20071823 Ver 1_Complete File_20071030

A.
HYDRAULICS DESIGN/PERMIT DRAWINGS REVIEW N'
Location and Survey Conference Room osT 5P
NCDOT Century Center Complex 10 ??
August 17, 2005yq??B
8:30 Price B-0682, Bridge 198 over the Intracoastal Waterway on
SR-1162 at Sunset Beach
Brunswick County, Division 3, Permit Drawing Review
(413 meetings were held on 4/24/03 and 8/21/03)
Team Members: Dave Timpy- USACE
Gary Jordan- USFWS.
Travis Wilson- NCWRC
Bill Arrington- NCDCM
Steve Sollod- NCDCM
Christina Breen- NCDWQ
Ron Sechler- NMFS
Chris Militscher- EPA
Clarence Coleman- FHWA
Jimmy Goodnight- Roadway
David Harris- Roadside Environmental
Lonnie Brooks- Structure
Deanna Riffey- NEU
Colista Freeman- PDEA
Joe Blair- Division 3
10:30 Clawson R-2502B, US 1 from North of SR-1528 (Vincent Gibson
Avenue) just North of Hoffman to Existing 4 lanes North
of Moore County Line
Richmond/Moore Counties, Division 8,
Permit Drawings Review
(413 meeting was held on 2/18/04)
Team Members: Richard Spencer- USACE
Gary Jordan- USFWS
Travis Wilson- NCWRC
Christina Breen- NCDWQ
Chris Militscher- EPA
Clarence Coleman- FHWA
Cathy Houser- Roadway
Lonnie Brooks- Structure
Elizabeth Lusk- ONE
Jay McInnis- PDEA
John Olinger- Division 8
David Harris- Roadside Environmental
Stormwater Management Plan
R-2502B
Richmond-Moore Counties
US 1 from SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Widening existing road to four lane shoulder section with median
Best management practices will be implemented for the entire project.
• Avoid ditching and channelization through wetlands as much as possible and
practicable.
• Temporary erosion control plans will be included in the construction plans.
• Designs and design criteria that are consistent with minimum standard promulgated
by DENR will be utilized.
• Discharge from highway drainage systems at the edge of wetlands or floodplains to
promote filtration of discharge prior to its entering the stream.
In addition to the above, the following additional measures will be implemented:
• NCDOT will strictly adhere to the "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A
NCAC 0413.0024) (HQW Standards) throughout design and construction of the
portion of the project north of SR 1004 (Bostick Road).
• Hazardous spill catch basins will be used at the Drowning Creek crossing.
• The use of turbidity curtains during in-stream work will be studied during the
development of the erosion control plans and curtains will be utilized if it is
determined that it will be effective in the conditions found in Drowning Creek.
• Use of rip-rap will be limited to pipe outlets and steep ditches to reduce soil erosion.
• Typical section for the proposed roadway will incorporate a shoulder section with
side ditches.
• No sediment basins will be constructed in wetland areas.
• Existing channels and ditches will be relocated, where practicable, to maintain open
channel flow.
• Stormwater discharge from the proposed roadway will be in the form of sheet flow
into the grassed roadway ditches before entering the proposed storm drainage system,
and will be discharged into grassed ditches before reaching streams and wetlands.
(See Roadway Plans)

s

VICINITY MAP

? t
d/
ergl?v Ilzl
i
1

t
I
Spi n
n
m k.il:
'3 ?a ` I
u1
SITE
NORTH CAROLINA NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND / MOORE COUNTIES
PROJECT: 54438.1.1 (R-2502B)
WIDENING OF US 1
FROM NORTH OF SR 1528 TO
THE EXISTING DIVIDED FACILITY
3p NORTH OF THE RICHMOND
COUNTY LINE
SHEET OF 07 / 15 / 05
SITE MAP
14
SITE 3 4 `s
SITE 6
SITE 4,
\
I 4r v, r ??.. 1 n j t
L _f ?END PROJECT
; c
SITE 7 - L ;-5,
-:- - ? t ?`- - .?` - •4--=-? T i ?. ? _
u) SITE 8,-
' Aj rrl - =-
f SITE 5' - -
,.? 'r rat \ ?i '? ,?? j + f.,• Jf?,c ?,..? ? ,?. ? ( - Yr?
r. _ V

ti
?I

II EGIN PRO
J

d?'§' SITE 1 \ T rECT,
v
17
<x ?a ? + ? „? ?` /"?•.? d rte. .-•-•,, > ?
N j
hvF
tDXI?IAHY,i AIRFIELD
3' 4 .v 4'ii.? ? 4 1 i? F`??. "?"?"i? CaRS? X .{??. ? ''€ ? ?\'A 5??y p? t,. f 1''. \:J,.
N NCD OT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND / MOORE COUNTIES
PROJECT: 34438.1.1 (R-2502B)
WIDENING OF US 1
FROM NORTH OF SR 1528 TO
THE EXISTING DIVIDED FACILITY
NORTH OF THE RICHMOND
COUNTY LINE
Ile
SITE
MAID
NCDO T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND/ MOORE COUNTIES
PROJECT: 34438.1.1 (R-2502B)
WIDENING OF US 1
FROM NORTH OF SR 1528 TO
THE EXISTING DIVIDED FACILITY
NORTH OF THE RICHMOND
COUNTY LINE
NORTH CAROLINA
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNERS NAME ADDRESS
P. O. Box 52
Shirley Ann Tyner Hoffman, NC 28347
P.O.Box 188
Bowater, Inc. ME. Gilead, NC 27306
125 Applecross Road
James E. Pugh Pinehurst, NC 28374
P.O.Box 1178
Reaves Landscaping and Design, Inc. Pinebluff, NC 28373
265 North Ridge Street
Robert McLeod Southern Pines, NC 28387
277 Thunder Road
Gordon Matthews Pinebluff, NC 28373

NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND/MOORS COUNTIES
PROJECT: 34438.1.1 (R-2502B)
WIDENING OF US 1
FROM NORTH OF SR 1528 TO
THE EXISTING DIVIDED FACILITY
NORTH OF THE RICHMOND
COUNTY LINE
SHEET OF 07/15/05

p w F' W N
C) _z a

O?z°OQU°
a.¢?NzW?I
z
cm a)
xU Qz
c?w?o>°
1:4 :5
o
xQ4
fS,? 006 -aOU

Fz?taFW
w
o
U
?
oo
Q

D
U) w
?awN
HW

U)

C C O [0

O Q QInO co
?z
? 3
c
z

c w ? o

a) O)
C 'r- C O O
N
?
O
?
?
ti

Z
oo
Oo
0
0
0
°0 N
0 N
0

co (9
U
C>a

0. 5 W c

2 N If

E;

5 m CY)
It V It V)
co
iz?
Z
o H F F F I-o !-o H F °
Cg
co 00
cp
7 'It CO t + t t f

1
1 E
It 7

m
m m ? O

(n .N ? m ? o

Q W U E

n.

w
Q °- CO m °

w ?
U
a

U
=a

Z
LL
a

N O ti
r U ?
?

? m

m
v
°°
v°°
I- m f0 , ,
U =U
a
?

a ?
n
. o
_ c

W Z U

? w

J LL
?
W ? a? m O

c
N
C C
[6 U
M
?
N
O
M
?
N
O)
O
N
- C:) cD M O
O
O

N
f0
7
N ?
. co
M
F-
_
N X
O
?
fn V
?
N

CO
M
I- O
O 1?
O to
m
co
LO
-
C
~ M V V
O V V'

m
M
7
? V'
N O r
N
CD
co
CO
co N
co
d' V V

J
N Z N f ? M W E ?

O c+?
OwF o
F
;14
ai3 -:'i?b if{l iw b-. I.?:{t ':fVHI)Jq +.. '!gib
°T{K
.K ?
lE ?
ki
dy ?^
?? c o ' 1 3 0
N
00
00 o c r h
a?
/ o
N
AF
m O
K ?
Nyy ? 111
C1 H
AF K /
r
a
H
k-
o
• .
« k-
Ul '
o 4.0
p /F
m m
z z
c o 0
nm mm
r Ul
m -i W
r
D 3 D T
o m m z .-r
o n
z or
i =
c r
D
_
Z
N
m
o

AF
f
`
1 i
I i
1 \
1 /f
A !
1 \
Ir \
t y
_ 390
i
r !R ,
7q ?
I I
r/
_ .f 1
} 1 ?
1 ?! I
1
1
I !
i ,
1
1
i
AN - /
9 i
Ka ` { { I
f, i !
m 1 i 1 r
{
1
l
A I
'i
i i
f
u ?
i '
r '
J
1 +!
r .
i
[7
}
r
i
,+ r
/vr r.
`I[ y
iivavin .ae x CS
rA
8%
\1
N ?m?
O
H K
a
Ir
/VC I
A D GRID
83
-A ycz m ab
nnnatn
??Iq O
'S.
N
:u-jr-oD-al
nnn4nntn ?

00
2?= a
?167 nnnn

t !y 0 Q 400 wro lzJ
Z ? ?NI
ti
W
w
°
g
__ sz zj N a
o?

ANI 8? z z
n
?r ?o
« m V! ryy z
Z lZl m
mz
z Z
o
oZ?
N o
r ? Ytl C
..l S
1> l
G Z Z
z
N p
N
y
?62
An

F
m U zp

> 3
3: I ZA, 4 z y' 111 a,
1
>?
1 c rn +?
S f 1
Az?
?r so. 4, 1 1 , II ?y9
00 ZA!
50 fly O'??Vi l '-0.
yo uu y ,1 ?' -\ •`, ,. m? 1 R ? ti\?'?`It ,{? ? m i- I
y?y Ac \ i o
oo 1 -- 1
°° j- ,.._.... ?i
1 ,
°o '° z+^ 1 y''ip a j
uo It
ol It"
sa `'
uw x 3 - \\. °t., t I '1 ':I +88 ?? t i +. /• i i'4
1 1 w,` ,?I y ! +
NN 76
y ...
w 1 ?,! V
a
l ? }may _
T r
w ?O In'r ? I , ?` I
c ? y rF m?\ -; I .,?? I?. ? iJ`, ,i :•+rs£?:dC3 L7£3 \ ?'''
41
o am
0 S2,
D. xm ta._...,. mm
O W O 1f N? 2 ( ( ! P i IS . Lu - ??f+
roc I R ` ` I. \ II I IS «x, ` _ x€ L'+£;,L ?,,,';
r o o 'naa,s,,m.D /
• e '
,
F;
T ?? F +
i
i 44
SLOPE I./. I '? ly q !
V1 STAKE K -!•i' ; I ,
y G O ?: .- .. - / I. L I t
+ ti zm0 y j (? LLL +.• ??..
,rn
° »s''
o -c
AA C
+ _ CLEARING ?>^ .... , •/ I t 'I / { S?
O,
o LIYI ' - , I 1
AF
I

O t
m r
c Z
O O \ C
-i
nm g
mm
r Lo -1 LO
M r \
Mm z? \ \

° \
•' ?
o n
z or
- \
=
G? r I
D ?
z ? !
N ?
m
0

d o
r ry
I ni No
-x
, ln..? ? n21v
Y

?
C o a a air
a

eg. 'I

s `
i
a
aaa nU)
w?rorNI
WMO
cg
400 wy

S
' 0
1
sx
xo m $
z
?
? Z (? mD
? a
LT ?°i
Z
I= z pr z

om? Z
O O

N z o Z,
y zVl C
a
N s
m p
o • •
•
N • ?
O • •

N.
p

p
p
I?
1 k
m
O
? ?
A CA

.
M
7
cm
sa
vu
n 1-?zooma
-ar
v° ?
an 4 K
_

Ky +1
v am
nn

Am
nn

L
1+

p r
0
z
Ik
-L- POT 408t51A8
-L- tR J S 408+51
BEGIN TRANSITION I
x
0
f
m
i+

s
a
w y
^
om
p0
I<

y ymm
<I-
o ^
a

a

a
mD
r
?
-y
N
* o v
1
C C
.., ?T puppy
y l"?IbA -2?
a p a n p n N r
cN„N*vzQq+ Z,
?NW??A C
o
?ys? my
y
a p p p V1
N Gq LC
??L7 tN
to •4
rn
m
y
0
O
r
I
m
p
•
?`I?oDv r
rri
I? i II I 1 °ad`papcn
li7?1 K. rn
k
LZJ
Z
N
D ?
I
i = W
z
z 0
0
x
a
f r
z
0
M
_?- OO+ZOb `O1S 3N1"1H01' V'
I 1 m
WtAQ
I w Oma
, I ? tan a o?
yl m
I o-tr
m Ns
I I A oz=
z I I v z
I m c I 1 a m
<t:: m I I \ p°
1 m I ` pD
1 05 A5 \?I
4• 24' 23• 23• 24' 14' 1 3p ,!O
I r
, I I
I °t
I I I
a*
I 8
c I I I F ?Od
I I
I i j I
c i +93S8 2 i F
? I 1
I I 1 p
cI i If
I I It
c I
I ? I +
I I I ?.
I ml I ? ?
1 m I ; IE
O I
I aI m
*9388
sm c r 2 j
0o I ? ? I
^<' I ?t I I p I«
1 $? 1
+7/OB 2
I I II 1 ?
c I 2 10526 I p
I I 11 I + p
11 I
I Ao 23• li j I I ?.
I 1
I
I zIt A2 ?./ -L- POT #B
II -L- tL J
m II F BEGIN TRANSTffl
V I?
N t3/ Y1 '1 I I
Ft / II Ic
1 v I A *6524
1 I I / I
?t
F ?i - '4, 4 I c 410
?I I'n to
• 1 nn°ncn
r. It Nt.t?O
I 1 iT?iw? A
? I 1 c
I
T li 1
V 1. I I I I c ,
to Ln
DS rp
r
f (' I I) o 0
1 CA A ?y?mv
1 1 4 I ?J PPS ,? ? n p p p N
p v I Gb G { ?O'oi
p 91 18' a16 BEGM Y It L}?
* pl A100 1>
O ••• f 1' rmn? * I =mrz
m no
m p ' y D T Y ?? N C
UI ! ? 1
! • I f< 1 ?K I J ` mPr:p
! \ r ro wo? It
r
!• IE 1 l 1 r Y a O
CD
5 1 1" a '? ? ?* .an
Z m
??uop? ti c nm ?zo 415
n d 11 r- n m m
I- Pt'I rN
to V4t2-p c? D3 DTI tnr
nt 4 °p C o ?m z.-. mosl
L q? D _
aa
aZ-. P <
r Z
4
N
m
o
unpu
dppnpa?r
O' I
b
mwN n
w
y
aaaatn
• t?.i 01?Np
405 w
- ?7
NC GRID
NAD 83
523
N LEFT
olp 1+
+ tl 1S 3N?lHO1tlW _
-l- 00 c,
ID POWn
OM3- y?l?0tn
1 I
d' 7 I ? I po m ? ? ?wv
L I I j` PpF •S LOS- / ."' ." - ?? i
• ?_.. p5 p5 I \ _ ..? _ SbTI.?•? .
I 4' 24' 23 23 24' VS Fri-_
I I I \
? a I O ? ? / ?'Yrn
ci I V \ dam; dudd?
* ad?nl °
? I t I I ? ;!4? 8 w??N
i j I v ;f cn,?'?R'?
+93.68
C 2 i I f tS ?' 405
C3 I I 1 ?'
µ r, i I 1 ? ?o
°m ^ c I I ~
N
ss ? eti oom ? ""? c NC I I NI z GRID
g-'1 t
x .0
? NA
$°r N oar I I D 83
N ° K I I n,
?? A • r d I z l o *c
=Ile
ti -ate am I <i m ? ? !k
na
O
m? - CV ¦ I m` ,I,, ,
C m C I I N'
6;0 I I
I
czim i ? I \ 4 •
?I I N
+71 z ^' W_
1 0
I
ox ?\ c I - - I I ?\ • ?`
µ « -L- POT 408151.08 I 23' I I I i J?
-L- (RT) TS 408151 II li \
BEGIN TRANSITION RI II I
z 1 n L- V7 523 +
I -L- f1. d
m _ II B?' ),"Ns ry LEFT
ci II I \
CID
o w,i s
m I / / I +6524
w € am I // / I I I \ N
r l ??
,• o? ors ) I (' I I / ? I ? S ( \ a
F 410
s. I ^ I f? \ d d d can
x
N Q o I I ( ` 08e L,
?
c ?atn o
? y.
I d
w * t?,
-? ddudy ?'' I c5o
A e _ I
?w'a'wa
?4U ? ?T3?p I i ( I kil?WL d' Ccs r
0 It
r3 C> -b I-C
d d u d d u';'? Ae y \ R ?« ?nLLniR
c4 1 ? II I j 1i ? ? '` bt?? m
t9'YO I O ?. s 8?\.7t?J G,
0 IN
?lyC. m? ?\ A I I (( II N. r1 w pN ? ? ? _ ?}x?AtN7f
III a 1+ C G
QiliLmLl ° s _ av' > I? 1B- 16 E / _ i• ?' ..? _ .•.,.•? ?\ 1.!w
Vd? O • • f r? in ? ms \.\.
QO ? • 4 ? m t• y „ ?L2
mMM
m c? o z 58? - - 415
N n n ODD ' n 1 m0 CO \ 1 t 3
t?inn U?
o ???al q r s D 3 f" j(11 \ + 1I a 2, ? tit a -
lphVCy l7 J2A'T. ?nr
\ I, •` ?` `? u, O
C
Nn,, ""1 ?, O ?
z C-) `gym >
l 4W1 O r Cn A P
M ? /1 'z g o
GAD It \ N?1N?L V + s? $? 8z z< N a
r Z. \ pg LS o I t?1 z C1 cn i°
O ~ z Ar Im a„,' O N
,l „ a •? z ;g CU m
m m(A
It ?1- Z 9 C" P z
I+ W z O
P
O
m
? x
zz ?y
Zm z z
v? :? A? r
H z
o
0
5 ,14
s„=.S(11 b=l91 i+bbl :,'? S}Y; ?!1:!° A_ ?: IL
LA Ni p
a fm_1 dMi
v ° O m
Hilo

T .

9?M OH
z
y
p
m
0
s
r
IMIdJ AYM S3,?WJ 'NlJ3d5

tl

1 uuuuuutn ? s? vm ,
t
l+latntntAtA
-5 4k f7
4z so ' r t
rn

Ll
uuuruuy,t
c
u N 6 Yy r .? i n k
rryry 1 )) 7C y *
17?f?+n `, J y
1 11 M
C3
'} 1 C
f/ t? ` 'k)tfi'_i
`Oh'm ^: C?c',Str
------ `

? y
VVM1`II
* ? fit
I

N
rn rn O •

?
•
v,cn
mrn . '
"

N O O O
N z z
c O O
( m -t
r (!) -I in
1
D3 D-n
O ?
p? f7 Or
?m ?D r
rn z

N z
M
O
'
1 tilto
fr 1 ???
l?
1 ?
m. ' 1 y o
ms., •k ' Dy 1 I??t
o M 1 111
r a ?? 1 4 tt1
rn 1 I4 ?`
z 1 t?
,? ? :1 tea
1 t
i
T 42!4 7 70J 1 O
ENpRRANSfTION RIGS EI"ES >1
%WAY G S'fER l?
m ?Gp BEG. +3f
i l
N 1 f Q
?• C ?i
m
i W
i ?
i
z u
0
m
I m
z
c
y
Y T
V
y?
r
' 81M OH .
PDE ?? PDE

4jS
.f,
T
T T
T
g

a ?4 N•1?•ly
? ssD s
o
*
: _
zn0 LNa
?r^' -y
om0
°
y
°? :,rn
aflD oo+
0 °I.._
o 'am
orb
° Inyr y
"
=
n ?

NI
.n a.
9'O a
O
y, f
OO
s $ ? ?yff ,n
ysy ?>
{ p ?
.
°?a
g o °
NON

" . n
o
_

m °
--? <O O
°
r m
°oq3

gf

? N
y
a I
zz
`
11
o-4
o

m ? 40

y O =
? O

420
?0-4-oDv
r r 1 r 11 to r
-w;4 q° t
a
A?1?NOD
IAL'lit 52
a j D y r
+ o ?mom v
N n µAm
-+
O N N°ya
N '^ g,yr
y m
s A = '9L 7C h
a v _
N ?
y
¦mIEx
momma
N
mmC a
rrmo
n ZO(A 4
.? ma-siJn
w?mv
op ?
r
m
o a ,?
?z 3
o*
x °
m
a * m ? 425
? mm a
, as
1 r b 'h
1 ? r
1 '
i y
1
1? *
\ Y V)
am
zo
A m
M
to L n
5
Zt 44
T 42X427 592
ig' ' -L' 51T?9N !EFT
DO , ENp?TRAN
A ' 1°n
g,'i5 S * >'a
2A 2 a
i p2 1 ,s.. m i U)
wm
0
um
>e tl 15 3N??H? 1dW z
b p
?a
x=
zm
p ! u u
cb na yrpp-0 i
9c;chN4.aga I
$?kot;?:? 0
?%rn
iz 4;
a
if M to
pNtyLqo
1St.w O' -k
, N
r??
+
?I
ti
0
o
i ? m

?? $ro z = ?
m
O
3 ? p
a Cc7 0

?
y
y Z Ar y
z
0
I- i 'All
?W
C77
5
OH -
N O
to m r H ? / !
a n +, aIN 1 z i?
CO ? o oy ? N?- " ` f mp
1 2 N ? ?c
x
Z
* sue.
r ' s
C?? `?' ? rNn s / + ?
? to c) C> -0 1 mm Inil?~ /
4!1 4 n n 9 ?p >a `? 9O$
0 wrrli
???,
to
N ?l R
V- 7 \
4 tl w1 R p ( ` ) (CD
?apDy?0+ ? ? ? '(
A, a
j?Riw w* c? .? l -
r 2 r m
??1I to q +` ?F ? i
y N 4 k= ` ( ? ? ? dN ??.
?IVwc>!? i = ? ?1 N,
a4tA. l _ m
+ + \ \ :.i 1
,
I'm
i ~~ -------- - a 1
.J Y
ti
\\ V
1
! op a?oa
co 'D
K o _mf• aka --+
W • z/3p `,N zmp
? ° ? o/ln OyO ° ? ° D
J,. y ?a eo oN° Qor
V? ? f 4 e ?` aNn ? y I =
g a?° b o
8 r? m i6 w m b -_
g go
y N ? N ? ?
n n In r
€>m > m m „v
r nn _ € m
8 n
? a*p '? m e o_g o° ?' Q a r
p N
(1 r n ? m r
1 0 ?, ~ x nr
l' 11 ? ? m
1 °m 4ZO
a A ?yroD?
a i V? r`
°
ag.
CO N ?\ 1l
?` •. r ?? imp
I/ a
N ?
/ 4 a a
v
p ?• r
of 4 ? ? O
4 .UONN
'?L Me ...mcA
p 1?
G`
cn cti ??„ •' 4 1
rnm ••• \ \ ??1 ??
-1 ° i • • ?, ?` 1 115
ib o V p \ 1
°? H c ° E ° -L . 477428+70?? -
U0 ) RIGHT
C-)
-L-
1 i mi m END t RAN RipN Y G. TE
E wp
ES
D r? ,ap Ex F 1
1 D 3 BEG
?o c Mm z. f?l fl
z= o? \
m c) D
rn Z z
N
m
0
a mayH
? 1 \?Amv
S87M pH ti r n
` A 111 '?
O 7
PDE
PDE °
/ 425
NpOw
{• mA N
m a
^` 1 m a
1
`l
c=
cl 'A
.0 rrr??1
zm 11
m
E
?LZ
3N??H01tlW
v is
?yH m?
H
? M k M ?
?ic;16
a
?
-I YI
p g q M H
?Zll l?71??'AI.q ~
O .
t?pUl?t
tl
?
1t

H
p 4 4 N tn
Nw?C
V taJ1??*
`7(?y
tp Z
N

0
z
z

s
X 3z :70
[s7 10
o p
N

rimN
&I;y ?&1? 2
r

^
? yg^
m
mz
" 4 3 ?
Z Z
O
z
N O

z
'
z
_
Z
Nln Z zy
0

seas
saasns s7wiLS s31vas swwoos s311es 8/17/99
A.LNfIOJ ONO""31T AINnOJ 3kI00W

r
hr
A A
N ?
0
0

?
sz O
z<
N
a

$

?b

i U,
O ps
z r z o
O
gzg

s83sns s3mts s31Vas $vIvloas E311J$ 8/17/99
MATCHLINE STA 428+50 -L-
-20 !j \ L -
I y.; ' ? c
r END EXPRESSWAY GUTTE 24'
BEG h
BEGrt SHOULDER BERM GUTT R
'F} 4 2T5 L ,? ? ? I =c Z r \
J? $ U? 430
I x I 275---
S
,? \ p m Q? r
+52
Z a q 275
rrt G n r+J.
I
AR
2 (<
S ?
C7 '? ? I
`V ? 5 r
I •
lp 1w,
: .. -,* 1 i, IV
- . /J c t,
i
2 • a •
?,. Sit _-•_., ? L Z?
'1F
• # \.
•O
4r a a a • ate'>l
.? '\ ._.?_ 6{ Z ° ! • P' t?? , /? -.._.__A 1Nn0J 6N4?WFiaikJ __._
ALNf10;1 :321i1OW
{ C e __ 7
-,j a IV
lop.
At Pr
*11 is 0. -i
1 S m • M a v s . • /
pr ..? -.`.l 7z, rrt
r y l - ?/
02 > r
O
F A
1 I t sm
4. r rr1 ?
440
O s r • .?.? m R
-.I
(n •
rn O s r \. its ,!r Q
y N f7 m vm O a
Ch f
(v ?
M m
r'
?m rte'-cmnJ rCn ( n \? / h? c Ao
o o x m O r-• I >= g y m N
1 = ., ; $
O m r 24' 41z y I ,?, S n o U7 IN
ANN
?zr z
n, m I a Z z o
t I; `Y w '? i [?1 0
?C
-l- OS+Zbb d1S 3NIIHOON Zm? z 1 0= a
N rA 7
O•
O
t
r!_!=
..; ;Sna ,7ua a.:!. lac ..vt.*, il.,
MATCHLINE STA 442+50 -L-

0
?
a
N ?
y
s
*
r
$ a

m AO
O °
o y r •-•1
n
? N _
A

y

m so
• y
m
s p o c:?
X j z
N
D 9
a
0 D O
f
IO 9 N .. .?
-
0
r
y 0 0 0

m ?
Ai 0 - r
s
Darn
r o
O ymi
7 N
N Omr
A m II d Q
x
S F C Z
f 9
n 0 m O O

•
a
Y 00 o b
?I '•1 T 3?
?i
O

IA
as .
µ

r
?
9
m

'

mV ?? ;-01
L
Z
f f N I
1
I -.
A
r a s ?N
yy r
? my
? Am
A A
m
2Da
0

V
M
aD
N y
a
h
fQN RIGHT
h VIT
I ? I
IZ) C>
NW
q'e?` t- s
O
tytpp??'4'Rv
O!'`U?.pN y.
? pp ?E? pULp
f58ERHM GUTTERS

IN •(?
GG mo?a
m
?
N

? o r
m
G
m
ON
• Z Z

"
L
Z?
?•
tS9
1
w b l?n? g ? ?
n
y
m
m
i
m
i
N
0
i
rn
J

sp
vy
m ? CN
o/
I
-Z
m-si
m,ItaA a
?V
mm
s
-am
v
AM)
?
? K
az
C) 2 r
D _ r ------------
•ZY Z ------..... ---- KJ
N
M x.nz.azssN
o
J.
'/ ?J??.91'$ZI
h

h
>? a
N
R
m
W

445
II ja
1 Di
h
II
? M L?,vNV<N r
3 `
L- POT 445474.00
-L'• (LT)TS 49 t 4D0
BEGIN TRANSITION LEFT to
h

1
y

I,
I

4
.
I
' I

1

I
D2

1

? r- l?5

I

i m

( gg
PQSHOU hjN ERM`I mcmv
°,
N

=

o

O ?
???

