additional right of way and easement necessary to construct the underpass and ramps.
• Other conditions from NCDOT or from Pinehurst may be added as the agreement
develops.
Comment: Several citizens requested that the curb and gutter typical section begin at
Archie Road (West of Pine Middle School) and that sidewalks with pedestrian crossings be
considered at NC 73 and NC 21.1.
Response: The Village of Pinehurst has requested sidewalks on both sides of NC 211 from
the traffic circle to Beulah Hill Church Road and on the south side from Beulah Hill Church
Road to Glasgow Drive. If Moore County agrees to participate in the cost and maintenance of
sidewalks on the north side of NC 211 from Beulah Hill Church Road to Archie Road, the curb
and gutter section can begin at Archie Road with the approval of the environmental agencies.
Pedestrian crossings and sidewalks can be considered at NC 73 if Moore County agrees to
participate in the cost and maintenance.
Comment: Can the proposed highway be widened on the south side rather than the north
and closer, to residential properties at Village Acres?
Response: The proposed project utilizes existing right of way where possible. The existing
right of way was used in the noted areas. The proposed right of way width is greater on the
south side of NC 211 and varies in various locations along the proposed project.
8
Comment: Will storm water be directed to the backyards of the residences of Village
Acres?
Response: There will not be additional stormwater runoff as a result of this project.
Comment: Can the Edgewood Terrace crossing be closed? If the crossing can not be
closed, install grade crossing signals and provide a concrete crossing surface.
Response: Closing the crossing will be considered during final design. Ed Lewis,
NCDOT-PDEA-HEU, will initiate a meeting with property owners in the vicinity of the
crossing at Edgewood Terrace to determine the most effective means of closing the crossing.
Comment: Mr. Phillip Brown owns of an apartment complex at Sta. 278+00 Lt.
Renovations to the building were completed in the winter of 2006. Behind this apartment is
others and plans are in process for more apartment buildings on this property. The existing
roadway design will impact the apartments. NCDOT Roadway Design Unit revised the
alignment to avoid these apartments; however, the revised design will impact approximately
37, 000 square feet of wetlands and brings the proposed highway closer to the Pinewild Dam.
The existing roadway design, which was created in collaboration with the environmental
agencies and NCDOT, avoids impacting the wetlands and is a safe distance from the Pinewild
dam. Mr. Brown requested that NCDOT Roadway Design review the plan revisions again
with the environmental agencies.
Response: NCDOT reviewed the proposed design in this area. No changes to the proposed
improvements are recommended. Revisiting the design in order to avoid the apartment
building would impact additional wetlands and would move construction closer to the Pinewild
dam, possibly jeopardizing the structural integrity of the dam.
D. Section 404/NEPA Merger Team
A Merger 01 team meeting to determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDA) and Avoidance and Minimization- (4A) was held on October 26, 2006;
concurrence was reached on both points on this date.
The LEDA consists.of the "Best-fit" Alignment with a combination of Alternative 1 (curb and
gutter) and Alternative 2 (grass shoulder) typical sections.
A four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter will begin at the traffic circle in Pinehurst and
will extend along existing NC 211 to terminate at SR 1291 (Archie Road) (Alternative 1). A
four-lane divided facility with grass shoulders will begin at SR 1291 (Archie Road) and will
extend along existing NC 211 to the project terminus at NC 73 in West End (Alternative 2).
Potential impacts to the red cockaded-woodpecker habitat within proximity of the Pinehurst
Traffic Circle were discussed, and it was determined that with the selection of the LEDPA, the
project's footprint was reduced, minimizing impacts to the natural environment within the
project area, thus, minimizing impacts to foraging habitiat.
9
During the LEDA meeting, updated stream impacts were provided. These stream impacts were
presented, along with the measures for minimization and avoidance, in the Concurrence Point 3
/ Concurrence Point 4A meeting handout. Concurrence Point 4A (Avoidance and
Minimization) was achieved on October 26, 2006. Minimization measures for the project are
listed below along with the updated stream and wetland impacts tables presented during 4A
discussions (see Appendix C)
• Leave current drainage structures in place and accommodate widening by extending the
two existing culverts
• The preferred alternative will use a curb and gutter typical section for a portion of the
project which narrows the project footprint.
• The preferred alternative will reduce the typical section by using curb and gutter section
instead of shoulder sections along a portion of the project.
• Steeper fill slopes (2:1) will be used along the curb and gutter section, reducing the
project footprint.
• A twenty-three foot (23') raised island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is
recommended. This median width will reduce the project's footprint.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Project Commitments
In order to preserve the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, no unnecessary cutting of
any pine trees ten (10) inches or greater in diameter at breast height, beyond slope stake limits
is to occur between the following stations: 96+00 thru 15+00, 214+00 thru 264+00, 285+00
thru 329+00 and 339+00 thru 415+00.
Closing the pedestrian crossing at Edgewood Terrace will be considered during final
design. Ed Lewis, NCDOT-PDEA-HEU, will initiate a meeting with property owners in the
vicinity of the crossing at Edgewood Terrace to determine the most effective means of closing
the crossing
B. Alignment Alternatives
NCDOT investigated the Village of Pinehurst's request for the inclusion of three (3)
pedestrian tunnels along NC 211. NCDOT will share in the construction costs for one (1)
pedestrian tunnel along NC 211 on an 80/20 cost sharing basis with the Village of Pinehurst.
The Village of Pinehurst. will be required to accept responsibility for the maintenance and
liability of the tunnel once it is constructed. A municipal agreement between NCDOT and the
Village of Pinehurst will be required prior to the construction of the tunnel. The pedestrian
10
tunnel will be located just east of the intersection of NC 211 and Rattlesnake/Gun Club Road.
This location will allow the pedestrian tunnel to link the area north of NC 211, which is
primarily residential development, to the Rassie Wicker Park located immediately south of NC
