20071823 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

41#
Subject:
Team Members:
Minutes from Interagency 4B Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
on August 17, 2005 for R-2502B in Richmond/Moore Counties
Richard Spencer-USACE (present)
Brian Wrenn - NCDWQ (present)
Polly Lespinasse - NCDWQ (present)
Travis Wilson-NCWRC * (absent)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (present)
Chris Militscher-EPA (present)
Rachelle Beaugard -NEU (present)
Jay McInnis-PDEA (absent)
* Notified by email
4B- Was held on February 18, 2004
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Dan Duffield, NCDOT Hydraulics
David Scheffel, NCDOT Design Services Design
Roy Currin, HSMM
Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
John Olinger, Division 8
Art King, Division 8
Vang Woua, Utilities
Marshall (MC) - Introduction and started the permit review
MC - Site 1
Chris Militscher (CM) - Have these plans changed from the 4B?
Roy Currin (RC) - Yes, the last 1/3 of the project has been narrowed, starting at sheet 12
Mark Staley (MS) - Need to add some mechanized clearing for erosion control to all sites.
MC - Site 2 and 3
MC - Site 2 and 3 one are on the left and on the right, overview
CM - Is this a forebay or what?
MC - explanation
CM Where these looked at for ground water elevations? Did we find this out before the
design?
RC- Yes, we redesigned due to the ground water
1?*
Richard Spencer (RS) Can we put in a liner?
MC - Yes
Brian Wrenn (BW) - A clay liner is better suited
Site 3 - Continue -overview
Site 4 - Continue -overview
Site 5 - Continue -overview
Site 6 - Continue -overview
CM - Sta 435 +00 is this a wetland?
MC and RC - No these are actually a high areas
John Olinger (JO) - How are we going to maintain these Hazardous Spill Basin?
David Scheffel (DS) - We can put a break in the guard rail.
RS - There is an existing pipe, what are we doing with it?
RC - We are replacing it with a new cross pipe
MC - There is a conflict box that keeps the water separate
Vang Woua (VW) - 8" Duct Iron Pipe we will need to relocate it
CM - Is this utility addition impacts?
VW - No
MC - Next site which is the Bridge
We'll fix the plans to show the bents as they are missing, both proposed and existing.
JO - Can we get the permit to show Hand Clearing?
RS - This is not my call, I'm fine with hand cleared
MC - We'll show HC to the R/W
BW - Any impact due to the bridge, such as fill, causeway, etc?
4
MC - No
BW - No excavation?
MC - No
Discussion on drive way shown at matchline on sheet 14
RC - This is control of access
RS - Is this bridge going to be drilled shaft?
MC - We'll get up with structures
RS - Is there anyway we can get these lines off the plan view? It looks like pipes leaving the
bridge.
RC - We'll try
BW - Could we enter the Hazardous Spill basin differently?
MC - Well if we move the pipe we will be bucking the grade, how about we move the
Hazardous Spill basin outlet away from the outlet of the pipe to allow for some
reaction time to shut the gate
RS - Make sure you count the PDE as impacted area as they usually completely clear it
Meeting Adjourned
d„a. SfATE
r` a
auw ?+°•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
October 11, 2000
Mr. John Hennessy
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment for US 1, from SR 1001 to the existing four
lanes north of the Moore County Line, Richmond-Moore Counties, State Project
6.589009T, TIP Project R-2502
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the 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.
Permit 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. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH, NC
2
Your comments should be received by December 11, 2000. 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,
r'ryWil iam D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/plr
US 1
From SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
TIP Project Number R-2502
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
The following person may be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]

APPROVED:
Date William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
US 1
From SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
TIP Project Number R-2502
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Ld, ikL?; 1'?'
J es A. McInnis Jr., P.E.
??????''••.,
Project Development Engineer ?.••'`??•
r. A
/obert Hanson, P. $ ••.?f'ItN
Project Development Unit Head .?W' 06
?''••..•N..a••`
? `28-od
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... I
1. Type of Action ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Additional Information ............................................................................................................................... i
3. Permits Required ........................................................................................................................................ i
4. Project Purpose/Description of Action ....................................................................................................... i
5. Needs to be Addressed by Project ............................................................................................................. ii
6. Summary of Environmental Effects
7. Alternatives Considered
8. Coordination ............................................................................................................................................. ttt
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ....................................................................................................................... tv
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................1
A. Project Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................1
B. General Description ...................................................................................................................................1
C. Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................................1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT ..............................................................................................................................2
A. Description of Existing Facility .................................................................................................................2
1. Route Classification ...............................................................................................................................2
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility ...............................................................................................2
a. Roadway Cross-section ......................................................................................................................................2
b. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ....................................................................................................................2
c. Right of Way and Access Control ......................................................................................................................3
d. Speed Limit ........................................................................................................................................................3
e. Intersections .......................................................................................................................................................3
f. Railroad Crossings ..............................................................................................................................................3
g. Structures ...........................................................................................................................................................3
h. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks .................................................................................................................3
i. Utilities ................................................................................................................................................................4
3. School Bus Usage ..................................................................................................................................4
4. Traffic Volumes .....................................................................................................................................4
5. Other Highway Projects in the Area ......................................................................................................4
6. Airports ..................................................................................................................................................4
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility ................................................................................................................5
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity ......................................................................................................................5
2. Accident Record ....................................................................................................................................5
3. Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................................................6
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ......................................................................................................................6
1. Capacity .................................................................................................................................................6
2. Safety .....................................................................................................................................................6
3. Other Benefits ........................................................................................................................................7
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................................7
A. Roadway Cross-section .............................................................................................................................7
B. Alignment ..................................................................................................................................................8
C. Right of Way and Access Control .............................................................................................................8
D. Speed Limit ................................................................................................................................................9
E. Design Speed ..............................................................................................................................................9
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions ..................................................................................................................9
G. Intersections/Interchanges .........................................................................................................................9
H. Median Crossovers .................................................................................................................................. 10
1. Railroad Crossings .................................................................................................................................... 10
J. Structures .................................................................................................................................................. 10
K. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks ....................................................................................................... 1 I
L. Utilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................. 11
A. Existing Facility Widening Alternatives .................................................................................................. 1 l
B. Bypass Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 13
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation .......................................................................................................... 14
D. 'No-Build" Alternative ............................................................................................................................ 14
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ 15
A. Natural Resources .................................................................................................................................... 15
1. Biotic Resources .................................................................................................................................. 15
a. Biotic Communities .......................................................................................................................................... 15
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects ...................................................................................................................... 16
2. Water Resources .................................................................................................................................. 17
3. Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.) ............................................................................................................. 18
4. Rare and Protected Species .................................................................................................................. 20
a. Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................................................ .20
b. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species ...................................................................................... .22
B. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................... 24
1. Historic Architectural Resources ......................................................................................................... 24
2. Archaeological Resources .................................................................................................................... 24
C. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ...................................................................................................... 24
D. Land Use .................................................................................................................................................. 25
E. Farmland .................................................................................................................................................. 25
F. Forestland ................................................................................................................................................. 25
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 26
H. Traffic Noise Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 26
1. Air Quality Analysis ..................................................................................................................................27
J. Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................28
K. Geodetic Survey Markers ........................................................................................................................28
L. Public Facilities/Emergency Services ......................................................................................................29
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................................................... .29
A. Citizens Informational Workshop ........................................................................................................... .29
B. Public Hearing ........................................................................................................................................ .30
C. Agency Coordination .............................................................................................................................. .30
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Proposed Improvements
Figure 3A Proposed Typical Section For US 1
Figure 3B Typical Section on Proposed Structures
Figure 4 2005/2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 Wetlands/Streams/Floodplains in Project Area
Figure 6 Water Supply Watersheds and HQW Zones in
Project Area
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Comments Received
Appendix B - NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Report
Appendix C - Highway Traffic Noise Analysis Tables
Appendix D - Potentially Contaminated Properties in Project Area
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Existing Bridge Structure ................................................................................
Table 2 - Proposed Right of Way Dimensions ................................................................
Table 3 - Proposed Bridge Structures .............................................................................
Table 4 - Widening Alternatives Examined ...................................................................
Table 5 - Anticipated Effects on Terrestrial Communities .............................................
Table 6 - Anticipated Effects on Wetlands ....................................................................
Table 7 - Federally Protected Species in Richmond and Moore Counties ..................
Table 8 - Federal Species of Concern/State-Listed Species in Richmond and Moore
Counties ......................................................................................................
Table 9 - One Hour CO Concentrations for Nearest Sensitive Receptor ...................
Page
3
9
10
11
17
19
20
..... 23
..... 28
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Type of Action
This is a State Environmental Assessment prepared in compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
2. Additional Information
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
3. Permits Required
An Individual Section 404 Permit is likely to be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, due to impacts to wetlands and surface waters (see Section V-A-3).
A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404 Individual
Permit.
4. Project Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the capacity and safety of US
within the project limits.
The proposed project involves widening existing US 1 to multi-lanes from just
south of SR 1001 (Marston Road) in Richmond County to the existing multi-lanes just
north of the Moore County line, a distance of approximately 8.3 miles (see Figure 1).
Partial control of access will be obtained for portions of US 1 to be widened to four lanes
with a 46-foot median (see Figure 3A), except in the vicinity of Drowning Creek, where
full control of access is proposed. No control of access is proposed for other portions of
the project.
5. Needs to be Addressed by Project
This project is intended to address the following deficiencies of the existing
roadway:
• Insufficient traffic carrying capacity. With no improvements, US 1 within the
project limits will operate at Level of Service F in the design year 2025 (see
Section II-13-1).
• Higher fatal accident rate than statewide average. For the period examined,
US 1 within the project limits had a fatal accident rate over twice the statewide
average for similar facilities (see Section II-B-2).
Substandard vertical alignment. The vertical alignment of some sections of
US 1 within the project limits does not meet a 60 MPH design speed. This
restricts stopping sight distance (see Section II-B-3).
6. Summary of Environmental Effects
The proposed project will require the relocation of 17 homes and 10 businesses.
The project will affect approximately 126 acres of terrestrial habitats, at least 91 acres of
which are previously disturbed habitats. The project will affect approximately 3.6 acres of
wetlands, but will not affect any jurisdictional streams.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with a biological conclusion of
"not likely to adversely effect" for project effects on the federally-listed red-cockaded
woodpecker. "No effect" determinations have been made for all other protected species.
Traffic noise impacts are expected for 40 homes and 4 businesses by the design
year 2025; however, noise abatement measures are not considered appropriate.
No properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places will
be affected by the project. Two archaeological sites will be evaluated further to determine
their significance following right of way acquisition for the project.
ii
7. Alternatives Considered
Widening the existing roadway, construction on new location, alternate modes of
transportation and the "no-build" alternative were considered as alternatives for the
proposed project (see Section IV). Widening the existing roadway was chosen as the
preferred alternative because it serves the purpose and need of the project while
minimizing costs and environmental impacts. Construction of a roadway on new location
would be more expensive and more environmentally damaging. Alternate modes or the
"no-build" alternative would not effectively serve the project purpose and need.
Several widening alternatives were investigated for the project. These alternatives
are discussed in Section IV-A.
8. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local officials were consulted regarding this
project:
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
Military Traffic Management Command
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Richmond County
Town of Hoffman
iii
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 1
From SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
TIP Project Number R-2502
Geotechnical Unit
The proposed project will likely require right of way from 11 properties
potentially contaminated with hazardous materials. Preliminary site assessments to
identify the nature and extent of any contamination will be performed on these sites prior
to right of way acquisition.
Roadway Design Unit
During project design, efforts will be made to reduce the project's effects on
existing development, particularly area churches and the Marston station of the Hoffman
Fire and Rescue Department.
A median break will be provided in front of the Marston station of the Hoffman
Fire and Rescue Department, at each of the entrances to the Sandhills Game Land Depot
and at the SR 1475 intersection with US 1, in order to allow emergency vehicles to make
direct left turns onto US 1.
Division Eight
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal.
During construction of the project, the driveway to the Marston and Hoffman
stations of the Hoffman Fire and Rescue Department, the two entrances to the Sandhills
Game Land Depot, and the intersection of SR 1475 with US 1 will not be blocked by
materials or unattended equipment. The contractor for the project will be required to
maintain a driveway for the two fire stations and for the Sandhills Game Land Depot at
n all times during project construction.
Environmental Assessment - R-2502 Page 1 of 2
September, 2000
iv
Roadside Environmental Unit/Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A
NCAC 04B .0024) (HQW standards) throughout design and construction of the portion of
the project north of SR 1004 (Bostick Road).
A hazardous spill catch basin will be required at the Drowning Creek crossing.
The use of turbidity curtains during in-stream work will be studied during
development of erosion control plans for the project and curtains will be utilized if it is
determined they will be effective in the conditions found in Drowning Creek.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested additional work be
conducted on two archaeological sites in the project area in order to determine whether or
not the sites are eligible for the National Register. Due to landowner objections and the
extent of the additional work requested, this work can not be performed until after
NCDOT has acquired right of way in this'area. NCDOT'will reevaluate the project's
possible effects on these sites when the final design plans are completed and the permit
areas are defined. At that time, NCDOT will consult with the SHPO and with any federal
permitting agencies and other consulting parties if appropriate, and perform additional
archaeologicalinvestigations on these two sites prior to project construction.
Environmental Assessment - R-2502
September, 2000
US 1
From SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
TIP Project Number R-2502
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the capacity and safety of US 1
within the project limits.
B. General Description
The proposed project involves the widening of a portion of existing US 1 to
multi-lanes. The project extends from just south of SR 1001 (Marston Road) in
Richmond County to the existing four lanes in Moore County. The project length is
approximately 8.3 miles (see Figure 1). Partial and full control of access will be obtained
for portions of the project (see Section III-C). All intersecting roadways will cross US 1
at-grade; no grade separations or interchanges are proposed.
The project is included in the draft 2002-2008 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program. Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled for state
fiscal years 2003 and 2005, respectively.
C. Cost Estimates
The total estimated costs for TIP Project R-2502 are as follows:
Construction $24,900,000
Right of Way Acquisition $6,225,000
Wetland Mitigation $173,000
Total Cost $31,298,000
The cost estimate included in the draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
for the project is $24,000,000. Of this total, $2,200,000 is estimated for right of way
acquisition and $21,800,000 is estimated for construction.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
1. Route Classification
US 1 within the project limits is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial-Other in
the North Carolina Functional Classification System. US 1 is designated an Intrastate
Corridor for its entire length within North Carolina.
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility
a. Roadway Cross-section
Existing US 1 south of the project limits is a three-lane roadway. The roadway
has 12-foot lanes and 10-foot shoulders, four feet of which are paved.
Within the project limits, existing US 1 has two typical sections. Between
SR 1001 (Marston Road) and SR 1004 (Bostick Road), existing US 1 is a three-lane
roadway, with 12-foot lanes. Shoulder widths vary between 10 to 12 feet. A two-foot
paved shoulder is provided on both sides of the roadway. From SR 1001 to
approximately 3,500 feet north of SR 1603 (Old Laurel Hill Road), the center turn lane is
utilized as a two-way left turn lane. From north of SR 1603 to SR 1004, the center lane is
utilized as a passing lane, with passing opportunities alternating between northbound and
southbound traffic.
Between SR 1004 and the four-lane section north of the Moore County line,
existing US 1 is a two-lane roadway, with 12-foot lanes and 12-foot shoulders, four feet
of which are paved.
North of the project limits, existing US 1 is a four-lane divided roadway with a
68-foot grassed median. The roadway has 12-foot lanes with 14-foot inside and outside
shoulders, two feet of which are paved.
b. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal alignment of existing US 1 within the project limits meets a
60 MPH design speed. The vertical alignment, however, does not meet a 60 MPH design
speed in several locations, particularly just north of Hoffman.
2
c. Right of Way and Access Control
Approximately 60 to 100 feet of right of way exists along US 1 within the project
limits. No control of access exists along US 1 within the project limits. Partial control of
access exists along US 1 north of the project limits.
d. Speed Limit
A 55 MPH speed limit exists along US 1 within the project limits.
e. Intersections
At-grade intersections exist at all roadways crossing US 1 within the project
limits. All of the intersections along this section of US 1 are stop-sign controlled, none
are signalized.
f. Railroad Crossings
No railroad crossings are located along US 1 within the project limits. Railroad
tracks owned by CSX Transportation parallel US 1 to the east. These tracks are located
within approximately 40 feet of the existing edge of pavement of US 1 within Hoffman.
No construction is allowed within 25 feet of the near rail of the railroad tracks in this
area.
g. Structures
One bridge structure exists along US 1 within the project limits. Table 1 below
describes this existing bridge.
TABLE 1
VVICTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Clear
Bridge Carries/ Roadway Year Suff.
No. Crosses Width Length Built *Rtg.
42 US 1/ 25.9' 298' 1923 50.9
Drowning Creek
5utticiency xating trout of a possioie ivv raui% Yviliw).
h. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
The subject section of US 1 passes through a predominately rural area. No special
bicycle or pedestrian provisions exist along US 1 within the project limits.
3
i. Utilities
Waterlines run parallel to or cross existing US 1 at several locations within the
project limits. A waterline crosses Drowning Creek above ground on the east side of
us 1.
A fiber-optic cable and a gas line are located on the east side of US 1. Overhead
power and telephone lines run parallel to or cross US 1 at several locations within the
project limits, as well. An underground power line runs on the west side of US 1 between
Marston and Hoffman.
3. School Bus Usage
Fifteen school buses use the section of US 1 through Hoffman twice daily.
4. Traffic Volumes
Traffic projections were prepared for the subject section of US 1 for the years
2005 and 2025. In the year 2005, average daily traffic along US 1 within the project
limits will range between 10,600 to 11,000 vehicles per day. In 2025, average daily
traffic along US 1 will range between 16,400 to 17,200 vehicles per day. Figure 4
presents traffic volumes and turning movements along US 1 and crossing roadways
within the project limits.
5. Other Highway Projects in the Area
One other highway project is located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project. TIP Project R-2501 will improve the capacity of the US 1 corridor from the
South Carolina State Line to SR 1001 (Marston Road). This project is currently in
development, and the final alignment has not been determined. The portion of Project
R-2501 (R-2501 Q immediately adjacent to the subject project will likely involve
widening existing US 1. Right of way acquisition and construction for Project R-2501 C
is scheduled in the draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program to begin in
fiscal years 2005 and 2008, respectively.
6. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located in the project area.
4
S. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity
Highway capacity analyses were performed for existing US 1 within the project
limits for the years 2005 and 2025. This analysis revealed that without the proposed
improvements, US 1 within the project limits would operate at level of service E in the
year 2005 and level of service F in the year 2025.
Capacity analyses were also performed for existing at-grade intersections along
the subject section of US 1. These analyses concluded that without the proposed
improvements, turning traffic at many of the at-grade intersections along US 1 would
experience excessive delay in the years 2005 and 2025.
2. Accident Record
An accident study was performed for US 1 within the project limits for the period
between January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997. During this time, 76 accidents occurred
along the subject section of US 1. Of this total, three accidents resulted in fatalities and
35 accidents resulted in non-fatal injuries. These accidents resulted in an estimated
$360,500 in property damage.
Striking animals (20), running off the road (18), and rear-end collisions (17) were
the most frequent types of accidents to occur along the subject section of US 1 within the
study period.
The total crash rate for US 1 within the project limits for the study period was
119.23 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles and the fatal crash rate was 4.71 accidents
per 100 million vehicle miles. In comparison, the statewide crash rate for rural two-lane
US routes between 1995-1997 was 194.93 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles and
the fatal crash rate was 2.58 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles, while the total and
fatal crash rate for rural three-lane US routes was 186.05 and 1.89 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles, respectively.
As the above statistics show, the subject section of US 1 has a lower total crash
rate than the statewide average for similar routes, but a substantially higher fatal crash
rate.
3. Vertical Alignment
As stated previously, the vertical alignment of portions of existing US 1 does not
meet a 60 MPH design speed. This substandard vertical alignment restricts sight distance
along the roadway and increases the potential for accidents.
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
1. Capacity
The proposed project will increase the traffic carrying capacity of the subject
section of US 1. With the proposed project, US 1 within the project limits will operate at
level of service A in the year 2005 and level of service B in the year 2025.
The project will also reduce delay at intersections along US 1 within the project
limits. The dual lanes per direction provided by the project will increase the number of
gaps in through traffic on US 1 available for turning traffic to use, reducing delay. In
addition, the proposed 46-foot median north of Hoffman will allow traffic to cross or turn
left onto US 1 in stages, also reducing delay.
2. Safe
As discussed in Section II-13-2 above, the subject section of US 1 has a fatal crash
rate substantially higher than the statewide fatal crash rate for similar facilities. One of
the fatal accidents along US 1 within the project limits was a head-on collision. One of
the fatal accidents involved a pedestrian, and the remaining one occurred at an
intersection.
The proposed dual lanes per direction will allow vehicles to pass slower moving
vehicles without having to encroach in the opposing traffic lanes. The proposed median
will reduce the likelihood of head-on collisions by providing a separation between
opposing traffic lanes.
Left turn lanes will be provided in the median at all median crossovers. These left
turn lanes will prevent left turning traffic from having to stop in the through lanes,
reducing the likelihood of rear-end collisions.
Right turn lanes or right turn tapers will be provided where warranted. These turn
lanes and tapers will allow right turning traffic to move out of the through lanes to
complete a turn, reducing the likelihood of rear-end collisions.
6
The vertical alignment of US 1 will be improved by the proposed project. As
stated previously, the vertical alignment does not currently meet a 60 MPH design speed
in several locations. In these locations, stopping sight distance along the roadway is less
than desirable. The proposed project will increase stopping sight distance in these areas.
3. Other Benefits
The proposed widening of US 1 will reduce delay for roadway users, resulting in
lower roadway user costs.
The North Carolina Motor Speedway is located on US 1 approximately 1.5 miles
south of the proposed project. Currently, on race weekends, the center lane on US 1 is
utilized as an outbound through lane for northbound traffic leaving the speedway. The
center lane ends at SR 1004 (Bostick Road), leaving only one lane available to carry
outbound traffic. Although the proposed project is intended to address the needs of daily
traffic along US 1 and not the extraordinary traffic demands of a special event at the
speedway, the proposed additional lanes will reduce congestion along US 1 due to race
traffic.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-section
Several different cross-sections are proposed for US 1 within the project limits in
order to accommodate existing roadside development and minimize project impacts.
Figure 3A shows the proposed typical sections for the project.
From SR 1001 to SR 1603 through the town of Marston, US 1 will be widened to
four lanes separated by a 16-foot raised median with mountable curb and gutter on the
outside (see Figure 3A).
From SR 1603 to SR 1475, US 1 will be widened to four lanes separated by a
16-foot raised median with 10-foot outside shoulders, four feet of which will be paved
(see Figure 3A).
From SR 1475 to SR 1600 through the town of Hoffman, both a four-lane median
divided section and a five-lane undivided section are being considered (see Figure 3A).
A 16-foot raised median would be provided with the four-lane alternative. Mountable
curb and gutter and eight foot berms would be provided on the outside with both
alternatives. A decision will be made regarding the design of the project through
Hoffman following the public hearing for the project. The recommended design will be
discussed in the final environmental document for the project.
7
From SR 1600 to the existing four lanes north of the Moore County line, US 1
will be widened to four lanes separated by a 46-foot grassed median with 10-foot outside
shoulders, four feet of which will be paved (see Figure 3A).
B. Alignment
From SR 1001 to SR 1603 through the Town of Marston, the majority of the `
proposed widening will be performed on the eastern side of US 1, in order to minimize
impacts to homes and businesses in Marston. -
From SR 1603 to SR 1475, the proposed new lanes will be constructed on the
west side of US 1.
From SR 1475 to SR 1600 through the town of Hoffman, the proposed widening
will be performed predominately on the western side of US 1, due to the proximity of the
railroad to existing US 1. No construction is allowed within 25 feet of the near rail of the
railroad.
From SR 1600 to Special Forces Way, the proposed new lanes will be constructed
on the east side of existing US 1. From Special Forces Way to the existing four lanes, the
new lanes will be constructed on the west side of existing US 1, in order to match the
alignment of the existing multi-lane section of US 1 north of the Moore County line.
C. Right of Way and Access Control
Additional right of way will be required along US 1 for the majority of the project
(see Figure 2). Temporary easements will be required in some areas, as well. Proposed
right of way for the project varies according to the different cross-sections proposed along
us 1.
Table 2 below presents proposed right of way dimensions and type of access
control proposed for the project.
8
TABLE 2
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSIONS

