19990431 Ver 1_Complete File_19990430

State 'of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 7,1999
Richmond County
DWQ Project # 990431
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of widening US 1 from SR 1974
to proposed US 74 bypass, as you described in your application dated April 30, 1999. After reviewing your application,
we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This Certification allows
you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other
federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetlandfills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. This
approval shall expire when the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General
Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Fayetteville Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
F Sin ely,
e Stevens
99043 Lltr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
, !
PRE C0Xff14.LCC= NOTIFICATION (PCvN)
N'ATIONWYDE 14
T0:
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES/B8AtIFORT, NC
FISH & WILD'LIPE SERVICE/RALEIGH, NC
NC DI'V'ISION OF WATER QUA-LITY/RALEIGH, NC
EPA/ATLANTA, GA
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE/RALEIGH, NC
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
ACTION ID. 799603632 _
APPLICANT: NCDOTZTIP -N( L_ 11-2583
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: D MAY 1999
RESPONSE DEADLIN2 : 07 MAX 1299
COMMENT DEADLINE (10 days from response deadline):
7 AY l -
SEND COMMENTS TO WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
NILMINGION REGULATORY FIELD C?.- I.CE
AYTN: DAVE TINRY
PAX Na. [phone]
NUMBtA OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
T00'd ECCO#
NCIOXINUTA cavsn SZOtT5ZOT6 CS:CT 666T,E0'WX
1"' Uto a83a
.?,TTyy M'U 4
w..
STATE OF NOKTli CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GQVEKNCA
P.Q. BOX 25201, KALEIG! I. M.C. 27011.5201
April 16, 1999
L1.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
A'TTN: Mr. Scott McLendon or Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
E. NUKKIs ToLsorv
SECRETARY

SUBJECT; Richmond County, Widening of US 1 from SR 1974 to proposed US 74 bypass.
TIP No. I3-2583, State Project No. 8. 1580601, Federal Aid Project
No. NHF-220(1).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen an existing two-
lane section of US 1 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. The project extends from SR 1974 to the
proposed US 74 bypass in Richmond County, a distance of approximately 0.88 miles. The project
will cross one water body, Rocky Branch. The crossing will require the extension of the existing
culvert by an additional 82.5 feet- No High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters occur
in the project area.
The NC:DOT anticipates that these activities will be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 14.
Enclosed please find the project site map, the permit drawing, and the preconstruction notification
form for the above referenced project. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a 401 General
Water Quality Certification # 3101 (for NWP 14) from the NC Division of Water Quality. If you
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Jim Hauser at (919) 733-
7844 extension 279.
Sincerely,
-Y, C... ?4 I.,,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
DCRljh
of
300'd £U0# XCISHINII14 GavsII 9ZOlT5ZOT6 £S:CT 666T,W;0 YYi
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
S00'a CCU# NGIOQINUTA asvsn 990tTSZOt6 ES:ET 666TiC0'xYPI
E
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION or I Ick"WAYS
PLANNING AND ENVMGNMOTAL
BRANCH
ROCCINONAH
ve 1 nom v® 74 DYPAM TO
an 1974 (FDRUBT AD&D)
ZRICNMOND COU1lTT _
T.I.P NO. U-2393 PIG I
1 a kitamotom 1.8 0 miles 1
I -j i
fi00'a Moo NcloxIN7IM osvgn 5Z06TSUT6 65:£T 666T,WXvDI
I
41
Aii;
PROJECT ARE ; r` { l 260' /1
? `. ; '. : -? • . ; ./
? ?,; ? Wit` ' ;''' V.. ?) ¦ • .. r ?. „? . r ? ?;, . ,• . j
?,? ` .L?• •?, , ti j t do•'?' '}n5?• / * • r 1]T# 2 ROCKY BRANCH
org
fre
1 :y t? ?`f jl?.r+.+• t I , r. •rl w•-' ?+!? • - dark i• ` ?? +:1
T#1 ROC V ILANCU
1?1r /. .'•? ?'•'7•`•? a ..?„•,,,? 1 t+jy{?? ? 1- ? ?t a° •• l .. ?JQ f//'i,.
75.1
Tjs
281 • ? '•, ? ?.--?? ?? ? -K ? .. ,
%1 IN
cli el
320-
mw j
q••. r
SCALE 1:24,000 A le
it ringsou
'+ .u
FIGURE 2, WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT U-2583
500'a CCU# XCISMINUM as•asn SZOtTMT6 M:CT 666Tteo- x
DWQ ID: CORPS ACTION TD: Nkak I. 3? 6a3Q_ .--
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT 0): 14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE,
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE COMPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTICR 401 CgRTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL, MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET').
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEA.SB PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation Planning and
Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY! Raleigh STATE: _NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MM LING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBED (HOME):
(WORK): 733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORAT OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP QR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Richmond NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: RQckingham
1
9001a ECEO# NCIONIN'liM GSKsn 9ZOtTGFOT6 99:CT 666T,E0'xYPi
I l
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBBRS, LANDMARKS, STC.):
uS 1 from SR 1974 to proposed US 74 bYgass
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Rocky Branch
RIVER BASIN: Yadkin River
?a. IS PROJECT LOCATZO 'OVR WATER C'LASSIF'IED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SOPPLY (WS-1 OR WS--II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7G. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCAIZO WITelO A COASTAL GOVNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNT14S), WRAF 1$ THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
TH $ PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PEIQTQCQFX OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOP, THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES I ] NO IX] IF YFS, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9.a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: NSA
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE' N\P+
2
L00'd £££0# NCISRIN7IM QaHSII 9Z0tT9Z0T6 99:£T 666T,£0'xYPi
1
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSSD PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0 EXCAVATION: 0.0
FLOODING: 0.0
DRAINAGE; 0.0
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (Ir
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTR BEFORE: 82.5 FT AFTER: N\A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
WIDTH AFTER: N\A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N\A FT AFTER:
N\A FT
N\A FT
(Z) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM; (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N\A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N\A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSEO WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" ORAWINGS
ONLY): Widen existing facility to a five--lane curb and gt:tter
soction to i Erove safety and Lraffic flow
Road constfuction equipment
13. PURPOSE Of PROPOSED WORK: Improve safety and traffic flow on
us 1
3
800'd sce0#
OTHER: 0.0
xC10NZwzI14 Gavsn 9ZOtTGZOT6 55:£T 666T140'XVK
10
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
The widening is on existing location and is a linear project.
Therefore, crossing jurisdictional areas is unavoidable
15, YOU rAS REDUER&D EIG GONTAGT--`S'HE U.S. r saLSrRN- W avaiiP!, cExAVICE
• SHE PRESENGE?OF ANY r-nnER sbl* ESTER OR
r EESTING 'c*tnA,.tiGERS + e O CRETIChl
RA4'E GON9 GfPA 1AgL^TnI ApgpoNsa'° PAGkm ,,,,, HiSTOAiG
OF
'47?Tssr'r?' 1411 TT11 rasvsT
J'rkg+?'r??. vTVid-?
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO I I (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IP YSS, DOES THE PROJECT REQUYRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [XI NO [ )
b. IF YES, HA$ THE DOCUMENT BEEN AM VX4WED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE, CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ I
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRO'NM$N P-L MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE 'FORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOTJLD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
6001d £fc0# XCISMIN'II14 Clsvsn 9Z0629Z0T6 99:£I 666TiEO*)yYl
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES TnE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE I INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQVhL$ 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO 9E
IMPACTED SY PROJECT.
e. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
r. WHAT IS SAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Residential/
Commercial
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METROD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IP APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR
TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OIL NAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN TSE TWL+'NTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FRQM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA CO,ASTAM MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER' S /A NT' S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.) )
5
DATE
OTO'a £££0# HolomiNgUA cavsn geotT5ZOT6 95:£T 666T,£0';'VN
FF ? ? ?
zf
w
f I S BK D
r
?
o

1 1 C'

i ' . ?s
OCL ..
.

`
`' I 1
T ? 1 SOIL & GR
r
9.416,` ?-??-
,
ell,
1
- -----?
IOOO -,
CB-ED
1 1f
46O CONC ?
_ 600
REM Epp us i 7.9 esT CB-E©
REM 900

X200 cow,
WONC zoo ti

?. coNC '
_
1!3u IV
_ - - - - - - - -
- - - -
r
c' CURB UURB
T RED
c? CONC 375 / s G i CB-ED

CD Cb-EDP` -? - ?r' '? 900

1 ? ?` - - .r__-.. -
1
I S BLK
I S \ 1
t `
?
\
?
BUS ` ?? \
(ASAND) j r 1? 1 I \
I W Ir 1 f
1

SOIL 1

S
N.C. DEPARTMENT 05 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1580601 (U-2583)
US 1 NEAR ROCKINOHAM
SHEET _,-,,,^ OF
TTO'a £££0# NCIONINUI14 osvsn 5Z06T5ZOT6 95:£T 666Ti£0"XykI

PRE-CONS'T'RUC'T'ION NOTIVICATION (PCV)
NATIONWIDE 14
TO, NATIONAL MA12.INE FI9HERIE9/2EAUFORT, NC
FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE/RALEIGH, NC
NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/RALEIGH, NC
EPA/A'T'LANTA, =1
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE/RALEIGH, NC
1. AC'T'ION ID, 199603832
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT/Tr NO U-2583
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: Q3 MU-1999
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE : 07 MAY 1,999 5. COMMENT DEADLINE (10 days from response deadline?:
17 MAY 1999
-
6. SEND COMMENTS TO WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
JJILMINgTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
ATTN: DXVS TIMPY -- --
'FLAX NO [phone]
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 11
TTO/T00'a fi££0# NCIONIw'IM (32KSn 9ZOPT9ZOT6 L9:£T 666T,£0')'VH
1q" c Lori 'S 83a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES 13. HINT) R. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIs TOLSON
clow.. RNok SECRETARY
April 16, 1999
U.S. Army Corps ol` Engineers
'regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
A M'N: Mr. Scott McLendon or Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Richmond County, Widening of US 1 from SR 1974 to proposed US 74 bypass.
TIP No. U-2583, State Project No. S. 1580601, Federal Aid Project
No. NHF-220(1).
The North Carolina Department of Trwisportation (NC DOT) proposes to widen an existing two-
lane section of US 1 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. The project extends from SR 1974 to the
proposed US 74 bypass in Richmond County, a distance of approximately 0.88 miles. The project
will cross one water body, Reeky Branch. The crossing will require the extension of the existing
culvert by an additional 82.5 feet. No High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters occur
in the project area.
The NCDOT anticipates that these activities will be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 14.
Enclosed please find the project site rnap, the permit drawing, and the preconstruction notification
form for the above referenced project. By copy of this later, we are also requesting a 401 General
Water Quality Certification ;g 3103 (for NVITP 14) from the NC Division of Water Quality. If you
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Jim Hauser at (919) 733-
7844 extension 279.
Sincerely, ?A
'Y' l C ? 4'
William D_ Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
DCR/jh
TTO/ZOO'd tUO# ricsSuINUM asusn 9ZOPT9ZOT6 LS:£T 666T,E0';?'kI
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Lon Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division S Engineer
TTD/Coo'a tceo# NCIONIbd'I M Gavsn 9MT9NT6 85:ST 666T,W;WI
k
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
.. BRANCH
US 1 pROK us 14 HYPABB To
sB 1974 (ranBST ROAD)
RIClO(OIID ow"y _
T•I.P NO. U-11SB3 PIfl I
t o Kibmecers 1.6 0 miles 1 I
TTO/t00'd fi££0# XCIStitaUM CISM1 gMT5ZOT6 85:£T 666T,£0 XYDI

PROJECT AREA , •??o' 1' ,•.? i : • . ?,
' ??t• t• ? ° UT# 2 RocitY BRANCH
Hwy ?,• ?- ! t ?S(]) i + 2
ellerson*
?? ti ;.: {''' • Park
' `.
't? `3 '• '° ' UT# ROCKY RANCII
r? i ?` ,air,- ? °? r t??,? ? '•l• ....- , , t ?_ ! .?1 .?
?- '??•-.Iy.t ,'• ?' 511 7.• . ?` }/? ? 4ti., r_. , •1 ' 'J"?,1 t
I
16
76
? `t (
Ile
284• r• - `t ! ,? ,•'?J`+1>!3?! E
•?ta / ` 920 o ?',. i• 1? ' +,\[?f ! '+ ?r + }J 1zl,r
• ??[,
11, 22B.,
SCALE 1:24,000
( Ova n ?¢?` • '':PoRu;ar, rings' IF,
• 44 • ..
FIGURE 2• WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT U-2583
TTO/500'a DM# X010MIbdUM aaxsn MtT5ZOT6 65:£T 666T,CV;?Y'i
DWQ ID: T_ CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIOMIDE PERMITS TSAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) AaVLTMTT09 FOR SECTYON 401 CER'TIFICAT'ION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MWAMMNT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATS
FISLD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME; N. C. Department of Transportation Planning and
Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Richmond NEAREST 'DOWN OR CITY: Rockingham
1
TTOl900'a tCCO# PICZJNIw'IIt'l ?zvgn 9Z0tT9Z0T6 69:£T 666T,E0'zYPI
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
US 1 from Sit 1974 'to proposed US 74 bypass
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Rocky Branch
RIVER SASIN: Yadkin River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YSS[ ] NO[X)
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), 6J"2 I$ THE LAND U$B PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
TNIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION Y.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: NIA
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE: N\A
2
TTO/L00'a $£EO# mcssuiwzit-i QaKsII 9ZObTGZOT6 OO:DT 666T,E0';WlI
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
F'I'LLING: 0.0 EXCAVATION; 0.0
FLOODING: 0.0 OTHER: 0.0
DRAINAGE: 0.0
TOTAL ACRES TO 1819 n4PACTIRD : 0.0
yob, (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (Z'F
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE:
82.5 FT
AFTER: N\A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water cpntours):
WIDTH AFTER: N\A FT
AVLRA aGE DIEPTH BEFORE:
N\A FT
N\A FT
AFTER: N\A FT
(7,) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEM9NT 0? PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11, IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N\A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N\A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO SE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widen existing facility to. a five-Lane curb and gutter
section to improve safety and traffic flow
Road construction equipment
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Improve safer and traffic flow on
us 1
S
TTO/800'a tcc0# XCIONINUM CSKsn 9Z0tT5Z0T6 00:tT 666T.£0';'YX
f
14. STA;CS REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WSTLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): - -
The widening is on existing location and is a linear project. Therefore, crossing jurisdictional areas is unavoidable

non.
i - YGO THE 21S/lrY_T_TiRD IPn I"YntiYRtTnm ig2l_-T.1.1_T_h7TT_IST_TFE BERM!
((4'Fw ) Tm n_Lofk ?;ATlq?whl 11, 1tn YwY'CY.+"Y by f _ SER-LT_LL'_lJa7.? (SEE
Y1 1. D A gj!BE 1 TT'"
!TTI T TTTG h/?tHE PRES NGS
,1 V-Oj Y 6 ING E??DrAPNGERIIB-AR m errFf?Er'Ed 6 SFSG S$ OR GRITIGA
9 F 1
E)A -9 GONTA9TED. f PmmZ?l+rt RESPONSES FROM THEE ' rGEN9T-Ta"v4
LT
1$ . V/lr7-T_L1L1?]_L!.Q.i_LT fTGT 01;
D To
r 2
t?t9 lSS89GRiG a ??rcv aTr rlfvnY /1Y" CT^ L?.D
Frli'Re'v4-?a-vF v r?

17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [ X ] NO [ ] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a_ IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REOUTRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN AP-VIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRKPION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [ 3
IF' ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SOBMXT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FAOM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TWLEPHONS [phone].
4
IIO/600'd DECO# NCZJUIwriiA Qzvsri 9ZOVTGZOT6 00:6I 666TsCO'XV'kl
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEM$ SHOO'LD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATFRlkL
7NT'O WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND 0S'LINEA'T'ION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE I INCH EQUALS
50 F'EET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Xesidential/
!' nrnrnc rr? i a 1
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N\A
9. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTEk, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR
TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 4D4 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR MIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) ( I'N T= "WNTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY) , A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MMAGEML*N't' STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNZ'R' S/A NT' S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (189.))
5
if I f'.-
DATE
TTO/OTO"a tCCO# NclomiNII14 aaKsn 9Z0tT5Z0T6 TO:?T 666T,E0*7XX
S }
f 1 ISSK D
i w
r
o
c
Cow I

CL.
J
5 `? 1 +
SOIL & GR
418 LA

r
r Tal +
{ ' -
+
?-- :

CB-ED Aso coNC - a 600
REM 600 Us 1 79 BST
11 CB-ED
REM 900

ONC ? \ 200 CONC 200
?• - - " AST ?. _CONC
-
-
- - - - -
- - -? - - - - - -
'?u vv
r
S67-
2
UUFM
?. r_ cuRr ,, ,

/ S O 1
CONC 375 RED
CB-ED
,.
C CB ED i?-1 -? 900
5

I S BLK
BUS %\
(ABAND)

µ0W1..
-SOIL _

b??r? 3 ?+ra?cr r D
STREAM
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DXVFSION OF HIGHWAY"
RICHMOND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1580601 (U-25851
U8 1 NEAR ROCKINGHAM
SHeET __.,_.,. OF .?_._
TTO/TTO'a 6££O# mcloxiMilk ciavsn 9906TGFOT6 TO:IT 666T,£0*;Ml
't -.
PRE-CON9TWIC'TION NOTIFICATION (PCX)
NATIONWIDE 14
TO:
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES/BEAUFORT, NC
FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE/RALEIGH, NC
NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/RALEIGH, NC
EPA./AI'LAN'rA, GA
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE/RALEIGH, NC
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ACTION 13D. 199603832
APPLICANT: NCDQT/TI2 NO U-2583
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: 03 KU 1 9
RESPONSE DnAnLYNE : 07 M23Y' 1999
COMMENT DEADLINE (10 days from response deadline):
17 U&X -3-99.9-....
SEND COMMENTS TO WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
W LN?TXf;Tf1TT REGULATORY FIFLD OFFICE
ATTN: DAVE ".GIMPY ....--
FAX ATO_ (910) 251-40
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS SHEET: ?-?
T00'd ZGEO#
Ncls IIm=4 Qavgn SZOtTGFOT6 Zt:CT 666T,E0'T+'X
11
IQlC1614 a&-Sa

S'rAi"E OF NORT1i CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GoV E RNUR
[I.L--), BOX 25201, RALFAUH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 16,1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Scott McLendon or Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
E. NORRls TOLSON
Swsrra>;v
SUBMICT: Richmond County, Widening of 'US 1 from SR 1974 to proposed US 74 bypass.
TIP No. U-2583, State Project No. 8.158060 1, Federal Aid Project
No. NHF-220(1).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO I') proposes to widen an existing two-
lane section of US l to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. The project extends from SR 1974 to the
proposed US 74 bypass in Richmond County, a distance of approximately 0.88 miles. The project
will crass one water body, Rocky Branch. The crossing will require the extension of the existing
culvert by an additional 82.5 feet. No I-ligh Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters occur
in the project area.
The NCDOT anticipates that these activities will be authorized undor a Nationwide Permit 14,
Enclosed please find the project site map, the permit drawing, and the preconstruction notification
form for the above referenced project. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a 401 General
Water Quality Certification # 3103 (for NWP 14) from the NC Division of Water Quality. If you
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Jim Hauser at (919) 733-
7844 extension 279.
Sincerely,
-Y' C- - ?4 1,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.. Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
DCRIjh
RE
Z00'd Z££0# NCIOKIldU14 asvsn MtiTMT6 Z?:£T 666T,£0';'VH
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division S Engineer
coo'a Zcco# NOISKINUM aavsn 9FOVTGUT6 cf:CT 666T,c0'7-YX
k
NORTH C"O"A, DEPA UMNT OF
"AMPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RNVIRONMMAL
BRANCH
toclu)(0mM
US 1 FWW 98 14 BYPASS Tb
SQ 1974 (70M W ROO)
It1CIGIO)m CDUdTY
T.I.P NO. U-3333 PI4 l
O k1bMters 1.6 Q miles 1
t00'a Zc£0# XCISIINUM Mlvsn 9Z0VT9Z0T6 Et:CT 666T,£0'X)01
, i
14"%l oil
PROJBCT AREA ? ,• ', , ? ,? ?? . --• •..
?? ••.?.••?' ••,_• ? 1 ? ° ?5U ?• 2 2 ROCKY $RAN
r ,r ?'?-?? ! : •?,.. ?..? ' of , erson • : -• ,r?•,; • " , , •
; f„., Park = ,
I ?'`',?•? I ' ??• ` t-- *?'. •' ?. •-,' '?° UT 1 ROCKX BRAlaCB ;1-
,277 ? ? i ? • ? -
NVI
eel t
v, 40ON
284, k
all
' GY78??1 ^? / ?? r?• i 4 1 1 ' ` s
J t / ?„•
"?` ``` ?,. * •~, 3?s? • ':??;'• part •q `A?hle? . ?.
V N\ ''-
? ? .a apel ' ...
SCALE 1:24,000 oil,I pit-
optstat ring5o l ``. r } 1 SS ` ' .
I N
ffAT1 1t 1 p i
FIGURE 2. WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT U-•2583 •
900'a NCO# MCIOMzraM4 Gaven 990DTGNT6 Et:ET 666T,E0';WM
t
DWQ ID:
CORPS ACTION ID: Vkch' 1, 1 383 a
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUES"_ED (FROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #)
14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEZ"
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIVICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF CQASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS CdMPIET= FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
F2ELD OFSICE Or THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.G. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)_ PLEASE PRINT_
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation Planning and
Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh, STATE: NC 2XP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. T SLEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPO'NSIBLS CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William 0. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Richmond NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: 1RQckingham
1
900.6 zeeo# xclomimgiM osvsn SZO?T9zOI6 bfi:CT 666Ii£O';?'k1
DWQ ID:
CORPS ACTION ID: \lxc?1 lei 383 QL
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUES'_ED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #)
14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGIN="
2) APPLICATION FOR SEGTEw 401 CgTtTIvICATION
3) COORDIKhTION WITH THE NO DIVISION OF CQASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS GOMPLZT= FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE Or THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO '.HM N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)_ PLEASE PRIMT_
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation Planning and
Environmental Sranch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 25201
SUBDIVIS20N NAME:
CITY: Raleigh: STATE: NC 2XP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, I'NC'LUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) 733-3141

4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
Willi= D. Gilmore,_ P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Richmond NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Rockingham
1
TTO/900'a Z£Eo# Ncloxiil'IIIA a8vsn 9Z0bT9Z0T6 9fi:ET 666T,?0'xVkl

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
US 1 from SR 1974 tQ PrQPased US 74 bypass_
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: RoCky Branch
RIVER BASIN: Yadkin River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFM AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUA'LI'FY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANAXNG RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-1 OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ I NOM
7C. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITMXN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF OOASTt,L GOONTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (tUI51 DESICNATION?
$a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
$b, ARE ADD'ITIONA'L PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [XI IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBSR OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N\A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE: N\A
2
TTO/L00'a Z££0# NCIONINIII14 a21KsII GFOtTGFOT6 9fi:£T 666T,£0'xYDi

10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FXLLXNG: 0.0
FLOODING! 0.0
DRAINAGE: 0.0
EXCAVATION: 0.0
OTHER: 0.0
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IbG%CTED: 0.0
10b, (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 82.5 FT AFTER: N\A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours); N\A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N\A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N\A FT AFTER: N\A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAI' APPLX)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: - CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
X
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N\A
WRAP IS THE EXPECT9D POND SURFACE AREA? N\A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widen existing facility to a five--lane curb and gutter
section to improve safety and traffic flow
Road construCtion equipment
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: lr=Ove Safety and traffic f10W on
US 1
3
TTO/800'd Z££o#
NCIONINUIR csvgn 9ZOtT9ZOT6 9fi:£T 666T,£0'7-VW
r
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS IMIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
The widening is On existing location and is a linear project.
Therefore, Crossing jurisdictional areas is unavoidable
lMn7T^' tiR' rnTrn- Ti TrcTS NISTORIG T1 TiC?CT'TZ[7??gn*7 nrnTr+trn
16 nrr TRL^ aL+AiTT1iLf1 'P8
T+ Tnv mr%r% ""el cti rtr rirnl rf4^rnL`l `1'CNG mr_rn 71 ?n?Tnn nr v7Cr[+i1r?'r !`?
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [ ] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. TF YES, GOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ l
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT SEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Or ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WL$T JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
TTO/600'a Z£c0# XCIONIW'III/I cclsvgl 990tT5ZOT6 L?:£T 666T,E0';?VkI

18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALBS SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH Or WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT-
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMBO BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THS DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACK A COPY OF THE S'TORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Residential/
Commercial
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AOTRORTZAmYON LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR
TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINERRS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWNTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING TAIL PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE: NORTH CAltOLI147A COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/A NT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (lBg.))
5
DATE
TTO/0T0'a Z£EO# NcloxIiI221A cisvsn 9F06T9F0T6 Lt:CT 666T,C0',TyN

w 1 1 IS SK D

?
? V
Q 1
i . ? ??
,?
i
i Is ?
a
o .• Q
i ' fl
°CL. ' B' RI P
4
03
SOIL & GR
LA

1000
CB-ED 600
REM 600 US 1 79 AST CB-ED
REM 900

>uc ?., .zaa ca ,f-.R
C-lt ,-- -fAT-- CY ° i-?cONC
_CJRB? _
--------- _ _ _
CURB
CONIC 375 / 0 1 CB-ED RD

CB CB-EDP -- ?- `, 900

T
y
15 BLK ? ` 1 1 ?
BUS
(ASAND)

r{ , 1
i I µDWL
SOIL I

_ OlLNCrMab - MPACTF
STA I=,gftl
N.C. OOPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1580601 (U•-2583)
U5 1 NEAR ROCKINGHAMf
SHEET - - OF
TTO/TTO'a Ze£0# NCIONINII14 osvsn 9Z0tT5Z0T6 Lfi:£T 666T,£0';M
µysius?.C
401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NoR.RIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 16, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890 PAYMENT
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 RECEIVED
ATTN: Mr. Scott McLendon or Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Richmond County. Widening of US 1 from SR 1974 to proposed US 74 bypass.
TIP No. U-2583, State Project No. 8.1580601. Federal Aid Project
No. NHF-220(1).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen an existing two-
lane section of US 1 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. The project extends from SR 1974 to the
proposed US 74 bypass in Richmond County, a distance of approximately 0.88 miles. The project
will cross one water body, Rocky Branch. The crossing will require the extension of the existing
culvert by an additional 82.5 feet. No High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters occur
in the project area.
The NCDOT anticipates that these activities will be authorized under a Nati wi e' ' 4.
Enclosed please find the project site map, the permit drawing, and the prec sr, ctio
form for the above referenced project. By copy of this letter, we are also r esti a 401 e
Water Quality Certification # 3103 (for NWP 14) from the NC Division s ter ,610y. u
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact r =1i r at (F9 9w.)
7844 extension 279.
Sincerely,
C_ v
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
DCR/jh

cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
5
L
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ROCKINGHAM
US 1 FROM US 74 BYPASS TO
SR 1974 (FORREST ROAD)
,RICHMOND COUNTY _
T.I.P NO. U-2183 FIG 1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
1 1 1 1 1
V _ t_ i? • ?• i •% •.
PROJECT AREA l '• i ,-? /? ?..
'`??.;' .`lam t? `..' ??a•A__ • • . :, • • ?• •_ •
r \ ?? ': • o - ??SV , • 2 UT# 2 ROCKY BRANCH
,ao,=; :.:: • ' ••efferson • : ??
Par
?,.,-? µ . '
}? ' ?? ???``` } l t_ `? t ` •• - - UT# 1 ROCKY BRANCH
1277
V 1:
,? ? ? `. ? ? J • 275. ? ' • , ?' - - \ V ? , ( Cf ? t ? I ? -
US t V%
283
•? ew'DI 9! f \? ?I
Clla el
J- sk 1-1
p ~ - 326 QA9I .
\? + pah .r?fi a q Ile
q SCALE 1: 24, 000-
'?t=. o _. ?` _l A ley ,Rap _ _
t?;fQ utat ?prings%` •`.r t ??? •
n-T
FIGURE 2. WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT U-2583
DWQ ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL.
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation Planning and
Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manaaer
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Richmond NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Rockingham
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
US 1 from SR 1974 to proposed US 74 bypass
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Rocky Branch
RIVER BASIN: Yadkin River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N\A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE: N\A
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0 EXCAVATION: 0.0
FLOODING: 0.0 OTHER: 0.0
DRAINAGE: 0.0 TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 82.5 FT AFTER: N\A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N\A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N\A F-
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N\F, FT AFTER: N\P> FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER.
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N\A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N\A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widen existing facility to a five-lane curb and gutter
section to improve safety and traffic flow
Road construction equipment
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Improve safety and traffic flow on
us 1
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
The widening is on existing location and is a linear project.
Therefore, crossing jurisdictional areas is unavoidable
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [ ] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ J
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Residential/
Commercial
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N\A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR
TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
17
-L- 6LlA4? J14,
2L
OWNER'S/A NT'S SIGNATURE
l r
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
C/ .