211 in the vicinity of this intersection. The estimated construction cost for this tunnel is
$275,000.
Since the completion of the environmental assessment, there has been additional
coordination between Roadway and the Village of Pinehurst concerning the location of the
pedestrian tunnel. On April 13, 2006, representatives from Roadway Design and Hydraulics
conducted an on site meeting with Mr. Jay Gibson, Village of Pinehurst Director of
Engineering, to explain why the requested locations were not conductive for placement of a
pedestrian tunnel. The topography in close proximity to Rattlesnake Trail prohibits the
placement of a pedestrian tunnel. without the emplacement of pumps to remove stormwater. A
consensus was reached in the field that a more feasible location for a pedestrian tunnel would
be in proximity to the Memorial Drive intersection. After the field meeting the Village of
Pinehurst indicted via letter, the preferred location for a pedestrian tunnel is in the area of
Rattlesnake Trail. NCDOT, Roadway Design, noted that the following conditions should be
satisfied before considering a pedestrian tunnel in the area of the Rattlesnake Trail
intersection:
• NCDOT will start design of the pedestrian tunnel (underpass) once a municipal
agreement is executed.
• The Village of Pinehurst will be responsible for all costs associated with the design,
construction and maintenance of the pumps.
• The Village of Pinehurst will assume all liability.
• Design of the pumps and grades on the underpass should be completed and provided to
Roadway Design and the Hydraulics Unit no later than four months before the
completion of the hydraulic design for the proposed project. The drainage design is
scheduled for completion by October 2007, the pump and grade designs should be
completed and submitted to the aforementioned NCDOT units not later than July 2007.
• As per the Pedestrian. Policy Guidelines, Pinehurst is responsible for a percentage of
the cost of the underpass. The percentage will be determined by the population of
Pinehurst at the time of executing the agreement. The Village of Pinehurst will be
responsible of 100% of all cost and maintenance of the pumps, will donate all required
additional right of way and easement necessary to construct the underpass and ramps.
• Other conditions from NCDOT or from Pinehurst maybe added as the agreement
develops.
C. Air Qgalily Analysis
On page 62 of the environmental assessment, the following is an update to the
Air Quality Analysis since the completion of the document.
11
The project is located in Moore County, which has been determined to comply
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an
attainment area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
D. Flood Insurance Involvement
On page 60 of the environment assessment, the following information is an
update to the Flood Insurance Status for Moore County since the completion of the
document.
Moore County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Both .foe's Fork and Board Branch are located within a limited detailed
flood study reach in a flood hazard zone designated as Zone AE, for which 100-year
base year flood elevations and non-encroachment widths have been determined
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental
Assessment and upon comments received from federal, state and local agencies and the public,
it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the human or
natural environment. The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint. No
significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. The
proposed project is consistent with local plans and will not disrupt communities. In view of the
above evaluation, it has been determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for
this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental
analysis will be required.
12
APPENDIX A
Comments Received in response to the
Environmental Assessment
TIP Project No. R-2812
Page 1 of 1
From: [e-mail] (Chris Militscher)
To: EEVarice @dot.state. nc.us, [e-mail]
cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Date: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:50AM
Subject: Federal EA for R-2812, NC 211 Improvements, Pinehurst, Moore Co.
Fl.mo/Eric: EPA has completed its review of the above referenced document
arid offers the following comments:
This is a 7.2 mile widening Merger project (CP 1 8/9/01 & CP 2 4/11/02).
There are two 'best-fit' alternatives remaining under consideration
including Alt. #1 Curb & gutter and Alt.#2, Grass shoulder. Jurisdictional
impacts to wetlands and streams are 0.81/1.46 acres & 1,009/1,116 linear
1eot, respectively. Overall impacts as shown on the page ii summary table
are very similar for most key environmental indicators. EPA notes the
fa.ir.ly large number of potential hazardous material sites (14), including
orle Superfund site (Stanley Furniture). EPA also notes the slight impact
to RCW foraging area and the FWS MA-NLAA determination. EPA has no
preferred alternative at this time and would welcome comments and issues
from NCOOT and other agecnies.on their preferred alternative at the LEDPA
CP 3 meeting. EPA is requesting a copy of the FONSI when it becomes
available. EPA also noted the very insightful NEPA Scoping Comments letter
from Marsh Smith, Esq. dated 3/30/2000 in Appendix A. Hopefully, some of
the past key issues have been addressed by FHWA and NCDOT. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
1.,.4.,.,,.//..,1,...,,.;111. ,I)A - .. r/maill/rmil4er nef/(4?Tnhnxl/('17T1(1T1RR9('17FOO(-RS7.570T)90 1/l/7.006
M STATE q
N ,
r??a n via
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 16, 2005
MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
<'J?t- 1 v?
f??C nY41 2CJ05
r
? 1DN1S1()t"-0'Sr- Al
Office of Archives and Flory
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch.
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ls? PtAevczSUBJECT: Environmental Assessment for NC 211 from NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in
Pinehurst, R-2812, Moore County, ER 05=2876 and ER 00-8790
Thank you for your letter of December 5, 2005, transmitting the Environmental Assessment for the above
project. We believe the assessment adequately addresses our concerns for historic resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service (:cntcr, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 ()19)7334763/733-8453
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service (.enter, Raleigh NC 2709-4617 (911))733-6547/715-4801
SURVEY dt PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Senice (ALnter, Raleigh NC 276,Y) 4617 O1>)733-0545/715.4801
I VA
rFR
0? QG
? r
. --1
0 `ii? `C
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
JAN 2006
RiCaVED