? a a
"`" "o

p
R tg?N

Y?

'
I
; I
m
m Q
+
I ? V
a Q
` I m y
R
a rao?j I. I I rn,;?? I s K y ??
I

?I
450
II I I I m's
mnm
`I N 2 +32 ?iN s

I Itil . I O ,2 -DI
?? ' I? I a 1'Orp
I 1
'

o +00 EN D 2
-9C G i
yy

. m
E?

y 4
I ..
I
l 4 ? \ . N.L0.62.tl9N _
sssci ? _
I 1 ? ' \ , v
3

I
I `c.3
I4

h
I
I

I ? ? Il as
"(A
O
pp
A2 +89 \ 8 4w

yy 1 a
C>
I a
1
? I i? 2
°
O
f
' I .;?NN
?
DO I t ^JS• c? ]f0

1 I
y

455
m
(I
-
G11 I n
?.a
li I Ny
I I ?m
I m `I
a
24' 4' I +
I
D3
ti t
Y f`vJ?l f,.1
0
o • r ?
y
O r r
? o o tH .l
m
vZi z o . O
O O0
cam mm
r cn -i N
m r
D3' D-n
c om z.Y
o ~n or
,??'? !+::^$flts 1=11:ro bl`%:1 :' Sytii'i!1;!4 1'???i?y
MATCHLINE STA 442+50 -L-
S >? u / h
m _m0r'?. I .?
yam J_ ?I 1`r M
° N n o v m • 24'
N °-y m L m
a p z i:I xm >am O h M '-Ai
tan v as Qti orn W m m v
N N a
0 000 c?> ?, yr N+ .I s1Zmpn
r 'n o- N 4K ?? 1 D b
r
i
:+ rL
r aim I r,
y yp r N /
rr & ?`' ?', 445
m?
T -
°m F? 2 a d5
75
* " o m-? a 8.75 -L- POT 445474M y?m
p \,r N
-L-* (LT) S 445+74.00
N
_ ° gsr k BEGIN TRANSITION LEFT
-616 T6446 + Az / $$$Ra
a
-L- t(R,T1 C 446#IOJ9
N moo ~ BE-blN TRAM" RIGHT z rn p $a
o°oo II
m? ' I1
?> I I I? ?'? y rn n N N N N N N N M ?
r `
V` `1 r a" ` I I ?` - tb+i11??Ng1N° v
+
V e = ERM' E 2 l? r + "t mo?s ??
.(t+;j?m z G a? I I .N . I \? t ?rmC 90 (..? ?y?1 ??
m o
r o/\.. m I / Qo E p Otn
cub ENBERM mCm9 C?v10 (?n?1 Np N N O
?mKm?y ?/ I II ?? I RR Op r V$?_f
?`/ 4 1 h CD
` p - I I ` mac' A = $w
t{/ ----?F 4 I r §ro
o "
OTT m /-?LSy9tt N C ??•• ' -2
}
450
?`l '?? ''i r^' ? a 1 ? --r?.,",. . I a ?///// „\\ k.zul.SeN •'________•- ?.....E?.,?'1.?_.???
J e+ I • ? s ' ? \ Ord
u N N N N N r ? 1 / ?^ ?,. f
/
?Nd Q 'y
r4
?X-.._" / `P _ r N N N to
QbU„0 '
- ? 1. ' 14' 24'* A
?'
?' ??tn tra
t. /? 3S r/// --...,..--_..•;?; ,Y?? ?,'"_ ?/ / X14' ..--
`" 455 x
m o X14 `" \
-o O? I w
°
z IT
Z
n ?F c z
r- v) r C
iE m
/? mgVt zC' z z
DX 0
/ w m tt l?7
0D I ? - I \ \J + rN "? gro
t` fV
z
m m0 J.
f G` 5 CZ/? z y JO z
z
3NON%!N I K_.1p AV ll:LZY6 SOOZ/ZI/!0 VGLOOC 0 u0p•ylwjod-l}d-Fpi-B205ZH\SOOZ-2 ;IwJad\foJd\Aompooy\:j
w
O
10
W
10
O
I W
IP
W
10
N
W
%0
W
W
10
A
W
10
U1
W
%0
0-
W
10
V
W
10
00
W
%0
%0
P.
O
O
O
I ?
O
N
I?
W
V
Ut
W
V
0l
ca
V
V
W
V
co
W
V
10
W
co
O
W
co
W
00
N
W
Co
W
W
00
W
co
Ln
to
co
D`
W
00
N
W
00
co
5/28/99
o
o
1 Zg
0 t23
A

S~ a O
U
up? s?f ak

a <
Er `r L,°
o
_
;c
zp > z
;z
?y z A?
v ^
o
0 Z
p

3NON IJ8
Rjex.olp Wtl bb:12'6 sOOZ/ZI/LO tlsL00L O u5p•41wieG'I;A-AP,-132o52tl\50o2-2 llwJed\1oJd\Aox.ppoy\:j
A
.... ....... .........: :::: "
......
......

I

A ...
.._

I

F: ...

_.
al ..; ... _.._......

.. t. ....

. _:$

.1... _..
FIT]

I": fl.
m

.D... - . ."
I

T-

p
.. I
__ _
T
.:
l i R - A6.1 Fal-r ill
I A
A
10
A
N
O
A
N
A
N
N
A
N
W
A
N
A
A
N
Ul
A
N
O-
A
N
V
?I A
i N
Oo
A
O
N
A
0
W
A
0
A
A
0
w
A
0
of
A
O
V
A
O
OD
A
O
O
A
O
A
r
A
N
A
W
A
A
A
Ul
5/28/99
o
gr. b ?f ? m
0?1 10 z?
A

° U
I
'b i N
W i
m
^? =tn az o
?m
w
d
e?
a
aN
> z

? 2
?
>? ? 0r z r
2
zm 2? zz ?
tiN O z
0
3NON:38
61emo,D WV 00:82I6 SOOZ/ZI/10 VSLOOC 7 u6p-;,wiea-ga-Rpr13ZOSZtl\S00Z-2 i1wJed\1oJd\6o•pooy\!J 5/28/99
... .t ..... .. ....... .. .... .. ... .. . ....... .. ..._ .. .. . .... ... ...... . .'.. .. ..1... _. _4.. 1--
i- __ .. .. ..... . . .. ... .. .. .... .. .... .. '.?..... .. ..... _?_ __ - _.. -_..1_.... .. _ ... .. ... ..... .. .. .... _ _ .. .. .. . .. .. .. ... . .. ._ _._._1..1. ...._ L....?..'--.... ......'. . .. .... .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. .. .._ _ . ... _.... _.. ...._ .. ... . .. . . ...._ ..._ .. .. .... '... . .
A

1

1
x__
..
....
.._
.
....
}I_.._
._..

M

...

. _.

_.

. ... ..

... .. .. N

._

. ....

.. ..

...

...

.

....

... .

.. .....

.. .....
..
.

t.

..
.
...
,

......

f

........

....-

.....?.

.......

. ..

.._.. ...

.. .. ..

. .. _..

-

.

......

..f ..

......

.......

.....

..........

....

..........

........

.

..
...._..
.... ..
..
....
... .
.. ..
?
...
_
.
. ..
..1...
•
..... .
. ..
__
_
'
.._
_.

..
..
....
.
..
............
.}..
.. ......

# ....

...... .. .. _ .... .. .
... ..

L ... _.. ...._ .

1

11

,

ir ... .... .. .. .. ... .._ 1.

. _ __ ...1 . .... ..... _.
..... .
.. .... .
. .
_ i . ...
..a...
_ .
. .. .. q.

...

.. .. ..
.. .
mt.
L
..

...

.....

..

.......
.

...
.

.....

....

.....

........

...

. _I.......

.......

.
t.. ..
r.. _
. .
......
. ...
..

......

_1

w:

a

f

r
RI
4: A,
-
lt
Jid .. .

.4

:TT

+ {{

i

a
?
'

4

4-

r

:11

A

.Y.........

.. .

.... _

.

.
$:

#
. ._.. _ _ ._ ... .... ..... ...... . .. 7 7 ....
r } T

4

T _ .. . ....

.1. .. . !... .. .._ !_ .?

w w w:
{{ 4:
-
- .. .. ......'..

t - } ..
# ...... .. . . ... ........ ...._ .... .......... ... ...... _... .1.......
3 ....'.......;
:: .........,.. .._..}- -........... .......
f ......... 1... ...... __. .. .. .... ..__.... ...... . ... _1.. .... _. ..... .. ..... ..._ .........1 .... ........ .1..1..... ..
. ...... . :::

..
I.. _#.
. _
T-
- ..
_
_....
..
. _
T'
:
... L
..1_ _. .
....
..
...
. ....
. .:....
..
_ rt:
-
-
-
.
...}......

}
...
_...}
_ .....

..
..::?: "

:

_

,....

_

1
.....
...
. .
......
..
...
.....
... ..

{
.. ..
_..J.. .. .. .. ..

...
..7_
_..... .
. ..

•

j
...
..
1:: .
.....

. ..._. ..

_.

.... ..

....

.. _f

.... .

........t.........
?

........

........

. ....
. _
........

..

# m 1:11 i 1 1.1,
. .... ... ...... .. ... ? ..... .....r ' .i ?irAf ..r . . ... . . ... + . ... ....... ........... ....... .... _ .. ... _ ....
.. _ ... ....... ..... . _ . .. ..
....lr. . .....

±T
:
.11
11E.

T,
a m I 1 ...?

w:

W. {

T
._.. _ ._ - ._..
.. .. ...
.. .
4Jl.
.
.. .
.. . .
. ... ....___ .... ...... ...... ......' .... ... .'..'.. .....'. . .... .. .. ....
.. .
. _
. .... _

._.

..
_
.. .

.. __ - - - -
o• r = N Y R .

"
-
f
a l il
} -t RR
• _.
L
L L
? _ _

....
- W

IV-

44T
_ - -I t
-i 49 4 7 j_: w
T
ff -P id 3

p 411 A -H ±
:
IT .. I T
•
f: _ J.
-
-

y. # 1# 1 W
-

A
co
A -T

!=
}
+i A
21
:1
w:
- } I:}:

i
1 i ?' E
:
:
1 J

$ a
.
? =

I

it

}

1 i} L r.}
L

t ,
. w } -t + } T A• 111 LT
+
?
}

t
- 1.. ...
-
_
_
_ W
-
S .._ _L

} .. .. _. . _
I

t .. T 1

.. 1i

.
..
:

.... ..1
..

.
..

..
:.
.. .....

! .......
..

....
.. .. . .

...... . _ ...
.
.. .

?...

..

}
..

....::

I::..

?

.

i 1

: l

lti

:
.

-

-

..t

..

I

s __

.

I
.

.

...

a

?

?

#

t

..1.L

.

L

; .
' f:
? cJ . ...}... ... .... .. t L. .. .. . . .. .. . . .}. } .. +. .. } t i L
: -1
i
?_ .. :::::. .: f :::. : .. . . ... . :
i t 1 H
i2
..
....
.....
.......
.....
....
....

A 1.. ..

}.? ..

..........

....

.

1

f
7

1 -. ... .. .. __ .j ...._.
:....
.. ....
.....
....
....T
..............

........

..
A

womwil

l:

t

?

'

1

..._...

.......

....

..........

.....

......

......
I....

.
....

..

....

...

......

t
t ......
I.
. FF 4
}
?, I

{
7

i

r . 1..

I

-

1.
.1. .. ...... _.. .. .. } _ .. .. . _ .. .. .. .... ..m. - -1- - 1 _ 1. .. _
t
:

# : # is .... ?...... ... .... ............ T
1
? K ?
. .. .. __ .._ ... .. ..:..... :_... .. :... .. _ _.._
# .
s ....
.....
....
....................
........
..
r
....
...
..
...
.....
...
......
....
.....
.....
.....
........ ..
...
..
........... .....
...... ......
........ ...
..... ........
.......... ...
.....,... ..
..... _ ...
...... ..
... ........
......... ...
.... ...
..... ....
.... .
..... ....
.... ....
.... .
.... ....
....... .....
. _..... ..
.. .

y.

._..
... ..

_.

..

_..

.._.__..

...

.

.

..

..

*?

..

.. L

.. .. .....

.

....

.. ..

_ .....

....

......

..

.......

........

.....

....

......

.._......

..

...

....

...

...................

........

. ..

.

....

..'.

...

....

....

....

.....

........

.......

....

........

.. _

..
IJ
1
44"
M

:
`6

:

.:.:t::l

::.

T }
..
.
..
..I..
....
..
..
......
.

_
.._
..._
_
_
...
. _..
...
.. .
. ..._
_
{
i..
... .. _...
.. .. ..:a
l :: ::
:. ..
.. ..
._::
?
77
. .....
.. ..
..
y.?.. J.. MET
..:
::
'
I x . _..... .. . _ .. ::'
J: - H. aa

to T ET
41
11
.

ITI .._._... .._ .. ..
$...
+

4

4 w
r
:
::
I
....

?

T
,

, J::
..
..
?

T

::

:::':

._

i

v

:..
?

.:..

.::

::::

.::

.::

:.:

:

f
T ? I .... ... ....
T ....... ..... ...... ....... ............ ........ ...... .... ..... _.. .. , .. # , .. n.... .
...
?. _.{ i _I. ..
1 k

b

A

.,.......

...

1 }

.j

.
{

I. ..
.. .
!

.

:
..

. .

. .

.
.

.
I

TT

I
... . t
.
... {
. } .
. ..
...
.. .. ... .

t 1
T .

^
I

- j j4p
-
•? 1? a?

- - -- - --- 4- _1 4

'
A
_

-+ -
M O M

A -
1..
G7 A

0
Z K
I I Z O
so e N
_ . _ ... _ _ _ ..
_ _
o
=r

N

c
n
' • i + N
C ??jjII

H .? m

7 .. 1

4

7

7

-

l
A-
0

C 3 Z

1.... mm z
' _ .. . .. _. . .. .. . ' a ? O

......
.}....._ ....
.......
...
.....
....
.....
.....
...
..
.......
...
.... 1
.. ..
.. ..
_.
.. .
. .
.1 ....
m: ..
? _ T
..1.. i
.....1. .1...... ... 1.._

L .1..... ...' ...... . .. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. .... ...
.. . _ _ - - _..1
t ...
..... _
.. .. ..... .. ..: ?+:: .. 1..1
_ .. _... . ..
.. ..
... : l_r...
_ l _'...... .:: : : ::... .. .. ..... :: : : .: ::: : u.
. om
.
. ... . . }. .. .... ..
}... , z C

.....
.........
.....
..
....
....
.....
.....
...
..
.....
..
....
..
.....
.......
..
..
.........
.+...
....
......
.....
..
....
.... ...
.....
.?.. .......
.. ..
_..
. .. ...
.. .
. _
_.. .. ..
.
. .. ..
._.
..
...
...
.... .. .
..
... ..
?... _?
..1
....
..
.. ..
..
....
.:::.
...::
::::.
...?
_1j:.... _
l:.e...::.S.L.
,...
.. .....
..t......
... .
. .....
. ..
.... ..f.
. ..
.. .. .
..m 10
Cr
??
?Lp
t ..._:+.. t... ..
-L- LT TA 56+5 0 i= 0 z z m e x
zm
N ^
O y z

tiax
/.JeMop wY x£,L0,6 sou/£.Z/b0 YSt00£ 0 UED'Uxl?FDJ'pZ052J\(OJtl\?DMpDOJ\pZOSZJ\?J
01128102

FclJVTRACT: TIP PROJECT: R-2 028
o. o 0
°
o
0 _ -?

?O
N N
y
?
o O o o
y
N C
0
gg

A
Z?
? N C b
?

n n n n n n x
C p O p? V 0 •?
???a? aea?og a

-O m m
m =
zoo
??g
o?? Z
`m -o O
N 0 y
to en
70
N ?
W O N
sw%0
3 ? 3
N N
N
m
a a
o?
?' Z07
°o ?
a

?

e
x
a

Q $
a
ei
A a
w
m
o ?

? y
a
? o

y
ox

1Zi4NT of wAlf ?"iJS Ser/T' -45
V
°i
y n
N w?
y
.3 yC
c ?
1
p
b
o Ind
x? hy? o 8 Q
O
oe y y ? O ? ? ?
Eta
a
Ny
COD
y+
oil
V V
+ + O b C O
b c n
44
? h 11
ti
y

O
W
s

?F

tl'inaP NV Sb%Sb'V SOOZ/57/b'0 75L00£ 0 u0P'00-4W-CP.-q?.DS3J\[OJtl\6O.wpDOJ\OZOSZ^IA
'W
o

C,J
?a
0
OOp 'tip /`/
ICE
sas r s?? ? /! ?I
W W -1 W ? 1 1
t /
0+p+ "rS? rv i r c'
yOO ppO /
gD°m P+cw v o:
O O?? v?C O'O
0 s
R?a_ y
?S o _a
N ? ? ??? a 82.20•
.sm szo7os
v orD
\ O N? `jam
( I :1w yD
s a ? 5'
W a O a a Mw rD
rYOf?e V? £ 11 u 1 `
?F moo • '
s52
W
? T
S m ? - y
136.98. •. m
o aI ?+aR?1
g "I (D
9
K ?
NIA I
N
t
y N
a g s ? NI--"? -
.i 1 IT ?
O
O
NI?
r
p
ft
g
T N

m ??
rn •

?0 ! !
b !

t r
I
0
T ?
1
? 11 m c?

?? ? Oet m I
a
H ?
4t-oD?v ??26? I
attn't I
?ti?ps n ? ? m
t ?I III ! I ? ?'\ ? ? ??
t l I' i t ? ?
II i
II
I ? i III I ? j ? o o?
Ilt I ? n
t ? - -III I ?rV ??? ? g ry a \\`
/ / 1 1
rn
,
i 02 `A ^ ^ `? No97
nn s.,, w . .' i / q ?o
DIN
t I .7?
? I ? + m NcG
4' 4' ( 2 4??/ I 1 v QQ R/Q
l I i l *
y?r
1
to
Im
l1?
_I
x -
8 2_ m I
?? C
t$? vo?agg '
a s 3 I 1
co 52 r ,
g
E3
`°
0 1
C W ib
S I
'
C ?
,
?JU

,?g e
wom
oo-
?g? ? n
O 2
fill

I , ,[- -- - C"
1 W ??r a O
11
Z 44"3 °? a /o
a t A s? a N
t. ?" 300
:? I 1 xl ,q
i I I ?.3 ? ro
n?
Arl,
971 y
? : of
N
z
a eti
I t e?s?? ap
I j, ('' ?a? Try
I It I ,^?
I It ? F
MOM
II II ZO ?s ,,((??\ \
F
1 I I ,
1 l
S
[
I
I ? w?6O,LvN ''?
I + +2
I ?? y
i ?I I +
I >3@.92? _(01
I t I
I ?? t O
1 \ A
L
5 s
F851 tlt I N `^ ?7?
-?- OS+80£ d1S 3N11H01dw
r
tI
i
rn
v7 4
Z y
y
bb
0
C rn
rri y
y ?
?N
N?
cn ro
?a
°
ro
ro?
M a U 4 9 ??

a 1 4 Nc
eq:r,',

Zs

ro
O
?fOpj
O ?1
N
,^
rOi' ? y'
O g
¦
m
c>
19 Wo ? O

yr
s
N
N
O
b
4
$184
A10.01p N7 eo.*gpol Soot/S,./v,) VSLoor ] ufp•SO'US0',Cp?'07AC7u\(a1d?.COKpooJ?g7052?\U
MAT
`rHLINE
TA 308+50 q _ -L-
41
?o
`9p 6 If I 5 w 41
? ty o
t 1 +?? + . YI 0?0
I i
fill
3/0
? + + I 58
s I it I?i?+ i 14
a ; +? I??11 I_ 8? O
a W I j l ++ 5 Q F, J,
I I t ?d• „ Q ,
I ,
' ? gry+!s?r ,R59S
I
I
- I 1, l? 0 ?m t q4? 4 4 4
Q?p A? I I { l I ? ? ?? ? ss s W l
ryQ +1 1 lI 1 QQ'., A
'Y I
I ? l l ? ,,ccam? ya"?< ? ?0 ?
m 1 _ 9.82' v?
Q Q ) t o o r 444444 ?1
tic
t I tl O ?'
\\ \ t
------------------ -----
W65Fi'^-_...._-___
1 ? N\ S44'44'57'f ?
er?+r ,l - 1 i` t $ o- I t,` N44•aasr;pw ` 4 4 4 ry?j
Ore ?.3 I ,? r 315
Asa 1 1 III l S ? g
,? I I 111 1 I fi
D5
?. 1 11 1
T + - 1 1
$i f -g N44.38 '38' 0
'
rn v / I II' 1
s ?? ly _ _
-a ? s I I 11 I ? O
o ..cl)
S 2 a g
s ? ? O I $ I II \ ?
Ry I I 1 1 I 4S 11'
O r d? 1 I 3
S N49.42'STN
LE
~ `? T I i ? t0
11 i I t N I .r
1 t ? ? 1 II
I ? ' I
+7o I I t ti ?'
? + I no
__? I I I 1 i ?, 880 ?? i
11 - !
t /
D - - _
,+ I l 11 s2(
1 \ ? er
1-s-?•?'? _-XbS.------ Pktb'o3'00'N
``•? `?, w"
320
m Ito \t
I 1? ^1 it
I? 1 I Q
s? ?$
_0 rn
8_ a --' ?I ?, j 4 11
-,q ?m - + I lit j1 1
_ ?r'll '1 a It r ; Z).
V
°s l' I o l f l 1?e 11 ?n?In`
it I -/! Oy K V
33
_ ,I 1I I 4' 1 c 1
I DE
05+1Z£ tl1S 3NIlH31dW
H?U! R
m
w M
AN
r ? b
m o
a
0
e
*N`0
x,eMOtn y`ry IS°Sb1pI SOOZ/9Z/bU tlSLOpE 3
MATCHLINE STA 321+50
-L-FO o
Z'
o P. gig. X01
Lf ? J •,Qy?(y ? I
*. ?O7R
,
?? ---? ° -
0000
0
23,24' 939•
1?? A
a
wa ??? ? oII
0;4. fie
17
a a ? a r
w? t Q I
al '"----•- 4(6.14• ?
s4oro6'?osg -•-
w
1 }' wr
Nl$
? m o o r NI- " ).
N41-
> ? is ? 'p Po ro ?N II
??577.Tp I
S3g•2q•24,f''? I
C
DD top aN ?? 53874'24.193. 0..
fn
>E
** 2So ? ??m ? 0
- ? O? _ f N
ss ?2n 1 ?cpi
?_i l+? S R S ro7.23'
47;
I r
....591.03' ? a ? N I
S36'58rp•E ? _ I
? -- -'
- S36g8'f0 N I N
C3
K rn `
t• f ? r iXt ?N \
? FI u 1
mrn
wa
1
o

9 A
rrrp .
35
2rZ pp
o m 11m r 94•
7Q> O ?i'?-- 935y?73'E
BSii w ?
f
a t 1\. ?` o
? O
a
360.34' I
S3S?0.43•E ?
f?
{ r
r r
silo
279.35' ;

rusrosoo•w
lfi?l ? \
a ? i iI ?? +7q
f
7S R
rr
rr
r
r
r
- -I
e
0
?g s o
N ?
ya?0
07
325
'Lyo??O
N
`-? `_ -
N
a O ?8?3?3'IC
178.0)•
N38.23.23'IP
TSVILJ*'__ • '_' •-•??
? S FY-
?
I ? .. .^ 1 7r6.
> -"'-- _- a 330 ?? w
?'??? s54re•
- I @??i N3gh?
- N f'? a W
? I I tN71 W .
$ rot
$ `""??" sss.ra•
a
I
` --------------
556,ry•
ono ? .,•..n,_.rw lY?tisF?'.`?? ?+36792p,R,
a
3V
s a
24' 4411 4' 0 4'.
? I
-l- 00+S££ d1S 3NI1HJ I M

l
? 335
01
>?
ro

I"1m
m?
?y N
S N a
_E 0
m
x ae
R-op pq bSISb", SDOZ/SZlbO gSLGOf 0 ubD'

A
g
s
a m
+ €sm
0 0 ? ra
s 2X (??n
W ? Va S
v
a
O
r

MATCHLINE STA 335+00 -L-
3qg 9? a ? O I
?\SZ4,,,If ? ? I
r
VIN
sa
sw
m

00 Q
,
?
as a ???

w? o

OO 0
rr1
I j

s ?
a _s
t?l $m
0
n
O O [cap
_Qm
? a =
r
} m0
p a n
? p0
I 4rt
1
0
a ^'
°mA

1 T ?m g lAm
a

I m
P

3q..6b.95 ?

