20071823 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20080716

DEPARTMENT 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