From: Polly Lespinasse
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 6, 2006
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment for Proposed Improvements to NC 211 from NC 73 in West
End to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst, Pinehurst, Moore County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-211(5), State
Project 8.1560601, WBS Element No. 34504.1.1, TIP Project R-2812, DENR Project Number 06-0193
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that
the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based.
on review of the aforementioned document:
A) This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team member, the NCDWQ will
continue to work with the team.
B) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is
respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and
streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation will be
required for this project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation will be required in
accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2)).
C) In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and'values. In accordance with the Environmental
Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 211.0506 (hx3)}, the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
D) As part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application process, NC DOT is respectfully reminded to include specifics for
both onsite and offsite mitigation plans. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it
should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. We understand that NC DOT will request compensatory mitigation through
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program for offsite mitigation.
E) Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue to include an itemized
listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
F) NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to
jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in
addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application.
G) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
No Carolina
? atuna!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Internet h2o.encstatemus Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportuniitylASrmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/1 0% Post Consumer Paper
H) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas
could precipitate compensatory mitigation
I) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater
management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
J) All of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, WS-III. 'Therefore, the potential for
impacts to waters that are used for municipal drinking water is possible. Please locate and identify all water intakes in the
projects study area. In addition, please include their locations in all future documentation. It should be noted that
alternatives to avoid impacts upstream of any water supply intakes will need to be considered during the development of the
project.
K) All of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, WS-III. Given the potential for impacts to
these resources during the project implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the
project.
L) Baked 'on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may require an
Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be
advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDQT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent
on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development
of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or require any
additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse [phone].
cc: US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, EPA
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
File Copy
t
JAN 2006
P&CEM
t
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
MEMORANDUM Richsrd B. Hamilton, -ecutive 1Duector
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January. 6, 2006
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed improvements to NC 211 from NC 73 in West
End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst, Moore County, North Carolina TIP No. lt-
2812, SCH Project No. 06-0193
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose ofthis review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (442 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen NC 211 from NC 73 to Pinehurst utilizing a best fit alignment
with two alternative options either Grass Shoulder or Curb and Gutter. The total project length is
approximately 7.2 miles. Impacts to streams vary with alternatives, and are expected to total
approximately 1009 to 1116 linear feet of stream impact. Impacts tv wetlands vary from 0.81 to
1.46 acres.
Two active Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoades borealis) clusters are located-within the
project study area. The USFWS has concurred with the Biological Assessment conclusion that
the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
NMOT should minimize the removal of foraging habitat by only removing vegetation
necessary for construction and allow-vegetation to remain within the right of way where
possible. Furthermore, the EA adequately addresses mitigation measures for unavoidable
impacts -to streams and wetlands.
Memo 2 January 6, 2006
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thant: you for the opportunity to
comment on this BA. If we can be of any further assistance please call meat [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Brian Wrenn, UWQ, Raleigh
Richard Spencer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington

NCDEN.R
Nord Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
January 11, 2006
MEMORANDUM ?0
TO, Melba McGee ? .
FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural-Heritage Program `qs'
_ fS rn ? •,el?\
SUBJECT: NC 211, from NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst - Widening to
a Multi-lane Facility; Moore County; TIP Project R-2812.,
REFERENCE: 06-0193
As indicated in the EA for this project, several clusters of the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), Federal and State Endangered, are located close to ITC 211. As the U.S. Fish.
and Wildlife Service (pages A-51 and A-52) concurs with the N.C. Department of Transportation
that "the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely impact the RC«V% we support that
decision and have no additional comments on this project. The Natural Heritage Program has no
record of other rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas along the
corridor of the project area.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.nesparks.net/nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the appropriate topographic quad maps. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
i

0
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
.. Nnrth C'.amliri?
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
10 ??fl-71
!llw?.
JAN 2006
MEMORANDUM '
?yt1D
ftamby; Oft
0
VIDA
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearip?nµ'gh??ouse l95t FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 06-0193 EA for Proposed improvements to NC 211 in Pinehurst,
Moore County
DATE: January 18, 2006
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
An Equal opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
North Carohna
Na&ijaliff
a?
own
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
January 20, 2006
Mr. A.L. Avant
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development
1534 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Dear Mr. Avant:
Re: SCH File # 06-E-4220-0193; EA; Proposal to widen NC 211 to a four-lane divided facility with a
16 ft raised, grassed median & 14 ft outside lanes from NC 73 in west end to the traffic circle in
Pinehurst
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G. S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys aggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region J -
Mailing A ddress. Telephone. [phone] Location A ddress:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail Chrys.Baggett©ncmail.nei
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE NUMBER: 06-E-4220-0193 F02'"
DATE RECEIVED: 12/15/2005,
AGENCY RESPONSE: 01/10/2006 ,
REVIEW CLOSED: 01/15/2006
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617 ^ t-?
RALEIGH NC 12 3 4 56 REVIEW DISTRIBUTION J s
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP JAN 2006 0 UG
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS 'y O
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE `" fiED _ti d
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES '?9a ?•' ,
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRIANGLE J COG D
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
C?, .
tY1oo
ERD: Environmental Assessment
DESC: Proposal to widen NC 211 to a four-lane divided facility with a 16 ft raised,
grassed median & 14 ft outside lanes from NC 73 in west end to the traffic circle
in Pinehurst
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-13:1.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (•919)807-2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED'
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED. BY: V
DATE : 1 `' ? ?(n
RECEIVED
DEC 21 1005
V EC i n N;-:vt- .
APPENDIX B
Public Hearing Notice and Handout
TIP Project No. R-2812
NOTICE OF A COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO US 211
FROM NC 73 IN WEST END TO THE TRAFFIC-CIRCLE IN PINEHURST
WBS No. 34504.1.1 R-2812 Moore County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a pre-
hearing open house and a combined (location and design) public hearing on April 10,
2006 in the Multi-Purpose Room of West Pine Middle School, 144 Archie Road, West
End, NC, 27376.
Department of Transportation representatives will be available at the Pre-Hearing
Open House between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to answer questions and
receive comments relative to the proposed project. The opportunity to submit written
comments or questions will also be provided. Interested citizens may attend at any time
during the above mentioned hours.
A formal presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m. The presentation will consist of an
explanation of the proposed location, design and right of way and relocation
requirements/procedures. The hearing will be open to those present for statements,
questions and/or comments. A transcription of the presentation and comments will be
taken.
This project proposes to widen US 211, west of Pinehurst, to four travel lanes
with a divided median from NC 73 in West End to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst.
Additional right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses will be required for
construction. Two alteratives will be presented for public comments. These
comments will be used as part of the process to.select alternatives. The project will
improve east-west travel between the wester portions of Moore County. The proposed
transportation improvements cover a distance of about 7 miles.
A map setting forth the location and design of the project and a copy of the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for public
review at the Village Hall located at the Village of Pinehurst Offices, 395 Magnolia
Road, Pinehurst, 28374, and at the NCDOT Division Office located at 902 North
Sandhills Boulevard, Aberdeen, 28315.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ed Lewis, Human
Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone (919)
715-1593, or email [e-mail]. Additional material may be submitted for a
period of thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services. under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled, persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Lewis at the contact information above as
early as possible so that arrangements can be made.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The project calls for providing transportation improvements to the existing NC 211 from. NC 73 in
West End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst (see Figure 1). The purpose of the project>is to improve the
traffic carrying capacity of NC 211 and to improve the level of safety of the roadway to meet the
needs of the existing and anticipated development in the project area.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is one step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning process. NCOOTAs soliciting your views
on the location and design of the proposed widening of NC 211.
NCDOT's planning and environmental studies on the above project are. presented in the
environmental document -Environmental Assessment. For the last 30 days, copies of this report and
today's .hearing map have been available for public review at the Pinehurst Village Hall located at 395
Magnolia Road, Pine hurst, and at the NCDOT Division Office located at 902 North Sandhills .
Boulevard, Aberdeen:
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Several.representatives of NCDOT are present at this meeting. Any of these people will :be. happy to
talk with you, explain.the design to you and answer your questions. Now that the opportunity is here,
you are encouraged to participate by voicing your comments to the NCDOT. representatives at this
meeting, by writing them on the comment sheet. and leaving.it with one of .the representatives,: by
mailing them in by•April 28th, 2006, or by recording your statements during the formal hearing tonight.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. Ed Lewis, Senior Public Hearing Officer
Human.Environment Unit .
NCDOT
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC. 27699-1583
FAX: [phone]
Email: elewis@dot:state.nc.us
Everyone: present. is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important; however, that THE
OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY .
MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such, are out of place.at-public.hearings.
Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a. POPULAR. REFERENDUM to determine the.alignment
by a majority vote of those present.