Section Minimum
Proposed
Right of Way
Type of
Access Control
SR 1001 to SR 1603 1001* None
SR 1603 to SR 1475 150' None
SR 1475 to SR 1600 1001* None
SR 1600 to Existing 4-lanes 200' Partial (Full at Creek)
*Total right of way width following construction of the project may be greater
than 100 feet in some locations due to the proximity of the railroad to existing
us 1.
The location of access points along portions of the project with partial control of
access will be determined during the design phase of the project.
D. Speed Limit
A 45 MPH speed limit is anticipated for portions of US 1 where curb and gutter is
to be constructed on the outside. A 55 MPH speed limit is anticipated for portions of
US 1 where shoulders are proposed.
E. Design Speed
A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project with outside grass
shoulders, and a 50 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project with curb
and gutter on the outside.
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is anticipated no design exceptions will be required for the subject project.
G. Intersections/Interchanges
All current at-grade intersections within the project limits will remain at-grade.
Left turn lanes will be provided at all intersections with median crossovers. Right turn
lanes or tapers will be provided, where warranted.
No traffic signals are proposed at any of the intersections along the project.
9
H. Median Crossovers
Median crossovers are proposed at most intersections of state-maintained roads
with US 1. As discussed in Section III-G, left-turn lanes will be provided in the median
at all median crossovers. Final determinations regarding median crossover locations will
be made during the design phase of the project.
1. Railroad Crossings
As discussed previously, US 1 within the project limits runs parallel to the CSX
Transportation rail line from beyond the southern project limits at SR 1001 (Marston
Road) to west of SR 1528 (Vincent Gibson Avenue). There are no railroad crossings on
US 1 within the project limits; however, there are several at-grade railroad crossings on
state maintained roads which intersect US 1 in the study area. The proposed project will
have no direct impact on these crossings, the proposed widening in some areas has been
shifted further away from the railroad tracks in order to provide room for a vehicle to stop
at the intersection with US 1 and not encroach upon the tracks.
I Structures
Two new bridge structures will be constructed to carry US 1 across Drowning
Creek. One new structure will be constructed west of the existing bridge at Drowning
Creek, traffic will be shifted temporarily onto the new bridge, then the existing bridge
will be removed and the second new bridge will be constructed at the same location as the
existing bridge.
Figure 3B presents the typical section on the proposed structures. The structures
are described in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3
PROPOSED BRIDGE STRUCTURES
Proposed
Clear Rdwy. Proposed
Carries/Crosses Width Length
*US 1 NB lanes/Drowning Creek 36' 400'
US 1 SB lanes/Drowning Creek 36' 430'
*Replacement for existing bridge.
Existing culverts and pipes located along US 1 within the project limits will be
extended in order to accommodate the proposed new lanes. No new pipes larger than 72
inches or culverts are proposed. Exact hydraulic requirements for the project will be
determined during the design phase.
10
K. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
No special bicycle accommodations, sidewalks or other special pedestrian
accommodations are proposed. The proposed bridges will be wide enough to allow
pedestrians to cross without having to walk in the travel lane.
L. Utilities
It is anticipated the proposed project will have a low degree of utility conflict.
Utilities located within the construction limits of the proposed project will be relocated
prior to construction. During construction, care will be taken to prevent damage to
utilities located along the project, especially waterlines running parallel to and crossing
the project and the fiber-optic cable and gas line running along US 1.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Facility Widening Alternatives
Due to the differing nature of the land uses surrounding US 1, the project area was
divided into four sections and appropriate widening alternatives were examined within
each section. Table 4 below presents the different designs studied within each section.
TABLE 4
WIDENING ALTERNATIVES EXAMINED
Section Alternative Homes Businesses Wetlands
SR 1001 to SR 1603 Design 1 2 2 0
Design 2 2 2 0
SR 1603 to SR 1475 Design 3 0 1 0
Design 4 0 1 0
SR 1475 to SR 1600 Design 1 2 3 0
Design 2 3 3 0
SR 1600 to Exist. 4-
Lanes Design 3 6 3 2.6 ac
Design 5 12 4 3.6 ac
The different alternative designs are shown below.
100' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
64'
8'
2'
(FACE TO FACE OF CURB)
12' 12' 12' 12' 12'
+ 4 y t f
2'
SOUTHBOUND CENTER NORTHBOUND
LANES TURNING LANE LANES
DESIGN 1
FIVE LANES WITH CURB AND GUTTER
100' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
8' 12' 12' 12' 12'
2' 2'
16'
SOUTHBOUND RAISED MEDIAN NORTHBOUND
LANES LANES
DESIGN 2
11 FOUR LANES WITH 16' MEDIAN
AND CURB AND GUTTER
150' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
16'
12' 1 12' RAISED MEDIAN 12' 12'
10' 10'
4' PAVED SHOULDER SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 4' PAVED SHOULDER
LANES LANES
DESIGN 3
FOUR LANES WITH 16' MEDIAN
AND 10' SHOULDERS
200' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
12' 12' 30• 12' 12'
10' 1 10'
SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND
4' PAVED SHOULDER LANES LANES 4' PAVED SHOULDER
DESIGN 4
FOUR LANES WITH 30' MEDIAN
AND 10' SHOULDERS
200' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
12' 12' 46' 12' 1
GRASSED MEDIAN
10' 0'
6' 6'
L
SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND
4' PAVED SHOULDER LANES LANES 2'PAVED SHOULDER 4' PAVED SHOULDER
DESIGN 5
FOUR LANES WITH 46-FOOT MEDIAN
SR 1001 to SR 1603 - Design 2 Recommended
This portion of US 1 passes through the town of Marston. Homes and businesses
are located on the west side and the CSX railroad is located on the east side of US 1. The
railroad is far enough away from US I through Marston to permit some of the widening
to be performed towards the railroad. Four-lanes with a 16-foot raised median and curb
and gutter (Design 2), was selected for this area because of the enhanced safety provided
by the raised median.
SR 1603 to SR 1475 - Design 3 Recommended
This portion of US 1 passes through a relatively undeveloped area between
Marston and Hoffman. The Sandhills Game Land Depot is located on the west side of
US 1 within this section. The CSX railroad parallels US 1 to the east.
The 16-foot median alternative (Design 3) was chosen for this area in order to
reduce the amount of land required from the Sandhills Game Land and maintain
consistency with adjacent portions of US 1.
12
SR 1475 to SR 1600 - Designs 1 and 2 Under Consideration (Design 2 Preferred)
This portion of US 1 passes through the town of Hoffman. Homes and
businesses are located on the west side of US 1 and the CSX railroad is located on the
east side. All widening must be performed to the west due to the proximity of the
railroad. As Table 4 shows, widening US 1 to five lanes (Design 1) will require the
relocation of one fewer home than widening to four lanes with a 16-foot median (Design
2). However, with the five-lane alternative, construction will occur very close to this
home which would otherwise be relocated by the four-lane median divided alternative.
Because both alternatives would result in impacts to a number of homes and businesses in
Hoffman, both alternatives will be presented at the public hearing for the project. A
decision will be made regarding the design of the project through Hoffrnan following the
hearing. The recommended design will be discussed in the final environmental document
for the project.
SR 1600 to Existing Four Lanes - Design 5 Recommended
This portion of US 1 passes through a rural area north of Hoffman. No major
right of way constraints exist in this area. The CSX railroad diverges from US 1 south of
SR 1600 and is several thousand feet to the east through this section. US 1 will be
widened to four lanes with a 46-foot median (Design 5) through this area due to the lack
of right of way restrictions and the safety provided by the wider median.
Both east side and west side widening were considered for this portion of the
project. East side widening was chosen for the portion between SR 1600 and Special
Forces Way because it will affect fewer homes and businesses. West side widening will
be performed from Special Forces Way to the existing four lanes in order to match the
alignment of the existing multilane section of US 1 (see Figure 2).
B. Bypass Alternative
Construction of a bypass of Hoffman and Marston would reduce the impact of the
widening project on the residents of Hoffman and Marston, while reducing traffic through
these populated areas. A new location bypass would be four lanes with a 46-foot median
and would require at least 200 feet of right of way.
Although a bypass on new location would relocate fewer homes than widening the
existing roadway, such an alternative would affect substantially more wetlands, would
require several stream crossings, would require much more land from the Sandhills Game
Land, and would cost substantially more than widening existing US 1. Based on the fact
that there is a less expensive and less disruptive alternative (widening the existing road)
which serves the purpose and need of the project, construction of a new location bypass is
not considered a feasible alternative.
13
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The subject section of US 1 passes through a predominantly rural area. The
predominant mode of transportation in the project area is the automobile. US 1 serves
primarily intrastate traffic.
Richmond Interagency Transportation, Inc. provides human service and general
public transportation for Richmond County. Inter-city bus service is not available within
the project area. Expansion of local public transportation and establishment of inter-city
bus service would possibly reduce traffic on US 1, but not enough to eliminate the need
for the proposed project. The proposed widening will benefit van and bus public
transportation service by reducing delay and improving safety.
The CSX Transportation rail line paralleling US 1 near Hoffman and Marston is a
New York to Florida Amtrak passenger rail corridor. However, this rail corridor does not
serve all of the same origins and destinations as US 1. The closest existing rail stations to
the project area are at Southern Pines to the north and Hamlet to the south. Area
residents wishing to travel by train utilize US 1 for at least a part of their trip to the two
nearest rail stations.
Improvements in rail service, such as construction of a station in the project area,
would possibly divert some traffic from US 1, but not enough to eliminate the need for
the proposed project, and could potentially increase local traffic on US 1 seeking to
access the rail station. US 1 would still carry area rail travelers for a portion of the trip
from their homes to the station.
Alternate modes of transportation are not feasible alternatives to the proposed
widening.
D. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no-build" alternative avoids the anticipated environmental effects of the
proposed project. However, if the "no-build" alternative were chosen, none of the
anticipated capacity and safety benefits of the project would be realized. For this reason,
the "no-build" alternative was rejected.
14
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant plants and animals likely to occur in each community are listed. Animals
observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*).
a. Biotic Communities
Much of the animal and plant life in the project area utilize resources from
different communities, making boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to
define. The communities identified in the project study area include: maintained lawns,
roadside shoulder, successional pine forest, xeric sandhill scrub, coastal plain small
stream swamp and streamhead pocosin.
Maintained Lawns
Maintained lawns within the project study area are dominated by a variety of
native and cultivated plant species and are heavily influenced by human activity. The
herbaceous layer contains a variety of turfgrass species including fescue and bead grass.
Common landscape trees and shrubs include Longleaf pine, mimosa, red cedar, crepe
myrtle and flowering dogwood. Ornamental grasses such as pampas grass and giant reed
were also observed here.
Roadside Shoulder
Common roadside species observed along the shoulder of US 1 in the project area
include fescue, bead grass, foxtail grass, English plantain, goldenrods, Japanese
honeysuckle, braken fern, great mullein and sericea. Vines include muscadine and poison
ivy. Woody plants common along US 1 include red maple, tree of heaven, willow oak
and persimmon.
Successional Pine Forest (Pine Plantation)
A Successional Pine Forest is found in the forested portion of the project study
area. The dominant canopy species is loblolly pine. Understory species include red
cedar, winged elm, red maple and flowering dogwood. Muscadine is a common vine in
these forests.
15
Xeric Sandhill Scrub
These dry uplands are dominated by longleaf pine. Understory species include
turkey oak and post oak. Herbaceous species include wire grass, poison oak and wire
plant.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - Blackwater Subtype
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Forests surrounding Drowning Creek
include canopy species such as loblolly pine, red maple, sweet gum and bald cypress.
Shrubby species include coastal sweet pepperbush, fetterbush and inkberry. Herbaceous
species such as cinnamon fern and netted chainfern were observed.
Streamhead Pocosin
One relatively small area classified as Streamhead Pocosin occurs adjacent to the
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The area is characterized by a dense thicket of
shrubs such as fetterbush, sweet gallberry, titi and switch cane. Blaspheme vine is also
common in the understory. Canopy species include loblolly pine, tulip poplar, black gum
and red maple.
Terrestrial Wildlife
A variety of animal species inhabit areas adjacent to the project. Mammals
commonly found in these communities include Virginia opossum*, raccoon and eastern
cottontail. Avian species found in the project area include song sparrow, northern
cardinal, blue jay, Carolina wren, tufted titmouse, Carolina chickadee, American crow*
and turkey vulture. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in the pine forests of the
project study area. Reptilian species found include the eastern box turtle, rat snake and
eastern garter snake.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Table 5 presents the anticipated effects of the project on terrestrial communities.
Impacts were calculated based on preliminary designs for the project.
16
TABLE 5
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS
ON TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES

Community Approximate
Acreage Affected
Maintained Lawn 80.0
Roadside Shoulder* 11.4
Successional Pine Forest* 21.0
Xeric Sandhill Scrub 4.4
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp* 4.4
Streamhead Pocosin* 4.4
Total Impacts 125.6
At least a portion of this community may be considered
jurisdictional wetland.
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. In general, community impacts will be similar
regardless of whether the road is widened to the east, west or symmetrically. Since
project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way, actual impacts will
likely be less than those presented in Table 5.
2. Water Resources
Drowning Creek, a perennial stream in the Lumber River Drainage Basin, is the
only jurisdictional water resource crossed by the project. The creek is surrounded by a
riverine swamp forest. This section of Drowning Creek [DWQ Index No. 14-2-(6.5)] is
classified as Class WSII Sw HQW.
NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A
NCAC 04B .0024) (HQW standards) throughout design and construction of the portion of
the project north of SR 1004 (Bostick Road). Much of the land to the immediate west
side of the project lies in protected water supply watersheds and the part of the project
north of SR 1004 is in a High Quality Water (HQW) zone (see Figure 6). The project is
approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Drowning Creek water supply watershed
critical area. A hazardous spill catch basin will be required at the Drowning Creek
crossing.
The northern two thirds of the project lies in subbasin 03-07-50 of the Lumber
River Drainage Basin while the southern one third of the project lies in subbasin
03-07-16 of the Yadkin River Basin. The overall quality of surface waters in the Lumber
River subbasin is excellent based on benthic macroinvertebrate data. The water quality of
the Yadkin River subbasin ranges from poor to excellent based on the same criteria.
17
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network is part of an ongoing ambient
water quality monitoring program. Drowning Creek was sampled at US 1 and received a
rating of excellent based on benthic macroinvertebrates collected. The stream received
fair and good-fair ratings based on fish community data.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System database lists no permitted dischargers within one mile of the project
study area.
Project construction will likely have minimal effects on water resources in the
project area. Activities likely to cause impacts include clearing and grubbing on stream
banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement rehabilitation. These construction activities are likely to
result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction due to runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in highway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
followed to minimize the impacts of the project on water resources in the project area.
To further minimize impacts to the protected water supply watershed and high quality
water zone in the project's northern section, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds
will be followed north of SR 1004.
3. Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.)
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States." Any action proposing to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetland areas are shown on Figure 5. Table 6 below presents the anticipated
effects of the project on wetlands.
18
TABLE 6
ANTICIPATED
EFFECTS ON WETLANDS

Site
Community Type Acres
Affected
IA Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 0.1 ac
IB Successional Pine Forest 0.2 ac
2 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 0.1 ac
3 Streamhead Pocosin <0.01 ac
4 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 3.2 ac
Total 3.6 ac
Total avoidance of wetlands is not feasible. Wetland areas are located on both
sides of existing US 1 at Drowning Creek (see Figure 5). Bridging all of the wetlands
immediately adjacent to Drowning Creek is not feasible due to design considerations and
cost. A sag vertical curve would be required on the bridge in order to completely span
the wetlands north of the creek. A sag vertical curve is undesirable on a bridge due to
drainage considerations and the increased potential for icing. Eliminating the vertical
curve would require a major adjustment to the grade on the existing multi-lane section of
US 1 north of the project limits. A horizontal curve would be required on the bridge in
order to completely span all of the wetlands to the south of the creek. Combining a
tangent section with a horizontal curve is not desirable on a bridge because of the
required superelevation transition at each end of the curve.
As discussed in Section IV-A, both a 46-foot median and a 16-foot median were
studied for the portion of the project between SR 1600 and the existing four lanes north
of the Moore County line. Although the 16-foot median would affect fewer wetlands
than the 46-foot median section, the 46-foot median section will enhance safety and better
fits the rural nature of the area. The existing four lane section of US 1 in Moore County
adjacent to the proposed project has a median wider than 46 feet.
Steeper side slopes (2:1) will be utilized through all wetlands along the project in
order to reduce impacts.
It is anticipated no stream mitigation will be required for this project. However,
wetland mitigation will likely be required. NCDOT is currently exploring on-site
mitigation potential on the property that surrounds both the east and west sides of US 1
between the northern end of the project and Drowning Creek. The mitigation plan for the
project will likely include preservation and enhancement. Final permit/mitigation
decisions will be made by the Corps of Engineers.
The existing bridge carrying US I over Drowning Creek will be removed and
replaced as a part of the project. The superstructure of the bridge is composed of a
reinforced concrete deck and deck girders. The substructure is composed of reinforced
19
concrete piers with reinforced concrete caps. Removal of the bridge will result in
approximately 556 cubic yards of temporary fill in Drowning Creek and associated
wetlands. The use of turbidity curtains will be studied during development of erosion
control plans for the project and curtains will be utilized if it is determined they will be
effective in the conditions found in Drowning Creek.
An Individual Section 404 Permit is likely to be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, due to project impacts to wetlands and surface waters.
A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404 Individual
Permit.
4. Rare and Protected Species
a. 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 amended. As of
January 3, 2000, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists five federally-protected species
for Richmond County and four federally-protected species for Moore County. These
species are listed in Table 7 below.
TABLE 7
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
IN RICHMOND AND MOORE COUNTIES

SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS
COUNTY BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E Richmond No Effect
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus bald eagle T Richmond No Effect
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E Moore No Effect
Picoides borealis red-cockaded
woodpecker E Both Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Lysimachia asperifolia rough-leaved loosestrife E Richmond No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Both No Effect
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E Moore No Effect
"E" - Endangered
"T" - Threatened
20
This project crosses Drowning Creek, a tributary to the Lumber River. The
shortnose sturgeon is found in the lower reaches of the Lumber River, but not as far inland
as Drowning Creek. The creek is very narrow within the project study area and the
adjacent forest forms a closed canopy over the creek. There is no suitable habitat for bald
eagle foraging in the project study area. There are no large lakes in close proximity to the
project. Drowning Creek is part of the Lumber River Drainage Basin. The Cape Fear
shiner is only known from the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin.
Potential habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife and American chaffseed does not
occur in the project study area. Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac does occur in the
project study area. Field surveys for Michaux's sumac were conducted. Other species of
Rhus and Toxicodendron were located in the project study area, however, no Michaux's
sumac plants were found.
The North Carolina Natural.Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique
habitats shows no records of any of the above species in the project study area. This
project will not affect the shortnose sturgeon, the bald eagle, the Cape Fear Shiner,
rough-leaved loosestrife, American chaffseed, or Michaux's sumac.
The project study area is located in known red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
habitat. Consultants for NCDOT conducted RCW surveys within one-half mile of the
project study area. Three inactive RCW clusters were located within this corridor.
Foraging analyses are generally only conducted for active clusters, but because the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is managing one of the sites (SGL A58) as a
recruitment cluster for their population goal, a foraging analysis was conducted for that site
to assess impacts from this project. The pre-project foraging habitat totals for this cluster
were 14,495.1 square feet of pine basal area (BA) and 15,103.1 pine stems greater than or
equal to 10 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). This project will remove approximately
8.6 acres of foraging substrate associated with this inactive cluster. The post-project
foraging habitat totals for SGL A58 are 14,066.8 square feet of pine BA and 14,669.1 pine
stems greater than or equal to 10 inches dbh. Since the post-project foraging substrate
totals are well above the US Fish and Wildlife Service foraging habitat standards of at least
8,490 square feet of pine BA and 6,350 pine stems greater than or equal to 10 inches dbh,
this project, as designed, is "not likely to adversely affect" the RCW.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this biological conclusion in a
letter dated August 8, 2000 (see Page A-3 of Appendix A).
21
b. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species
There are 17 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Richmond County and
26 listed for Moore County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal
protection until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Organisms listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or
Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural 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 8 below lists the Federal Species of Concern and state-listed species for
Richmond and Moore Counties.
22
TABLE 8
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN/STATE-LISTED SPECIES
IN RICHMOND AND MOORE COUNTIES

SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME NC
STATUS
COUNTY
Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Both Y
Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater T/PE Moore N
Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos skipper SR Both N
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus)
rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC/PT ** Richmond Y
Etheostoma collis collis Carolina darter SC Richmond N
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE Moore Y
Gomphus parvidens carolinus Sandhills clubtail dragonfly SR Moore Y
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR/PSC Both Y
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE Moore Y
Moxostoma sp. Carolina redhorse SR Both N
Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse SC Both N
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC* Both Y
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E Both N
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Both Y
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC Moore N
Kalmia cuneata White wicky E-SC Both Y
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T Both Y
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E Both Y
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil C Moore Y
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane W1 Moore Y
Parthenium radfordii Wavyleaf wild quinine W1 Moore Y
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed C* Both Y
Pyxidanthera barbulata var.
brevistyla Sandhills pyxie-moss E Moore Y
Rhynchospora crimpes Alabama beaksedge E Moore Y
Rudbeckia heliopsidis Sun-facing coneflower E Moore Y
Solidago verna Spring-flowering
goldenrod T Moore Y
Stylisma pickeringii var.
pickeringii Pickering's dawnflower E Both Y
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C Richmond Y
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed
grass C Both Y
"E"-Endangered. "T"-Threatened.
"SC"--Special Concern species.
"C"--Candidate species.
"SR"--Significantly Rare.
"W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known
and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"/P "--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
23
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats indicated no recorded occurrences of Federal Species of Concern or
state-listed species in the project study area.
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a).
Although no federal funds will be used for the construction of the proposed project, the
project will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, applies to federal permit areas
along the project.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
NCDOT Architectural historians surveyed the area of potential effect of the
proposed project. No properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places were identified within the area of potential effect. The State Historic Preservation
Office concurred with these findings on September 30, 1999 and October 21, 1999.
Appendix A contains a copy of the concurrence forms (pages A-19 and A-20).
2. Archaeological Resources
No archaeological sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places are
located within the area of potential effect of the project. NCDOT archaeologists surveyed
the project area and identified nine archaeological sites. In a letter dated October 1, 1999
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that seven of these sites are not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see page A-21 of Appendix A). The
SHPO requested additional work be conducted on the two remaining sites in order to
determine whether or not the sites are eligible for the National Register. Due to
landowner objections and the extent of the additional work requested, this work can not
be performed until after NCDOT has acquired right of way in this area. NCDOT will
reevaluate the project's possible effects on these sites when the final design plans are
completed and the permit areas are defined. At that time, NCDOT will consult with the
SHPO and with any federal permitting agencies and other consulting parties if
appropriate, and perform additional archaeological investigations on these two sites prior
to project construction.
C. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
It is anticipated the proposed project will require the relocation of 17 homes and
10 businesses. Appendix B contains information regarding the Division of Highway's
Relocation Assistance Program and copies of the relocation reports for the project. It
should be noted the relocation reports indicate 19 homes, 11 businesses and 4 non-profit
24
organizations (3 churches and a fire station) will be relocated by the project. However,
these reports are based on preliminary designs. It is believed the fire station and at least
two of the churches can be avoided and the number of relocatees reduced to 17 homes
and 10 businesses. During project design, efforts will be made to reduce the project's
effects on existing development, particularly area churches and the fire station.
D. Land Use
Lands surrounding US 1 within the project limits are largely wooded, or
agricultural fields and pastures. However, scattered residential, small business,
office/institutional and industrial land uses do exist within the project limits. Much of the
land along the west side of US 1 between Marston and Hoffman is a part of the Sandhills
Game Land. Most residential development has occurred on individual lots, rather than in
large subdivisions. Most of the industrial uses are small to moderate in size. The
commercial uses vary and are scattered along the entire project corridor.
Neither Hoffman, Marston nor Richmond County have land-use plans or zoning
regulations.
E. Farmland
Some of the land surrounding US 1 within the project limits is farmland. Right of
way will be required from some of the farms in the project area. North Carolina General
Statute 106-738 allows counties to establish voluntary agricultural districts.
G.S. 106-740 allows counties to require their agricultural advisory board to hold public
hearings on any public agency condemnation of farmland in an agricultural district.
Richmond County has not established an agricultural advisory board or any voluntary
agricultural districts as allowed under G.S. 106-738 and 106-739. Therefore, the
provisions of G.S. 106-740 do not apply to this project.
North Carolina Executive Order 96 requires state agencies to ensure that their
actions minimize the loss of prime agricultural and forestlands. NCDOT requested
information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding prime and
important farmland in the project area, but did not receive a response from the Service
within sixty days. Prime and important farmland in the project area has not been
identified. However, the additional right of way to be acquired for this project will occur
in strips immediately adjacent to the existing right of way, therefore it is anticipated the
proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on prime and important
farmland.
F. Forestland
It is estimated the proposed project will affect 36 acres of forested land, some of
which is in residential areas.
25
In accordance with NCDOT Standard Specifications, the contractor will conduct
clearing operations in a manner to prevent injury to vegetation to remain in place and also
to prevent damage to surrounding properties. All timber cut during clearing operations
will become the property of the contractor.
When vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be performed in such
a manner as to prevent injury to property within or outside the right of way. Burning
shall be in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance and at the greatest practical
distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a
hazard to the public.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Richmond County is a participant in the Emergency Phase of the National Flood
Insurance Program. Figure 5 shows the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain for
streams in the project area. The US 1 crossing of Drowning Creek is in a designated
flood hazard zone. The proposed project will not have any significant adverse effects on
the existing floodplain or on the associated flood hazards.
H. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed in order to determine the effect the project
will have on noise levels in the immediate area. This analysis included an estimation of
ambient (existing) noise levels in the project area and an inventory of existing
noise-sensitive land uses. Future year noise levels, both with and without the project,
were predicted. Traffic noise impacts were determined using the current procedures for
the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise (Part 772 of Title 23 of the
Code of Federal Regulations).
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine the existing background noise levels. The existing Leq noise level along US 1
as measured 50 feet from the roadway was 66.9 dBA. The location of the ambient noise
measurement site is shown on Figure C1 of Appendix C.
It is anticipated the proposed project will result in traffic noise impacts to 40
homes and four businesses in the year 2025 (see Table C3 of Appendix Q. A land use is
considered impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching (within 1 dBA) or
exceeding the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement criteria and/or
predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. A summary of the FHWA noise
abatement criteria for various land uses and the definition of "substantial increase" is
presented in Table C2 of Appendix C.
26
Table C3 shows the maximum extent of the 67 and 72 dBA noise level contours
for the proposed project. This information should assist local authorities in exercising
land use control over properties adjacent to the proposed facility, in order to prevent
further development of activities or land uses which would be incompatible with
predicted traffic noise levels.
Predicted exterior noise level increases for this project range from +5 to +9 dBA
(see Table C4 of Appendix C).
Traffic noise abatement alternatives for the project were considered. These
alternatives included highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures,
noise barriers, and the "no-build" alternative.
None of these noise abatement alternatives were found to be feasible. Highway
alignment changes would not be practical as a noise abatement measure due to design
considerations and increased impacts on surrounding development and environmental
concerns. Traffic system management measures limiting vehicle type, speed, and time of
operations would not be appropriate due to the adverse effect such measures would have
on the capacity of the proposed facility. Noise barriers are not feasible due to the distance
between receptors and the need for driveway openings along the roadway. The "no-
build" alternative is not a practical noise abatement measure because of the capacity and
safety benefits of the project. Also, noise impacts would still occur to 39 homes and 4
businesses in 2025, even if the proposed project was not constructed.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. In accordance with NCDOT Traffic
Noise Abatement Policy, NCDOT will not be responsible for providing noise abatement
measures for new development within the noise impact area for which building permits
are issued after the date of the final environmental document for the project (date of
public knowledge).
I. Air Quality Analysis
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future carbon
monoxide (CO) concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2005 and 2025.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts
per million (ppm). Consultation with the Division of Air Quality, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive
receptor for the years 2005 and 2025 are shown on the following table.
27
TABLE 9
ONE HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS
FOR NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTOR
Build No Build
Year 2005 2025 2005 2025
1-Hour CO Conc. (PPM) 2.4 2.7 2.6 3.4
The maximum CO concentrations allowed by the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards are 3 5 ppm for a 1-hour averaging period and 9 ppm for an 8-hour averaging
period. 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.
Any burning of debris during construction will be performed in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 213.0520. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance and at the greatest practical distance from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Also, measures will be taken during construction to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
J. Hazardous Materials
Thirteen sites were identified in the project study area that might contain
hazardous materials. Nine of these sites were underground storage tank facilities and four
were other potentially contaminated properties. No regulated or unregulated landfills
occur within the project limits, although a Richmond County solid waste collection
facility is located on the west side of US 1 just north of SR 1603 (Old Laurel Hill Road).
The proposed project will likely require right of way from 1 I of the potentially
contaminated sites. These sites are unavoidable due to the railroad and other
development in the area. Preliminary site assessments to identify the nature and extent
of any contamination will be performed on these sites prior to right of way acquisition.
These sites are shown on Figure DI and listed in Appendix D.
K. Geodetic Survey Markers
The proposed project could impact seven geodetic survey markers. The NC
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow resetting of
monuments which will be disturbed. Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a
violation of NC General Statute 102-4.
28
L. Public Facilities/Emergency Services
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's Sandhills Game Land and
Camp Mackall Military Reservation are the two largest publicly owned facilities in the
project area. The project will require approximately 4.6 acres of property from the game
land but will not affect Camp Mackall. NCDOT has coordinated with both the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the Army regarding the project.
The Marston and Hoffman post offices are both located along US 1. Right of way
will be required from both post offices. The Hoffman post office will be relocated by the
project.
The Marston station of the Hoffman Fire and Rescue Department is located on the
west side of US 1 near the SR 1001 (Marston Road) intersection. The project may
require the relocation of this fire station. Efforts will be made to reduce project impacts
on this fire station as project development continues. Should relocation of the fire station
be unavoidable, NCDOT will assist the fire department in locating a suitable alternate
site.
The Hoffman station of the Hoffman Fire and Rescue Department is located on
SR 1475 (Caddell Road) near US 1. The Sandhills Game Land responds to woodland
fires from its depot, located west of US 1 between Marston and Hoffman. Trucks use
both of the entrances to the depot when responding to calls. A median break will be
provided in front of the Marston fire station, at each of the entrances to the depot and at
the SR 1475 intersection with US 1, in order to allow emergency vehicles to make direct
left turns onto US 1.
During construction of the project, the driveway to the Marston fire station, the
two entrances to the Sandhills Game Land Depot and the intersection of SR 1475 with
US 1 will not be blocked by materials or unattended equipment. The contractor for the
project will be required to maintain a driveway for the two fire stations and for the
Sandhills Game Land at all times during project construction.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
The citizens informational workshop for the project was held on March 18, 1999.
Approximately 70 citizens attended the workshop. An aerial photograph showing the
proposed project was displayed and handouts presenting project information were
provided to workshop participants.
29
The majority of comments and questions heard at the meeting concerned the
effect of the project on specific properties. NCDOT has taken citizen comments into
consideration during project development.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following distribution of this document. As
discussed in Section IV-A, a recommended alternative has not been selected for the
portion of the project between SR 1475 and SR 1600 through the Town of Hoffman.
Both alternatives being considered for this section of the project will be presented at the
public hearing. Comments received at the public hearing will be taken into consideration
in the selection of a recommended alternative for this section of the project.
C. Agency Coordination
Comments on the project have been requested from the agencies listed below.
Asterisks indicate a response was received. Copies of the comments received are
included in Appendix A.
*U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Military Traffic Management Command
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Richmond County
Town of Hoffman
30

r
osf?t
N ,?. 5 Ytl?IaRR
R,,d C H M O D
ton g
-y RoDnOe M.
r
? r .rtt ?'Erna
•? CanR ?•?
a mitt
•? LS?L
J
_ 9 1.. ,1473 MOORE COUNTY
•. C=
1om END PROJECT
-y
.10
DiprNny
I L L S
L A N D roar '' ^`....
i i
i ? f
i
RI MMOND ipOONTY '
i CAME
MACKALL
A.
;• ., t''--' '? ; , , HjLaOAD M
ILrrARY t«t? HOKE
•y 1003 1400 RESERVATON V4 COUNTY
1
N
r 1475 HOFFMAN •?' ` •I
POP. 349 i
1601
i i O 1 LC ETEFtS 9
R r -- -' .0p `.._ !
0 MILES
\•.,",'NNEY LAKE •?
-•?,I'
1 FISH HATCHERY riw/ Y•?% \ 1479 A.
dam Cr.,
Marston
15'36 e 0
,?\ 0,11
4;
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
e OF TRANSPORTATION
a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
us I
FROM SR 1001 TO EXISTING FOUR LANES
NORTH OF MOORE COUNTY LINE
RICHMOND-MOORE COUNTIES
TIP PROJECT R-2502
FIGURE 1
L7
R i

CC) g
M
C) 0
7
z c Sg

C7 iO

c
C DZ z
Z N
? v
P
n L oa €
x m o?
1
? m
y g

gz

?
rn ?Z

0
e ?
D
Z

D 0
0
M
N V)

O
0 z
O
C
N
N

0
c 0
X
DS aio
OM §
N
C?
IMP -'
x
Z;5"
v?
CA
v 0
€S
m
v "€
z
c?
C
M
w
D
iQ
d
a
0
i
z
O
C/)
C7
D
M
T
0
c
M
ZZ
am
N
c?
W
x
Z Q
a-
c to
?v
m
p3
m
v
D
Z
0
N
Z7
t31
(A
O
O
O
9
M
Z?

'
O m N

JO
m TT
N

O
o Dl
O
O
C7
N
X
:L)

T
_
m
0
Z
N
?
? ? g
Q
? m N
x 8n o 0
€Z
. s? v T : o
A
c ?
o

W
D ? s
'
v 0
0 ?s
A MON.

?
T
V
V
D 0
r O C-
V 1 ' I
V) 0 C)
M
C7 M
Q
I
O N
z Ul
U) 0
IV
r ?
SI
c
0
Hg
z
T
0
c
X
s
z
m
N
f
-, o
x
A c
? w
0
3
m
v
D z
z €0
Mo
c
z
0
a/
? J
8
O
a
0
0
i
0
0

N (T1
- z
tom.. Q
i
i V
i T
O

m

N ,;
/fG
D
r (?
,. C
N

M ,.,
?
N ?J?

1
G7
C
X
m
W
W
N
O
C
O
C
a
r
a
z
N
O
M
CD
O
C
z
v
r
z
m
N

w
a
n
N
4 X
0
l

N
A
A
N
MON.-
O?
n
P
D
N
moo.
?- U
O
z
O ?
m
O
v
a O
M N
O a
z o
z f
C7 D
r
C-)
X co
m
M o
0
V
-o
C)
m
C7
Q
z
T?
TY
'Y
O
C.
3
m
C)
--I'
m
N
Ln
O
N
TIP PROJECT R-2502
ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
r
F
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
\10 F so/ i PEAK HOUR
(p3) DIRECTION
11-11 \
%DUAL %TTST
YEAR 2026
YEAR 2026ADT VOLUMES
MATCHLINE A
-------- --------
US 1
w h`
11000
17100/
SR 1484 (POWERS ST.)
100 300
200 -100
100 300
??so 400
-100 /10800 A,? \
100 16900 ?? SO
SR 1483 (DAWKINS LN.) -100
100 100 SR 1604 (STROMAN RD.)
` 200
?O
-100 0800
J o 100 16900
SR 1696 (MERCER ST.)
300 -100
400 100
?o
A
??so 200 0800
300 16900
SR 1482 (CASHION ST.) -100
100 100
, ,
200
OA
?? s0 -100 10700
-inn 16700
1
10700
16700/
OLD COACH LN. 300
200 400
` 300 11000 - 600
17300 1000
900
/A•lj -100 ? 7 40 \ 400
s0 200
-100
100 SR 1001 (MARSTON RD.)