N
?z
y
O
r1
?m
{11
0
gl
M
\
N
l
1
i?
IS
335
>I m y - [fa
4
m ? \
LOON
\\\\ V
t -•--_??573.6`-
N7- -
_w w _ .. _ iY30 09•N
aad Sad
>E
Wl
3 ppp
11
n it W
01-0
Noo
? o?lW
V o
----------
------------
•

N N2jy 5•>N A-
w 290 c'pi
dJ,O
`y` brs?
\ k
I ? ? N
r t G ? i
--------------
110
Y•
32
3.06
? N96'06'27•Y1
345 ;
o ??o
a qs
IA (A tI A
_? r• M.9d•9b.LbN r-
.Lb•b9s
m +
sue. ?
Sao ? ? Obi
PDE PDE $
pv 111 30a VI
00 1
_ T
4?1
y
I I ro ?
4 24, 4
2
m I
O2 o
-l- 05+8b£ d1S 3NIIHOON
I
T
m
S H
§mI
O H
ynl V?
m ?y
WWgK
p N
r 1
M,K
_>
8
'I k
K N
0

n?
_. N
X
---------------------
---------------------
seas
fJOnaiP Ntl 451SMI SOOZ/57/bO VSLOCf
o
Oi xi C Os/ 1 'V m J
al (-C) -
k 1
1
N40.LO.Z55
?' ? i i ?•. • I S
O ?
3 N o
ma ? ? ? 1
tiu :rn
A4y? • ? 1
ST A 348+50
MAT CHLINE
A2
1 m
1 LLL 1 l 8T •I.?
1 ? 1 4' ? 1
24'
1
\ V Inm 1 \\_ 11(¢
VI V S m? m ?4 a /' ?` Il c
1 V O ° ` 1
i 1 \
1
_ `Np3
D5 DS
a ?L°??ZESxr-1, '
In $ 33.0
s is

w <
a ?

O H
g?
s ? Q
Q
!sue
w °
EMN6
C
y r
o ° L
1
;; 1
°
s s s S
ww G ? _r
v
tt
00 > <r
NN q
q
N Qm
m yI
(A #A
a
K
?w ? vao
or boo

?? rtrt? ?
.
yr

t
a o
o ?
?

8
gg
.ems
?`I,?;?oy > 3
r m
s
(mr
e
+ u P
4 +r

o
? om
s
c N $ ?m

2

° ?c m n o
? 11 p

? N N
O G O O
rt ± y rt ??
\
r
\
m \
a
?

T
sO'?3TSSa.
2y?
M1? Q °s?
p
\ g m<
mho
0 v
p `? 9
\ p ?? ? SO33T ak,
04D4 egg /
i S o s g I v Spa.
r $ t ag `.

N 1
I 1
I ?1
= A2 t t
? I
y4
1 ! 1 I1 I
I
i
I
0
350

SA,4 omi ps
it pltly
4prllpM?11
8/17/99
11
.ju ytrd
6 ?C
355
?' ? \ _ _?F I O ?W W O
1 1O
I 1 S?• v
S
y,.9O.Y 9?1 Y ? 908?Y5
--------------
1 '. tn?r
N p' (D
1
m II
'I
I \\ 2SS??-
\ N
a
w "
\ o ?
? N
? m
18
9
m
m
Z
r
I
wi C ? ? ?a m "`o ? ?? \\\\\ I X 1 ?
Vi=m a \\ !
T
? ? v egg @3 ?>1n \\ •? ? I 1
1 \ JC
4'
!I I
OO+Z9£ VI S Al-IHO.L dW

3
a rr,
X11 R
Fgl
0119
as
N

o?
O
8? ?

Iv
?
T
N
N 'A ly
Fit

d?7
Z?.i
Ri
fi1
Ii
1
-1
y ? T
uu O
oiao
R?•MOro Yin 10?9bW1 sooziszibo nsaooc a
MATCHLINE STA 362+00 -L-

s
tau
?+0 a
€S
im
NOS O ?-- s
o'r?

o
00
•r-
42

s
s
N `
s

y
!jW(A
?
.i
v o
_
000 0 0

y-4il • I
a a a a
T z
;;
??, rc.
?'`oDv
eaaana?

l
as VJo
(a, ?
4m
+
80

c
? 00

r

QO I o
LO,

? W

m
ss
ww
18
0
r
0
aaaa

CA s
R

o aaaaa =
?
r om
o o O ,
yti? m

w
m
v
'• m
r
orn
T ? •o
4sr'
L m ? t-
ym?ym
0
r
r
c
r
r
c
c
r
F

0

T ? • C?
m F
i
A
? 'O
` B:

g

R
( , II I ? I
'I
I
4' 4 I ' 1
YI r
sm
x?

- /'U/ 36Jt/6L
f
BEAN TRANSlT/ON
-------.__-"''hYK 0!1 73"- --
-
cow -
i
'tip ?c 1
e o ?3 t?3 sg
W
$ ? w
e?
I ?
I
0

m
I

A y

(
c(

I
/ I
N I
d I
n ?
I '
1
f
I 1
Q,
Ins

' -
o
m.
i
I

1 A I
I ? I
I ?? ! I
1 ? I
I ? I

i
.04 I

k q
BEGIN TRIWSlT LEFT ? L^
f? 1
f ? .
` _ -- - _- a`arnnnis
3 TIP
s
L ?<
y s? m?o?[C¢ O
_ ic
y C N
Poe t PRR!
n
w
a o°N
< a
] m j0bic
I 1 - ! 1 yg
i ( Bad ?? ,,off
I I(
I +
H
\ I ' _ $ s
-? \ Zia
r
I
Is,
I
1
r< \
1 ? s4 \ 370
1 ? p
I 1 \
i
f 1
1
c
I (
1 ct s,... _
A?v (
2 ° ' I
Q
? I
f.
4' I
/ 4' 14,
MA TCy? ENE S TA 375+00
0

N ?
c
3
y??a
a II a a
o ?-IrpD?l I
allg4aa?I
/99
\
'Z 9 ? ?7 •?
o 4 [??.JJ ? g
m
mo

375
w
O Z
w g
y N

k

N,?
r \ Z
O s
x ?
y N
Z (
y m

N
~ 4
rn I
x
p
O+
O
0
$1114
MATCHLINE STA 375+00
m
i
0
Z7
r
1
a
H
W
W
O
O
f?
-?1
1
m
0
rL
r

05+88£ d1S 3NIIHOldW
N
Nqp
3
??os
MI. ppp
W V+
ro
04?

o
o
N
c9i
zs z Q
ro ?
?
p ? I F
i
?
J ?
1
N Vi ?
7
/
/ 2 1 C
> 0 ?
p IA
m
M
b
p
K
z
o va
-Ni W O
0
e
81Mt F.leaolp PIY Lvo-o1 Sooz/guI,o mom 3 u0p•B'ysA'.(prcyp$y/\ro.,tl\mwpoo?gy05Z?V? 8/17/99
I
I t
- 3gg+50 -L-
;
MptCHIINE A
I 1 1 rnr I r `.,?
!
M q??, c\ I? ? I I ? ?< ,
hG N ? I ? 1 t aQ \\ / '
r y c ?o I C i i
390
a c I 1" ? t ? --
? ? tom \ 1 D 11 ,1 1 !! ? TR \I /????
. 4.94 I 1 I \ rr 7q I ! /
l1' 141
11 !
I I' ac it 1 1 i
I c1o r1 1 A
I I t
I
I
6? __? \ I l a' 1\ ? I
vl '? ON `\ tt I
yy ?m \ \ ?? l ? ? 1 1 ?? ?\ 1 1 j _ _ /
a ?m tt t` v? 11I?? a 1 t N ,?, ? 1 ? I ? _ ? t
'?a O ?? \ 1 yr' I T'1 I I `---/ 1 ! i 1
$o o f'^ o Cn ?1T `\ l\ a4 ?g I I 1 1 ; 1
00 '?-r ? t t Sy3 Aln ? I? 1 I $ 1 1
1N1 oya M ll?p ` vm T I 1 1 t 1
sa 3 g as
1 1 l i
Ld v v S' 11 1 f
a 01 t? I I 11 ! L? r 1
o Q = `? I ? 6 m\ I ? i
m *. t 1 a5 W\ ` I t t
m yam! -----'•--?
/
\E? + +95 ++ I j
W i AG + + I + I p !! 1 j '
8m ?S \ I i i cxcoo ea T
s y? -q to =m ? , ?- I tt ? Mil's
if N 11 11 I ??- / CI
N r F / C
r o00 sb ? } lI4XN 011.8>x nI y
y t y y 8 M ? i ?cF / I?'I
rn ?` ? I
/ O
o yrm ?? I o. 1 Al cn
z ?
R? a ? ? , f ? ?I ??G83D
b
/
I ? l ?l 5pp ??
III X m "? ,?
II
( ? 1 Ilii S?C 41p?4b?rj MIR
i 'Iy/ N
I I(I ? m ???opv
m >F K i
PIT I I? aanr
o rnm I I ? ?i N
ys I II `?SQ?o"!
? ?= m q1 I ? `7
O c I 31 41 141
?i _x. I t F
w
N
70
I
y
to
N III?1

m?Vl 11
?
O
wz
Wm?
pN

pp
xa? S
Z
n m 16 Z 4
e
?18$
RjeAgp NV wgool SOOz/SZ./60 VSLOOF J
--1- OO+ZOV d1S 3NI?H01'dw
1 H ??? n p n
? o
m $
N
I I N
44
K- I <m
`_ I o oD- ,
I ? ? ? ,pMpN`?AC1
to I .05
?. - ?vd F y w
? I I f ?Qo, ? j
r ,s* ??? to b
aF ? ?
IE I I ?d
c 40.5
( O
o I I F ? ( ? :,
?£ *AD c NC GRID
sW ?. NAD
Qo N ?>? 83
I.
i i TAI r I I I C3jl
< I 2 I. a
39 ate' m ?? !I 1
39 K-
w C ?y36B ?t 1I
? '• 270. I I
. 500'47•t8'E ? I O? i I i I ? ? `
1 I I ?
v
$ c ?! I I
I K-
,? _ W-

m oX
o CD
I I

I

I I
?, f
.
11 k-
I I
I
L ? I
!E - POT 45ins

BEGIN T
S/TIDIV R
§?
it
I I
i - DO -L- POT
r
1 s• cru I ?' t
' II .
1
F I ( GIN TRAM N L
x
---? zoysa \ I?
I
500'41'02'E fF31
K XW z?
al
• II
?? I! f82J2'
I N00.41'02`W,. _
? VF
a
Lai _
$?O K.
N O F-- ?r1 I X I I ? ??
410
01
v.
s sn
i I I ,I„n n
k-
O
(A
a ?1
Q o I y
-
w

?

o I

=
I
}
±.

? nn°p I '"?
a
? ty
>F
y ctiNn VJ? I I 1
K-
o ?`IroD?
4 p n p p p?r
rn
V?
gpn ny K
m
m
i
O
0
TrrI
c ? ? o ??rODb rL
i II ( r x p nn n p?'
K K i I? ? 2 ? ?r
a t4
F I I
I? I I1 k urppo,
w°? W
P4 ow wg?
f? zl I tr o 6 9EGM
.I : tp
?nl 1 N?10
"N'A
s< Nma
to ? 1 'm .Q 1 r s c°m? ?
?'yrODv R
-40
K- s S
K
415
0

H
(A li
Z
-t z
rn z Z

0
o?
w

x? b
1 0
0 O
$184
RjsMOip pY bJ%!
Moor o uop•frVSd-/•p-+"aZOsz,\io-a\.,-Pwj\aZOSZ,\,j

m Nip
EA
s<
J
N pCp 4 NI^
N Of r
D s? O aIN ` ymm

H
a NI?
K 0
low
goy
as
$g!9
oz, 5.0
..Y f-"iJ+l_i•• ? sz6sp ,r,.;;r'? l3 3
T I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/OFfdl VM 53.HO-4 WID-5 kJ
C.
4 p p p
a I'll-6??
p p p p p p(?1'?
CAa
4???-opt ,
p p p p p p
?r
s2
g

\\ f` sro
4 p p N (( `\ \\
?W \\ \
i
r `\

1
I?
.II a
t m
? I N
I ?
g11
? I
I

N
m
mm /
mm
Ammy
??
Q

Q
S 2
a?
ND ION fto i
;
SR
RES'?NAY
+0? BE?,? E1? ?
4
?h
?h
,n
,h
1l ^1
(1 ?
1 '`6gF;c l? / I ?/ 1
O
/09 ? 8 ? O
I 4v
r
f s
W
N
I ? ? O O
I ? N
f O
{ I f•
I?
{ i ?yyoyp4
6
? IT
saim 014
'O pDE
-----------------------------

S
?
s N
y
ii,
u
8
H I O
-1
N ?
?A
s
+ z
o a
+
< ? S
s fL
H
.k

a s
z0

?
? 2r
?
a
?o r 4
'-1 0

RP58
ems
Op
r
7
495
?` as
T
1 ?
s
N al Q
r \ _
10
1
1 ?
J i -
J
T IS

WS
4
? I
4 0
o?
+ 1
N 11 p p pcj- r
ea
tiC,
p p p p
pppupu?l
O
1%440 c? C
? p? 3

$ K N
o
N G9
Ise
Z i?
W
I
?mV, ?y ?
m?
'A HN' ?

1 y
V

N
o+
0 O
3Rlq
.C?a?MP Y/V 16?66?8 5002/97./b0 tlSt00£
MATCHLINE STA 428+50 -L-

?'
i I

IOULLDER EXPRESSWAY GUTTER
BERM GUTTER

I

8 g k
I
r
rri 430

ils
s
a I ?. N
+52 s
N
f
a
' O
a
I I
i 9

15' y fr 4r
x g a
gm
t
rm

HI
N +
+

r•

m
i
4r
I O O
n/n O
ti
AIM s.
I
r ?`I +02
. ' 2
Ii
I ? y
? 111 ? Al
rn •, I
rn ?i
z +
f
? I
I
I (( 5
L?. I ? A2
-I- OS+Zbb nis
n
r
T
N
Z4 I
I I .?
I '
I I
f I T
i 1
? I
i I T
i I
?T
I
I T
? I
I
?I
i
i?
I
A

vo ??
s
y$
OI
440
A
b ?
iv. A r
NIIAA y
HZV' g.b?yl4y,
wz
' a'S7
m
?m Z
?? y O
0

4014
R,eMOlP IYtl 02+96+d SOOZ/SZ/trU tl51002 3
MATCHLINE STA 442+50 -L-
N
s
a
a
a
t
m
O
O
N
1
s
a
0
+o
0
1
r
N-1
s
a
0
m?DyroD--1
N p p p p p s
b -W q°
ti
NRio ?

o ??1rOD? ?
2
445
M•LStl9d? i
6Z
NSMON LEFT / p p ?qc
44
m ?^IroD?l
p p p p p p
M.Zt.&59N __?---
r.,?-,--?-- ?S?6Z ?'?? OnW
Y-- &G -
$l$
tit c
'ffl
8g ppppv?
p p p p p p? y
N
i
0
r
0
?F w A T? Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q °
?0 0 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
?North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
yTZf??os?N? y t ??
l
May s, Zoos
9N?S qTF . fC?
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Polly Lespinasse
Subject: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Improvements to US 1 from SR 1001 to the
Existing Four Lanes Near the Moore County Line in Richmond and Moore Counties, TIP R-2502, WBS
Element No. 344381.1, State Project 6.589009T
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that
the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based
on review of the aforementioned document:
.
A) This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team member, the NCDWQ will
continue to work with the team.
B) Issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification may require the use of turbidity curtains during in-stream work unless the
Division of Water Quality agrees they would not be effective in protecting water quality standards.
C) As part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process, the team agreed that both bridges on this project would be 440' long as opposed to the
400' and 430' bridges proposed in the environmental assessment. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that if the application for a
401 Water Quality Certification proposes a bridge length shorter than 440' it may result in permitting delays.
D) Issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification is contingent upon construction of a Hazardous Spill Catch Basin at the Drowning
Creek crossing. In addition, the bridge will be designed to capture all storm water and direct it to the Hazardous Spill Catch
Basin. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that if the application proposes different details regarding the Hazardous Spill Catch
Basin and storm water drains it may delay the issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
E) Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules {15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)(2)).
F) As part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application process, NCDOT is respectfully reminded to include specifics for both
offite and offsite mitigation plans.. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation
plan with the environmental documentation. While NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted.
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification. We understand that NCDOT will request compensatory mitigation through the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program for offsite mitigation.
G) Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should include an itemized listing of the
proposed wetland impacts with corresponding mapping.
1?°Clttt??a
? Q
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Intemet h2menrstate.nc.us Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
An Equal Opporhin lAftmabe Acdon Employer - 50°k Recyded110% Post Consumer Paper
H) NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to
jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in
addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application.
I) Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) in the project area. Given
the potential for impacts to these resources during the project implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to
North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and
construction of the project.
J) Review of the project reveals that High Quality Waters (HQW) will potentially be impacted by the project. The NCDOT will be
required to design, construct, and maintain hazardous spill catch basins in the project area. The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the
stream, and in consultation with the DWQ.
K) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
L) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater
management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
M) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
N) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands may require an Individual Permit
application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no
wetland uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization
of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan,
and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or require any
additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse [phone].
cc: US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Chris Militscher, EPA
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
File Copy
f
US 1
SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
WBS Element 34438.1.1
TIP Project R-2502
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

North Carolina Department of Transportation
-
In Compliance with the North Carolina. Environmental Policy Act
The following person may be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
APPROVED:
Z 2 ?OS?
Dat foltGregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
US 1
SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
WBS Element 34438.1.1
TIP Project R-2502
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
kA, /f ",
J es A. McInnis Jr., .E. ?????•?? CAROIj?''??,
Project Development Unit Head . Q. .•» ?' •
,•`?t*??DEESS1044
SE AL
-
= 20701 •
Robert P. Han I N ?0* g?
son, P.E.+ ??
Assistant Branch Manager y A Mc1 w
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Z/25/a5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ......................................................................................................................... i
I. TYPE OF ACTION .....................................................................................................................................I
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................................I
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................2
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................................3
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment ..........................................................................................3
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................3
C. Public Involvement ..:.................................................................................................................................4
D. Other Agency Coordination .......................................................................................................................5
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................5
A. Proposed Improvements ..............................................................................................................................5
1. Roadway Cross-section ..........................................................................................................................5
2. Structures ...............................................................................................................................................6
B. Probable Environmental Effects of Proposed Action .................................................................................6
1. Wetlands (Waters of the US) .................................................................................................................6
2. Rare and Protected Species .................................................................................................................7
3. Traffic Noise ..........................................................................................................................................8
4. Land Use ................................................................................................................................................9
5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................9
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT nVIPACT ....................................................................1 I
APPENDIX - Comments Received Following Completion of Environmental Assessment
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Proposed Typical Section For US 1
LIST OF TABLES
Pa
Table 1- Anticipated Effects on Wetlands .................................................... 6
Table 2 - Federally-Protected Species in Richmond and Moore Counties ..................... 7
Table 3 - Potential Environmental Effects of TIP Project R-2501 ................................. 11
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 1
SR 1001 (Marston'Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6:589009T
WBS Element 34438.1.1
TIP Project Number R-2502
Geotechaical 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 projects effects on
existing development, particularly area churches and the Marston station of the Hoffman
Fire and Rescue Department.
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.
Roadside Environmental UnitlHydraulics 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. ;
Finding of No Significant' Impact.- R-2502 Page I of 2
February 2005
1