W
I I
1 I S BK D

IS °
' '
C L.
r B
RI

1
QN v ?? SOIL & GR
9.4181
,
I
- -
_ -

1000
CB-ED 450 CONCIF L- - -? 600
REM 600 us I Ts BST CB-ED
REM 900
-----
200 ? i 200

v'ONC 200 CONC L

R 3,T / L _ CONC
GUR& BST- ,2
CGRB7?
CURE
!
Mu vy

-
- ------------
, o CoNc 375 /
i SO I CB-ED RED
,
CB CB-ED - - - -r I

' 90
0
--/

r ` - - - - ---
----
-
--

LK
B
BUS
S
1,,3 (ABAND)
i
1 1
t
/ a
SOIL
r
' I
OEnlal E S1PACT
Tn c'?
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1580601 (U-2583;
US 1 NEAR ROCKINGHAM
SHEET OF
6r
.
Co States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office'
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 / `91
1
January 17, 1997 jµi
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of December 18, 1996, requesting comments
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), dated November 26, 1996, for the Widening of
US 1 from the proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street),
Richmond County, North Carolina (TI-P No. U-2583). An Environmental
Assessment (EA) was released on the project in March 1996. The Service
did not provide comments on the EA. This report is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the FONSI, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes to widen an existing two-lane section with shoulder and
ditch borders to a five-lane section with curb and gutter edges. The
widening would extend from the proposed US 74 bypass to SR 1974. The
total length of the proposed project would be 0.8 of a mile.
Alternatives Analysis
Section IV of the EA considers alternatives for the project. The
Service is pleased that the NCDOT considered symmetrical, asymmetrical,
and a combination of these widening designs and that the required
transportation improvements can be made by widening the existing road.
We consider the analysis of alternatives to be adequate.
Wetlands
The EA (pp. 20-21) considers project impacts on wetlands. Project plans
indicate that wetland impacts would be minimal and consist of less than
0.49 acres. The Service is pleased that the planned alignment was
shifted to minimized wetland impacts. The EA notes (p. 22) that Best
Management Practices will be implemented throughout construction. Based
on information in the EA and. the FONSI, the Service believes that the
NCDOT has endeavored to avoid and minimize wetland impacts associated
with this project.
Federally Protected Species
The EA (pp. 16-19) considers potential impacts on federally threatened
and endangered species. The Service is pleased that searches were made
for the rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and the

,r
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and that a plant-by-plant
survey was conducted for Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The EA and
FONSI state that the NCDOT has determined that the project will have no
effect on any species protected by the ESA.
Based on the information supplied by the NCDOT and the assumption that
stringent water quality and erosion control procedures will be employed
during construction, the Service concurs that this project is not likely
to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered and threatened
species under our jurisdiction, their formally designated critical
habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal listing under the
ESA, as amended. The NCDOT should note that the shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) is under the jurisdiction of the National
Marine Fisheries Service.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in
a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; and/or, (3)
a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
Summary
The Service believes that the SEA adequately describes the purpose and
need for the project, the alternatives considered, and the environmental
impacts of the project. Based on information contained in the FONSI,
the Service would support a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for
this project.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning
process, including your official determination of the impacts of this
project. If our office can supply any additional information or
clarification, please contact Howard Hall at (919)-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely,
-I,h 4 e L" ),,-
Mike Wicker
Acting Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:1/17/97:WP:A:ricu2583.197
l
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
JamesB. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
e?y
Through: John DoM`'
From: Cyndi Bell
E: > EHNFI
FAXED
JAN 2 71991
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for US 1 Widening from the Proposed US 74 Bypass to
SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham
Richmond County
State Project DOT No. 8.1580601, T.I.P. No. U-2583
EHNR # 97-0433, DWQ # 11477
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact
waters of the state including wetlands. The project will involve fill in up to 0.2 hectare (0.49 acre) of
wetlands and surface waters. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document review:
A) The project design involves widening of 0.8 mile of US 1 in Rockingham. In correspondence
dated July 1, 1996, DWQ requested that avoidance alternatives be further investigated in the
vicinity of wetland #2. Based upon a meeting on October 30, 1996 between NCDOT and DWQ
staff, and on information provided in the FONSI, DWQ concurs with NCDOT's preferred
alignment.
B) The EA and FONSI include a commitment by NCDOT to utilize Best Management Practices for
the protection of Surface Waters throughout construction. Culvert extensions at two unnamed
tributaries of Rocky Branch will be involved with this project. We ask that NCDOT implement
minimization measures to reduce wetland and stream impacts from the anticipated maximum 0.2
hectare (0.49 acre) throughout the detailed design and construction processes. DWQ will be
happy to consult with NCDOT staff to help ensure protection of these streams and wetland
systems.
C) We ask that NCDOT stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland
sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
D) We ask that NCDOT ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures not be placed in
wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction contract awarded for
this project.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509/6 0% post consumer paper
Ms. Melba McGee Memo
January 28, 1997
Page 2
E) The EA and FONSI state that no stream relocations and no new stream crossings will be required
in order to construct the preferred alternative. If this detail changes during the design phase of
this project, NCDOT is reminded that stream mitigation may be required in accordance with
current DWQ Wetland Rules which were not in effect at the time the EA and FONSI were
prepared. In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation proposal would be needed with the
application for 401 Water Quality Certification.
Based upon the surface water impacts described in the EA and FONSI, General Certification 2732 will
likely be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization will require formal application by NCDOT
and written concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence
of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent practical.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. DOT is reminded that issuance of
a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water
quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Scott McLendon, COE, Wilmington
James F. Bridges, Jr., P.E., NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U2583FON.DOC
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form l l q7-7?-
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
4211
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water .? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville
? Groundwater
X-16 Idlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington
? Recreational Consultant
? Land Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant l Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
E
? Wilmington ? Others ,
??
."Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS ` Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
-In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
GConsistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS 10a
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
U. S. 1
From Proposed U. S. 74 Bypass
to SR 1974 (Forrest Street)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Number NHF-220(1)
State Project Number 8.1580601
T.I.P. No. U-2583
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
November 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
es F. Bridges Jr., P.
Project Planning Engineer
W n Stroud
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
``l%ttuu,rr,rr??•
•
N
4Q SEAL
,?S??auabp?q 022109
.•`!\\ CARp'•.
?•• Q0 04!s9 = 4?•s B ??7...?
SEAL
6976
%
N ??,.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION.: .................................................................................. I
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................ I
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS ..........................2
A. PERMITS .......................................................................................2
B. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................... 2
C. UTILITIES .....................................................................................2
D. GEODETIC MARKERS .................................................................2
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................ 3
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ...................................................... 4
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 4
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................ 5
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING
THE PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................... 6
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................... 6
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING ............. 7
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................... 7
* TABLES
Table I - 72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels ..............................................3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
APPENDIX
Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment .......................................... A-1
Public Hearing Notice and Handout ....................................................................... A-10

US 1
From Proposed US 74 Bypass
to SR 1974 (Forrest Street)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Number NHF-220(l )
State Project Number 8.1580601
T.I.P. No. U-2583
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
the Federal Highway Administration
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 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 PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
US 1 from the proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham,
Richmond County (see Figure 1). NCDOT includes this project in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.). The current project schedule includes
right of way acquisition beginning in fiscal year 1998 and construction in fiscal year 2000.
NCDOT will widen US 1, which is an existing two lane section with shoulders and
ditches to a five lane section with curb and gutter from the proposed US 74 Bypass to
SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham (see Figure 2). The project is 1.3 kilometers
(0.8 mile) in length. The proposed typical section will be 19.2 meters (64 feet) wide from
face to face of curbs. It will provide four through lanes (two in each direction) and a
continuous center left-turn lane. The widening will be done to the east of the existing
roadway from just north of SR 1180 (Southwood Road) to just south of SR 1136 (Eason
Road) and symmetrically from SR 1136 to SR 1974 (see Figure 2). The completed
project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50 mph) with a proposed
posted speed limit of 70 km/hr (45 mph). It will require 30 meters (100 feet) of right of
way.
The estimated cost of the project is $2,865,000, including $815,000 for right of
way and $2,050,000 for construction. The funding included in the 1997-2003 T.I.P. is
also $2,865,000.
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. PERMITS
Conditions for a Nationwide Permit No. 14 (minor road crossings) from the Corps
of Engineers apply to the project. If the project requires a permit No. 14, a 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required from the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management.
B. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A field reconnaissance survey identified four underground storage tank (UST)
facilities within the project limits. NCDOT will conduct a site assessment of underground
storage facilities located within the project area prior to right of way acquisition. If leaks
and contamination have occurred, NCDOT will notify the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
Also an appropriate amount will be withheld from the property owner during right of way
acquisition for clean up.
C. UTILITIES
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be moderate to high. Any relocation of utilities
along the project will be coordinated with the appropriate utility or local government.
D. GEODETIC MARKERS
This project will impact one geodetic survey marker. NCDOT will notify the N.C.
Geodetic Survey prior to construction with regards to a geodetic survey marker located
north of SR 1974.
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient vehicle operation and
reduced travel times. This will result in road user cost savings. Automobile traffic safety
will be enhanced. Access to homes, businesses, and public facilities will be improved. The
project will improve the aesthetics of the roadway corridor.
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major anticipated impacts to
water quality. Scouring of the stream bed, soil compaction, and loss of shading due to
vegetation removal are also potential impacts. Increased sedimentation from lateral flows
along with erosion is expected.
Approximately 1.6 hectares (4.0 acres) of additional right of way will be required.
An estimated six residential relocations and one business relocation will occur as a result
of the project. Less than 0.2 hectare (0.49 acre) of wetlands will be impacted by the
project. No protected species will be impacted by the project.
It is predicted that approximately I 1 receptors will experience traffic noise
impacts. However, no receptors are anticipated to be impacted by a substantial increase in
future noise levels. The following table shows the predicted maximum extent of the 72
and 67 dBA noise level contours:
TABLE 1
72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels
Maximum Predicted
Leq Noise Levels
dBA
Project Segment
15m 30m 60m
US 220 from Proposed US 74 68 64 58
(East-side/South-side widening)
US 220 from SR 1136 to SR 1974 8 64 58
(Forest Road) (Symmetrical
widening)
Maximum
Contour
Distances (meters)
72 dBA 67 dBA
<14.7 25.0
<14.7 25.0
Notes: 1. 15 m, 30 m, and 60 m distances are measured from the center of the nearest
travel lane.
2. The 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of
the proposed roadway.
4
This information was included in Table N4 on page A2-10 of the Appendix to the
Environmental Assessment and is shown here to assist local authorities in exercising land
use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdictions.
. Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels such as noise barriers can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success. However, for a noise barrier to
provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the
receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely
reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier.
There is no access control along this project. Because there is no access control it
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. For these
reasons, noise barriers were not recommended.
In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of
the location of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of CE's, FONSI's,
ROD'S, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring
after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible for insuring that
noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Division of Highways
and the FHWA on March 29, 1996. The approved Environmental Assessment was
circulated to the following federal, state and local agencies for review and comments. An
asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in the Appendix (pages A-1 through A-9) of this
document.
*U. S. Department of the Army--Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
*N.C. Department of Administration--State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*Division of Environmental Management
Division of Land Resources,
Division of Forest Resources,
*Wildlife Resources Commission
*Fayetteville Regional Office
Region H Council of Governments
Richmond County Commissioners
City of Rockingham--Mayor, City Manager
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment: "However, from a review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey
topographic map ("Rockingham, N.C."), it appears that there is sufficient drainage area at
the location of the crossing to cause flooding. We suggest that the crossing be designed
to minimize the impact on the upstream water surface elevation and that your agency
coordinate with local authorities during final design to ensure compliance with applicable
flood plain ordinances."
Response: NCDOT will comply with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
recommendation.
Comment: "When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any
work in wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review
these plans for project-specific determinations of Department of the Army permit
requirements."
Response: During the permit phase of the project, NCDOT will formally apply to the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for permit authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. Detailed plans and drawings will be included in
the permit application package.
Division of Environmental Mana eg ment
Comment: "DOT is proposing to widen on the east side of the existing road in the
vicinity of wetland # 2. Water Quality may request that wetland avoidance options in this
vicinity be investigated during the permitting process.
Response: NCDOT has coordinated with the Division of Water Quality (formerly the
Division of Environmental Management) in regards to avoidance of wetland #2. Shifting
the alignment to the west to avoid wetland #2 would require 6 additional (4 business 2
residential) relocations. Also, shifting the alignment to the west may not completely avoid
wetland #2. NCDOT and DEM are in agreement that the recommended alternative is the
most feasible and other alternatives have been sufficiently investigated.
Comment: "Since wetland # 3 occurs on both sides of the road, DOT does not have a
practicable alternative at this location".
Response: Comment noted.
6
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "The EA provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and
wildlife resources in the project area. Due to the developed nature of the project area and
the decision to widen an existing roadway, we feel that impacts to natural resources will
be minimal.
Response: Comments noted.
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC
HEARING
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an open forum public
hearing was held at the Department of Transportation District Office in Rockingham on
August 22, 1996. A copy of the public hearing notice and a copy of the handout
presented at the public hearing are included in the appendix of this report (pages A-10
through A-12). Approximately 20 citizens attended the public hearing. There were no
controversial topics addressed at the hearing, and no comments were received after the
hearing. Overall, most of the citizens were either in favor of the project or recognized the
need for the project. Some of the comments received during the public hearing are listed
below.
Comment: "Will this project worsen a flooding problem I have on my property?"
Response: This project will have curb and gutter and will not increase the amount of
rainfall runoff on adjacent properties.
Comment: "How close can DOT come to a building before it has to be taken?"
Response: There is no set distance from a property that requires it to be taken. The
NCDOT Right of Way Branch meets with property owners before right of way acquisition
to discuss whether a property will be taken and to assess property damages.
Comment "Will DOT repave an existing concrete driveway that is damaged by this
project?"
Response: All existing driveways along the project will be reconnected.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
There are no revisions to the Environmental Assessment.

VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 established as a national policy to avoid, to the extent
possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of the new
construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
NCDOT will not be able to totally avoid wetlands because of occurrences on both
sides of US 1. Impacts to wetlands will be minimized because the project does not require
construction on new location, it will use a curb and gutter section which will minimize the
amount of cut and fill, and Best Management Practices will be implemented throughout
construction.
It has been determined there is no practicable alternative to the proposed
construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to
minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
VIII. 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 any 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.
JFB/plr
FIGURES
Y
., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ROCKINGHAM
US 1 FROM US 74 BYPASS TO
SR 1974 (FORREST ROAD)
RICHMOND COUNTY
T.I.P NO. U-2583 FIG•1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
1 1 1 1 1
APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
AErENTIONOF July 18, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
GtivF?
`JUL 2 21996
aVISIGN Ur
HIGHWAYS
let This is in response to your letter of May 30, 1996, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for US 1, From Proposed US 74 Bypass to
SR 1974 (Forest Street), Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Number
NHF-220(1), State Project Number 8.1580601, T.I.P. No. U-2583" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. 199603832).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
W.*4A)O
Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
•i
A-1
July 18, 1996
. Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for US 1, From Proposed US 74 Bypass to
SR 1974 (Forest Street), Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Number
NHF-220(1), State Project Number 8.1580601, T.I.P. No. U-2583" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199603832)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Richmond County and partially within the jurisdiction of the
city of Rockingham, both of which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a
review of Panel 160 of the September 1989 Richmond County, North Carolina and
Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, the improvements would cross Rocky Branch
upstream of the approximately mapped limit (outside of the identified flood hazard area).
Consequently, it is noted on page 22 of Environmental Assessment that there are no
designated flood hazard zones affected by the project. However; from a review of the
. ......, ......,
pertinentyUnited.States Geological Survey topographic map ("Rockingham;`IS.C."), rt appears
that there is sufficient dra'ina'ge-'area at the location of the crossing to cause flooding We
suggest that the crossing be, esigned to minimize the impact on the upstream water surface
elevation _and tt at yo"u e)cy coordnate?with local authorities during final design to ensure.
- compliance with applii?le flood;plam ordinances.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
Based on information provided in the document, less than 0.5 acre of waters and
wetlands of the United States will be impacted by the proposed project. This includes impacts
to the headwaters of Rocky Branch. No stream relocation will be required for this project.
Although this project may be authorized by nationwide permit 26 or nationwide permit 14, (33
CFR 330.5(a)), it is incumbent upon the North Carolina Department of Transportation to take
all practicable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material
in waters of the United States or any adjacent or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this
project, including disposal of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to
wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensatory mitigation
for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location * of
any work in wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
If you have any questions or comments concerning DA permits, they should be directed
to Mr. McLendon.
A-2
-2-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section, Wetlands and Aquatic Plants
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
A-3

07-08-96
Pill d 110 eCJ I auiv?a a I ncc I
JUl_ 9145E'j? RALEIGH NCRTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
L-T P-
,PROJ?i Ufa.^Jt',EiI,E';7` JUL 9 1996
INTERGOVERNM;NTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM: PROGRAM VtVELUPNIENT U1N;1 i
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
WHIT WEBB DIRECTOR
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION SLOG./INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENV. ASSESS. - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 11 FROM PROPOSED US 74 u
BYPASS TO SR 1974 (FORREST ST.) IN ROCKINGHAM? NC
TIP VU-2583
SAT NO 96F42200796 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV. ASSESS.
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVEC
t X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY OUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
?C E/
C.C. RESION H
O
JUL 1 1996'
A-4
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Governor p E H N IR
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee e
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 96-0796 EA for US 1 from US 74 Bypass, Richmond County
DATE: July 2, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
JUL 21996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
?y
FAX [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, NIf
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 50°k recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-5
Stofie::of.. ?lortKCarolit).a:_
:Deodrti . en fbf i±raviroriment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division-of Environmental Management
James*8. HGht;.Jr.;'Governor
Jonathan B.: Howes,-Secretary
A. Preston. Howtard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 1;. 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba:.NEcGee
Through: Jahn Dorng
From: -Frio Galamh'X
AF;
T-V
A, T.
iis??
D F-=:= F.
Subject: --EA for :U.S .1 from US 74 Bypass to SR 1794
Richiinond County
.;State'.'Pcoject.DOT No. 8.1580601, TIP # U-2583
EHNR # 96.0796
The.subject.document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(WO) is responeibleJor.the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities whichimpact:iniaters'? of the state lncluding wetlands. The document states
that 0.49.a&ds'of wetlands and waters will be impacted by this project.' WO offers the
following comments 66 the EA:
A) DOT.Is proposingg-to widen.on the east side of the existing road in the vicinity of
wetiand # 2: W.(3'may,request that wetland avoidance options in this vicinity be
investigated during the permitting process.
B) Since wetland'#.3 occurs on both.sides of the road, DOT does not have a
practicable alterndtive at this location.
-DOT is, reminded that :endorsement of a EA by WO would not preclude the denial of a
401 Certification upon -application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the.*maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding .the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM:s Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
us1 rich.ea
cc: Wilmington COE
P.O.6ox 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An equal Opporfunity Affirmative Action Employer W% recycled/ 10% post-Consumer paper
A-6
0 North CarolinaWildlife Resources Commission K _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276044188, 919-733.3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Ilighway project Coordin r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 1, 1996
SUB3FC'1': North Carolina Department of "Transportation (NCDO'I),Environmental Assessment
in
(EA) Rfor ockingham, 1Richmond County, North Carolina. 4 TIBypass to SR 1974 (Forrest P No. U-2583, S CH Project No.
Rockg
96-0796.
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
or the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fisli and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen US i to a five-lane curb and gutter facility from the proposed US 74
Bypass to SR 1974. Widening will be to the east from just north of SR 1180 (Southwood Road) to just
south of SR 1136 (L•ason Road) and symmetrically from SR 1136 to SR 1974. The project length is
approximately 0.8 miles. Wetlnnd and waters impacts are associated with culvert extensions and minor
wetland crossings and will likely be covered under nationwide "404" permits.
'?V I The EA provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
project area. Due to the developed nature of the project area and the decision to widen an existing
roadway, we feel that impacts to natural resources will be minimal.
'Ale will concur with the EA for this project and anticipate our concurrence with the Finding of No
Significant Impact (TONS!). NC DQT should continue efforts to minimize impacts to wetlands and
should employ NCDOT Best Management Practices to protect off-site resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please
call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-7
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
*7
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. T-
C
C
C
C
C
C'

11
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities. sewer system extensions, b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply IN 'A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
IN!A)
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 clays
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A 190 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before be innino activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accomoan the Dian 130 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit t day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (NIA)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit Inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May. also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac.
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
ab 'u:
Continued on reverse A_O

e,"V ]
I - ,-T,,ime
T
C
C
C
r
4
4
C
C
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratoryoil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions b drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
01
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687. Raleigh. N.C 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if -orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. A5 days
(N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919'North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
A-9
NOTICE OF AN OPEN FORUM PUBLIC HEARING
ON WIDENING US 1 FROM THE PROPOSED US 74 BYPASS
TO SR 1974, FORREST STREET
Project 8.1580601 U-2583 Richmond County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above open forum
public hearing on August 22, 1996 between the hours of 4 PM and 7 PM at the
Department of Transportation District Office, 517 South Hancock Street in Rockingham.
r' .
-Interested individuals may attend this informal hearing at anytime between the
above stated hours.- No formal session will be held. Division of Highways
representatives will be available to answer questions and receive comments
concerning the project. Additional materials may be submitted for a period of 15 days
from the date of the hearing to: C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. at P. 0. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC.27611.
Under this project, it is proposed to widen this 0.8 mile portion of US 1 to a five
lane roadway with curb and gutter. Some additional right of way and construction
easements will be required for construction of this project. The relocation of six homes
and one business will also be required for construction.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr.. C. B. Goode, Jr. at
P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone].
A copy of the map showing the location and design of the improvements and a
copy of the environmental document describing the project are available for public
review at the NCDOT District Engineer's Office located at 517 South Hancock Street.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the hearing to comply with the American Disabilities Act. To receive
special services, please contact Mr. Goode at the above address or phone number or
fax [phone] to provide adequate notice prior to the date of the hearing so that
arrangements can be made.
A-10
US 1 FROM PROPOSED US 74 BYPASS TO FORREST STREET''
August 22, 1996
Project proposes to widen busy
portion of US4
US 1 in the vicinity of this
project is beginning to experience
delay and accident problems as-
sociated with traffic congestion.
Upon the completion of the US
74 Bypass traffic volumes and
congestion are anticipated to in-
crease considerably beyond the
capacity of the existing roadway.
In addition, because of the cur-
rent congestion, the accident rate
for this section of roadway is
higher than the statewide aver-
age. Because of the turning
movements to enter side streets
and driveways, and the lack of a
turn lane for these turning vehi-
cles, rear end accidents often oc-
cur. Therefore, in an effort to
plan for future traffic, and to re-
duce the accident rate, it is pro-
posed to make improvements to
the portion of US 1 between the
proposed US 74 Bypass and For-
rest Street.
The proposed improvements
consist of widening US 1 from its
current two lane configuration to
a five lane facility with curbs and
gutters. This widening will form a
60 ft. roadway with two lanes in
each direction and a two way
center turn lane and will include
curbs and gutters on each side.
To accommodate the new lanes
For additional information, you may
contact the following people.
Kathy Lassiter
Design Project Engineer
919-2504016
James Bridges
Planning Project Engineer
919-733-3141
Carl Goode
Public Hearing Officer
919-2504092
100 ft. of right of way will be re-
quired for this project which is
approximately 40 ft. more than
the existing right of way width.
In addition, some easements will
be required for construction.
The relocation of six homes and
one business is anticipated be-
cause of the widening.
The current schedule for this
project has right of way acquisi-
tion to begin in February, 1998
and the project to be let to con-
tract in October, 1999. These
schedules are based on availabil-
ity of funds.
The current cost estimates for
this project are as follows:
Right of Way - $ 815,000
Construction - $2,050,000
Opportunity for
comments and
questions provided
Today's open forum public
hearing is provided to give the
general public an opportunity to
view our proposals for this pro-
ject, ask questions about it, and
voice your comments and con-
cerns about it.
Department of Transportation
representatives are present to talk
with you about this project. They
will try to answer your questions
and will listen to your comments.
In addition, a comment sheet is
attached on which you may sub-
mit written comments for a pe-
riod of 10 days following today's
hearing. These written comments
will be reviewed by our staff to
determine what changes can be
made to this project. You are
encouraged to participate in this
process. Your comments are
welcome and are important.
They will be carefully reviewed.
In this and all projects, we have
to weigh a number of factors in-
cluding safety, costs, environ-
mental impacts, human impacts,
and service to the thousands of
motorists who use the facility.
This process requires the study of
many possible alternatives before
determining the most feasible.
Thank you for your participa-
tion.
A-11
COMMENT SHEET
US 1 from Proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974, Forrest Street
U-2583 Project 8.1580601 Richmond County
August 22, 1996
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E., Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
A-12
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural ,sources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
?. ,ate -? tz PA - U S ?ro L) '7 4 L ?, s '? S fiz --7-94-
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
tt T
Xi Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
aye
ev
e Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville .Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh and Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
t
? W
hi ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
as
ng ? Coastal Management Consultant [I Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
El Wilmington
? Others
Environmental Management RECEIVED
Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
JON 2 5 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL S
CIENCES

Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
P5 10n
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
s-. .?-!
U. S. 1
From Proposed U. S. 74 Bypass
to SR 1974 (Forrest Street)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Number NHF-220(1)
State Project Number 8.1580601
T.I.P. No. U-2583
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
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:
3-21
Date;,H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
,Nid olWL. ivision Administrator
Jr-G?ed Highway Administration
U. S. 1
From Proposed U. S. 74 Bypass
to SR 1974 (Forrest Street)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Number NHF-220(1)
State Project Number 8.1580601
T.I.P. No. U-2583
Environmental Assessment
March 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Idines F. Bridges Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
C A R0?
J. W n Stroud
c'
Project Planning Unit Head S E A L = 's 6976
c
r•
•
z 91- 176",
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E. Assistant Manager V•••pR?-?.?`??,
Planning and Environmental Branch "t•++++++??`'?
Summary
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
Federal Highway Administration
Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following people can be contacted for additional information concerning this
project:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
[phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
3. Summary of Special Project Commitments
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices throughout construction.
NCDOT will notify the N.C. Geodetic Survey prior to construction with regards to
one geodetic survey marker located north of SR 1974.
NCDOT will conduct a site inspection of underground storage facilities located
within the project area prior to right of way acquisition.
4. Anticipated Design Exceptions
NCDOT expects no design exceptions will be required for the project.
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.,
1344), NCDOT anticipates that a Nationwide permit No. 14 (minor road crossings) will be
required from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed highway widening. If
the project requires a Nationwide permit No. 14, a 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required from the Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
ii
6. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
U. S. I from the proposed U.S. 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham,
Richmond County. NCDOT includes this project in the 1996-2002 Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.).
NCDOT will widen U.S. 1, which is an existing two lane section with shoulder and
ditches, to a five lane section with curb and gutter from the proposed U. S. 74 Bypass to SR
1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham (see Figure 2). The proposed typical section will be
19.2 meters (64 feet) wide from face to face of curbs. It will provide four through lanes
(two in each direction) and a continuous center left-turn lane. The widening will be done to
the east of the existing alignment from just north of SR 1180 (Southwood Road) to just
south of SR 1136 (Eason Road) and symmetrically from SR 1136 to SR 1974. The
completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50 mph). It will
require 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way.
7. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Impacts
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient vehicle operation and reduced
travel times. This will result in road user cost savings. Automobile traffic safety will be
enhanced. Access to homes, businesses, and public facilities will be improved. The project
will improve the aesthetics of the roadway corridor.
Approximately 1.6 hectares (4.0 acres) of additional right of way will be required.
An estimated six residential relocations and one business relocation will occur as a result of
the project. Less than 0.2 hectare (0.49 acre) of wetlands will be impacted by the project.
No protected species will be impacted by the project.
8. Alternatives Considered
a. Recommended Improvements--NCDOT will widen U. S. 1 from the existing two
lane section with shoulder and ditches to a five lane section with curb and gutter
from the proposed U. S. 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham
(see Figure 2). The proposed typical section will be 19.2 meters (64 feet) wide
from face to face of curbs. It will provide four through lanes (two in each
direction) and a continuous center left-turn lane. It will require 30 meters (100
feet) of right of way. The widening will be done to the east of the existing
alignment from just north of SR 1180 (Southwood Road) to just south of SR
1136 (Eason Road) and symmetrically from SR 1136 to SR 1974. The
completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50
mph).
b. Design Alternatives--There are four design alternatives to the recommended
improvement for this project. Based on the analysis presented in this document,
NCDOT has eliminated these. The additional build alternatives are as follows.
* Widening symmetrically. This alternate would require eight residential and
two business relocations. In addition, this alternate would require
additional traffic control measures throughout the project area during
iii
construction due to the presence of construction activities on both side of
the road throughout the project length (1.3 km/.8 mi.). For these reasons,
NCDOT rejected this alternate.
* Widening only to the west of the existing alignment. This alternative
would require nine residential and two business relocations. Because of
this, NCDOT rejected this alternative.
Widening only to the east of the existing alignment. This alternative would
require seven residential and one business relocation. Widening to the east
would require one more residential relocatee than the recommended
alternative. In addition, this alternative would not align as well with the
segment of existing US I north of the project. Because of this, NCDOT
rejected this alternative.
* Other combinations of alternatives. The recommended alternative is a
combination of widening; to the east and widening symmetrically. Other
combinations of alternatives would require more relocations than the
recommended alternative. Therefore, NCDOT rejected these
combinations.
c. Postponement of Proposed Action--Based on traffic projections, the existing
facility will exhibit constrained flow in the year 2000 and has a much higher
accident rate than the statewide average for similar roadways. With the
projected design year traffic volumes, the facility will exhibit gridlock conditions
in some areas. Postponement of the project would result in continuing traffic
service deterioration as traffic volume increases. Therefore, NCDOT does not
recommend this alternative.
d. Do Nothing Alternative--This alternative would avoid the limited environmental
impacts anticipated to result from construction of the project. However, this
alternative would not improve the substandard lane widths or improve turning
conditions in the project area. It would also not provide for the additional traffic
volumes or provide continuity for traffic coming from the proposed U.S. 74
Bypass. For these reasons, NCDOT does not recommend the Do Nothing
Alternative.
e. Alternative Modes of Transportation--No alternative mode of transportation
such as mass transit, HOV lanes, or van pooling or carpooling appears to be a
practical alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant transportation
mode in the project area, and the project involves widening an existing road.
9. Federal State and Local Agencies Contacted at the Beginning of this Study
U. S. Department of the Army--Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior--Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Administration--State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources-
Division of Environmental Management, Division of Land Resources,
Division of Forest Resources, Office of Policy Development, and Wildlife
Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources--State Historic Preservation Officer
rv
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region H Council of Governments
Richmond County Commissioners
City of Rockingham--Mayor, City Manager, City Planner, City Schools
Superintendent
10. Basis for Environmental Assessment
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, NCDOT and FHWA anticipate
this project will have no significant detrimental effect on the duality of the human
environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes in route classification
and land use and is not controversial. Federal, state, and local agencies have reviewed the
project and raised no objections. Members of the public voiced no major objections to the
project at the Citizens Informational Workshop held 20 June 1995 in Rockingham. For
these reasons, NCDOT and FHWA conclude an Environmental Assessment applies to the
project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PROJECT SUMMARY
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Project Status and History I
B. Project Terminals 2
C. Existing Conditions 2
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied 2
2. Route Classification 2
2
3. Existing Cross Section 2
4. Existing Right of Way 2
5. Access Control 3
6. Speed Limits 3
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures 3
8. Traffic Data 3
Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
9
.
10. Intersecting Roads 3
3
11. Degree of Roadside Interference
12. Railroad Crossings 4
4
13. School Bus Data 4
14. Existing Sidewalk 4
15. Utilities
D. Capacity Analysis 4
5
E. Accident Analysis 6
F. Thoroughfare Plan 6
G. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
H. Nearby Airports 7
7
1. Conclusion
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
7
A. General Description 7
7
B. Cost Estimate 7
C. Proposed Typical Section 7
D. Design Speed 7
E. Right of Way 7
F. Access Control 8
G. Intersection Treatment 8
H. Bridges and Other Drainage Structures 8
1. Railroad Crossing Treatment 8
J. Changes in State Highway System 8
K. Permits Required 8
L. Multiple Use of Space 8
M. Bikeways and Sidewalks
PAGE
N. Noise Barriers 8
0. Anticipated Design Exceptions 8
P. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area 9
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 9
A. Recommended Improvements 9
B. Design Alternatives 9
C. Postponement of Proposed Action 10
D. Do Nothing Alternative 10
E. Alternative Modes of Transportation 10
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
Land Use and Planning
a. Scope of Local Planning Activities
b. Existing Land Use
c. Existing Zoning
d. Future Land Use
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
3. Public Facilities
4. Relocations
5. Social Impacts
6. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Historic Architectural Resources
b. Archaeological Resources
B. Section 4(f) Properties
C. Economic Effects
D. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
a. Background
b. Biotic Communities
c. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
d. Federally-Protected Species
e. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
2. Soils and Topography
3. Wetlands and Permits
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation
5. Water Resources and Water Quality
6. Farmland
7. Highway Traffic and Construction Noise Analysis
a. Background
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
14
16
16
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
23
PAGE
c. Ambient Noise Levels 23
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels 24 23
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis 24
f. Do Nothing Alternative 25
g. Construction Noise 25
h. Conclusion
8. Air Quality Analysis 25
a. Background 25
b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxide 26
c. Particulate Matter 26
d. Lead 26
e. Carbon Monoxide 27
f. Burning 27
g. Conclusion 28
9. Stream Modification 28
10. Hazardous Materials 28
11. Geotechnical Impacts 28
12. Construction Impacts 29
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 30
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies 330
0
B. Citizens Informational Workshop 30
C. Public Hearing
TABLES
Table 1 - Traffic Projections 3
5
Table 2A - Mainline Level of Service 5
Table 2B - Intersection Level of Service 6
Table 3 - Accident Rates 16
Table 4 - Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities 17
Table 5 - Federally Protected Species for Richmond County
Table 6 - Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species for

Richmond County 19
27
Table 7 - One Hour CO Concentrations
FIGURES
Figure 1 A - Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1B - TIP Projects in the Vicinity
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic Showing Project
Figure 3A - Photographs of Existing Conditions
Figure 3B - Photographs of Existing Conditions
Figure 4A - 2000 Average Daily Traffic Map
Figure 4B - 2000 Average Daily Traffic Map
Figure 4C - 2020 Average Daily Traffic Map
Figure 4D - 2020 Average Daily Traffic Map
FIGURES
Figure 5 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 6 - Proposed Typical Section
Figure 7 - Wetlands
APPENDIX
Appendix I - Right of Way Relocation Information
Appendix 2 - Traffic Noise Analysis Tables and Figures
Appendix 3 - Air Quality Analysis Tables
Appendix 4 - Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix 5 - Citizens Informational Workshop News Release and Information
Handout
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
Federal Highway Administration
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
U. S. 1 from the proposed U. S. 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham,
Richmond County (see Figures IA and 1B). NCDOT includes this project in the 1996-
2002 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.).
NCDOT will widen U.S. 1, which is an existing two lane section with shoulders and
ditches to a five lane section with curb and gutter from the proposed U.S. 74 Bypass to SR
1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham (see Figure 2). The proposed typical section will be
19.2 meters (64 feet) wide from face to face of curbs. It will provide four through lanes
(two in each direction) and a continuous center left-turn lane. The widening will be done to
the east of the existing alignment from just north of SR 1180 (Southwood Road) to just
south of SR 1136 (Eason Road) and symmetrically from SR 1136 to SR 1974 (see Figure
I A and 1B). The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h
(50 mph) with a proposed posted speed limit of 70 km/hr (45 mph). It will require 30
meters (100 feet) of right of way.
The estimated cost of the project is $2,865,000, including $815,000 for right of way
and $2,050,000 for construction. The funding shown in the 1996-2002 T.I.P. is
$1,500,000. The cost estimate exceeds the T.I.P. funding by $1,365,000.
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. PROJECT STATUS AND HISTORY
The 1996-2002 NCDOT T.I.P. proposes widening U. S. 1 to a multi-lane facility
from the proposed U.S. 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street). The current project
schedule includes right of way acquisition beginning in fiscal year 1998 and construction in
fiscal year 2000.
The T.I.P. includes total funding of $1,500,000 for the project. The total includes
$600,000 for right of way and $900,000 for construction.
The estimated right of way cost is $815,000. The estimated construction cost is
$2,050,000. The total estimated cost is $2,865,000. This is $1,365,000 more than the
T.I.P. funding.
NCDOT completed a Feasibility Study for this project in 1990. That study
concluded the project is needed to provide improved access and safety for existing and
future traffic volumes. The project will provide multi-lane continuity to the proposed U.S.
74 Bypass from the Rockingham central area. The study recommended a five lane section,
19.2 meters (64 feet) from face to face of curbs. It recommended symmetrical widening
and indicated the proposed section would be consistent with anticipated traffic volumes, the
concentration of roadside development, and the ultimate function of the existing road. The
project is shown in Figures IA and 1B.
B. PROJECT TERMINALS
The southern project terminal is just south of SR 1180 (Southwood Road). This is
the northern end of the proposed interchange of the U. S. 74 Bypass and U. S. 1. This
interchange will include five lane (curb and gutter) widening along U. S. 1 from SR 1137
(Spring Street) to just south of SR 1180 (Southwood Road). Existing US 1 is two lanes at
this location.
The northern project terminal is the intersection of U.S. 1 and SR 1974 (Forrest
Street). Just north of Valley Hill Drive, northbound US I and southbound US 1-US 220
diverge. Northbound U.S. I is a three lane shoulder section 12.2 meters (40 ft.) in width at
this location. Southbound U.S. l/U.S. 220 is a three lane shoulder section 12.2 meters (40
ft.) in width just north of SR 1974, including a left turn lane at SR 1974. The southbound
US 1/US 220 left turn lane is dropped at SR 1974, and the facility tapers down to one lane
at Valley Hill Drive. At this point, U.S. 220 ends, and U.S. 1 is a two lane, two way road
to the southern project end.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of U.S. 1 from the proposed U.S. 74 Bypass to
SR 1974 is 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mile).
2. Route Classification
U.S. 1 within the project limits is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial. The
NCDOT Statewide Functional Classification for this section of U. S. 1 is Principal Arterial.
3. Existing Cross Section
U.S. 1 is two lanes with shoulder and ditch from SR 1180 (Southwood Road) to
Valley Hill Drive (1.0 kilometer/0.6 mile). The existing travelway is 7.9 meters (24 feet)
wide with a 1.8 meter (6 feet) grass shoulder on the west side. The east side has a shoulder
width of 1.8 meters (6 feet) including .6 meter (2 feet) of paved shoulder.
Just north of Valley Hill Drive, Northbound US 1 and Southbound US I/US 220
diverge. Northbound US I consists of a 3-lane, 11 meter (36 feet) travelway with a 1.8
meter (6 feet) shoulder including a .6 meter (2 ft) paved shoulder on the east side. The
west side has a 1.8 meter (6 foot) shoulder including a 1.2 m (4 foot) paved shoulder.
Figures 3A and 3B show photographs of the existing roadway sections.
4. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way width along U.S. 1 from SR 1180 to SR 1974 is 18.3
meters (60 feet).
5. Access Control
There is no access control along U.S. 1 in the project area.
6. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit in the project area is 85 km/h (50 mph).
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures
There are no bridges along the project. There. are two streams crossing U. S. 1
within the project limits (one stream, Rocky Branch, crosses just south of the southern
project terminal). Both streams crossing the project are tributaries of Rocky Branch. Each
crosses through a 450 millimeter (18 inch) concrete pipe. One stream crosses
approximately 48 meters (160 feet) north of SR 1187 (Springdale Drive). The other
crosses approximately 105 meters (345 feet) north of SR 1187.
8. Traffic Data
Table l shows the NCDOT traffic projections on U.S. 1 for the years 2000 and
2020. These traffic projections take into consideration the affect of the proposed US 74
Bypass (R-512) and the proposed US 1 Bypass (R-2501).