US 1
11000
17200 /
1 Off'
?'
Q
y

NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 4
FIGURE 4
PINE ST.
?y
%DIRECTIONAL -off ?``?y
%DHV SIMS ST. 100\? ° 60
PM ` ?Q
\ PEAK HOUR 200
10 60 - i J ° 1 y51
3\ DIRECTION °•o
-100
BOWEN ST. 100\? o -100 100 US 1
%DUAL %TTST 200 + 10800
100 -10-100 10?
\-14 16700
100 0 00
SR 1475 (CADDEL RD.) 2010? 16700
?o -100
-100 a 100
230?100 O 00
16700
3500
1000
1500 10700
1300 16700
2000
SANDHILLS WILDLIFE DEPOT 1(? 4160 11000
-100 17200
100 100
200 US 1
-100
SR 1479 (JAMES G. WATSON RD.) 200 1100 1000 TIP PROJECT R-2502
?300 -100 .17200 ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
zoo
' (? ? 60 -100 YEAR 2005
100 YEAR 2025 ADT VOLUMES
11000
17100
100
100 100
-100 ?00 WILL YATES RD.
1100 / 100 1010 JORDYN LANE DR. 17100 (60 NOT TO SCALE
100
100 100
200
-100
10 PM 60 loo
(Z,1) 11000
17100
100
100 100
yp -100 200
" 0 SR 1603 (OLD LAUREL HILL RD.)
4? y1 11000 100 10 pM 0
h 17100/? (?,1?
? SHEET 2 OF 4
us l
-------- --------
MATCHLINE A
FIGURE 4
TIP PROJECT R-2502
ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
,?sq
SR 1527 (VINCENT GIBSON AVE.) rcy4
11000 tiF
200 ? 17100 C
400 100
200 w^Q yh
JAMES KELLY RD. 100
OA 200
11000 US 1
100 / 17100% p
WALL AVE. ?A 200 1-10
00
-100 \
6000 100 /
- inn
HART AVE. --
oA 300
i?'b 400
s
J O 11000
300
400 17100% ,y
200 '?
200 ^Q yy?
100
200
10900
17100 `fop
Q
US 1
500
10700 800
SR 1004 (BOSTICK RD-) 700 16700 300
1 000 400
400
800
jOp 600
?60 300 ?A 1200

400
BRACEY ST. 100 McCOY DR.
!`0 10600
-100 16500
p pM 100
60 -100
(?
, ??
100 US 1
200
TILLEY ST.
? 00 10600
\- 100 16500
jOA 200 , 200
?? M60 100 400 600
200 1000
c 400 \??
?O 600 ?
10800 ??jOMgo SR 1474 (SCHOOL DR.)
16700
MgTC_ US 1
yi%N
-
F
_
_
e
11000
17100
YEAR 2005 ADT VOLUMES
YEAR 2025
%DIRECTIONAL
%DHV\ /
?o PM 60 =i PEAK HOUR
?,1s\ DIRECTION
%DUAL %TTST
NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 3 OF 4
FIGURE 4
TIP PROJECT R-2502
o ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
US 1
m
o MOORE COUNTY
-'-' 10700 RICHMOND COUNTY
16400
300
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
10 PM 60 - PEAK HOUR
?,13) DIRECTION
%DUAL %TTST

YEAR 2005 ADTVOLUMES
YEAR 2025
NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 4 OF 4
?jqT 1600 (RUSHING RD.)
<?N 17100?,7J sp
F ._
900
400 1400
SPECIAL FORCES WAY
600 --?
1000 $? P
11000 (3,1)
170001!
-100
100 100
200
-100 GLIDER RD.
100 10
11000

1 t
PM
6p
(Z 1)
17000
100 100
100
X200 McKEITHAN RD.
-100 -?
100 10 P--- M 60
1100 (2,1)
0
17000
100 100
100
US 1
-J-0-0 HAILEY AMES ST.
-100

100 10 PM 60
-
y
11000 (2
1)
17000 j
100 200
100 300
- LEADER LN.
-100

200 10 PM 60
-
11000 I (2,
17100]
100 r
McRAE ST. 200 -100
?- 100
0 PM 60 -100
(2.1) 100
11000
17100
US 1 .100
y 100
^?. h? -100 100
100 200
SR
7pp?
FIGURE 4
_ ..,.. g?
.rr
r -1 6-4 Plm :_ -`- "' _'''.`' °..? ..:kr:4 ?p'4 7 s}' '_ s , >.. ss "`i'4?1
.. s`
: Kri t 1, I
1 k
e J' - Y `4c-,. a d y , ks s: F.i "v - x` "5 'y'_ t t - i +? ? , _ _ , 'SAM
y-r I f? ? .. aN 1 ,53- I .. 17 ?+y I 11 c '? _ ?? S 't - -a - - ! ....
I-,' r' 1 N {sx r.,.ri cS '
?"`g IF [???D'iGp111 q p ? ?'' wit lit ?q-?, _ II ?'r'1? - S '••y5 `,f _
>y rn? FZ x ie y ,o'
xi rd N 0 R1 O ?-"' ', a4 It _In • • •.-- ::?, ..? rr z+.r!
0 j. * 4 '
t
?r ; p o v N
p N - O
RI - L 1 - - - _ ?.;
r 8 >
O = -< - y rn ?:= t -h f 1
- n p
r D ^
gE, f
M. -'l- Z_ - 1? It r??', " I ., i ??..? " ? --
:_.
}
- c , .. _ f:
i F
?:
/ _ \.O •N+ •`P 'S' _--v xeAr„vi4...S':, f 'C?y/r ;4.' 42'x:
?{
_.
rw '.' .? -, F., ?t -4 - '14! 1 w [f _ `-ter: _ `=j >6'!
Y
i I- 7
r' -- ` -.. ?.. t' - 'i -° - - 5 ^?, F `r4''•{r f.4 y4 f
,:
A
k 1 .
-- - --
sm
--
a.
rte. rr "y i' 4' t -v 4i S"v'J? 4 $ x X '. r - -`l d4rl,'?''`1' 41:4 kY`'
I ,
: r
I ' •- F :' '- . ,fix:. ?
. ?' ,`. , . , -Zwas ,. , .uc8'. zs;,sS?SSC:r'a=r r :_.y f.3 •' +E'' `' ,''w^ o I 11 , 4!
if - ?.? ' J (; '` r. _ ^+' ,:.. IN box i. fl t. ,y J,4 .i4, 1t I `I ? .' T- :° id,.
F ? .35.y?y- t 10% 5 >_? _ t <4_l`a '.t'j i. y d d:44 .?,EaSr- ? : r . ?? s, "s,.ss-
r, , y 7' -"?I+rrr r i{ "r''f fi 1 ? ? ,} . t. _ 4,Y _ .? as' ?:? r s' --
' q-o,•. e'r '!1 ':,'4y., d1 f r '..:`gyp } M.- ?Y -- _:x,:
i,,, . ?I s , s:.. - d "5.k'a r 4 "r?-` r
'1"Y" a _ I.. 5- ' ,' . r ' -?r L ''er ?a,;r -+s-. -:. rrr
rrrr
4rr t r: ,(J? d:tr*r'.... 10111. n`F, `
h: ,h7 `r KI` -
4 `$'4'4.$e?rti+.: s.'4?' }_s :Y .t.,J 'I. ?.w "j N k Y y : .?,
I;s',iY 4 ?i, -: :r;5" .. .._?` _:5 r Frn5 - - `I` yr
r ,. F W ' ; r z Tr . s.: "' ,, .. . h:E. ' .r... Yd22uxx
.: .C.,. dL 'i'4':'r*iae _
r
r, ,r' fir srn:_,. ,. , ,[, .= 5:_4. #_- {6-S ,::f , ; M tr r y 4:r• 1 ''4. E., _ ? ? , 3 jc n!? _ _ •?k L fL,. rR' Ti. E
,-? .u.: , ?,r - ?.
S
i
S,yr 4r r'{ r} ',',4rr Ji aA `? , ?-1,
'r` a;9d, 'rs?a_ .?"' - '^I4
d~:.,t
, _ ?
r.a..a - ) '
r.a r. `r :rrr. •aS'r v., r.v .... r. fr r r '..: r.:v':... -
rr .5'TI v:'S x l.ri'r :rv cE'j~.S ? _} f?ls?:.l1 -?.. *1 r
r',+E,ra. Ir'c4,4? rr . %3Pr . -' -.: F
.Fr.:, :..,.EE F' Y.' S 4i:
:.: x rr , Yr vrs r:r r +"^r'ti''1 `+s` d i. `+lr r 4':4 x 4'? s,, ,` - 2 2. 1" "S4 ti :'S f"'
r rit ir' ra<5^v'T4?iir:Saavr vshk4,''`S' ES4?a- './. f'rrSh.a l .l ::mss S S4 ar:'v-'.iy saS: :"faS. r S rS...?
..: rra., rurr rr ru'1;,5, r5 4.rr. rarv44'i 4r `:-"4 v.r :4E av ,r .: ?2"Lrli "}r1 rr3,rv5:1Py-4 ,v s ; f x41'-,. d .F4 -4"?
'a54 h•r-..v- - ?.. .,. ': 1
?d
4 r .:r.Jr• ?-
5:rs '"'S' 1 rJ,4r 4hE 454.4 . 4 u : .. r4 v4 r 'i:itirr E` n :' .}, ?i, :? - , f..,i... .. ,. ..:. .. f .,: r n n r 4
: .'(y r ve t4 d rry;{C 4 :'q,"C v2,y '
"`s4?E'itii: t_5E? F'` I w,.+?',; ?
4.r ti ?a
'r?ri.i:e r r:r> r': r ra:r': •c ,.,',. .-'4n .9i:C°> r it- :'} •rtf'- PP2"'+ni.r" i4 i r: a1r.
44'r`rvr? v?vS'xv
Ip r}ird'vr _ _ j, .r 2.. 5,. _ Et: ',r'•41t
!;Ill Vii! _. ??':?:._}~ .x : xxM r ;_ 1. a. ?" ? go '' 1i
s r`?s; z MINT
' ?k.
.;r" .. :..? r;''ii: ,5 ,s:x!. ;?. - ,._ s,.,.:^rs:'r^•?;ss-- g? ,r+. r:_ z'3.. f..
` uT l'4 v v , 4r: r', 'iK 5 1.,. . .. 9 } ' , , ,. f?4 :r r o } r
rr 2, ,l. .v..r . !T!. ., _.I ( 1 E f r
4.'4r i r. d-•!' .r .:'+:,`- d; :k a 5 til r?:ti'r. r d„ i.rt:
?S 4 ' r4 4, . r .vr; pµu - _ -v^_. ii`v } _ . `5,
r.a.. _ 5,,.-, _ ., a s 'S ca4 x a?r_, a;., xs4 r4Lr4S .:S 1 :Y?: `.d} r 1,
-`;z
Irr. a .. '.:rrrrlr - r .r'EY, ,:rx:, m ,.. 4;f > r `'?__` i , &K--- ' s ??` M'. dr3 'z -
t om' l f.J---?o- F E' :
11 " 11111f, ".
.: .x. .. 'vS. w
. - -2- .:... -eµ; _, .,Fe ?, ,may
r .... r 4 T ....,'?T„ . J r.',?! t d_8, _ ? 1 e avy ,' 4 .a? 5r?' :k'
,: rv,- ...,?: -C - 'Sax 1
-..:,,: ,: :.vvrJ„',,.,' -: Y •4,x -?`'+: _ _?,.>' V ''?5 `1 3rF-,?,r' 4 rt
r 6
-A4_is ' s :. is ._f _s4-29? _ i.c .; ., ..44e? "s.r 5 5 ?}
x
",
._=.r 11
,.. , r, r. 1.: j?., :S.r :: .r.. r. rx.. vve... rr. x.. a. .,r+inr''". h f`f?' r C 17, 5'r 'C
r
: ";" r.a {r.:,. ,.s,: _ d
r .: ._.t., 3h. .. ,4 .. 1. .4w a - MR.-ll.f.:x s '? ?1n., .f
, 9.. 4v,' _Viii? r r lra
r.... V. \ 4 -
,...? .u roa•, s,. ', ... .: '44' ,+;, if C -'?.. }vt? \ '
..._ ,.. s.; .. -..a r. a e r 4. T - r v- =f
--.:t; :
- `:, '>r - ?'-? a te r rrr:. Irf , GIr"L C . r„`5 ei4
R. r'??i .>` PC .... ' r5s?{r.;. t , rr;5 q' :' ... ?i, ?? IN ? 10 11 :r ... .. z. 8s _.. .. ,. r. • ,.E ,-4 '44F. : '4 'ri'Arr r- 4 E. ,
,.,. u .
,.5'.: - :, zr r41 .
... :,t',y •°+z _2Sx .. $,. ?v } ,,r ,:,i^' 4}. :.r- ..''' - l V!' ;
` ! f _ 4 •
---, ce --. h '!? \ J - ? r :4 N fL a,
,
a ..__ ?.? =,/ ,s"f""fu y . E ak". t
'.`E'.g; : - = i .:.;srv= ;r. i
_-1,._. _ '. - - s ?}i "'wi
''. "A?I. }s-- J j
. 5.
,
_' '+Ax
::.sew _ S 4 - .4a1 , - - ':
' _ _ - -``? - - - ?Ir - j' ?a}1'ti. nt ^"-3 11 rye J I ? t r.cr. ''..
z
.. }'A , -v, f? of
i a ,. ti f
` -
<_ P
N' 1 -,rip '_L ':,+ tF` IJ jF..? _ i,,'l 1:. .,•-'?.: • 1 ', , - ;.e ;w t ? 4.1,11
4p
I
?i
e
,'
4
?_. - I I - I - - I - t ?? -, --',-? ,,? , INA ","'I I ,
' Y'om { ' ,,,- -c i. 1 { A? . F r-l {?? ? r, 1
;, ti''` A3. _ Z_?f' 1.: , Y V Y A '4
? . ) .
Z ? _1 I,-, ir m - ? -g .{ r 1 t:2 t i, ti c
`` - IF ,
rn X _ ??i t
.-?^t- u? 1 '
- M'?-'-' - s1 _ 3 r ? h M, , f ri w ` ? t 'f J -oa J1 n
1.1'-d F . 1.. -,._ I t' Y, r;! 4 9 . i t Ya +q:, "k' y ,A?Li E ^k:'( i( ''".
.qz
' - t ry i r ',i _ _ 1: iz l i ,; r ,, , iii f xi ;I !,
}
f qF: is 1 ,'`tun E"r - i It ?,?a r,r'4 x 1 . wl??Ka "4 u w ' _ : •Lt - s
11 -
- -1 I In -1 I -``+ >r a E.- 's eC - ,! d`4"`' l',. .Jr' -?3 ?-
M1 ?r T4? ,.,,i: v? i u42P 4C", ?k r , ??
., 111 r.
n 5
A Ex '?rrr E', x;
.,. rw§ is...# 'rte * s wok ?/
y .?, .. y t.ti 1' .N ; ti 4- L '1 Q yz•?r
E ? ry rv r r a_ - - tea ? s n v::: ATMs - - -?.
?'r .
.n.r.
5t Fe- snr {"
„ 4 { .-- ,.F - -.; ('? '?` :i - .•'",; '?. N ? "
r
L f 3? {? ,F{_F+ Z - - va . 5, 4 .3 4 t -. r? '$rk •rL? j•t 4
yi : ,v , *11 Ill, 2. rz?_:,:i a r{. A'. - - - r Y,` •V - cd 4r.2
,. ?y? .2- "IZL
yd of :: ,f ': ?• - , ]?.e. .L}i<'i'? ti.i. }kdraiFli'' . cr?`'.t`,'Id„in
I .1. D s _.. E .,. _r 1,11, .N
ra. .,.r d .. is Asa lTr , Nrr 1.r$ r ` *il
3 f?
,
u _
v k ,+ - .: : E`..EeE - .. ='r t - r_.4. _ 5 .} _ l J '?5
S:P. .: rryr
` ?! ? l YC: ny. BF` .3 r.,I: 1r. EI F ? u 3
r
_? a :: •i i4:a v5„52' :. ..r i . r .,. ' i;` 4 _ r4 :4
.:.r:.. r..r !{d;' '}rrt.i4:,r. ra .2. I
Lrr<c'."v::ddr. um.?:.a .:.r+z '"y
. _._.. .x ... ,, -- ,
yy, 9. ._ _ y?y Y '? -'? 4
. !
I
i -? r'T ' - 1 ffl.. 4`'. r r ?i ?" gyp11 4 5 5 r' 4'] a 1cl i :
E;j 3
_.. re.r. ., _ T 4 S _ „`? . .- - ?iCA _ 11 I, Z J'Y: -i S?'4' ?" ZIS - Y?} ,IGi -I 4 'i31'4 •U aJF ' 5 '-t rq?''?t{ 11 if
'
I
, , '• fry ] ?' ,?:' v_Fi i, k?]. ` _-.1- ,? ,L I !r '3?.'' 4
D 1 3 1
t _ s : -" R r ..:-1 4l _ _ _ r,,. r r res t/ \ c ?c 4` r I'll
v , v ._ . "r';4 i..._6Y,/ ` } :1 r' i t fx3 t . -..?- r # 3 ?4 Y'-r':;. F`?4 r.y...r Ifs , ` x`?: - '?y _ ?r I,!SNk_,. Gr,-
-
ti
{?' f! -i
rte:. j.< - 1 _.- '"•,.c - - ,". 1 -..?? I'?.,r?,,y'1`f,"-.
ate -d.'.-, L ?I ' --1.
4 , _. 1 ' ° F ti w Tr. 'Ll
:. ?* v:.' lP ` -5!e - _ - -./,' '?i'XP _k.'.-- -
1 I n -irk ? r1.>?''u-''?:v}F•w
r
~ Y _
'?' i? ! G
1;
s - - -
"= rY. - : ' I 'T Fyn 't- , .fir _f -; t
1 1 Y .w :c ?- 1 • -_ 1r 1 1 $ -
,`" '? ?,L - - -- - 44-4 , -? ??.; - ? ;? a str ` x ? ? nom `
,i _ r>?- Sri ,. - t? !? ,L ?`?" .? .; Rio .,) • ?k`d` ^'i
; ? r ,2 ?,j .
r
4 r - ? y ;
r
?' -v ./ r
r 1 rlA
N, e
i Y 9 1 _t, t - li /f - w - -? 4 -. '. t
xI .r 1 Y, n A\ *ti q
, _
I ,? 7 4 `., C-- l r ..3? (lam \ ! ,[ l; - F - 't` -
y
1 ?,? .i ?" .'. ??,
rah} ??b i _
4??_? /' ky " - , ?Z a
ff?? /.' 1. ? f. Y * ,, rvY+j? ,ISM` • ??? 's
's
?- i -- - I L ' ) A ? ?l ? - . I-
f1 F l 4 :E +
tiL ti 1 `_ xn t fi V I bars
y
,. r
J
y ` 4C
' «?
I. .. `+ X41 `. { , , : ,`? f -- - `sy'? ` : ? L I 1 - i f r `
?? p ° //., I .1 ~ Ir`,• a 1 t _ ? - 2 _ n C '..? if'" '' a'r ?'r^ __ \ - f - - ,
- .. . -\ 1:. 5 d're'{t, 7 r ' J . _ - _ - - * tr 'a -?.?r
77777
a2I .iic4?- ::.-?. ".__s T. ,. _..s. '_ ... ...f _ w, 'r ,•. - ' _. [ ?_ - x - - t? ? .?I ,' 1 - I ` ?. ? .,., ?, ....r,....
I .

ND PROJECT
------------ -

- _ - - _ _ - _ - _ - _
T1
-
-
-?
"
-
? -
-
-
-
-
y??
???
''y}'
^r
??
???
?T
Fry
R ICHM?

-------------

----------- -- ---+-475 '

----------- ----- -- -- -
----------- ------ t-_
INSH_MATCHEM____- 1= ---A? -
__ ?,•
?• P

--
__ - _
_
--
- ?.-
- LAKE = - - - _ _ --
-------- _-_-
-
- - - -_-_--_-__--_-_
-
.?? - - - -
PROJECT CORRIDOR
-----------
z --
----?--------
1----'------ --
----- -----
=
-
PROTECTED WATER. SUPPLY WATERSHED (WSWII)
---_-- - ----_--_ -_-_-_--
----- ---- -
?eeK
1-
- 603
---------- G
=
= PROTECTED WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED (WSWIIp
--------------
WATERSHED CRITICAL. AREA
6 CD
G5
/
®
HIGH QUALITY WATER- ZONE
BEGIN PROJECT
TIP PROJECT R-2502
?7
WATER SUPPLY WATER -SHEDS
•__-_ '? AND HOW ZONES IN: PROJECT AREA

KILOMETERS
__=
-- 0 1
MILES 2 .
3= -
---- FIGURE 6
r ?,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO November 9, 1998
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
In
This is in response to a letter from your office dated June 11, 1998, concerning
the Notice of Start of Study for and request for input on proposed improvements to US
1, from SR 1001 to the existing four lanes near the Moore County Line, Richmond-
Moore Counties, State Project 6.589009T, TIP Project R-2502" (Regulatory Division
Action I.D. No. 199801941).
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. Our comments on the other issues are enclosed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
?iC Alex Morrison, Jr., P.
' - Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
A-1
November 9, 1998
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notice of Start of Study for and request for input on proposed improvements to US 1, from
SR 1001 to the existing four lanes near the Moore County Line, Richmond-Moore Counties,
State Project 6.589009T, TIP Project R-2502" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199801941)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
The proposed project is located in Richmond County, which participates in the National
Flood Insurance Program. Based on a review of Panel 150 of the September 1989 Richmond
County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the
proposed roadway improvements may cross a portion of the approximately mapped flood plain
of Drowning Creek. We suggest that the crossing be designed so as not to significantly
increase upstream flood elevations and that your agency coordinate with the county to ensure
compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Dave Timoy Wilminaton Field Office,
Regulatory Division, at [phone]
Based on information provided by NCDOT in its letter dated June 11, 1998, the project may
impact wetlands. The environmental assessment should contain specific information relative to
the extent and location and community type of all the impacted wetlands.
The proposed project will have one major stream crossing at Drowning Creek. Since the
existing crossing is bridged, it is expected that any new crossing to accommodate the additional
lanes would also be bridged. If you propose to replace the bridge with a culvert, you must
demonstrate that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic
environment, specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on recreational
navigation.
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 wetlands in conjunction with this project,
including disposal of construction debris. Pursuant to 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 Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
If you have any questions related to DA permits, they should be addressed to Mr. Timpy.
A-2
PPS?EHT OV United States Department of the Interior
Q
a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office

e?
, Post Office Box 33726
27636
3726
li
RCN , .
Raleigh, Nonh Caro
na
August 8, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
RIE C F
rn Ail.
This responds to your letter of July 12, 2000, requesting comments or concurrence from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Biological Assessment for the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) in the vicinity of US 1 from south of SR 1001 (Marston Road in
Richmond County to the end of the existing 4-lane section of US 1 in Moore County, North
Carolina (TIP No. B-2502). 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 of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service considers this report to be an accurate representation of the surveys and results 1or
this species, and its habitats. Based on the information provided, the Service concurs that this
project, as designed, is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Note, however, that this concurrence applies only to the referenced species up to the date of the
report. Should additional information become available relative to other listed species, or the
referenced species, additional surveys may be required.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. Please advise us of any
changes in project plans. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom
McCartney at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely
Dr. Garland B Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/08/2000:919/856-4520 extension 32:\R-2502ES.RCW
A-3
?uPQ?MENT OF ry?ya United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Mq
C *H 3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
A
July 8, 1998
Mr. William P. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 2761
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This responds to your letter of April 28, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed improvements to US 1, from SR 1001 to the existing four lanes near the Moore County
Line, Richmond-Moore Counties, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2502). This report is Technical
Assistance only and is not the report of the Secretary of the Interior on the project within the
meaning of Section (2)(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal
and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this
project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen existing US 1
from SR 1001 south of Marston in Richmond County to the existing four-lanes near the Moore
County line, a distance of approximately 15.1 kilometers (9.4 miles). The project involves
widening the existing roadway to multi-lanes. A four-lane median-divided section is being
considered for rural portions of the project, while a five-lane undivided section is being considered
through the Towns of Marston and Hoffman. The purpose of the proposed project is stated to be
improved capacity and safety on this segment of US 1.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
A-5
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion y
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Hoffman, Marston, and Ainebluff 7.5
Minute Quadrangles indicate that there are extensive wetland resources along the proposed
corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area,
they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using
an acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
I. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data if available, and including a discussion of the projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps);
2
A-6
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in Richmond County. Most notable is the heavy concentration of recorded
occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (f'icoides borealis) along the proposed
project corridor. Note also that there are reported occurrences of Michaux's sumac (Rhos
michauxii) adjacent to, or in, the existing US I corridor, and rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia aspentlaefolia) is found in close proximity. Habitat requirements for these
federally-listed species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for
the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation should include survey
methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should be
included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
3
A-7
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area,
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration),
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of fixture Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
4
A-8
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
?ohn M. Hefn
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Bell)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Bruton)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Graf)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (McBride)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/7/98:919/856-4520 extension 32:\R-2502.tip
A-9
Mapping Symbols for
Threatened and Endangered Species
Birds
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
0 Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Roseate Tern
p Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
6 Waccamaw Silverside
Mussels
Dwarf-wedge Mussel
Tar Sp inymusse 1
Mammals
C Eastern Cougar
Red Wolf
Plants
? American Chaffseed
Harperella
Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
4;r,Seabeach Amaranth
.,,,Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
Smooth Coneflower
Seaturtles are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.
s
A-10
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species in RICHMOND County
Data represented on these maps are not base on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
80' 79045' 79'30'
35'
I

(/ J ? 1
Itch `
Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES
;,
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program 0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
WD. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
A-1l expires 1/31/99
. sort
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
July 28, 1998
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Bldg.
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Katie G. Dorsett
`?? G 1 V ? O
9199a
.;A
Re: SCH File # 98-E-4220-0839; Scoping Notice of Start of Study for and Request for Input on
Proposed Improvements to US 1, from SR 1001 to the Existing Four Lanes Near the Moore
County Line; TIP R-2502
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
L'444nv ?? `V-/-z
Mrs. C s Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region H
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
A-13
e'er St?ri
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Bldg.
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
jL,i 2 4 1998
-SIC

Subject: Scoping - Notice of Start of Study for and Request for Input on Proposed Improvements
to US 1, from SR 1001 to the Existing Four Lanes Near the Moore County Line; TIP
R-2502
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 98-E-4220-0839. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 07/28/1998. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Furney
Administrative Assistant
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
A-14
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
June 22, 19 V
i ?©
rvC'
STATE o,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 3, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, PE., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook otfC _6, ck&.1
Deputy State HistorjS Preservation Officer
Re: Draft archaeological survey report, Widening existing US 1 from SR 1001 to
existing four lanes at Moore County line, R-2502,
Richmond County, GS 98-0083
We have reviewed the draft archaeological survey report for the above referenced project and
would like to comment.
The draft report concludes that none of the nine sites identified (31RH132, 3IRH133/133**,
31RH318, 31RH319/319**, 31RH320/320**, 3 IRH321/321 **, 31RH322/322**, 31RH323, and
31NM 55) are recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In our
October 1, 1999, letter we determined sites 31RH132, 318, 320/320**, 321/321**, 322/322**,
323, and 31MR355 were not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Additionally, we indicated we were unable to make a determination of eligibility for sites
31RH133/133** and 31RH319 until further information was provided.
After careful review of the archaeological report and consultation with NCDOT staff
archaeologists, we believe additional investigation is needed to clarify the nature, extent,
condition, and significance of archaeological remains associated with sites 31RH133/133** and
31RH319. We recommend the following:
31RH133/133**
? Develop regional context - Additional information is needed to clarify the historic and
prehistoric components at site 31RH133/133**, and place them within a regional
cultural-historical context, including several examples of comparable sites, highlighting
similarities and dissimilarities where they occur.
-A-15
Telephone/Fax
[phone] • 733-8653
[phone] • 715-2671
[phone] • 715-4801
[phone] • 715-4801
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
Page 2
Letter to William D. Gilmore
Dated July 3, 2000
? Delineate boundaries - Boundaries identifying the extent of the 18th century historical
component at 31RH133/133** should be delineated. Additional information on the
historical context of the site should be developed through a more intensive archival
research and expanded block excavations, possibly supplemented by mechanical
stripping of topsoil to identify subsurface features such as trash pits, wells, privies,
detached kitchens, fence lines, and out buildings.
? Conduct more intensive archival research - A relatively unbroken chain of title from
1779-1964 exists for this portion of Richmond County. Although the report states it
would be difficult to identify individual settlements in this area, researchers at the State
Archives indicate a contrasting opinion. Although we recognize difficulties of
correlating specific ethnic origin with material culture, more intensive deed and title
research at the State Archives may enhance the interpretation of this site. We
recommend more intensive archival research at the State Archives in consultation with
staff archivists and historians from the Research Branch, Division of Archives and
History.
? Modify illustrated figure - Figure 4, page 13, titled "Highland Scots land holding in North
Carolina" does not indicate the site area in relation to Highland Scot land holdings. We
recommend modification to include the approximate location of the known
archaeological site, 31RH133/133**.
? Revise site form - A revised site form incorporating information from the additional
investigation and testing should be submitted to the Site Registrar, Office of State
Archaeology.
31RH319/319**
? Develop regional context - Discussions within the report should place the site
(31RH319/319**) in its proper regional context, including several examples of
comparable sites, highlighting similarities and dissimilarities of the archaeological
remains. Discussions should include, but not be limited to, comparable artifact
frequencies, typological occurrences, resource materials, lithic source locations, and
artifact distribution patterns (vertical and horizontal). The significance of limited
occupation Early Archaic sites should be specifically considered in terms of intrasite
activity patterns, subsurface features, and potential for providing radiocarbon dating for a
relatively undocumented period of time in North Carolina's prehistory.
? Delineate site boundaries Boundaries to the north and south of the site should be refined
and further delineated through additional shovel testing and block excavations. Block
excavations, possibly supplemented with mechanical stripping, should be conducted to
further clarify the nature, extent, condition, and significance of the archaeological
remains. Specific attention should be given to identification of lithic refuse
concentrations that might indicate discrete activity loci.
A-16
Page 3
Letter to William D. Gilmore
Dated July 3, 2000
? Site formation processes - To better understand site formation processes along this
portion of Drowning Creek, we recommend a geomorphologist examine soils and
stratigraphy in the site area.
? Revised site form - A revised site form incorporating information from the additional
investigation and testing should be submitted to the Site Registrar, Office of State
Archaeology.
Upon receipt of this additional information, including a draft report and revised site forms, we
will continue our review of this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
Tom Padgett, NC DOT
A-17
TIP Z 0 Federal Aid # N (A County C" ON
STi°c Co, 5 T 9 0 0"1 T
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief P[?ject Description
pt S
?, - 4:>::?,(

t?lNt?
on C) GT- Z- I l 1 1, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
z7=0", North Carolina State Xistoric Preservation Office' (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project it
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consuitation
Other 1
All parties present agreee
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
i/ there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
,Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
'there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as C> I srare
considered not eligible for the atuona Register and.no further evaluation o them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
(A "-d
CN
l.Uv 1 7-b
Zl
+ FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