is ,

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.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) requested additional work be
conducted on two archaeological sites in the project area (31RH133/133** and
31RH319/319**) 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 HPO 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.
Two sites containing Michaux's sumac exist in the project area. Plants within the
proposed construction limits of the project will be relocated to a protected area prior to '
construction. This relocation will be coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
the NC Natural Heritage Program and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
Roadwav Desian Unit/NCDOT Division Eight Construction
The locations of the Michaux's sumac populations will be denoted on project
construction plans with a note that areas containing plants outside the construction limits
are not to be disturbed during construction.
Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the populations to
prevent entry prior to any work beginning in the vicinity of the populations.
The contractor for the project -will provide written notification of the start date for
project construction to the NCDOT Office of Natural Environment. Following this
notification, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment personnel may perform
unannounced on-site inspections during project construction.; This notification should be
sent to the following<address: -
Natural Environment Biological Surveys Unit
NCDOT Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-2502 Page 2 of 2
February 2005
`ii
I .
1
State Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a State Finding of No Significant Impact prepared in compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the capacity and safety of US 1
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 (one access per parcel) will be obtained for portions of US 1 to
be widened to four lanes with a 46-foot median. No control of access is proposed for
other portions of the project. All intersecting roadways will cross US 1 at-grade; no grade
separations or interchanges are proposed.
The project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled in
the 2004-2010 TIP for state fiscal years 2005 and 2006, respectively.
The total estimated costs for TIP Project R-2502 are as follows:
Construction $22,000,000
Right of Way Acquisition $8,100,000
Wetland Mitigation $98.300
Total Cost $30,198,300
The cost estimate included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program for the
project is $32,248,000. Of this total, $6,225,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition
and $26,023,000 is estimated for construction.
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 of the environmental assessment).
• 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 of the environmental
assessment).
• 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 of the environmental
assessment).
1[I• SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The proposed project will require the relocation of 14 homes and 10 businesses.
The project will also relocate two churches. 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 2.0 acres of wetlands, but will not affect any
jurisdictional streams.
The proposed project will affect two sites containing Michaux's sumac, a
federally-listed endangered plant (see Section V-B-1). Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act does not apply to project impacts to Michaux's sumac, however, NCDOT has
coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and modified the project design in order
to reduce project impacts. Plants within the proposed construction limits of the project will
be relocated prior to construction.
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists within federal permit areas for the
project. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with a biological conclusion of
"may affect-not likely to adversely effect" for the project 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 four businesses by the design
year 2025 with construction of the project, however, noise abatement measures are not
considered appropriate. Noise impacts would still occur to 39 homes and four businesses
by the year 2025 if the project is not built.
2
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.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the environmental assessment were made available to the public and to
the following federal, state and local agencies:
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 and Natural Resources
Military Traffic Management Command
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Richmond County
Town of Hoffman
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from whom comments on the environmental
assessment were received. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
COMMENT: "We offer the following comments on the Environmental Assessment.
The summary and page 24 state only that the NCDOT will conduct additional
work on two sites if they are in the Area of Potential Effect and after the right of
way is purchased. We recommend the two site numbers 31RH133/133** and
31 RH319/319* * be added to the discussion in the summary and page 24."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The two archaeological site numbers have been added to the
project commitment referring to the sites on page i of this document.
3
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
COMMENT: "We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. We are concerned over
the proposal to drop debris from the demolition of Bridge No. 42 into the waters
of Drowning Creek. NCDOT should explore methods of bridge demolition,
which do not cause disturbance of the streambed."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The environmental assessment presented the impacts of the
worst-case scenario (the entire bridge superstructure over water being dropped in
the water). NCDOT will follow Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal during the construction of this project. The contractor
will prepare a plan for bridge demolition and debris removal. The contractor will
not be allowed to drop the bridge in the water if the bridge can be removed
without doing so. If it is determined components of the bridge must be dropped
into the water, all efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the
surface waters.
COMMENT: "...Best Management Practices for the protection of Surface Waters
should be strictly followed."
NCDOT RESPONSE: As stated in Section V-A-2 of the environmental assessment,
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
followed to minimize project impacts on water resources in the project area.
C. Public Involvement
A second citizens informational workshop was held for the project following
completion of the environmental assessment. This workshop was held on January 9,
2001 at the Hoffman Elementary School in Hoffman. Approximately 60 people attended
this workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to obtain public input on the
appropriate typical section through Hoffinan. Both a five-lane undivided and a median
divided typical section were presented in the environmental assessment.
Based on comments heard at the second workshop, most area residents prefer a
five-lane undivided typical section through Hoffman.
A public hearing for the project was held on April 10, 2003 at the Hoffman
Elementary School in Hoffman. Approximately 70 citizens attended the hearing. The
majority of comments and questions heard at the hearing related to the project's effect on
individual properties. No opposition to the project was expressed at the hearing.
The project will likely affect Marston Baptist Church's sanctuary building.
NCDOT design staff will meet with representatives of the church during preparation of
4
right of way plans for the project to help identify the effect on the church building and
allow the church to begin planning for replacement or relocation of their sanctuary.
D. Other Agency Coordination
Coordination was conducted with natural resource agencies concerning
recommended bridge lengths for the proposed bridges to carry US 1 over Drowning
Creek. A field meeting was held with the agencies in June 2004. A 400-foot long bridge
for the northbound lanes and a 430-foot long bridge for the southbound lanes were
recommended in the environmental assessment at Drowning Creek. The agencies agreed
with the proposed bridge lengths at the June 2004 meeting. Currently, both bridges are
proposed to be 440 feet long (see Section V-A-2).
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Improvements
1. Roadway Cross-section
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 in the environmental assessment (see Section IV-A of the em ironmental
assessment).
The environmental assessment recommended four-lanes with a 16-foot median
and curb and gutter through Marston. Four-lanes with a 16-foot median and shoulders
were recommended between Marston and Hoffman in the EA. No recommendation was
presented in the environmental assessment through the Town of Hoffman. Both a
four-lane and a five-lane typical section with curb and gutter were considered, the four-
lane typical section was designated as the preferred alternative. North of Hoffman, four
lanes with a 46-foot median and shoulders was recommended. Figure 3A of the
environmental assessment presents the typical sections proposed at that time.
Following completion of the environmental assessment, additional coordination
was conducted with the railroad, the North Carolina Motor Speedway (located on US 1
south of the project area) and the Town of Hoffinan. In addition, a second citizens
informational workshop was held (see Section IV-C). This coordination resulted in
changes to the recommended typical sections from what was presented in the
environmental assessment.
Currently, the project is divided into four sections and different typical sections
are recommended within each section. Five lanes with shoulders are now recommended
from SR 1001 (Marston Road) through Marston to SR 1004 (Bostic Road) in Hoffman.
A 16-foot wide center turn lane is proposed in order to allow for future channelization if
the center turn lane presents operational problems. From SR 1004 to Glider Road, four
5
lanes with a 17.5-foot median and shoulders is proposed. From Glider Road to just south
of Special Forces Way, four lanes with a 46-foot median is proposed. From south of
Special Forces Way to north of Drowning Creek, the proposed median has been narrowed
to 17.5 feet in order to reduce wetland impacts. Figure 2 presents the proposed typical
sections for the project.
2. Structures
Two bridge structures 36 feet wide and 440 feet long will be constructed to carry
US 1 over Drowning Creek. Two bridges of differing lengths, a 400-foot long bridge for
the northbound lanes and a 430-foot long bridge for the southbound lanes were
recommended in the environmental assessment.
B. Probable Environmental Effects of Proposed Action
1. Wetlands (Waters of the US)
As discussed in Section V-A-1, the proposed median has been reduced in the
vicinity of Drowning Creek in order to reduce wetland impacts. Table 1 below presents
the anticipated effects of the proposed project on wetlands.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED
EFFECTS ON WFTLANM

Site
Community Type Acres
Affected
1A Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 0.1 ac
1B Successional Pine Forest 0.2 ac
2 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 0.4 ac
3 Streamhead Pocosin 0.1 ac
4 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 1.2 ac
Total 2.0 ac
6
2. Rare and Protected Species
As of January 29, 2003, 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 2 below.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
IN RICHMOND AND monRF rniTNTTr.Q

SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS
COUNTY BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Aci enser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E Richmond No Effect
Lasmi onia decorata Carolina heels litter E Richmond No Effect
Notro is mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E Moore No Effect
Picoides borealis red-cockaded
woodpecker E Both May Affect,
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Lysimachia
as erulaefolia rough-leaved loosestrife E Richmond No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Both "No Effect
Schwalbea americans American chaffseed E Moore No Effect
* Biological conclusions only apply to this state-funded project in areas with a federal
nexus. No populations of Michaux's sumac were found within areas on this project with a
federal nexus.
"F'- Endangered
"T" - Threatened
No habitat for the shortnose sturgeon, Cape Fear shiner, Carolina heelsplitter,
rough-leaved loosestrife or American chaffseed exists in the project area. 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.
Drowning Creek is part of the Lumber River Drainage Basin. The Cape Fear shiner is only
known from the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. Drowning Creek is a slow flowing
stream surrounded by swamp and is not suitable habitat for Carolina heelsplitter.
Habitat exists in the project area for red-cockaded woodpecker and Michaux's
sumac. New surveys were conducted for these species. Surveys for red-cockaded
woodpecker were conducted in April 2003. Suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat
within the project corridor and within one-half mile on either side was surveyed for cavity
trees. The proposed project is within one-half mile of three inactive red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters. A foraging habitat analysis was conducted for two of these clusters.
An analysis was not conducted for the third cluster because no foraging habitat will be
removed from this cluster. In a letter dated February 11, 2004, the US Fish and Wildlife
7
Service concurred with a biological conclusion of "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect" (see copy of letter in Appendix). The requirements of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act apply to federal permit areas along this state-funded project
because habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists within a federal permit area.
The project area was resurveyed for Michaux's sumac in May 2004. Two
populations of Michaux's sumac were found. Both of these populations extend onto the
existing right of way for US 1.
The proposed project will affect both of these sites containing Michaux's sumac.
Because this is a state-funded project and there is no federal nexus in the area of these
protected plants, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act does not apply in this case and
consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
NCDOT has coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the
project's effect on these plants. NCDOT has modified the project design in order to reduce
the number of plants affected.
NCDOT will take the following steps to limit impacts to this federally-protected
plant:
• Plants within the proposed construction limits of the project will be relocated
to a protected area prior to construction. This relocation will be coordinated
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the NC Natural Heritage Program and
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
• The locations of the Michaux's sumac populations will be denoted on project
construction plans with a note that areas containing plants outside the
construction limits are not to be disturbed during construction.
• Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the populations to
prevent entry prior to any work beginning in the vicinity of the populations.
• The contractor for the project will provide written notification of the start date
for project construction to the NCDOT Office of Natural Environment.
Following this notification, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment personnel
may perform unannounced on-site inspections during project construction.
3. Traffic Noise
The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy has been revised since completion
of the environmental assessment. The 2004 Noise Abatement Policy has changed the
criteria for determining a "substantial increase" in noise levels. Under the new noise
abatement policy, noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the Federal Highway Administration noise
8
abatement criteria and/or the predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed
existing noise levels as defined below:
Existing Lea(h)
50 or less dBA
51 dBA
52 dBA
53 dBA
54 dBA
55 or more dBA
Substantial Increase if Receptor
Experiences Increase of:
15 or more dBA
14 or more dBA
13 or more dBA
12 or more dBA
11 or more dBA
10 or more dBA
Under the 2004 noise policy, traffic noise will impact 40 homes and four
businesses in the year 2025 with construction of the proposed project. If the proposed
project were not built, 39 homes and four businesses would experience traffic noise
impacts in 2025.
4. Land Use
Current 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.
Zoning/Land Use Plans
Since completion of the environmental assessment, Richmond County has
developed a land use plan and zoning regulations. Richmond County approved its
strategic land use plan in August 2000 and zoning regulations in July 2003. Most of the
project area is zoned either Agricultural Residential or Rural Residential, with a highway
commercial overlay.
5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Indirect Effects
The majority of the proposed project is located in Richmond County and passes
through the Towns of Marston and Hoffinan. There are many large tracts of
undevelopable or marginally developable land in the project area. The Sandhills Game
Land and Camp Mackall are two large government-owned properties in the area.
9
Environmental restrictions (wetlands and water supply watersheds) and lack of water and
sewer make other properties less developable. These limitations and the low current and
forecasted growth rates indicate growth related to the proposed project will be limited.
Any indirect effects would likely occur from converting lower intensity land uses
(agricultural, low density residential or forest) to higher intensity land uses (single family
residential or highway-oriented commercial). Any potential development would likely
occur close to the roadway. Scattered residential development could occur in one of the
several existing manufactured housing subdivisions throughout the area, as single family
residences fronting US 1, or in the subdivisions located along US 1 just north of the
project. Commercial development would likely be limited to highway commercial
development at one of several major intersections along US 1. It is unlikely other types
of development will occur as a result of this project.
Cumulative Effects
Potential cumulative effects in the project area include spillover growth from
neighboring communities (Rockingham, Southern Pines and Pinehurst), increased
regional traffic due to the designation of US 74 south of Rockingham as part of the
I-73/74 corridor and environmental effects of the proposed US 1 Rockingham Bypass
(TIP Project R-2501).
The large amount of government-owned land in the project area and the lack of
sewer service will limit the amount of development occurring in the project area.
. As discussed in Section H-A-5 of the environmental assessment, one other
highway project is proposed in the vicinity of the subject project. TIP Project R-2501
involves constructing a US 1 Bypass of Rockingham and widening existing US 1 from
the bypass to SR 1001 (Marston Road). SR 1001 was chosen as the northern terminus for
Project R-2501 because early alternatives examined for the project would have extended
on new location to just south of SR 1001.
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed for Project R-2501
in September 1999 and a supplemental DEIS was completed in July 2001. The
supplemental DEIS presented the following potential effects of the recommended
alternative (Alternative Corridor 21) for the proposed Rockingham Bypass and the
proposed widening of existing US 1 between the bypass and SR 1001.
10
Table 3 below presents the potential environmental effects of TIP Project R-2501
shown in the supplemental DEIS for that project.
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF TIP PRn.YF.VT u-')cn1

Resource I.?1V 1
Project Effect
Residential Relocations 73
Business Relocations 18
Wetlands Affected 55.7 acres
Streams Affected 3,783 feet
Affect Federally-Protected Species? No*
Undisturbed Land Affected 655 acres
Agricultural Land Affected 22 acres
Developed Land Affected
* 195 acres
-Concurrence from US Fish and Wildlife Service obtained on a biological conclusion of
"blot Likely to Adversely Affect" for Michaux's sumac, "No Effect" for all other listed
species.
It is expected the cumulative effects of the subject project and TIP Project R-2501
will be limited to the sum of each project's individual effects. It is not expected the two
projects will have a synergistic effect which would increase the overall cumulative effect
beyond each project's direct effects.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal,
state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation that the proposed action will have no significant impact upon the quality
of the human environment. Therefore, a state environmental impact statement will not be
required. This finding of no significant impact completes the environmental review
record, which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
The following person may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal and statement:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
11
C441
3
'1473,
MOORE COUNTY
___a
I ?

) END PROJECT
L s
LAN D / . L. _ 1 Drowwrinv
laoa %?- ? '1L..'•l'r?_ ,--. 10,
n s
. ..'?.
;
Rl ' MOND ?OdNTY

1 i?, -
i' 1 Ra1x°"D
?
? MACKALL
AYLRARY HO K E
V' 113 ' ,
? l60o RUMAWN COUNTY
1475 i HOFFAW ( \ -
POP. 349
1601
\ K I LOMETERS
0, 1 9
?-
?'.' °1

MY LAKE
111?„^, PATCXERY

.I 1479
co

, / •.?
MILES
m CR,;L ell,
36 Alanbn
1536 o- Q
.3
_ nr

03 130,11
SG
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
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
APPENDIX
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOLLOWING COMPLETION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
?ENt or r? United States Department of the
D ?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
- ]Weigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
s Raleigh. North Carolina 17636-3726
February 11, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
nProject Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
S1VE,6
., ?jltl e
A
%I
This letter is in response to your letter of January 5, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed widening of US 1 to a multi-lane facility-from
approximately 2 miles south of the Town of Pinebluff in Moore County, south to the intersection
of US 1 and SR 1001 in Richlnund County (TIP No. R-2502), may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)(RCW).
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
We have reviewed the submitted Biological Assessment (BA) dated January 5, 2004 which
provided a survey and foraging habitat analysis of the project area for the RCW. We also
received and reviewed an addendum to the BA dated January 20, 2004 which provided revised
information for additional clarification. Suitable RCW habitat within the project corridor and
within one-half mile on either side was surveyed for cavity trees between April 3-22, 2003. The
proposed project corridor passes within one-half mile of 3 inactive RCW clusters (SGL 58. SG.L
59 and MOOR 10). A foraging habitat analysis was not conducted for SGL 59 because it is
inactive, is not considered a separate cluster from SGL 58 and is not being managed as a
recruitment cluster. An analysis was not conducted for MOOR 10 because no foraging habitat
will be removed during project construction. The BA provides the results of a foraging habitat
analysis for SGL 58, although inactive, because it is being managed as a recruitment cluster.
The foraging habitat analysis for SGL 58 was conducted between September 29 and October 2.
2003. Impacts were assessed using the guidelines in the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan - Standard
for Managed Stability (USFWS 2003). The BA divides foraging habitat into three types: sparse
pine (040 square feet (sq. ft.) basal area i acre), moderately dense pine (40-70 sq. ft. basal area
/acre) and dense pine (70= sq. ft. basal area ; acre). The BA further subdivides each habitat type
into categories based on levels of hardwood midstory encroachment (sparse, moderate and dense)
and overall height ofhardwood midstory (low (<7 feet), moderate (7-15 feet) and tall (>15 feet)).
A-1
The BA defines suitable foraging habitat as moderately dense pine (basal area 40-70 sq. ft./acre)
and a hardwood midstory that is either absent or, if present, less than 7 feet in height. The BA
defines potential habitat as moderately dense pine stands with a sparse hardwood midstory of
moderate height (7-15 feet), moderately dense pine stands with a moderately dense hardwood
midstory of low (<7 feet) or moderate (7-15 feet) height, and a subset of dense pine with a basal
area of 75-90 sq. ft./acre (based on continued observations of RCWs utilizing this habitat type for
foraging). Potential habitat is habitat that could be considered suitable habitat after manual
removal of midstory hardwoods.
If only suitable and potentially suitable foraging habitat (as defined in the BA) are considered in
calculating pre-project forage totals for SGL 58, only 53.68 acres are available as foraging
habitat. This equates to 3455.45 sq. ft. of pine basal area and 3,555.77 stems >10 inches
diameter at breast height (dbh). These figures are significantly lower than the minimum forage
guidelines stated in the 2003 Recovery Plan - Standard for Managed Stability. According to the
2003 Recovery Plan, SGL 58 does not contain sufficient foraging habitat, yet RCWs occupied
the site as late as the mid-1990s.
According to the BA's foraging habitat analysis, approximately 2.83 acres of potential foraging
habitat would be removed. This equates to post-project habitat with 3273.29 sq. ft. of pine basal
area and 3368.31 stems >10 inches dbh. Again, this is well below the minimum guidelines stated
in the 2003 Recovery Plan - Standard for Managed Stability, but well above what has been
observed in .ie active clusters in the Southern Pines / Pinehurst area.
To account for this apparent paradox, the BA analyzes the foraging data using all pine stands
regardless of understory density. This alternative analysis yields a pre-project foraging habitat
total in SGL 58 of 13,799.96 sq. ft. of pine basal area and 13,148.20 pine stems > 10 inches dbh.
Using this alternative analysis, 8.45 acres of RCW foraging substrate would be removed. This
equates to 686.54 sq. ft. of pine basal area and 659.62 pine stems > 10 inches dbh. In this
scenario, the post-project foraging habitat totals for SGL 58 are 13,113.42 sq, ft. of pine basal
area and 12,488.58 pine stems > 10 inches dbh. This, if analyzed appropriately, would provide
more than adequate foraging habitat for SGL 58 as required by the 2003 Recovery Plan. Since -
some of the overstocked stands (stands >90 sq. ft. basal area /acre) are on lands that will be
managed for RCW recovery (Sandhills Game Land), the number of potential acres of habitat will
likely increase as the stands are managed.
The Service believes that RCWs in the Sandhills area are unique in that they have existed in
increasingly less than optimal habitat and have apparently incrementally adapted to what would
otherwise be categorized as unsuitable habitat. Even though the combination of suitable and
potentially suitable foraging habitat for SGL 58 is well below the stated guidelines in the 2003
Recovery Plan, the amount of habitat that is present is apparently greater than in some other
active clusters that have been observed in the Sandhills. Based on the information provided and
other information available, the Service concurs with your determination that the project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
A-2
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan or Mr. John Hammond at (919) 856-
4520, extensions 32 and 28, respectively.
Sincerely,
Garland .B..Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
Literature cited:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta. GA. 296 pp.
cc: Richard Spencer, USAGE, Wilmington, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Ralph Costa, USFWS, Clemson, SC
Pete Campbell, USFWS, Southern Pine, 'NC
A-3

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Aunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. David Smith
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1534 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Smith:
DEC 1 12000
i
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
December 7, 2000
Re: SCH File # 01-E-4220-02$9; Environmental Assessment Proposed Improvements to US 1, from
BR. 1001 to the Existing Four Lanes Near the Moore County Line; TIP R-2502
The above referenced environmental 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 statellocal agencies in the course of this review. Because
of the nature of the comment(s), it has been determined that you may submit a binding of No Significant
Impact to the State Clearinghouse for compliance with the Act. The attached comments should be taken
into consideration in project development.
Sincerely,
Attachments
cc: Region .H
l?'Is. ,•s $aggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
v
t} FILE W T H E .:,
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Eq" opportunity ; Afruinwive Action Emptoym
A-4
*?(Ar
r W 1
?.
f -?t
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook,Administraaor
James B. hunt Jr.. Governor Division of Archives and. l-listoc-,
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Croy v, Director
November l8, 2000
MEMORANDUM
0
To: William D. Cidniore. P.E. Manager
Project Developrnent. rind Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State l-list« Preservation Officer
Re: U.S. I from SR 1001 to Existing Four Lanes, Richmond County,
TIP. No. R-2502.. State Project Number 6.589009T. GS 98-0083
We have received inforniation concerning the above project frown the StaYi- r learinghouse.
We offer the following comments on the Environmental Assessment. The summary and page 24
state only that the NC'I)O1 Ai ill conduct additional work on two sites if they are in the Area of
Potential Eftect and after the right-of=way is purchased. We recommend the two site numbers
3I RHI33%133**and 3 I Rf1319/319** be added to the discussion in the summary and page 24.
We look forward to receit, ins and reviewing the plans for the project in the vicinity of sites
3I RH 133x`133and 3I Rl13191;319* *. It will assist our review that when the plans are
transmitted the boundaries of both sites are plotted on the plan sheets. If' either or both sites
31 RH 133:"133** and 3I RI-1-1 191519** are to be impacted, we look forward to receiving and
reviewing the scope of work and proposal describing the data recovery operation. Our staff is
available for additional consultation at any stage in this process.
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, contact Renee. Ciledhil]-Earley, Environmental Review C'oordinator. at 91917334763.
cc: CH
Tom Padgett, NC1)OT
t..ocation
AI)' lNlSTRATit)\ 51' \. Biount St_ Ral igh tiC:
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. E310unt St__ Rdleigh `tiC
RESTORATION 515 N. Bh1 unt fit., Raleigh NC
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Nount St., Raleigh 'tiC'
Mailing Address Telephone4ax
461' Mail Seri ice Ce'n'ser. Raleigh NC 277699-4617 191 !1 ?.3±-4?63 ?.>_-9653
4614 N9ail Service C;en;Br. RaXigh NC: 1-699-401 v (u 19 t !B-7,142 • ' 15-26? 1
4613 Mail Se-.vice Center. Raleigh NC 27699-46", (919) -(+547 • '15-45111
461A_5 service Center. Raleigh NC' "699-461.s (919) 733_654; •'15-48(11
tt?
4 NCDENR .:
?- .JA!AL'$ B. HUNT JR. .:
GOVERNOR
$ -BILL; H'O?LMAN 'yi`F4 's
SeCRCTFRt
L 1 ??

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Chrys 8aggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGeee-
Environmental Review Coordinator
01-E-0289 EA Widening of US 1, Richmond and
Moore Counties
December 6, 2000
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
completed its review of the subject proposal. This
department asks that careful consideration be given to the
attached recommendations by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
commission. The applicant is encouraged to work directly
with our agencies prior to finalizing project plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Attachments

1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2769 9-1 60 1
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] www.ENR.STATE.NC.US1£NW
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMA. -6 kCYtON EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
North Carolina WUfe Resources Cornrr fission
hasles A Fullwood, Executive Director
F-I
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and intergOver==tal Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordi
F-1 ITabitat Couservation Program 004
DATE. Nnvcnthcr 21, 2000

SI JRJFC I'; North Carolina Department of Ttawportatlon (NCDOT) Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the widening of US 1, from SR 1001 to the existing four-lanes north of the
N1400M Cotttlty Line, Richmond and Moore counties, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2502,
SCH Project No. 01-E-0289.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subjcci EA and
are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to assess project
impacts to Csh and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National t:nvironmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2xc)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
tact (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C, 661-667d).
NCDorr proposes to widen US 1 from SR 1001 (Marston Road) to just north of the Moore Couniv
Line. 'i'lie total Itroject length iy approximately $.3 rnfles. Impazts to wetlands are cxNctcd tci total
approximately 3.6 neres with no stream impacts exptcted.
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. We are eoncem0d over the proposal to drop debris
front the demolition of Bridge No. 42 into the waters of Drowning Crock. NCDOT should cxplorv
methods or bridge dt:mvlition, which do not cause disturbance of the strearnbed. Also Best Management
Practices for the protection of Surface Waters should be strictly followed. At this time, we concur with
the EA for this pmjuct.
Thank you for the opportunity to COiitment on this EA. If we ran be of any further assistance please
call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
MailingAddress; Division of lni;rnd Fisheries + 1721 Mail Service Center • Ittl6e h
Telephone: [phone] sat _ fix; (919) 715.7h4?,b,I`C 27699-17211
A-7
State otNortb Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Revic%4ing Office: rte s / -roc ? 1 C1
W ERGO?VERNa' ENTAL REVIEW -e PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: CIE -0 Due Dax: )I f.,?t f e-%)
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may nerd to be obtained in order for this for this to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All soolications, information and guidelines relative to these clans and permits arc available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process 'runt
{statutor
time limit
y
)
PERIMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
L7 Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions At sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conferenm usual.
not discharging into state surface wa•ers. (90 days)
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
discharging into mate surf:ce waters, treatment facility-grunted after NTDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of NA)
plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
• Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(.N -A)
• Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
• Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Prrappiication conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Adminis ration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit-
O Permit to construct & operate.4ir pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per.l 5 A NCAC 60 days
(7Q,0100, 2Q.0300. 2H.0600)
O Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1900
• Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with IS A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal pttia to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control NIA
Group 919-733-0820. (90 days)
• Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
I The Sedimentation Pollution Control Ant of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control Ian w' required if one or more acres to W disturbed. r `r' a tty 20 days

?--
ys before beginning a mrst acre an
? {?? days)
a»?:.1
. 1 ?
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
I
O Mitring Permit on-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number ofacres 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 can be issued
• North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds d days 1 d^y
(N;A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than i day
Counties in coastal ; I.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities arc involved. Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at !can ten days before actual burn is planned"
O Oil Refining Facilities NIA 90-1200 da,,i
(N/A)
d7 Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plain, inspect construction,
cenify construction is according to ENR approved plants. ?.Jay 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 s20o.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage Of the tool project cost will be required
upon completion.
A-8
r

? Q
m
/ m
C
N Z
oN
_ o o=
m
y
??
^ Z
m

N N
_
O O
z
O_
N

C
N E
--4
- / cn
N '
z
W
\
'

o ZZ
logo= U)
\\ O
\
\ O

O \ T'
D\
Z \
\ (A
l J \ '
\ cn
D N
/

T j
d?
°O l
N

1 ? F
m a

D 0 g E
r 0 r
1 M
m
V • O uS
M ?
' ^ ? a
C C) m
?
m 0 N
z Ln
U) 0
N N
Z
C)
N
X

T
7Co p ?
vz
m
N
O
S?
O=
c?
r V
vw
Ci
A
v R?
Z o
tl
A
19
oT
19 1:
m?
0

(A m
_ z
i

C) )
r
o
O
m C-
m
0
C7

m ?.-
D
r L C
N

?\
N (S?