1 UVIC I. 1 1 G.11 C r I V v%ILI 110
Location
Year 2000
Year 2020
South of SR I 'l 80 6,800 v d 13,880 d
South of SR 1187 7 200 v pd 14,560 d
South of SR 1136 9,700 d 18,080 d
South of Valle Hill Drive 9,400 d 17,540 v pd
South of SR 1974 I 1 700 v d 19,900 d
This traffic includes 4% truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST) and 4% dual-tired trucks
in the year 2000 and 6% TTST and 6% dual-tired trucks in the year 2020. Estimated
design hourly volumes for the years 2000 and 2020 are 8% and 9% respectively, of the
volumes shown in Figures 4A through 4D. Figures 4A thru Figure 4D show projected
traffic volumes and turning movements for the years 2000 and 2020, respectively.
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
Most of U.S. I has straight horizontal alignment; however, there is an 8 degree
horizontal curve at the intersection with SR 1136 (Eason Drive). There is also a crest
vertical curve at this location (see Figures 3A and 3B). U.S. 1 is along rolling terrain
throughout the project area.
10. Intersecting Roads
All the intersections along U.S. 1 are at grade. All are unsignalized. All intersecting
roads are two-lane roads. The intersection of U.S. 1 and U.S. 220 near the north project
terminal is a channelized "Y" intersection.
11. Degree of Roadside Interference
There is a moderate degree of roadside interference along U.S. 1 due to
intersecting streets, driveways, adjacent businesses, and one railroad crossing (north of the
northern project terminal).
12. Railroad Crossings
One railroad crosses U. S. 1 north of SR 1974 (Forrest Street). The existing traffic
controls include signs and warning flashers. Three trains cross here twice weekly. The
speed of these trains is 15 km/h (10 mph). The exposure index for 2020 will be 20,440.
This is under the exposure index threshold of 30,000 for an urban area and does not
warrant consideration of a grade separation. During the period from September 1, 1991 to
August 31, 1994 there were no reported accidents at the railroad crossing.
13. School Bus Data
The Richmond County Schools Transportation Director indicated seven to eight
school buses use U.S. I twice daily in the project area.
14. Existing Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks along the project.
15. Utilities
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be moderate to high.
One major electrical power corridor crosses U.S. 1 approximately 275 meters (900
feet) north of SR 1136 (Eason Street). The corridor consists of overhead transmission
lines. A second major corridor crosses south of the southern project limits (approximately
220 meters/720 feet south of SR 1180).
There are street lights on the east side ofU.S. 1 from Valley Hill Drive north into
Rockingham. Street lights on the west side of U. S. 1 begin approximately 165 meters
(540 feet) north of Valley Hill Drive and continue into Rockingham.
There are power poles with overhead lines on both side of U. S. 1 throughout the
project area.
The City of Rockingham has water and sewer lines along the project. A water line
crosses U.S. 1 at SR 1187 (Springdale Road). A 5-centimeter (2-inch) water line crosses
U.S. I at SR 1136 (Eason Road). A water line crosses U.S. 1 at Valley Hill Drive. The
water line is along the east side of U.S. 1 from the city limits through the northern project
terminal. A sewer line is along the west side of U.S. 1 from Valley Hill Drive through the
northern project terminal. Another sewer line is on the east side of U.S. 1 near the
junction of U. S. 1 and U. S. 220.
One geodetic survey marker (Dairy) is in the median between U. S. 1 and U. S. 220
north of SR 1974. The N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
D. CAPACITY ANALYSIS
A mainline capacity analysis was performed for the project. Based on traffic
projections for the year 2000, without improvements, U.S. 1 will operate at level of service
(LOS) D from south of SR 1180 (Southwood Road) to SR 1136 (Eason Road), LOS E
between SR 1136 and Valley Hill Drive, and LOS E between Valley Hill Drive and SR
1974. Without improvements, U.S. 1 will operate at LOS E, LOS F, and LOS F in these
same areas in the year 2020. With the proposed improvements, in the year 2020, U. S. 1
will operate at LOS A, LOS B, and LOS B in these areas. This mainline analysis is shown
in Table 2A.
TARI.F 2A Mainline Level of Service
U.S. I From/To 2000
(No
Improvements) 2020
(No
Improvements) 2020
(Improvements)
SR 1180/SR 1136 D E A
S R I 136/Valle Hill Dr. E F B
Valle Hill Dr./SR 1974 A B B
Capacity analyses were also performed for the major intersections along the
project (see Table 213). All intersections will remain unsignalized under the subject
project. The results of the highway capacity analysis for these unsignalized intersections
include the LOS for the major road and minor roads (US 1 is the mayor road).
The existing US l/SR 1180 intersection will operate at a level of service of A/A
(major/minor roads ) in the year 2000. This intersection will operate at level of service
A/C in the year 2020 both with and without improvements. The existing US 1/SR 1187
intersection will also operate at level of service A/A in the year 2000. In the year 2020
this intersection will operate at level of service A/C without improvements and A/D with
improvements. The US 1/SR 1136 intersection will operate at level of service AB in the
year 2000 without improvements and at level of service A/E in the year 2020 with and
without improvements. The intersection of US 1 and SR 1974 will operate at level of
service A/C in the year 2000. Without improvements this intersection will operate at level
of service A/E in the year 2020 both with and without improvements. The intersection of
US 1 and SR 1974 will operate at level of service A/C in the year 2000 and 2020 both
with and without improvements.
T ART F TR intPrcPrtinn Level of Service (Maior/Mlnor Roads)
Intersection 2000
(No
Improvements) 2020
(No
Improvements) 2020
(With
improvements)
US 1/SR 1180 A/A A/C A/C
US I /SR 1187 A/A A/C A/D
US 1/SR 1136 AB A/E A/E
US 1Nalle Hill Drive A/C A/E A/E
US I /SR 1974 A/C A/C A/C
For unsignalized intersections, there is no overall level of service calculated;
instead, levels of service are broken down by individual movements. No level of service is
calculated for the mainline through and right-turning movements for unsignalized
intersections. Since mainline through and right-turning movements always have the right
of way, the flow of these moves is considered to be basically unaffected by the intersection
and is therefore approximated by the mainline levels of service shown in Table 2A. As
noted previously, the mainline level of service will be greatly improved as a result of the
project.
E. ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
A comparison of accident rates along US 1 with the statewide rates for rural and
urban two-lane "US" routes is shown in Table 3. The accident rates for US 1 are based
on the period from September 1991 to August 1994. The statewide averages were
generated from data for the years 1992-1994.
•r a Rr T7'1 Arrlr)PMT R ATFC (PRR 100 MT1.L10N VEHICLE KILOMETERS)
ACCIDENT ?v v RATES ALONG AVERAGE AVERAGE
TYPE U.S.l STATEWIDE STATEWIDE
RATES FOR RATES FOR
URBAN TWO- RURAL TWO-
LANE U.S. LANE U.S.
ROUTES ROUTES
All Accidents 177.44 165.82 107.77
Fatal 3.55 .68 1.55
Non-Fatal 124.29 68.55 51.09
Nighttime 46.16 27.91 30.45
Wet Conditions 21.30 34.99 25.79
Seventeen accidents occurred in the project area during the period from 1
September 1991 to 31 August 1994. The overall accident rate.during this period was
177.44 accidents per 100 nullion vehicle kilometers (acc/IOOMVK). This compares to a
statewide average of 107.77 acc/100MVK for two lane rural US routes and a statewide
average of 165.82 acc/100MVK for two lane urban US routes during the period from 1992
through 1994.
Sixteen of the 17 accidents involved vehicles going straight ahead or stopping in
the travel lane. Eight of the accidents were rearend collisions. This is indicative of a two-
lane roadway operating near or beyond its capacity. Because US 1 has only a single lane
in each direction, vehicles making turning movements slow or stop traffic. This creates a
situation where "rearend" accidents occur.
One intersection (Eason Road) accounted for five of the 17 accidents. There were
no reported accidents at the railroad crossing (north of SR 1974).
F. THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The 1979 Thoroughfare Plan for Rockingham and Hamlet identifies widening US 1
from the proposed US 74 Bypass (Project R-512) to SR 1974 as a second priority project.
The plan states that this widening needs to be done by the year 2000 to prevent intolerable
congestion on this section of road and to allow easy access between the bypass and the
Rockingham central business district. The plan classifies US 1 as a major radial
thoroughfare. Figure 5 shows a portion of the Thoroughfare Plan, including the subject
section of US 1.
The NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch is currently working on an updated
Thoroughfare Plan for Rockingham and Hamlet. The updated Thoroughfare Plan is
scheduled to be complete by the summer of 1996.
G. BENEFITS TO THE STATE REGION AND COMMUNITY
The proposed improvements will allow safer and more efficient travel along US 1
throughout the project area. The additional through lanes and center left turn lane will
enhance safety by allowing for passing and by separating left turning traffic from the
through traffic stream. Each of these improvements will also improve the efficiency of
travel by reducing stops and slow downs due to conflicts between left turning traffic and
through traffic. The project will also provide continuity for traffic from the US 74 Bypass
to central Rockingham.
H. NEARBY AIRPORTS
The Rockingham/Hamlet Airport is approximately 3.1 kilometers (1.9 miles) east of
US 1 (see Figure 1 A and I B). There are no other airports in the project area. The NCDOT
Division of Aviation has reviewed the project and indicated it will not likely affect this
airport.
1. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed in this section--improved safety and efficiency, improved
capacity, and continuity for traffic from the proposed bypass to central Rockingham--
NCDOT concludes that US 1 should be widened as proposed.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
NCDOT will widen US 1, which is an existing two lane section with shoulders and
ditches to a five lane section with curb and gutter from the proposed US 74 Bypass to
SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham. The recommended improvements are shown in
Figure 2. The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50
mph). It will require 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way.
B. COST ESTIMATE
The total estimated cost for the project is $ 2,865,000. The estimated right of way
cost is $815,000. The estimated construction cost is $2,050,000.
C. PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
The proposed typical section is five lanes plus curb and gutter. It will provide four
through lanes and a continuous center left-turn lane. It will be 19.2 meters (64 feet) wide
from face to face of curbs. The curb and gutter will be 750 millimeters (2.5 feet) in width.
There will be a 3.0-meter (10.0-foot) wide grass berm on each side (see Figure 6). The
widening will be done to the east of the existing alignment from just north of SR 1180
(Southwood Road) to just south of SR 1136 (Eason Road) and symmetrically from
SR 1136 to SR 1974.
D. DESIGN SPEED
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50
mph) with a proposed posted speed limit of 70 km/hr (45 mph).
E. RIGHT OF WAY
The proposed widening will require 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way. This will
require purchasing approximately 1.6 hectares (4.0 acres) of additional right of way.
Temporary construction easement will also be required throughout most of the project.
F. ACCESS CONTROL
The proposed improvements will not require any changes in access control.
Currently there is no control of access along US 1 or the intersecting roads. There is partial
control of access on US 220 north of the junction with US 1.
G. INTERSECTION TREATMENT
NCDOT does not propose additional turn lanes for any of the intersecting roads
along US 1. Also, no traffic signals are proposed for this protect.
H. BRIDGES AND OTHER DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
There are no bridges along the project. There are two streams crossing under
US 1. Each crosses through a 450 millimeter (18 inch) pipe. One crosses approximately 47
meters (155 feet) north of SR 1187 (Springdale Road). The other stream crosses
approximately 105 meters (344 feet) north of SR 1187 (Springdale Road). These pipes will
be retained and extended to accommodate the proposed widening of U.S. 1.
1. RAILROAD CROSSING TREATMENT
A railroad crosses U.S. 1 at grade north of SR 1974 (Forrest Street). No
improvements to this crossing are recommended.
J. CHANGES IN STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
The project will not require any changes in the State Highway System.
K. PERMITS REQUIRED
Conditions for a Nationwide Permit No. 14 (minor road crossings) from the Corps
of Engineers apply to the project. If the project requires a permit No. 14, a 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required from the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management.
L. MULTIPLE USE OF SPACE
There are no plans to use the right of way for any other purposes except public
utilities. Public utilities will be allowed within the right of way within certain limitations.
M. BIKEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS
The NCDOT office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation reviewed the project
and indicated that there does not appear to be any special need for bicycle
accommodations.
There is no evidence of need for sidewalks on this project. The City Manager and
Mayor of Rockingham have concurred that sidewalks are not warranted on the project.
N. NOISE BARRIERS
There are no noise barriers recommended for the project.
0. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT expects no design exceptions will be required for the project.
P. OTHER PROPOSED HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA
There are five other NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.)
highway projects in the Rockingham area. Figure 1B shows these projects.
Project R-2501 proposes to improve US 1 from the South Carolina border to
SR 1001 in Richmond County. The project proposes widening to a multi-lane roadway
with a bypass of Rockingham. The T.I.P. schedule for this project includes right of way
acquisition beginning in fiscal year 2002 and construction beginning after fiscal year 2002.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this project is currently being prepared. The
alignment shown in Figure 1B for this project is preliminary and subject to change.
Project R-512 proposes to construct a four lane divided US 74 Bypass on new
location around Rockingham and Hamlet. The US 74 Bypass will be the southern project
terminal for Project U-2523. The widening of US 1 is being coordinated with Project
R-512. Right of way acquisition is underway and construction is scheduled to begin in
fiscal year 1996.
Project U-2217 proposes to construct additional ramps at the US 220/SR 1124
interchange in Rockingham. Right of Way acquisition is underway and construction is
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1996.
Project B-2607 proposes to replace Bridge No. 29 on US 1 over CSX Railroad
and Falling Creek in Rockingham. The T.I.P. includes planning beginning in fiscal year
1996, right of way acquisition beginning in fiscal year 1998, and construction beginning in
fiscal year 1999.
Project B-3365 proposes to replace Bridge No. 33 on SR 1124 over Falling Creek
in Rockingham. The T.I.P. schedule for this project includes planning beginning in fiscal
year 1997, right of way acquisition beginning in fiscal year 2000, and construction
beginning in fiscal year 2001.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will widen US 1 from the existing two lane section with shoulders and
ditches to a five lane section with curb and gutter from the proposed US 74 Bypass to
SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in Rockingham. The proposed typical section will be 19.2
meters (64 feet) wide from face to face of curbs. It will provide four through lanes and a
continuous center left-turn lane. The widening will be done to the east of the existing
alignment from just north of SR 1180 (Southwood Road) to just south of SR 1136 (Eason
Road) and symmetrically from SR 1136 to SR 1974. The completed project will provide a
design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50 mph). It will require 30 meters (100 feet) of
right of way. The total cost of this alternative is $2,865,000. The estimated right of way
cost is $815,000. The estimated construction cost is $2,050,000. The will be six
residential relocations and one business relocation as a result of this project. There
recommended improvements are shown in Figure 2.
B. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Three build alternatives were considered in addition to the proposed alternative.
Based on the estimated number of residential and business relocations, NCDOT eliminated
10
these alternatives. These alternatives would provide the same typical section and require
approximately the same new right of way as the recommended alternate. The additional
build alternatives are as follows:
1. Widening US 1 symmetrically. The total cost of this alternate is $3,061,000. The
estimated cost of construction is $2,150,000. The estimated cost of right of way is
$911,000. This alternative would require eight residential and two business relocations.
2. Widening US 1 entirely to the west of the existing alignment. The total cost of this
alternate is $3,027,000. The estimated cost of construction is $2,000,000. The
estimated cost of right of way is $1,027,000. This alternative would require nine
residential and two business relocations.
3. Widening US 1 entirely to the east of the existing alignment. The total cost of this
alternate is $2,814,000. The estimated cost of construction is $2,000,000. The
estimated cost of right of way is $814,000. This alternative would require seven
residential and one business relocations. Although this alternative is the least expensive,
it does not match up as well with the segment of US 1 north of the project and it would
require 1 more residential relocatee than the recommended improvement.
In addition to these build alternatives, NCDOT studied combinations of these (the
Recommended Alternative is a combination of Alternative 3 and Alternative 1). None of
the other studied alternatives had fewer relocations or less environmental impact than the
Recommended Alternative; therefore, NCDOT rejected these alternatives.
C. POSTPONEMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION
The existing facility exhibits constrained flow and has a much higher accident rate
than the statewide average for similar roadways. With the projected design year traffic
volumes, the facility will exhibit gridlock conditions in some areas (see Section II.D.).
Postponement of the project would result in continuing traffic service deterioration as traffic
volumes increase. Therefore, NCDOT does not recommend this alternative.
D. DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would avoid the limited environmental impacts anticipated to result
from construction of the project. However, this alternative would not provide multi-lane
continuity from the proposed US 74 Bypass to downtown Rockingham, provide adequate
capacity for future traffic, or improve turning conditions at intersections. Therefore, it
would not improve the safety and efficiency of traffic flow along US 1. For these reasons,
NCDOT does not recommend the Do Nothing Alternative.
E. ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
No alternative mode of transportation such as mass transit, HOV lanes, or van
pooling or carpooling appears to be a practical alternative. Highway transportation is the
dominant transportation mode in the project area, and the project involves widening an
existing road.
11
V SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. SOCIAL EFFECTS
1. Land Use and Planning
a. Scope of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located in the City of Rockingham
extraterritorial jurisdiction. The City enforces a Unified Development
Ordinance containing all land use controls, such as zoning and subdivision
regulations. The City does not, however have a long range land use plan.
b. Existing Land Use
The proposed project begins just south of SR 1180 (Southwood
Road) and ends dust south of the U. S. 1 and U. S. 220 intersection. The
project area is a mix of commercial and low-density residential land uses.
Wooded areas are interspersed with the commercial and residential uses.
Land uses from the southern project terminus to SR 1136 (Eason Road)
include low-density residential, a floorcovering business, and an auto parts
store. The Southwood Pentecostal Holiness Church is located at the
intersection of SR 1180. A diner is located at the intersection of SR 1187
(Springdale Road. Development along US 1 from SR 1136 to SR 1974
(Forrest Street) includes single-family residential, a paint store, two small
commercial warehouses, and a gas station/ convenience store. Just north
of SR 1136 is the Hebron Baptist Temple.
c. Existing Zonin
Because the City has no long range planning document, the Unified
Development Ordinance serves as the primary tool in guiding land use
changes. According to the City zoning map, one element of the Ordinance,
the project area is zoned for low-density, single-family residential,
instrtutJonal, and highway business uses.
d. Future Land Use
According to local officials, the proposed US 74 bypass interchange
construction will improve access to the area and may stimulate commercial
and possibly industrial development in the long-range future by
accommodating the movement of truck traffic. In the short-term, the
project area is anticipated to experience some residential and commercial
growth.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
Richmond County is in the south central section of North Carolina. It is
bounded by South Carolina and Anson, Stanly, Montgomery, Moore, and Scotland
Counties. According to the 1990 Census Data, Richmond County has a
population of 44,518. Rockingham is the largest urban area in the county. It has a
population of 9,399.
The project area consists of residential, commercial, and institutional
development. Development in some sections along the project is close to the
proposed widening.
12
3. Public Facilities
Near the southern end of the proposed project is the Southwood
Pentecostal Church. It is set back from the roadway on the west side of U. S. 1.
Near the northern end of the proposed project is the Hebron Baptist Church. The
proposed project will not adversely affect these, or other, public facilities.
4. Relocations
Additional right of way will be needed to complete the project. NCDOT
anticipates the project will require relocating six residential dwellings and one
business. Although right of way will be purchased from the six residential
relocatees, none of the six dwellings are actually in the proposed right of way.
However, these residences were assumed to be relocatees due to an anticipated
loss of septic systems. It is possible that fewer than six residential relocatees will
result from this project.
For all relocations, it is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of State
and Federal assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
* Relocation Assistance
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement.
Appendix 1 contains information on the Division of Highways Relocation
Programs (see pages Al-1 and Al-2). The relocation report for the project is
included in the Appendix (see page Al-3).
Of the six residential relocatees anticipated to result from the proposed
widening, two are minorities. One low-income relocatee is anticipated from the
proposed widening. The proposed widening is not anticipated to
disproportionately impact any minority or low-income communities.
5. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood cohesion and it will not
interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services. It will have a positive
social and economic effect on the total community.
Richmond County has a population of 44,518. The minority population is
13,702 or 30.7 percent of the total population. Two of the six residential
relocatees or 33 percent are minorities. The proposed widening is not anticipated
to disproportionately impact any minority or low-income communities.
6. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Historic Architectural Resources
According to records at the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), no properties of historic architectural significance occur within
13
the project area. The SHPO recommends no historic architectural
survey for the project. See pages A4-14 and A4-15 of Appendix 4 for a
copy of correspondence from the SHPO.
b. Archaeological Resources
According to SHPO, there are no known archaeological sites within
the project area. It is unlikely any archaeological resources eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project. SHPO recommends no survey for archaeological resources.
Based on this recommendation no surveys were conducted. See pages A4-
15 and A4-16 of Appendix 4 for a copy of correspondence from the
SHPO.
B. SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES
The project will not use property from any resource protected by Section 4(f).
C. ECONOMIC EFFECTS
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (preliminary data for
June 1995) indicate that Richmond County has a total civilian labor force of 21,470. Out
of that total, 19,230 persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemployment total of
2,240 persons or 10.4%.
The proposed project will have a positive effect on the local economy. US 1
passes through the middle of Rockingham, which is the largest urban area in Richmond
County. By widening US 1 , a major thoroughfare, the proposed project can help
eliminate some of the existing traffic build up and increase efficiency of delivering goods
and services. In addition to being a major thoroughfare in Rockingham, US 1 runs north
and south through North Carolina and other states and cities in the eastern United States.
This route is used to transport many types of goods. It is a vital link. Improvements will
enhance the local and regional economy.
US 1 connects with other major highways in the project area, including US 74 and
US 220. This increases the economic opportunities for other states, counties, and
municipalities.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Biological Resources
a. Background
The study area associated with the proposed project is primarily disturbed.
Commercial and residential development dominate the immediate surroundings
with several small stands of timber interspersed throughout the project. Rocky
Branchand several unnamed tributaries lie within the study area, as well as several
small wetlands. Detailed information concerning water resources and wetlands is
described later in the report.
14
An NCDOT staff biologist conducted research prior to a site visit.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of the study area include the
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Rockingham) and NCDOT
aerial photomosaic of the project area (1:2000). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Richmond
County, 1992). The biologist gathered information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the study area from the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected and candidate species and the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
The NCDOT staff biologist made a site visit was 31 January 1995 to
evaluate natural resources. General field surveys were conducted along the
proposed alignment. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more
observation techniques including: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks
and burrows). The biologist identified and released organisms captured during
these searches. The biologist performed jurisdictional wetland determinations
using delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
b. Biotic Communities
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated
wildlife communities that occur on the U-2583 project site. It also
discusses potential impacts affecting these communities as a result of the
proposed actions.
The biologist identifies three distinct terrestrial communities and
one aquatic community in the project study area: (1) Mixed
Pine/Hardwood Forest; (2) Bottomland Hardwood Forest, (3) Maintained
Community, and (4) Coastal Plain Perennial Stream. Many faunal species
are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of the three
terrestrial communities discussed. Faunal species observed during the site
visit are noted with an asterisk.
1. Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine/hardwood forest is sporadic throughout the project area.
Before urbanization, this was probably the dominant forest. Loblolly pine,
shortleaf pine, longleaf pine, tulip poplar, sweetgum, and northern red oak
dominate the canopy portions of this forest. Species found throughout the
understory include black cherry, black oak, willow oak, white oak, red cedar,
Florida dogwood, and American holly. Shrub, vine, and herbaceous layers contain
blueberry, cross vine, Japanese honeysuckle, wild grape, greenbrier, poison-ivy,
grapefern, and Christmas fern respectively.
The mixed pine/hardwood forest offers habitat for a variety of fauna.
Reptilian species that may inhabit such areas include the eastern box turtle, five-
lined skink, and ground skink. These species forage on small plants and insects
such as crickets, grasshoppers, beetles, and harvestmen, respectively. The black
racer and copperhead serve predatory roles by feeding on numerous small reptiles,
birds, mammals, and amphibians.
i>
The presence of vegetative stratification provides habitat for species such
as the southern flying squirrel, gray squirrel, pine warbler, tufted titmouse, house
finch, red-bellied woodpecker, northern flicker, and downy woodpecker.
2. Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The bottomland hardwood forest is found along river and stream
floodplains. This occurs especially in the piedmont and lower elevation mountain
valleys but is also found sporadically in the coastal plain. Bottomland hardwood
forests exhibit tree species prone to infrequent, as well as frequent, flooded
conditions. Such species associated with the proposed project are found along
Rocky Branch (south of the project area). Some of these species have adapted to
flooded conditions, since areas exist that are saturated and sometimes inundated
throughout the growing season.
Species such as tulip poplar, sweetgum, and red maple dominate the
canopy layer in this forest. Green ash, silky dogwood, and ironwood are common
understory species. The shrub layer is very sparse, consisting primarily of
viburnum and blackberry. There are numerous vines and herbaceous components
consisting of cross vine, Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier, catbrier, giant cane, and
crane-fly orchid.
Species found in areas saturated throughout the growing season include
those with hydrophytic characteristics. Small wetland pockets provide habitat for
black willow, an understory species, but the dominant flora is herbaceous in this
small sub-community. Soft rush, beggar's ticks, false nettle, seedbox, marsh
-fleabane, tear-thumb, royal fern, cinnamon fern, and sphagnum moss are a few of
the dominant species present. The bottomland hardwood forest offers excellent \
habitat for many birds, mammals, reptiles, and especially amphibians. Birds such as
the eastern wood-pewee, Carolina chickadee, Carolina wren, and ruby crowned
kinglet may frequent these areas for forage items and shelter. Mammals and
reptiles that may be observed in the bottomland hardwood forest include the
southern short-tailed shrew, white-footed mouse, raccoon, worm snake, ringneck
snake, and eastern garter snake.
Since the bottomland hardwood forest exhibits inundated and saturated
conditions, there is excellent breeding habitat for amphibians. Salamanders such as
the marbled salamander, spotted salamander, northern dusky salamander, mud
salamander, and two-lined salamander may live under logs, boards, stones, and
leaves in this community. Other amphibians such as spring peeper, pickerel frog,
southern leopard frog, and upland chorus frog may inhabit this area as well.
3. Maintained Community
The maintained community refers to areas along roadsides and powerline
rights-of-way dominated by both woody and herbaceous weeds that are regularly
controlled by mowing. In addition, a few remnant canopy trees exist in small
areas. Species such as tulip poplar, willow oak, white oak, loblolly pine, and red
cedar are in small fragmented stands within such right-of-ways. However, shrubs,
vines, and hrebaceous type flora are dominant species in this community. Privet,
wild rose, Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier, aster, thoroughwort, fescue, panic
grass, broomsedge, and ebony spleenwort are a few of the common species found
in these open areas receiving direct sunlight.
16
This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of many faunal
species adaptable to urban settings. Species such as the northern cardinal,
mourning dove, northern mockingbird, and American robin are throughout this
community. The hispid cotton rat, Norway rat, eastern cottontail and rat snake
also find foraging opportunities and shelter in this community. A major predator
of this community is the red-tailed hawk, which forages mainly on rodents.
4. Coastal Plain Perennial Stream
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream, will be
impacted by the proposed project. Physical and chemical characteristics of the
water body dictate faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic
communities and vice versa.
The coastal plain perennial stream includes fish native to warmer water
temperatures. Prey species such as bluehead chub, whitefin shiner, spottail shiner,
dusky shiner, and eastern newt may provide foraging opportunities for larger
predatory species, including redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass.
Other species associated with the coastal plain perennial stream community may
include muskrat and mink, which are semi-aquatic mammals that feed on both
aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna.
c. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources
will impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of
each community present in the study area. Project construction will result in
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 4 gives a
summary of potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities that may
result from project construction. The basis of estimated impacts is the study area
of 21 meters (70 feet) on each side of the centerline. Usually, project construction
does not require the entire study area or even right of way; therefore, actual
impacts will be considerably less.
'r.1,1. A T;cr;mnf&-A Tmnacte to Rintic rnmmnnities
Community Im pact
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.3 ha 0.7 ac
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.1 ha 0.3 ac
Maintained Community 1.1 ha 2.8 ac
Total Impacts 1.5 ha 3.8 ac
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented, relatively little impact will
occur to species that live along the edges and open areas. However, ground
dwellers and slow moving organisms may decrease in numbers. Mobile species
may be permanently displaced. Increased predation may occur as a result of
habitat reduction.
17
Impacts to aquatic communities will occur in the form of increased
sedimentation, increased light penetration, and loss of habitat. Sedimentation
covers benthic organisms, inhibiting feeding and respiration. Removal of stream-
side vegetation may lead to increased water temperatures, which can be
detrimental to freshwater aquatic species.
d. Federally-Protected Species
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect species classified as
federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
Plants and animals with Federal Classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. As of 28 March 1995, the USFWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Richmond County (Table 5). A brief description of
each species's characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 5_ Federally-Protected Species for Richmond Countv
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Aci enser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon E
Haliaeetus leucoce halus bald eagle E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
L simachia as erulaefolia rough-leafed loosestrife E*
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
"*" species has not been recorded within the past 20 years for Richmond County.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon) Endangered
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Brunswick, New Hanover, Richmond.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by
dams or pollutants to reproduce successfully. It is an anadromous species that spawns
upstream in the spring and spends most of its life in proximity to a river mouth. At least
two entirely freshwater populations have been recorded in South Carolina and
Massachusetts.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitat exists for the short-nosed sturgeon within the project
boundaries. There are no large rivers or streams found within the study area. Therefore,
no impacts will occur to the short-nosed sturgeon as a result of project construction.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Endangered
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Chatham, Chowan,
Craven, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New
Hanover, Northampton, Perquimans, Richmond, Stanley,
Vance, Wake, Washington.
18
Eagle nests are found within 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) of water with a clear flight
path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitat exists for the bald eagle along the proposed project. With
increased human disturbance, no clear paths to open water, and lack of large trees, it is
very unlikely that the bald eagle is present in the study area. Therefore, no impacts will
occur to the bald eagle as a result of project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden,
Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare,
Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke,
Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore,
Nash, New Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow, Orange,
Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The red-cockaded woodpecker uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus alp ustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested
stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees
that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The
foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites. These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine
trees and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based upon extensive field reconnaissance, no suitable habitat in the form of stands
containing at least 50% pine, lacking a thick understory, and contiguous with other stands
with appropriate habitat is present for the red-cockaded woodpecker in the surrounding
areas of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a result of project construction.
Lysimachia asnerulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Pnmulaceae
Federally Listed: 12 June 1987
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bladen, Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus,
Cumberland, Hoke, Moore, Onslow, Pamlico, Pender,
Richmond, Scotland.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and
South Carolina. This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet,
peat, poorly drained soil) on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic
soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low shrub
19
community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of
unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained. Rough-leaved loosestrife
rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based upon extensive field reconnaissance along ecotones and on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and shallow organic soils overlaying sand, no suitable habitat
exists for rough-leaved loosestrife along the project area. Therefore, no impacts will
occur to this species as a result of project construction.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Lincoln,
Moore, Orange, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland, Wake,
Wilson.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on
some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete
well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present along the roadsides and powerline
right-of-ways. A plant-by-plant survey was conducted by an NCDOT biologist during the
site visit. No individuals were observed. Therefore, no impacts will occur to Michaux's
sumac as a result of project construction.
e. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are nine federal candidate (C2) species listed for Richmond County.
Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
C2 species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no
sufficient data currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 6 lists federal candidate species, the species' state status (if afforded
state protection), and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study
area. This species list is provided for information purposes, as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
20
TABLE 6. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species For Richmond County
SCIENTIFIC COMMON NAME NC SUITABLE
NAME STATUS HABITAT
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC N
Pituophis m. Northern pine snake SC Y
melanoleucus
Amorpha georgiana Georgia leadplant E Y
gerogoama
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch - N
Nestronia umbellula Nestronia - Y
Kalmia cuneata White-wicky E-SC N
Potamogeton Conferva - N
confervoides pondweed*
Stylisma p. var. Pickering's morning E Y
pickeringii glory
Tofieldia glabra - Y
No specimen found in Richmond County in twenty years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or
protected species in or near the project study area.
2. Soils and Topography
Soils in the project area are from the Cecil Clay and Norfolk Sandy Loam series.
The composition of the Cecil Clay is clayey silt with various amounts of organic material
overlying clay. The Norfolk Sandy Loam is silty sand to sandy silt overlying sandy silt to
sandy clay. These soils are all well drained.
Richmond County lies in the sandhills system of the coastal plain physiographic
province. The topography of the sandhills is variable. Gently undulating sandy upland
divides step down to adjacent major streams in a sequence of terraces differing in
elevation. Richmond County is also located along the border of the coastal plain and
piedmont physiographic provinces, which suggests a mixture of topographical variations
throughout the proposed project. Interstream divides may range from smooth valley
slopes to finely dissected areas with steep slopes. The average elevation associated with
the proposed project is 76 meters (250 feet).
3. Wetlands and Permits
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
21
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Two wetland systems will be impacted by proposed project construction'(see
Wetland Nos.:2 and 3, Figure 7): 'One other wetland systems occurs south of the project
area (Wetland Nor 11 Figure 7).'; Each wetland is described below and rated in accordance
with methodologies recommended by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
Wetland #1 This wetland, which is located just south of the project area, is
associated with the bottomland hardwood forest. Dominant flora includes black willow,
soft rush, sphagnum moss, seedbox and cinnamon fern. Soils colors in this community are
10 YR 5/2 (grayish brown) with 7.5 YR 5/6 (strong brown) mottles. Hydrologic
indicators include shallow roots, buttressed trunks, multiple stems, and oxidized
rhizospheres. The Cowardin Classification of this community is PFOIE (palustrine,
forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded/saturated). The DEM rating of the
bottomland hardwood forest wetland community is 69.0 out of a possible 100.0 points.
Wet-land #2 This wetland is located just south of Elaine Avenue and is associated
with a small seep along the southeast quadrant at the US 1 intersection with SR 2029
(Belle Road). In the vicinity of wetland #2, U. S. 1 will be widened on the east side.
Westside widening at this location would avoid wetland #2; however, eastside widening
was chosen because of fewer relocatees and lower overall project cost. Dominant
vegetation includes black willow, tear thumb, beggar's ticks, and thoroughwort. Soil
colors range from 10 YR 3/1 (very dark gray) to 10 YR 5/2 (grayish brown). The area
remains inundated/saturated to the surface throughout the year. The Cowardin
Classification of this seep is PEM1H (palustrine, persistent emergent, permanently
flooded). The;DEM:rating is 32.0 out of a possible 100.0 points. Approximate amount of
impact is <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac).
Wetland #3 This wetland is located just north of Elaine Avenue on both: sides of
US 1 and is associated with a small unnamed tributary of Rocky Branch. Dominant
vegetation includes soft rush, epilobium (Epilobium coloratum), sphagnum moss, black
willow, seedbox, and graminoids. Soil colors are 10 YR 5/2 (grayish brown). The
wetland exhibits inundated conditions throughout the year. The Cowardin Classification
of this community is PEM 1 H also. DEM rating of this wetland is 41.0 `out of a possible
100.0 points. Approximate amount of impact is <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac). Eastside widening is
proposed in this area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide Permit
33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 (road crossings) is applicable to the project.
Nationwide Permit No. 14 authorizes fill for roads crossing waters of the U. S.,
including wetlands and other aquatic sites. Standard conditions include: (1) the width of
the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing, (2) the fill placed in
waters of the U. S. is limited to a filled area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.3 ac), and (3) no
more than a total of 61 linear meters (200 feet) of the fill for the roadway can occur in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
22
The project will not be able to totally avoid wetlands because of occurrences on
both sides of U. S. 1. Impacts to wetlands will be minimized because the project does not
require construction on new location, it will use a curb and gutter section which will
minimize the amount of cut and fill, and Best Management Practices will be implemented
throughout construction.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the COE. Authority for final permit and mitigation decisions rests
with the COE.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC # 2745) is also required
for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a certification is required.
Certifications are administered through the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR).
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Richmond County and the City of Rockingham are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Regular Program; however, there are no designated flood hazard zones
affected by the project.
5. Water Resources and Water ualit
The project is within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Two perennial streams
intersect the project. Both are unnamed tributaries of Rocky Branch. Rocky Branch
intersects U. S. 1 south of the southern project terminal. All three of the streams flow
from southeast to northwest. Rocky Branch converges with Hitchcock Creek
approximately 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) northwest of its intersection with U. S. 1.
Hitchcock Creek then flows westward approximately 6.4 kilometers (4.0 miles) and
empties into the Pee Dee River.
Most streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental, Management (DEM). Rocky Branch ao0 its corresponding tributaries at
the Project site are designated as Class "C" Class "C" waters denote secondary uses such
as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
Neither WS-I or WS-II Water Supplies, Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
nor High Quality Waters (HQW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project
study area. No impacts to these waters will result from proposed project construction.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long
term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; therefore, the species richness and overall
biomass reflect water quality. No BMAN information is available for Rocky Branch or its
unnamed tributaries at the location of the proposed project.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. No permitted discharges occur into Rocky Branch or
its corresponding tributaries.
23
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major anticipated impacts to
water quality. Scouring of the stream bed, soil compaction, and loss of shading due to
vegetation removal are also potential impacts. Increased sedimentation from lateral flows
along with erosion is expected.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be enforced throughout construction.
6. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order No. 96, Conservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires state agencies to attempt to minimize impacts to prime and
important farmland soils. The Executive Order requires that a determination be made as
to whether a proposed state action will have a significant adverse effect on these
resources. The proposed improvement is located in a primarily low- density urban land use
area. The proposed widening project will not effect an actively farmed area; therefore, no
consideration of potential impacts to farmland is required.
7. Highway Traffic and Construction Noise Analysis
a. Background
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. The project location is shown in
Figure N1 (see page A2-1). See Appendix 2 for noise analysis tables N1-N5 (pages
A2-2 thru A2-11).
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
in order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the
planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set
forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A
summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table
N2 (see page A2-2). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant
sound which, in a given situation and time period, has the same energy as does
time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise
are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
c. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level
information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a
base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level
along US 220, as measured at 15 meters from the roadway, ranged from 67.8 to
69.8 dBA.
24
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for
comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise
levels were within 2.9 dBA of the measured noise levels for the measurement
locations where noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can
be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle
speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
d. Procedure for Predictinnz Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the
Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised
March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR
traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned
roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills,
depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier
type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed project is to widen US 220
from the proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street). Symmetrical
widening and widening entirely to the east and west of the existing facility were
evaluated. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be
flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and LOS C volumes were compared, and the volumes
resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than
those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of
the design year 2020. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or
predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to select
receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the
center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The
location of these receptors were determined by the changes in projected traffic
volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of
this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid,
noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed for
symmetrical widening (Table N3, pages A24,A2-5), west-side widening (Table
N3E, see pages A2-6,A2-7), and East-side widening (Table N3W, pages A2-8,A2-
9). Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors in close
proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the
estimated noise level increase for each.
25
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category by type of
widening and roadway sections that are predicted to become impacted by future
traffic noise is shown in Table N4 (page A2-10). Other information included in
Table N4 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For
example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent
further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted
noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N5 (page A2-11) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors for each type of widening by roadway section.
Predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +3 dBA. When real-life
noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
The symmetrical widening alternative would have 10 residences impacted
by traffic noise. None of these increases in traffic noise would be greater than 2
decibels. The westside alternate would have 9 residences impacted. None of these
increases in traffic noise would exceed 3 decibels. The eastside alternative would
have 5 residences impacted. None of these increases in traffic noise would exceed
3 decibels. The recommended improvement, which calls for eastside widening
from the south project terminal to SR 1136 and symmetrical widening from
SR 1136 to the north terminal will have 11 residences impacted. None of these
increases in traffic noise will exceed 3 decibels.
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach"
meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the
existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in
the lower portion of Table N2 (page A2-3). Consideration for noise abatement
measures must be given to receptors which fall in either category. No receptor is
expected to experience a substantial increase in their exterior noise level. As noted
previously, noise levels at eleven residences are expected to exceed the NAC in the
design year.
f. Do Nothing Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" alternative were also
considered. Thirteen residences are predicted to be impacted by highway traffic
noise within the project limits, if the facility is not widened. Also, if the project is
not built, the predicted noise levels along U. S. 21 are predicted to increase up to
+2 dBA. As previously stated, when real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable.
g. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth
removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such
as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or
working near the project, can be expected, particularly from paving operations and
from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However,
26
considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation
of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial.
The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made
structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
h. Conclusion
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
warranted. Hence, no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and
unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports are required
for this project.
8. Air Quality Analysis
a. Background
NCDOT staff engineers completed Air Quality Analysis (dated 16 May
1995) for this project.
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of
common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The
impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the
improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide
levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used: local
and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the
receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources as "the concentration
of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that
is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling, and the
background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine
the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Appendix 3 contains the air quality analysis tables Al through A4 (see pages
A3-1 thru A34).
27
b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the
atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the
future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control
devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the improvements on
automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require
several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur
10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets
and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type
of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
c. Particulate Matter
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven
percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide
emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the
result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are
very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air
quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
d. Lead
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The
burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel.
Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average
lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.53 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite
average had dropped to 0.003 grams per liter. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of
leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the
sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after 31
December 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
e. Carbon Monoxide
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC -
A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive
receptor to the project.
28
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic
volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The
traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year of 2000 and the
design year of 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors"
and the MOBILESA mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is
suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptors were determined to be receptor #40
for the build scenario and receptor #39 for the do- nothing alternative. The "build"
one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptors for the years of
2000 and 2020 are shown in Table 7.
Takla 7 OnP 14nnr rO (nnrentratinnc (PPM)
Build No-Build
R-40 R-39
2000 2020 2000 2020
2.5 m 2.3 m 2.3 m 2.5 m
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging
period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the
worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-
hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al, A2, A3 and A4 of
Appendix 3 for input data and output.
f. Burning;
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 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 that burning will be done at the greatest practical
distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create
a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized 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 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and
no additional reports are required.
29
g. Conclusion
The project is located in Richmond County, which has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part
51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
9. Stream Modification
There will be no stream modifications on this project.
10. Hazardous Materials
A field reconnaissance survey identified four UST facilities within the project limi
NCDOT will conduct a site assessment of underground storage facilities located within ti
project area prior to right of way acquisition. If leaks and contamination has occurred
NCDOT will notify DEM. Also an appropriate amount will be withheld from the propert
owner during right of way acquisition for clean up.
The Geotechnical Unit reviewed files from the Division of Solid Waste
Management, Solid Waste Section and found that no landfills are in the project area. Based
on these files and the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund list, there are no other
potential environmental problem sites that will affect the project.
11. Geotechnical Impacts
The project area is in the Atlantic Coastal Plain, immediately east of the Carolina
Slate Belt. The topography is gently sloping to steep. Relief in the project limits is
approximately 20 meters (65 feet). Soils in the area are well drained and can be worked
within a few hours of a hard rain.
The composition of subsurface lithology in the project area is sands, sandstone, and
mudstone of the Middendorf Formation. The sediments are laterally discontinuous and
commonly cross-bedded. Clay balls and iron-cemented concretions are common.
Immediately west of the project area is bedrock of the Carolina Slate Belt. This bedrock is
primarily phyllite and schist, sheared, fine-grained metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock.
Soils in the project area are from the Cecil Clay and Norfolk Sandy Loam series. The
composition of the Cecil Clay is clayey silt with various amounts of organic material
overlying clay. The Norfolk Sandy Loam is silty sand to sandy silt overlying sandy silt to
sandy clay. These soils are all well drained.
Engineering properties for the soils in the project area indicate a fair to good
suitability for road fill. Cut slopes should be stable, but the sandy nature of the soil requires
effective erosion control measures. The AASHTO classifications of the affected soils are
A-2, A-4, and A-6.
Because of the sandy nature, the soils are subject to wind erosion in the flat areas
and water erosion on sloping terrain. Effective erosion and dust control measures will be
implemented during construction.
Depths to the seasonally high water table are at approximately 1.5 meters (5 feet)
and greater. Sections of the corridor close to Rocky Branch and to several small ponds in
the vicinity will tend to have groundwater levels closer to the surface.
30
12. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the following
measures, along with those already mentioned, will be implemented during the construction
phase:
a. Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of the right-of-way
and provided by the Contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special
provision by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or
disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such
approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in
excessive siltation or pollution.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding
areas for mosquitoes.
C. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
d. An extensive rodent control program will be established if structures are to be
removed or demolished
Telephone, water, sewer, and electric utilities exist along the project. The
Department of Transportation will hold a preconstruction conference between the
Department, the Contractor, representatives of the involved utility companies, and
pertinent local officials. Methods to coordinate utility adjustments will be discussed
at this conference. The contractor will prepare a work schedule that minimizes
possible damage to these utilities and interruption of service.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project and
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 State Implementation Plan for air quality. Care will be taken to insure
burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance.
g. An erosion control schedule will be developed by the contractor before starting
work. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases of the work that
must be coordinated to reduce erosion and describe construction practices and
temporary erosion control measures that will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with this schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those
provisions of the plans and specifications pertaining to erosion and siltation.
Temporary erosion control measures such as berms, dikes, dams, silt basin, and
others will be used as needed.
h. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for the use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the State Historic Preservation Officer of
the State Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of the
material from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to
performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
31
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when the
control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents.
j. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be briefly disrupted during
construction. Efforts will be made to ensure the transportation needs of the public
will be met during and after construction.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies
listed below. An "*" denotes agencies from which written comments were received.
*U. S. Department of the Interior--Fish and Wildlife Service
*N. C. Department of Administration--State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources-Division of
Environmental Management, Division of Environmental Health (Fayetteville
Regional Office), Division of Land Resources, and Wildlife Resources
Commission
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources--State Historic Preservation Officer
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
City of Rockingham--Mayor, City Manager, City Planner, City Schools
Superintendent
Appendix 4 includes copies of the comments received (see pages A4-1 to A4-16).
B. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
. The Division of Highways held an informal, Citizens Informational Workshop for
the project on 20 June 1995. This workshop was at the Leath Memorial Library in
Rockingham. Representatives of the NCDOT Division 8 Right of Way Office, Planning and
Environmental Branch, and Roadway Design Unit were available to explain the project,
answer questions, and receive comments. Approximately 15 citizens attended the meeting.
Appendix 5 contains a copy of the news release advertising the workshop (see page A5-1).
During the workshop, the Division of Highways displayed an aerial photograph of
the project area, vicinity maps, and a thoroughfare plan map showing proposed highway
improvements. In addition, the Division of Highways supplied each participant with an
information packet containing general project information, a vicinity map, and a comment
sheet. Appendix 5 contains a copy of this packet (see pages A5-2 thru A5-7). Each
participant had the opportunity to review the aerial photograph and maps and ask
questions or give comments.
The participants generally favored improvements along US 1. Some of the local
citizens noted the need for improvements along US 1. Other citizens were interested in
other area projects.
C. PUBLIC HEARING
A Public Hearing will be held following circulation of this report to provide more
detailed project information to local citizens and receive additional comments on the
project.
FIGURES
(9
t
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ROCKINGHAM
US 1 FROM US 74 BYPASS TO
SR 1974 (FORREST ROAD)
RICHMOND COUNTY
T.I.P NO. U-2583 FIG. 1A
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
1
r
Norman i
0
i o. 61
\ ?? e «p ? ? VJN
ENe,be