Date
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-19
4?, t--IMDNb-
TIP # Federal Aid # County )-44.d11781i1e5:
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
AA V L-T-i -
On ???' representatives of the
X_
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review sessionic011suitati0h
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
/ Consideration G within. the project's area of potential effect.
V there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as i-cl , it- ilk , ILe - 33 are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessan.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:

Representative,
Date
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

'l
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-20
. ? SrATF a
-
?'MUae ?r
aw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator Division of Archives and History
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary October 1, 1999

William D. Gilmore, PE
Manager
Project Development and Environment Analysis Brance
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Draft Archaeological Survey Report, Widening Existing US 1, Richmond County, R-2502,
GS 98-0083 (ref. CH 98-E4220-0839)
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
We have conducted a review of the draft archaeological survey report by Matt Wilkerson, Nick Bon-
Harper and Gerold Glover of NCDOT for the above referenced project.
During the course of the survey nine archaeological sites were investigated (31Rh132, 133/133**, 318,
319/319**, 321/321**, 322/322**, 323, and 31MR355). Of this number one site (31RH132) had been
destroyed by sand mining, and eight sites (31RH133/133**, 318, 319/319-**, 320/320**, 321/321**,
322/322**, 323, and 31MR355) were recommended for no further work.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places:
31 RH 132 Prehistoric Destroyed
31RH318 Lithic scatter Lack of integrity
31RH320/320** Lithic scatter/Historic Lack of integrity
31 RH321 /321 * * Lithic scatter/Historic Lack of integrity
31RH322/322** Lithic scatter/Historic Lack of integrity
31RH323 Lithic scatter Lack of integrity
31RH355 Lithic scatter Lack of integrity
until additional information for the properties listed below is provided, we are unable to make a
determination of their eligibility for the National Register:
31RH133/133** and 31RH319/319**
A-21
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, Notch Carolina 27601-2807
Additional testing is needed to more fully evaluate the following sites:
31RH133/133** and 31RH319/319**.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. Specific
concerns and/or corrections which need to be addressed in the preparation of a final report are
attached for the author's use.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
.Sincerely,...
/David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:ldb
Enclosure:
cc: Tom Padgett
A-22

Review Comments
Project Name/ER Number: US 1, SR 1001 to Existing Four Lanes, R-2502,
Richmond County, GS 98-0083 CH 98-E-4220-0839
Pa a Text Comment Recommendation
SHPO requested this project area be
1 "
1 7/20/98 SHPO evaluated this project Revise text to
...
.
evaluated for archaeological resources." as "low probability" and
recommended no archaeological accurately reflect
SHPO comments and
survey be conducted. NCDOT recommendations
scheduled survey independently and
consulted SHPO regarding
implementation of survey strategy.
2. l Table of Contents missing Table of Contents is not included Revise text to include
ble of Contents in
T
within the report. This omission a
does not satisfy SHPO Guidelines for accordance with
Preparation of Archaeological SHPO Guidelines

3. 1-56 Page numbering is inconsistent Survey Reports.
Pages 1-42 numbered consecutively;
Revise forlude
page numbers
Appendix II contains no page
numbers (14 additional pages). Appendix II and all
additional ages
4. 1-56 Figure references are inconsistent, Five figures (Fig. 1-5) are identified
dditional
41 Revise Figure
numbers to avoid
duplicate numbers, and lack reference ; an a
between p. 1-
fourteen figures (Fig. 1-14) are duplication and
identification within text presented in Appendix II between p. adequately cite all
42-56 (unnumbered). Figure figures within text
numbers 1-5 are duplicated.
5. 25-29 31RH133/133**, testing considered
inadequate to determine potential for 19 shovel tests excavated at lOm
intervals primarily address artifact Additional testing
emphasizing larger
subsurface features frequency and are not reliable
determinants of subsurface feature units, or closer
interval, should be
location. Testing intervals are too conducted to fully
great, and shovel test size is too evaluate site
small. Probing and metal detecting 31RH133/133**
may help in certain instances, but do
not provide enough information to
comprehensively assess the clarity
and integrity of the site. Disagree
with report recommendation for "no

6. 31-34 31 RH319/319**, "...artifacts to 80 cmbs further work."
Test Unit 1 Level 1 (0-24 cmbs
and Level 4
Level 2 (2440 cmbs)
Additional testing is
needed to explain the
without any clear stratigraphic
" ,
(60-80 cmbs) contained absence of artifacts
demarcation. archaeological materials (Total= 124). from Test Unit 1
Test Unit 1 Level 3 (40-60 cmbs) Level 3. Lack of
contained no artifacts. The absence integrity and
of artifacts may indicate a significance of site
stmtigraphic separation between have not been
Level 2 and Level 4. Additional adequately
testing is needed to determine the determined.
nature and extent of this occurrence.
A-23
'Cy
w.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 23, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 1 from SR 1001 to Moore County line,
Richmond County, R-2502, State Project
6.589009T, 98-E-4220-0839
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since there has never been a comprehensive survey of historic architectural
resources in Richmond County, there may be properties of which we are unaware
within the project area. We recommend that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation identify federal permit areas and determine whether properties
within them might be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI.
If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
A-24
log East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee Y
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 98-0839 Scoping US 1 Widening, Moore County
DATE: July 24, 1998
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideratioin.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
r C;- I?j
!t?! 2 41998
N.C. STATE CLEAR-INGHCUSE
e
A-25
RID, BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 27611-7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.EHNR.STATE.NC.US/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION

a
.1..

MEMORANDUM
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 21, 1998
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Scoping - US 1 Widening, Marston
REFERENCE: 98-E-0839
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for both red-cockaded
woodpeckers (Picoides borealis), federally and state listed as Endangered, and
Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickeringii), state listed as Endangered and a federal
Species of Concern, from the vicinity of the intersection of US 1 and SR 1479. Other
rare species could also be present along the segment of US 1, particularly where it is
bordered by the Sandhills Game Lands. We therefore recommend that a biological
survey be conducted along this route. The US Fish and Wildlife should be consulted
if any federally listed species are determined to be affected by this project. If state
listed plants are likely to be affected, we also request that the Plant Conservation
Program be consulted regarding possible mitigation.
A-26
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 30% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 19, 1998
MEMORANDUM
M. Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
FROM: Mary Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Coordinator M?-
RE: Comments on DOT 12127
US 1 Widening, from SR 1001 DENR# 98-E-0839, to Moore Co. line, Moore County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the EA document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Identify the number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. bedapermanent d at all spill
supply stream crossings. Identify gthe responsible party forms
placed
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G . Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX 1r9-715-6048
Equal Opportunity A-27
98-0839
7/19/98
Page 2
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H . Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
J. The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
K. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA for this
project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is
the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land
uses that the EA should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of the EA
should discuss the known relationship between road widening and inducements for
urban development along the project right-of-way. The EA must further address the
long-term environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect
impacts of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment. To
address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor (and what
land use figures were used in this estimate)?
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to existing roads, such as turn lanes and
traffic signs and signals?
iii) Are any cross streets in the project area projected to see additional traffic
flows due to the proposed project? If so, how will land uses along these
secondary roads be influenced by the project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant parcels of land in
the road right-of-way?
vi) Will these once less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this widened road serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this widening
encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
A-28
98-0839
7/19/98
Page 3
viii)
ix)
X)
xi)
xii)
If inducement for urban development is predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the EA and should be
considered indirect impacts of the transportation project.
What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to effectively manage development potential along the
road right-of-way to reduce the potential indirect land use changes and
environmental impacts?
What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA- should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from this additional development.
What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
The EA should discuss these impacts (and others that are applicable to the
individual project), and quantify them when possible. In addition to
reporting on the types and significance of each direct and indirect impact of
the project, the EA should define how DOT (with their authorities and
resources) and affected local governments (with land use control in the
project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or mitigate these impacts to a
level of insignificance. The SEPA rules and statutes require that prior to
issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts in an
EA be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, the EA should document how the indirect effects of urban
growth are not going to significantly impact water quality and all other
environmental concerns resulting from this proposed project, or a FONSI
should not be issued.
L. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT EA:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the road widening, if the
project will be providing new or improved access to future growth areas that are
currently undeveloped. One typical impact of increased development might include
increasing amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area. Land-
disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development may
also result in increased stream sedimentation. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in the creek, loss of aquatic
habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers, pesticides,
sediment and automobile byproducts) to the stream. These impacts could be of
special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and federally
endangered species or if the waters are high quality or nutrient sensitive.
A-29
98-0839
7/19/98
Page 4
M. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
N . Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant call Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mek:1980839; US I Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
A-30
I l t,. W R 1„ 1 f 1 11. 1 f 1"L- " - n
0 1 *
linaWildlife Resources Commissign-E"
Nord Caro
512 N. Salisbury Street, g4e + North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDU Nei
10. Melba McGce
Office of I.egislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, llighway Project Coor
Habitat Conservation Program
D_' TJ--:: July 20, 1908
SUBJECT : Request for information from t wildlife Department for to 1 an- nuveamcnts,
(NCDOT) regarding fish an
from SR 1001 to the existing four-lanes near the Moore C oUnty line,
Richmond and Moore counties, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2502, SCH
Project No. 98-E-0839.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject protect. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have. reviewed pthe rovisions of th North Carolina arecprovi
Act(G S.
accordance with certain 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
We have been involved in the scoping meeting for this project and are aware that
there is potctttial for this project to impact the NCWRC Sandhills Game Lund and
possibly some lands adjoining the McKinney Lake Fish Hatchery which is also operated
by the NCW K('. In these areas there is high potential gfor finding Red bcnet t?these
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) colonies as we manage our property to
birds. NCDOT should take steps to avoid use of any of these properties.
In addition to the specific recommendations from above, our general
informational needs are outlined below:
1. Descriptiun of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of desigttdted
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program

A-31
14l-UoF.L 1 n?.r 9 r MLL:1 Lnr,.C i LL - 1 L •1
Memo 2 July 20, 1998
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
[phone]
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 uccomlplishe i through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (CUE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Ccrver 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
elY'cets of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation,
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources H•hii:h will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other slate, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these prgjrcts 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. Ii' we can further assist your office, please contact me at (919.) 528-9886.
A-32
- NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
July 6, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee ,Q J?
FROM: David Harrison' C /Y
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to US 1 from SR 1001 to the Moore
County Line. Project No. 98E-0839
The proposed improvements involve widening the existing roadway to
multi-lanes for approximately 9.4 miles.
The Environmental Assessment should include information on the amount
and location of Prime or Important Farmland that will be impacted. Alternatives
that reduce impacts to Prime or Important Farmland soils are preferred. A listing
of these soils in North Carolina is available through the MLRA Team Leader,
North Carolina State Office, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA,
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, N.C. 27609, [phone].
DH/tl
A-33 SOIL & WATER
P.O. BOX 27687, RAL510N, NORTH CAROLINA 27611-7687
CONS
PHONE ONE 919-733-2302 FAX [phone] ?JI?I?I1Jiiltt?? R? !I?1!!?•.???
NSUMER PAPER
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLEO/10% POST-CO
State. of Nu -th Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing Office: p
of frJ -/ Due Date: 7 - 10.9
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number:
project it has been determined that the ENR pe rmit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need tobeobtained in order for this project to
After review of this pro
addressed
comply with North Carolina. Law. Questions regarding these permits should be 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 Regional Office:L_TNormal Process Time
statutory time limit)
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
PERMITS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
lication technical conference usual.
Post-a
ti
i
i 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems pp
on
nspec
te
contracts. On-s (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters.
D NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application
Additionally. obtain permit to construct wastewater
rence usual
f 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities .
e
con
treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time. 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
discharging into state surface waters. plans or issue of NPDES pemtit-whichever is later.

O Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
D Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the (1 7 days
days)
installation of a well.
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
on-site inspection Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require 55 days
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300. 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
60 days
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and N/A
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control (90 days)
Group 919-733-0820.
O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
ore acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality
d if 20 days
one or m
sedimentation control plan will be require
Sect.) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
w to the referenced Local Ordinance.
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect (30 days)
O Mining Permit on-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are trained greater 30 days

than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received 60 days)
before the permit can be issued.

O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22

D On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than
round clearing activities are involved Inspections should be
of
fi I day
(N/A)
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils g
ve acres
d at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
t
e
reques
N/A 90-120 days
D Oil Refining Facilities (N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
O Dam Safety Permit must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
i
30 days
re
certify concoction is according to ENR approved plans. May also requ
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
d
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification A ays)
(60
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
A-34
Uepur Il r lCl ll u1 ?-? `""' 1 '
Health and Natural Resources Nn
Division of Land Resources ^ L/
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G.. P•E.
Director and State Geologist
PROJECT REVIEW comENTS r
Project Number: _l V - E
Project Name:
i
County: '-1 Onf Lk
Geodetic survey
NC Of ce of State Plannin
project will impact geodetic survey mzrl-ers. N.C.
This
Geodetic Survey should be contacted pr733 3g36onsintentoion at nal P
"box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27011 (919)
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
_ This project will have no
other (comments attached)
impact on geodetic survey markers.
For more infor,,ation contact tL.e "'C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey Office at 919/733-3836. ? .? 5 98
Date O
F.ev_- er
erosion and SediGentati0n Control'

No cc e:
an erosion and sedimentation
This project will require approval of
ccatrol plan prior to beg=.^.ning any land-disturbs c activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
document is required'to satisfy Environmental
.
If an environmental ? be s;:b•.^..- tt°d as
policy Act ( as
SEPA) requirements, the document r•.us.. part of the erosion and sedimentation control plam.
L within z Eiich
r the prcj i= lcca..e .
if any portion o.. Quality
?/ •
Water Zone (HIQW), as classified by the Divisionme^*EG?ire osicn
i?z.^.zgerent, increased design standards f
control will apply.
ed for this
The erosion and sedimentaticn ccnt-ol plan.requir
•zns?crtation
project should be prepared by the Department of T_ _
Sedelegation dimentationoControl,Commission.
under the erosion contrcl-program
Fisc^:ray; from the .,•_ -
other (comments attached) a= 9,g/733-4574•
= -- -
P:r crcr? i^FOr:^ation contac:
7 r,-.. 7
• A-35
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
" DIVISION OF FOREST RESOURCES
' e" 2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
- sA.?? . July 7, 1998
HCOENR
•; ..JAMES B. FIUNTJR MEMORANDUM
-'GOVERNOR -_
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY 14 SUBJECT: DOT Scoping for Widening of US 1 from SR 1001 to the Moore County Line
PROJECT #: 98-0839 & TIP # R-2502
STANFORD M_ ADAMS '-` The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document and offer
olReeroR the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands.
1. Woodlands will likely be impacted by the project. Therefore, the total forest land acreage by type that
T' would be removed or taken out of forest production as a result of the project should be listed. Efforts
should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands
2. The productivity of the forest soils affected by the proposed project as indicated by the soil series.
3. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during construction.
= Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood products cannot be sold then
::: f•; "x efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a tub grinder. This practice will
minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped fires and smoke management problems to
---• residences, highways, schools, and towns.
4. If debris burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open burning as
covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. Moore County is a non-high hazard county, and
_ G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning permit would apply.
t nM: 5. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside the
-`w right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy equipment.
M °•• Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill, exposing
j Yes the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances.
6. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage the impact on forest
resources be considered during the planning process. .
Warren Boyette
cc:
_ A-36 P.O. Box 29581, RALEIGH, NC 27626-0581 a-
_ PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] y3«
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM/RELOCATION REPORT
APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
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
arrangement (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 relocating 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 purchases 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.
B-1
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 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 displacee
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, including 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 financial 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.
A
B-2
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
?X E.I.S. 0 CORRIDOR ? DI=SIGN
SR 1001 TO SR 1600 (DESIGNS 2 AND 3)
PROJECT: 6.589009T COUNTY Richmond Alternate SR-1001 Of Alternate
SR-1600
I.D. NO.: R-2502 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Improvements to US 1 from SR 1001 (Marshton Rd) to Existing Four Lane
North of Moore Count Line
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 5 2 7 5 0 6 1 0 0
Businesses 4 3 7 3 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For Rent
Non-Profit 2 2 4 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 1
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 5 150-250 1
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 5 250-400 2 40-70M 13 250-400 2
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 22 400-600 2
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 up 0 100 up 21 600 up 0
displacement? TOTAL 5 2 61 6
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 2. Three (3) Churches and one Fire Dept. in new right of way.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 3. Two Post Offices - 2 employees and 1 minority in each
employees, minorities, etc. location. One Convenience Store.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 4. (See Attached Sheet)
6. Source for available housing (list). 8. Will be administered according to States law.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 11. Section 8 Housing in Hamlet, Rockingham and Richmond
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? County.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 12. There are no Government Programs competing for
Families? housing.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 14. Realtors, News Paper, City and County Rental Agents and
x 11. Is public housing available? on-ground investigation.
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing ?-
housing available during relocation period? f• ?.- c :;
v
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source). Sft3 2:';;J
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24

AA 9/19/00
. M. Bailey, R/W A ent Date A roved b ate
Forth 15.4 Revised
Note: This relocation report was prepared using preliminary designs. It is
anticipated the actual number of relocations for this portion of the project will be
less than indicated on this report.
B-3
Agent
Office
4. 1 square block business -1400 SF. Type of business
Unknown 2 minority employees.
1 square block business-1600 SF. Type of Business
Unknown 2 minority employees.
1 square block business - 800 SF.
2 employees 1 minority.
1 square frame business - 600 SF.
1 employee.
1 square metal building -1,200 SF.
2 minority
1 square Block Building -1,100 SF.
5 employees.
1 square block building - 2,800 SF.
Post Office
Produce Stand
Garage 4 employees
Convenience Store
Garage 1 employee.

B-4
RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. [-] CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
SR 1600 TO EXIST. 4-LANES (DESIGN 5)
PROJECT: 6.589009T COUNTY Moore/Richmond Alternate Of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2502 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Improvements to US 1 from SR 1001 (Marshton Rd) to Existing Four Lane
+;.. North of Moore Count Line
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 12 0 12 12 0 5 4 3 0
Businesses 4' 0 4 3 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 3 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0450 1
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 5 150-250 0 20-40M 6 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 14 250.400 3
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70400m 3 400-600 0 70-100M 21 400-600 3
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 up 23 600 up 1
displacement? TOTAL 12 0 64 8
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. No Permanent Displacement of Business.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. One Mobile/Modular home sales business located parti-
employees, minorities, etc. cularly in R/W that can be moved back on remaining
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? property.
6. Source for available housing (list). Produce business (1,000 SF.) in R/W that will be dispaacec
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? This is a small business employing approximately 4
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? minority employees.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Small shoe sale business (1,000 SF.) employing one
Families? minority-worker.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 6. Realtors News Paper, City and County Rental Agents
x 11. Is public housing available? and on-Ground Investigation.
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 8. Will be administered according to States law.
housing available during relocation period? 9. Moore and Richmond Counties have an average percen-
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within tage of Senior Citizens.
financial means? 11. Section 8 Housing in Hamlet, Rockingham and Richmond
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list County.
source). 12. There are no Government Programs competing for
15. Number months estimated to complete housing.
RELOCATION? 2

4 14. Realtors, News Paper, City and County Rental Agents anc
F
on-ground investigation.

L
David M. Bailey, Division RNV Agent Date Approved b Date
Forth 15.4 Revised 02195 d
B-5 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation OfSoe
APPENDIX C
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TABLES
Figure C 1
Project Location & Ambient Measurement Sites
US 1 Widening From SR 1001 to Just North of Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties, R-2502

C-1
TABLE C 1
r
s
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 7SShotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
st chamb er HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
M
130 ---- - ---
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 -- ------------- ------ --------------------------- _?
D
E
I
B
E
L
S
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 ---- --- ---- -
Diesel truck 65 km/h at 15m away
80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Passenger car 80 km/h at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
70 -----
Quiet typewriter
60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 ----- --- ----------------
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 ----- __-____- ------ --?w?_-------- -- -------------------------
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 -----
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
C-2
TABLE C2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)

Activity
Category
Le (h)
Description of Activity Cate ory

A 57
(Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67
(Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52
(Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CPR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Le (h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.

A
C-3
N
O
N
i
a
v? H
d ?
W •?
O
U
M
U U °?
a z o
o
Q
12.
W?
py ?
z b

D
F ?
F
z p o o ° ° °

w
?
Ua
O U -• N C>
Q
U
?+ v?
X a W

w
a
F
w Q o 0 0 0 °

oz? cn

O
m¢ f?? 00 C?
0
'd
N
V1
N
V'1
N
N p?
N
F

C
C h ? ? ~
Ln C>
a

Q
o ? 00
n
En c ?D ?O ?D ?O
..
z

M N

O
? V
0
rn ° C o
A" ? W
0 0 $ °
ti
CD M
1

r° w u• w
r+ N M ?
C-4
IV
3
0
O
O ?
U w
w
o?
w?
h ?
td H
d b
? o
U
? Q
o
ea .d
o Q
M
V?1 N
t-
- N
N
O
N
? o
U
U U 2
a o
W
W
E-' W o
W
0 a4
?i
u
L? b
H?
? ¢
S O W N
O
O o 0 0

w
¢W.a W °... 0 0 0 0 0

N
A O O O O O
W

QW
r? ?
c
0
o
O
o
0
z N

w
w ? O o 0 0 0
w

°z
a
o
O
o
0
0
0

w ?
O

U 0 0 0 0 0

C O O O O O
n

0
z
p 0
o

a ?n o o,
M
o ?..
vUi
A
0 0 ? 0

C
w w w w
..-i N f+t ?
C-5
N
w
H
W
0
0
v N
H
?H
cn -c:
N
C? •U
0 ?
b
w w
? b
as
? N

APPENDIX D
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA
APPENDIX D
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA
The table below lists potentially contaminated properties in the project area. Figure
Dl shows the location of these properties.

SITE NO.

PROPERTY
TYPE
FACILITY RIGHT OF WAY
REQUIRED FROM
FACILITY
1 McKay's Garage UST Yes
2 Carolina Asphalt Other Yes
3 Abandoned Gas Station UST Yes
4 Former Hippy's Haven UST Yes
5 Brown Molding Company UST Yes
6 Sandhills Wildlife Depot UST Yes*
7 Hoffman BP UST Yes
8 Barry Bostick Racing Other Yes
9 C. C. Grocery UST Yes
10 Flea Market UST Yes
11 Southern Products &
Silica Company UST Yes
12 CSX Transportation Railroad No
13 Camp MacKall Military
Reservation Military Base No
UST - Underground storage tank facility
* - Right of way will be required from the Sandhills Game Land in the area where the
depot is located, however, the depot itself is several thousand feet away from US 1 and
will not be affected by the project.

D-1
1
MOORE COUNTY ?

'
1
1
..................
END PROJECT
o
S A N D H L Drowning p

M,- E LA 15
G A ;
,
. ,.

%
RICHM?OAtD'•'COUNTY
CAMP
MACKALL
%_1004 ` . , RpAp
al MILITARY
R
,` ESERVATO
•?1003 ;
?
.?:
`.
%f t 175 HOFFMAN CSC
% d
' , POP. 349 r

McKINNEY LAKE`
; • `• ' Yom'
.
FISH HATCHERY; !?•% 1 479 Entwistle

McKINNEY
LAKE
?'-
\r
none, PROJECT CORRIDOR
1603

POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITE S
Marston
1001
i
1536 05? ri

CD BEGIN PROJECT

TIP PROJECT R-2502
"' Q POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES

IN PROJECT AREA

' f KILOMETERS
O 1 2 3
2
`
1 MILES
f FIGURE DI

„' SfATt u
wad
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOvERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
10 July 2000
Rob Hanson, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
ATTENTION: Jay McInnis, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Dale W. Suiter, Environmental Biologist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Widening of US 1 to multi-lanes from SR 1001 in Richmond
County to the existing four-lane facility at the Moore County
line; State Number 6.589009T; TIP R-2502.
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with analyses
of probable impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected species is also provided, with
respect to regulatory concerns which must be considered. Please contact me if you have
any questions, or need this report in.an electronic format.
cc: Bruce Ellis, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: R-2502
MAILING ADDRESS:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC

WIDENING OF US 1 TO MULTI-LANES
FROM SR 1001 IN RICHMOND COUNTY
TO THE EXISTING FOUR-LANES IN MOORE COUNTY
TIP R-2502
STATE NUMBER 6.589009T
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
R-2502
P OF?T? ?O
?e
4
9
??OF 7AA
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
DALE W. SUITER, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
10 JULY 2000
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................1
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ..................................................................................... 4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 SOILS ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .................................................................................. S
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification .............................................................................................................. S
2.3.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................. S
2.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY ................................................................... 7
2.4.1 Bridge Demolition ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES .......................................................................................................................... .. 8
3.1.1 Maintained Lawns ....................................................................................................................... .. 9
3.1.2 Roadside Shoulder ....................................................................................................................... .. 9
3.1.3 Successional Pine Forest (Pine Plantation) ............................................................................... .. 9
3.1.4 Xeric Sandhill Scrub ................................................................................................................... .. 9
3.1.5 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - Blackwater Subtype ........................................................ .. 9
3.1.6 Streamhead Pocosin .................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.7 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS .................................................................................................. 10
3.2.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ........................................................................ 10
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 11
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .......................................................................................................... 11
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ....................................................................... 11
4.1.2 Permits ......................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation ................................................................................... 13
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ........................................................................................................... 14
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........................................................................................................ 14
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern ........................................................................................................ 19
0
5.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................:..23
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a state Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. The
purpose of this report is to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within
the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural
resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize
resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern which may affect
the selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the
proposed project in order to most effectively maintain environmental quality. The analyses
contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary
project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the widening of existing US 1 to a multi-lane facility
from SR 1001 in Richmond County to the existing four lane road at the Moore County line
(Figure 1). Only one alternate is currently being studied. All alignments will be
constructed within the proposed 100 ft (30 m) to 300 ft (90 m) right-of-way. Several
different typical sections are proposed for the project. A five-lane curb and gutter typical
section is proposed from SR 1001 to north of SR 1603. A five-lane undivided shoulder
section and four-lane median divided section are being considered from north of SR 1603
to south of SR 1475. A five-lane curb and gutter section south of SR 1475 and SR 1600
and a four-lane divided section with a 46 ft (14 m) median between SR 1600 and the
Moore County line. The project length is 9.4 mi. (15.1 km).
1.2 Methodology
Published resource information pertaining to the project area was gathered and
reviewed prior to field investigations. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation
of the project area include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Pine Bluff, Hoffman, and Marston, NC).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Soil Survey of Richmond County, North Carolina (1989).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base
Maps of Moore and Richmond counties (1995).

r

MOORE COUNTY

S
`? ' . .
/ END PROJECT °
H 11
L Ls -o. 1 a o
L A N 0:/
•
?
j i •1 '
• ' / 1 ?A41

R I
G
HMONDy:@OUNTY
•'`
i
• •
,
\
1
i
! \ /
?
? i CAMP '

``. -•'
' •
?
i'?,
NtJp'D MACKALL j
MILITARY

•.` i • ?
•'
?,' • R
? HOKE
,oo, ; RESERVATO COUNTY

u)s ' &-FMAN
•
? woo
_
_ 9q ? POP. 3
I j
r

I
Ism
?• KILOMETERS

11 2 3
OO • ?..\
.. •., I
MILES
K INNEY LA
) 1.19
FISH HATCHER r$!lA VI .A ?
?
ENTWIS E -
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
`? TRANSPORTATION
:• DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
us 1
SR 1001 TO EXISTING FOUR LANES
AT MOORE COUNTY LINE
RICHMOND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2502
C,O
- I Z%= PNO
GO??
MARSTO
s
ISM OJ
2
BEGIN PROJECT
I