ens.
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
A post-hearing meeting will be. conducted after the comment period has ended. NCDOT staff
representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Division, and'Right of Way along with the Federal Highway
Administration will attend this meeting. When appropriate, local govemmental.offrcials also attend..
All spoken and written issues are discussed ',at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post
hearing meeting. The Department of Transportation considers safety, costs, traffic-service, social
impacts and. public comments. in making decisions: Complex issues may require additional study and
may be reviewed by,higher'. management, Board of Transportation Members and/orthe Secretary;of
Transportation.
Minutes of the post=hearing meeting are :prepared and this.summary is available to the.. public. You
may -request this document on the attached commeni sheet.
Additional coordination about the project with federal and state agencies such as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources will be done to obtain
their comments about the project.
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
"Capacity" is the number of cars and trucks that..pass through a roadway section: in an hour
depending on. the roadway and traffic conditions" . Socapacity is measure of -how well- a road can
serve the amount of cars and trucks that. use it. This. measure is broken into six levels of service; or
LOS; with A `being the' best and F being the worst. For example, a big increase in the number of cars
and trucks on a section of road. can cause congestion that decreases the capacity leading. to a drop
in the` LOS grade: NC 211 is operating at LOS D, and by the Year 2025 would operate at LOS E.. If
additional.lanes were added, the-LOS grade would: improve.to LOS B in 2025.
In a recent three-year period, 173 accidents occurred along the studied section of NC 211. The
proposed multi-lane widening and intersection improvements will reduce the. potential for the majority
of accidents that are occurring on the studied. section of NC.211..
NC 211 is -a major east-west connector road for Moore County. To the west, it connects to US 220A
in Montgomery County, which is part of :the .proposedl-73/1-.74 Conidor:in North Carolina. To the
east; NC 21 I provide's4a vital link between the western portion of Moore County and the: destinations
of Pinehurst Southem Pines, and Aberdeen in the eastern part of Moore County, along with the
north-south condors of `tJS 1.5-501 and US 1::
: PROJECT DESCRIPTION (?lsL
The project is about 7.7 miles long. The project calls for widening NC 211 to a four-lane media
divided road from NC 73 in West End to the traffic Circle in Pinehurst. The project. is proposed to be
.constructed with either a shoulder on the outside lanes or curt and gutter on the outside lanes. Curb
and gutter is proposed for the lanes next to the median. See the attached Figure 2 that shows
proposed typical sections. The proposed median will be 23 feet wide, the vehicle travel lanes are 12
feet=wide, and sidewalk is proposed on both sides of NC 211 from. Beulah Hill Church Road
(SR 1210). to the Traffic Circle. The sidewalks will be placed behind the curb for thecurb and gutter
option or behind' the ditch for the shoulder option. No improvements are proposed for the Traffic
Circle.
Additional; right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses will be require* d, for this project.
Great efforts were undertaken to limit the impacts of the proposed widening. to the homes and
businesses. Although. the posted speed limit has not_ been finalized at this time, the design speed is.
-50 miles, per hour through the entire project.
The project is tentatively scheduled to start the right-of-way acquisition process in August 2007 and
the construction of the project is tentatively scheduled to start in August 2010.
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed' project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and: thus will be constructed under the State-
FederaL Aid Highway Program... Financing of this project will be 80%o Federal funds and 20% State
f=unds. The Board of Transportation.iss responsible for the. selection and. scheduling of projects on
the `Federal Aid: System, theirlocation, design, and-maintenance-cost. after construction. The... Federal
Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of the. previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal-Aid Project is designed, constructed, and maintained to:
Federat:.Aid Standards.
PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: 7.7 miles
Typical Section:. Four-lane, median-divided with curbs and gutters or shoulders
Right of Way: Variable - From about 150 feet to 200 feet
Construction and drainage easements will be required also.
Relocatees:
Residences:
Businesses:
Total:
Shoulder
7
6.
13
These numbers may change based on final.design.
Shoulder
Estimated Cost: Roadway Cost: $ 21,575,000
Right of Way Cost: $ 7,1.81,000
Total: $ 28,756,000
Tentative Schedule: Right of Way - August 2007
Construction - August 2009
C&G
6
3
9
C&G
$ 23;575,000
$ 4,218,500
$ 27,793,500
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right-of-way limits will be..-staked: in
the ground. If you are an affected property. owner, a Right of Way Agent will contact you and arrange
a meeting. The agent will explain the plans and advise you as to how the project will affect you. The
agent will inform you of your:fights as a property owner. If permanent right of way is required, y
professionals who are familiar with real estate values will evaluate or appraise.`your property. The
evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then the Right of Way
Agent will make a written offer to you. The current market value of the property at its highest and
best use when appraised will be offered as compensation. The Department & Transportation must:
1:: Treat all owners and tenants equally:
.2. Fully explain the. owner's; rights.;
& Pay just:.compensation in exchange for property,rights.
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you area relocatee, that is, if your residence or business: is: to be acquired as part of the project,
additional assistance in -the form of advice and compensation is.available... You will.also be rovided
with'assista ice on locations=of comparable. housing:and/or.commercial establishments moving
procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses maybe paid for you:. Additional monetary
compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage increases, increased value of .
comparable: homes, closing costs, etc. A- similar program is available to assist: business owners: The
Right of Way-Agentcan explain this assistance in greater detail:
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATION
PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SIGN IN TABLE.