C
CA
Fq
0
z
ti
TIP Scoping to Regions
Sue Homewood (WSRO) : Div 7, 9, 11
Polly Lespinasse (MRO): Div 8, 10, 12
TiPU -2S0?
Title of Project:
FILE COPY
County: I 1 (CllnOnd ?00?2
Date response due date: `"7 -27-ols-
DENR Project review form and pre-application project
materials attached.
M u
.?
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
r Project Review Form
Project Number: 05-0286
Date Received: 03/29/2005
Date Response Due: 04/27/2005
Counties: Moore and Richmond
Toject Description: Proposed Improvements to US 1, from SR 1001 to the Existing Four Lanes Near the Moore
County Line; TIP R-2502
this Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville` Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management
Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Water Resources
Raleigh Environmental Health
Land Quality Engineer Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington
Forest Resour''ces Radiation Protection
Wilmington Land Resource%
s Other
Winston-Salem Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module: If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
APR 1 1 2005
DENR. WATEP, QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STOWWATER BRANGi'
M?
US 1
SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
WBS Element 3443
TIP Project R-2502
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
D ?°?6
In Compliance with the North Carolina. Environmental Policy Act
The following person may be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
APPROVED:
Z 2 ?OS?
Dat fa/.Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
US 1
SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
• WBS Element 34438.1.1
TIP Project R-2502
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
J4hies A.
Project De el pm nt Unt.E it Head .•'?0L erR,
SE AL c
= 20701 ;
•••FHGI Na ?;
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.%. • ~"•••• ti??.•`?
q. MC1
Assistant Branch Manager pfZ/Z5/05 Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ......................................................................................................................... i
I. TYPE OF ACTION .....................................................................................................................................1
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................................1
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................2
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................................3
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment ..........................................................................................3
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................3
C. Public Involvement ..:.................................................................................................................................4
D. Other Agency Coordination .......................................................................................................................5
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................5
A. Proposed Improvements ..............................................................................................................................5
1. Roadway Cross-section ..........................................................................................................................5
2. Structures ...............................................................................................................................................6
B. Probable Environmental Effects of Proposed Action ........... t .....................................................................6
1. Wetlands (Waters of the US) .................................................................................................................6
2. Rare and Protected Species ................................................. `.•,..................................................<...............7
3. Traffic Noise ..........................................................................................................................................8
4. Land Use ....................................................... ...9
.................................-....................................................
5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................9
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ....................................................................11
APPENDIX - Comments Received Following Completion of Environmental Assessment
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Proposed Typical Section For US 1
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1- Anticipated Effects on Wetlands ..................................................... 6
Table 2 Federally-Protected Species in Richmond and Moore Counties ..................... 7
Table 3 - Potential Environmental Effects of TIP Project R-2501 ................................. 11
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 1
SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
WBS Element 3443
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.
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.
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..
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-2502 Page 1 of 2
February 2005
i
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.
Pro I iect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) requested additional work be
conducted on two archaeological sites in the project area (31RH133/133** and
31RH319/319**) 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 HPO 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.
Two sites containing Michaux's sumac exist in the project area. Plants within the
proposed construction limits of the project will be relocated to a protected area prior to
construction. This relocation will be coordinated with," the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
the NC Natural Heritage Program and the NC Wildlife "Resources Commission.
Roadwav DesiL-n Unit/NCDOT Division Eirht Construction
The locations of the Michaux's sumac populations will be denoted on project
construction plans with a note that areas containing plants outside the construction limits
are not to be disturbed during construction.
Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the populations to
prevent entry prior to any work beginning in the vicinity of the populations.
The contractor for the project will provide written notification of the start date for
project construction to the NCDOT Office of Natural Environment. Following this
notification, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment personnel may perform
unannounced on-site inspections during project construction. This notification should be
sent to the following address:
Natural Environment Biological Surveys Unit
NCDOT Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-2502
February 2005
Page 2 of 2
ii
State Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a State Finding of No Significant Impact prepared in compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the capacity and safety of US 1
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 approxiri ' ly 8.3 miles (see Figure 1).
Partial control of access (one access per parcel) will be obtained for portions of US 1 to
be widened to four lanes with a 46-foot median. No, control of access is proposed for
other portions of the project. All intersecting roadways will cross US 1 at-grade; no grade
separations or interchanges are proposed.
The project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled in
the 2004-2010 TIP for state fiscal years 2005 and 2006, respectively.
The total estimated costs for TIP Project R-2502 are as follows:
Construction $22,000,000
Right of Way Acquisition $8,100,000
Wetland Miti ag tion $98,300
Total Cost $30,198,300
The cost estimate included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program for the
project is $32,248,000. Of this total, $6,225,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition
and $26,023,000 is estimated for construction.
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 of the environmental assessment).
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 of the environmental
assessment).
• 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 of the environmental
assessment).
M. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The proposed project will require the relocation `of 14 homes and 10 businesses.
The project will also relocate two churches. 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 2.0 acres of wetlands, but will not affect any
jurisdictional streams.
The proposed project will affect two sites containing Michaux's sumac, a
federally-listed endangered plant (see Section V-B-1). Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act does not apply to project impacts to Michaux's sumac, however, NCDOT has
coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and modified the project design in order
to reduce project impacts. Plants within the proposed construction limits of the project will
be relocated prior to construction.
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists within federal permit areas for the
project. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with a biological conclusion of
"may affect-not likely to adversely effect" for the project 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 four businesses by the design
year 2025 with construction of the project, however, noise abatement measures are not
considered appropriate. Noise impacts would still occur to 39 homes and four businesses
by the year 2025 if the project is not built.
2
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.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the environmental assessment were made available to the public and to
the following federal, state and local agencies:
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 and Natural Resources
Military Traffic Management Command
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Richmond County
Town of Hoffman
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from whom comments on the environmental
assessment were received. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
COMMENT: "We offer the following comments on the Environmental Assessment.
The summary and page 24 state only that the NCDOT will conduct additional
work on two sites if they are in the Area of Potential Effect and after the right of
way is purchased. We recommend the two site numbers 31RII133/133** and
31RH319/319** be added to the discussion in the summary and page 24."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The two archaeological site numbers have been added to the
project commitment referring to the sites on page i of this document.
3
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
COMN ENT: "We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. We are concerned over
the proposal to drop debris from the demolition of Bridge No. 42 into the waters
of Drowning Creek. NCDOT should explore methods of bridge demolition,
which do not cause disturbance of the streambed."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The environmental assessment presented the impacts of the
worst-case scenario (the entire bridge superstructure over water being dropped in
the water). NCDOT will follow Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal during the construction of this project. The contractor
will prepare a plan for bridge demolition and debris removal. The contractor will
not be allowed to drop the bridge in the water if the bridge can be removed
without doing so. If it is determined components of the bridge must be dropped
into the water, all efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the
surface waters.
COAE%IENT:. "...Best Management Practices for the protection of Surface Waters
should be strictly followed."
NCDOT RESPONSE: As stated in Section V-A-2 of the environmental assessment,
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
followed to minimize project impacts on water resources in the project area.
C. Public Involvement
A second citizens informational workshop was held for the project following
completion of the environmental assessment. This workshop was held on January 9,
2001 at the Hoffman Elementary School in Hoffman. Approximately 60 people attended
this workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to obtain public input on the
appropriate typical section through Hoffman. Both a five-lane undivided and a median
divided typical section were presented in the environmental assessment.
Based on comments heard at the second workshop, most area residents prefer a
five-lane undivided typical section through Hoffman.
A public hearing for the project was held on April 10, 2003 at the Hoffman
Elementary School in Hoffman. Approximately 70 citizens attended the hearing. The
majority of comments and questions heard at the hearing related to the project's effect on
individual properties. No opposition to the project was expressed at the hearing.
The project will likely affect Marston Baptist Church's sanctuary building.
NCDOT design staff will meet with representatives of the church during preparation of
4
right of way plans for the project to help identify the effect on the church building and
allow the church to begin planning for replacement or relocation of their sanctuary.
D. Other Agency Coordination
Coordination was conducted with natural resource agencies concerning
recommended bridge lengths for the proposed bridges to carry US 1 over Drowning
Creek. A field meeting was held with the agencies in June 2004. A 400-foot long bridge
for the northbound lanes and a 430-foot long bridge for the southbound lanes were
recommended in the environmental assessment at Drowning Creek. The agencies agreed
with the proposed bridge lengths at the June 2004 meeting. Currently, both bridges are
proposed to be 440 feet long (see Section V-A-2).
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Improvements
1. Roadway Cross-section
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 in the environmental assessment (see Section IV-A of the er yironmental
assessment).
The environmental assessment recommended four-lanes with a 16-foot median
and curb and gutter through Marston. Four-lanes with a 16-foot median and shoulders
were recommended between Marston and Hoffman in the EA. No recommendation was
presented in the environmental assessment through the Town of Hoffman. Both a
four-lane and a five-lane typical section with curb and gutter were considered, the four-
lane typical section was designated as the preferred alternative. North of Hoffinan, four
lanes with a 46-foot median and shoulders was recommended. Figure 3A of the
environmental assessment presents the typical sections proposed at that time.
Following completion of the environmental assessment, additional coordination
was conducted with the railroad, the North Carolina Motor Speedway (located on US 1
south of the project area) and the Town of Hoffman. In addition, a second citizens
informational workshop was held (see Section IV-C). This coordination resulted in
changes to the recommended typical sections from what was presented in the
environmental assessment.
Currently, the project is divided into four sections and different typical sections
are recommended within each section. Five lanes with shoulders are now recommended
from SR 1001 (Marston Road) through Marston to SR 1004 (Bostic Road) in Hoffman.
A 16-foot wide center turn lane is proposed in order to allow for future channelization if
the center turn lane presents operational problems. From SR 1004 to Glider Road, four
5
lanes with a 17.5-foot median and shoulders is proposed. From Glider Road to just south
of Special Forces Way, four lanes with a 46-foot median is proposed. From south of
Special Forces Way to north of Drowning Creek, the proposed median has been narrowed
to 17.5 feet in order to reduce wetland impacts. Figure 2 presents the proposed typical
sections for the project.
2. Structures
Two bridge structures 36 feet wide and 440 feet long will be constructed to carry
US 1 over Drowning Creek. Two bridges of differing lengths, a 400-foot long bridge for
the northbound lanes and a 430-foot long bridge for the southbound lanes were
recommended in the environmental assessment.
B. Probable Environmental Effects of Proposed Action
1. Wetlands (Waters of the US)
As discussed in Section V-A-1, the proposed-,median has been reduced in the
vicinity of Drowning Creek in order to reduce wetland, impacts. Table 1 below presents
the anticipated effects of the proposed project on wetlands.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED
EFFECTS ON WETLANDS

Site
Community a Acres
Affected
lA Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 0.1 ac
1B Successional Pine Forest 0.2 ac
2 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 0.4 ac
3 Streamhead Pocosin 0.1 ac
4 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 1.2 ac
Total 2.0 ac
6
2. Rare and Protected Suecies
As of January 29, 2003, 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 2 below.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
IN RICHMOND AND MOORE COUNTIES

SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS
COUNTY BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Aci enser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E Richmond No Effect
Lasmi onia decorata Carolina heels litter E Richmond No Effect
Notro is mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E Moore No Effect
Picoides borealis red-cockaded
woodpecker E Both May Affect,
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Lysimachia
as erulaefolia rough-leaved loosestrife E Richmond No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Both *No Effect
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E Moore No Effect
* Biological conclusions only apply to this state-funded project in areas with a federal
nexus. No populations of Michaux's sumac were found within areas on this project with a
federal nexus.
"E" - Endangered
"T" - Threatened
No habitat for the shortnose sturgeon, Cape Fear shiner, Carolina heelsplitter,
rough-leaved loosestrife or American chaffseed exists in the project area. 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.
Drowning Creek is part of the Lumber River Drainage Basin. The Cape Fear shiner is only
known from the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. Drowning Creek is, a slow flowing
stream surrounded by swamp and is not suitable habitat for Carolina heelsplitter.
Habitat exists in the project area for red-cockaded woodpecker and Michaux's
sumac. New surveys were conducted for these species. Surveys for red-cockaded
woodpecker were conducted in April 2003. Suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat
within the project corridor and within one-half mile on either side was surveyed for cavity
trees. The proposed project is within one-half mile of three inactive red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters. A foraging habitat analysis was conducted for two of these clusters.
An analysis was not conducted for the third cluster because no foraging habitat will be
removed from this cluster. In a letter dated February 11, 2004, the US Fish and Wildlife
7
Service concurred with a biological conclusion of "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect" (see copy of letter in Appendix). The requirements of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act apply to-federal permit areas along this state-funded project
because habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists within a federal permit area.
The project area was resurveyed for Michaux's sumac in May 2004. Two,
populations of Michaux's sumac were found. Both of these populations extend onto the
existing right of way for US 1.
The proposed project will affect both of these sites containing Michaux's sumac.
Because this is a state-funded project and there is no federal nexus in the area of these
protected plants, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act does not apply in this case and
consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
. NCDOT has coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the
project's effect on these plants. NCDOT.has modified the project design in order to reduce
the number of plants affected.
NCDOT will take the following steps to limit impacts to this federally-protected
plant:
• Plants within the proposed construction limits of the project will be relocated
to a protected area prior to construction. This relocation will be coordinated
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the NC Natural Heritage Program and
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
• The locations of the Michaux's sumac populations will be denoted on project
construction plans with a note that areas containing plants outside the
construction limits are not to be disturbed during construction.
• Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the populations to
prevent entry prior to any work beginning in the vicinity of the populations.
• The contractor for the project will provide written notification of the start date
for project construction to the NCDOT Office of Natural Environment.
Following this notification, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment personnel
may perform unannounced on-site inspections during project construction.
3. Traffic Noise
The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy has been revised since completion
of the environmental assessment. The 2004 Noise Abatement Policy has changed the
criteria for determining a "substantial increase" in noise levels. Under the new noise
abatement policy, noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the Federal Highway Administration noise
8
abatement criteria and/or the predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed
existing noise levels as defined below:
Existing LegCh)
50 or less dBA
51 dBA
52 dBA
53 dBA
54 dBA
55 or more dBA
Substantial Increase if Receptor
Experiences Increase of:
15 or more dBA
14 or more dBA
13 or more dBA
12 or more dBA
11 or more dBA
10 or more dBA
Under the 2004 noise policy, traffic noise will impact 40 homes and four
businesses in the year 2025 with construction of the proposed project. If the proposed
project were not built, 39 homes and four businesses would experience traffic noise
impacts in 2025.
4. Land Use
Current 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 Hoffinan 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.
Zoning/Land Use Plans
Since completion of the environmental assessment, Richmond County has
developed a land use plan and zoning regulations. Richmond County approved its
strategic land use plan in August 2000 and zoning regulations in July 2003. Most of the
project area is zoned either Agricultural Residential or Rural Residential, with a highway
commercial overlay.
5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Indirect Effects
The majority of the proposed project is located in Richmond County and passes
through the Towns of Marston and Hoffman. There are many large tracts of
undevelopable or marginally developable land in the project area. The Sandhills Game
Land and Camp Mackall are two large government-owned properties in the area.
9
Environmental restrictions (wetlands and water supply watersheds) and lack of water and
sewer make other properties less developable. These limitations and the low current and
forecasted growth rates indicate growth related to the proposed project will be limited.
Any indirect effects would likely occur from converting lower intensity land uses
(agricultural, low density residential or forest) to higher intensity land uses (single family
residential or highway-oriented commercial). Any potential development would likely
occur close to the roadway. Scattered residential development could occur in one of the
several existing manufactured housing subdivisions throughout the area, as single family
residences fronting US 1, or in the subdivisions located along US 1 just north of the
project. Commercial development would likely be limited to highway commercial
development at one of several major intersections along US 1. It is unlikely other types
of development will occur as a result of this project.
Cumulative Effects
Potential cumulative effects in the project area include spillover growth from
neighboring communities (Rockingham, Southern Pines and Pinehurst), increased
regional traffic due to the designation of US 74 south of Rockingham as part of the
I-73/74 corridor and environmental effects of the proposed US 1 Rockingham Bypass
(TIP Project R-2501).
The large amount of government-owned land in the project area and the lack of
sewer service will limit the amount of development occurring in the project area.
.. As discussed in Section H-A-5 of the environmental assessment, one other
highway project is proposed in the vicinity of the subject project. TIP Project R-2501
involves constructing a US 1 Bypass of Rockingham and widening existing US 1 from
the bypass to SR 1001 (Marston Road). SR 1001 was chosen as the northern terminus for
Project R-2501 because early alternatives examined for the project would have extended
on new location to just south of SR 1001.
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed for Project R-2501
in September 1999 and a supplemental DEIS was completed in July 2001. The
supplemental DEIS presented the following potential effects of the recommended
alternative (Alternative Corridor 21) for the proposed Rockingham Bypass and the
proposed widening of existing US 1 between the bypass and SR 1001.
10
Table 3 below presents the potential environmental effects of TIP Project R-2501
shown in the supplemental DEIS for that project.
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF TIP PROJECT R-2501
Resource Project Effect
Residential Relocations 73
Business Relocations 18
Wetlands Affected 55.7 acres
Streams Affected 3,783 feet
Affect Federally-Protected Species? No*
Undisturbed Land Affected 655 acres
Agricultural Land Affected 22 acres
Developed Land Affected 195 acres
--Uoncurrence from US Fish and Wildlife Service obtained on a biological conclusion of
"Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for Michaux's sumac, "No Effect" for all other listed
species.
It is expected the cumulative effects of the subject project and TIP Project R-2501
will be limited to the sum of each project's individual effects. It is not expected the two
projects will have a synergistic effect which would increase the overall cumulative effect
beyond each project's direct effects.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal,
state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation that the proposed action will have no significant impact upon the quality
of the human environment. Therefore, a state environmental impact statement will not be
required. This finding of no significant impact completes the environmental review
record, which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
The following person may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal and statement:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
11
APPENDIX
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOLLOWING COMPLETION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

h
United States Department of the In
rt,
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
- Raleigh Field Office
q Post Office Box 33726
3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27M3726
February 1.1, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Depanment of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
IVEb

z
This letter is in response to your letter of January 5, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed widening ofUS''J to a multi-lane facility-from
approximately 2 miles south of the Town of Pinebluff in Moore County, south to the intersection
of US 1 and SR 1001 in Richmond County (TIP No. R-2502), may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)(RCW).
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
We have reviewed the submitted Biological Assessment (BA) dated January 5, 2004 which
provided a survey and foraging habitat analysis of the project area for the RCW. We also
received and reviewed an addendum to the BA dated January 20, 2004 which provided revised
information for additional clarification. Suitable RCW habitat within the project corridor and
within one-half mile on either side was surveyed for cavity trees between 4pri13-22, 2003. The
proposed project corridor passes within one-half mile of 3 inactive RCW clusters (SG.L 58, SGL
59 and MOOR 10). A foraging habitat analysis was not conducted for SGL 59 because it is
inactive, is not considered a separate cluster from SGL 58 and is not being managed as a
recruitment cluster. An analysis was not conducted for MOOR 10 because no foraging habitat
will be removed during project construction. The BA provides the results of a foraging habitat
analysis for SGL 58, although inactive, because it is being managed as a recruitment cluster.
The foraging habitat analysis for SGL 58 was conducted between September 29 and October 2,
2003. Impacts were assessed using the guidelines in the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan - Standard
for Managed Stability (USFWS 2003). The BA divides foraging habitat into three types: sparse
pine (0-40 square feet (sq. ft.) basal area i acre), moderately dense pine (40-70 sq. ft. basal area
/acre) and dense pine (70-4- sq. ft. basal area ; acre). The BA further subdivides each habitat type
into categories based on levels of hardwood midstory encroachment (sparse, moderate and dense)
and overall height ofhardwood midstory (low (<7 feet), moderatF (7-15 feet) and tall (>15 feet)).
A-1
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan or Mr. John Hammond at (919) 856-
4i20, extensions 32 and 28, respectively.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
Literature cited:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta., GA. 296 pp.
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Ralph Costa, USFWS, Clemson, SC
Pete Campbell, USFWS, Southern Pinez, 'NC
A-3
c ?:. ? X17
ter,, 3 ,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Bunt Jr.. Governor Div ision.o Archives and I-Iistorv
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 18, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore. P.E.. Manager
Project Development and Environmental analysis Branch
From: David Brock ?
Deputy State NiSto Preservation Officer
Re: U.S. I from SR 1001 to Existing Four Lanes, Richmond County,
TIP. No. R-2502, State Project Number 6.589009'I C;S 98-0083
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We offer the following comments on the Environmental Assessment. The summary and page; 24
state only that the NCDOT ci i11 conduct additional work on two sites if they are in the Area of
Potential Effect and after the right-of=way is purchased. We recommend the two site numbers
3I RHI33!133**and 3181-1319)'319** be added to the discussion in the summary and page 24.
We look forward to receiving and reviewing the plans for the project in the vicinity of sites
3IRM133"133** and 3I RI13191319**. It will assist our review that when the plans are
transmitted the boundaries of'both sites are plotted on the plan sheets. If either or both sites
31 RH 1331133** and 31 R113)19. 519** are to be impacted. w-e look forward to receiving and
reviewing the scope of work and proposal describing the data recovery operation. Our staff is
available for additional consultation at any stage in this process.
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 .56 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee. C.iledhill-barley, Environmental Review Coordinator. at 919/733-4763.
cc: CH
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
1.0ration Mailing Address Telephone.-Fax'
ADMINISTRATION 107 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617'N7ail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2'699-4617 (9191 '•33-4763 7333-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Serkice. Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4619 (019) 733-'342 • '15-2671
RESTORATION 515 N' BDaunt St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC: 27699-4613 (919) 733- 54? • '15-4Si)1
SURVEY S PLANNING 515 N. € fount St., Raleigh NC 461 Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4615 1919) "33-6545 • '715.49,01
U.N.ort.h Carolina'W"ilcilife Resources Commission K
Charles R Fuilwood, Executive Director

o MBMORANDUM
TO: Melba MCC-Tee
Office of Legislative and IntergOvMMMtal Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordi
Habitat Conservation Program
BATE: Nnvcmhcr 21, 2000
SUBJF,C"t North Carolina Department OfTtansportation (NCDOT) Environmental Assessment,
(CA) for the widening of US 1, from SR 1001 to the oxisting four-lanes north of the
Moose County Line, Richmond and Moore counties, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2502,
SCH Project No. 01 •E-0289.
Staff hiologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have mvicwed the subject EA and
are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to assess project
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments an provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Aat (48 Stat, 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDU'1' proposes to widen US 1 from SR 1001 (Marston Road) to just north of the Moore County
Line. Ilia total project length ib approximately 9,3 miles. Impacts to wetlands are expected ki total
approximately 3.6 acres with no stream impacts eXptod.
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. We are coriomod over the proposal to (trop debris
from the demolition of Bridge No. 42 into the waters of Drowning Creek. NCDOT should C,Yplore
methods of bridge demolition, which do not cause disturbance of the sttrcumbed. Also Best Management
Practices for the protection of Surface Waters should be strictly followed. At this time, we concur with
tho EA for Chia prt)juct.
!'hank you Cnr l.hc; ?,ppq nrty to Comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please
call me at [phone].
cc: US. }Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Mailing Addrtss; Divisian ni' lniand fisheries + 1721 Mait Service Center • kileigh, NC 27699-i 721
Telephone: [phone] sat--7 b Fax. [phone]

CD Q
m

z ^
?I
Z
€
n
?
N
?
ZN H"
v ?
J

X C-

m
-
C ?
ra

R
C )
m

T
0
D ? ?s
O c? ?
O O =
?7 m U
N M ? ?
<
C
- ?.
i to Z ? q
N ?
z
W

O z;z
_
N
o
o 0
o

D?
V , z\
?
N
i
Ln
N
00
N

CY)
o
o
N
?-,-?
?
N -

1 z
?

r
? q .ZmJ ?
? ? C7
T ?

V
p
? ?G

z
? D
r '
v
'
C
N

l JJ v
? ?
?
D ? O ? N t(y??
?
Q ? 0 < C J
? N/?,
v
?
q

C n m ?
T

Z C3yl m
O
N w

w 0 O ? 1
CD
0? D v.
n N b
o V]

CD < CD
CD
CD im.
R

CD
?
Q ? Q
/] ..