-17
\
,

8-3365

q U 2217 N
G1`

'L ? ?`?? bpi it •? ? ?/ i
M ? 4
,,005
4*
U-2583
I
Y
a

PROPOSED U S. 74 BYPASS (R-512)
r
PROPOSED U.S. 1 BYPASS (R-2501)
(ALIGNMENT SHOWN IS PRELI UNARY
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
North Carolina Department Of
'i Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
r
p, U.S.1
FROM U.S. 74 BYPASS TO SR 1974
y ' ROCKINGHAM, RICHMOND COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. U-2583
. ,° 0 meters 610 meters 1220
o i 1 FIGURE III
0 feet 2000 feet 4000

4.

Junction of U.S. 1 and U.S. 220
Looking North on U.S. 1
FIGURE 3A
Intersection of U.S. 1 and SR 1136 (Eason Street)
Looking South on U.S. 1

w
+ r
47
Intersection of U.S. 1 and SR 1136 (Eason Street)
Looking North on U.S. I
FIGURE 3B
U.S. 1 and Forrest Road (SR 1974) Looking
South on U.S. 1
R

C
O
U
N
O
^L
I.L
U
LL
r
0
0
0
C\l

Cfl
C'7
T
T 0
`U) , /?
`V Y /
(/) Lu ?co
co 0
T
L
Q
U) VJ
O
O
M
N
(D
N
O
O
O
0
?r
'd
N
N
T
'
^
V )
O
co
co
O
co
co
O
co
LO
O
M
LO
C> 0
co M
,,
O
LO
Nj-

O O -------------- •
(D (OD
Cl)
In
M
r"'
O Lo
0 IT
CO T -C 3: cr)
Nr
T U)
0
V J U) LO

o 0
------------
?
C
Q
L?
LL
cz
0
U
i
C/)
C
O
U
N
O
U
cz
i
0
0
0
C\l
0
N
N
U)
O \ >c: ?, !
rrr-?
V?
O
M
O O
_
T- T

0 /
^?
W)
04 0
LO LO
LO LO - - - - - - - - - - -
LO Lo
LO
It
M
,^ T
L '
M
I
O
r
N
0
r
N
O O
O O - - - - - - - - - -
n ti

0
ti
M
O
O
V
0
0
O
O
T
O
O
T

0) Cl)
r ?
oC 0
U) LL
m
lqt
L
¦0I.L
0
_(D
U_

C/)
C
O
U
N
O
^L
U
L
0
C\l
O
C\l
T
CO
D

CD T
CY)
r O
CZ O
'^^ W CO
VJ
l)
Cl)
VQ
O
U)
D
O
O
T
O
rn
T
O
T
T
0
T
OM
W
co
O
co
co
O
N
O (O
Nt
ti
0
rl-
O
T O
N ?
O r O
T O
T
N r
O O
a)
co
r ?
r ,
L
cc Q
C/) CD
O 0
co
(D
U) O
r 0 T
C7
T co
co
T
O
N
0
M
O
M
O
N
't
O O
O CO ----- --- ------
N N
~ O
Itt
CC
-a
?
O
o

co
r ? O
r ?"'? (O
cr O
'
U) ^
?)
?/
O
(O
O
tO
U
qqt
¦
LL
cis
0
_W
U_
a)
41'?,
L ------------
O O
O O
0 (CO)

A
D
O
N O
LO
? OHO
0 0
V
O O
N N
¦ N N
O O
o T T
Y / LO - - - - - - - - - - -.
cr) 0)
AO
1
T
O
(D
C)
>_
N O
rn
C) N
°
N
N °
O O
t,-. 11 - - - - - - - - - - -
ti
CA CO
O
rn
LO
O
Cfl
d
4
0
O
O
T
OT
VJ
T

0) Cf)
T
CC 0
V! LL
D
qqt
L
LL
tz
0
a)
U
`W
f /?, ?c, irk \
co C3\,
LIM
\? J ?A , // ? \ N 1CHCpCK
IN
2500
e o
st
6 5
J
- -_=
WINONA
"
s
' ? , ?-•r ? <? O\" + -?js'I? it i! ?I\ mss,,, ; ' ??_?-- C31
v' (JA?, I ;+.???6
OCIN
6
?s , F
?kol
JE7
r ?? I, I \ !l ?? 9'11 (_ 9j
1 O O l M1 .'' \ 9 - - -- O r'
{ 9
It,
y ?` O
NI O `• eq9 a -?i? ? /
9 i
ol. o 3
1 f ;L /
cagier c
1 r
IJ;
1 !? m
I 0 O O
CD ;o ;u
\ `?? s Z A D?
i N
D m
n 1 m C O t -Q
m nl ? y
6000
-V vim m
11 12nC
00 a '.C as C o (? /?Tf 1 U1 ?I 1 :i=_
-n Tf-
F A!
ON?
? -
O- O II r
p ! _ =
?y
t
Q01
f
75

Z
D
c
a
r
O
O
c
z
v
C4 -•
b
.0
N :.41 lei

cn CD
3
m
v
? o
m
O w,
C N
3
W N
m m
= o
?0
c
a
Z
v w -•
rn ??
?
O

O
W (D _w
O N N 3
3 3
=
O w
3 N
m
v
O
v
S
>
CD N
V N
3
b Q
3

Z
c
r
Cc)
rn
z

a? v
O
M
O
N
m
O
n
D
O
O
m
O
m
O
O
m
a
r
=1
O
m
O
m
v
on
m
r
n
z
m.
nc
cN
m j
z
v
C
^7
m
m
CI)
m
0
xm?
O
z

0;/
PROJECT AREA ?, ??. i , 11 i ; ` r i ;`: ` U.S.1 • • ,? "L
\~?• rr\\1 f '260• /I t `? ) ?'i ''????•• •??
d % t WETLAND N0.3:
r i ??, •
;Park ':'• ..' `til . i
? ' ?? ?` ?;?t)1 ??`• `(c? fir- ?? ('''•? -?° ??
1?I'/!? ``"'.'? ':? •C+'1_ ,mac.- •? '??'j u': • 1 ?r
WETLAND NO-. 2
1277.
I /?•=%' WETLAND NO. 11 N'} :, ( ? nor • .t
Off: 4 ? '' 27s.! s • • '!°•=- ? ?' ? ? ???' ?'? l i ?
1 ai
1 ,=
Ile
?r
284 • t - (-?- '
'C el 1A 0
' 320 a?' ' %'• r ??? ?? •??l• :.l .l - r
I ..? • 326 Pah• r fi u :A9Ale l, f
M. '•.?
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
U.S.1
FROM U.S. 74 BYPASS TO SR 1974
ROCKINGHAM, RICHMOND COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. U-2583
Scale 1:24000 FIGURE 7
_ n 34? tape!:a et
:`?Oauiat, ?
ings%i •; t ;,1 •
A - C10?,0 o? ~?• . Pr
1't ; a
APPENDIX 1
RIGHT OF WAY RELOCATION
INFORMATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction -of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist -owners of -displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property..
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
Al-1
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
Al-2
( R-ELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR El DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1580601 COUNTY Richmond
I.D. NO.: U-2583 F.A. PROJECT NHF-220 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 1 from proposed US 74

X 3. Will business services still be available after :..::> :...:::......:...::::::....:::
Little impact on business community.
3
project? .
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
estimated number of
type
indicate size
4. One gas station/iiiimi mart will lose some of its front

,..
:•. ,
,
employees, minorities, etc. parking, but will not need to relocate, in all probability.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
X 6. Source for available housing (list). 6. MIS, newspapers and property managers.
X 7.
S Will additional housing programs needed?
ld Last Resort Housing be considered?
Sh
S. Most are older houses and some may be substandard.
X
X .
9. ou
Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Upgrading to DSS housing may require Last Resort.
`::'::
X
10. families?
Will public housing be needed for project?
9. There is a good probability that some may have these
X 11. Is public housing available? situations.
X

.
. 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
11. Richmond County provides public housing and makes
.
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within room for highway displacees as necessary.

...
.
, financial means?
NA. .
. 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 12. Housing supply is adequate.

15 source).
Number months estimated to complete
13. Last Resort may be needed if tenants occupy any units who
. RELOCATION? TWELVE 12 ??t k spend in excess of 30% of their income for rent & utilities.
NOTE: None of the six residential houses are actually in the proposed R/W. However, they will all probably have septic
lace them on their lots. Because of this uncertainty, it is
to re
syste ms in the RIW, and probably will not have p
room
nossi ble that fewer than these six may actually be required to relocate.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
Alternate 3A/1B of 1 Alternate
to SR 1974 in

FSTIMATEI3 DIfiPh?iC`EES I
iN+C0i131r EL
:. ....
Type of
Di lacees
Owners
Tenants Total Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP

Individuals
2 2 1 0
Families 5 1 6 2 1

0 1 0
;;:ALT3EQFDWELLII+IG .» .
Y
.
°..DSS>#3ys<ELIINGAVAIIABLI;
.::.
Businesses 1 Sale For Rent
F
Owners Tenants or
Farms SO
150 0-20M 2 SO-150 0
0-20M 0 - 1 -
Non-Profit
50 20 40
Di
6 1502
1
Zo4oM 2 I50 2 0
Atvsw ER ALL QvE?TIONS 40-70
m 15 250400 5
" 40-70M 2 250 -400 0 .
Yes No E answers
lain all "YES IOOM
70 400 6
X 1 Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-I00br 1 4100.600 0 - ig
X .
2 Will schools or churches be affect by 100 yr 0 600 UP 0 100 up 10 600 Ur 1
. t?

displacemen TOTAL
5

.:.;:

51

13
REMARKS Res 'rid by Number : ' ..
Relocation
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
•4f.•? : ' '4?
AM. Simpson 10-30-95
};3 yr04
eaP.,r Date ``--::- Approved by Date
Original & I Copy. State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
Al-3
APPENDIX 2
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
TABLES AND FIGURES
;>ROj E ?-;CA`i : --, i
Rcc-,iny?am; .S
=rom Proposed US-74 Bypass co SR IS74
Richmond Cc;;nzy
-:?= Slate Prcjec... 8.154305:1
r 1109
1106 0
b .a cOtOe
e 7`
y r
s
ORDOIA C
o \00:{?tGFlAtrs
1107
.2 cr
{ 1103 \e s, t
1122
1204, 119 1117
/ . _`•.}•: i :::i OCKINGHA
.1:-m l I't c~Oa . ,?G? ?•? POP. 8.300
LewoAe
1 t ooov •? r {sx .i Bc G1N 1? ?'.
FC
J 1,?o j 0• ! s?
ti 1 3
?1 } 1 `•i
ly 109 ? •? 1 1 17 •6
ti
llos ,a ??
.
I

O

1105

S%
1 m

ek
,L >
,? L

Efe \ its

J
, \
1-{
jQ65
1x71 1V01
/"{ .9 i
112 / ?.6 Fly T
tr 1 2001 \ -Mona. ti
looA
(
?

.? Pieosont p
'900
Grove ,
OL \ l9os
1090
e t\ 1b \ Creek

V
?1 1 s23
Q i
A l a
161]
ZIs

?3• E fE

r •.

?/-HAMLF
ror• d,; _
IST2
1,-2-
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast,.jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
heavy city traffic, ncisy factory -?-?
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E BO Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car BO kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE BEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Runt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A2-2
R

TABLE N2
NOISE ABATE14ENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
` Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
• A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3 1/2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Rockingham, us 220 From Proposed US-74 Bypass to SR 1974,
Richmond Counyy, TIP f U-2583, State Project t 8.1580601
Symmetrical Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 8 LAND USE CATEGORY
.s...:..:.......?.:n NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL
.................. .u.. NAME DISTANCE (m)
............... -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
........ ............. --
US-220 From Proposed US-74 to SR 1136 (Eason Road)
R
1 Residence B US 220 38.0 L 61 US 220 38.0 L - - 63 + 2
2 Residence B " 42.0 L 61 •' 42.0 L - - 62 + 1
3 Church E 23.0 L 65/40 '• 23.0 L - - 67/42 + 2/2
4 Residence B " 25.0 R 65 " 25.0 R - - * 66 + 1
5 Residence B " 81.0 R 55 " 81.0 R - - 56 + 1
6 Residence B •' 25.0 L 65 " 25.0 L - - * 66 + 1
7 Business C 17.0 L 67 •• 17.0 L - - 69 + 2
8 Residence B " 32.0 R 63 " 32.0 R - - 65 + 2
9 Residence B " 50.0 R 59 `• 50.0 R - - 61 + 2
10 Business ' C " 22.0 R 65 " 22.0 R - - 68 + 3
it Residence B " 44.0 R 60 " 44.0 R - - 62 + 2
12 Business C " 25.0 L •65 " 25.0 L - - 66 + 1
13 Residence B •' 35.0 R 62 •' 35.0 R - - 64 + 2
14 Business C •' 22.0 L 65 " 22.0 L - - 68 + 3
15 Business C •' 23.0 R 65 " 23.0 R - - 67 + 2
16 Residence B " 40.0 L 61 " 40.0 L - - 63 + 2
17 Residence B " 15.0 L 68 " 15.0 L --------------------- R/W--------------
18 Residence B •' 33.0 L 63 " 33.0 L - - 64 + 1
19 Residence B `• 39.0 L 61 " 39.0 L - - 63 + 2
20 Residence B " 50.0 L 59 " 50.0 L - - 61 + 2
21 Residence B " 25.0 R 65 " 25.0 R - - * 66 + 1
22 Residence B " 33.0 R 63 •' 33.0 R - - 64 + 1
23 Residence B •' 20.0 L 66 " 20.0 L - - * 68 + 2
24 Residence B " 15.0 L 66 " 15.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
25 Residence B •' 36.0 R 62 " 36.0 R - - 64 + 2
26 Residence B " 35.0 R 62 •' 35.0 R - - 64 + 2
27 Residence B ° 35.0 R 62 •' 35.0 R - - 64 + 2
28 Residence B " 60.0 R 58 " 60.0 R - - 59 + I `
29 Residence B " 33.0 L 63 " 33.0 L - - 64 + 1
! HOTS: Distances are from caner of the existing or proposed roadways. -L -> Prop osed roadway's noise level contribution.
1111 noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y --> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
1
If A2-4

TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Rockingham, US 220 From Proposed US-74 Bypass to SR 1974,
Richmond County, TIP i U-2583, State Project M 8.1580601
Symmetrical Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID 9 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m)
US-220 From SR 1136 (Eason Road) to SR 1974 (Forest Road)
30 Business C US 220 35.0 R 64 US 220 35.0 R
31 Residence B " 36.0 L 64 to 36.0 L
32 Residence B 11 60.0 ,. 60 •' 60.0 L
33 Residence B 22.0 R 67 11 22.0 R
34 Business C •' 14.0 R 70 " 14.0 R
35 Residence B to 37.0 L 64 ^ 37.0 L
36 Business C 24.0 L 67 " 24.0 L
37 Residence B " 20.0 R 68 •• 20.0 R
38 Residence B " 27.0 L 66 " 27.0 L
39 Residence B to 14.0 R 70 " 14.0 R
40 Business C " 16.0 R 70 •' 16.0 R
41 Business C 47.0 L 62 " 47.0 L
42 Residence B to 16.0 R 70 " 16.0 R
43 Business C 32.0 R 65 '• 32.0 R
44 Business C " 30.0 R 65 to 30.0 R
45 Business C " 32.0 L 65 to 32.0 L
46 Residence B " 50.0 L 61 .' 50.0 L
47 Residence B " 20.0 R 68 '• 20.0 R
48 Residence B to 17.0 R 69 " 17.0 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
2n
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - 64 0
- - 64 0
- - 59 - 1
- - * 68 * 1
--------------------- R/W--------------
- - 63 - 1
- - 67 0
- - * 68 0
- - to 66 0
--------------------- R/W-----------
- - 69 - 1
- - 61 - 1
- - * 69 - 1
- - 65 0
- - 65 0
- - 65 0
- - 61 0
- - * 68 0
- - * 69 0
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -I--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A2-5
TABLE N3N
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
1/2
Rockingham, US 220 From Proposed US-74 Bypass to SR 1974,
Richmond County, TIP N U-2583, State Project M 8.1580601
west-Ule widening
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID R LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL. NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
L'S-220 From Proposed US-74 to SR 1136 (Eason Road)
1 Residence B US 220 38.0 L 61 US 220 32.6 L - - 64 + 3
2 Residence B " 42.0 L 61 " 36.6 L - - 64 + 3
3 Church E ^ 23.0 L 65/40 " 17.6 L --------------------- R/N--------------
4 Residence B " 25.0 R 65 " 30.4 R - - 65 0
5 Residence B 81.0 R 55 " 86.4 R - - 55 0
6 Residence B '• 25.0 L 65 " 19.6 L --------------------- R/W--------------
7 Business C " 17.0 L 67 " 11.6 L --------------------- R/W--------------
6 Residence B " 32.0 R 63 •' 37.4 R - - 63 0
9 Residence B •' 50.0 R '59 " 55.4 R - - 60 + 1
10 Business C '• 22.0 R 65 " 27.4 R - - 66 + 1
11 Residence B " 44.0 R 60 •' 49.4 R - - 61 + 1
12 Business C " 25.0 L 65 " 19.6 L --------------------- R/W--------------
13 Residence B " 35.0 R 62 " 40.4 R - - 63 + 1
14 Business C " 22.0 L 65 " 16.6 L --------------------- R/W--------------
15 Business C to 23.0 R 65 " 26.4 R - - 65 0
16 Residence B to 40.0 L 61 " 34.6 L - - 64 + 3
17 Residence B " 15.0 L 68 " 9.6 L --------------------- R/W--------------
18 Residence B '• 33.0 L 63 " 27.6 L - - * 66 + 3
19 Residence B " 39.0 L 61 " 33.6 L - - 64 + 3
20 Residence B •' 50.0 L 59 to 44.6 L - - 62 + 3
21 Residence B " 25.0 R 65 " 30.4 R - - 65 0
22 Residence B •' 33.0 R 63 " 38.4 R - - 63 0
23 Residence B " 20.0 L 66 " 14.6 L --------------------R/W--------------
24 Residence B " 15.0 L 68 '• 9.6 L -------- ------------- R/W---- ---------
25 Residence B " 36.0 R 62 to 41.4 R - - 62 0
26 Residence B " 35.0 R 62 " 40.4 R - - 63 + 1
27 Residence B to 35.0 R 62 •• 40.4 R - - 63 + 1
28 Residence B N 60.0 R 58 •' 65.4 R - - 58 0
29 Residence B " 33.0 L 63 " 27.6 L - - * 66 + 3
I