rr

wr rr 3
? t
i ?. .1 ._
?,

' TA1tOR10w11 r.
?/:
10R IlWI .2 .? .1 1. I p
I j• ' \ •. .?. ! /? - r, 111 ? ! _

1W I'Malm
pop. 7.1wo
W
"
W
I

- ,Oa. M

low
its
-Jim
f \% ?_ ac
14

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT-AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Pinehurst
NC 211 from NC 73 in West End
to east of SR 1208 in Pinehurst
Moore County
TIP Project No. R-2812.
sow FIGURE .1
0 1 2 .3 ? .,;nts
-7,
NWM CAROUP" DEPARVAINr
OF TmNspoRu?7m
ONVION OF AND
94Y RONMBJMAL ANALYSIS 1RANW .
Pinefiust .
NC 211 fmm NC.73 in West End
to east of SR 1208 in Phidaust
ore cully
1PP jjectNo
7 - -2812.
FIGURE 2
COMMENT SHEET
NC 211 from NC 73 in West End to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst
Combined Public Hearing - April 10, 2006
TIP Project No. R-2812 Moore County Project 34504.1.1.
.NAME:.
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
{Please include your thoughts about the curb and gutter option and the shoulder option along with
your comments and questions.)
'Comments must be received by April 28th, 2006. Send comments to:
.Ed Lewis; Senior Public Involvement Officer
-Human Environment Unit.
N C. Department Of Transportation
11583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
APPENDIX C
NEPA / Merger Team 3 and 4A Packets with
signed concurrence forms
TIP Project No. R-2812
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?F 1lORT11 C

77
CAFTR*.
Pinehurst, Moore County
Widen NC 211
From NC 73 in West End
to the traffic circle in Pinehurst
TIP PROJECT R-2812
CONCURRENCE POINTS 3 AND 4A
October 26, 2006
least Environmentallv Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative
Selection Concurrence Point 3 and Avoidance and Minimization Concurrence Point 4A
Meeting
Purpose of Today's Meeting
The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the proposed alternatives and to select the
LEDPA/Preferred Alternative. Moreover, if time permits, we will discuss avoidance and
rn inimization efforts, Concurrence Point 4A. Formal concurrence on Concurrence Point Three and
possibly Concurrence Point 4A will be requested upon conclusion of this meeting; this will be
accomplished by the signing of the concurrence form.
Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the. level of safety along NC 211 and to improve
the traffic carrying capacity to meet the needs of existing and anticipated development in the project
area
Proiect Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to. widen NC 211 from NC 73 in West
End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst, Moore..County. Two different cross sections are proposed; a
four-lane divided curb . and gutter section and a four=lane divided shoulder section. Both cross
sections will have a raised median with median breaks at;major intersecting roads. The project is 7.2
miles'in length. The project location: is shown on the attached map
Project Status Matrix
Activity Date Completed
Sco in Meeting October 1, 1998. -
Concurrence Point One Au st 9; 2001
Citizens Informational Workshop January 30, 2002
Concurrence Point Two Aril 11, 2002
2" Concurrence Point Two Meeting December 11, 2002
Concurrence Point 2A Waived per Merger Team recommendation on May 26, 2004
Public Hearin Aril 10, 2006
Concurrence Point Three October 26, 2006
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
One alignment alternative for the widening of NC 211 was carried forward in the EA, the "Best-fit"
Alternative. This alternative proposes to widen NC 211 to a multilane facility from NC 73 in West
End to the traffic circle in Pinehurst and utilizes a combination of north side, south side, and
symmetrical widening in order to avoid and minimize impacts to the existing natural and human
environments.
Four wetland areas along existing NC 211 in the vicinity of the project were identified. In the area
of these four wetlands, NCDOT studied four widening alternatives for each wetland area;
Symmetrical widening, North-side widening, South-side widening, and a "Best-fit" widening
alteernative. Wetland impacts and property impacts were calculated for each alignment alternative.
The alignment alternatives and their associated impacts at each, wetland were reviewed by the
environmental resource agencies and a recommended widening alternative was developed. The
recommended widening alternative in the vicinity of each wetland was then incorporated into the
one "Best-fit" alignment alternative.
Alternative 1 (Best Fit) proposes to widen NC 211 symmetrically from the western terminus at NC
73 to approximately 175 feet east of the NC 21 l/NC 73 intersection. From this point," Alternative 1
proposes north side widening of NC 211 to its intersection with SR 1004 (Hoffman Road), a distance
of approximately 4450 feet. North side widening was chosen for this portion of NC 211 due to the
close -proximity of the Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railroad, located immediately south of existing
NC 211. East of SR 1004 (Hoffman Road), the widening transitions back to a symmetrical widening
scheme for approximately 1850 feet. From this point to the NC 211 intersection with NC 5, the
widening of NC 211 transitions between north side widening and south side widening to minimize
impacts to. existing properties, wetlands, and streams. From the NC 211/NC.5 intersection, the
project proposes to widen NC 211 symmetrically to the intersection of NC 211 and SR 1208 (Page
Road). From SR 1208 (Page Road) to the eastern project terminus at the `traffic circle in Pinehurst,
the project proposes north side widening of NC 211 to minimize impacts to existing residential
properties located on the south side, immediately adjacent to NC 211.
The Village of Pinehurst requested a pedestrian tunnel. NCDOT will share in the cost of
constructing this tunnel with the Village of Pinehurst.
Typical Section Alternatives
Two typical section alternatives were. studied for the proposed project; a four-lane median divided
facility with curb and gutter, and a four-lane median divided facility. with grass shoulders. The
typical section alternative, which includes curb and gutter, will require approximately 100 feet of
right of way; .the grass shoulder alternative will require 150 feet of right of way. Temporary
construction easements of both sides of the project may be required.. Permanent drainage 'easements
may be required in some areas along the proposed project. Sidewalks have been requested by the
Village of Pinehurst.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts for Alternatives
Category Curb and Gutter (Alt. #1) Grass Shoulder (Alt. #2)
Length 7.2 miles 7.2 miles
Wetlands 1.00 acre** 1 12;acre**
Stream 353 feet** 39 feet**
R.. A
Noise Receptors 14 14
Hazardous Material Sites 14* 14*
Prime Agricultural Lands 0 0
Forest 12.2 acre 12.2 acre
Protected Species 1 *** 1***
Historic Properties 0 0
4 (f) Properties 0 0
Churches 0 0
Schools 0 0
E.J. Communities 0 0
Air Quality No No
Critical Water Supplies No No
Relocatees (Residents) . 13
i IPA
s"
Relocatees (Businesses) 1 -.
*These USI's are potentially attectea ana win not necessaruy oe impacteo oy the prupuscu prujoL?
**Denotes a revision of the wetland and stream impacts since the completion of the environmental assessment. The
revisions are a result of reviewing the latest proposed "curb and gutter" and "shoulder" section designs.
***The US Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the project "May affect but is not likely to affect" the red
cockaded woodpecker