O
O ? , O

ro

V ?
T ?
O
CD N

AZI t ropy
0-4
It
- --- --- a. ----A -A L.&AL nuu A14 LU1 id i rcesources
• Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
: Project Review Form
Project Number: Ccxinty:
Date Received:
Dsie Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office Regional Office Area
In-House Review N
? Asheville ? Air ? Soil & Water
? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Water ? Coastal Mana
eme nt
g
? Mooresville ? Groundwater Wildlife
? Water Resources
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer
? Environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ?
Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem ? Parks & Recreation ? Other
Water Quality
__ __b 5_\_
_
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
htuiager Sign-Offi'Region: Date:
la-Hou_c; Rcvieu•er/Agrncy-
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review U a `fir
k7 i

n Other (specify or attach comments) F
APR

P
DpE(Fg?f'gj.-t'syfY.L "
! kL G.Fa l.! T
d7C i wilV
?
#
llt) I":i?i6l U : I.d{'4ttS?J'Z ?-? ?Ci I td;w?'a
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental APfaira

US 1
SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
WBS Element 34438.1.1
TIP Project R-2502
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
qo w
92? ?
?cP 9 ? VVQ
?y
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
The following person may be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
APPROVED:
T
L Greg
/Dat V
ory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
fi
us 1
SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
WBS Element 34438.1.1
TIP Project R-2502
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
4
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
J es A. McInnis Jr., .E. 0•?`"'a„" ,y
q'•.,
Project Development Unit Head .•`OR??. ??R?L??••
.•` ? ??DEESSIp?gl
Sf At
y 20701
Robert P. Hanson, P.E. •,'•,,,? ••••:c•?NM`1?5
Mc1
Assistant Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch 21Z 5/05
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS ......................................................................................................................... i
1. TYPE OF ACTION .....................................................................................................................................1
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................................1
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................2
IV. CON14ENTS AND COORDINATION .......................................:..........................................................3
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment ..........................................................................................3
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................3
C. Public Involvement ..:.................................................................................................................................4
D. Other Agency Coordination .......................................................................................................................5
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................5
A. Proposed Improvements ..............................................................................................................................5
1. Roadway Cross-section ..........................................................................................................................5
2. Structures ...............................................................................................................................................6
B. Probable Environmental Effects of Proposed Action .................................................................................6
1. Wetlands (Waters of the US) .................................................................................................................6
2. Rare and Protected Species ....................................................................................................................7
3. Traffic Noise .......................................................................................................................... ................8
4. Land Use ................................................................................................................................ ................9
5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................. ................9
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ....................................................................11
APPENDIX - Comments Received Following Completion of Environmental Assessment
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Proposed Typical Section For US 1
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1- Anticipated Effects on Wetlands ..................................................... 6
Table 2 - Federally-Protected Species in Richmond and Moore Counties ..................... 7
Table 3 - Potential Environmental Effects of TIP Project R-2501 ................................. 11
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 1
SR 1001 (Marston Road) to the Existing Four Lanes
North of the Moore County Line
Richmond-Moore Counties
State Project 6.589009T
WBS Element 3443
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 Homan
Fire and Rescue Department.
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.
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.
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-2502 Page 1 of 2
February 2005
i
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.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) requested additional work be
conducted on two archaeological sites in the project area (31RH133/133** and
3 1 RH3 19/3 19* *) 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 HPO 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.
Two sites containing Michaux's sumac exist in the project area. Plants within the
proposed construction limits of the project will be relocated to a protected area prior to
construction. This relocation will be coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife- Service,
the NC Natural Heritage Program and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.-
Roadway Design Unit/NCDOT Division Eight Construction
The locations of the Michaux's sumac populations will be denoted on project
construction plans with a note that areas containing plants outside the construction limits
are not to be disturbed during construction.
Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the populations to
prevent entry prior to any work beginning in the vicinity of the populations.
The contractor for the project will provide written notification of the start date for
project construction to the NCDOT Office of Natural Environment. Following this
notification, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment personnel may perform
unannounced on-site inspections during project construction. This notification should be
sent to the following address:
Natural Environment Biological Surveys Unit
NCDOT Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Finding of No Significant Impact - R-2502 Page 2 of 2
February 2005
ii
State Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a State Finding of No Significant Impact prepared in compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the capacity and safety of US 1
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 (one access per parcel) will be obtained for portions of US 1 to
be widened to four lanes with a 46-foot median. No control of access is proposed for
other portions of the project. All intersecting roadways will cross US 1 at-grade; no grade
separations or interchanges are proposed.
The project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled in
the 2004-2010 TIP for state fiscal years 2005 and 2006, respectively.
The total estimated costs for TIP Project R-2502 are as follows:
Construction $22,000,000
Right of Way Acquisition $8,100,000
Wetland Miti ati on $98,300
Total Cost $30,198,300
The cost estimate included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program for the
project is $32,248,000. Of this total, $6,225,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition
and $26,023,000 is estimated for construction.
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 of the environmental assessment).
• 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 of the environmental
assessment).
• 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 of the environmental
assessment).
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The proposed project will require the relocation of 14 homes and 10 businesses.
The project will also relocate two churches. 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 2.0 acres of wetlands, but will not affect any
jurisdictional streams.
The proposed project will affect two sites containing Michaux's sumac, a
federally-listed endangered plant (see Section V-B-1). Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act does not apply to project impacts to Michaux's sumac, however, NCDOT has
coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and modified the project design in order
to reduce project impacts. Plants within the proposed construction limits of the project will
be relocated prior to construction.
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists within federal permit areas for the
project. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with a biological conclusion of
"may affect-not likely to adversely effect" for the project 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 four businesses by the design
year 2025 with construction of the project, however, noise abatement measures are not
considered appropriate. Noise impacts would still occur to 39 homes and four businesses
by the year 2025 if the project is not built.
2
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.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the environmental assessment were made available to the public and to
the following federal, state and local agencies:
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 and Natural Resources
Military Traffic Management Command
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Richmond County
Town of Hoffman
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from whom comments on the environmental
assessment were received. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
COMN ENT: "We offer the following comments on the Environmental Assessment.
The summary and page 24 state only that the NCDOT will conduct additional
work on two sites if they are in the Area of Potential Effect and after the right of
way is purchased. We recommend the two site numbers 31RH133/133** and
31 RH319/319* * be added to the discussion in the summary and page 24."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The two archaeological site numbers have been added to the
project commitment referring to the sites on page i of this document.
3
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
COMN ENT: "We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. We are concerned over
the proposal to drop debris from the demolition of Bridge No. 42 into the waters
of Drowning Creek. NCDOT should explore methods of bridge demolition,
which do not cause disturbance of the streambed."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The environmental assessment presented the impacts of the
worst-case scenario (the entire bridge superstructure over water being dropped in
the water). NCDOT will follow Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal during the construction of this project. The contractor
will prepare a plan for bridge demolition and debris removal. The contractor will
not be allowed to drop the bridge in the water if the bridge can be removed
without doing so. If it is determined components of the bridge must be dropped
into the water, all efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the
surface waters.
COMA1ENT: "...Best Management Practices for the protection of Surface Waters
should be strictly followed."
NCDOT AESPONSE: As stated in Section V-A-2 of the environmental assessment,
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
followed to minimize project impacts on water resources in the project area.
C. Public Involvement
A second citizens informational workshop was held for the project following
completion of the environmental assessment. This workshop was held on January 9;
2001 at the Hoffman Elementary School in Hoffman. Approximately 60 people attended
this workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to obtain public input on the
appropriate typical section through Hoffman. Both a five-lane undivided and a median
divided typical section were presented in the environmental. assessment.
Based on comments heard at the second workshop, most area residents prefer a
five-lane undivided typical section through Hoffman.
A public hearing for the project was held on April 10, 2003 at the Hoffman
Elementary School in Hoffman. Approximately 70 citizens attended the hearing. The
majority of comments and questions heard at the hearing related to the project's effect on
individual properties. No opposition to the project was expressed at the hearing.
The project will likely affect Marston Baptist Church's sanctuary building.
NCDOT design staff will meet with representatives of the church during preparation of
4
right of way plans for the project to help identify the effect on the church building and
allow the church to begin planning for replacement or relocation of their sanctuary.
D. Other Agency Coordination
Coordination was conducted with natural resource agencies concerning
recommended bridge lengths for the proposed bridges to carry US 1 over Drowning
Creek. A field meeting was held with the agencies in June 2004. A 400-foot long bridge
for the northbound lanes and a 430-foot long bridge for the southbound lanes were
recommended in the environmental assessment at Drowning Creek. The agencies agreed
with the proposed bridge lengths at the June 2004 meeting. Currently, both bridges are
proposed to be 440 feet long (see Section V-A-2).
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Improvements
1. Roadway Cross-section
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 in the environmental assessment (see Section IV-A of the environmental
assessment).
The environmental assessment recommended four-lanes with a 16-foot median
and curb and gutter through Marston. Four-lanes with a 16-foot median and shoulders
were recommended between Marston and Hoffinan in the EA. No recommendation was
presented in the environmental assessment through the Town of Hoffman. Both a
four-lane and a five-lane typical section with curb and gutter were considered, the four-
lane typical section was designated as the preferred alternative. North of Hoffinan, four
lanes with a 46-foot median and shoulders was recommended. Figure 3A of the
environmental assessment presents the typical sections proposed at that time.
Following completion of the environmental assessment, additional coordination
was conducted with the railroad, the North Carolina Motor Speedway (located on US 1
south of the project area) and the Town of Hoffman. In addition, a second citizens
informational workshop was held (see Section IV-C). This coordination resulted in
changes to the recommended typical sections from what was presented in the
environmental assessment.
Currently, the project is divided into four sections and different typical sections
are recommended within each section. Five lanes with shoulders are now recommended
from SR 1001 (Marston Road) through Marston to SR 1004 (Bostic Road) in Hoffman.
A 16-foot wide center turn lane is proposed in order to allow for future channelization if
the center turn lane presents operational problems. From SR 1004 to Glider Road, four
5
lanes with a 17.5-foot median and shoulders is proposed. From Glider Road to just south
of Special Forces Way, four lanes with a 46-foot median is proposed. From south of
Special Forces Way to north of Drowning Creek, the proposed median has been narrowed
to 17.5 feet in order to reduce wetland impacts. Figure 2 presents the proposed typical
sections for the project.
2. Structures
Two bridge structures 36 feet wide and 440 feet long will be constructed to carry
US 1 over Drowning Creek. Two bridges of differing lengths, a 400-foot long bridge for
the northbound lanes and a 430-foot long bridge for the southbound lanes were
recommended in the environmental assessment.
B. Probable Environmental Effects of Proposed Action
1. Wetlands (Waters of the US)
As discussed in Section V-A-1, the proposed median has been reduced in the
vicinity of Drowning Creek in order to reduce wetland impacts. Table 1 below presents
the anticipated effects of the proposed project on wetlands.
TABLE T
ANTICIPATED
EFFECTS ON WETLANDS

Site
Community Type Acres
Affected
IA. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 0.1 ac
1B Successional Pine Forest 0.2 ac
2 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 0.4 ac
3 Streamhead Pocosin 0.1 ac
4 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam 1.2 ac
Total 2.0 ac
6
2. Rare and Protected Species
As of January 29, 2003, 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 2 below.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
TN RTC'HMnNn ANTI Mnn'Pl . VnTTNTTTC

SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS
COUNTY BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Aci enser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E Richmond No Effect
Lasmi onia decorate Carolina heels litter E Richmond No Effect
Notro is mekistocholas Ca Fear shiner E Moore No Effect
Picoides borealis red-cockaded
woodpecker E Both May Affect,
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Lysimachia
as erulaefolia rough-leaved loosestrife E Richmond No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Both *No Effect
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E Moore No Effect
tsioiogicai conclusions only apply to this state-funded project in areas with a federal
nexus. No populations of Michaux's sumac were found within areas on this project with a
federal nexus.
"E" - Endangered
"T" - Threatened
No habitat for the shortnose sturgeon, Cape Fear shiner, Carolina heelsplitter,
rough-leaved loosestrife or American chaffseed exists in the project area. 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.
Drowning Creek is part of the Lumber River Drainage Basin. The Cape Fear shiner is only
known from the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. Drowning Creek is a slow flowing
stream surrounded by swamp and is not suitable habitat for Carolina heelsplitter.
Habitat exists in the project area for red-cockaded woodpecker and Michaux's
sumac. New surveys were conducted for these species. Surveys for red-cockaded
woodpecker were conducted in April 2003. Suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat
within the project corridor and within one-half mile on either side was surveyed for cavity
trees. The proposed project is within one-half mile of three inactive red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters. A foraging habitat analysis was conducted for two of these clusters.
An analysis was not conducted for the third cluster because no foraging habitat will be
removed from this cluster. In a letter dated February 11, 2004, the US Fish and Wildlife
7
Service concurred with a biological conclusion of "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect" (see copy of letter in Appendix). The requirements of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act apply to federal permit areas along this state-funded project
because habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists within a federal permit area.
The project area was resurveyed for Michaux's sumac in May 2004. Two
populations of Michaux's sumac were found. Both of these populations extend onto the
existing right of way for US 1.
The proposed project will affect both of these sites containing Michaux's sumac.
Because this is a state-funded project and there is no federal nexus in the area of these
protected plants, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act does not apply in this case and
consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
NCDOT has coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the
project's effect on these plants. NCDOT has modified the project design in order to reduce
the number of plants affected.
NCDOT will take the following steps to limit impacts to this federally-protected
plant:
• Plants within the proposed construction limits of the project will be relocated
to a protected area prior to construction. This relocation will be coordinated
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the NC Natural Heritage Program and
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
• The locations of the Michaux's sumac populations will be denoted on project
construction plans with a note that areas containing plants outside the
construction limits are not to be disturbed during construction.
• Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the populations to
prevent entry prior to any work beginning in the vicinity of the populations.
• The contractor for the project will provide written notification of the start date
for project construction to the NCDOT Office of Natural Environment.
Following this notification, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment personnel
may perform unannounced on-site inspections during project construction.
3. Traffic Noise
The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy has been revised since completion
of the environmental assessment. The 2004 Noise Abatement Policy has changed the
criteria for determining a "substantial increase" in noise levels. Under the new noise
abatement policy, noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the Federal Highway Administration noise
8
abatement criteria and/or the predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed
existing noise levels as defined below:
Existin Lea(h)
50 or less dBA
51 dBA
52 dBA
53 dBA
54 dBA
55 or more dBA
Substantial Increase if Receptor
Experiences Increase of.
15 or more dBA
14 or more dBA
13 or more dBA
12 or more dBA
11 or more dBA
10 or more dBA
Under the 2004 noise policy, traffic noise will impact 40 homes and four
businesses in the year 2025 with construction of the proposed project. If the proposed
project were not built, 39 homes and four businesses would experience traffic noise
impacts in 2025.
4. Land Use
Current Land Use
Lands surrounding US 1 within the project limits are larg.-ly 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 Hoffinan 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.
Zoning/Land Use Plans
Since completion of the environmental assessment, Richmond County has
developed a land use plan and zoning regulations. Richmond County approved its
strategic land use plan in August 2000 and zoning regulations in July 2003. Most of the
project area is zoned either Agricultural Residential or Rural Residential, with a highway
commercial overlay.
5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Indirect Effects
The majority of the proposed project is located in Richmond County and passes
through the Towns of Marston and Hoffman. There are many large tracts of
undevelopable or marginally developable land in the project area. The Sandhills Game
Land and Camp Mackall are two large government-owned properties in the area.
9
Environmental restrictions (wetlands and water supply watersheds) and lack of water and
sewer make other properties less developable. These limitations and the low current and
forecasted growth rates indicate growth related to the proposed project will be limited.
Any indirect effects would likely occur from converting lower intensity land uses
(agricultural, low density residential or forest) to higher intensity land uses (single family
residential or highway-oriented commercial). Any potential development would likely
occur close to the roadway. Scattered residential development could occur in one of the
several existing manufactured housing subdivisions throughout the area, as single family
residences fronting US 1, or in the subdivisions located along US 1 just north of the
project. Commercial development would likely be limited to highway commercial
development at one of several major intersections along US 1. It is unlikely other types
of development will occur as a result of this project.
Cumulative Effects
Potential cumulative effects in the project area include spillover growth from
neighboring communities (Rockingham, Southern Pines and Pinehurst), increased
regional traffic due to the designation of US 74 south of Rockingham as part of the
I-73/74 corridor and environmental effects of the proposed US 1 Rockingham Bypass
(TIP Project R-2501).
The large amount of government-owned land in the project area and the lack of
sewer service will limit the amount of development occurring in the project area.
As discussed in Section H-A-5 of the environmental assessment, one other
highway project is proposed in the vicinity of the subject project. TIP Project R-2501
involves constructing a US 1 Bypass of Rockingham and widening existing US 1 from
the bypass to SR 1001(Marston Road). SR 1001 was chosen as the northern terminus for
Project R-2501 because early alternatives examined for the project would have extended
on new location to just south of SR 1001. -
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed for Project R-2501
in September 1999 and a supplemental DEIS was completed in July 2001. The
supplemental DEIS presented the following potential effects of the recommended
alternative (Alternative Corridor 21) for the proposed Rockingham Bypass and the
proposed widening of existing US 1 between the bypass and SR 1001.
10
Table 3 below presents the potential environmental effects of TIP Project R-2501
shown in the supplemental DEIS for that project.
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF TIP PROJECT R-2501
Resource Project Effect
Residential Relocations 73
Business Relocations 18
Wetlands Affected 55.7 acres
Streams Affected 3,783 feet
Affect Federally-Protected Species? No*
Undisturbed Land Affected 655 acres
Agricultural Land Affected 22 acres
Developed Land Affected
* 195 acres
-Concurrence from US Fish and Wildlife Service obtained on a biological conclusion of
"Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for Michaux's sumac, "No Effect" for all other listed
species.
It is expected the cumulative effects of the subject project and TIP Project R-2501
will be limited to t sum of each project's individual effects. It is not expected the two
projects will have a synergistic effect which would increase the overall cumulative effect
beyond each project's direct effects.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal,
state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation that the proposed action will have no significant impact upon the quality
of the human environment. Therefore, a state environmental impact statement will not be
required. This finding of no significant impact completes the environmental review
record, which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
The following person may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal and statement: .
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
11
moo
ci%?
J
•3
-• 1. 1473.
' L S ,003 • , ' - Q
L 1 ,.-
LAN D
RICHMOND ?©dNTY
\%• ,003
%G' - -- -- 1475 R. J
tMX 1
RSM HATCHERY
kn_
.3
/
6os % a '?
MOORE COUNTY
1004
?v
/

Ram
t?
MACML
MILJTMY HOKE
RESENAMN COUNTY
I
1
1
1
I
v. ?
/ 1601

O /
1479 max. ,

/01
03 dz`l
I
-
cro
vs NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
?• e 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
0 KILOMETERS 3
MI1 E
APPENDIX
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOLLOWING COMPLETION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
United Mates Department of the In
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Pon Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 276363726
February 1.1, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
-Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-2548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
SX V E?6
?Y
2.a
Tt
This letter is in response to your letter of January 5, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed widening of US I to a multi-lane facility from
approximately 2 miles south of the Town of Pinebluff in Moore County, south to the intersection
of US 1 and SR 1001 in Richmond County (TIP No. R-2502), may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides bor eahs)(RCW).
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
We have reviewed the submitted Biological Assessment (BA) dated January 5, 2004 which
provided a survey and foraging habitat analysis of the project area for the RCW. We also
received and reviewed an addendum to the BA dated January 20, 2004 which provided revised
information for additional clarification. Suitable RCW habitat within the project corridor and
within one-half mile on either side was surveyed for cavity trees between April 3-22, 2003. The
proposed project corridor passes within one-half mile of 3 inactive RCW clusters (SGL 58, SG.L
59 wand MOOR 10). A foraging habitat analysis was not conducted for SGL 59 because it is
inactive, is not considered a separate cluster from SGL 58 and is not being managed as a
recruitment cluster. An analysis was not conducted for MOOR 10 because no foraging habitat
will be removed during project construction. The BA provides the results of a foraging habitat
analysis for SGL 58, although inactive, because it is being managed as a recruitment cluster.
The foraging habitat analysis for SGL 58 was conducted between September 29 and October 2,
2003. Impacts were assessed using the guidelines in the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan - Standard
for Managed Stability (USFWS 2003). The BA divides foraging habitat into three types: sparse
pine (0-40 square feet (sq. ft.) basal area i acre), moderately dense pine (40-70 sq. ft. basal area
/acre) and dense pine (70 sq. ft. basal areal acre). The BA further subdivides each habitat type
into categories based on levels of hardwood midstory encroachment (sparse, moderate and dense)
and overall height of hardwood midstory (low (<7 feet), moderate (7-15 feet) and tall (>15 feet)).
A-1
The BA defines suitable foraging habitat as moderately dense pine (basal area 40-70 sq. ft.iacre)
and a hardwood midstory that is either absent or, if present, less than 7 feet in height. The BA
defines potential habitat as moderately dense pine stands with a sparse hardwood midstory of
moderate height (7-15 feet), moderately dense pine stands with a moderately dense hardwood
midstory of low (<7 feet) or moderate (7-15 feet) height, and a subset of dense pine with a basal
area of 75-90 sq. ft./acre (based on continued observations of RCWs utilizing this habitat type for
foraging). Potential habitat is habitat that could be considered suitable habitat after manual
removal of midstory hardwoods.
If only suitable and potentially suitable foraging habitat (as defined in the BA) are considered in
calculating pre-project forage totals for SGL 58, only 53.68 acres are available as foraging
,habitat. This equates to 3455.45 sq, ft, of pine basal area and 3,555.77 stems >10 inches
diameter at breast height (dbh). These figures are significantly lower than the minimum forage
guidelines stated in the 2003 Recovery Plan - Standard for Managed Stability. According to the
2003 Recovery Plan, SGL 58 does not contain sufficient foraging habitat, yet RCWs occupied
the site as late as the mid- I 990s.
According to the BA's foraging habitat analysis, approximately 2.83 acres of potential foraging
habitat would be removed. This equates to post project habitat with 3273.29 sq. ft. of pine basal
area and 3368.31. stems >10 inches dbh. Again, this is well below the minimum guidelines stated
in the 2003 Recovery Plan - Standard for Managed Stability, but well above what has been
observed in some active clusters in the Southern Pines / Pinehurst area.
To account for this apparent paradox, the BA analyzes the foraging data using all pine stands
regardless of understory density. This alternative analysis yields a pre-project foraging habitat
total in SGL 58 of 13,799.96 sq. ft. of pine basal area and 13,148.20 pine stems > 10 inches dbh.
Using this alternative analysis, 8.45 acres of RCW foraging substrate would be removed. This
equates to 686.54 sq. ft. of pine basal area and 659.62 pine stems > 10 inches dbh. In this
scenario, the post-project foraging habitat totals for SGL 58 are 13,113.42 sq. ft. of pine basal
area and 12,488.58 pine stems > 10 inches dbh. This, if analyzed appropriately, would provide
more than adequate foraging habitat for SGL 58 as required by the 2003 Recovery Plan. Since
some of the overstocked stands (stands >90 sq. ft. basal area /acre) are on lands that will be
managed for RCW recovery (Sandhills Game Land), the number of potential acres of habitat will
likely increase as the stands are managed.
The Service believes that RCWs in the Sandhills area are unique in that they have existed in
increasingly less than optimal habitat and have apparently incrementally adapted to what would
otherwise be categorized as unsuitable habitat. Even though the combination of suitable and
potentially suitable foraging habitat for SGL 58 is well below the stated guidelines in the 2003
Recovery Plan, the amount of habitat that is present is apparently greater than in some other
active clusters that have been observed in the Sandhills. Based on the information provided and
other information available, the Service concurs with your determination that the project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
A-2
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan or Mr. John Hammond at (919) 856-
4520, extensions 32 and 28, respectively.
Sincerely,
Garland B..Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
Li.Literature cited:
U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Beth. Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Ralph Costa, USFWS, Clemson, SC
Pete Campbell, ;?S'FWS, Southern Pines, NC
A-3
Forth Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
December 7, 2000
Mr. David Smith
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Bldg. -1534 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Smith:
R 9 R 9 W R
DEC I 1 W
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Re: SCH File 4 01-E-4220-02$9; Environmental Assessment Proposed Improvements to LS 1, from
SR 1001 to the Existing Four Lanes Near the Moore County Line; TIP R-2502
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the forth Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by statellocal agencies in the course of this review. Because
of the nature of the comment(s), it has been determined that you may submit a Finding of No Significant
Impact to the State Clearinghouse for compliance with the Act. The attached comments should be taken
into consideration in project development.
Sincerely,
q4A
S. , s Haggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region H
{
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Oppommity ; AffumaMt AC604 &nployer
A-4
.?<. Stelrr,.
3A,
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. t;rt)w; Director
November 18, 2000
MEMORNN D CIn7
To: William D. Gilmore. P.I.. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
U?a- &wk
From: David Brock 2
Deputy State Flisto Preservation Officer
1-1 Re: U.S. I from SR 1001 to Existing Four Lanes. Richmond County.
TIP. No. R-2502. State Project Number 6.589009T.. GS 98-0083
We have received inforniation concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We offer the following comments on the Environmental Assessment. The summary and page 24
state only that the NCDOT will conduct additional work on two sites ifthey are in the Area of
Potential Effect and after the right-of?way is purchased. We recommend the two site numbers
31 RId133;'133**and' 1 RH319;:319** be added to the discussion in the summary and page 24.
We look forward to receiving and reviewing the plans for the prq?ject in the vicinity of sites
3IRH133=133** aiid 31 R1-1319:-"31x1**. It will assist our review that when the plans are
transmitted the boundaries of both sites are plotted on the plan sheets. If either or both sites
31RI1133r1133** and 31 RI-I 319:.319** are to be impacted, we look fonvard to receiving and
reviewing the scope of work and proposal describing the data recovery operation. Our staff is
available for additional consultation at any stage in this process.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of thy: National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Presen!ation'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, contact Renee. C.iledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator. at 9191,1733-4763.
cc: CH
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location M31ilinpAddress Telephoneluax
AitltilS7RAriON
ARCHAEOLOGY S()7 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC: 3617 Mail Servjce CCnte:, Raleigh NC X7699-36t7 [phone] • '33-8653