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels sham as exterior/interior (58/48). • ?> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A2-6
TABLE N3N
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
w
Rockingham, US 220 From Proposed US-74 Bypass to SR 1974,
Richmond County, TIP M U-2563, State Project 6 6.1580601
West-Side Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID f LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m)
----°°------°°
US-220 From SR 1136 (Eason Road) to SR 1974 (Forest Road)
30 Business C US 220 35.0 R 64 US 220 40.4 R
31 Residence B •' 36.0 L 64 30.6 L
32 Residence B 60.0 L 60 54.6 L
33 Residence B 22.0 R 67 " 27.4 R
34 Business C •' 14.0 R 70 " 19.4 R
35 Residence B 37.0 L 64 •' 31.5 L
36 Business C 24.0 L 67 •' 16.6 L
37 Residence B " 20.0 R 68 25.4 R
38 Residence B " 27.0 L - 66 " 21.6 L
39 Residence B " 14.0 R 70 " 19.4 R
40 Business C '• 16.0 R 70 '• 21.4 R
41 Business C " 47.0 L 62 " 41.6 L
42 Residence B •' 16.0 R 70 " 21.4 R
43 Business C " 32.0 R 65 " 37.4 R
44 Business C " 30.0 R 65 35.4 R
45 Business C " 32.0 L 65 •' 26.6 L
46 Residence B •' 50.0 L 61 " 44.6 L
47 Residence B " 20.0 R 68 " 25.4 R
48 Residence B •' 17.0 R 69 " 22.4 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
2/2
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - 63 - 1
- - 65 + 1
- - 60 0
- - • 66 - 1
- - 68 - 2
- - 65 + 1
--------------------- R/W--------------
- 66 - 2
- - * 68 + 2
- - * 68 - 2
- - 68 - 2
- - 62 0
- - * 68 - 2
- - 63 - 2
- - 64 - 1
- - 66 + 1
- - 62 + 1
- - * 66 - 2
- - * 67 - 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CPR Part 772).
I - nc..•
A2-7
TABLE N3S
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
1/2
Rockingham, US 220 From Proposed US-74 Bypass to SR 1974,
Ri chmond County, TIP Y U-2583, State Project M 8.1580601
East-Side Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID / LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US-220 From PrODOsed US-74 to SR 1136 (Eason Road)
1 Residence B US 220 38.0 L 61 US 220 43.4 L - - 62 + 1
2 Residence B " 42.0 L 61 " 47.4 L - - 61 0
3 Church E " 23.0 L 65/40 " 28.4 L - - 65/40 0/0
4 Residence B " 25.0 R 65 " 19.6 R --------------------- R/W---- ----------
5 Residence B " 81.0 R 55 75.6 R - - 57 + 2
6 Residence B " 25.0 L 65 " 30.4 L - - 65 0
7 Business C " 17.0 L 67 " 22.4 L - - 67 0
6 Residence B •' 32.0 A 63 " 26.6 R - - * 66 + 3
9 Residence B 50.0 R •59 '• 44.6 R - - 62 + 3
10 Business C •' 22.0 R 65 " 16.6 R ---------------------A/W---- ----------
11 Residence B " 44.0 R 60 " 38.6 R - - 63 + 3
12 Business C " 25.0 L 65 " 30.4 L - - 65 0
13 Residence B " 35.0 R 62 •' 29.6 R - - 65 + 3
14 Business C " 22.0 L 65 " 27.4 L - - 66 + 1
15 Business C " 23.0 R 65 •' 17.6 R --------------------- R/W--------------
16 Residence B " 40.0 L 61 " 45.4 L - - 61 0
17 Residence B " 15.0 L 68 " 20.4 L - - * 68 0
18 Residence B •' 33.0 L 63 •' 38.4 L - - 63 0
19 Residence B " 39.0 L 61 '• 44.4 L - - 62 + 1
20 Residence B " 50.0 L 59 " 55.4 L - - 60 + 1
21 Residence B - " 25.0 R 65 " 19.6 R --------------------- R/W--------------
22 Residence B •' 33.0 R 63 " 27.6 R - - * 66 + 3
23 Residence B " 20.0 L 66 " 25.4 L - - * 66 0
24 Residence B " 15.0 L 68 " 20.4 L - - * 68 0
25 Residence B " 36.0 R 62 " 30.6 R - - 65 + 3
26 Residence B •' 35.0 R 62 •' 29.6 R - - 65 + 3
27 Residence B " 35.0 R 62 " 29.6 R - - 65 + 3
28 Residence B " 60.0 R 58 •' 54.6 R - - 60 + 2
29 Residence B " 33.0 L 63 " 38.4 L - - 63 0
ROTE : Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution. -
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * ?> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A2-8
TABLE N3S
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
2/2
Rockingham, US 220 From Proposed US-74 Bypass to SR 1974,
Richmond County, TIP f U-2583, State Project M 8.1580601
East-Side Widening
A
4
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
...:::.......spa..:s ....... s.......... .s... ......?e?s..... .......... ..s.... ...s.s ..a-
US-220 From SR 1136 (Eason Road) to SR 1974 (Forest Road)
30 Business C US 220 35.0 R 64 US 220 29.6 R
31 Residence B " 36.0 L 64 " 41.4 L
32 Residence B " 60.0 L 60 65.4 L
33 Residence B " 22.0 R 67 " 16.6 R
34 Business C •' 14.0 R 70 " 8.6 R
35 Residence B 37.0 L 64 " 42.4 L
36 Business C " 24.0 L 67 " 29.4 L
37 Residence B •' 20.0 R 68 •' 14.6 R
38 Residence B " 27.0 L 66 " 32.4 L
39 Residence B " 14.0 R 70 •' 8.6 R
40 Business C " 16.0 R 70 " 10.6 R
41 Business C •' 47.0 L 62 " 52.4 L
42 Residence B " 16.0 R 70 •' 10.6 R
43 Business C ^ 32.0 R 65 •' 26.6 R
44 Business C " 30.0 R 65 " 24.6 R
45 Business C " 32.0 L 65 " 37.4 L
46 Residence B '• 50.0 L 61 " 55.4 L
47 Residence B " 20.0 R 68 " 14.6 R
48 Residence B " 17.0 R 69 " 11.6 R
65 + 1
62 - 2
58 - 2
----------°---------R/W--------------
-------------- -R/W--
62 - 2
65 - 2
---------------°----R/W--------------
64 - 2
--------------------- R/W--------------
--------------------- ---------------
60 - 2
--------------------- R/W--------------
- 66 + 1
- 67 + 2
- 63 - 2
- 60 - 1
--------------------- R/W--------------
--------------------- R/W--------------
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -I-> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CPR Part 772).

A2-9
TABLE N4
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Rockingham, US 220, From Proposed US-74 Bypass to SR 1974,
Richmond County, TIP 8 U-2583, State Project # 8.1580601 14
Maximum Predicted contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to I
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 M Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

Symmetrical Widening
1. US 220 From Proposed US 74 Bypass to 68 64 58 <14.7 25.0 0 4 0 0 0
SR 1136 (Eason Road) ,
2. US 220 From SR 1136 to SR 1974 (Forest 68 64 58 <14.7 25.0 0 6 0 0 0
Road)

TOTALS 0 10 0 0 0
North-Side Widening
1. US 220 From Proposed US 74 Bypass to 68 64 58 <14.7 25.0 0 2 0 0 0
SR 1136 (Eason Road)
2. US 220 From SR 1136 to SR 1974 (Forest 68 64 58 <14.7 25.0 0 7 0 0 0
Roadp

TOTALS 0 9 0 0 0
South-Side Widening -
1. US 220 From Proposed US 74 Bypass to 68 64 58 <14.7 25.0, 0 5 0 0 0
SR 1136 (Eason Road)
2. US 220 From SR 1136 to SR 1974 (Forest 68 64 58 <14.7 25.0 0 0 0 0 0
Road)

TOTALS 0 5 0 0 0
r
NOTES - 1. 15 m, 30 m, and 60 m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
i
I .
A2-10
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUtMfARY
Rockingham, US 220 From Proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974,
- Richmond County,TIP k U-2583, State Project M 8. 1580601
¦ RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
Symmetrical Widening
1. US 220 From ProD. US 74 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to SR 1136 (Eason Road)
2. US 220 From SR 1136 to 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1974 (Forest Road)
TOTALS 16 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North-Side Widening
1. US 220 From Prop. US 74 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to SR 1136 (Eason Road)
2. US 220 From SR 1136 to 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1974 (Forest Road)
TOTALS 21 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
South-Side Widening
1. US 220 From Prop. US 74 11 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to SR 1136 (Eason Road)
2. US 220 From SR 1136 to 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1974 (Forest Road)
TOTALS
At 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
I
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2

APPENDIX 3
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
TABLES
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 1
• JOB: V-2583: US 220, Richmond County RUN: US 220, YR-2000, BUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 05/16/95 TIME: 15:18
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
----------------- ------------
VS 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
20 - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES Min - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
--LINK DESCRIPTION *
. LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 *
Y2 ' LENGTH
(M) BRG TYPE
(DEG) VP8 EF
(G/MI)
- H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (M) (VEH)
-----------------------
_
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8
2. Near Lane Link ' 0.0 805.0 0.0 805.0 *
-805.0 * -
1610.
1610. ----------
360. AG
180. AG -------------
570. 13.8
743. 13.8 0.0 13.2
0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
--------------- •
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR R
R X Y 2
............................
....- R
.
---- ---------------------
1. R40, 16.0 m -R= RES * ..
-10.6 0.0
1.8 *
JOB: U-2583: US 220, Richmond County RUN: US 220, YR-2000, BUILD 45 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.5
DEGR. ' 10
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.50 PPM AT 10 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
'-1

a
g?
T3
TABLE A2
('AI.3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE i
JOB: U-2583: US 220, Richmond County RUN: US 220, YR-2020, BUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 05/16/95 TIME: 15:19
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD ' 0.0 CM/S ZO ' 108. CM
U ' 1.0 M/S CLAS ' 4 (D) ATIM ' 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION *
LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
B W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
---
------------------------ '-- -------------------------------------- * ---------- ----------- ------- ------- --------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 743. 10.4 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 743. 10.4 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
COORDINATES (M) '
RECEPTOR * X Y 2
-------------------------*-- -----------------------------------*
1. R40, 16.0 m RCL RES * -10.6 0.0 1.8
JOB: U-2583: US 220, Richmond County RUN: US 220, YR-2020, BUILD 45 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.3
DEGR. * 2
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.30 PPM AT 2 DEGREES FROM RECI .
'-2
Y
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
JOB: U-2583: US 220, Richmond County RUN: US 220, YR-2000, NO-BU 45 MPH
DATE: 05/12/95 TIME: 11:29
r
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MnM - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W WC QUEUE
" X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VER)
----------------- -------*----------------------------_-----------R--------__------------------ ------- -----------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 570. 13.8 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 570. 13.8 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
-------------------------
-
-------*
-----
-------------------------
1. R39, 14.0 m` RCL RES * -12.2 0.0 1.8
JOB: U-2583: US 220, Richmond County RUN: US 220, YR-2000, NO-BU 45 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to ,
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
+ (DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.3
DEGR. * 5
`
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.30 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A3-3
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1592 PAGE 4
JOB: U-2583: US 220, Richmond County RUN: US 220, YR-2020, NO-BU 35 MPH
DATE: 05/12/95 TIME: 11:28
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---
----------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1. 8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION ' LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH
EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
" X1 Y1 X2 Y2 ' (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VE9)
------------------------ "---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------- ---------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 ' 1610. 360. AG 743. 14.5 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 ' 1610. 180. AG 743. 14.5 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
" COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR ' X Y Z
---------------------------------'
*
-------------------------
----
1. R39, 14.0 M RCL RES * -12.2 0.0 1.8 '
220 Ri
chmond Count- RUN: US 220, YR-2020, NO-BU 35 MPH
JOB: U-2583. US y
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to ,
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
------'------
MAX * 2.5
DEGR. * 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.50 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A3-4
APPENDIX 4
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
AGENCIES

C? PAM NT OF Ty?'ym
9
N O
? a
t/4ACH ?sa9
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
GE

January 19, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
JAN 2 3 1995
2 ?
Z? ZDIVISIGN OF GHWAYS
1 O1VN???A0
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed US 1 widening from the
proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street),
Rockingham, Richmond County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-
2583.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of December 7, 1994 requesting
information from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides Scoping information and
is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) calls for widening US Highway 1 from two
lanes to five lanes with curb and gutter.
The Se=Nice,s review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional right-of-way and
any areas, such as borrow areas, which may be affected
directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted.
Wetland types should follow -the wetland classification
scheme of the National Wetlands Inventory. This list
should also give the acreage of each wetland type to be
affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identifyincr and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for
A4-1
designing and constructing any wetland crossings and/or
relocated stream channels along with the linear feet of
any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each
type which would be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for upland and wetlands ,
habitat impacts associated with the project. These
measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable
wetland losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after
construction as a direct result of the proposed project
(secondary impacts) and an assessment of the extent to
which the proposed project will add to similar
environmental impacts produced by other, completed
projects in the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species which occur in Richmond County.
The section of the environmental document regarding protected
species must contain the following information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat
that may be affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by
CFR 402.02, on the species and habitat including
consideration of direct, indirect, cumulative effects,
and the results of related studies; .
4. A description of the manner in which the action may
affect any species or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of
potential effects; and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the
Service for listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the
subject of a proposed rule. These species are not legally
protected under the Act or subject to its provisions, including
Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened or
endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the
full protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a
new survey if its status in the project corridor is unknown.
Therefore, it would be prudent for the project to avoid any adverse
impact to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina
A4-2
Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please continue to advise us of the progress of this project,
including your official determination of the impacts of this }
project. If our office can supply any additional information or
clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the biologist reviewing
this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27). i
Sincerely your.,
L.K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor
F
A4-3
s
REVISED NOVEMBER 30, 1994
Richmond County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocerhalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lvsimachia asperulaefolia) - E*
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
The shortnose sturgeon is under the jurisdiction of the National Marine
Fisheries Service and should be contacted concerning your agency's
responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered species -Act. Their
address is:
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(Cl and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
Northern pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus) - C2
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2
Georgia leadplant (Amorpha oeoraiana oeoraiana) - C2*
Sandhills milkvetch (Astraaalus michauxii) - C2
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Conferva pondweed (Potamoaeton confervoides) - C2*
Pickering's morning glory (Stvlisma yickeringiivar.pickerinaii) -C2
Smooth bog-asphodel (Tofieldia clabra) - C2*
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
A4-4
- State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p ? H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGeei
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0393 - Scoping Improvements to US 1, Richmond County
DATE: January 9, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evacuate the.potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An = ,ucl Oppcr'unl!y =."irmarve Action _^ picyer 5C°b recycled/ 10`b pos -consumer pccer A4-5
_-?C , HCP , FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Jan 09'95 10:25 No.001 P.03.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E
.512 N. Salisbury Street. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733.3391
Charles R. Fullwood. Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
office of Policy Development, DEHNR
t
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C!7?74?
Habitat Conservation Progra DATE: January 9, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for the US 1 widening, Richmond
County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2583, SCH
Project No. 95-0393.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting frcm the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
The NCDOT proposes to widen existing US 1 from the
proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in
Rockingham. The project will widen US 1 from two lanes to a
five lane curb and gutter section.
At this time the NCWRC has no,specific recommendations
or concerns regarding the subject project. However, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,

A4.6
JCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jan 09'95 10:26 No.001 P.04
Memo Page 2 January 9, 1995
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
A919) 733-3610
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The-need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
A4-7
CWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Jan 09'95 10:25 No.001 P.05 z
Memo Page 3 January 9, 1995
r
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A4-8
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: 4Q
Dbpartntent of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Project Number. Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS _d -
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding -these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. Normal Process
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Time
Regional Office. (statutory time
PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
PERMITS
Termit rmit to construct b operate wastewater treatment
cilities, sewer system extensions. 3 sewer
stems not discharging into state surface waters.
PDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
to operate and construct wastewater facilities
scharging into state surface waters.
MI Water Use Permit
Well Construction Permit
DI Dredge and Fill Permit
C Permit to construe Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as Per 15A NCAC 21
Any open burning associated with subject p'oposal
AC 20.0520.
must be in compliance with 15A NC
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
NCAC 2D 0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
SPECIAL APPLICATION
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
construction contracts on-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual .
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
pre-application technical conference usually necessary
Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
NIA
NIA
30 days
(90 days)
90.120 days
(NIA)
'
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 8 sedimentatic
eerol more acre tofbstdacrerand $20.Opifordeaen atldieonatgacre lofOpart mustdacccomoanvctheat Caen 30
. Plan with control 01a^ will be ?egaced;f A one a
davs before be innin
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
I t inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
ng Permit
Q North Carolina Burning permit
O FcountesEn cial und Clearance Burning Permit • 22
coasta l N.C. with organic soils
?I oil Refining Facilities
?I Dam Safety Permit
On-si e
varies with type mine and number of acres to affected land. Any area
mined greater than one acre must be permited• The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued.
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit
exceeds 4 days
On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.''
30 days
(NIA)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
60 days
(90 pays)
60 says
(90 days)
20 days
130davsi
_
(30 days)
30 pays
(60 days)
1 day
(N!A)
1 day
(NIA)
90-120 days
(NIA)
NIA
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction. 30 days
Applicant must hire N.C. Qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv- i60 days)
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon Ccoormpleti or reve se A4-9
Normal r,ocoss
Time
C
C
C
C
C
C
JK
C
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application torn. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions E drawings of structure b proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Ouality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45
days
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. (N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
is Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(704)2516208 [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
Suite 101
3800 Barrett Drive
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115 ,
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
El Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
(919) 9466481
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
A4-10
[phone]
Questions regarding these. permits should be addressed to the Regional Offjc marked below.
? Fayetteville Regio
Asheville Regional Office nal Office .
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachov
:`\i\l' i`:;\ :1,11'•.;?.? ??:..'t .I•., ! 9, :.1
! d31"
-_..
1 I ?. . ; •,i?? 1 ?. ?!II\1. !\!\'I I' .I , I 1 .i\i .I _._..._.. .5
L 0 0 V V,
Inter-r\?cncy i?rojecL l\cvie\?' 1•.esJaor.sc -/?'«?, -,--
%c:: I?ia!.r.•:JC?d? '_----- 1 Ypc of ProjcCL -Jroc?r?) -- -
1
1 The applie:tr-t should be advised tlru plans and spec•ificaLions rror ali water sysce!n
lmprovenzeliLS niusL be approved by the 'DVislon of. E!%vu•onmental. Healch orlor co: the.a-arard
? t - '300 et.
of :? contract or the iniclatloll of con.,u•ualoli (as reqL.::•A ..d by 15A 1?Cl?C 1S' \.: ....
For inrormatioll, ConraCL the Public W-Acer Supply Se_ti.on, [phone].
---? This-project will be dassi[ied as a non-coct,munity oul-ic water supply and !Host comp;y with
---! state anct federal drini:ing vracer mionitori:l_ requi r-erne::ts. For more information the apFolicar!.t
should contact the Pudic \YJacer Suppi)' S'eccion, (91`•! 7.33-232 1.
feet. of adjacent
--? Tr this project is consclucted as proposed, :ve grill recc_nzmend closure of _
'
waters to the har.Resc of shellfish. For iafornnatlon regarding the .shellrf!s 1 sanlcatlon progra
ni, the applicant should contact the Shellfish San'tac::,n Branch ac [phone].
r---, The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for chls project. ?1a. produce a nlosaiilto breeding•problerv-
<__J r
For in=ormauon concerning appropr!ace niosgL.ito •_oncrol measures, the appllcaP_c shoulc
contact the Public health Pest Marage.ent. Section =c (919) 726-897C.
- The applicant shoulc be advlse^ chat 'vr1or to :ilc m-naval or demolition o' C.l.i.ap!datel
SC; JC..:, eS, 2n t...nSi /e r0tsc, C COi.U o t ,ill ''n be neCeSSa! ? LEl C:rdCr to -prevent.
L
iiligraclon of the rod.°-^L•S LC ?cllaccil Tl1? :'sOri11aC10Z CO::tC:Caii?? rGCei is C01-Itf-0
COiaact L-l-:e focal health 'e?a:.irenC C: :?iC li i1C : _-altl_ -1)e-SL Manazen,en-- Ct!0C1: <.L `9 1 C
7'33-64-07.
--? T1 e applicant should be advised co c-:)ncac: the !,Dcal health department'. regarding the
i I Snn iC f'1! 'r 1 l.l i LinJ ? A ?', ('• 1 0-6 .i900 e.. Sew
rC 1.? P.St211--6011 . (as i F<\ tre der _?s 12 -,
requirements for- !
1-Or 1r1fOC:T12.t!O.. trnr;-. l:al:K ?l:i Ofj^Pr on- sir /'a sc is C r- r)oS1l nlCl[WC1S, iUllt',Ct ti
?J is i:... -`!'^.:•::??'?t:-. ,?rl ii?O 'Ir "Iq iq`i 7??_L
S l!'11C..
(-- 1 TI-It applicant. should !)(: aCtV!':i:Cl l:% .:0111.a::1. Illy. IOCZ,: Rt'.alla.'l d(,-p-,t-L,lil°-al. rC'j)ar I. 'MC
_1 1'aC!Ill:l!:S I'C.C`lllred IQY CIIIS ?JI'U)t'.,:
;l !i CI';C \ti"•l i.t:r
1--- 1 i! CXI;L1Ilg W:1LC1' llr!C \v!I: 1)C ICiOL!-",?G (At.1I!n" CoilSCfUI(j I1, _CA
1 - rPIOCaCtQI': IiILlSi: b:: St1bIl1l1:1.C-! LC? Lll;. i• "':loll Ot' ;.il"ll'011111CnC?.l I'!.C:'•`.CIl; l!'.:?:!IC .JLII?'
JCU:1 C)Il, i71a11 ).\f.VIC'+/ ).!I•a I?!C•?I, ..!.?V Jl.. :%.al'" ., .)L. Lt:: i\alClt. .., IVl_. I•I i? _..?r Jli:l;:., C`i 1? )
`';:4 :e. .ewer Section/T3ranc!; - Dice
A4-1 I
RECEl?/Ep
DEHNR
State of North Carolina DEC 41994
Department of Environment, Health, and N tural ources '
Division of Land Resources
James QUgiS6? r,
amen G. Martin, Governor PROJECT Rsv'Igw cotu?rrr
WHIam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: rs ?? 3 J? County:
Project Name: Q 3 e,' -3
Geodetic Survey
/ This project will impact geodetic survey markers.- N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be' contacted'prior•to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer?L Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
i
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone] A4-12
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1K JW
IED EHNFi
January.4, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0393; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 1, Richmond County
TIP No. U-2583
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 e% post-consumer paper A4-13
Melba McGee
January 4, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10811.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
A4-14

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
January 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State H storic Preservation Officer
Division of
William
SUBJECT: Improvements to US 1 from proposed US 74 Bypass-
SR 1974, Richmond County, U-2583, Federal Project
No. NHF-220(1), State Project No. 8.1580601, CH
95-E-4220-0393
E1 V O
JAN 0 4 1995
DIVISION OF
-H1r-,Hw.4YS__ <i`
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Covington Plantation, southeast side of US 1, 0.1 mile southwest of
junction with SR 1108, listed in the National Register of Historic Places on
May 28, 1980
H. C. Watson House, 625 Caroline Street, Rockingham, listed in the
National Register on September 22, 1983
We understand that these two properties are outside the area of potential effect
for this project. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted
for this project.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?? A4-15
S
P
k
P
i
H. F. Vick
January 5, 1995, Page 2
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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett

A4-16
APPENDIX 5
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP NEWS RELEASE
AND INFORMATION HANDOUT
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR PROPOSED WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF US 1
FROM PROPOSED US 74 BYPASS TO FORREST ROAD (SR 1974)
Project 8.1580601 U-2583 Richmond County
A citizens informational workshop will be held on
Tuesday, June 20, 1995 in the Leath Memorial Library located
at 412 East Franklin Street in Rockingham. This will be an
informal open house workshop conducted in the Calvin Little
Room between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those
wishing to attend may do so at their convenience during these
hours.
The purpose of this informational workshop is to present
information, answer questions, and receive comments during
the early design stages of the proposed widening/improvements
of US 1 from the proposed US 74 Bypass to Forrest Road. The
proposed project consists of widening the existing roadway to
a multi-lane facility.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending. Anyone desiring additional information about the
workshop may contact Mr. Wayne Fedora, P. E., North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch, P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at
[phone] - Extension 236.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the workshop. To
receive special services,"please call Mr. Fedora at the above
number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
workshop.
A5-1
i
_ North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch

? 3.tca? ?rC t

w.- fr

v•;!
U.S. 1
FROM PROPOSED U.S. 74 BYPASS
TO SR 1974 (FOREST STREET)
ROCKINGHAM, RICHMOND COUNTY
T.I.P.NO. U-2583

20 JUNE 1995
R
Citizens Informational Workshop
A5-2
U. S. 1
from Proposed U. S. 74 Bypass
to SR 1974 (Forest Street)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Number NHF-220(1)
State Project Number 8.1580601
TIP. No. U-2583
C=ENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, is holding this workshop to discuss the proposed widening of U. S. 1 in
Rockingham and Richmond County (Figure 1). The project begins at the proposed
U. S. 74 Bypass (TIP. Project R-512) and ends at SR 1974 (Forest Street). The Division
of Highways appreciates comments and suggestions concerning the proposed
improvements and will consider these during the project study.
The Division of Iighways recognizes individuals living close to a proposed project
want to be informed of the possible effects on their homes and businesses. Exact
information is not available at this stage in the planning process. The Division of Highways
will complete additional planning studies and design work before establishing actual
alignment and right of way limits.
Please address written comments or requests for additional information to:
?vlr. H. Franklin Vick P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201 ,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) calls for
widening U.S. 1 to a multi-lane facility. NCDOT proposes to widen U.S. 1 to five lanes
with curb and gutter as shown in Figure 2.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
The Division of Highways has scheduled right of way acquisition to begin in fiscal
vear 1998 and construction in fiscal year 2000. These schedules are subject to the
availability of sufficient highway funds.
A5-3
EXISTING FACILITY '
Project Length: 1.5 kilometers (0.9 mile)
Roadway Width:, 7.3 meters (24 feet)
Paved Shoulder Width: Near Proposed Bypass: 0.6 meters (2 feet)
Near Valley Hill Drive: 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Number of Lanes: Two (Five at Forest Street)
Right of Way Width: 18.3 meters (60 feet)
Access Control: None
Curves: There are several vertical curves and one major horizontal curve on
the project. The intersection of U.S. 1 and SR 1136 (Eason Road)
is on the crest of a vertical curve within a horizontal curve.
Terrain: Rolling
Speed Limit: 80 km/h (50 mph) from proposed U.S 74 Bypass to city limits
60 km/h (35 mph) within city limits
Traffic Volumes: Near Southwood Road (North of Bypass):
1994: 4,800 VPD
2020: 14,500 VPD (Projected)
Near Eason Road (SR 1136):
1994: 7,200 VPD
2020: 18,100 VPD (Projected)
Near Forest Street (SR 1974):
1994: 9,300 VPD
2020: 19,900 VPD (Projected)
Cost Estimates: Construction: $2,000,000
Right of Way: $ 600,000
Total: 52,600,000

PROPOSED FACE= (see Figure 2) ,
Roadwav Width: 19.2 meters (64 feet) face to face of curb and gutter
Number of Lanes: Five
Right of Way ti'Vidth: 30.5 to 36.6 meters (100 to 120 feet)
A5-4
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO U. S. 1
FROM PROPOSED U.S. 74 BYPASS TO SR 1974 (FOREST STREET)
ROCM NGHAM, RICHMOND COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT U-2583
20 June 1995
(You do not have to answer every question, but please take time to give us your comments
and ask questions regarding this project and the workshop. You may continue on the back
of these sheets if necessary.)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
WOULD YOU IBM YOUR NAME TO BE PLACED ON A MAMING LIST TO
RECEIVE FUTURE NOTICES ABOUT THUS PROJECT?
YES NO
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT U-2583:
A5-5
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU?
DID NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES GIVE CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE
EXPLANATIONS?
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL?
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?
PLEASE SUGGEST WAYS WE MAY BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS
AND ADDRESS CITIZENS'S CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOPS:
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS WORKSHOP?
DO YOU FEEL NCDOT ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED THIS WORKSHOP?
A5-6
i
s
v
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RELATE TO GENERAL TRANSPORTATION
ISSUES IN YOUR AREA
WHAT DO YOU TANK IS THE MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED IN {
YOUR AREA?
WHICH ROAD IN YOUR AREA DO YOU THINK NEEDS RVIPROVEMENT THE
MOST?
HOW DO YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN YOUR AREA?
EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR
STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY ALSO BE
MAIL M TO:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
b
t
A5-7

ttf -

j

i

+I

I'

Oi

I

- I
,
G{i
t•

_ iii.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ffl:"
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
p E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 1, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galama
Subject: EA for US 1 from US 74 Bypass to SR 1794
Richmond County
State Project DOT No. 8.1580601, TIP # U-2583
EHNR # 96-0796
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(WQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The document states
that 0.49 acres of wetlands and waters will be impacted by this project. WQ offers the
following comments on the EA:
A) DOT is proposing to widen on the east side of the existing road in the vicinity of
wetland # 2. WQ may request that wetland avoidance options in this vicinity be
investigated during the permitting process.
B) Since wetland # 3 occurs on both sides of the road, DOT does not have a
practicable alternative at this location.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a EA by WQ would not preclude the denial of a
401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
us1 rich.ea
cc: Wilmington COE
FAXED
JUL 0 i t
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
l •
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
ATM"OONOF July 18, 1996 / R6061?CFO
Special Studies and JU(
Flood Plain Services Section sM'/RON,y?NT 1 96
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of May 30, 1996, requesting our comments on o
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for US 1, From Proposed US 74 Bypass to -a
SR 1974 (Forest Street), Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Number -,,
NHF-220(1), State Project Number 8.1580601, T.I.P. No. U-2583" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. 199603832). Ln
N
Our comments involve impacts to flood .plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues. o
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further o
assistance, please contact us.
(D
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure

-2-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section, Wetlands and Aquatic Plants
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

July 18, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for US 1, From Proposed US 74 Bypass to
SR 1974 (Forest Street), Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Number
NHF-220(1), State Project Number 8.1580601, T.I.P. No. U-2583" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199603832)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Richmond County and partially within the jurisdiction of the
city of Rockingham, both of which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a
review of Panel 160 of the September 1989 Richmond County, North Carolina and
Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, the improvements would cross Rocky Branch
upstream of the approximately mapped limit (outside of the identified flood hazard area).
Consequently, it is noted on page 22 of Environmental Assessment that there are no
designated flood hazard zones affected by the project. However, from a review of the
pertinent United States Geological Survey topographic map ("Rockingham, N.C."), it appears
that there is sufficient drainage area at the location of the crossing to cause flooding. We
suggest that the crossing be designed to minimize the impact on the upstream water surface
elevation and that your agency coordinate with local authorities during final design to ensure
compliance with applicable flood plain ordinances.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
Based on information provided in the document, less than 0.5 acre of waters and
wetlands of the United States will be impacted by the proposed project. This includes impacts
to the headwaters of Rocky Branch. No stream relocation will be required for this project.
Although this project may be authorized by nationwide permit 26 or nationwide permit 14, (33
CFR 330.5(a)), it is incumbent upon the North Carolina Department of Transportation to take
all practicable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material
in waters of the United States or any adjacent or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this
project, including disposal of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to
wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensatory mitigation
for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of
any work in wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
If you have any questions or comments concerning DA permits, they should be directed
to Mr. McLendon.
?s
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP

TO : REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
E IrIc Gale 1)EM
FR OM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
c
U -
P' e-
? PArE
1
.,
l
,
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY.. SIGNATURE ? .S NATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
K- 4-,
M4a,r.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 7, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
tCz®t
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Rockingham, US 1 from Proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974
(Forrest Street), Richmond County, Federal Aid Project
No. NHF-220(1),.State Project No. 8.1580601, T.I.P. No.
U-2583
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to US 1. The project is included in
the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1998 and construction in fiscal
year 2000.
The project proposes to widen US 1 from two lanes to five lanes with
curb and gutter from the proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974 (Forrest Street) in
Rockingham.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by January 23, 1995 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
Act,

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
?Z
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG:

FROM: REF: NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
rip ?ailo ca Q
?
1 ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?:'NOTE.AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? .NOTE'. AND SEE ME. ABOUT TH15 .P--FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
?, TAKE' APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
'COMMENTS:
RECEIV
DEC n
? 91994
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 7, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Minutes for Widening US 1 from SR 1974 to US 74
Bypass, Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid No.
NHF-220(1), State Project No. 8.1580601, T.I.P. No.
U-2583
I held a scoping meeting on November 30, 1994 to initiate the subject
project. Attached is a list of those who attended.
The participants discussed alternates for widening US 1 and concurred
that one alternate will be studied. This alternate would widen US 1 to five
lanes with curb and gutter from SR 1974 (Forrest Street) to the proposed US
74 Bypass (T.I.P. No. R-512). The proposed typical section is 19.2 meters
(64 feet) from face to face of curbs. The proposed design speed is 80 km/h
(50 mph) with a speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph).
The current T.I.P. limits for the project extend from SR 1974 to the
proposed US 74 Bypass. Based on the location of the proposed bypass, the
project will be approximately 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles) long. We discussed
extending the project limits south to the intersection of US 1 and SR 1108.
Based on traffic projections and the effect of the proposed US 1 bypass
(T.I.P. No. R-2501, post year construction), this does not seem warranted.
We also discussed extending the project limits north to make improvements to
the US 1/US 220 intersection. This extension also does not seem warranted.
The Roadway Design Unit will prepare a cost estimate for the chosen
alternate. I will request a right of way cost estimate from the Right of Way
Branch.
There are several other T.I.P. projects in the vicinity of U-2583.
U-2217 proposes to add ramps to the interchange of US 220 and SR 1124. It is
approximately one kilometer (0.6 mile) north of U-2583. R-512 proposes a
US 74 bypass around Rockingham and Hamlet. It intersects US 1, forming the
southern end of U-2583. R-2501 proposes to widen US 1 from the South
Carolina border to SR 1001 in Richmond County. It will include a US 1 bypass
of Rockingham beginning approximately three kilometers (two miles) south of
U-2583.
N
December 7, 1994
Page 2
In terms of historic architectural resources, Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
of the State Historic Preservation Office indicated there are no National
Register listed or eligible structures within the project area. She
recommends no survey for architectural resources. Ms. Gledhill-Earley also
indicated there are no significant archaeological resources within the
project area. She recommends no survey for archaeological resources.
Mr. Eric Galamb of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) called
in with comments before the Scoping Meeting. He indicated that the DEM
classifies the stream crossings in the project area as Class C waters. He
recommends normal soil and erosion control measures for the project.
Mr. Steve Burris of the Geotechnical Unit indicated there are three
Underground Storage Tank sites in the project area. One is in the southwest
quadrant of the US 1/SR 1187 intersection. Another is approximately 120
meters (395 feet) north of SR 1187. The third is at the US 1/SR 1136
intersection.
There seems to be no justification for providing sidewalks along the
project.
NCDOT has programmed U-2583 for an Environmental Assessment. Because it
is a short project, with apparently minor impacts, it may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion. There are many houses and some small businesses along
US 1. These may be impacted and will be very important in determining which
type of document to prepare.
NCDOT plans to hold a Citizens Informational Workshop and a Public
Hearing for the project.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be moderate to high.
The current project schedule includes an Environmental Assessment due in
December 1995, a Finding of No Significant Impact due in July 1996, Right of
way acquisition beginning in October 1997, and letting in October 1999.
WF/plr
Attachments
Attendance List--Scoping Meeting U-2583:
Jerry Snead
Steve Burris
Renee Gledhill-Earley
Debbie Bevin
Kathy Lassiter
Glenda Gibson
Danny Rogers
Jay Liner
Jack Matthews
David Unkefer
Wilson Stroud
John Williams
Wayne Fedora
Hydraulics
Geotechnical
DCR-SHPO
DCR-SHPO
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Program Development
Traffic Control
Photogrammetry
FHWA
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
t
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 10/20/94
REVISION DATE 12/05/94
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP # U-2583
F. A. PROJECT NHF-220(1)
STATE PROJECT 8.1580601
DIVISION EIGHT
COUNTY RICHMOND
ROUTE US 1
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
LENGTH 2.1 km (1.3 mi)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: To provide improved capacity and safety
for existing and future traffic. Also to provide multilane
continuity into the Rockingham central area from the
proposed US 74 Bypass.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: The proiect proposes to widen the existing
two lane section of US 1 from the proposed US 74 Bypass
(Project R-512) to SR 1974 (Forrest Road) in Rockingham.
The proposed typical section is five lanes with curb and
gutter.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMETAL DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: EA/FONSI
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA--Dec 95
FONSI--Jul 96
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: FULL
NUMBER OF INTERCHANGES 1
STREAM CROSSINGS 2
PARTIAL NONE X
GRADE SEPARATIONS
Page 1

TYPICAL SECTION: EXISTING 7.3-m (24-ft) plus 1.2-m (4-ft) sh
PROPOSED 18-m (64-ft) curb & gutter
TRAFFIC (ADT): 1994: 8900 VPD @ Forrest Road
7200 VPD @ Prop. US 74 Bypass
Projected 2020: 19900 VPD @ Forrest Road (w/out US 1 Bypass)
13200 VPD @ Forrest Road (with US 1 Bypass)
18000 VPD @ Prop. US 74 Byp. (w/out US 1 Byp)
13200 VPD @ Prop. US 74 Byp. (with US 1 Byp)
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO X 3R
DESIGN SPEED: 80 KPH ( 50 MPH)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING
AND CONTINGENCIES)... $ 900 ,000

RIGHT OF WAY (INCLUDING RELOCATION,
UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION).. $ 600 ,000

FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS ......................... $ ,

PRELIMINARY E NGINEERING ..................... $ 150 ,000

TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE......... $ 1,650 ,000

TIP COST ESTIMATE:
CONSTRUCTION . ............................... $ 900 .000

RIGHT OF WAY . ............................... $ 600 .000
TOTAL T.I.P. COST ESTIMATE ..................... $ 1,500,000
Page 2

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT,
WHICH COULD AFFECT COST, SCHEDULE, OR PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED M COMMENTS COST
ESTIMATED COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS:
X PAVEMENT
X SURFACE .................................. $ 223,040
BASE.... ............. ........ ......... $ ,
X MILLING & RECYCLING..(RESURFACE)......... $ 32,525
TURNOUTS ................................. $ ,
SHOULDERS
PAVED .................................... $ ,
EARTHEN .................................. $ ,
EARTHWORK ................................... $ ,
X SUBSURFACE ITEMS ............................ $ 93,000
X SUBGRADE AND STABILIZATION .................. $ 48,789
X DRAINAGE (LIST ANY SPECIAL ITEMS)............ $ 99,000
SUB-DRAINAGE ................................ $ ,
STRUCTURES:
BRIDGE REHABILITATION .................... $ ,
NEW BRIDGE ............................... $ ,
WIDEN BRIDGE ............................. $ ,
REMOVE BRIDGE ............................ $ ,
NEW CULVERT .............................. $
CULVERT EXTENSION ........................ $ ,
RETAINING WALLS .......................... $ ,
NOISE WALLS .............................. $ ,
OTHER MISC. STRUCTURES ................... $ ,
X CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER ...................... $ 55,760
CONCRETE SIDEWALK ........................... $ ,
GUARDRAIL ................................... $
FENCING:
W.W . .................................... $ ,
C.L . .................................... $ ,
X EROSION CONTROL ............................. $ 12,000
LANDSCAPING ................................. $ ,
LIGHTING .................................... $ ,
X TRAFFIC CONTROL ............................. $ 19,800
SIGNING:
NEW ..................................... $ ,
UPGRADING ............................... $ ,
TRAFFIC SIGNALS:
NEW ..................................... $ ,
REVISED ................................. $ ,
RR SIGNALS:
NEW ..................................... $
REVISED ................................. $
WITH OR WITHOUT ARMS .................... $ ,
Page 3

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
IF 3R:
DRAINAGE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT .............. $ ,
ROADSIDE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT .............. $ ,
REALIGNMENT FOR SAFETY UPGRADE........... $ ,
X PAVEMENT MARKINGS:
PAINT .................................... $ ,
X THERMOPLASTIC.... ................. $ 14,520
RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS .................. $ ,
DELINEATORS ..... $ ,
X OTHER (CLEARING, GRUBBING, MISC. & MOB.)..... $ 169,566
CONTRACT COST (SUBTOTAL): $ 768,000
---------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES ................... $ 132,000
PE COSTS ........................................ $ 150,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ................................... $ , ,
SUBTOTAL: $ 1,050,000
--------------------------------------------------
RIGHT OF WAY:
WILL CONTAIN WITHIN EXISTING R/W? YES NO
EXISTING WIDTH
NEW R/W NEEDED ESTIMATED COST $ ,
EASEMENTS: Type Width
ESTIMATED COST $ ,
Utilities ................................... $ ,
(T.I.P. ESTIMATE) RIGHT OF WAY SUBTOTAL: $ 600,000
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $ 1,650,000
PREPARED BY: Richard Wayne Fedora DATE: 10/24/94
Page 4

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
*THE ABOVE SCOPING HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
INIT DATE INIT DATE
HIGHWAY DESIGN BOARD OF TRANS MEMB
ROADWAY KHL 11/30 MGR PROGRAM & POLICY
STRUCTURE RJM 10/27 CHIEF ENGINEER - OPER
GEOTECHNICAL SB 11/30 SECONDARY ROADS OFF.
HYDRAULICS JS 11/30 CONSTRUCTION BRANCH
DESIGN DEP. ADMINISTRATOR -
SERVICES PRECONSTRUCTION
LOCATION & ROADSIDE
SURVEYS ENVIRONMENTAL
PHOTOGRAMMETRY MAINTENANCE BRANCH
RIGHT OF WAY BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
R/W UTILITIES STATEWIDE PLANNING MMR 11/23
DEHNR-DEM EG 11/28 DIVISION ENGINEER
FHWA DU 11/30 BICYCLE COORDINATOR
COUNTY MANAGER ABT 11/21 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PROJECT
CULT. RES. RGE 11/30 MANAGEMENT
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC
EST. ENG. DMC 10/21 ENGINEERING JL 11/30
PLANNING &
ENVIRONMENTAL CITY/MUNICIPALITY
OTHERS
(SCOPING SHEET FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS WILL BE SENT TO THE
DIVISION ENGINEER FOR HANDLING.)
COMMENTS OR REMARKS:
*IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW, AND INITIAL AND DATE
AFTER COMMENTS.
Page 5

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ROC[INGBAII
US 1 FROM US 74 BYPASS TO
SR 1974 (FORREST ROAD)
RICHMOND COUNTY
T.I.P NO. U-2593 FIG 1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
Z.
'N'. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

o 2, 94
T
O
: REF
. NO. R ROOM, BLDG.
--
:
[{
A
4?' C v {
-'
Dc-OR T
FROM: REF. NO.. OR ROOM, BLDG.
N.-,. \lil- P.E P-k E
ACTION
? 'NOTE: AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE. AND RETURN TO ME ?.PER YOUR, REQUEST
?.RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ?FOR YOUR APPROVAL
,/
_ ? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR. YOUR INFORMATION
R
?.PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR. YOUR COMMENTS
?. PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE -?. SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?: INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
W?
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 25, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
RECEIVED
GCI 2 7 1994
ENVIR0f441Z'N Air SCIEW,'M
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Widening of US 1 from
Proposed US 74 Bypass to SR 1974, Rockingham, Federal
Aid No. NHF-220(1), State Project No. 8.1580601,
T.I.P. No. U-2583
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early meeting
of the minds„ as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for November 30, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Roadway
Design Conference Room (Building A Century Center). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/plr 0307 16
Attachment
-ov
C

k

?a d 2i?`f t N J S
-«.
t
•1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 10120194
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP # U-2583
F. A. PROJECT NHF-220(1)
STATE PROJECT 8.1580601
DIVISION EIGHT
COUNTY RICHMOND
ROUTE US 1
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
LENGTH 2.1 km (1.3 mi)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: To provide improved capacity and safety
for existing and future traffic. Also to provide multilane
continuity into the Rockingham central area
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: The project proposes to widen the existing
two lane section of US 1 from the proposed US 74 Bvpass
(Project R-512) to SR 1974 (Forrest Road) in Rockingham The
Feasibility Study recommends widening to five lanes with curb
and gutter.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMETAL DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: EA/FONSI
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE:
EA--Dec 95
FONSI--Jul 96
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: FULL PARTIAL NONE X
NUMBER OF INTERCHANGES 1 GRADE SEPARATIONS
STREAM CROSSINGS 2
TYPICAL SECTION: EXISTING 7.3-m (24-ft) plus 1.2-m (4-ft) sh
PROPOSED 18-m (64-ft) curb & gutter
Page 1
1
TRAFFIC (ADT): 1993 COUNTS: 8300 vpd @ Forrest Road
2300 VPD @ Hammer Mill Road
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO X 3R
DESIGN SPEED: 70 KPH ( 45 MPH)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING
AND CONTINGENCIES)... $ 900,000
RIGHT OF WAY (INCLUDING RELOCATION,
UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION).. $ 600,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .........................
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ..................... $ 150,000
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE......... $ 1,650,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
CONSTRUCTION ................................ $ 900,000
RIGHT OF WAY ................................ $ 600,000
TOTAL T.I.P. COST ESTIMATE ..................... $ 115001000
Page 2
'b
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT,
WHICH COULD AFFECT COST, SCHEDULE, OR PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED W COMMENTS COST
ESTIMATED COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS:
X PAVEMENT
X SURFACE ..................................
BASE .....................................
X MILLING & RECYCLING..(RESURFACE).........
TURNOUTS .................................
SHOULDERS
PAVED ....................................
EARTHEN ..................................
EARTHWORK ....................................
X SUBSURFACE ITEMS ............................
X SUBGRADE AND STABILIZATION ..................
X DRAINAGE (LIST ANY SPECIAL ITEMS)............
SUB-DRAINAGE ......
STRUCTURES:
BRIDGE REHABILITATION ....................
NEW BRIDGE ...............................
WIDEN BRIDGE .............................
REMOVE BRIDGE ...................... ..
NEW CULVERT ..............................
CULVERT EXTENSION ........................
RETAINING WALLS ..........................
NOISE WALLS ..............................
OTHER MISC. STRUCTURES ...................
X CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER ......................
CONCRETE SIDEWALK ...........................
GUARDRAIL ...................................
FENCING:
W.W . ....................................
C.L . ....................................
X EROSION CONTROL .............................
LANDSCAPING .................................
LIGHTING ....................................
X TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................
SIGNING:
NEW .....................................
UPGRADING ...............................
TRAFFIC SIGNALS:
NEW .....................................
REVISED .................................
RR SIGNALS:
NEW .....................................
REVISED .................................
WITH OR WITHOUT ARMS ....................
$ 223,040
$ 32,525
$ 93,000
$ 48,789
$ 99,000
$ ,
$ ,
$ ,
$ ,
$ ,
$ ,
$ ,
$ ,
$ 55,760
$ ,
$ ,
$ 12,000
$ , ,
$ 19,800
Page 3

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
IF 3R:
DRAINAGE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT .............. $ ,
ROADSIDE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT .............. $ ,
REALIGNMENT FOR SAFETY UPGRADE........... $ ,
X PAVEMENT MARKINGS:
PAINT .................................... $ ,
X THERMOPLASTIC ............................ $ 14,520
RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS .................. $ ,
DELINEATORS ................................. $ ,
X OTHER (CLEARING, GRUBBING, MISC. & MOB.)..... $ 169,566
CONTRACT COST (SUBTOTAL): $ 768,000
---------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES ................... $ 132,000
PE COSTS ........................................ $ 150,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ................................... $ ,
SUBTOTAL: $ 11050,000
--------------------------------------------------
RIGHT OF WAY:
WILL CONTAIN WITHIN EXISTING R/W? YES NO
EXISTING WIDTH
NEW R/W NEEDED ESTIMATED COST $ ,
EASEMENTS: Type Width
ESTIMATED COST $ ,
Utilities ................................... $ ,
(T.I.P. ESTIMATE) RIGHT OF WAY SUBTOTAL: $ 600,000
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $ 1,650,000
PREPARED BY: Richard Wavne Fedora DATE: 10/24/94
Page 4

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
*THE ABOVE SCOPING HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
INIT DATE
HIGHWAY DESIGN BOARD OF TRANS MEMB
ROADWAY MGR PROGRAM & POLICY
STRUCTURE CHIEF ENGINEER - OPER
GEOTECHNICAL SECONDARY ROADS OFF.
HYDRAULICS CONSTRUCTION BRANCH
DESIGN DEP. ADMINISTRATOR -
SERVICES PRECONSTRUCTION
LOCATION & ROADSIDE
SURVEYS ENVIRONMENTAL
PHOTOGRAMMETRY MAINTENANCE BRANCH
RIGHT OF WAY BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
R/W UTILITIES STATEWIDE PLANNING
DEHNR DIVISION ENGINEER
FHWA BICYCLE COORDINATOR
COUNTY MANAGER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PROJECT
CULT. RES. MANAGEMENT
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC
EST. ENG. ENGINEERING
PLANNING &
ENVIRONMENTAL CITY/MUNICIPALITY
OTHERS
INIT DATE
(SCOPING SHEET FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS WILL BE SENT TO THE
DIVISION ENGINEER FOR HANDLING.)
COMMENTS OR REMARKS:
*IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW, AND INITIAL AND DATE
AFTER COMMENTS.
Page 5

.f
_ Norman --
\e? 3
Ei?erDe
\R I C H MON
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONM[?NTAI,
13RAI CH
ROCKINGHAM
US 1 FROM US 74 BYPASS TO
SR 1974 (FORREST ROAD)
RICHMOND COUNTY
T.I.P NO. U-3533 FIG 1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
°?`,..?.?' S? ?,• 1)?'`': 1 ?`` ?/??/)/• ? c?^(??rlj ??%yi? t lt?(?\ ? l i?? j((I :?Cl j? ?? ^lj!" Po'?,?J?_''` `??a _ '_
'?,??p?. ??-,u?i • u 1?, v /'?(//??? 4? I ? / /1?l'` \ ' J r tea. ? <l _;' '/ ? " - \ 'a' \i?
Id
;AICL
Ali,
_? =,?_?l ?;?i?/-'?, -? 1 ? 1?? \ ? " \? -?!/ ? ??' \ ti ' ? ?? ./ a/? "?r?•.y: x,•11 ? ,r:
?,.. '; / ??f?w `1 (/?T?^?? r ' ?? \ 1I' r ?„-. _• ? ? ?/?1. -r? 25 `?•. • a ' 9/.'•• ? `?'J ?\???.I -\ \ P
'dla? '1 Ir1}(1 i \Cv?J `. •r^ 2 n `,?l?i(1j?j ti, (L?_• ,. t•.J ?; ?s a .?. I :.
`' . i!\ ",,)???C f?. / > i ii1?f1 /?\U `1 ti .r.• -? ?/ 19JI/ ' %I \ •\?
'%"-.? ?\ ,? 14 ,t ,'?? _ 1`` /"? 1 .?-.???th?''.;\? 1 -?•1L_v -- , =?1 ? \ .7. !ci ??''?
:1 ACS
?•' -?FI3 _--? I ?V. 1 / / / , \\•' ?, ?r\ ?? 1 IJf ?\???yp- ?'J/ ??/?'/ -r_f
%
?J ?•' -' ' r •: ? . ?? i ' ice' ? ? ?'?(? . ?? . 1 ? ?, . ? \? `/\/? 4 '-' ? / // / ' '?».-.
Orr. n !/?? 1 ?, \ / r 1
10
PROJECT AREA''.
417) 9,
v 7E?.iCordova
\Ch
5? J
281
30
\\ n
to;ularpnn aJ• V ?`D"
I??\ "(! ;\-„ 1'?7/ ti / ? 'n? ?A•? ^? Zip '^ "V \ ? ??6??`\` \` ?°-`• •7`
4? 64/
26 1,; :1

January 4, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart'; Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0393; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 1, Richmond County
TIP No. U-2583
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially.impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.