T a to 2. Preliminary Hydraulic Design for Stream Crossing of US 21
Exist'tng Structure . Proposed tructure Type 5
Crossing Sream
Remove.extension and retain:"and
1 Joe's Fork RCBC w% 72" CSP extension extend existing RCBC
Tributary of Joe's Remove extension and retain and
2 Fork RCBC wl CSSPA extension extend existin RCBC
RCBC Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
.CSP Corrugated Steel Pipe
CSSPA Corrugated Structural Steel Plate Arch
Table I Potential Stream Impacts
Joe's Fork L-Sta.245+00 100 ft. 38- ft 121 ft 50.00 ft
Trib. to Joe's Fork 149 ft 181 ft
(-L-Sta. 269+00)
.Board Branch 19 ft 48 ft 47A
(-L-Sta. 340+00)
Table 4. Potential Wetland Impacts

Wetland 1
-L=Sta.245+00 . 0.34 acres 0.15 acres .0.45 acres 0.22 acres
Wetland 2 0.26 acres 0
27 acres
-L-Sta. 269+00) .
Wetland 3 0.08 acres 0.08 acres
(-L-Sta. 277+00)
Wetland 4 12 acres
0 0.14 acres 0.08 acres 0.01 acres
(-L-Sta. 340+00) .
Wetland Description
Four wetlands are found in the project study area. Three of these four wetlands are adjacent to small
streams and are classified as streamhead pocosin. These wetlands may also fit the description of
`coastal plain small stream swamp variant,' which. is found geographically downstream of
streamhead pocosin communities as streams become larger. The coastal plain small stream swamp
variant as represented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) describes streams draining from streamhead
pocosins that are characterized by exhibiting an abundance of dense pocosin shrubs with a canopy
conprised of predominately.Nyssa bif fora. and Acer rubrum.
Dominant species in the wetlands include swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora) and red maple (Acer
rctbrum) with tulip poplar and sweetgum .(Liquidambar styraciflua) on slightly higher ground. Pond
pine (Pinus serotina) is also commonly found. in ahese wet areas.. Shrubs such as `ti-ti (Cyrilla
-racemiflora), sweet pepperbush '(Clethra alnifolia), horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), fetter-bush.
(Lyonia lucida), blueberry, bayberry(Myrica heterophylla), chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), possum
haw.%(Viburnum nudum) and the woody herb, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) were characteristic
of these systems. Other wetland herbs such as rushes (Juncus spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), nodding
ladies' tresses (Spiranthes cernua) and the vine, laurel-leaved greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) occurred
throughout the wetland. When standing water was present, : emergent herbs.such as : golden club
(Orontiuin aquaticum). and arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica) flourished.
Wetland 1-The majority of Wetland-1 occurs on'the'south side of NC 211. and is intact and
relatively undisturbed: To the north is a.pond:(and_adjacent.wetland) created by the damming of
Joe's Fork:
Wetland 2.- South of NC 211, an unnamed tributary to Joe's Fork originates from anupstream lake.
Wetland-2 is associated with this tributary and this wetland occurs on both sides of NC 211..
Hydrology. in .this wetland (south side) is likely supplemented by groundwater seeps as the wetland
boundary extends far uphill from. the tributary. :.Evergreen shrubs, typical of streamhead pocosins,
are found here .along with poison sumac. North of NC 211, the tributary and adjacent wetland are
heavily impacted with sediment, perhaps' due to° construction of a water, line and fill frorn- a newly
constructed and abandoned apartment dwelling.
'Wetland 3 - This wetland, located north of NC 211, is created by a partially blocked pipe seeping to
the north. side of. the road. This wetland` contains many of the species. listed above with the addition
of poison sumac (Rhus vernix). This wetland ;is' contiguous...to a small. pond situated. close to the
road.
Wetland 4 - Board Branch is braided and meandering, south of NC 21.1 and is'more characteristic of
a wetland.than a stream.. Board "Branch is contiguous with Wetland-4 and this wetland contains. an
abundance of Chinese privet, an invasive species. The emergent macrophyte, arrow-arum, is found
throughout the wetland in standing water.
Stream Descriations
Three streams are crossed by-NC 211 and would be affected by the highway widening. All
streams are -located in the. Cape Fear Basin in subbasin 14 (03-06-14): The three streams in the
project study area include Joe's Fork (Index No. 18-23-3-1), which is associated with Wetland-1, an
u6namedtri butary to Joe's Fork associated with Wetland-2, and Board Branch (Index No. 18=23-3-1-
1) which is associated with Wetland-4. Board Branch is also referred to as McLeod. Branch and
-Broad Branch on some maps. All streams on the project empty into Joe's Fork. North of the project
study area, the unnamed tributary flows for less than 0.5 mile before reaching Joe's Fork, and Board
Branch flows a little over a mile before reaching Joe's Fork. Joe's Fork then flows into Nicks Creek
which joins the Little River, and eventually empties into the Cape Fear River. .
B est Usaee Classification
The NC Division of Water.Quality (NCDWQ) assigns streams a best usage classification.
The three streams on this project carry the Classification of WS III .(NCDENR 2002). The
cl assification of WS III refers to those waters protected as water supplies that are generally in low to
rrkoderately developed watersheds. Local programs to control non-point source and stormwater
pollution are required. Water Supply III waters are also suitable for all Class C uses, such as aquatic
lifepropagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
Joe's Fork - Joe's Fork is 4 ft wide with fast-flowing clear water, 9 to 24 inches depth. Stream
substrate was sandy with abundant woody debris.
Umnarned, tributary to Joe's Fork -.South of NC 211, this unnamed tributary to Joe's Fork originates
from an:upstream. lake. This stream (Ut-1) is 5.0, ft wide and up to 1 ft deep, with clear water and
fairly swift.flow. North, of NC 211, this tributary and adjacent wetland are heavily impacted with
sediment, perhaps. due to. construction of a water line and fill from a newly constructed and
abandoned apartment dwelling.
Board Branch - Board Branch is braided and meandering, south of NC 211 and is more characteristic
of a wetland than 'a stream:- Board Branch is contiguous with Wetland-4. This stream has a more
defined channel as it approaches NC 211 and flows under the road to. the north. It then appears
channelized and flows through a powerline ROW before entering woods. Board Branch is
approximately 5.0 ft wide and up to 18 in deep.
Proiect Schedule/Cost
Improvements to NC 211 are federally funded. This project is included in NCDOT's latest approved
Transportation. Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled in the 2006-2012
TIP for federal fiscal year 2007 and construction is scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year 2009.
Minimization ,
Minimization efforts have taken place continually throughout the planning process. NCDOT studied
various widening scenarios that achieved the purpose of the proposed project and minimized impacts
to the environment. NCDOT developed the "Best Fit" alignment with the Merger Team in order to
minimize impacts to the human and natural environment. The Merger Team reviewed the
preliminary plans on December 11, 2002 and concurred that the "Best Fit alternative was the
preferred.
Other minimization to date:
Leave. current drainage structures in place and accommodate widening by extending the two
existing culverts
-The NCDOT preferred-alternative would use a curb and gutter typical section for a portion of the
project which narrows the project footprint.
The NCDOT preferred alternative would reduce the typical section by using the curb and gutter
instead of a shoulder section along a portion of the project.
-S teeper fill slopes (2:1) were used along the curb and gutter section, reducing the project footprint.
-A ? 3-foot raised island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is recommended. This median
w idth. will reduce the project's footprint.
N CDOT Preferred Alternative
NCDOT prefers an alternative that is a combination of Alternatives 1 and 2.
From the Traffic Circle to Archie Road, NCDOT prefers Alternative 1, a 4=lane divided facility with
curb and gutter. The majority of this section of NC 211 is located within the Village of Pinehurst
and is more urban in character than the rest of the-project. The Village is interested in incorporating
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations within their jurisdictional area. Pedestrian accommodations
are more easily provided along a curb and gutter facility: Also, the West Pine Middle School is
located within this section, and.Moore County has expressed interest 'in pedestrian.accommodations
near the school. Additionally a curb and gutter facility dictates a slower speed limit (45 mph or
less), that is in line with the Village's vision and promotes safety for.bicyclists and pedestrians. The
Village of Pinehurst and the Triangle J Council of Governments support a curb and gutter facility in
this section of the-project.
From Archie Road to NC 73, NCDOT prefers Alternative 2,4-lane divided facility with shoulders.
This section of NC 211 is more rural in character with very little pedestrian and tricycle activity.
The proposed speed limit along this section of NC 211 (50 mph) is more conducive to a shoulder
section facility, and sidewalks are not anticipated to be part of the. project's construction through this
area.
Potential environmental impacts with NCDOT's preferred alternative are similar to the impacts for
the curb and gutter alternatives:
Public Hearing Comments
The. Combined Public Hearing. was held on April 10, 2006 at the 'West Pine `Middle School in
Pinehurst. Approximately 115 citizens attended the public hearing. Public Hearing Maps showing
both design alternatives detailing the proposed widening alignment, the construction limits; and
existing: property,lines for homes and businesses were available for the public's review. The majority
of the comments received' at hearing pertained to impacts to individual properties.
• Seven Lanes Civic Group recommended a shoulder. section for the western 'end of the project for
a higher posted speed. limit: -The group also wanted to shift the proposed alignment to the south
fron West End to the Westgate Commercial area. '
• Some business owners were concern that the proposed median would reduce access; therefore,
hurting businesses.
?l
0
1
210 1 <
!
1230 O
ISKRNG
.7
2 pow
t
137,
C"ntf
Ww Ed 1211
, Aifpml
,
.1 1.?.•1? -- •'? 120 -0 ,
? ,
C. =?-E• ? I 1"
- _?
y
_ 1
/ ace +kri^
• t i • ----
1
O r ?
..
MwM?ilb J L Y?101_?J
/ 7 Y!E
___ _
1 I
-Fli

100,

I,
_/ 1 I
/• \
•
• '2AYLORYOwN l
POW. bi
1
?

I
,
?
O;. ?.•
..
'
/
7721 /?
' 1 ]
_
I
3 I= I /.
J/ •? J • ,rocs MNENURST
?
-. - . ` ?•.'
1169 .
? - L

FOXFIRE • 1 1122
VULACA
POP. 3U

109! 1112 /

1 fl1
tax ?-

1113
NORTH-CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Pinehurst
NC"211 from NC 73 in West End
to east of SR 1208 in Pinehurst
Moore County
TIP Project No. R-2812
SCALE FIGURE 1
0 J 2 3 - 4 MMES

_
1 SOUTHERF•1 PINES
tp.?Aa o
III '? • -A

7 _J d- H.W. 1

OIL

- SANORILLS .'