RESTORATION 321 N. Blount St.,
4 Raleigh NC 4614 Mail Service Cenier. RaieiLh NC 27699-3614
. (919) '33-73542 . 715-2671

SURVEY do PLANNING 1:5 N, Blount S(..
515 N. Bitmit St Raleigh NC
Raleigh NC 3613 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh NC 27699-3613
461 (919) '33-6547 • '15-4901
., A-5 Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4fitR 1919) 733.6545 • ':55.38!11
?? u T

7
W`
7
S R

AMES 6. HUNT JR
Y,. ,CaOVERNOR

't;'

'7»e - c ri r
r
74,
a „Y
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys 8aggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 01-E-0289 EA Widening of US 1, Richmond and
Moore Counties
DATE: December 6, 2000
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
completed its review of the subject proposal. This
department asks that careful consideration be given to the
attached recommendations by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission. The applicant is encouraged to work directly
with our agencies prior to finalizing project plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
y ....! r..,?
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
PHONE [phone] FAX 919-71S-3060 WWW.ENR.STATE.NC.US1ENR1
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY ! AFFIRM A. -6 kCYION EMP40YER - SO% RECYCLECJIO o POST-CONSUMER PAPER
-- EN.orthCarofina. V Mfe Resources Commission
CILtrlos R Fultwood, Executive Director

Ml?MORANDU v1
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Lesislative and Inter90v9=WItal Affairs, DEN-11
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordi
? Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 21, 2000
921
SUBJEC"t'. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDol )1=rvironrnental Assessment
(CA) for the widening of US 1, from SR 1001 to the existing four-lanes north of the
Moon County Line, Richmond and Moore counties. North. Carolina. TIP No. R-2502,
SCH Project No. 01-E-0289.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject EA and
are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to assess project
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our cummants are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National Knvironmental Policy Act (42 I. T.S.C.4332(2Xc)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). ,
NCDorr proposes to widen US 1 from SR 1001 (Marston Road) to just north of the Morro Couniv
Line. 'Me total project length is approximately 83 miles, Impacts to wtdands are cxpt.clcd Ga total
approximately 3.6 as.7cs with no stream impacts oxpeCtcd.
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. We are coriocrnod over the proposal to drop dcbris
from the demolition of Bridge No. 42 into the waters of Drowning Creek. NCDOT should explore
methods or bridge demolition, which do not cause disturbance of the stroumbed. Also Best Management
Practices for Lim nmiwion of Surface Waters should be strictly followed. At this time, we concur with
the EA for this imjcc:t.
1 hank yew for thq opportunity to Comment on this EA. If we can be of any turthcr assistance please
call me at [phone].
cc. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Mailing Address: Division of In=and fisheries + 1721 Mail Service Center • ltalaie h
Telephone: [phone] cat - - Fax: (919) 715-,, 6tg", NC 2761)9-1721
A-7
State of North Carolina J
Department of Environment and Matural Resources Reviewing Off":
LN-r-ERGO'VERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date: /C-0
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 tliis project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits arc available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
(==or
time limit
y
)
PER-HITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systcros contrasts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into suit surface waters. (90 days)
O NPDES - pemit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Puapplication 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wasuwatcr
dischargingJinto state surface t+nters. treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
piarts or issue of NPDES permit-wltichcver is later.
O Water Use Permit Pre-appiication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(VIA)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a wall. (1: days)
a Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 3 3 days
On-site inspection. Fie-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administ ation and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Permit to construct & operate :fir Pollution Abatement NIA
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per.13 A NCAC 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300. 2H.0600)
O Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 13 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 13 A
NCAC 211.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820. (90 days)
O Complex Source Permit required under 13 A NICAC
2D.o800
1 The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 meta be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan w!n1g required if one or more acres to be disturbed m?I t p.ojt RsP^?"' c' a ttv 20 days
ys before beginning a nst acre an n
- __^
l
S
/ f'
(2
? (30 days)
GN
3L14Y31::p
?o oT
L L
l t?
ea ! I S W r-WI.1q

O v
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 ENR. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater f 30 days
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received ( (50 days)
before the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-sitq inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds d days 2 day
(1"`A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more thaw 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be (NjA)
requested at least ten days before actual burn is pianned"
O Oil Refining Facilities NIA 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 plus, irspect constructiOti,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plant. I4ay also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program And a 400 pertnit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A (60 clays)
minimum fee ofS200.00 must accompany the application An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion
A-8
f
Z
n
C)
N
X
N
Z7
O
O
C
.70
m
N
C
N
m
"n
z m
s?
oZ
y
O o= f.'* r
-a
m y me
n
~
-? a
O -10. m
a
D
(/1
z
N
C ?
N ?
U1
N '
O
W
O N
o
O
` o
` N
V 1 z`
cn
D i N
00
i
rn
0 C)
N

?
TJ
V T? J
V
N
D O
0 C-
V
t ^ O
M cn
C7 m

O
N
Z
Cn
V) O
N

T
O
c
A
Z /
m
o
2
A
n
o \
O
m
v
z
?s
0

3

O
A
vz
m
N
o
OS
C?
r v
N
z
Q
o
m?
m ,
_ z
i

C) )
r
o
S O
m L
m
? n

m
C) s
D
r L

1 N
O ?O

D??
ti
m
C
C/1
0
:i?i\

J'/
r
4-
,.a. STATE 4
? nary
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201,,. (? s f?jOE"fir OLSON R
GOVERNOR ti" {L?5 U
1998 .-
April 20,
k
11r I
G v??La?DS?L"
APR 2 3 1998
?
ETPD? M
?'?
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
FROM: /!V A bin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for US 1, From SR 1001 to existing four
lanes at Moore County Line, Richmond County, State Project
6.589009T, TIP Project R-2502
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project
(See attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for I ay;t4,1998 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch
Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail
them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Jay McInnis, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 248.
LVP/plr
Attachment

b

an
cueruen- •.?••.
?R I dHMON b
a ur ;r>?
$andhills RK. a .n
1II Roberdel Marst
6 r?-/` ?
+ ttnac ¦
kmgham ;
c«t.a ?
„Hamlet*
/ ¦
tt
a Sat '
6 Gho ;
¦
`
' - i ..,1473 MOORE COUNTY 2`y

3

L L S '_
..........
?... •.
. ,... END PROJECT
..?
D

/'

?

v? v M.
100.
•/ rawly
i
? ?

J I
j
1r-
r • ' i t
,

R I HMONa'y:EOUN TY ?

?S
•
?
+ CAMP
'
`' .. .
Nlt?nO
?
:'? ' MACKALL j
MILITARY
? _. • ? K
??
`
H OK E

'

wm
i RESERVATO .
COUNTY
?
Y :? ` C ?
.i 31

-' N7$
'
?
O'FFMAN
! ?? +
.
..+
' - $?

? ?
? POP. 3 I
?
sue
?
j ? ,-
?
: 1601
(?
C +
!' _ ??? i
?.' ? j KILOMETERS
0 t 2 3

!
I FISH NHATCHER rtiKl
?AA
Y!\ 14
OO •
ENTHIS E??
?`? _ ?. ?.• 0 1 2
MILES
MARSTO SGQ??,
,am
,5M O 9
BEGIN PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
` TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US I
SR 1001 TO EXISTING FOUR LANES
AT MOORE COUNTY LINE
RICHMOND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2502

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # R-2502
PROJECT # 6.589009T
F.A. PROJECT # N/A
DIVISION: Light
-
ROUTE: US 1
COUNTY: Richmond
Date: April 20, 1998
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
? Programming
X Planning
0 Design
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Rural Principal Arterial-Other
LENGTH: 15.1 kilometers (9.4 miles)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Improve capacity and safety of existing roadway
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: Proiect involves widening existing two-lane roadway to four
lanes with a 14 meter (46-foot) median.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: State Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: SEA completion: October, 1999
SFONSI completion: July, 2000
June, 6,-( CsAJA/oC(b/\
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes F1 No
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($) , or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
r
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full [:] Partial ® None F1
NUMBER OF: Interchanges: none Grade Separations: none Stream Crossings: one
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: two 3.6 in (12') lanes, 2.7-3.6 m (7'-12') grassed
shoulders
Proposed: four 3.6 in (12') lanes separated by a 14 in (46') median
with 3.0 in (10') grassed outside shoulders (1.2 in (4')
paved)
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (1996):. 6,200-6,800 vpd
Design Year (2025): *
*Traffic projections expected to be available in May, 1998
% TTST 10% DUAL DHV 12%
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ® 3R F]
DESIGN SPEED: 110 km/h (68 mph)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ....................... $ 15,800,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation,
utilities and acquisition) ...... ............ $ 2,200,000*
Force Account Items ........................... $
Preliminary Engineering ......................... $ 500,000
Total Cost ................................... $ 18,500,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction .................................. $ 23,300,000
Right of Way .................................. $ 2,200,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 25,500,000
* TIP right of way estimate

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
® Pavement:
®Surface .........................:............... $ 981,840
®Base ........................................... $ 3,097,940
? Milling & Recycling ............................... $
? Turnouts ....................................... $
? $
? Shoulders:
? Paved .......................................... $
? Earthern ........................................ $
® Earthwork ............................................ $ 1,948,005
? Fine Grading ........................................... $
? Subsurface Items ....................................... $
® Subgrade and Stabilization ................................ $ 584,400
® Drainage (List any special items) ........................... $ 1,328,000
? Sub-Drainage ........................................... $
? Structures Width x Length
® Bridge Rehabilitation 7.9m (26') x 90.9m (298').... $ 170,456
® New Bridge 12.Om (401 x 90.9m (298').... $ 750,960
? New Bridge x ........ $
? New Bridge x ........ $
® Widen Bridge 4.3m 14' x 90.9m (298') .... $ 312,900
? Remove Bridge x ......... $
? New Culvert: Size Length .......... $
? Culvert Extension ................................. $
? Retaining Walls .................................. $
? Noise Walls ..................................... $
® Other Misc. Structures ............................. $ 41,300
? $
? Concrete Curb & Gutter ................................. $
? Concrete Sidewalk ..................................... $
? Guardrail ............................................ $
? Fencing: W.W. ? and/or C.L.? .......................... $
® Erosion Control ....................................... $ 324,000
E] Landscaping .......................................... $
? $
? $
? $

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
0 Lighting ................................................ $
X Traffic Control .......................................... $ 249,000
? Signing:
? New ............................................ $
? Upgraded ......................................... $
? Traffic Signals:
? New ............................................. $
? Revised ........................................... $
? $
? RR Signals:
? New ............................................. $
? Revised ............................................ $
? With or Without Arms ............................... $
? If 3R:
? Drainage Safety Enhancement ......................... $
? Roadside Safety Enhancement ......................... $
? Realignment for Safety Upgrade ....................... $
® Pavement Markings:
? Paint ............................................. $
® Thermo & Markers ................................. $ 132,800
? Delineators .............................................. $
®Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc ...................... $ 3,778,399
Contract Cost Subtotal ................................. $ 13,700,000
Engineering & Contingencies .................................. $ 2,100,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs ................................. $ 500,000
Force Account .............................................. $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: ...................... $ 16,300,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 30 in (100')
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
Yes ? No
® New Right of Way Needed: Width varies ................... $ 2,200,000*
? Easements: Type Width ...................... $
? Utilities: .............................................. $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: ................................. $ 2,200,000*
* TIP right of way estimate
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 18,500,000
Prepared By: Bill Davenport Date: 4-6-98
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.

4?k
"? ?`0? 3?°"'i c? a '?;?,,-awe ?? t?;-
,/;5 too
a
W
PROJECT INFORMATION
TIP PROJECT R-2502
JANUARY 2004
1. Project Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the capacity and safety of US 1
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. No control of access is proposed for other portions of the project.
2. Project Status/Schedule
This project was presented at an inter-agency meeting in January 2000. The
consensus of the group at that time was the project should not go through the NEPA/404
merger process. A state environmental assessment was completed for the project in
September 2000. A public hearing was held for the project in April 2003. The state
finding of no significant impact for the project is scheduled to be completed in May 2004.
Right of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in August 2004 and the
project is scheduled to be let to construction in June 2006.
3. 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.
• 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.
• 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.
i

4
r
4. 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 concurred with a biological conclusion of "not
likely to adversely effect" for project effects on the federally-listed red-cockaded
woodpecker in August 2000. Because of the time which has passed since surveys were
originally performed for this project, new surveys for red-cockaded woodpecker have been
performed and concurrence on a biological conclusion of "may affect-not likely to
adversely affect" has been requested from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. New surveys
for Michaux's sumac will be conducted for the project prior to completion of the final
document for the project. No habitat exists for other federally-protected species in the
project area.
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.
5. 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. 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. Figure 3 presents
proposed typical sections for the project.

_ Normanlg,•-

? oslrta
_ ? Vtllagt
- Elteroe-

`-h ott as
i
1a
Roecrael ton
?g.n 1

'?
.? Cwdava •a-
? ? _liamlet?
r ;
j

rlan .?' - S i
,
%
i
i
J /
3
1 473..
\. MOORE COUNTY 2
.
?
.-..
; END PROJECT o
?3 ;,._.
_•
-4. 0

i
LAN D
/ 1004

i-

RI MMOND 'COUNTY '
?, j?
CAMP

c ' -
i i
?l
aLPOOD
MACKALL

MILITARY ?

?

•
, R •.. HOKE
` i
: 1003 - RESERVATON .•' COUNTY
Y 600 1
/
1475
i HOFFMAN
i
..
3-9 POP. 349

?
1601 .?
y
Q
- •- i
i
0 KILOM_TERS
1 TT S

NNEY LAKE 1 C ``.? .
.--'-? M I I ES
FISH HATCHERY 1479 EntlisNe ?•? ?•
1
i
536 v C
3
Marston
SCO
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
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
t

Z
n
v
h
Ul
x
m
70
0
.70
m
CA
.O
O
U)
FT?
i
_zz `
-rj
,-n
D\
Z ?
R
fl Vi
N
m
Q
A
0
m
O
'D
r
1 I Y
n
m
O
I- o r r
m z< ,n>
o C)
M C/')
C?? f Tl
o n'1
IV
z Ln
cn o
N
Q
r?
S
1
z o
1 ?
in
S?
J\C

a

1 y
e

•Q
Hp
a,
v
0

IP,

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 12, 1998
hip
MEMORANDUM TO: FILE -
k4l
FROM: Jay McInnis, P.E. T
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping meeting minutes for 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
The scoping meeting for TIP Project R-2502 was held on May 14, 1998. The
following persons were in attendance:
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cyndi Bell NC Division of Water Quality
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office
G. R. Kindley Board of Transportation Member
Lanette Cook Program Development Branch
Ray McIntyre TIP Unit
Bill Rosser Division Eight Engineer
Tim Johnson Division Eight Construction Engineer
Stephen Lowry Traffic Engineering Branch
Greg Mintz Traffic Engineering Branch
Betty Yancey Right of Way Branch
David Hinnant Right of Way Utilities Section
Ray Moore Structure Design Unit
John Taylor Location and Surveys Unit
Dewayne Sykes Roadway Design Unit
Bill Bunting Roadway Design Unit
Lubin Prevatt Planning and Environmental Branch
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental Branch
Jay McInnis Planning and Environmental Branch
Y
Typical Section Alternatives
2
The scoping sheets and the construction cost estimate for the project were
prepared considering a four-lane divided section with a 14 meter (46-foot) median for the
entire project. However, due to the amount of development in Marston and Hoffman and
concerns expressed by the public, several different typical section alternatives will now be
examined for the project.
From the beginning of the project to north of Marston, both a five-lane curb and
gutter section and a five-lane shoulder section will be examined. Between Hoffman and
Marston, a four-lane section with a 14 meter (46-foot) median, a four-lane section with a
4.8 meter (16-foot) median, a five-lane shoulder section, and a five-lane section with
expressway gutter will be examined as alternatives. Through Hoffman, a five-lane curb
and gutter section and a five-lane shoulder section will be examined.
North of Hoffman, only a four-lane section with an 18 meter (46-foot) median will
be studied; however, east-side and west-side widening alternatives will be examined.
On race days, the existing three-lane section of US 1 between the racetrack to
SR 1004 is temporarily reconfigured as two northbound lanes and one southbound lane by
utilizing the center lane as a northbound lane. Following construction of this project, three
northbound lanes could be setup by utilizing the center turn lane along five-lane portions
of US 1. If a four-lane divided section is constructed between Marston and Hoffman, the
third lane of the existing three-lane roadway could be retained as a wide paved shoulder.
This paved shoulder could then be utilized as a third northbound lane on race days.
Right of Way/Access Control
Existing right of way along the project is believed to be 30 meters (100 feet) wide.
A right of way abstract will be requested to confirm this.
Proposed right of way along four-lane divided portions of the project will be 60 to
75 meters wide (200 to 250 feet). Partial control of access will be obtained along these
portions of the project.
Proposed right of way along five-lane undivided portions of the project will be 30
meters (100 feet) for sections with curb and gutter and 45 meters (150 feet) for sections
with shoulders. No control of access will be obtained for five-lane portions of the project.
Design Speed
A 100 km/h (60 MPH) design speed will be used along four-lane median divided
and five-lane undivided shoulder sections of the project.
An 80 km/h (50 MPH) design speed will be used along portions of the project with
curb and gutter.
Proposed Structures
Cost estimates included in the scoping sheets for the project were prepared
considering rehabilitating and widening the existing bridge carrying US 1 over Drowning
Creek.
3
In commenting on the scoping sheets, the Bridge Maintenance Unit stated
replacing this bridge should be strongly considered. Bridge Maintenance cited the age of
the bridge, its low load capacity, and the fact the military has asked to move tanks across
this bridge in the past as factors which should be considered in deciding whether or not to
replace the bridge.
Adjacent Project
TIP Project R-2501 is adjacent to the subject project, and involves improvements
to US 1 from the South Carolina State Line to SR 1001. A location and environmental
study for R-2501 was completed in February, 1997. A four-lane median-divided typical
section was recommended for US 1 at the northern terminus of Project R-2501.
However, due to concerns expressed by the public, a five-lane undivided typical section is
now proposed for the northern portion of Project R-2501.
Public Concerns
Mr. Kindley mentioned residents of Hoffman have expressed concerns that the
proposed widening of US 1 would take a number of homes and churches within Hoffman.
The NCDOT District Office has taken measurements at several of the churches in
Hoffman to see if a five-lane section would require the relocation of any of the churches.
It appears five-lanes could be constructed without relocating any churches in Hoffman.
Environmental Concerns
Cyndi Bell of the NC Division of Water Quality stated the wetlands surrounding
Drowning Creek are high quality. She stated her agency would probably recommend
NCDOT bridge the wetlands. Alternatives will be examined at this location in order to
minimize wetland impacts.
Property of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission's Sandhills Game Lands is
located on the west side of US 1, and in some areas is adjacent to the right of way. David
Cox of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission mentioned there are red-cockaded
woodpecker colonies on the game lands and on the McKinney Fish Hatchery property,
which is located west of US 1.
Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office stated no properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places are located in the project area.
r
Utility Impacts
John Taylor of the NCDOT Location and Surveys Unit discussed existing utilities
located along the project. Power lines and fiber-optic cables on the west side of US 1 on
the Sandhills Game Land property between Marston and Hoffman are underground.
Relocating these underground utilities would be very expensive. These lines are on poles
along the rest of the project. The suggestion was made to contact a site manager at the
game land to determine why utilities are underground and ascertain if the lines must be
placed underground if relocated.
4
Planning and Environmental staff will request Location and Surveys locate utilities
along the project due to the potential cost involved. The project utility impact rating will
be determined at that time.
Railroad Involvement
Railroad tracks owned by CSX Transportation are parallel to US 1 on the east side
in the project area. Between the southern terminus of the project to north of Hoffman,
these tracks are very close to the existing roadway.
David Hinnant of the NCDOT Right of Way Utilities Section commented that
railroad restrictions prohibit any permanent construction (including fill slopes) within 25
feet (7.6 meters) of the near rail. He also stated NCDOT may consider obtaining
permanent easements onto railroad property rather than fee simple right of way.
Protect Study Schedule
The citizens informational workshop for the project will likely be held in the spring
of 1999.
The environmental assessment for the project is currently scheduled to be
completed in October, 1999. The finding of no significant impact is scheduled to be
completed in July, 2000.
JAM
T

.? S
` p f11e10e 1 •?
R I._C_ !)H M O•N
2.'0 Sa.dlrrll. f«
a'/ Roeadal Mara
i ?4. ?
inSham
ak n
`
•I:orAo.,
J2 Hamlet
? I it \?lal.
D
38
GM
H I L L S
L A N 0.?
i?
i i
1' 1
R 1.GHMOND'.:C•OUNT
HIS
1CKINNEY
FISH HA•
• f
` r
Nn
; MOORE COUNTY'

END PROJECT

- a o
100 ? ' 1

1
i CAMP '
'•• ,

?• ?? MACKALL
i
Nl?? MILITARY j
p HOKE
RESERVATO COUNTY
C ?.r.? y
' O'FFMAN •' 1
POP. 3
i

t`?
i•?
I 0
? KILOMETERS
1 2 7
•
O ;
`
0 t 2

MILES
u»
ENTV15 E
i '? ? lJV
z%` PNO
MARSTO ?... ?r• Q \?
riyt u
z
a
BEGIN PROJECT
t
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
;` PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
T
us 1
SR 1001 TO EXISTING FOUR LANES
AT MOORE COUNTY LINE
RICHMOND COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2502
I - 6 I ±-
. ? 3
s
seas _,.w,..._ .,,,,. 01/28/02
CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: R -2502B
N N
O O O ^ yy
N 70
A O ? N n ?rl oo i i ?'' ?-
T
m O IM O O ? 3 i
= i
N
IM 22
Ip I
CIO)
n o Z o N o a
x '9 ?oN l- ' rn
- cn
U)
co
n ?1 ?+ tOc f.3 _ n
o °o °o ;y y ;:-g, €E .?
n ti
4 ? R
? O b fW DN . .f _ F. ?
l?j tee ,?, a
s
V7 C ti ?, vi
o < -4 p < U, O o
II II II• II II II ? ? ?? ? e
p o, C o, v ?o a a
O o
D 3 o 0 o c
r O
(Jl = x
b
V, 0
o m m
? Z Z ? yy
zoo
=moo
-i C p
m D b
om
?
?m o
Q p, m y e
OD 0,
?'0
00 CID
'40 `0 1 1
,0 -4 0
-4 10
II i i y? ^ O x y b t®? -05
0 o Zy++
yu, y ti+? O A O
C C 10
co C6 t2i
o?' Ow°pr y O
33? ??a x'° I ?!
r r r ~+? c ?yI
m p.,a ^ ^ O O O
N N N ?? y ?? v J "b? ? O
t2i
rab. O? 'a o b y y y y y N `"`?? ? y
b vyw ~ O
t? °A y z as 8c 4"Tw+ ?O b
to x w xo? S b
bX a b
a ?? x b y y
+ yy?? b x
$ ° k ?
Z y
rn C) C h x
o?w0y yo
w y try
X00 + y y
4
14
14
x x y Off. II 4 y
(? G C.)
V, b T
x ?S, sz N
so z W
x ? m? s
W
y y ?a cz z
e a3
a ?
? c x ??
•. s ? p

IUBP11021£0"P24P- 1-ZOSZuIi'IIUBP'uUp'PR4"Q2052-0I'uBP'OIZI£Ouoo-FPU"Q205Zu'IIUDP'1ex.'P^4-ZOSZUII'lll^U'GOSC?II'ni is-GUSe??rv cost ?rv a-wx--?-.-woo-- -•-? -.-- ---- -
A-Moip Yld LFBo£0 Pooz/O£/10 VSL00f J uBp•b0"use-RprUZ09Z?\lo?d?ROMPDOtl\V209Z?\ ?
\ ?S i I I II ? ? ? m0 Y? L v/ m i .'
S?}? I III ` ? / ;oll
2 I l I j I I 930 O --_ - 1?6\
\
S?? F`1 I I \ N
p WW I III 9
`'S I
I
ti ?? I ll I I j °°
l II o o.
x I m
? ? `^ m Il 11
gg I
It ink I I III p \ `a -
° xb ?c I II - ?, s A a 0 ti?
-? ? O \ I rv
ti y
'cz ?mnxi Q8?2g?r? y III m ? -- - \`\\ ? ? ?
°•-? oY`?X?T / i I III i 11` I `
N ° /I A
al a? ; I- o"`" O :? 20
Q l IIII za _
II ,- 293.
? ? H r A
? r
8.7
?N ,, s I? N?cR
415 I a
N c ,? ? / i 4 24' II 24 4 /
A\S
I II I ??`W ? ? - ? ? cn
1 I
° z
to I
co
n
? -0 In o
T
tA I I ? 410 _ Q\? N °
0 `'? m II r
a s 300
a 8.20' 4 y
h S2010' I 4Q A
y -
M 22S
N soo w o I g' ' pO ° °g'1
°S2° °o. O m nz I (^?
9F ?? a?T? I ? VJ
Z
/ S1 ? ? l I III I ~
\ II M y
Sr7.35,SI,E I I ? I 0 Rl
? - SQ I I 06
°? , I II
°m0 I? ? I O
M II III ' m
??? II I l o
? 4I5 173.6 ? n z ? 1 I III a ?' _
v 9-E
P III III `
o ? l II ? a? o.
I II ;`
?_ ? II III m°??
o+ n
a
6 N
_ _ °A II II°?II ° A
41Q07.87. N Q\o III ?l
N 51 7.28,26 n m
II II
/y
°_
Nov SO°
? N A I
<° NTR 10 s w O o X I I
? a ° I I I p
?, ? - II IlI ?l olli N
? Gb[ Od 61g ? 4e? ?i`o ti Q? ?4 I 111 I I ? I .I 6
° 1S3NVMS bW33Z ,\? -a III I Tl .tl
roil ? ?. m mp 4 ? I I I I?
3.23' - (
y o y I,
0 r?? r.r o N cC3 } . -------- - - S2 29'57•E ,.R
. a ? pQ o ----- I n
loo lot , fj {3nm
dr3 _ - l 0 ?n ?O /v-y'? / / ©x a o I R ? l
?=usr7iNC - ? ?m I I ? U. +
_120• ? ? ? ti '_? ? ? - a - 1 Id IV ?
rn m ?? ?'u0 I I I O
mm fo ?? NI
r
Z Z
m m3; Pm,slx -
D? o N
N I s
"rl? © m ?/ r ll (ray lyC r- ----_ , o III t
V
? ::D /LN '/ /?+ ? + * ?Z71 O ,F ? I .I ? IIII I O I \?? ® -
I r d tq a tA ON1852 \\ I III I ro `
? z o a ti ? N N -__--
?o m ?w 4 2 '
?I? 6z Od S ? O ? `? ? a I --
t? m a3M0 91.9 m ..I In
n1 tig 31WWm
M.bL66• ?,? QCj+80£ V1S 3NIlH?l`dW
I?