Melba McGee
January 4, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid.wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10811.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
„. SCATS 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION 1 `f
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GAS D,,eGARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 30, 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb RECENM
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab JUN b 1"6
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 EMiRONWNTALuCIENCES
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for US 1, From Proposed US 74
Bypass to SR 1974 (Forest Street), Rockingham, Richmond County,
Federal Aid Number NHF-220(1), State Project Number 8.1580601,
T.I.P. No. U-2583
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Natural Resources
Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is
anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant
Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental Assessment or
at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permtit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by July 15, 1996. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
I
H. ran in c, P. E., Manager
HFV/pl Planning and Environmental Branch
r
K - ? t
Proposed Widening of US 1
from SR 1974 (Forrest Road) to the
Proposed US 74 Bypass
Rockingham, Richmond County
TIP No. U-2583
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-220(1)
State Project No. 8.1580601
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2583
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
LANE SAULS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
13 MARCH 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................... ..1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Study Area ....................................1
1.4 Methodology ...................................1
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................3
2.1 Water Resources ...............................3
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification ............ 5
2.1.2 Water Quality ........................5
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 6
2.2 Soils and Topography ..........................6
3.0 Biotic Resources .......... 7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................7
3.1.1 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest ........... 7
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ........... 8
3.1.3 Maintained Community .................9
3.2 Aquatic Communities ...........................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...............10
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ..............................11
4.1 Waters of the United States .................. 11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands
and Surface Waters .................. 11
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements ..... 13
4.1.3 Mitigation .................:........ 13
4.1.3.1 Avoidance .................. 14
4.1.3.2 Minimization ............... 14
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation.... 14
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .................... 15
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ......... 15
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Protected Species ......... 19
5.0 References .........................................20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Stream Characteristics ........................... .5
Table 2. Soil Mapping Units Found Along the U-2583
Project Area ..................................... .6
Table 3. Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......... 10
Table 4. Federal Listed Species for Richmond County....... 15
Table 5. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
for Richmond County .............................. 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map (Project U-2583) ....................2
Figure 2. Locations of Waters Associated With
Project U-2583 ...................................4
Figure 3. Locations of Wetlands Associated With
Project U-2583 ..................................12
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Environmental
Assessment (EA).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for widening the existing two
lane section of US 1, from SR 1974 (Forrest Road) to the
proposed US 74 interchange, to a five lane curb and gutter
facility (Figure 1). The project originates within the
southern city limits of Rockingham at Forrest Road and
proceeds southwestward to the proposed interchange with the
US 74 Bypass in Richmond County. Project length is
approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi), and proposed right-of-way is
30.5 m (100.0 ft). However, 21.3 m (70.0 ft) on each side of
the centerline was studied to account for the possibility of
non-symmetrical widening.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attemps
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are
made fo'r measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the
context of existing preliminary design concepts. Should
design parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigation may be needed.
1.3 Study Area
The study area associated with the proposed project is
primarily disturbed. Commercial and residential development
dominate the immediate surroundings with several small stands
of timber interspersed throughout the project. Rocky Branch
and several unnamed tributaries lie within the study area, as
well as several small wetlands. Detailed information
concerning water resources and wetlands is described later in
the report.
1.4 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the site visit.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle. map (Rockingham) and NCDOT aerial photomosaic of
the project area (1:2000). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
., BRANCH
ROCKINGHAM
US 1 FROM US 74 BYPASS TO
SR 1974 (FORREST ROAD)
RICHMOND COUNTY _
T.I.P NO. U-2583 FIG 1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
Sensitivity Base Map of Richmond County, 1992). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats.
A site visit was made on 31 January 1995 by NCDOT
biologist Lane Sauls to evaluate natural resources. General
field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more observation techniques including: active
searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars),
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Organisms captured during these
searches were identified and then released. Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Lane Sauls, Environmental Biologist, NCDOT
Education: BS degree Natural Resources- Ecosystem
Assessment, North Carolina State University
Employment: Worked in biological field since 1992.
Expertise: Section 7 field investigations; wetland
delineations; and NEPA investigations.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. The availability of water and soil
composition directly influences composition and distribution
of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Water Resources
Project U-2583 is located within the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin. Three perennial streams intersect the project:
Rocky Branch and two of its corresponding unnamed tributaries
(Figure 2). All three of the streams flow from southeast to
northwest. Rocky Branch converges with Hitchcock Creek
approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) northwest of its intersection
with US 1. Hitchcock Creek then flows westward approximately
6.4 km (4.0 mi) and empties into the Pee Dee River.
Information regarding stream characteristics is shown in
Table 1.
i
1 ` ` ice' ` •i\ -. > -Y
????% .?'! .r- ? ^•.I .?l . + ? ... ? •\ ( ' Il?'7 ? • it ; •? ' •_
C.0 "I
t i- .... \•. ?-••
, .
PROJECT AREA
_ `_ , ,• • ,.;:?t• ;;' ? 260• ?' :'• U 1• ; ?. } -: ..'•,. •?/±,
fit- \? ??' w ?• '/•? • + 1 'Ilk
-/• • .'•'•
:?.
?`?? `• ? •,,' ? + + ??SV ; • •• 2 UT#2 ROCKY BRANCH
,. , .?,( ,M--/ \? ' ' - , goo, • 1?: ?'?.; ?'
efferson
Park
„ • ? ? ?? •1;1 .• .i l _'A?; ?,. ? • ;? %? NCH ; ? '
ROCKY BRA
??;; : ??? +•, ??• -- •`,l ?. _. , v UT# 1 ,
i 277 ( r i / ?.... l t
l? /; ?_ j • ! •) ?• ? .• • } ? ?` ( ' rte, o.l . ? ?. `•?r-??
T'.-o 1,
*' 275.! • ?'-- ?i C?? t ?/ ( '
V, 1.
284-
el'
l 32.. 46 jj
326 ?? ''` pati ~=fi u 'n iiley,J . •
`- \ ?r apel:
SCALE 1: 24, 000
r=?;. o It J_?--?-_tA f fey 'aP-
Sch
opular ?prings ' i
FIGURE 2. WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT U-2583
5
TABLE 1. STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics Rocky. UT #1 UT #2
Branch
Substrate C/P/Sa/Si Sa/Si Sa/Si
Current fast medium medium
Stream Gradient flat flat flat
Channel Width 1.2 m 9.1 m 4.6 m
(7.0 ft) (3.0 ft) (2.0 ft)
Channel Depth 5.1 cm 91.4 cm 10.2 cm
(6.0 in) (2.0 in) (2.0 in)
Water Color clear clear clear
Aquatic Vegetation algae algae none
NOTES: Approximate dimensions were averaged along 30.5 m
(100.0 ft) upstream and downstream at each crossing;
Substrate: C= Cobblestone, P=Pebble, Sa=Sand,
Si=Silt.
"UT" Refer s to unnamed tributary
2.1.1 Best Usage Cl assification
Most streams have been assigned a best usage
classification by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). Rocky Branch and its corresponding tributaries at the
project__site are designated as Class "C". Class "C" waters
denote "secondary uses such as aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
Neither WS-I or WS-II Water Supplies, Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) nor High Quality Waters (HQW) occur
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. No impacts
to these waters will result from proposed project
construction.
2.1.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN information is available for Rocky Branch
nor its unnamed tributaries at the location of the proposed
project. .
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
6
is required to register for a permit. No permitted
discharges occur into Rocky Branch nor its corresponding
tributaries.
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major
anticipated impacts to water quality. Scouring of the stream
bed, soil compaction and loss of shading due to vegetation
removal are also potential impacts. Increased sedimentation
from lateral flows along with erosion is expected.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project".
2.2 Soils and Topography
Two dominant soil series are found within the project
boundaries; Ailey-Urban Land Complex and Masada Sandy Loam.
Information regarding these two series is not available at
this time. Refer to Table 2 for a complete list of mapping
units associated with the proposed project.
TABLE 2. MAPPING UNITS FOUND ALONG THE U-2583 PROJECT AREA
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
Ud Udorthents, loamy 0-10 -
37D Masada sandy loam 8-15 -
75B Ailey-Urban Land Complex 0-10 B
232B Georgeville clay loam 2-8 -
232D Georgeville clay loam 8-15 -
410B Pelion loamy sand 2-7 B
575D Ailey loamy sand 7-15 B
NOTES: "B" denotes map units with inclusions of hydric soils
or wet spots.
Richmond County lies in the sandhills system of the
coastal plain physiographic province. The topography of the
sandhills is variable. Gently undulating sandy upland
divides step down to adjacent major streams in a sequence of
terraces differing in elevation. Richmond County is also
located along the border of the coastal plain and piedmont
physiographic provinces, which suggests a mixture of
topographical variations throughout the proposed project.
Interstream divides may range from smooth valley slopes to
finely dissected areas with steep slopes. The average
elevation associated with the proposed project is 76.2 m
(250.0 ft).
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the existing vegetation and
associated wildlife communities that occur on the U-283
project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting
these communities as a result of the proposed actions.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified
in the project study area: (1) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest;
(2) Bottomland Hardwood Forest and (3) Maintained Community.
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and, may populate the
entire range of the three terrestrial communities discussed.
Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted with
an asterisk (*).
3.1.1 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine/hardwood forest is found sporadically
throughout the project area. Before urbanization, this was
probably the dominant forest. Loblolly pine (Pinus
echinata), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), longleaf pine (P.
palustris), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum
(Liauidambar stvraciflua) and northern red oak (Quercus
rubra) dominate the canopy portions of this forest. Species
found throughout the understory include black cherry (Prunus
serotina), black oak (Q. velutina), willow oak (? phellos),
white oak (0. alba), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
florida dogwood (Cornus florida) and American holly (Ilex
opaca). Shrub, vine and herbaceous layers contain blueberry
(Vaccinium spp.), cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), wild grape (Vitis
spp.), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison=ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), grapefern (Botrychium spp.) and
Christmas fern (Polvstichum acrostichoides) respectively.
The mixed pine/hardwood forest offers habitat for a
variety, 'of fauna. Reptilian species that may inhabit such
areas include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina),
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) and ground skink
(Scincella lateralis). These species forage on small plants
and insects such as crickets, grasshoppers, beetles and
harvestmen respectively. The black racer (Coluber
constrictor) and copperhead (AQkistrodon contortrix) serve
predatory roles by feeding on numerous small reptiles, birds,
mammals and amphibians.
The presence of vegetative stratification provides
habitat for species such as the southern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys volans), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
pine warbler (Dendroica Pinus), tufted titmouse* (Parus
bicolor), house finch* (Carpodacus mexicanus), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), northern flicker (Colaptes
S
auratus) and downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens).
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The bottomland hardwood forest is found along river and
stream floodplains. This occurs especially in the piedmont
and lower elevation mountain valleys but is also found
sporadically in the coastal plain. Bottomland hardwood
forests exhibit tree species prone to infrequent, as well as
frequent flooded conditions. Such species associated with
the proposed project are found along Rocky Branch. Some of
these species have adapted to flooded conditions, since areas
exist that are saturated and sometimes inundated throughout
the growing season.
Species such as tulip poplar, sweetgum and red maple
(Acer rubrum) dominate the canopy layer in this forest.
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silky dogwood (C.
amomum) and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) are common
understory species. The shrub layer is very sparse,
consisting primarily of virburnum (Virburnum spp.) and
blackberry (Rubus spp.). Vines and herbaceous components are
numberous consisting of cross vine, Japanese honeysuckle,
greenbrier, catbrier (Smilax bona-nox), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea) and crane-fly orchid (Tipularia
discolor).
Species found in areas which are saturated throughout
the growing season include those with hydrophytic
characteristics. Small wetland pockets provide habitat for
black willow (Salix ni ra), an understory species, but the
dominant flora is mainly herbaceous in this small sub-
community. Soft rush (Juncus effusus and J. coriaceus),
beggar's ticks (Bidens spp.), false nettle (Boelimeria
cvlindrica), seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), marsh-fleabane
(Pluchea spp.), tear-thumb (Polygonum sagittatum), royal fern
(Osmunda regalis), cinnamon fern (O. cinnamomea) and
sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) are a few of the dominant
species present.
The bottomland hardwood forest offers excellent habitat
for many birds, mammals, reptiles and especially amphibians.
Birds such as the eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens),
Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), Carolina wren
(Thrvothorus ludovicianus) and ruby crowned kinglet* (Regulus
calendula) may frequent these areas for forage items and
shelter. Mammals and reptiles that may be observed in the
bottomland hardwood forest include the southern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus),.raccoon (Procyon lotor), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus) and eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
Since the bottomland hardwood forest exhibits inundated
and saturated conditions, excellent breeding habitat for
amphibians is present. Salamanders such as the marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), spotted salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscush
mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus) and two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata) may live under logs, boards,
stones and leaves in this community. Other amphibians such
as spring peeper (Hula crucifer), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) and
upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata) may inhabit this
area as well.
3.1.3 Maintained Community
The maintained community refers to areas along roadsides
and powerline right-of-ways which are dominated by both woody
and herbaceous weeds that are regularly controlled by mowing.
In addition, a few remnant canopy trees exist in small areas.
Species such as tulip poplar, willow oak (Quercus phellos),
white oak, loblolly pine and red cedar are found in small
fragmented stands within such right-of-ways. However,
dominant species of this community are shrubs, vines and
herbaceous type flora. Privet (Ligustrum sinense), wild rose
(Rosa spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica),
greenbrier, aster (Aster spp.), thoroughwort (Eupatorium
spp.), fescue (Festuca spp.), panic grass (Panicum spp.),
broomsedge (Andropon spp.) and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron) are a few of the common species found in these
open areas receiving direct sunlight.
This landscape setting provides habitat for the
existence of many faunal species adaptable to urban settings.
Species such as the northern cardinal* (Cardinalis
cardinalis), mourning dove* (Zenaidura macroura), northern
mockingbird* (Mimus poly£lottos) and American robin* (Turdus
migratorius) are found throughout this community. The hispid
cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), Norway rat (Rattus
norvegi'cus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) also find foraging opportunities
and shelter in this community. A major predator of this
community is the red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis), which
forages mainly on rodents.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial
stream, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
and chemical characteristics of the water body dictate faunal
composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly
influence aquatic communities and vice versa.
The coastal plain perennial stream includes fish native
10
to warmer water temperatures. Prey species such as bluehead
chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), whitefin shiner (Notropis
niveus), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), dusky shiner
(Notropis cumminQsae) and eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens) may provide foraging opportunities for larger
predatory species including, redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides). Other species associated with the
coastal plain perennial stream community may include muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus) and mink (Mustela vison) which are semi-
aquatic mammals that feed on both aquatic and terrestrial
flora and fauna, whatever prey is most available at a
particular time.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction-
related activities in or near these resources will impact
biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted
and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degrada'tion of portions of these communities. Table 3
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the requested study area of 21.3 m
(70.0 ft) on each side of the centerline. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire study area or even
right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
TABLE 3. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Impact
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.3 (0.7)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.1 (0.3)
Maintained Community 1.1 (2.8)
Total 1.5 (3.8)
NOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres).
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the
form of habitat reduction. Since the project area is already
fragmented, relatively little impact will occur to species
that live along the edges and open areas. However, ground
dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in numbers.
Mobile species will be permanently displaced. Increased
predation will occur as a result of habitat reduction.
11
Impacts to aquatic communities will occur the form of
increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss
of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms,
inhibiting feeding and respiration. Removal of stream-side
vegetation may lead to increased water temperatures; which
can be detrimental to freshwater aquatic species.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two sensitive issues--Waters of
the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters:
Three wetland systems will be impacted by proposed
project construction (Figure 3). Each wetland is described
below and rated in accordance with methodologies recommended
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Wetland *1 This wetland is associated with the bottomland
hardwood forest. Dominant flora includes black willow, soft
rush, sphagnum moss, seedbox and cinnamon fern. Soils colors
in this',community are 10 YR 5/2 (grayish brown) with 7.5 YR
5/6 (strong brown) mottles. Hydrologic indicators include
shallow roots, buttressed trunks, multiple stems and oxidized
rhizospheres. The Cowardin Classification of this community
is PF01E (palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
seasonally flooded/saturated). The DEM rating of the
bottomland hardwood forest wetland community is 69.0 out of a
possible 100.0 points. Approximate amount of impact is <0.1
ha (0.1 ac)'.
Wetland #2. This wetland is associated with a small seep
along the southeast quadrant at the US 1 intersection with SR
2029 (Belle Road). Dominant vegetation includes black
willow, tear thumb, beggar's ticks and thoroughwort. Soil
colors range from 10 YR 3/1 (very dark gray) to 10 YR 512
( :... :: , .,? lam; • ,,, i t ? ..?:....?'
PROJECT.AREA y .t ` ; t .'.,' ! •.; ; . •! •
L. - ' ; ?,` •??` / t;l WETLAND #3 `•:
?y Ilt• '?`? ?•? \ . ?? .?•?... ?` .'.,•!?.?? • • `\ ?• • 11
fie
rson
f , r' ''; :', ' ,' '. y ``. s_ f,t -r • . Park ' ' `ti. . i
..??? ? ,• ? \,? ? •. {?( ?4-- \? ? eau .?'? • l ??
.JA
qo ,,P
WETLAND *2
1 277 .
I/"?? ; ?; i ( ?, ?` •' . ,. '`? ? ~ ? %' • .. ? ; , • is , ?"7 i ; ? ? ;._,` ' w
/? ?_? ??-•'? ? - C`' ' `?, ' ).) i t ? ? ???.?-- i .rte
WETLAND # 1
275. i !°•- 1 ?'???-''t T r
41
284,
ew-Diggs
? ? ?Cha elm :' - ?? , ?,? ` (' ... • ' ?,q ?, ?
320 - ?, ' :' ?\ t ?- ) •?L?['
41
326 pa?i\r
fi YJ
'j 34
b ?- ...s
SCALE 1.24, 000 tap(
t ?
Akilty Pei
?•=? n `,,? _ N=-:Paputar lprings•' •? . i iy .
? AT
- FIGURE 3. LOCATIONS OF WETLANDS ASSOCIATED
WITH PROJECT U-2583
13
(grayish brown). The area remains inundated/saturated to the
surface throughout the year. The Cowardin Classification of
this seep is PEM1H (palustrine, persistent emergent,
permanently flooded). The DEM rating is 32.0 out of a
possible 100.0 points. 'Approximate amount of impact is <0.1
ha (<0.1 ac).
Wetland *3 This wetland is associated with a small unnamed
tributary of Rocky Branch. Dominant vegetation includes soft
rush, epilobium (Epilobium coloratum), sphagnum moss, black
willow, seedbox and graminoids. Soil colors are 10 YR 5/2
(grayish brown). The wetland exhibits inundated conditions
throughout the year. The Cowardin Classification of this
community is PEM1H also. DEM rating of this wetland is 41.0
out of a possible 100.0 points. Approximate amount of impact
is <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac).
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a-Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5 (A) 14 (road crossings) is applicable to the
project.
Nationwide Permit #14 authorizes fill for roads crossing
waters of the U.S. including wetlands and other aquatic
sites. -Standard conditions include: (1) the width of the
fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing; (2) the fill placed in waters of the U.S. is
limited to a filled area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.3 ac); and
(3) no more than a total of 61.0 linear meters (200.0 ft) of
the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC #
2745) is also required for any activity which may result
in a discharge and for which a certification is required:
Certifications are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
4.1.3 Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
14
considered sequentially.
4.1.3.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of
those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Some unavoidable impacts to surface waters will
result from project construction.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of
the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
The following methods are suggested to minimize adverse
impacts" to Waters of the United States:
1. Use of a shoulder section rather than a curb and
gutter section in the vicinities of Rocky Branch and
its tributaries.
2. If a curb and gutter section is used, wet
detention ponds should be constructed.to manage
storm water.
3. Strictly enforce Best Management Practices
(BMP'S) to control sedimentation during project
construction.
4.'. Clearing and grubbing activity should be minimized.
5. Decrease or eliminate discharges into streams.
6. Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas,
with judicious pesticide and herbicide management.
7. Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
8. Use responsible litter control practices.
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compenstaory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net los.s of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
i4;
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation and enhancement of Water of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement (MOE) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
ammended) requires that any action, likely to adversely
affect species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with Federal Classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as ammended. As of November 17, 1994, the FWS lists
the following federally-protected species for Richmond County
(Table 4). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows.
TABLE 4. FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR RICHMOND COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Acipenser brevirostrum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Rhus michauxii
COMMON NAME STATUS
shortnose sturgeon E
bald eagle E
red-cockaded woodpecker E
rough-leaved loosestrife E*
Michaux' s sumac E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
denotes a species has not been recorded within the past
20 years for Richmond County.
16
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon) Endangered
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67.
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Brunswick, New Hanover,
Richmond.
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small species of fish
which occurs in the lower sections of large rivers and in
coastal marine habitats. The short-nosed sturgeon prefers
deep channels with a salinity less than sea water. It feeds
benthicly on invertebrates and plant material and is most
active at night.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water
rivers that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants to
reproduce successfully. It is an anadromous species that
spawns upstream in the spring and spends most of its life
within close proximity of the rivers mouth. At least two
entirely freshwater populations have been recorded, in South
Carolina and Massachusetts.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
No suitable habitat exists for the short-nosed sturgeon
within the project boundaries. There are no large rivers or
stream found within the study area. Therefore, no impacts
will occur to the short-nosed sturgeon as a result of project
construction.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Endangered
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick,
Carteret, Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Dare,
Durham, Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans, Richmond,
Stanley, Vance, Wake, Washington.
Adult bald eagles can be
head and short white tail. The
chocolate-brown in color. In
identified by their flat wing
identified by their large white
body plumage is dark-brown to
flight bald eagles can be
soar.
Eagle nests are found inclose proximity to water
(within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water,
in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other
sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may
be live or carrion.
17
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitat exists for the bald eagle along the
proposed project. With increased human disturbance, no clear
paths to open water and lack of large trees, it is very
unlikely that the bald eagle is present in the study area.
Therefore, no impacts will occur to the bald eagle as a
result of project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks
on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks.
The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black
cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and
are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW
lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
1S
Based upon extensive field reconnaissance, no --- suitable
habitat in the form of stands containing at least 500 pine,
lacking a thick understory and contiguous with other stands
with appropriate habitat.is present for the red-cockaded
woodpecker in the surrounding areas of the proposed project.
Therefore, no impacts will occur to the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a result of project construction.
Lvsimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife)
Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bladen, Brunswick,
Carteret, Columbus, Cumberland, Hoke, Moore,
Onslow, Pamlico, Pender, Richmond, Scotland.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having
slender stems and whorled leaves. This herb has showy yellow
flowers which usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits are
present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain
and sandhills of North and South Carolina. This species
occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands
and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth
usually on a wet, peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to
seasona'lly saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep
peat in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays
(shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown
origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained.
Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in association with
hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based upon extensive field reconnaiss
and on moist to seasonally saturated sands
organic soils overlaying sand, no suitable
rough-leaved loosestrife along the project
no impacts will occur to this species as a
construction.
ince along ecotones
and shallow
habitat exists for
area. Therefore,
result of project
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin,
Hoke, Lincoln, Moore, Orange, Richmond,
Robeson, Scotland, Wake, Wilson.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous
shrub. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges
19
are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac
are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from
August to September on female plants, are a red densely
short-pubescent drupe.
. This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods.
Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy
loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it
can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well
with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which
it is often associated.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present along
the roadsides and powerline right-of-ways. A plant-by-plant
survey was conducted by NCDOT biologist Lane Sauls during the
site visit. No individuals were observed. Therefore, no
impacts will occur to Michaux's sumac as a result of project
construction.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are nine federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Richmond County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal-protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject of any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. C2 species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species 1993 are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and'.the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists federal candidate species, the species'
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
r
?0
TABLE 5. FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE PROTECTED SPECIES FOR
RICHMOND COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Aimophila aestivalis
Pituophis m.
melanoleucus
Amorpha georgiana
gerogiana
Astragalus michauxii
Nestronia umbellula
Kalmia cuneata
Potamogeton
confervoides
Stylisma o var.
pickeringii
Tofieldia glabra
COMMON NAME NC SUITABLE
STATUS HABITAT
Bachman's sparrow SC N
Northern pine snake SC Y
Georgia leadplant E Y
Sandhills milkvetch - N
Nestronia - Y
White-wicky E-SC N
Conferva pondweed* - N
Pickering's morning-
glory E Y
Smooth bog-asphodel* - Y
"*" No specimen found in Richmond County in twenty years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare
Species' and Unique Habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof, Palmer, Bailey, Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Fresh Water Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, The
Delmar Company, Charlotte, NC.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1980. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Trees Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Wildflowers Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
ti
?1
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to Waters of the Yadkin/Pee-Dee River
Basin. Raleigh Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate
Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
Robbins, C.S. B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to
Field Identification Birds of North America. Golden
Press. New York.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1984.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil
Survey Maps of Richmond County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, Parnell, Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virgina and Maryland. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

m '&7 0 .
0
H
.. D

1 z
<
A a mm o
> = m
H
Cj7
x
a

> - D
k '? m
rn
H ?
H .n
t-C ?O
0
M

H zOc
C
?

H
Q )
o
mm=
mam
H r
C?

H
H
d
D
iz
H O
c
H z
"D -- --------------------------------

i
tV ?
Cn

Do ?
O
? C

-- --------------------------------
H
C'y

0
z

z
m
>
d
D

tw N O
d C7 z
d
---- to
--------------------------------- I

O
m
m
m
m
G
D
m
CO)
0
m
0
m
N
c
0
0
0
0
T
D
D
Z
Z
O
NT
V J
N
N
Ln
N
L+a
a
m
o-n
0m
m
0a2
-? 3 O
:I)
o Z I m
?oC)
m
cnzm
OEM
0
C
m
m 3
n,Z
m z n
4P
t1a
tT
GA
v
m
c
lV
-J
1
a0
W
CODES
A CONTRACT
B EXpENSFjj,VOUCHER
C - INVOICE
D - SEE ATTACHED LISTING
E STATEMENT
F OTHER