• ArcView GIS database to determine DWQ Index Numbers, DWQ water classifications,
NPDES permitted dischargers, NCNHP element occurrence records, etc. (January
2000).
• US Fish and Wildlife Service list of federally protected species by county (USFWS
December 1999).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species that may occur in the study area was obtained
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected and candidate species
dated 20 December 1999 and from the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented
occurrences of state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas.
NCDOT Environmental Biologists Dale W. Suiter and France Webster conducted
general field surveys along the proposed study corridor on 04 February 1999. An
additional site visit was conducted by Dale Suiter and Jeff Burleson on 09 December 1999.
Jurisdictional wetland delineations and stream determinations were conducted by Dale
Suiter and Karen Lynch on 20 April 2000, Dale Suiter and Lynn Smith on 20 May 2000
and Dale Suiter and Jay McInnis on 27 May 2000 and 08 June 2000. Water resources were
identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Wetlands were located using
Global Positioning System (GPS). Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
also identified and described. Terrestrial communities were identified following Schafale
and Weakley (1990), where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter et al. (1980), and
Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography
of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation techniques: qualitative habitat
assessment based on vegetative communities, active searching and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of
aquatic organisms were conducted and tactile searches for benthic organisms were
performed as well. Organisms captured during these searches were identified and then
released.
The project study area was searched for jurisdictional wetlands using criteria
established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina"
(Division of Environmental Management, 1995).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bound by the
3
proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. "Project
vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area,
and "Project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)], with the project located in the
center.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Dale W. Suiter, Environmental Biologist, NCDOT
Education: B.S. Biology, Concord College, Athens, WV, 1991
M.S. Biology, Marshall University, Huntington, WV, 1995
Experience: Environmental Biologist, NCDOT; July 1995 - present
Expertise: field botany, natural history, Section 7 field investigations, NEPA
investigations, wetland delineation
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography
significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other
possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the
project area present important management limitations due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and
quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and
the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Southern Moore County and Richmond County lie in the Coastal Plain
physiographic province of North Carolina. The topography of the study area is flat which
is representative of land found throughout the county. The average elevation of the project
study area is approximately 380 ft (116 m) above mean sea level.
2.2 Soils
Detailed soils information is currently not available for the project study area.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
4
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
One perennial stream, Drowning Creek, is crossed by the subject project.
Drowning Creek eventually forms the Lumber River and thereby lies in the Lumber River
Drainage Basin. This perennial stream is surrounded by a riverine swamp forest. The
wetlands associated with Drowning Creek are discussed in section 3.1.5 and 3.1.6.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned all streams a best usage
classification which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage.
Drowning Creek is the only jurisdictional water resource crossed by the project. This
section of Drowning Creek [DWQ Index No. 14-2-(6.5)] is classified as Class WSII Sw
HQW (as of 08/03/92). WS-II (Water Supply Watershed II) refers to those waters protected
as water supplies which are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. Point
source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted; however, local programs to control
non-point source and storm water discharge of pollution are required. WS-II waters are
suitable for all Class C uses. Class C refers to waters protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, agriculture, and the propagation and survival of fish and aquatic life.
Forms of secondary recreation include wading, boating and other uses involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized or
incidental manner. Sw (Swamp water) is a supplemental water classification for waters
which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from
adjacent streams. HQW (High Quality Waters) is a supplemental classification intended
for waters that are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies. They may be designated
Native or Special Native Trout Waters (NC Wildlife Resources Commission), primary
nursery areas (Marine Fisheries Commission), critical habitat areas (NC Wildlife
Resources Commission), water supply watersheds (WS-I and WS-II) and all SA waters.
NCDOT should strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout the design and construction of this project in the area
that drains to streams having the WS and HQW classification in order to protect existing
uses. This includes the northern two thirds of the project that lies in the Lumber River
Drainage Basin. All land to the immediate west side of the project lies in a protected Water
Supply Watershed and the area immediately surrounding Drowning Creek is designated a
Critical Area. In addition, waters classified as HQW require a Hazardous Spill Basin at all
perennial stream crossings.
2.3.3 Water Quality
5
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources
and non-point sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on
published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data
provide insight into the value of water resources within the project area to meet human
needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
The northern two thirds of the project lies in subbasin 03-07-50 of the Lumber
River Drainage Basin while the southern one third of the project lies in subbasin 03-07-16
of the Yadkin River Basin. The overall quality of surface waters in the Lumber River
subbasin is excellent based on benthic macroinvertebrate data. The water quality of the
Yadkin River subbasin ranges from poor to excellent based on the same criteria.
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality, management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal, the DWQ collects biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basin-wide assessment and planning. All
river basins are reassessed every five years. In concurrence with this schedule, streams and
rivers are sampled for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites in
each river basin. In addition, special studies are often initiated for specific streams or
watersheds.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network, managed by the DWQ, is part of
an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling fixed sites for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have
different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long term changes in water quality conditions can
be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms
(and vice versa). Samples are evaluated for the number of taxa present of intolerant groups
[Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value summarizing tolerance data for all species in each
collection is also calculated for the sample. -The two rankings are given equal weight in
final site classification. The taxa richness and biotic index values primarily reflect the
effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical
pollutants as sediment. Drowning Creek was sampled at US 1 and received a rating of
excellent based on benthic macroinvertebrates collected. The stream received fair and
good - fair ratings based on fish community data.
6
2.3.3.3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Point source dischargers are discharges that enter surface water through a pipe,
ditch, or other defined points of discharge. The term most commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Point source dischargers located throughout
North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All dischargers are required to register for a
permit. The DWQ NPDES database lists no permitted dischargers within 1.0 mi. (1.6 km)
of the project study area. However, two permitted dischargers are located on Aberdeen
Creek, a tributary to Drowning Creek. This tributary enters Drowning Creek
approximately 7400 feet downstream from the US 1 crossing. These dischargers include
the Department of the Army (N00052477) and the Moore County Regional Waste Water
Treatment Plant (N00037508).
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that can
serve as sources of non-point source pollution including land development, construction,
crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads and parking
lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution causing substances associated with non-
point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy metals, oil and
grease, and any other substance that may be washed off the ground or removed from the
atmosphere and carried into surface waters. Potential sources of non-point discharge
within the project study area include sedimentation from residential development and other
land clearing efforts.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Quality
Project construction will likely result in minimal impacts to water resources in the
project area. Activities likely to cause impacts include clearing and grubbing on stream
banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement rehabilitation. These construction activities are likely to result
in the following impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project area
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in highway runoff
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles
7
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by
limiting in-stream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the
completion of grading.
2.4.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge number 42 carrying US 1 over Drowning Creek will be removed and
replaced as a part of the subject project. The superstructure of Bridge Number 42 is
composed of a reinforced concrete deck and deck girders. The substructure is composed of
reinforced concrete piers with reinforced concrete caps. Removal of Bridge Number 42
will result in approximately 556 cubic yards of temporary fill in Drowning Creek and
associated wetlands. Turbidity curtains are recommended due to possible sedimentation
during in-stream work.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes
the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and
past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the
context of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species which are likely to occur
in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted
in the text with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and
fauna described from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities,
making boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define. The communities
identified in the project study area include maintained lawns, roadside shoulder,
successional pine forest, xeric sandhill scrub and coastal plain small stream swamp and
streamhead pocosin.
3.1.1 Maintained Lawns
Maintained lawns within the project study area are dominated by a variety of native
and cultivated plant species and are heavily influenced by human activity. The herbaceous
layer contains a variety of turfgrass species including fescue (Festuca sp.) and bead grass
(Paspalum sp.). Common landscape trees and shrubs include Longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), crepe myrtle
(Lagerstroemia indica) and flowering dogwood (Corpus f orida). Ornamental grasses such
as pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) and giant reed (Arundo donax) were also observed
here.
3.1.2 Roadside Shoulder
Roadside shoulder exists throughout the project study area along the edges of US 1.
Common roadside species observed include fescue (Festuca sp.), bead grass (Paspalum
sp.), foxtail grass (Setaria sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), goldenrods
(Solidago spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), braken fern (Pteridium
aquilinum), great mullein (Verbascum thapsis) and sericea (Lespedeza cuneata). Vines
include muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Woody
plants common along US 1 include red maple (Acer rubrum), tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima), willow oak (Quercus phellos) and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana).
3.1.3 Successional Pine Forest (Pine Plantation)
A Successional Pine Forest is found in the forested portion of the project study
area. The dominant canopy species is loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Understory species
include red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), red maple (Acer
rubrum) and flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida). Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) is a
common vine in these forests.
3.1.4 Xeric Sandhill Scrub
These dry uplands are dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). Understory
species include turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and post oak (Q. stellata). Herbaceous species
include wire grass (Aristida stricta), poison oak (Toxicodendron pubescens) and wire plant
(Stipulicida setacea) and tread softly (Cnidoscolus stimulosus)
3.1. 5 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - Blackwater Subtype
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Forests surrounding Drowning Creek
include canopy species such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweet gum (Liquidambar styrac flua) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Shrubby
species include coastal sweet pepperbush (Clethra acuminata), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
and inkberry (Ilex glabra). Herbaceous species such as cinnamon fern (Osmunda
9
cinnamomea) and netted chainfern (Woodwardia cinnamomea) were observed and
blaspheme vine (Smilax laurifolia) was common throughout.
3.1.6 Streamhead Pocosin
One relatively small area classified as Streamhead Pocosin occurs adjacent to the
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The area is characterized by a dense thicket of shrubs
such as fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), titi (Cyrilla
racemiflora) and switch cane (Arundinaria tecta). Blaspheme vine (Smilax laurifolia) is
also common in the understory. Canopy species include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and red maple (Acer
rubrum).
3.1.7 Wildlife
A variety of animal species inhabit the areas adjacent to the proposed project.
Mammals commonly found in these communities include Virginia opossum* (Didelphis
virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus palustris). Avian
species found in the project area include song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and turkey vulture (Cathartes
aura). Red cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) are found in the pine forests of the
project study area. Reptilian species often found in this area include the eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis).
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential
impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted
and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as
well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.21 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus, the loss of community area.
Table 1 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction for each alignment. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts were
derived based on a project length of 9.4 mi. (15 km), and a proposed right-of-way width of
10
150 ft. Based on these numbers, the entire project area, including existing roadway is
approximately 170 acres. In general, community impacts will be similar regardless of
whether the road is widened to the north, south or symmetrically. Since project
construction often does not require the entire right-of-way, actual impacts will likely be
considerably less than those quoted in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
COMMUNITY IMPACTED AREA, ACRES (HECTARES)
East Side West Side Symmetrical
Widening Widening Widening
Maintained Lawn 80.0 (32.4) 60.7 (24.6) 70.4 (28.5)
Roadside Shoulder* 11.4 (4.6) 11.4 (4.6) 11.4 (4.6)
Successional Pine Forest* 21.0 (8.5) 12.1 (4.9) 16.6 (6.7)
Xeric Sandhill Scrub 4.4(l.8) 30.9 (12.5) 17.7 (7.2)
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp* 4.4(l.8) 4.4(l.8) 4.4(l.8)
Streamhead Pocosin* 4.4(l.8) 0(0) 2.2 (0.9)
Total Impacts 125.6 (50.9) 119.5 (48.4) 122.7 (49.7)
* At least a portion of this community may be considered jurisdictional wetland
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Communities
This project will impact several wetlands located near the northern end of the
project. Most of these wetlands are associated with Drowning Creek.
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues
4.1 Waters of the United States
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 (CRF) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands 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). Surface waters include all standing or flowing
waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified
based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded
conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. This project crosses Drowning Creek and its
associated wetlands. Approximately 3.6 ac (1.45 ha) of jurisdictional wetland was
identified in the study corridor. Wetlands were identified along the Roadside Shoulder as
well as in the Successional Pine Forests, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and the
11
Streamhead Pocosin communities. These communities are described in sections 3.1.2,
3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.1.6 of this report. Wetland impacts are summarized in Table 2.
Total avoidance of wetlands is not feasible. Wetland areas are located on both sides of
existing US 1 at Drowning Creek (see Figure 5). Bridging all of the wetlands immediately
adjacent to Drowning Creek is not feasible due to design considerations and cost. A sag
vertical curve would be required on the bridge in order to completely span the wetlands
north of the creek. A sag vertical curve is undesirable on a bridge due to drainage
considerations and the increased potential for icing. Eliminating the vertical curve would
require a major adjustment to the grade on the existing multi-lane section of US 1 north of
the project limits. A horizontal curve would be required on the bridge in order to
completely span all of the wetlands to the south of the creek. Combining a tangent section
with a horizontal curve is not desirable on a bridge because of the required superelevation
transition at each end of the curve. Steeper side slopes (2:1) will be utilized through all
wetlands along the project in order to reduce impacts.
Table 2. Anticipated wetland impacts.
SITE COMMUNITY TYPE AREA
IA Coastal Plain Small Stream 0.1 ac (0.04 ha)
Swamp
I B Successional Pine Forest 0.2 ac (0.08 ha)
2 Coastal Plain Small Stream 0.1 ac (0.04 ha)
Swamp
3 Streamhead Pocosin <0.01 ac (0.004 ha)
4 Coastal Plain Small Stream 3.2 ac (1.29 ha)
Swamp
Total 3.6 ac (1.45 ha)
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters were calculated based on the linear ft. of the
stream that is located within the proposed right-of-way. No more than 150 linear ft. (18 m)
of Drowning Creek could be impacted by this project. Physical aspects of these surface
waters are described in section 2.3.1.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
An Individual Section 404 Permit is likely to be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, due to project impacts to wetlands and surface waters.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
t
12
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section 401
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization and 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 he 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 considered sequentially.
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.
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
to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in 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 loss 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 all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.1 ac (0.04 ha) of
wetlands and/or more than 150.0 linear ft. (46 m) of streams. Since impacts to Drowning
Creek should not be more than 150 feet, it is not anticipated that stream mitigation will be
required for this project. Wetland impacts will be well over 0.1 ac (0.04 ha) and mitigation
will likely be required. NCDOT is currently exploring on-site mitigation potential on the
13
property that surrounds both the east and west sides of US 1 between the northern end of
the project and Drowning Creek. Negotiations with the property owner have begun and its
appears that he is interested in selling the land for conservation/wetland mitigation use.
This parcel would include mitigation in the form of preservation and enhancement. 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 human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires
that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected be
subject to review by the 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, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under the provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 20
December 1999, the FWS lists five federally protected species Moore County and five
species for Richmond County. Due to overlap of some species being listed for both
counties, a total of seven species are listed for these two counties (Table 2). A brief
description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for each species along with a
biological conclusion regarding potential project impacts follows.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Moore and Richmond Counties.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS COUNTY
Acipenser brevirostrum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Notropis mekistocholas
Picoides borealis
Lysimachia asperifolia
Rhus michauxii
Schwalbea americana
Shortnose sturgeon
bald eagle
Cape Fear shiner
red-cockaded woodpecker
rough-leaved loosestrife
Michaux's sumac
American chaffseed
E R
T R
E M
E M, R
E M, R
E M
E M
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
forseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"M" denotes that the species is listed for Moore County.
14

"R" denotes that the species is listed for Richmond County.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon)
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Federally Listed: 11 March 19/67; Endangered
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
This project crosses Drowning Creek, a tributary to the Lumber River. The
shortnose sturgeon is found in the lower reaches of the Lumber River but not as far inland as
Drowning Creek. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species
and unique habitats was checked on 19 June 2000 and no populations were reported from the
project study area. This project will not affect the shortnose sturgeon.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: 11 March 1967; Threatened
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The
body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close 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.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
This project crosses Drowning Creek, a tributary to the Lumber River. The river is
very narrow within the project study area and the adjacent forest forms a closed canopy over
15
the river. There is no good habitat for bald eagle foraging in the project study area. There
are no large lakes in close proximity to the project. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was checked on 19 June 2000 and no
populations were reported from the project study area. This project will not affect the bald
eagle.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner)
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Federally Listed: 26 September 1987; Endangered
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow. Its body is flushed with
a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins are
yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upperlip is black and the lower lip has a black bar
along its margin.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder substrates.
It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with water
willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater, among large rock outcrops and
in flooded side channels and pools. The Cape Fear shiner is thought to feed on bottom
detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes. Captive specimens feed readily on plant and animal
material.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in North Carolina. The strongest
population of the Cape Fear shiner is in Chatham and Lee counties from the Locksville dam
upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek. Another population is located above the Rocky
River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third population is found in the Deep
River system in Randolph and Moore counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
This project crosses Drowning Creek, a tributary to the Lumber River and part of the
Lumber River Basin. The Cape Fear shiner is only known from the Cape Fear River
Drainage Basin. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on 19 June 2000 and no populations were reported from the
project study area. This project will not affect the Cape Fear Shiner.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970; Endangered
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.
16
f
v
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
200.0 ha (500.0 ac). 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 in (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 in (30.0-50.0 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: Not Likely To Adversely Affect
NCDOT contracted Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. to conduct red cockaded
woodpecker surveys within one-half mile of the proposed project corridor. Three inactive
RCW clusters were located within this corridor. Since the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission/Sandhills Game Land (SGL) is managing one of the sites (A58) as a
recruitment cluster for their population goal, a foraging analysis was conducted to assess
impacts from this project. The pre-project foraging habitat totals in SGL A58 were 14,495.1
sq. ft. of pine BA and 15,103.0 pine stems greater than 10 inches dbh. This project will
remove approximately 8.6 acres of foraging substrate associated with the inactive cluster
(SGL 58). The post-project foraging habitat totals for SGL 58 are 14,066.8 sq. ft. of pine
BA and 14,669.1 pine stems greater than or equal to 10 inches dbh. Since the post project
foraging substrate totals are well above the "Blue Book" foraging habitat standards of at
least 8,490 sq. ft. of pine BA and 6,350 pine stems greater than or equal to 10 inches dbh,
this project, as designed, is "not likely to adversely affect" the RCW.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife)
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 12 June 1987; Endangered
Flowers Present: June
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 seasonally 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
17
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
Potential habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife in the form of ecotones between
longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins does not occur in the project study area. No
populations of rough-leaved loosestrife were observed during routine field surveys and
wetland delineations on this project. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database of rare species and unique habitats was checked on 19 June 2000 and no
populations were reported from the project study area. This project will not affect rough-
leaved loosestrife.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac)
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989; Endangered
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the leaves
are rounded and their edges 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
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac in the form of Xeric Sandhill Scrub and
maintained roadside occur in the project study area. Field surveys for Michaux's sumac
were conducted throughout areas of potential habitat during the course of conducting field
work on this project. Other species of Rhus and Toxicodendron were located in the project
study area, however, no Michaux's sumac plants were found. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was checked on 19 June
2000 and no populations were reported from the project study area. This project will not
affect Michaux's sumac.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed)
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991; Endangered
Flowers Present: late May-early June

18

American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only at the base (if at all).
The entire plant is pubescent, with upwardly curving hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate,
lance-shaped to elliptic and stalkless. The leaves are three veined and become progressively
smaller towards the top. It bears solitary flowers in the axils of the upper most leaves. The
purplish-yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a long narrow capsule,
enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
, American chaffseed occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained savannas,
ecotonal areas between peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems. Soils are generally
sandy, acidic, and seasonally moist to dry. Fire is important in the maintenance of open
habitat for the American chaffseed.
Biological Conclusion:
Habitat for American chaffseed in the form of moist pine flatwoods, savannas or peat
- grass-sedge ecotones does not exist in the project study area. No American chaffseed
plants were observed during field visits. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database of rare species and unique habitats was checked on 19 June 2000 and no
populations were reported from the project study area. This project will not affect American
chaffseed.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern
As of 20 December 1999, the FWS lists 26 Federal Species of Concern for Moore
County (Table 3) and 17 Federal Species of Concern for Richmond County (Table 4). A
review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 15 June 2000
indicated that no occurrences of FSC species are known from the project study area.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Moore County.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC HABITA
STATUS T
Aimophila aestivalis
Heterodon simus
Moxostoma sp.
Moxostoma robustum
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus
Alasmidonta varicosa
Atrytone arogos arogos
Fusconaia masoni
Gomphus parvidens carolinus
No Effect
Bachman's sparrow SC Y
Southern hognose snake SR/PSC Y
Carolina redhorse SR N
Robust redhorse SC N
Northern pine snake SC* Y
Brook floater T/PE N
Arogos skipper SR N
Atlantic pigtoe T/PE Y
Sandhills clubtail SR Y
dragonfly
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE Y
Amorpha georgiana var. Georgia indigo-bush E N
19
georgiana
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Y
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC N
Kalmia cuneata White wicky E-SC Y
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T Y
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E Y
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil C Y
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane W1 Y
Parthenium radfordii Wavyleaf wild quinine W1 Y
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed C* Y
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. Sandhills pyxie-moss E Y
brevistyla
Rhynchospora crinipes Alabama beaksedge E Y
Rudbeckia heliopsidis Sun-facing coneflower E Y
Solidago verna Spring-flowering T Y
goldenrod
Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickering's dawnflower E Y
pickeringii
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed C Y
grass
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout
its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the
country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more
common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"W 1 "--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is
relatively well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.

20
D

Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Richmond County.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC
STATUS HABITA
T
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Y
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) Rafinesque's big-eared SC/PT ** Y
rafinesquii bat
Etheostoma collis collis Carolina darter SC N
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR/PSC Y
*
Moxostoma sp. Carolina redhorse SR N
Moxostroma robustum Robust redhorse SC N
Pituophis melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC Y
melanoleucus
Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos skipper SR** N
Amorpha georgiana var. Georgia indigo-bush E* N
georgiana
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Y
Kalmia cuneata White wicky E-SC Y
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T* Y
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E Y
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed C Y
Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickering's dawnflower E Y
pickeringii
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C Y
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed C Y
grass
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout
its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the
country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
21
habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more
common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P-"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
* * -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.

22

5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC
NCDEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality
Review 1983-1986. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, NC
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams:
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality,
1983-1990. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
NC
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River
Basins. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC
NCDWQ. 1999. http://esb.ehnr.state.nc.usBAUwww/benthosdata.pdf.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC
23
s,
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC
USDA. 1991. North Carolina State List of Hydric Soils By County. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
i
24
Department of Enviri m. ent and Natural Resources
Office of Legislate Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: Ccwnty: iG ohs C. Date Received: Date Response Due ( deadline):
dl - 0z;01 _TA mom- 4 Q\ ?0 1
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville A% t & Water ? Marine Fisheries

ayetteville ater ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville oundwater tldlife --a-Water ater Resources

? Raleigh ? Quality Engineer --environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant rest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem ks & Recreation ? Other
ater Quality 7
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-OfURegion: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable) & ' VSs -A/6, Avte4
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments
TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
r r r
us 1
From SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
TIP Project Number R-2502

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways

In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
The following person may be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
APPROVED:
r
iz 4'goe-
Date William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
US 1
From SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
TIP Project Number R-2502
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
J es A. McInnis Jr., P.E.
Project Development Engineer ?.•``'????????'''??.,
,•????????SSIpN' s
/oZP. Hanson, P. z •'•.;? GI N?:••r,'
Project Development Unit Head.' ?'"?'''• ???'
A. Nc1?•'
? •28-?d
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... I
1. Type of Action ............................................................................................................................................ i
2. Additional Information ............................................................................................................................... i
3. Permits Required ........................................................................................................................................ i
4. Project Purpose/Description of Action ....................................................................................................... i
5. Needs to be Addressed by Project ............................................................................................................. ii
6. Summary of Environmental Effects .......................................................................................................... ii
7. Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................................... iii
8. Coordination ............................................................................................................................................. iii
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ....................................................................................................................... tv
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................I
.........................................................................
Project Purpose
A ........................................................1
.........
.
B. General Description ........................................................................... ........................................................1
C. Cost Estimates ................................................................................... .........................................................1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT ..................................................................... .........................................................2
A. Description of Existing Facility ........................................................ .........................................................2
1. Route Classification ...................................................................... .........................................................2
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility ...................................... .........................................................2
a. Roadway Cross-section ....................................................................... ...............................................................2
b. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ..................................................... ...............................................................2
c. Right of Way and Access Control ....................................................... ...............................................................3
d. Speed Limit ......................................................................................... ...............................................................3
e. Intersections ........................................................................................ ...............................................................3
f. Railroad Crossings ............................................................................... ...............................................................3
g. Structures ........................................................................................... ................................................................3
3
h. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks ................................................. ................................................................
i. Utilities ................................................................................................ ................................................................4
3. School Bus Usage ........................................................................ ..........................................................4
4. Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... ..........................................................4
5. Other Highway Projects in the Area ............................................ ..........................................................4
6. Airports ........................................................................................ ..........................................................4
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility ...................................................... ..........................................................5
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity ............................................................ ..........................................................5
2. Accident Record .......................................................................... ..........................................................5
3. Vertical Alignment ...................................................................... ..........................................................6
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ............................................................ ..........................................................6
1. Capacity ....................................................................................... ..........................................................6
2. Safe 6
3. Other Benefits .............................................................................. ..........................................................7
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................... ..........................................................7
A. Roadway Cross-section ................................................................... ..........................................................7
B. Alignment ........................................................................................ ..........................................................8
C. Right of Way and Access Control .................................................. ...........................................................8
D. Speed Limit ..................................................................................... ...........................................................9
E. Design Speed ................................................................................... ...........................................................9
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions ....................................................... ...........................................................9
G. Intersections/Interchanges .............................................................. ...........................................................9
H. Median Crossovers ..................................................................................................................................10
1. Railroad Crossings ....................................................................................................................................10
J. Structures ..................................................................................................................................................10
K. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks .......................................................................................................11
L. Utilities .....................................................................................................................................................11
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................11
A. Existing Facility Widening Alternatives ..................................................................................................1 l
B. Bypass Alternative ...................................................................................................................................13
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation .................................. ........................................................................14
D. "No-Build" Alternative .................................................... ........................................................................14
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................15
A. Natural Resources ............................................................ ........................................................................15
1. Biotic Resources .......................................................... ........................................................................15
a. Biotic Communities .......................................................... ................................................................................15
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects ...................................... ................................................................................16
2. Water Resources .......................................................... ........................................................................17
3. Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.) ..................................... ........................................................................18
4. Rare and Protected Species .......................................... ........................................................................20
a. Federally-Protected Species ............................................. ................................................................................20
b. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species ....... ................................................................................22
B. Cultural Resources ........................................................... ........................................................................24
1. Historic Architectural Resources .........................................................................................................24
2. Archaeological Resources ....................................................................................................................24
C. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ......................................................................................................24
D. Land Use .......................................................................... ........................................................................25
E. Farmland .......................................................................... ........................................................................25
F. Forestland ........................................................................ .........................................................................25
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ................................................ .........................................................................26
H. Traffic Noise Analysis .................................................... .........................................................................26
1. Air Quality Analysis ......................................................... .........................................................................27
J. Hazardous Materials ........................................................ .........................................................................28
K. Geodetic Survey Markers ............................................... .........................................................................28
L. Public Facilities/Emergency Services ............................. .........................................................................29
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ....................... .........................................................................29
A. Citizens Informational Workshop ................................... .........................................................................29
B. Public Hearing ................................................................ .........................................................................30
C. Agency Coordination ...................................................... .........................................................................30
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Proposed Improvements
Figure 3A Proposed Typical Section For US 1
Figure 3B Typical Section on Proposed Structures
Figure 4 2005/2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 Wetlands/Streams/Floodplains in Project Area
Figure 6 Water Supply Watersheds and HQW Zones in
Project Area
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Comments Received
Appendix B - NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Report
Appendix C - Highway Traffic Noise Analysis Tables
Appendix D - Potentially Contaminated Properties in Project Area
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 - Existing Bridge Structure ................................................................................ 3
Table 2 - Proposed Right of Way Dimensions ................................................................ 9
Table 3 - Proposed Bridge Structures ............................................................................. 10
Table 4 - Widening Alternatives Examined .................................................................... 11
Table 5 - Anticipated Effects on Terrestrial Communities ............................................. 17
Table 6 - Anticipated Effects on Wetlands .................................................................... 19
Table 7 - Federally Protected Species in Richmond and Moore Counties ...................... 20
Table 8 - Federal Species of Concern/State-Listed Species in Richmond and Moore
Counties ........................................................................................................... 23
Table 9 - One Hour CO Concentrations for Nearest Sensitive Receptor ........................ 28

SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Type of Action
This is a State Environmental Assessment prepared in compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
2. Additional Information
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
3. Permits Required
An Individual Section 404 Permit is likely to be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, due to impacts to wetlands and surface waters (see Section V-A-3).
A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404 Individual
Permit.
4. Project Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the capacity and safety of US
within the project limits.
The proposed project involves widening existing US 1 to multi-lanes from just
south of SR 1001 (Marston Road) in Richmond County to the existing multi-lanes just
north of the Moore County line, a distance of approximately 8.3 miles (see Figure 1).
Partial control of access will be obtained for portions of US 1 to be widened to four lanes
with a 46-foot median (see Figure 3A), except in the vicinity of Drowning Creek, where
full control of access is proposed. No control of access is proposed for other portions of
the project.
5. Needs to be Addressed by Project
This project is intended to address the following deficiencies of the existing
roadway:
Insufficient traffic carrying capacity. With no improvements, US 1 within the
project limits will operate at Level of Service F in the design year 2025 (see
Section II-B-1).
• Higher fatal accident rate than statewide average. For the period examined,
US 1 within the project limits had a fatal accident rate over twice the statewide
average for similar facilities (see Section II-13-2).
• Substandard vertical alignment. The vertical alignment of some sections of
US 1 within the project limits does not meet a 60 MPH design speed. This
restricts stopping sight distance (see Section II-B-3).
6. Summary of Environmental Effects
The proposed project will require the relocation of 17 homes and 10 businesses.
The project will affect approximately 126 acres of terrestrial habitats, at least 91 acres of
which are previously disturbed habitats. The project will affect approximately 3.6 acres of
wetlands, but will not affect any jurisdictional streams.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with a biological conclusion of
"not likely to adversely effect" for project effects on the federally-listed red-cockaded
woodpecker. "No effect" determinations have been made for all other protected species.
Traffic noise impacts are expected for 40 homes and 4 businesses by the design
year 2025; however, noise abatement measures are not considered appropriate.
No properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places will
be affected by the project. Two archaeological sites will be evaluated further to determine
their significance following right of way acquisition for the project.
ii
7. Alternatives Considered
Widening the existing roadway, construction on new location, alternate modes of
transportation and the "no-build" alternative were considered as alternatives for the
proposed project (see Section IV). Widening the existing roadway was chosen as the
preferred alternative because it serves the purpose and need of the project while
minimizing costs and environmental impacts. Construction of a roadway on new location
would be more expensive and more environmentally damaging. Alternate modes or the
"no-build" alternative would not effectively serve the project purpose and need.
Several widening alternatives were investigated for the project. These alternatives
are discussed in Section IV-A.
8. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local officials were consulted regarding this
project:
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
Military Traffic Management Command
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Richmond County
Town of Hoffman
iii
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 1
From SR 1001(Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
TIP Project Number R-2502
Geotechnical Unit
The proposed project will likely require right of way from 11 properties
potentially contaminated with hazardous materials. Preliminary site assessments to
identify the nature and extent of any contamination will be performed on these sites prior
to right of way acquisition.
Roadway Design Unit
During project design, efforts will be made to reduce the project's effects on
existing development, particularly area churches and the Marston station of the Hoffman
Fire and Rescue Department.
A median break will be provided in front of the Marston station of the Hoffman
Fire and Rescue Department, at each of the entrances to the Sandhills Game Land Depot
and at the SR 1475 intersection with US 1, in order to allow emergency vehicles to make
direct left turns onto US 1.
Division Eight
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal.
During construction of the project, the driveway to the Marston and Hoffman
stations of the Hoffman Fire and Rescue Department, the two entrances to the Sandhills
Game Land Depot, and the intersection of SR 1475 with US 1 will not be blocked by
• materials or unattended equipment. The contractor for the project will be required to
maintain a driveway for the two fire stations and for the Sandhills Game Land Depot at
all times during project construction:
Environmental Assessment - R-2502
September, 2000
iv
Page 1 of 2
Roadside Environmental Unit/Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A
NCAC 04B .0024) (HQW standards) throughout design and construction of the portion of
the project north of SR 1004 (Bostick Road).
A hazardous spill catch basin will be required at the Drowning Creek crossing.
The use of turbidity curtains during in-stream work will be studied during
development of erosion control plans for the project and curtains will be utilized if it is
determined they will be effective in the conditions found in Drowning Creek.
Project Development.and Environmental Analysis Branch
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested additional work be
conducted on two archaeological sites in the project area in order to determine whether or
not the sites are eligible for the National Register. Due to landowner objections and the
extent of the additional work requested, this work can not be performed until after
NCDOT has acquired right of way in this area. NCDOT will reevaluate the project's
possible effects on these sites when the final design plans are completed and the permit
areas are defined. At that time, NCDOT will consult with the SHPO and with any federal
permitting agencies and other consulting parties if appropriate, and perform additional
archaeological investigations on these two sites prior to project construction.
Environmental Assessment - R-2502 Page 2 of 2
September, 2000 .
v
US 1
From SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties'
State Project 6.589009T
TIP Project Number R-2502
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the capacity and safety of US
within the project limits.
B. General Description
The proposed project involves the widening of a portion of existing US 1 to
multi-lanes. The project extends from just south of SR 1001 (Marston Road) in
Richmond County to the existing four lanes in Moore County. The project length is
approximately 8.3 miles (see Figure 1). Partial and full control of access will be obtained
for portions of the project (see Section III-C). All intersecting roadways will cross US 1
at-grade; no grade separations or interchanges are proposed.
The project is included in the draft 2002-2008 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program. Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled for state
fiscal years 2003 and 2005, respectively.
C. Cost Estimates
The total estimated costs for TIP Project R-2502 are as follows:
Construction $24,900,000
Right of Way Acquisition $6,225,000
Wetland Mitigation $173,000
Total Cost $31,298,000
The cost estimate included in the draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
for the project is $24,000,000. Of this total, $2,200,000 is estimated for right of way
acquisition and $21,800,000 is estimated for construction.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
1. Route Classification
US 1 within the project limits is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial-Other in
the North Carolina Functional Classification System. US 1 is designated an Intrastate
Corridor for its entire length within North Carolina.
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility
a. Roadway Cross-section
Existing US 1 south of the project limits is a three-lane roadway. The roadway
has 12-foot lanes and 10-foot shoulders, four feet of which are paved.
Within the project limits, existing US 1 has two typical sections. Between
SR 1001 (Marston Road) and SR 1004 (Bostick Road), existing US 1 is a three-lane
roadway, with 12-foot lanes. Shoulder widths vary between 10 to 12 feet. A two-foot
paved shoulder is provided on both sides of the roadway. From SR 1001 to
approximately 3,500 feet north of SR 1603 (Old Laurel Hill Road), the center turn lane is
utilized as a two-way left turn lane. From north of SR 1603 to SR 1004, the center lane is
utilized as a passing lane, with passing opportunities alternating between northbound and
southbound traffic.
Between SR 1004 and the four-lane section north of the Moore County line,
existing US 1 is a two-lane roadway, with 12-foot lanes and 12-foot shoulders, four feet
of which are paved.
North of the project limits, existing US 1 is a four-lane divided roadway with a
68-foot grassed median. The roadway has 12-foot lanes with 14-foot inside and outside
shoulders, two feet of which are paved.
b. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal alignment of existing US 1 within the project limits meets a
60 MPH design speed. The vertical alignment, however, does not meet a 60 MPH design
speed in several locations, particularly just north of Hoffman.
2
c. Right of Way and Access Control
Approximately 60 to 100 feet of right of way exists along US 1 within the project
limits. No control of access exists along US 1 within the project limits. Partial control of
access exists along US 1 north of the project limits.
• d. Speed Limit
A 55 MPH speed limit exists along US 1 within the project limits.
e. Intersections
At-grade intersections exist at all roadways crossing US 1 within the project
limits. All of the intersections along this section of US 1 are stop-sign controlled, none
are signalized.
f. Railroad Crossings
No railroad crossings are located along US 1 within the project limits. Railroad
tracks owned by CSX Transportation parallel US 1 to the east. These tracks are located
within approximately 40 feet of the existing edge of pavement of US 1 within Hoffman.
No construction is allowed within 25 feet of the near rail of the railroad tracks in this
area.
g. Structures
One bridge structure exists along US 1 within the project limits. Table 1 below
describes this existing bridge.
TABLE 1
EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE

Clear
Bridge Carries/ Roadway Year Suff.
No. Crosses Width Length Built *Rtg.
42 US 1/ 25.9' 298' 1923 50.9
Drowning Creek
* Sufficiency Rating (out of a possitne i uu rating points.
h. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
The subject section of US 1 passes through a predominately rural area. No special
bicycle or pedestrian provisions exist along US 1 within the project limits.
3
i. Utilities
Waterlines run parallel to or cross existing US 1 at several locations within the
project limits. A waterline crosses Drowning Creek above ground on the east side of
us 1.
A fiber-optic cable and a gas line are located on the east side of US I. Overhead
power and telephone lines run parallel to or cross US 1 at several locations within the
project limits, as well. An underground power line runs on the west side of US 1 between
Marston and Hoffman.
3. School Bus Usage
Fifteen school buses use the section of US 1 through Hoffman twice daily.
4. Traffic Volumes
Traffic projections were prepared for the subject section of US 1 for the years
2005 and 2025. In the year 2005, average daily traffic along US 1 within the project
limits will range between 10,600 to 11,000 vehicles per day. In 2025, average daily
traffic along US 1 will range between 16,400 to 17,200 vehicles per day. Figure 4
presents traffic volumes and turning movements along US 1 and crossing roadways
within the project limits.
5. Other Highway Projects in the Area
One other highway project is located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project. TIP Project R-2501 will improve the capacity of the US 1 corridor from the
South Carolina State Line to SR 1001 (Marston Road). This project is currently in
development, and the final alignment has not been determined. The portion of Project
R-2501 (R-2501 C) immediately adjacent to the subject project will likely involve
widening existing US 1. Right of way acquisition and construction for Project R-2501 C
is scheduled in the draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program to begin in
fiscal years 2005 and 2008, respectively.
6. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located in the project area.
4
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity
Highway capacity analyses were performed for existing US 1 within the project
limits for the years 2005 and 2025. This analysis revealed that without the proposed
improvements, US 1 within the project limits would operate at level of service E in the
year 2005 and level of service F in the year 2025.
Capacity analyses were also performed for existing at-grade intersections along
the subject section of US 1. These analyses concluded that without the proposed
improvements, turning traffic at many of the at-grade intersections along US 1 would
experience excessive delay in the years 2005 and 2025.
2. Accident Record
An accident study was performed for US 1 within the project limits for the period
between January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997. During this time, 76 accidents occurred
along the subject section of US 1. Of this total, three accidents resulted in fatalities and
35 accidents resulted in non-fatal injuries. These accidents resulted in an estimated
$360,500 in property damage.
Striking animals (20), running off the road (18), and rear-end collisions (17) were
the most frequent types of accidents to occur along the subject section of US 1 within the
study period.
The total crash rate for US 1 within the project limits for the study period was
119.23 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles and the fatal crash rate was 4.71 accidents
per 100 million vehicle miles. In comparison, the statewide crash rate for rural two-lane
US routes between 1995-1997 was 194.93 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles and
the fatal crash rate was 2.58 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles, while the total and
fatal crash rate for rural three-lane US routes was 186.05 and 1.89 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles, respectively.
As the above statistics show, the subject section of US 1 has a lower total crash
rate than the statewide average for similar routes, but a substantially higher fatal crash
rate.
3. Vertical Alignment
As stated previously, the vertical alignment of portions of existing US 1 does not
meet a 60 MPH design speed. This substandard vertical alignment restricts sight distance
along the roadway and increases the potential for accidents.
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
1. Capacity
The proposed project will increase the traffic carrying capacity of the subject
section of US 1. With the proposed project, US 1 within the project limits will operate at
level of service A in the year 2005 and level of service B in the year 2025.
The project will also reduce delay at intersections along US 1 within the project
limits. The dual lanes per direction provided by the project will increase the number of
gaps in through traffic on US 1 available for turning traffic to use, reducing delay. In
addition, the proposed 46-foot median north of Hoffman will allow traffic to cross or turn
left onto US 1 in stages, also reducing delay.
2. Safe
As discussed in Section II-13-2 above, the subject section of US 1 has a fatal crash
rate substantially higher than the statewide fatal crash rate for similar facilities. One of
the fatal accidents along US 1 within the project limits was a head-on collision. One of
the fatal accidents involved a pedestrian, and the remaining one occurred at an
intersection.
The proposed dual lanes per direction will allow vehicles to pass slower moving
vehicles without having to encroach in the opposing traffic lanes. The proposed median
will reduce the likelihood of head-on collisions by providing a separation between
opposing traffic lanes.
Left turn lanes will be provided in the median at all median crossovers. These left
turn lanes will prevent left turning traffic from having to stop in the through lanes,
reducing the likelihood of rear-end collisions.
Right turn lanes or right turn tapers will be provided where warranted. These turn
lanes and tapers will allow right turning traffic to move out of the through lanes to
complete a turn, reducing the likelihood of rear-end collisions.
6
The vertical alignment of US 1 will be improved by the proposed project. As
stated previously, the vertical alignment does not currently meet a 60 MPH design speed
in several locations. In these locations, stopping sight distance along the roadway is less
than desirable. The proposed project will increase stopping sight distance in these areas.
3. Other Benefits
The proposed widening of US 1 will reduce delay for roadway users, resulting in
lower roadway user costs.
The North Carolina Motor Speedway is located on US 1 approximately 1.5 miles
south of the proposed project. Currently, on race weekends, the center lane on US 1 is
utilized as an outbound through lane for northbound traffic leaving the speedway. The
center lane ends at SR 1004 (Bostick Road), leaving only one lane available to carry
outbound traffic. Although the proposed project is intended to address the needs of daily
traffic along US 1 and not the extraordinary traffic demands of a special event at the
speedway, the proposed additional lanes will reduce congestion along US 1 due to race
traffic.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-section
Several different cross-sections are proposed for US 1 within the project limits in
order to accommodate existing roadside development and minimize project impacts.
Figure 3A shows the proposed typical sections for the project.
From SR 1001 to SR 1603 through the town of Marston, US 1 will be widened to
four lanes separated by a 16-foot raised median with mountable curb and gutter on the
outside (see Figure 3A).
From SR 1603 to SR 1475, US 1 will be widened to four lanes separated by a
16-foot raised median with 10-foot outside shoulders, four feet of which will be paved
(see Figure 3A).
From SR 1475 to SR 1600 through the town of Hoffman, both a four-lane median
divided section and a five-lane undivided section are being considered (see Figure 3A).
A 16-foot raised median would be provided with the four-lane alternative. Mountable
curb and gutter and eight foot berms would be provided on the outside with both
alternatives. A decision will be made regarding the design of the project through
Hoffman following the public hearing for the project. The recommended design will be
discussed in the final environmental document for the project.
7
From SR 1600 to the existing four lanes north of the Moore County line, US 1
will be widened to four lanes separated by a 46-foot grassed median with 10-foot outside
shoulders, four feet of which will be paved (see Figure 3A).
B. Alignment
From SR 1001 to SR 1603 through the Town of Marston, the majority of the
proposed widening will be performed on the eastern side of US 1, in order to minimize
impacts to homes and businesses in Marston.
From SR 1603 to SR 1475, the proposed new lanes will be constructed on the
west side of US 1.
From SR 1475 to SR 1600 through the town of Hoffman, the proposed widening
will be performed predominately on the western side of US 1, due to the proximity of the
railroad to existing US 1. No construction is allowed within 25 feet of the near rail of the
railroad.
From SR 1600 to Special Forces Way, the proposed new lanes will be constructed
on the east side of existing US 1. From Special Forces Way to the existing four lanes, the
new lanes will be constructed on the west side of existing US 1, in order to match the
alignment of the existing multi-lane section of US 1 north of the Moore County line.
C. Right of Way and Access Control
Additional right of way will be required along US 1 for the majority of the project
(see Figure 2). Temporary easements will be required in some areas, as well. Proposed
right of way for the project varies according to the different cross-sections proposed along
us 1.
Table 2 below presents proposed right of way dimensions and type of access
control proposed for the project.
8
TABLE 2
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DIMENSIONS

Section Minimum
Proposed
Right of Way
Type of
Access Control
SR 1001 to SR 1603 1001* None
SR 1603 to SR 1475 150' None
SR 1475 to SR 1600 1001* None
SR 1600 to Existing 4-lanes 200' Partial (Full at Creek)
*Total right of way width following construction of the project may be greater
than 100 feet in some locations due to the proximity of the railroad to existing
us 1.
The location of access points along portions of the project with partial control of
access will be determined during the design phase of the project.
D. Speed Limit
A 45 MPH speed limit is anticipated for portions of US 1 where curb and gutter is
to be constructed on the outside. A 55 MPH speed limit is anticipated for portions of
US 1 where shoulders are proposed.
E. Design Speed
A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project with outside grass
shoulders, and a 50 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project with curb
and gutter on the outside.
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions
it is anticipated no design exceptions will be required for the subject project.
G. Intersections/Interchanges
All current at-grade intersections within the project limits will remain at-grade.
Left turn lanes will be provided at all intersections with median crossovers. Right turn
lanes or tapers will be provided, where warranted.
No traffic signals are proposed at any of the intersections along the project.
9
H. Median Crossovers
Median crossovers are proposed at most intersections of state-maintained roads
with US 1. As discussed in Section III-G, left-turn lanes will be provided in the median
at all median crossovers. Final determinations regarding median crossover locations will
be made during the design phase of the project.
1. Railroad Crossings
As discussed previously, US 1 within the project limits runs parallel to the CSX
Transportation rail line from beyond the southern project limits at SR 1001 (Marston
Road) to west of SR 1528 (Vincent Gibson Avenue). There are no railroad crossings on
US 1 within the project limits; however, there are several at-grade railroad crossings on
state maintained roads which intersect US 1 in the study area. The proposed project will
have no direct impact on these crossings, the proposed widening in some areas has been
shifted further away from the railroad tracks in order to provide room for a vehicle to stop
at the intersection with US 1 and not encroach upon the tracks.
J. Structures
Two new bridge structures will be constructed to carry US 1 across Drowning
Creek. One new structure will be constructed west of the existing bridge at Drowning
Creek, traffic will be shifted temporarily onto the new bridge, then the existing bridge
will be removed and the second new bridge will be constructed at the same location as the
existing bridge.
Figure 3B presents the typical section on the proposed structures. The structures
are described in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3
PROPOSED BRIDGE STRUCTURES
Proposed
Clear Rdwy. Proposed
Carries/Crosses Width Length
*US 1 NB lanes/Drowning Creek 36' 400'
US 1 SB lanes/Drowning Creek 36' 430'
*Replacement for existing bridge.
Existing culverts and pipes located along US 1 within the project limits will be
extended in order to accommodate the proposed new lanes. No new pipes larger than 72
inches or culverts are proposed. Exact hydraulic requirements for the project will be
determined during the design phase.
10
K. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
No special bicycle accommodations, sidewalks or other special pedestrian
accommodations are proposed. The proposed bridges will be wide enough to allow
pedestrians to cross without having to walk in the travel lane.
L. Utilities
It is anticipated the proposed project will have a low degree of utility conflict.
Utilities located within the construction limits of the proposed project will be relocated
prior to construction. During construction, care will be taken to prevent damage to
utilities located along the project, especially waterlines running parallel to and crossing
the project and the fiber-optic cable and gas line running along US 1.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Facility Widening Alternatives
Due to the differing nature of the land uses surrounding US 1, the project area was
divided into four sections and appropriate widening alternatives were examined within
each section. Table 4 below presents the different designs studied within each section.
TABLE 4
WIDENING ALTERNATIVES EXAMINED
Section Alternative Homes Businesses Wetlands
SR 1001 to SR 1603 Design 1 2 2 0
Design 2 2 2 0
SR 1603 to SR 1475 Design 3 0 1 0
Design 4 0 1 0
SR 1475 to SR 1600 Design 1 2 3 0
Design 2 3 3 0
SR 1600 to Exist. 4-
Lanes Design 3 6 3 2.6 ac
Design 5 12 4 3.6 ac
The different alternative designs are shown below.
100' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
64'
2'
(FACE TO FACE F URB)
12' 12' 12' 12' 12'
4
B'
2'
SOUTHBOUND CENTER NORTHBOUND
LANES TURNING
LANES
DESIGN 1
FIVE LANES WITH CURB AND GUTTER
100' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
B' 12' 12' 12' 12' B'

-
2' 4 ? ? ? f ? f 16'
SOUTHBOUND RAISED MEDIAN NORTHBOUND
LANES LANES
DESIGN 2
11 FOUR LANES WITH 16' MEDIAN
AND CURB AND GUTTER
150' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
16'
12' 12' RAISED MEDIAN 12' 12'
10' 10'
4' PAVED SHOULDER SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 4' PAVED SHOULDER
LANES LANES
DESIGN 3
FOUR LANES WITH 16' MEDIAN
AND 10' SHOULDERS
200' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
12' 12' 30' 12' T12'
10' 10'
?i SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND
4' PAVED SHOULDER LANES LANES 4' PAVED SHOULDER
DESIGN 4
FOUR LANES WITH 30' MEDIAN
AND 10' SHOULDERS
200' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
U, 12' 4b'
GRA SED MEDIAN
10' 10'

SOUTHBOUND \ ~' / NORTHBOUND \
4' PAVED SHOULDER LANES LANES 4' PAVED SHOULDER
2' PAVED SHOULDER
DESIGN 5
FOUR LANES WITH 46-FOOT MEDIAN
SR 1001 to SR 1603 - Design 2 Recommended
This portion of US 1 passes through the town of Marston. Homes and businesses
are located on the west side and the CSX railroad is located on the east side of US 1. The
railroad is far enough away from US 1 through Marston to permit some of the widening
to be performed towards the railroad. Four-lanes with a 16-foot raised median and curb
and gutter (Design 2), was selected for this area because of the enhanced safety provided
by the raised median.
SR 1603 to SR 1475 - Design 3 Recommended
This portion of US 1 passes through a relatively undeveloped area between
Marston and Hoffman. The Sandhills Game Land Depot is located on the west side of
US 1 within this section. The CSX railroad parallels US 1 to the east.
The 16-foot median alternative (Design 3) was chosen for this area in order to
reduce the amount of land required from the Sandhills Game Land and maintain
consistency with adjacent portions of US 1.
12
SR 1475 to SR 1600 - Designs 1 and 2 Under Consideration (Design 2 Preferred)
This portion of US 1 passes through the town of Hoffman. Homes and
businesses are located on the west side of US 1 and the CSX railroad is located on the
east side. All widening must be performed to the west due to the proximity of the
railroad. As Table 4 shows, widening US 1 to five lanes (Design 1) will require the
relocation of one fewer home than widening to four lanes with a 16-foot median (Design
2). However, with the five-lane alternative, construction will occur very close to this
home which would otherwise be relocated by the four-lane median divided alternative.
Because both alternatives would result in impacts to a number of homes and businesses in
Hoffman, both alternatives will be presented at the public hearing for the project. A
decision will be made regarding the design of the project through Hoffman following the
hearing. The recommended design will be discussed in the final environmental document
for the project.
SR 1600 to Existing Four Lanes - Design 5 Recommended
This portion of US 1 passes through a rural area north of Hoffman. No major
right of way constraints exist in this area. The CSX railroad diverges from US 1 south of
SR 1600 and is several thousand feet to the east through this section. US 1 will be
widened to four lanes with a 46-foot median (Design 5) through this area due to the lack
of right of way restrictions and the safety provided by the wider median.
Both east side and west side widening were considered for this portion of the
project. East side widening was chosen for the portion between SR 1600 and Special
Forces Way because it will affect fewer homes and businesses. West side widening will
be performed from Special Forces Way to the existing four lanes in order to match the
alignment of the existing multilane section of US 1 (see Figure 2).
B. Bypass Alternative
Construction of a bypass of Hoffman and Marston would reduce the impact of the
widening project on the residents of Hoffman and Marston, while reducing traffic through
these populated areas. A new location bypass would be four lanes with a 46-foot median
and would require at least 200 feet of right of way.
Although a bypass on new location would relocate fewer homes than widening the
existing roadway, such an alternative would affect substantially more wetlands, would
require several stream crossings, would require much more land from the Sandhills Game
Land, and would cost substantially more than widening existing US 1. Based on the fact
that there is a less expensive and less disruptive alternative (widening the existing road)
which serves the purpose and need of the project, construction of a new location bypass is
not considered a feasible alternative.
13
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The subject section of US 1 passes through a predominantly rural area. The
predominant mode of transportation in the project area is the automobile. US 1 serves
primarily intrastate traffic.
Richmond Interagency Transportation, Inc. provides human service and general
public transportation for Richmond County. Inter-city bus service is not available within
the project area. Expansion of local public transportation and establishment of inter-city
bus service would possibly reduce traffic on US 1, but not enough to eliminate the need
for the proposed project. The proposed widening will benefit van and bus public
transportation service by reducing delay and improving safety.
The CSX Transportation rail line paralleling US 1 near Hoffrnan and Marston is a
New York to Florida Amtrak passenger rail corridor. However, this rail corridor does not
serve all of the same origins and destinations as US 1. The closest existing rail stations to
the project area are at Southern Pines to the north and Hamlet to the south. Area
residents wishing to travel by train utilize US 1 for at least a part of their trip to the two
nearest rail stations.
Improvements in rail service, such as construction of a station in the project area,
would possibly divert some traffic from US 1, but not enough to eliminate the need for
the proposed project, and could potentially increase local traffic on US 1 seeking to
access the rail station. US 1 would still carry area rail travelers for a portion of the trip
from their homes to the station.
Alternate modes of transportation are not feasible alternatives to the proposed
widening.
D. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no-build" alternative avoids the anticipated environmental effects of the
proposed project. However, if the "no-build" alternative were chosen, none of the
anticipated capacity and safety benefits of the project would be realized. For this reason,
the "no-build" alternative was rejected.
14
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant plants and animals likely to occur in each community are listed. Animals
observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*).
a. Biotic Communities
Much of the animal and plant life in the project area utilize resources from
different communities, making boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to
define. The communities identified in the project study area include: maintained lawns,
roadside shoulder, successional pine forest, xeric sandhill scrub, coastal plain small
stream swamp and streamhead pocosin.
Maintained Lawns
Maintained lawns within the project study area are dominated by a variety of
native and cultivated plant species and are heavily influenced by human activity. The
herbaceous layer contains a variety of turfgrass species including fescue and bead grass.
Common landscape trees and shrubs include Longleaf pine, mimosa, red cedar, crepe
myrtle and flowering dogwood. Ornamental grasses such as pampas grass and giant reed
were also observed here.
Roadside Shoulder
Common roadside species observed along the shoulder of US 1 in the project area
include fescue, bead grass, foxtail grass, English plantain, goldenrods, Japanese
honeysuckle, braken fern, great mullein and sericea. Vines include muscadine and poison
ivy. Woody plants common along US 1 include red maple, tree of heaven, willow oak
and persimmon.
Successional Pine Forest (Pine Plantation)
A Successional Pine Forest is found in the forested portion of the project study
area. The dominant canopy species is loblolly pine. Understory species include red
cedar, winged elm, red maple and flowering dogwood. Muscadine is a common vine in
these forests.
15
Xeric Sandhill Scrub
These dry uplands are dominated by longleaf pine. Understory species include
turkey oak and post oak. Herbaceous species include wire grass, poison oak and wire
plant.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - Blackwater Subtype
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Forests surrounding Drowning Creek
include canopy species such as loblolly pine, red maple, sweet gum and bald cypress.
Shrubby species include coastal sweet pepperbush, fetterbush and inkberry. Herbaceous
species such as cinnamon fern and netted chainfern were observed.
Streamhead Pocosin
One relatively small area classified as Streamhead Pocosin occurs adjacent to the
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The area is characterized by a dense thicket of
shrubs such as fetterbush, sweet gallberry, titi and switch cane. Blaspheme vine is also
common in the understory. Canopy species include loblolly pine, tulip poplar, black gum
and red maple.
Terrestrial Wildlife
A variety of animal species inhabit areas adjacent to the project. Mammals
commonly found in these communities include Virginia opossum*, raccoon and eastern
cottontail. Avian species found in the project area include song sparrow, northern
cardinal, blue jay, Carolina wren, tufted titmouse, Carolina chickadee, American crow*
and turkey vulture. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in the pine forests of the
project study area. Reptilian species found include the eastern box turtle, rat snake and
eastern garter snake.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Table 5 presents the anticipated effects of the project on terrestrial communities.
Impacts were calculated based on preliminary designs for the project.
16
TABLE 5
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS
ON TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES

Community Approximate
Acreage Affected
Maintained Lawn 80.0
Roadside Shoulder* 11.4
Successional Pine Forest* 21.0
Xeric Sandhill Scrub 4.4
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp* 4.4
Streamhead Pocosin* 4.4
Total Impacts 125.6
At least a portion of this community may be considered
jurisdictional wetland.
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. In general, community impacts will be similar
regardless of whether the road is widened to the east, west or symmetrically. Since
project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way, actual impacts will
likely be less than those presented in Table 5.
2. Water Resources
Drowning Creek, a perennial stream in the Lumber River Drainage Basin, is the
only jurisdictional water resource crossed by the project. The creek is surrounded by a
riverine swamp forest. This section of Drowning Creek [DWQ Index No. 14-2-(6.5)] is
classified as Class WSII Sw HQW.
NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A
NCAC 04B .0024) (HQW standards) throughout design and construction of the portion of
the project north of SR 1004 (Bostick Road). Much of the land to the immediate west
side of the project lies in protected water supply watersheds and the part of the project
north of SR 1004 is in a High Quality Water (HQW) zone (see Figure 6). The project is
approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Drowning Creek water supply watershed
critical area. A hazardous spill catch-basin-will be required at the Drowning Creek
crossing.
The northern two thirds of the project lies in subbasin 03-07-50 of the Lumber
River Drainage Basin while the southern one third of the project lies in subbasin
03-07-16 of the Yadkin River Basin. The overall quality of surface waters in the Lumber
River subbasin is excellent based on benthic macroinvertebrate data. The water quality of
the Yadkin River subbasin ranges from poor to excellent based on the same criteria.
17
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network is part of an ongoing ambient
water quality monitoring program. Drowning Creek was sampled at US 1 and received a
rating of excellent based on benthic macroinvertebrates collected. The stream received
fair and good-fair ratings based on fish community data.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System database lists no permitted dischargers within one mile of the project
study area.
Project construction will likely have minimal effects on water resources in the
project area. Activities likely to cause impacts include clearing and grubbing on stream
banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement rehabilitation. These construction activities are likely to
result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction due to runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in highway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
followed to minimize the impacts of the project on water resources in the project area.
To further minimize impacts to the protected water supply watershed and high quality
water zone in the project's northern section, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds
will be followed north of SR 1004.
3. Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.)
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States." Any action proposing to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetland areas are shown on Figure 5. Table 6 below presents the anticipated
effects of the project on wetlands.
18
TABLE 6
ANTICIPATED
EFFECTS ON WETLANDS

Site
Community Type Acres
Affected
IA Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 0.1 ac
113 Successional Pine Forest 0.2 ac
2 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 0.1 ac
3 Streamhead Pocosin <0.01 ac
4 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 3.2 ac
Total 3.6 ac
Total avoidance of wetlands is not feasible. Wetland areas are located on both
sides of existing US 1 at Drowning Creek (see Figure 5). Bridging all of the wetlands
immediately adjacent to Drowning Creek is not feasible due to design considerations and
cost. A sag vertical curve would be required on the bridge in order to completely span
the wetlands north of the creek. A sag vertical curve is undesirable on a bridge due to
drainage considerations and the increased potential for icing. Eliminating the vertical
curve would require a major adjustment to the grade on the existing multi-lane section of
US 1 north of the project limits. A horizontal curve would be required on the bridge in
order to completely span all of the wetlands to the south of the creek. Combining a
tangent section with a horizontal curve is not desirable on a bridge because of the
required superelevation transition at each end of the curve.
As discussed in Section IV-A, both a 46-foot median and a 16-foot median were
studied for the portion of the project between SR 1600 and the existing four lanes north
of the Moore County line. Although the 16-foot median would affect fewer wetlands
than the 46-foot median section, the 46-foot median section will enhance safety and better"
fits the rural nature of the area. The existing four lane section of US 1 in Moore County
adjacent to the proposed project has a median wider than 46 feet.
Steeper side slopes (2:1) will be utilized through all wetlands along the project in
order to reduce impacts.
It is anticipated no stream mitigation will be required for this project. However,
wetland mitigation will likely be required. NCDOT is currently exploring on-site
mitigation potential on the property that surrounds both the east and west sides of US 1
between the northern end of the project and Drowning Creek. The mitigation plan for the
project will likely include preservation and enhancement. Final permit/mitigation
decisions will be made by the Corps of Engineers.
The existing bridge carrying US 1 over Drowning Creek will be removed and
replaced as a part of the project. The superstructure of the bridge is composed of a
reinforced concrete deck and deck girders. The substructure is composed of reinforced
19
concrete piers with reinforced concrete caps. Removal of the bridge will result in
approximately 556 cubic yards of temporary fill in Drowning Creek and associated
wetlands. The use of turbidity curtains will be studied during development of erosion
control plans for the project and curtains will be utilized if it is determined they will be
effective in the conditions found in Drowning Creek.
An Individual Section 404 Permit is likely to be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, due to project impacts to wetlands and surface waters.
A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404 Individual
Permit.
4. Rare and Protected Species
a. 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 amended. As of
January 3, 2000, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists five federally-protected species
for Richmond County and four federally-protected species for Moore County. These
species are listed in Table 7 below.
TABLE 7
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
IN RICHMOND AND MOORE COUNTIES

SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS
COUNTY BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Acipenser brevirostrum Shonnose sturgeon E Richmond No Effect
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus bald eagle T Richmond No Effect
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E Moore No Effect
Picoides borealis red-cockaded
woodpecker E Both Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Lysimachia asperifolia rough-leaved loosestrife E Richmond No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Both No Effect
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E Moore No Effect
"E" - Endangered
"T" - Threatened
20
This project crosses Drowning Creek, a tributary to the Lumber River. The
shortnose sturgeon is found in the lower reaches of the Lumber River, but not as far inland
as Drowning Creek. The creek is very narrow within the project study area and the
adjacent forest forms a closed canopy over the creek. There is no suitable habitat for bald
eagle foraging in the project study area. There are no large lakes in close proximity to the
project. Drowning Creek is part of the Lumber River Drainage Basin. The Cape Fear
shiner is only known from the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin.
Potential habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife and American chaffseed does not
occur in the project study area. Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac does occur in the
project study area. Field surveys for Michaux's sumac were conducted. Other species of
Rhus and Toxicodendron were located in the project study area, however, no Michaux's
sumac plants were found.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique
habitats shows no records of any of the above species in the project study area. This
project will not affect the shortnose sturgeon, the bald eagle, the Cape Fear Shiner,
rough-leaved loosestrife, American chaffseed, or Michaux's sumac.
The project study area is located in known red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
habitat. Consultants for NCDOT conducted RCW surveys within one-half mile of the
project study area. Three inactive RCW clusters were located within this corridor.
Foraging analyses are generally only conducted for active clusters, but because the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is managing one of the sites (SGL A58) as a
recruitment cluster for their population goal, a foraging analysis was conducted for that site
to assess impacts from this project. The pre-project foraging habitat totals for this cluster
were 14,495.1 square feet of pine basal area (BA) and 15,103.1 pine stems greater than or
equal to 10 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). This project will remove approximately
8.6 acres of foraging substrate associated with this inactive cluster. The post-project
foraging habitat totals for SGL A58 are 14,066.8 square feet of pine BA and 14,669.1 pine
stems greater than or equal to 10 inches dbh. Since the post-project foraging substrate
totals are well above the US Fish and Wildlife Service foraging habitat standards of at least
8,490 square feet of pine BA and 6,350 pine stems greater than or equal to 10 inches dbh,
this project, as designed, is "not likely to adversely affect" the RCW.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this biological conclusion in a
letter dated August 8, 2000 (see Page A-3 of Appendix A).
21
b. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species
There are 17 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Richmond County and
26 listed for Moore County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal
protection until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Organisms listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or
Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural 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 8 below lists the Federal Species of Concern and state-listed species for
Richmond and Moore Counties.
22
TABLE 8
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN/STATE-LISTED SPECIES
IN RICHMOND AND MOORE COUNTIES

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS COUNTY Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Both Y
Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater T/PE Moore N
Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos skipper SR Both N
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC/PT ** Richmond Y
rafinesquii
Etheostoma collis collis Carolina darter SC Richmond N
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE Moore Y
Gomphus parvidens carolinus Sandhills clubtail dragonfly SR Moore Y
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR/PSC Both Y
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE Moore Y
Moxostoma sp. Carolina redhorse SR Both N
Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse SC Both N
Pituophis melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC* Both Y
melanoleucus
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana Georgia indigo-bush E Both N
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch T Both Y
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC Moore N
Kalmia cuneata White wicky E-SC Both Y
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T Both Y
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E Both Y
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil C Moore Y
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane W1 Moore Y
Parthenium radfordii Wavyleaf wild quinine W1 Moore Y
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed C* Both Y
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. Sandhills pyxie-moss E Moore Y
brevistyla
Rhynchospora crinipes Alabama beaksedge E Moore Y
Rudbeckia heliopsidis Sun-facing coneflower E Moore Y
Solidago verna Spring-flowering T Moore Y
goldenrod
Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickering's dawnflower E Both Y
pickeringii
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C Richmond Y
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed C Both Y
grass
"E"-Endangered. "T"-Threatened.
"SC"--Special Concern species.
"C"--Candidate species.
"SR"--Significantly Rare.
"W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known
and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"/P "--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
23
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats indicated no recorded occurrences of Federal Species of Concern or
state-listed species in the project study area.
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a).
Although no federal funds will be used for the construction of the proposed project, the
project will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, applies to federal permit areas
along the project.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
NCDOT Architectural historians surveyed the area of potential effect of the
proposed project. No properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places were identified within the area of potential effect. The State Historic Preservation
Office concurred with these findings on September 30, 1999 and October 21, 1999.
Appendix A contains a copy of the concurrence forms (pages A-19 and A-20).
2. Archaeological Resources
No archaeological sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places are
located within the area of potential effect of the project. NCDOT archaeologists surveyed
the project area and identified nine archaeological sites. In a letter dated October 1, 1999
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that seven of these sites are not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see page A-21 of Appendix A). The
SHPO requested additional work be conducted on the two remaining sites in order to
determine whether or not the sites are eligible for the National Register. Due to
landowner objections and the extent of the additional work requested, this work can not
be performed until after NCDOT has acquired right of way in this area. NCDOT will
reevaluate the project's possible effects on these sites when the final design plans are
completed and the permit areas are defined. At that time, NCDOT will consult with the
SHPO and with any federal permitting agencies and other consulting parties if
appropriate, and perform additional archaeological investigations on these two sites prior
to project construction.
C. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
It is anticipated the proposed project will require the relocation of 17 homes and
10 businesses. Appendix B contains information regarding the Division of Highway's
Relocation Assistance Program and copies of the relocation reports for the project. It
should be noted the relocation reports indicate 19 homes, 11 businesses and 4 non-profit
24
organizations (3 churches and a fire station) will be relocated by the project. However,
these reports are based on preliminary designs. It is believed the fire station and at least
two of the churches can be avoided and the number of relocatees reduced to 17 homes
and 10 businesses. During project design, efforts will be made to reduce the project's
effects on existing development, particularly area churches and the fire station.
D. Land Use
Lands surrounding US 1 within the project limits are largely wooded, or
agricultural fields and pastures. However, scattered residential, small business,
office/institutional and industrial land uses do exist within the project limits. Much of the
land along the west side of US 1 between Marston and Hoffman is a part of the Sandhills
Game Land. Most residential development has occurred on individual lots, rather than in
large subdivisions. Most of the industrial uses are small to moderate in size. The
commercial uses vary and are scattered along the entire project corridor.
Neither Hoffinan, Marston nor Richmond County have land-use plans or zoning
regulations.
E. Farmland
Some of the land surrounding US 1 within the project limits is farmland. Right of
way will be required from some of the farms in the project area. North Carolina General
Statute 106-738 allows counties to establish voluntary agricultural districts.
G.S. 106-740 allows counties to require their agricultural advisory board to hold public
hearings on any public agency condemnation of farmland in an agricultural district.
Richmond County has not established an agricultural advisory board or any voluntary
agricultural districts as allowed under G.S. 106-738 and 106-739. Therefore, the
provisions of G.S. 106-740 do not apply to this project.
North Carolina Executive Order 96 requires state agencies to ensure that their
actions minimize the loss of prime agricultural and forestlands. NCDOT requested
information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding prime and
important farmland in the project area, but did not receive a response from the Service
within sixty days. Prime and important farmland in the project area has not been
identified. However, the additional right of way to be acquired for this project will occur
in strips immediately adjacent to the existing right of way, therefore it is anticipated the
proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on prime and important
farmland.
F. Forestland
It is estimated the proposed project will affect 36 acres of forested land, some of
which is in residential areas.
25
In accordance with NCDOT Standard Specifications, the contractor will conduct
clearing operations in a manner to prevent injury to vegetation to remain in place and also
to prevent damage to surrounding properties. All timber cut during clearing operations
will become the property of the contractor.
When vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be performed in such
a manner as to prevent injury to property within or outside the right of way. Burning
shall be in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance and at the greatest practical
distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a
hazard to the public.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Richmond County is a participant in the Emergency Phase of the National Flood
Insurance Program. Figure 5 shows the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain for
streams in the project area. The US 1 crossing of Drowning Creek is in a designated
flood hazard zone. The proposed project will not have any significant adverse effects on
the existing floodplain or on the associated flood hazards.
H. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed in order to determine the effect the project
will have on noise levels in the immediate area. This analysis included an estimation of
ambient (existing) noise levels in the project area and an inventory of existing
noise-sensitive land uses. Future year noise levels, both with and without the project,
were predicted. Traffic noise impacts were determined using the current procedures for
the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise (Part 772 of Title 23 of the
Code of Federal Regulations).
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine the existing background noise levels. The existing Leq noise level along US l
as measured 50 feet from the roadway was 66.9 dBA. The location of the ambient noise
measurement site is shown on Figure C 1 of Appendix C.
It is anticipated the proposed project will result in traffic noise impacts to 40
homes and four businesses in the year 2025 (see Table C3 of Appendix Q. A land use is
considered impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching (within I dBA) or
exceeding the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement criteria and/or
predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. A summary of the FHWA noise
abatement criteria for various land uses and the definition of "substantial increase" is
presented in Table C2 of Appendix C.
26
Table C3 shows the maximum extent of the 67 and 72 dBA noise level contours
for the proposed project. This information should assist local authorities in exercising
land use control over properties adjacent to the proposed facility, in order to prevent
further development of activities or land uses which would be incompatible with
predicted traffic noise levels.
Predicted exterior noise level increases for this project range from +5 to +9 dBA
(see Table C4 of Appendix C).
Traffic noise abatement alternatives for the project were considered. These
alternatives included highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures,
noise barriers, and the "no-build" alternative.
None of these noise abatement alternatives were found to be feasible. Highway
alignment changes would not be practical as a noise abatement measure due to design
considerations and increased impacts on surrounding development and environmental
concerns. Traffic system management measures limiting vehicle type, speed, and time of
operations would not be appropriate due to the adverse effect such measures would have
on the capacity of the proposed facility. Noise barriers are not feasible due to the distance
between receptors and the need for driveway openings along the roadway. The "no-
build" alternative is not a practical noise abatement measure because of the capacity and
safety benefits of the project. Also, noise impacts would still occur to 39 homes and 4
businesses in 2025, even if the proposed project was not constructed.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. In accordance with NCDOT Traffic
Noise Abatement Policy, NCDOT will not be responsible for providing noise abatement
measures for new development within the noise impact area for which building permits
are issued after the date of the final environmental document for the project (date of
public knowledge).
I. Air Quality Analysis
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future carbon
monoxide (CO) concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2005 and 2025.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts
per million (ppm). Consultation with the Division of Air Quality, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive
receptor for the years 2005 and 2025 are shown on the following table.
27
TABLE 9
ONE HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS
FOR NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTOR
Build No Build
Year 2005 2025 2005 2025
1-Hour CO Conc. (PPM) 2.4 2.7 2.6 3.4
The maximum CO concentrations allowed by the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards are 35 ppm for a 1-hour averaging period and 9 ppm for an 8-hour averaging
period. 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.
Any burning of debris during construction will be performed in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance and at the greatest practical distance from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Also, measures will be taken during construction to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
J. Hazardous Materials
Thirteen sites were identified in the project study area that might contain
hazardous materials. Nine of these sites were underground storage tank facilities and four
were other potentially contaminated properties. No regulated or unregulated landfills
occur within the project limits, although a Richmond County solid waste collection
facility is located on the west side of US 1 just north of SR 1603 (Old Laurel Hill Road).
The proposed project will likely require right of way from 11 of the potentially
contaminated sites. These sites are unavoidable due to the railroad and other
development in the area. Preliminary site assessments to identify the nature and extent
of any contamination will be performed on these sites prior to right of way acquisition.
These sites are shown on Figure D1 and listed in Appendix D.
K. Geodetic Survey Markers
The proposed project could impact seven geodetic survey markers. The NC
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow resetting of
monuments which will be disturbed. Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a
violation of NC General Statute 102-4.
28
L. Public Facilities/Emergency Services
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's Sandhills Game Land and
Camp Mackall Military Reservation are the two largest publicly owned facilities in the
project area. The project will require approximately 4.6 acres of property from the game
land but will not affect Camp Mackall. NCDOT has coordinated with both the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the Army regarding the project.
The Marston and Hoffman post offices are both located along US 1. Right of way
will be required from both post offices. The Hoffman post office will be relocated by the
project.
The Marston station of the Hoffman Fire and Rescue Department is located on the
west side of US 1 near the SR 1001 (Marston Road) intersection. The project may
require the relocation of this fire station. Efforts will be made to reduce project impacts
on this fire station as project development continues. Should relocation of the fire station
be unavoidable, NCDOT will assist the fire department in locating a suitable alternate
site.
The Hoffrnan station of the Hoffman Fire and Rescue Department is located on
SR 1475 (Caddell Road) near US 1. The Sandhills Game Land responds to woodland
fires from its depot, located west of US 1 between Marston and Hoffman. Trucks use
both of the entrances to the depot when responding to calls. A median break will be
provided in front of the Marston fire station, at each of the entrances to the depot and at
the SR 1475 intersection with US 1, in order to allow emergency vehicles to make direct
left turns onto US 1.
During construction of the project, the driveway to the Marston fire station, the
two entrances to the Sandhills Game Land Depot and the intersection of SR 1475 with
US 1 will not be blocked by materials or unattended equipment. The contractor for the
project will be required to maintain a driveway for the two fire stations and for the
Sandhills Game Land at all times during project construction.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
The citizens informational workshop for the project was held on March 18, 1999.
Approximately 70 citizens attended the workshop. An aerial photograph showing the
proposed project was displayed and handouts presenting project information were
provided to workshop participants.
29
The majority of comments and questions heard at the meeting concerned the
effect of the project on specific properties. NCDOT has taken citizen comments into
consideration during project development.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following distribution of this document. As
discussed in Section IV-A, a recommended alternative has not been selected for the
portion of the project between SR 1475 and SR 1600 through the Town of Hoffman. -
Both alternatives being considered for this section of the project will be presented at the
public hearing. Comments received at the public hearing will be taken into consideration
in the selection of a recommended alternative for this section of the project.
C. Agency Coordination
Comments on the project have been requested from the agencies listed below.
Asterisks indicate a response was received. Copies of the comments received are
included in Appendix A.
*U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Military Traffic Management Command
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Richmond County
Town of Hoffrnan

30
;?? Normsn
i'
R,.d C H M 0 D
y.......... ?.. Robord.1 Ma tong;
K s
Cv aw. Qa
s?? '..,Hamlet*
38i,
Gto
C?
473 MOORE COUNTY
1003 _ L L
I L L S _ _.
L A N D _ i 1004 i•
•1• i, 1 1 q 7 ; •p
RICHMOND 'COL)NTY , .
/ 1003
1475
J
i
s
H?
?O
CAMP 00,
HOKE
COUNTY
POP.
INNEY lA1CE
FlSH HATCHERY •? 1479 EnhMstlo
im Cli>. ?
v
'"I16?03 (`O
••` `'` 1 f+ fig. V
CI `O
`•i P\
36 Marston O??
9 ,00, SG
1536
RaLaOM MILITARY
RESERVATON
1601 •??
I LOIETERS
KILOMETERS
O 3
MILES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
s OF TRANSPORTATION
a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
us I
FROM SR 1001 TO EXISTING FOUR LANES
NORTH OF MOORE COUNTY LINE
RICHMOND-MOORE COUNTIES
TIP PROJECT R-2502
FIGURE I
i
I T
z
l /
N
X
C
N
N
O
O
T
O
C
M
n
am
N
C::E
;U:q
Z o.
Cy
m
v
?m
v
D
Z
c?
c
?:u
m
W
D
O
00
T
i
0
z
T?
/V
O
C-
M
C)

d
0
z
f
z
O
U-)
^
l J
D
FT'l
D
C/)
-I
0
z
T
O S
c 10
? €3
Zm H€
v `^
J
T
O
C ?p
C D
vy
Mm z
v+ v
3 ZS
m ?i
v
D
Z
0
6
C
N
N

W
T
O
C
A
DS €
z
om
N
C?
Wi
Zp
v?
CN
my
rn
Am ?
0
D
Z
m g
z €O
N Z.
_ ?Cn
X
D
Z o
v €?
„c
A g
m
M
0
48
d
o m
O m
A
m
0
8
0
i
0
``M
D.
z
N
Z
L n
N
O
O
N
m
O
O
n
N
x

?
T
V
V
D M O
O C
T ?
1 ?
C/) O C7
I 1 ' vr
C) M

r?
?/ T
IV
O N
z Ul
C/) p
N
s,
0
i
0
0
0
Hg
o
.n
O
C
M
Z
m
N
S
0
A
6
T
O \\1
m
O
Z
?m
?g
z
0
x
6 I
a
0
8
0
3
i
V) m
- z

i
i
i
i

O
i
C-
M
n

D
r .
,? C
N

N
O
Ln
N
cr
u
W
O
w
Cl-
Cl.
F -
z
0
H
U
W
N
Q
U
I---
N
LLJ
V
./rte W
W cr
u
J
Q C„7
D Z
0 Z
0 it:
w 0
N W
O 0
Q- cr
0 W
>
?.. 0
z
0

0
? N
Q
U
?o
M
J 4m

C
N
0
3
a
0
0
;o
M
co
W
Q
J
Z
O
2
cr
Z
N
Z
a
J
O
2
O
N
W
pr)
W
rlooo
V
LL
TIP PROJECT R-2502
ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
\10 F 60/ i PEAK HOUR
(4,13\ DIRECTION
%DUAL %TTST
YEAR 2005 ADT VOLUMES
YEAR 2025
11000
17100.
SR 1484 (POWERS ST.)
100
2
00
OA
SR 1483 (DAWKINS LN.)
100
200
7O
A
MATCHLINE A
-------- --------
US 1 ?o
q.
h•
"-100
100 300
'tf 00
-100 /169100 00
100 j 4O
SR 1604 (STROMAN RD.)
-100 10800

SR 1695 (MERCER ST.) O

100 16900
300 400
400
?O 100
A
/?6
200
0800
p
300 16900
SR 1482 (CASHION ST.) -100
100 100
200
OA
J?
0
107
-100 0
ann 16700
1
10700
16700/.
OLD COACH LN. 300
200 400
600 300 11000
17300
900
1000
-100 7 1400
?
?J S0 200
-100
100 SR 1001 (MARSTON RD.)

US 1
11000
17200

NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 4
FIGURE 4
PINE ST.
n
%DIRECTIONAL
%DHV 100SIMS ST.
PEAK HOUR 200 ?Q
10 PM 6o _ i ? J C ? 5yl `?.
DIRECTION `
BOWEN ST. 100?? -100 US 1
%DUAL %TTST 200 G 1-10 0? 100 10800
0 16700
' 100 ?A3 -100 /
200 J o° -100 100 ? 0 00
SR 1475 (CADDEL RD.) 10? 16700
' goo -100
23000 100 ` 100 10700
16700
3500
1000
1500 10700
1300 16700
2000
SANDHILLS WILDLIFE DEPOT 1 Pat 11000
-100
100 100
200 US 1
-100
SR 1479 (JAMES G. WATSON RD.) 200 1100 1000 TIP PROJECT R-2502
_300 -100 .17200 ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
10 pM 200
60
R,1) -100 YEAR 2005
100 YEAR2025ADT VOLUMES
11000 I
17100
/ 100
100 100
-100 ? 0 WILL YATES RD.
1100 100 10
JORDYN LANE DR. 17100?,60 NOT TO SCALE
100
100 100
200
-100
1ppM60 100
(?, 1) 11000
- 17100
100
100 100
yo -100 200 ?20 SR 1603 (OLD LAUREL HILL RD.)
Q? y1 11000 100 10 pM 6
h 17100% ?? 1) ° SHEET 2 OF 4
US 1
-------- --------
MATCHLINE A
FIGURE 4
TIP PROJECT R-2502
ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SR 1527 (VINCENT GIBSON AVE.) ` Ice-
tiF
11000
17100 C+
200
400 100
200
JAMES KELLY RD.
O 100
iO 200 US 1
11000
100 l 17100% p
0
WALL AVE. ?A 200 -100
100
-100
600 100
800 300 /1000
HART AVE. 400 / 17100
OA 300 .
?1s 400
O 11000
300 1710%
400 200
200 ^Q yy?
100 YEAR 2005 ADTVOLUMES
200 YEAR 2025
10900
17100

Q?
US 1
500
10700 800
SR 1004 (BOSTICK RD.) 700 16700 300
?1000 400
400
800
O 600
300 ?A 1200

400
100
BRACEY ST McCOY DR.
: 00 10600
-100 16500
A 100
-100

100 US 1
200
-
TILLEY ST.
`\0 10600
\- 100 16500
200 ?200
s0 100 4_00 600
(?
,
200 400 loon
? 0
0
?O 600
Ash 110800 70 Ms0 SR 1474 (SCHOOL DR.)
l
l
16700
MgTCy., US 1

e-
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
PEAK HOUR
10 PM 60 - i
?,13\ DIRECTION
%DUAL %TTST
NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 3 OF 4
FIGURE 4

900
400 1400
SPECIAL FORCES WAY
600 -?
1000 $m P--4
11000 / (3,1)
170001
11000 M 60
-100
100 100
-100 ?` GLIDER RD.
100 10
17000 t ' 1)
100 100
100
200 MCKEITHAN RD.
-100 ==M
100 1010 Pte-
11000
1 (2,1)
1
170001
100 100
100
US 1
200 HAILEY AMES ST.
-100

100 10 PM 60
-
11000 (2
'F
17000 j
100 200
' 00
? 00 LEADER LN.
-100 -?
200 1010 P_
M 60

11000 F2,
1)
17100
100
McRAE ST. 200 -100
--a--
• 100
0 PM 6o -100
(2,1) 100
' 11000
17100
US 1
-100
100
YEAR 2005
YEAR 2025ADT VOLUMES
NOT TO SCALE
-100 100 SHEET 4 OF 4
100 200
? 1000 70A SR 1600 (RUSHING RD.)
y<? 17100?, M60
ti F., /
TIP PROJECT R-2502
o ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
US 1
cn
o MOORE COUNTY
10700 RICHMOND COUNTY
16400
300
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
\10 PM 60/ i PEAK HOUR
?,13) DIRECTION
%DUAL %TTST
FIGURE 4
/,/ fy yz iy- 1 y - ??O Jir ?`?yt 4 ____o 'i
I ,??i : . "'. , - ? )" ?? : I ? - I N , " , 1? I , . , ?, ?:'?. ? I
?.
1j
? ___;:?r I *
4?
f ' 7 i ;'' ` ? \ r
n.
,
r , ' e? `??
I .11 ? Ak . ".: ? ? , 4 . , I I ? ?11 ? '? ."? : ! . I ? : t, ?r, , , . ?,
t ya c - f:
- . II ? " y
, {
e 1A Wt n
a . ' ,? - . - s ?`?'' § 'e'er ;
r ? I ? ?.- __ . ? ._ ,. ., JI I _.
,! `\
F
i, - _ .i `
h y
,, Y a _•'?
- J! ; ,, ?t y , S
3 .r
••
??
Z? . ,\
/ `d `
- ?_ j?-
3
- ? - ?:
, f ?i Al
?,. $ a.
u
.
k
`?, - . "?L + , - /Vii'
°?
/ t?
I. y
}}'' ??,?y
*? '
1
_ -..
a- ??ti ?.
I?
r Y.. ..? t
. _ ..". ?..Y`a'C ?, ,. t _ r ,, _ _ r ter... -5.?. ? _ _ . _ 1 ?:}'.f r _ ..r. ? _ _ ?... _ L .
..:. i
r
1. 11
1
.ry: ..1
O;? ,??
7"?.?_ V ('j
T?Ht SEE' or s, : _ 1; NIATCHL-SEE SHEET 1
?, F
• ?r t _ r ,
I-
') ,/ , - ,
, o'
k •.
a
j
11
C7?
f ?? / / , {? z `ter ?7 ,?
'' { I
t>* _ y
.. ?_ _?
_11?1_? I I " ,: ? ;1. , , .
't, _? ? . I I - __ , , - I" " -.`_ 'A - _/ .1 , ",
a 14z , a t
,
?.,. ?.
.>
/ a • ' Y
` ?
r
V,
t
t? \ i I .4 9" " 1. - ? 8 I I
CCC
jj
J
.
I
r1 f?Q \ v'? Ra Y A - ?
..-.: \ f.
I,
11 -N
I *" ? __ , _?? ? ? I - ?
'j ` / /
11
I -_ , '',
Zas \ k. •• 'r??
/ r?,/ 1 ` r
J :)/ ,
r ?` r?. ?a ral
. ": - m ? ,: I - ? I ? ;:z7 'P. " N;%? ? , ?? 3 // --1? .t 1'
r
?3
",
L. , - Bk.
„ ' ,ti 4 ,
Tz ^ '1. G /l/ / / s
> A
_ _
- _
/ / x
.? , L" 1 r -
O .. - . _ , 6 < _ irr ,
0 ? , ,? ?_ ? ': - - . I ? i i
3?i
,_ , ?5 it I .
A t ?l M s: ?, f t' *«, ,
fl. U
7'
•1i n :
j r? y 1
t
A !s Yf
,A I ® + + t
F/ I
. .
. ,?y? >"2i11 ;,!Pr?" -?i1° s?' ;k \ . -.... ,. I ?,
?l ? ?.'
11
- , ! I 41, - I ,,, - I I ? I v . '' " 1k , ,. ? ?,
a
F c'ra?+? ?e ?.,4-
.1 * 1. i 11 , i
„ + ?t
: . ,\ % " r
I I . ?_t" r, - '?_,%_, , : , ; _? - , , , ?, ? ? , rf , ?
?? ? > I ,
? . ?', I ? . ,__ __ - , ___,??, -, - _? ? , ? , .0 ?, W, I I ? I ? ? 1 4 - . ' ? / I i
I -1. :?__, ? - " Z_ .'' :,!j - I -1-, ? ? - :? ? . I ? - , 11 I I i ; , o , ,
t I - t'/ 1
,`i , _ _ i/
8 ?.
,,• _
- wI k __ j . , : ,} +,? i _?¦¦
s .F r . i,a .f . r /j _ y r _ n -
?' 0 11 "'??+
77
, - :' j t . _ .: i _ i+ _
N X ?l I i? %+..? a ,9 11 ?
,; ; Q , r
`' ti' "'"
11 I ?? t. 177 70
( ) I : - . - " - __? 1 °•jcn i If „ a.. i --
I --I nD, - - t_ 11-11 - N 2? r+t0ooOZ " Y -_ __=- - -
4411 \ ,
11 I O -000--4 O?OZy „- .,
L 0.h
A m [? /? . / \. - - --a ° ".. .!-.. :: ` p ?111
L_ 3 m m c: m O O O ... - `1.rrit je?jAo iet? ,y?? ,f ?;j -;, ` a r? tr\
"I 4 r)Zvi i { c ^I
O
3
m :, h ) '
7 - ?< o
z > - 1, _? j \1, 1. I , . 1? . ??, .- ! r 11--7 - ;, I *?j . ? - ?_, ,? - -:?? t ,?.
0 N Z y D }?° ?i r` ,'9r ' `. eb `.'. '% ,q yr`-' °. _ ,?\
3 Q
I N C r -n L^ 110 ~ r /-, ,^ ?; s %r ,,A -i, a. -\ , ', t '?..; -' e . ?? - .' ... , r - . IN 1 1 c,
? zzo W 1' V ? O "1 m c: D 0 Z 4 t. "m 3 : " _ 4, J` '. ., ? U a _.. O-
z
I m .*O? - , , :? A ?. i? id.* - 1111?? .? . g,?? " V?
?. ??,??1111 - I-
y. 1'
'?' s'
7 i
/.
4

G A kt E LAS
"j_ - " - -
LB X-
RICHMUNf7" COUNTY; -----
100
- - -
1475 -
r \
MdUNNEY LAKE', r
FISH HATCHERYi 1479 Entwistle
LEND PROJECT
-- - --•-? - --_ 9ro?nfng
- - - - -- y
J rr f`?',
'MAN S } V - -
349 y 11

MCKINIVEY -
- LAKE - - ---- __??®e
--------------
-_-_-----_--- - \ 1603
- - - Marston .'
n 1CIO 1
f
- 1536 ? G5? ?

