Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071823 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20080716DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY W dlm ILMINGTON DIS'T'RICT, CORPS OF ENGI ii,= EIVED P.O. BOX 1890 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402 -1890 REPLYTO UL 17 2008 ATTENTION OF: July 16, 2008 Regulatory Division M-Surface Water Protection Action ID 199801941, US I Widening, Richmond and Moore Counties, North Carolina, TIP Project R- 2502, State Project No. 6.589009T. Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director Project Development & Environmental Analysis 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -1598 Dear Mr. Thorpe: This is in response to your letter, dated May 9, 2008, responding to our request for additional information on the above referenced project. In order for us to conduct a thorough and proper public interest review and to assess the cumulative effects of the proposed project, it is essential that certain information regarding the project be provided. The additional information that we are requesting resulted from our review of the proposed project and comments generated by our public notice. This requested information is considered in the evaluation of the proposed project and must be documented in the administrative record concerning a Department of Army permit decision. You state in your letter that "TIP Projects R -2502 and R -2501 are not interrelated other than the fact that the two projects are adjacent to each other." However, in documents you provided subsequent to our last request, indicates that an interrelationship does exist between the two projects and I quote one example; " US 1 also provides a link between the local cities of Rockingham and Southern Pines." Another example would be, "An adjacent project, TIP Project R -2501, involves widening US I to multi -lanes from South Carolina border to the southern terminus of TIP Project R- 2502... TIP Project R -2501 will provide a direct connection to the future I- 73/I -74 corridor." These statements and the traffic information provided, to date, clearly indicate an interrelationship between the R -2502 and R -2501 projects. Therefore, in light of this information, I ask that you explain why NCDOT believes that these two projects, R -2501 and R- 2502, as currently divided, have independent utility in that either project would be usable as a stand alone project and not force additional traffic improvements to the adjacent project, Further, I ask that you explain why NCDOT has selected Marston Road (SR 1001) as the southern tenninus of R -2502 when a more rational end point might be at the US I/NC 177 split. -2- Based on the information provided by NCDOT, it appears that the baseline data that is used to model the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) estimates and Level of Service (LOS) information is from a 1994 traffic count survey. If this is incorrect, please provide me with the time frame the actual data was collected. Finally, if the baseline data is more than five years old, I ask that you provide me with an explanation as to why NCDOT believes that the traffic projections that have been provided would be considered adequate to reflect current conditions within the project area. If you require clarification on the content of this request, or have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please contact Richard Spencer of this office at (910) 251 -4172. Sincerely, tv Scott McLendon, Assistant hief Regulatory Division Copies furnished: Ms. Polly Lespinasse Division of Water Qua ity North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 610 E. Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Mr. Ken Averitte Division of Water Quality North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 225 Green Street, Suite 714 Fayetteville, NC 288301 -5043 Mr. James Pflaum Project Development and Environmental Analysis North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548