-•
•
'
.
•J• FRES
E

; •` y4, ,;
/
-------'
_fTr
?',
.?
1
:`
'-
.

Fw. 2.aF
`? -
1----
i'
i
owl
SECTION 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3 -Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
Prolect NoJTIP NoJName/Descirintion:
State Project Number: 8.1560601
Federal Aid Number: STP-211(5)
TIP Number, R-2812
TIP Description: Widen NC 211 to a multilane facility from NC 73 in West End to
the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Recommended alternative:
The "Best-fit" Alignment is a combination of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
A four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter will begin at the traffic circle in Pinehurst and will
extend along existing NC 211 to terminate at.SR 1291 (Archie Road) (Alternative 1). A four-lane divided
facility with grass shoulders will begin at SR 1291(Archie Road) and will extend alon& existing NC 211
to the project terminus at NC 73 in West End (Alternative 2).
The Project Team has concurred on this date of October 26. 2006 with the selection of the "Best
Fit" as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for T>P Project No.
R-2812 as stated above
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
c

S1 ??

r
SECTION 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A - Avoidance and Minimization
Project NoJTIP No./Name/Description:
State Project Number: 8.1560601
Federal Aid Number: STP-211(5)
TIP Number: R-2812
TIP Description: Widen NC 211 to a multilane facility from NC 73 in West End to
the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Avoidance and Minimization:
Minimization efforts have taken place continually., throughout the .planning process. NCDOT studied
various widening scenarios that achieved the purpose of the proposed project and minimized impacts to
the environment. NCDOT developed the "Best Fit" alignment with the Merger Team in order to
minimize impacts to the human and natural environment. The Merger Team reviewed the preliminary
plans on December 11, 2002 and concurred that the "Best Fit" alternative was the preferred.
See attached sheet for continued Avoidance and Minimization Efforts.
The Project Team concurred on this date of October 26. 2006 with the avoidance and minimization
measures for-TIP Project No. R-2812 as stated above.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. DENR-DWQ

Federal Highway Administration N. C, Department of Transportation
J?'+?: ?--?.?

October 26, 2006
R..2812 Concurrence Point 4A-Avoidance and Minimization Efforts to date
1. -Leave current drainage structures in place and accommodate widening by extending
the two existing culverts
2. -The NCDOT preferred alternative would use a curb and gutter typical section -for a
portion of the project which narrows the project footprint.
3. -The NCDOT preferred alternative would reduce the typical section by using the curb
and gutter instead of a shoulder section along a portion of the project.
4. =Steeper fill slopes (2:1) were used along the curb and gutter section., reducing the
project footprint.
5. -A 23-foot raised island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is recommended:
This median width will reduce the project's footprint.

APPENDIX D
NEPA / Mobile Source Air Toxics
TIP Project No. R-2812
,
Fjaj r?A
V '.
Cw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EAsLEY June 5, 2007
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Elmo Vance
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Bobby Dunn
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Section
SUBJECT: Air Quality Analysis for R-2812
NC 211 From NC 73in West End to SR 1208, Moore County,
State Project # 8.1560601, F.A. Project # STP-211(5)
Mobile Source Air Toxics
LYNDO TIPPETr
SECRETARY
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA
also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources,
non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or
refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are
compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and
are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from
the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine
wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities regarding
the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of
the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards,
its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and, gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty
engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020,
FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of
benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway
diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1563 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699.1583
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH NC
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020
VMT
(trillionslyear)
Emissions
(tons/year)
200,000
57%)
vvr(i8
OP14DWG (am,
ramavely& (w%3
Amlakkl'de (M%)
13ee4?tliek E?7
ACCOU (43
0
100,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE
proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content
are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual
growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental
carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at
10.0 microns.
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to
further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(1) that will
address these issues and could adjust the full 21 and the primary 6 MSATs.
Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available
technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated
with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1.502.22(6)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete: Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from-
MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling,
dispersion modeling in order to estimate
ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate
human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on
the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science
that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.
Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key
variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context-of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used
to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a
trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds
for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a
specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation,
MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on
the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For
particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT
emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for
both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology
vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with
MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBI1LE6.2
is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives
for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller
projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current regulatory
models, CALM3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose
of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The
performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur
at some time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict
accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to
assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and
other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate
methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general
public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a
lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background
concentrations.
Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs
could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis
preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure
assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near
roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at
a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because
unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle
technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties
associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-
dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of
these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much .
smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such
assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against
other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs:
Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of
studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through
epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that
animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure
applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure,
the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to
a national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from
exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at 4
http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from
the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries.
This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current
evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.
Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for
an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.
Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient
evidence in animals.
1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and
female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.
Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures.
Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel
exhaust organic gases.
Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard from
MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as
cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these
studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health
Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major
series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of
mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several
years.
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes -
particularly respiratory problems'. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the
full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies,
but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties
listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to
this project.
Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable
Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical
approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community: Because of the
uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on
human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict
relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from
each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project
alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted
above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for
smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse
impacts on the human environment."
In this document, FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various
alternatives, (or a qualitative assessment, as applicable) and has acknowledged that (some, all, or identify by
alternative) the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations,
although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health
effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.
As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions -and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect
to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However,
even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it
5
is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative
analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing
the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment
presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating
Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at:
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmentlairtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm
For each alternative in the EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or
VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for
each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional
capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation
network. This increase in VMT will lead to higher MSAT emissions for the preferred alternative along the highway
corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along parallel routes. The emissions increase is
offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions
model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs, except for diesel particulate matter, decrease as speed increases. The
extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be
reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives presented in the EA are nearly the same, it is expected
there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also,
regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result
of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000
and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT
growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even
after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in
nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some
traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas
where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build
Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along NC 211,
From NC 73in West End to SR 1208 in Pinehurst. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of
these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent
deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the
localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative,
but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower
MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on
a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial
reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done
will be done in accordance. with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public:
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce
the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists
or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary. -
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure
Study-II (2000); Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24
Studies on the relationship between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in
- -- the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles,.
Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005)-with health studies cited
therein.