'--JBEGIN PROJECT
PROJECT CORRIDOR

PROTECTED WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED (WSWII)
PROTECTED WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED (WSWIII)
WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA
HIGH OUALITY WATER ZONE
TIP PROJECT R-2502
WATER SUPPLY WATER SHEDS
AND HOW ZONES IN PROJECT AREA
KILOMETERS
?., -r ! O 1 2 3
O l 2
MILES
FIGURE 6
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO November 9, 1998
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

This is in response to a letter from your office dated June 11, 1998, concerning
the "Notice of Start of Study for and request for input on proposed improvements to US
1, from SR 1001 to the existing four lanes near the Moore County Line, Richmond-
Moore Counties, State Project 6.589009T, TIP Project R-2502" (Regulatory Division
Action I.D. No. 199801941).
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. Our comments on the other issues are enclosed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
??iC Alex Morrison, Jr., P.
hief, Technical Serv ices Division
Enclosure
A-1
November 9, 1998
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON: .
"Notice of Start of Study for and request for input on proposed improvements to US 1, from
SR 1001 to the existing four lanes near the Moore County Line, Richmond-Moore Counties,
State Project 6.589009T, TIP Project R-2502" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199801941)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Plannina Services Section. at
[phone]
The proposed project is located in Richmond County, which participates in the National
Flood Insurance Program. Based on a review of Panel 150 of the September 1989 Richmond
County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the
proposed roadway improvements may cross a portion of the approximately mapped flood plain
of Drowning Creek. We suggest that the crossing be designed so as not to significantly
increase upstream flood elevations and that your agency coordinate with the county to ensure
compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Dave Timpv, Wilmington Field Office,
Reaulatorv Division, at [phone]
Based on information provided by NCDOT in its letter dated June 11, 1998, the project may
impact wetlands. The environmental assessment should contain specific information relative to
the extent and location and community type of all the impacted wetlands.
The proposed project will have one major stream crossing at Drowning Creek. Since the
existing crossing is bridged, it is expected that any new crossing to accommodate the additional
lanes would also be bridged. If you propose to replace the bridge with a culvert, you must
demonstrate that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic
environment, specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on recreational
navigation.
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 wetlands in conjunction with this project,
including disposal of construction debris. Pursuant to 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 Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for project specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
If you have any questions related to DA permits, they should be addressed to Mr. Timpy.
A-2
QPP??EHT OFTy? United States Department of the Interior
W ya
a
U A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
.a . e Post Office Box 33726
?4ACN 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
August 8, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
g?C
o P004
This responds to your letter of July 12, 2000, requesting comments or concurrence from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Biological Assessment for the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) in the vicinity of US 1 from south of SR 1001 (Marston Road in
Richmond County to the end of the existing 4-lane section of US 1 in Moore County, North
Carolina (TIP No. B-2502). 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 Endan"'erect Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service considers this report to be an accurate representation of the surveys and results for
this species, and its habitats. Based on the information provided, the Service concurs that this
project, as designed, is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Note, however, that this concurrence applies only to the referenced species up to the date of the
report. Should additional information become available relative to other listed species, or the
referenced species, additional surveys may be required.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. Please advise us of any
changes in project plans. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom
McCartney at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely /
Dr. Garland B Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/08/2000:919/856-4520 extension 32:\R-2502ES.RCW
A-3
Q?PQ??ENT OF ryFZ?
9
H O
7 ?
?4AC 3 ,9p9
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 8, 1998
Mr. William P. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 2761
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This responds to your letter of April 28, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed improvements to US 1, from SR 1001 to the existing four lanes near the Moore County
Line, Richmond-Moore Counties, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2502). This report is Technical
Assistance only and is not the report of the Secretary of the Interior on the project within the
meaning of Section (2)(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal
and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this
project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen existing US 1
from SR 1001 south of Marston in Richmond County to the existing four-lanes near the Moore
County line, a distance of approximately 15.1 kilometers (9.4 miles). The project involves
widening the existing roadway to multi-lanes. A four-lane median-divided section is being
considered for rural portions of the project, while a five-lane undivided section is being considered
through the Towns of Marston and Hoffman. The purpose of the proposed project is stated to be
improved capacity and safety on this segment of US 1.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
A-5
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Hoffman, Marston, and Pinebluff 7.5
Minute Quadrangles indicate that there are extensive wetland resources along the proposed
corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area,
they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using
an acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data if available, and including a discussion of the projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps);
2
A-6
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the United States, and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in Richmond County. Most notable is the heavy concentration of recorded
occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (f'icoides boreellis) along the proposed
project corridor. Note also that there are reported occurrences of Michaux's sumac (Rhus-
michauxii) adjacent to, or in, the existing US 1 corridor, and rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia aspernrlaefolia) is found in close proximity. Habitat requirements for these
federally-listed species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for
the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation should include survey
methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should be
included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of.
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
3
A-7
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur,
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
4
A-8
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-8564520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Oohn M. Hefn
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Bell)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Bruton)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Graf)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (McBride)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/7/98:919/856-4520 extension 32:\R-2502.tip
A-9
Mapping Symbols for
Threatened and Endangered Species
Birds
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Q Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Roseate Tern
p Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
V Waccamaw Silverside
Plants
? American Chaffseed
Harperella
<?> Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Seabeach Amaranth
:,,Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
,? Smooth Coneflower
Mussels
x Dwarf-wedge Mussel
(i6) Tar Spinymussel
Mammals
--,C Eastern Cougar
(3 Red Wolf
Seaturdes are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled
A-10
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species In RICHMOND County
Data represented on these maps are not based on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
35'
80' 79'45'
79'30'
"'ik .
j -`f+ silk c S
U
G
J
JIM&
Mftpr
A

0 1 2 5
.1.. 3 a 1 MILES
Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service !
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program 0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
A-11 expires 1/31/99
r-y
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
July 28, 1998
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Bldg.
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Katie G. DorsettSaGmIA9
-, ?1VEa
z
2'9
01 ?99a
• IS?U?` 4
Re: SCH File # 98-E-4220-0839; Scoping Notice of Start of Study for and Request for Input on
Proposed Improvements to US 1, from SR 1001 to the Existing Four Lanes Near the Moore
County Line; TIP R-2502
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
Mrs. C s Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region H
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
A-13

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor . Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
June 22, 19 r. i V E
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch 4 1998 :
Transportation Bldg. 2 2
Raleigh NC 27611
V-I!- -ivjri°`? .rte
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Scoping - Notice of Start of Study for and Request for Input on Proposed Improvements
to US 1, from SR 1001 to the Existing Four Lanes Near the Moore County Line; TIP
R-2502
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 98-E-4220-0839. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 07/28/1998. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Furney
Administrative Assistant
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
A-14
??,. STATE o,
. u iz
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 3, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
i
From: David Brook
Deputy State HistolkS Preservation Officer
Re: Draft archaeological survey report, Widening existing US 1 from SR 1001 to
existing four lanes at Moore County line, R-2502,
Richmond County, GS 98-0083
We have reviewed the draft archaeological survey report for the above referenced project and
would like to comment.
The draft report concludes that none of the nine sites identified (31RH132, 31RH133/133**,
31RH318, 31RH319/319**, 31RH320/320**, 3 IRH321/321 **, 31RH322/322**, 31RH323, and
31NM55) are recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In our
October 1, 1999, letter we determined sites 31RH132, 318, 320/320**, 321/321**, 322/322**,
323, and 31MR355 were not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Additionally, we indicated we were unable to make a determination of eligibility for sites
31RH133/133** and 31RH319 until further information was provided.
After careful review of the archaeological report and consultation with NCDOT staff
archaeologists, we believe additional investigation is needed to clarify the nature, extent,
condition, and significance of archaeological remains associated with sites 31RH133/133** and
31RH319. We recommend the following:
31RH133/133**
? Develop regional context - Additional information is needed to clarify the historic and
prehistoric components at site 31RH133/133**, and place them within a regional
cultural-historical context, including several examples of comparable sites, highlighting
similarities and dissimilarities where they occur.
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N..Blount St., Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
-A-15
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] • 733-8653
[phone] - 715-2671
[phone] • 715-4801
[phone] • 715-4801
Page 2
Letter to William D. Gilmore
Dated July 3, 2000
? Delineate boundaries - Boundaries identifying the extent of the 18'' century historical
component at 31RH133/133** should be delineated. Additional information on the
historical context of the site should be developed through a more intensive archival
research and expanded block excavations, possibly supplemented by mechanical
stripping of topsoil to identify subsurface features such as trash pits, wells, privies,
detached kitchens, fence lines, and out buildings.
? Conduct more intensive archival research - A relatively unbroken chain of title from
1779-1964 exists for this portion of Richmond County. Although the report states it
would be difficult to identify individual settlements in this area, researchers at the State
Archives indicate a contrasting opinion. Although we recognize difficulties of
correlating specific ethnic origin with material culture, more intensive deed and title
research at the State Archives may enhance the interpretation of this site. We
recommend more intensive archival research at the State Archives in consultation with
staff archivists and historians from the Research Branch, Division of Archives and
History.
? Modify illustrated figure - Figure 4, page 13, titled "Highland Scots land holding in North
Carolina" does not indicate the site area in relation to Highland Scot land holdings. We
recommend modification to include the approximate location of the known
archaeological site, 31RH133/133**.
? Revise site form - A revised site form incorporating information from the additional
investigation and testing should be submitted to the Site Registrar, Office of State
Archaeology.
31RH319/319**
? Develop regional context - Discussions within the report should place the site
(31RH319/319**) in its proper regional context, including several examples of
comparable sites, highlighting similarities and dissimilarities of the archaeological
remains. Discussions should include, but not be limited to, comparable artifact
frequencies, typological occurrences, resource materials, lithic source locations, and
artifact distribution patterns (vertical and horizontal). The significance of limited
occupation Early Archaic sites should be specifically considered in terms of intrasite
activity patterns, subsurface features, and potential for providing radiocarbon dating for a
relatively undocumented period of time in North Carolina's prehistory.
? Delineate site boundaries Boundaries to the north and south of the site should be refined
and further delineated through additional shovel testing and block excavations. Block
excavations, possibly supplemented with mechanical stripping, should be conducted to
further clarify the nature, extent, condition, and significance of the archaeological
remains. Specific attention should be given to identification of lithic refuse
concentrations that might indicate discrete activity loci.
A-16
Page 3
Letter to William D. Gilmore
Dated July 3, 2000
? Site formation processes - To better understand site formation processes along this
portion of Drowning Creek, we recommend a geomorphologist examine soils and
stratigraphy in the site area.
? Revised site form - A revised site form incorporating information from the additional
investigation and testing should be submitted to the Site Registrar, Office of State
Archaeology.
Upon receipt of this additional information, including a draft report and revised site forms, we
will continue our review of this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
Tom Padgett, NC DOT
A-17
TIP # Z 5 O Federal Aid #/ N (A County C" 01v
5Z/'c W I S V ot o o CL T
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
On U Gt"- L l l , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State historic Preservation Office' (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consuimuor,
Other
All parties present agree:
/ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no propertios less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
,Consideration G within the project's area of potential eftec:.

*there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as t C> f S1 `t are
considered not eligielel for the auona Register and no further evaluation o them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
(A V-J

FHwA, for-the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

la
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
if a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-19
I
TIP # Federal Aid # ^A County 1?1d0? ?
?A-TE .:f Co -" -V g c) ' T
CONCURRENCE FORNI
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
ELI V Vrl -
On ??;O 1 !?JR "71 , representatives of the
x/ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review sessioniconsuitattoi.
Other
All parties present agreed
/ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
/ Consideration G within. the project's area of potential effect.
there are PioPerties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as i-a , 1? l=M Ile - 3 are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessanY.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
__z Signed:

u, `71
Representative,
f? ?
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
S? 11f
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-20
? Srwrg o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 1, 1999
William D. Gilmore, PE
Manager
Project Development and Environment Analysis Brance
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Draft Archaeological Survey Report, Widening Existing US 1, Richmond County, R-2502,
GS 98-0083 (ref. CH 98-E4220-0839)
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
We have conducted a review of the draft archaeological survey report by Matt Wilkerson, Nick Bon-
Harper and Gerold Glover of NCDOT for the above referenced project.
During the course of the survey nine archaeological sites were investigated (31Rhl32,133/133**, 318,
319/319**, 321/321**, 322/322**, 323, and 31MR355). Of this number one site (31RH132) had been
destroyed by sand mining, and eight sites (31RH133/133**, 318, 319/319-**, 320/320**, 321/321**,
322/322**, 323, and 31MR355) were recommended for no further work.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places:
31RH132 Prehistoric Destroyed
31RH318 Lithic scatter Lack of integrity
31RH320/320** Lithic scatter/Historic Lack of integrity
31 RH321 /321 * * Lithic scatter/Historic Lack of integrity
31RH322/322** Lithic scatter/Historic Lack of integrity
31RH323 Lithic scatter Lack of integrity
31RH355 Lithic scatter Lack of integrity
Until additional information for the properties listed below is provided, we are unable to make a
determination of their eligibility for the National Register:
31RH133/133** and 31RH319/319**
A-21
109 East Jones Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Additional testing is needed to more fully evaluate the following sites:
31RH133/133** and 31RH319/319**.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. Specific
concerns and/or corrections which need to be addressed in the preparation of a final report are
attached for the author's use.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
.Sincerely;,-
'
David Brook v
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DBJdb
Enclosure:
cc: Tom Padgett
A-22

Review Comments
Project Name/ER Number: US 1, SR 1001 to Existing Four Lanes, R-2502,
Richmon d Coun , GS 98-0083 CH 9 8-E-4220-0839
Pa a Text Comment Recommendation
1. 1 "...SHPO requested this project area be 7/20/98 SHPO evaluated this project Revise text to
evaluated for archaeological resources." as "low probability" and accurately reflect
recommended no archaeological SHPO comments and
survey be conducted. NCDOT recommendations
scheduled survey independently and
consulted SHPO regarding
implementation of survey strategy.
2. 1 Table of Contents missing Table of Contents is not included Revise text to include
within the report. This omission Table of Contents in
does not satisfy SHPO Guidelines for accordance with
Preparation of Archaeological SHPO Guidelines
Survey Reports.
1 1-56 Page numbering is inconsistent Pages 1-42 numbered consecutively; Revise text to include
Appendix II contains no page page numbers for
numbers (14 additional pages). Appendix II and all
additional ages
4. 1-56 Figure references are inconsistent, Five figures (Fig. 1-5) are identified Revise Figure
duplicate numbers, and lack reference between p. 1-41; an additional numbers to avoid
identification within text fourteen figures (Fig. 1-14) are duplication and
presented in Appendix II between p. adequately cite all
42-56 (unnumbered). Figure figures within text
numbers 1-5 are duplicated.
5. 25-29 31 RH 133/133**, testing considered 19 shovel tests excavated at l Om Additional testing
inadequate to determine potential for intervals primarily address artifact emphasizing larger
subsurface features frequency and are not reliable units, or closer
determinants of subsurface feature interval, should be
location. Testing intervals are too conducted to fully
great, and shovel test size is too evaluate site
small. Probing and metal detecting 31RH133/133**
may help in certain instances, but do
not provide enough information to
comprehensively assess the clarity
and integrity of the site. Disagree
with report recommendation for "no
further work."
31-34
6 31 RH319/319**, "...artifacts to 80 cmbs Test Unit 1 Level 1 (0-24 cmbs), Additional testing is
. without any clear stratigraphic Level 2 (2440 cmbs), and Level 4 needed to explain the
demarcation." (60-80 cmbs) contained absence of artifacts
archaeological materials (Total= 124). from Test Unit 1
Test Unit I Level 3 (40-60 cmbs) Level 3. Lack of
contained no artifacts. The absence integrity and
of artifacts may indicate a significance of site
stratigraphic separation between have not been
Level 2 and Level 4. Additional adequately
testing is needed to determine the determined.
nature and extent of this occurrence.
A-23
STATE
S
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 23, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 1 from SR 1001 to Moore County line,
Richmond County, R-2502, State Project
6.589009T, 98-E-4220-0839
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since there has never been a comprehensive survey of historic architectural
resources in Richmond County, there may be properties of which we are unaware
within the project area. We recommend that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation identify federal permit areas and determine whether properties
within them might be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI.
If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
A-24
log East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

? FM
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee Y
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 98-0839 Scoping US 1 Widening, Moore County
DATE: July 24, 1998
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideratioin.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
ji.q 2 41998
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
A-25
P.O. BOX 27687. RALEIGH INC 27611-7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.EHNR.STATE.NC.Us/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
July 21, 1998

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Scoping - US 1 Widening, Marston
REFERENCE: 98-E-0839
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for both red-cockaded
woodpeckers (Picoides borealis), federally and state listed as Endangered, and
Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickeringit), state listed as Endangered and a federal
Species of Concern, from the vicinity of the intersection of US 1 and SR 1479. Other
rare species could also be present along the segment of US 1, particularly where it is
bordered by the Sandhills Game Lands. We therefore recommend that a biological
survey be conducted along this route. The US Fish and Wildlife should be consulted
if any federally listed species are determined to be affected by this project. If state
listed plants are likely to be affected, we also request that the Plant Conservation
Program be consulted regarding possible mitigation.
A-26
P.C. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7667 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources w
Division of Water Quality
==?A=
FA
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Wayne McDevitt, Secretary NCDENR
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 19, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO. Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
FROM: Mary Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Coordinator W4-
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping, DENR# 98-E-0839, DWQ# 12127
US 1 Widening, from SR 1001 to Moore Co. line, Moore County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the EA document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Identify the number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
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
A-27
98-0839
7/19/98
Page 2
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I . Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
7. The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
K. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA for this
project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is
the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land
uses that the EA should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of the EA
should discuss the known relationship between road widening and inducements for
urban development along the project right-of-way. The EA must further address the
long-term environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect
impacts of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment. To
address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor (and what
land use figures were used in this estimate)?
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to existing roads, such as turn lanes and
traffic signs and signals?
iii) Are any cross streets in the project area projected to see additional traffic
flows due to the proposed project? If so, how will land uses along these
secondary roads be influenced by the project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant parcels of land in
the road right-of-way?
vi) Will these once less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this widened road serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this widening
encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
A-28
98-0839
7/19/98
Page 3
viii) If inducement for urban development is predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the EA and should be
considered indirect impacts of the transportation project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to effectively manage development potential along the
road right-of-way to reduce the potential indirect land use changes and
environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA- should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from this additional development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The EA should discuss these impacts (and others that are applicable to the
individual project), and quantify them when possible. In addition to
reporting on the types and significance of each direct and indirect impact of
the project, the EA should define how DOT (with their authorities and
resources) and affected local governments (with land use control in the
project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or mitigate these impacts to a
level of insignificance. The SEPA rules and statutes require that prior to
issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts in an
EA be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant.
Therefore, the EA should document how the indirect effects of urban
growth are not going to significantly impact water quality and all other
environmental concerns resulting from this proposed project, or a FONSI
should not be issued.
L. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT EA:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the road widening, if the
project will be providing new or improved access to future growth areas that are
currently undeveloped. One typical impact of increased development might include
increasing amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area. Land-
disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development may
also result in increased stream sedimentation. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in the creek, loss of aquatic
habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers, pesticides,
sediment and automobile byproducts) to the stream. These impacts could be of
special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and federally
endangered species or if the waters are high quality or nutrient sensitive.
A-29
98-0839
7/19/98
Page 4
M. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
N . Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant call Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mek:\980839; US 1 Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
A-30
IVl .11 21 . ril r . r ni i J Lrl 1\L
01 1 -
I LL • J l - --- v `-• - -
D- Noah Carolinn Wildlife Resources Commissioner' _ _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To. Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor
Habitat Conservation Program ?J4(
DA'1'1'.: July 20, 1908
SUBJEC'1': Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for US 1 improvements,
from 5R 1001 to the existing four-lanes near the Moore County line,
Richmond and Moore counties, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2502, SCH
Project No. 98-E-0839.
This meniorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore ofthe
NC.'DOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject protect. 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 certain provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
We have been involved in the scoping meeting for this project and are awarc that
there is potential for this project to impact the NCWRC Sandhllls Game Land and
possibly some lands adjoining the McKinney Lake Fish Hatchery which is also operated
by the NCWRC'. In these areas there is high potential for finding Rcd-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) colonies as we manage our property to benefit these
birds. NC'D6*r should take steps to avoid use of any of these properties.
in addition to the specific recommendations from above, our generLd
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, endwigered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be usrd 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

A-31
nor , r rlLL.:Y I- rlNL LL 1 - _ a - - -_ - -
Memo 2 July 20, 1998
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
[phone]
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
prgiect construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COL). 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
clTects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
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 pro•jccts.should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
'!'hank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
A-32
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
July 6, 1998

.' ... s

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee ,O J?
David Harrison' C /?
FROM:
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to US 1 from SR 1001 to the Moore
County Line. Project No. 98E-0839
The proposed improvements involve widening the existing roadway to
multi-lanes for approximately 9.4 miles.
The Environmental Assessment should include information on the amount
and location of Prime or Important Farmland that will be impacted. Alternatives
that reduce impacts to Prime or Important Farmland soils are preferred. A listing
of these soils in North Carolina is available through the MLRA Team Leader,
North Carolina State Office, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA,
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, N.C. 27609, [phone].
DH/tl
A-33 SOIL & WATER
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1.7687
COHSE
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 80% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
State of 1 i?.-th Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REv1EW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: of Is rv V c1 Due Date: -7 - • ?
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR 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.
.1 _ ?:s.... a:Ieh4 IF- the came Regional Office.
put appucanons, tnrormauon and gundeuncs ruin - .u .,,max t„a..a o.." rr... _-
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
On-site inspection Post-application technical conference usual.
contracts 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems . (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters.
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection Pre-application 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of
(N/A)
discharging into state surface waters. plans or issue ofNPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Water Use Permit pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
(15 days)
installation of a well.
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require 55 days
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
YJ Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
(90 days)
Group 919-733-0820.
O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality
20 days
r Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and 52000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EN R. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater
30 days
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit an be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days I day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than
ld b I day
(N/A)
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils e
five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections shou
"
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned
O Oil Refuting Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification A (60 days)
minimum fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
A-3'+
U put I I I ICI II V I LI 1'. i' .... _ . ?. 1 - r '1
Health and Natural Resources I Nnr
Division of Land Resources
Z!„
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ®? 6 n u v. p ?---- .
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G•, P.E.
Director and State Geologist
PROJECT REVIEW CODD'ENTS 1, n w n?
3County: 1i iV C.
project Number:
Project Name:
- Geodetic surve
NC Of ce of state plannin
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to3construction ionalat P.O.
'Sox 27687, Raleigh, N-C. 27611 (919) 733-386. intent
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 inforrmaticn contact ti.e It-C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey Office a?t/919/733-3836. ? - QQ
w?A Date 10
Reviewer
'erosion and sedimen-tatioa Control'
Pio ccc-en t
an erosion and sedimentation
This project will require approval of
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
satisfy Environmental
If an environmental docu^ent is required*to sa d as
policy P.ct (sEPa) requirements, the docontrolr.-as- he G
part of the erosion and sedimentation plan.
c:= located within a E.igz Quality
? If any portion o. the p_r J-
Water Zone (EQW), as classified by the Divisionmof Enviroo oenta
Management, increased d_si:z standards fo_
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Trans:crtation
under the erosion controc:--Iinzmsedelegation dimentationo t*,-.e Division )`: Contra! Commission.
IC^:?ays from the .,..__.. _ -
other (comments attached)
91y/733-4574.
r.
L':r RC r° i^cor„ation c..n - -••- -
7 7,t
7 T:3 ,;rfj A-35

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST RESOURCES
A2411Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
July 7, 1998
NCDENR
d JAMES B. HUNT JR -' MEMORANDUM
GOVERNOR
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
WAYNE MCDEVM' :r
secRSTwrtY SUBJECT: DOT ScoPing for Widening of US 1 from SR 1001 to the Moore County Line
} , '4
PROJECT #: 98-0839 & TIP # R-2502
STANFORD M:'ADAM6 -? The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document and offer
DIRECTOR the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands.
1. Woodlands will likely be impacted by the project. Therefore, the total forest land acreage by type that
_ would be removed or taken out of forest production as a result of the project should be listed. Efforts
should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
µ.., Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands
2. The productivity of the forest soils affected by the proposed project as indicated by the soil series.
3. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during construction.
Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood products cannot be sold then
?•> efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a tub grinder. This practice will
minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped fires and smoke management problems to
residences, highways, schools, and towns.
4. If debris burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open burning as
covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. Moore County is a non-high hazard county, and
G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning permit would apply.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside the
right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy equipment.
Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill, exposing
the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances.
_; :? -.-•'°; 6. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area.
--z
.. _? We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage the impact on forest
resources be considered during the planning process. .
cc: Warren Bo ette
i
A-36 P.O. BOX 29561, RALEIGH, NC 27626-0561 ?.
__ .... =. PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]" M
^-r-r• AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/1 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM/RELOCATION REPORT
APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
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
arrangement (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 relocating 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 purchases 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-
B-1
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 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 displacee
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, including 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 financial 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.
B-2
IL RELOCATION REPORT 11
? E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F_? DI=SIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
SR 1001 TO SR 1600 (DESIGNS 2 AND 3)
PROJECT: 6.589009T COUNTY Richmond Alternate SR-1001 Of Alternate
SR-1600
I.D. NO.: R-2502 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Improvements to US 1 from SR 1001 (Marshton Rd) to Existing Four Lane
North of Moore Count Line
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 5 2 7 5 0 6 1 0 0
Businesses 4 3 7 3 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For Rent
Non-Profit 2 2 4 0 0-20m 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20m 0 so-ISO 1
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 5 150-250 1
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 5 250400 2 40-70M 13 250-400 2
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 22 400-600 2
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 UP 21 600 up 0
displacement? TOTAL 5 2 61 6
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 2. Three (3) Churches and one Fire Dept. in new right of way.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 3. Two Post Offices - 2 employees and 1 minority in each
employees, minorities, etc. location. One Convenience Store.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 4. (See Attached Sheet)
6. Source for available housing (list). 8. Will be administered according to States law.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 11. Section 8 Housing in Hamlet, Rockingham and Richmond
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? County.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 12. There are no Government Programs competing for
Families? housing.
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? 14. Realtors, News Paper, City and County Rental Agents and
X 11 . Is public housing available? on-ground investigation.
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? : - _ ?_'

X 13
. Will there be a problem of housing within :?
`
financial means?
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24 M ` ;; ; - •'

Al
9/19/00
t
e J i
l / G?
M. Baile , A ent Date
RINW A roved b
aForth 15.4 Revised

Note: This relocation report was prepared using preliminary designs. It is
anticipated the actual number of relocations for this portion of the project will be
less than indicated on this report.
Agent
Office
B-3
4. 1 square block business -1400 SF. Type of business
Unknown 2 minority employees.
1 square block business-1600 SF. Type of Business
Unknown 2 minority employees.
1 square block business - 800 SF.
2 employees 1 minority.
1 square frame business - 600 SF.
1 employee.
1 square metal building -1,200 SF.
2 minority
1 square Block Building -1,100 SF.
5 employees.
1 square block building - 2,800 SF.
Post Office
Produce Stand
Garage 4 employees
Convenience Store
Garage 1 employee.
h
B-4
? RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. [-] CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
SR 1600 TO EXIST. 4-LANES (DESIGN 5)
PROJECT: 6.589009T COUNTY Moore/Richmond Alternate Of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2502 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Improvements to US 1 from SR 1001 (Marshton Rd) to Existing Four Lane
North of Moore Count Line
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 12 0 12 12 0 5 4 3 0
Businesses 4 0 4 3 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 3 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ o-150 1
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 5 150-250 0 20-40m 6 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all 'YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 14 250-400 3
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100m 3 400-600 0 70400m 21 400-600 3
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 up 23 600 UP 1
displacement? TOTAL 12 0 64 8
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. No Permanent Displacement of Business.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. One Mobile/Modular home sales business located parti-
employees, minorities, etc. cularly in R/W that can be moved back on remaining
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? property.
6. Source for available housing (list). Produce business (1,000 SF.) in R/W that will be displacec
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? This is a small business employing approximately 4
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? minority employees.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Small shoe sale business (1,000 SF.) employing one
Families? minority-worker.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 6. Realtors News Paper, City and County Rental Agents
X 11. Is public housing available? and on-Ground Investigation.
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 8. Will be administered according to States law.
housing available during relocation period? 9. Moore and Richmond Counties have an average percen-
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within tage of Senior Citizens.
financial means? 11. Section 8 Housing in Hamlet, Rockingham and Richmond
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list County.
source). 12. There are no Government Programs competing for
15. Number months estimated to complete housing.
RELOCATION? 24 14. Realtors, News Paper, City and County Rental Agents anc
on-ground investigation.
`l, v
7
t /
G
David M. Baile Division RMI Agent Date .b_ r*rt Approved b Date
s
roan 10.4 Kewsea umo a Original 8 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
B-5 2 Copy Area Relocation Office
APPENDIX C
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TABLES
s

•
Figure C 1
Project Location & Ambient Measurement Sites
US 1 Widening From SR 1001 to Just North of Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties, R-2502
- ?.. MOORE COUNTY
t 3
END PROJECT
LA N D
RIrr?iMOND a E9t1NTY
Y , h r •' CAMP
lon(Au
11 ; waver HOKE
- +. meavAroN ' C COUNTY
..' %
® _
y D K IL OWT2M
t ?• , ,,,i j' j' 1 3
10
MILES
FM ""C"M
1 co?N?y
?? ..Setup #
10•Q! SL
im
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
us I
SR 1001 TO EXISTING FOUR LANES
NORTH OF MOORE COUNTY LINE
RICIIMONO-MDORE COLINTIES
TIP PROJECT R-2502
C-1
TABLE C 1
al

10
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m 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 - ----- ------------- --- ---------------~_~~_____~__ -----
100
90-
D
E 80
C
I
B 70--
E
L 60
S
50 -----
40 -----
30
20
10 -----
0
Textile loom
Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
Diesel truck 65 km/h at 15m away
Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Passenger car 80 km/h at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
-------- - - - - - ---- --
Quiet typewriter
Singing birds, window air-conditioner
Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
Average home
Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
C-2
TABLE C2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
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
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
I .j
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Eis ise Level In crease in dBA from Existing Noise
(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
a
C-3

N
Zrt
a
v1 H
vi
W •?
W 0
U
U U °?
w z o
h+l
W two
H•1 . ry
W o 0 0 0 0
W

0 0
z i p o 0 0

w
O
O
U rs. U ?-+ ... N CD
Q

O N W t? N ?`? `o
?-r w

a W F
c?
Q
o
0
0
0
0

w
U d
? o0 0? v

O A rydj M 00
V' O?
v1 M
O; O

N %n
N 1
N
N
N Ey

en en

w 00 co
v

V1 M M M N
O
13.
U
O
U ?., ?
.-. o
^' a
r.
(?/]
En b
w
0 0 0 0
..
O M
O vi O
0
cn W cn Ln

w w w w
-r N M ?
>01
0
? H
w 0
y
? V
U U;4
r
W
V ?
H ?
co rA
co rA
H
c H
N ?
O
y C.
U
o
ec .?
co
O Q
M Y
'C
C4
r-
- N
C-4
N
O
tn
N
? o
u
?t
U U °2
a 4 o
? U
u
w .d
H
1n
1D

V] O
?
N
t
' O O O O O
'
'
d
0
V
r.
.
tea„ ? W
Q
?l ? :.
E
U O O O O O
p
2
z

N O O O O O
r
W

WdW
a ?
c
0
0
0
0
0
z N
a
w ? o 0 0 0 0
w

°z
c
o
0
0
0
0
O

U O O O O O

0 0 0 0 0

rn
0

z
p U

o
CD r- C> 4?

cn
W
cn
W
cn b
W

A O
..r O
M O
h O
O

w w w w

C-5
z
a
44
0
8
v N
H Z
?F
i.+
CO
•d
N
eC U
7E O
O .D
? .O
? b
as
- N
f

APPENDIX D
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA
APPENDIX D
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA

The table below lists potentially contaminated properties in the project area. Figure
D1 shows the location of these properties.

SITE NO.

PROPERTY
TYPE
FACILITY RIGHT OF WAY
REQUIRED FROM
FACILITY
1 McKay's Garage UST Yes
2 Carolina Asphalt Other Yes
3 Abandoned Gas Station UST Yes
4 Former Hippy's Haven UST Yes
5 Brown Molding Company UST Yes
6 Sandhills Wildlife Depot UST Yes*
7 Hoffinan BP UST Yes
8 Barry Bostick Racing Other Yes
9 C. C. Grocery UST Yes
10 Flea Market UST Yes
11 Southern Products &
Silica Company UST Yes
12 CSX Transportation Railroad No
13 Camp MacKall Military
Reservation Military Base No
UST - Underground storage tank facility
* - Right of way will be required from the Sandhills Game Land in the area where the
depot is located, however, the depot itself is several thousand feet away from US 1 and
will not be affected by the project.
D-1
iS A N D H L
RICHMO.W COUNTY
1475
McKINNEY LAKE.
FISH HATCHERY;
MCK/NNEY
LAKE
1536
0

O
1479 Entwistle 1
1
JEND PROJECT
Drowning
J
in
SL
small PROJECT CORRIDOR
K 1603
i 'Gee
QI POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES
Marston
1001
BEGIN PROJECT

TIP PROJECT R-2502
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES
J
IN PROJECT AREA
KILOMETERS
O 3
1 2
MILES
FIGURE DI
r 9,
MOORE COUNTY

wMWwrv
POP. 349 CS
4
2
4
Z
Z
J
0
y 1O
CAMP
MACKALL
MILITARY