M

Lj

I ? I

p
p
M n

yyy?:r.
5 p g
p
V!
Vbi lgGl ? l ?0
'`i? row l

O ?
-?uMVf
Q I?j O
{??

V
C
C
5
J` -
N
n=
Oti
?
z sz
C23 Z
Z
0

rI
9
a
T
Ay1
N
I'?'I
y p
•10
p
C ALni

Z IO
m

z ?
' .?
r m m
mz
Z z
o

L.8 LbN
wy?
8 ? A
f?
O
N
.
K
OF
Z
rZip
z
zy
An a m

m
0 !A O
i .. it
--
Ilu6p'lOZ1wPZ11p,- ZOSZ,Il'lIU6P'uwp-pA4 QZOSZ?II'u5p, OIZI£Ouoo- AP I-GZOSZ I'IIu6P'lax.-PA4- ZOSZ11l'19A4'ZOS Z ill' ens'ZOSZj'u1Q'ZOSZ-1a•9aZOSZJ'u1a'LuZ056,--,J----?rv /1
AJ9AO1PWd GOWN b00Z/O£/10 VROU 0 u6P'SO-4sd-API"4ZOSZI\I-ld\AOx.Pppy\9ZOSZl\:j /
.9
.66 /6j3 MA T
CHI ENE S TA
? T 308+Sp -L -
mm I
u, N I
_ o I I I I n
\ .90, ci _? I I I I C9 w
-? 84 61y iv c' ' I
to . ,50. I
I & III \? ? 6
I
`I?... III I _1? z
I \\11\1 II I - 1 - -_ ?_ -??^`? ? pn0
I I I ' III I ? - ___,/ ?
I I U?III D7 d O \
I II I n
I ?, ?, < o o ?;3
1 1 5 3/p
114' I - w s
I I • I - ?
II
n ? ? ? 11 I I
m m ? ? I? IIII I??;Q
m A I 11 III I s f
m ' I
A o
? I i ? I I I? I
_ ? I III I I .?
I I ' ?I
I III to 'D
l
.6f,bS.SbN
O ' 1 I7h I I I _- S__ -- ,19'S9S
I'I
?, I 11 Ii?l ?1 ;? may
I I
_-{? ? i I III I I t s II II n p
? I I p ? ? ? La >yj 4?
3
I a m ? R
a I I I £1 n Y(?l i
II i t I N44.39' S'W 4 w 0
f`S I , 1 159. v C ? ^
Q ' I I ° o o'- r ?) Al
o° - ` -- JR o r m ?ww??Ha
10
I T ?
N ? F
1
\ oo I - ----_ _ 0 A-
1 1'I I I I \1 ? ?'' O - ?
1OS I I I \ --- -- - - -- - d
/ /Tl ? 11 I b N44'44 544-44 57-E ei7 o?. ° I o r f,y 'I 'i I m I I'" ^? p O z Z+l??'401
ae.s 9 ?0 A i O WI % I I I I A ° 315
zsew I ? ? I I I I I ? °zo ? ? ? v
+
?d I I I I
I
h i ?m ?4
o x I I p O
I 45.93
x I - 4'38' B'W
?O
O i I I II I .n
r I ? - I II \ ? - -- --
a I o -
p o I I \ i ?"
v m I I \?
m z
u+ w m I II rD s
v v ? I I I II I\r z
n? m I I II I - 35&'
QQb? '? N N N44' 2'57'
I I I I ? I ,?
III I
o I I
lJ
? 1 ?' oo? III IIII i o tio? ??
v
I I III i m 4b
+ I I s?
I I 70
_ -?? I II II I
`5p ? 1 N '? I I I III i Ay '
J a ' .I I r _, '
I 1
• i ' I jjj'ccdlll I I _ ? -' - -
m \ - 1 i
R7 , ' 1 I Im - - n _ 419.15•
N46'03'00'w
R7 \ `l w ?sew --
ai s - 9
320
CT\
_ .o I
I 1
r ?- --- -- - ---` -- '-- I IIi I ? .. III '1
O
8.75' I I ?
_ m
---- I 9 24' 24' I { i
m I I If
•I c? " -a i i AO 9
m II I I I g
Z ? O
w m
n O II II a ? v ,:, 8? S n m o CTI 'm°
`r p I 1 I > ? ? pNI s? so AN ? o
I N
m
o° ?? I I I z z
r I s m z 8 z g z z
+IZ? I1S 3NIIHOIV'N wm 8 aCr7
-1- 05 ?u >
C 'v $ r
r 1>
z Z7-' y A?
y z
p
m
0
O.C ZOSZuiI'II1R4'ZOSZuII'ul4'205Za'ultl'9tlZOSZ?'ultl'i0205Zu'ultl'9tl ZOSZu'ultl•Stl ZO52u'lutl'ItlZOSZu'u6P•ss-.CD? 4Z052u'u6D'usP'FPu'4ZOSZU'u6P'u1o-.(P?-4205U °dB
i6P'1021E0-PZIAP-sl ZOSZ JII'IIU6P'uuD-D/4 4205Zu1i'u6P'OIZI£Ouoo-.(pu-4Z052u'ilu6p•laa- V
-- -z- -'------..._... 8/17/99
6JBAOIP WdIS:1b:O b00Z/0£/10 V5LOO£ J "1-y4 4
MATCHLINE STA 321+50 -L-
m
N3P 8'1 O 7 Cv i
O 279.33'
24' OS N46.03'00'W
o m W ?y?op? oo ? I '? a l w ?z
400 CZ o. , A \ ro
O
w V
w'O? , m c rC ?o
323.24• 539.4 '28'? _ O - O ti
ca-
wit
_ O n 91 Cii
S39•q ,I E e
a --
?? 79.4 e'E?I ,/ ?r
g cC? 39 ? - - ° . a o r ul 0
S3944'
119.9_ 7 II N nj?
?- Z yCi y?ay ti? O
50'L ° gag' 0 325
?p ?NtiM?k cta - I e''ss
f *4
2 ' m .. I I
?N .
I
N
ti
- I ?9 qo c
- 816.14' ____- I m
S40'OB•p- ? ? I?-` ? 1 ???0
m I
f I m?
a f ay _
In w 267-54•
? Z I II ? o NIB-
°
a ? mo
z u u,
5 I ?(
53852747'.2741• E - I M 2 ni N3878.07•
32 W? 551.58'
o ? I L N R, 1_---_ - ti
m ? '.197. ? e1 - .n a
8 424•E _ ? ' of ? _ 1 ".
w
- 6.09
7L
3' I - - __
?? S Q 4E w I m? -
O I N3873'23•W -
w ? 0 _ I a .-'"?"- """"mom-- •??\I
/ z .
330
_591.03' ? m m I ------------ _______
S36.58.10•E M I __ --"
N I
I ?I Q -
__ __ ° Z 375 a N3873'23•W_
-- - 375 i _ Nm 375
- 'I
"WES sr- T ---soli
-507(---_--
1---- ; W K m --
ti I ,7+, m a Z - -___ -
1 1 v l Y:3 m {{ a m a
7?- 1 b ? 17 D m? I Z _
I O '1 n 1 c' - w l/? to m 55.4,
x I `?_ N I\ O V OM n?i y '14'09•q _
1 ? 1 i .m m I v,
1 ? _ I
O O '
X 20
535 pp,J,E , _ - -- -
mm I I - ------?
rrl y _ - z 556,19'
4 O? I a m N38.19'20•W _
N V m - 535.0"
E ,
"'Na
O? OI o ' I °
-I 1 I s ? I O
Ir -
_C I v I a m ? p •R
O c9?` ---------- - -> - I • !- --; ' ?aS ao 0
O r? ` - ?."ai6 z a g O
?m o.34• d 8.75' v <^ 8? cZi? 1
z
m 53 °p 43 E I 4' 24' 24' n o n I rrl 3 C
^` ?^ I ? ?? ?> c nlILn, a kb z CU z
i' 1/ m n z O
wZ p
p A 8i
\ N -l- 00+S£E V IS 3NIlH31dW I ' 335 >pK ? 'ro
Ob 8r 2
Zp
z
y z
O
O
?D

----
IIu6P'IOZI£0-PZI+P-sI-ZOSZ,I'IIU6P'uJP-P R4 gZOSZuIt'u6P'OIZIfOuoO-API-gZOSZu'IIU6P,; -PR4"ZOS2uII'III?4'ZOSZuII'ulg'Z05Z?'ulu'sucosc='ul?L?cusc•u??y?cusc-???5-wsr.----..u?c-- -- - - --- -- 8/17/99
4'._IPMd 00'96°£0 b00Z/0£/10 VS00£ 0 uOP'LO-4so"!PI gZOSZu\(oud\FOMPOOH\gZOSZI\:u
MATCHLINE STA 335+00 -L-
335
?I ? -
1 N I CN_'+ -565.00•
- O O I H `? a N40'21'031 -
f ?Tl
j45.9p. cv' m I _ `• ?-- ------ -- -4-k
\S2y _ _ idYn,?
8.75'
I I w
4' 24' 24' -
< S
w I N ? O ---
~ 573.62'
N ni M
42'30090
I
I
I
I I :£n
I I ? a
+
M QO
I
I I
x a
• + N
I O A
I m
I I I Om
U) A
LO
p9?
M
I
-- -
fn 10
uz I I 360
- ------ -?
2
I I .
I .
I I ?
co X55
I ?
I 2
I ?
I
I ? I z7 ss s ? 2
I ?
I M
I I = \ ha s9? o9F
I I 1°
I I
I I '
I
I I 1 0 ? S 6`90
M I ?-------- ---------'
w
N /^\
LvJ c9i n
co
n
1; HC ) "
3.Hf•OS.f6? N 3
- -_ ??Z!'Z19 I 6'06'27'W
M
? o 0
m p I ? I ^' r s?°a
o D I C
° D
? W I " D
t'1
`n Z I .Lb'b9£
?I
I
o m o
I }S r
I ?}???' N v s n
I ?}0 Off' N
? p.
L ?
3.IZ,6b.£S? I
O w O
O O I ?_ I
C? G r M.! b BON
cn 5 \0 I• N p
__ 19
----- ------ -------
`' ---- 1-- /p O
d ------- -------- ------- - -- - - -- -- 4
m W N I > 9 Z
?i g IU " 875' `s ?7 87+ ?a
c? X' o?iT BCrJ 2(? mK Uri ''mT
OI 4' 24' 4' 4' o n y z r s o °
?D W?
z
m z ?r ?
z
"O z o
o
n ?n Ta O z N rS ;
8 x
-l- 09+817£ d1S 3NIIHOIVV4 =r
m ?m Z oz m- •,
zC/1 nn
N^ y z
p
0
IIu6D'IOZI£0-PZ41, l-ZOSZuII'IIu6p,uJP"PAu 9ZOSZul1'u6D'OIZIfouoo-.COV-92052u'^IU6P'+en-D?4 Z052u?1'IIIRV'ZOSZuII'ul9'ZOSZu'uld.VZOSZu'ulo'LOZOSZu'uld'9oZOSZu'uld'SdZOSZu'IA'IOZOSZu'u60'ss-fp,-gZOSU'u6D'usD'FPu'9ZOSZu'u6p*ul.-Apu'9ZOSZu:itl
__ _ _. _ .. _. .,, - „ . .......... .. .. .. _,,,, ? .. 8/17/99

m ?r
is
a as
S
6.
p?.0.
ld?
5 pt /?
1 3? 53?'JV
1
/O
r 0
IIU6P'IOZI£0"PZI o--I-2052,11' I Iu6P'u,p-PA4 QZOSZ jII'u6P'OIZI£Ouoo-RP6060SZ5'Ij,4'205Z?II'anspSZ?ulpooy\420528 dOSZ?'ula'lDZOSZu"uW"J?GVS[?'?R+S?GUSC?i??iucu5c r r ?w?c . ...???-----,- -- -„ -- 8/17/99
AjamolP Ad IS'00:00 COOZ/0£/IO VSL00£ J Pi"OZOSZJ\lojd\ Dm
MATCHLINE STA 362+00 -L-
? I I r II ?
I I ' II ? ?I
I 1 2 I I I
H
I 1 0 1
I L1. I I
I I ? it
II
II
I I I I °a
I I
I I
I 8.75 II
340 4 =aa59-
-L- POT 363+7684 I I s.7s I I I 06
T
BEGIN -"--
RANSITION --- - vos _
--------------
? I
I
f I II °I
I I
m ?' I ? ? N 39??M
\ 'A a I w 365
\ x n" ny I I I wd?dYti?
bacw?i, 75 / F - °- - 365+4388.
Q w? -L t
-
?? IN TRANSIT/ L
10, P"? th 1 I
9? ?IrOD? ^ I ' ?
r r r x ---------
------ ---_
33
-?A I m c
?y?i 0tn I ° I a
rrrry C3 m o
-
u, El ,
LJ3 q I ,115
(D C?
?6 I
I i O ?YIn m?
:b -irOD-V I I r rry>o
r r r r ry
'i
i o I I ?fF'
1 I R??w
Ln aki P ^ -wad
L. c ' I
Ln At
(n rn .y. I
ytn ' I I ? ? ?tirOD? ,
m u. I' n n " r "yr
1 {` \ o g???w?w y
o 370?w
Ln I m
I
? I I
I I nn°ry
I I w O bbIV>O'
O
1QtwlV
/° 7 t 4 I W
m Np TR,gti,S
C- t,97-) ST = j t 3 1 ?9s9\
ryl
? 1 3
O
0 1 I I 33 Q C//0
? 1 I 8?
?+
-71 om I
m / I
Q? A
?t ° M I o
rn M I '? NI M
a
/ 1 I O
a I I " f1 X993/ N o p
/ 4 zs g O
r, o I as 8? Sz Z? N a
MgTCHL b a?I sr ?o ?„
WE STA 375+00 32s ?zN Iazr z Z
m? z 0
0z? o
375
c -Z
ro? y z
m H o
0

........._..,._ .r...w...n-...? ??n•.n-.nom-. r.? ?n.in?nr•? i•r rRn•ce-[n i'n?nt] 'u6o•uso',(D?-O]DC]?'u6D'UID-l.D? q](IC 71:i.
IIUDP'IOZI£0-D2110-SI-Z052?ii'ilu6p'wP"PR4-gZ052 iII'uDp'0121£OUDP'xpj-gZOSZ"11,UDD'Lax.-Png-ZOS6"rn'Ij--41:1 - 6-6- ?rv e?cuac? ?i i?cvx' -r- -c..?o- -r- -- •- - -. ---- -
A-01P Wd Zb;05'b0 bOoZ/O£/10 45!00£ 3 uDP'OI-qsd-DA-gZOS2u\f10Jd\ADMP00 J\gZOSZJ\IJ
MATCHLINE STA 375+00
375
" I r3
to I I
M I I
m I
N
I
N13' 24' 4' r? O
I e
I
r
P
N N /
I e N
O
N
I "'
O M /
M
320
I o I .
3 q 0 0w`" a "? I h "(\j o
Z
P
C4 m 2
V
? I m? G
I
I N
o Q
335 I M
a h
ti.
380
330 I 2
N
I ?
325
i
325
-320 0
n
i N - -
m
N I ?I
o I m m
I 'Y03? 20,
I '9f
in
I M o o
I I M
I
,Lc„ `LO
o '?I
I Q
-- -- I IPD' O h
o 4 ?o
do
?h
m
? I
?o I o
385
\ I mltA
I m?a
>o
I ? I ?a
d
? I ao . 00
s I I ^?
00 ?S9 101 n
I ? ? I
4' 2 ' 24' 4
3
u?
o ?Q,
hO . .z6.
9.9
f
rn
rn
= 0 3/p\0
? I O ?Oh o
? - _ ? o « ro .. if ? o
rno ?0 ? I ?? ? a? $? $n m` cNn r?
s N pNI sr ?0
m S .? z = oo m
--- --- Z N z r z
305 - - -------- m z o
o ?h o
w9 z?`' aCj7
09+88£ d1S 3NIIH01dW
rn =r ?r
Z?
?z oz Zc _
czz z zy nn O
N _
0
m
0
?D

IIu6P'1021F0-pal p-sl-2052 11'IIU6P'u?P-PFV'g205Z?Ii'u6p'OIZI£Ouor FprQ2052?'IIu6P•ya M PF4 ZO52?i1'IIIFg'2052-01'ulg'ZOSZ-lo'BOZOSZ Fu1d,!o20521u10'9oZOSZj'ulo'SOZOS2,'Ilo'IOZOSZ l'u6p•ss-Fpj-gZOSZj'u6p'usp-Fpi-gZOSZ j'u6p'ulo- Fp i-gZOSZJ °ja
ufio•irusn-FDJ-o?ncvJ\fo?a?FPMODON\g2nL2J\??
8/17/99
a+5o -?-
T A 38
MAT CH??NE 5 '
1 1 \
1 1
0 1 ? ;
\ I ' N
E 300
\ N I y \ ` _ 3 ?w?'
M?i9 1 n R
I
n TR ?
n vZ
I r , 1 i/
\ ? cZ ? TR
1 q 1 z 'z
k?
? 2 2 1 23 'I a' '
9S 295 1 n' n' ; X
II ~ 1
I 2 ,
I G
e 1 1 1 1 , i
I I ? I
1 I ? I
mj ? I l ; l
dy j
m
1 -- ; I
\ I I
6l `, I I I
1 I ?
1
I _ X62
e a I a tJ 9 '?
k` a Y 1 1 ?9s II i I
CO
J 1 I ,
3 H 1 1 I ('e i 'i
1 d 1
Ac 1 1 a l i ~ I
/E \`\ I I n p `Y` -- 1 11
I \ &Bs7 - - ?
+ b _--? m
% r - `Q-
;' 1
I
l
I --
-x coo c
T I IItlN M .Sb a N
° I ZJ
TI I o N
K I I
I I I 8
I
I i I
X-x m?
m tl? N O
J'c
m _ N
00
I D° 9 wN
I 2 ?\
k- I I 290
o I I C ?r- oD? ,
I b?y??ao
I p M p n?? r
Li m
I 2 I O ??aw`L
Lo
u
m
m I y?'v
= I I
y `?' o ?y1'' ma
0 290 i N eAn ?v?
I 400 FL,
O ? I
4' 24 4' 4 ?N
m I
? I
0.
I O A
I H <? '0 zf ? O
a =? ?' sz mK N ?
o?T 8P A
?? m y ony zr'
r
pp ry J A N ?7 ?j?1' tCe ?j N F°n
O a' u o "mV' C17 Z? Z 2 z
it
?zr
m m? z 0
MA T?HLENE ST, w ?A °
T
N ?
442+Q? C'C $¢r za
_L_ 19 M,
zz ?z Z? n 9
y p
m
0

- -- -so- --- -- .--?? --. - ---- - -----8/17/99
I1u5p'1021£0-pZllP-SI-ZOSZ/ii'IIu6P'wP-PF4-OZOSZJTT'u6P'OIZI£OuOO-AP?QZOSZ,1IIU6p'Lam'p.c4"205Z?II'IIIM14'ZOSZ?II'ul9'ZOSL "ulu'U-- -? - Gueu..... 9 zrsz? ••i•• s-wsc w
FJaMOIP Wd SS'IZCO bOOUO£/10 VSLOO1 O uOp'ZI-4sd_. Pl-QZOSZJ\fO'd\AOIP008\QZOSZJ\:J
-?- OO+ZOb d1S 3NI'1HO1dW a
n I NI ???^ ?q
I uu°ucn
I Cy (???(y
I ??N
? z I I o iyb,
°m N
Z 444?--
4' a3 3 24' / m s ,ln
? I
I a ?^ g0 col
N
I I "z
? N K
u u u Nt
z a,
LO
z I t„?Iv
I 405 Slav
I 1 I o
I I ?
C, I I W -?
+ I. I I I
I I NC GRID
Ii I I NAD 83
k.
I© ,t
? 210.00'.
S00 '41'18•E z
O
I I o
O z n If
E _
n ?...
W I o
I I CO
? ? m T I 'm - i' + \
n 1
to i 2
F- 1 r N.
1 £ I +- 11
I
X I X 1
00
209.60' Ue
uI
S00'4Y02•E Cft I
X, N m
I ZO I •4.
1
?? o© 1`11 ? ? ??
I vm IE N
m in , co
`mNN O
I.. I
K- X Q m;? 4l K- D m
1 a
I o o O&e
I w
ye I I i n s8? K- IL
1 M L ?r?nm?
I
s I K- u?uto
I I < m ? °? Nwyo
p
?. I I 1 `
?? I: I 1 _ n u° c l
o n I I ? e O?e? ? N a I
? A l ) IK ' wa co c
00
Nz I i ; - cnw?
w fwaN m
a j 1
r
IE z0 I _
0 0 `L? ? ?y r?i my
I? o I 1 pnU gv1
m I Nw?o
m I ?abwN
m ? I ? ??°i ?vcn ?+
2 S8Zz I ?? 415 tn+?
y ? `oh ? 1 2?
o / } r I
? ? ? dW n p g ? o
I ? ??\ /? ? ? C ?? o m •r g ?J Z (7 m ? ? Ul
Z
r -1- 1 , iNZy-1' WVvI Z=?m
mz ? z
h1 z .z
: O O
K- wA? 8? alzl
>?? Er za
r
F ?p z ZEA p= IV
N ^ In z
m p
0
a
1 I r
?..?___? ....c.......-<.....-....-. .., ,F?.,,?n-<n i"n?nc] r•n5n•rr?n-.(o? O]ttC]?:JH
Ysl ZOSZuIi'IIu6P'uaD"PF4-QZOSZ?ii'u6P'OIZI£Ouoa-A p J-gZOSZ J'IIu6P'st LIS--s -IR S-gZOGZ IT food-j - oM\4 OSZT'\•J4"LOS',' wv GUSC? ?rv n?w?c? -i•• c••w?o--- +-???..- -•- -
Ajanol0 Wd LmVo COOZ/O£n0 tl5100£ 0 u
MATCHLINE STA 428+50 -L-
-l- OS+Zbb VIS 3NIIHOIVri
I . I r
°_..__.__-__.._ _,... ........a,.... pl-.-gzQS3 ?? fircn?ncnuo?-RO?"o?nc»Yw6p•a,er+ pR4 ZOSZ?II'IIIF4'ZOSZ-0Pu1q'2052 '?Id'BpZOSZ/'?IO•LdZOSZ?'1?4'IOZOSZ?'u6P'ss-.tp?-gZ052?'u6p'usD-RPM"g20SZ?'?aP'ulq-FPS-gZ052? pia
8/!7/99
i? vi?ue? vu?A aMolp WdIOILVb0' b00Z/0£/10 VSL00£ J u6p•51"4sG-.Cp?-gZOSZ??IOJd\RpMpppil\gZOSZ?\?
MATCHLINE STA 442+50 -L-
a
0 M
I I ?
h N I ? I I // \
1r I I °° ?L I
24 I 24
I I ??
I b
I ?
I sl
I s 445
I
'I I I I M• .1Z 9y0
? I 251
I I i
o? l
4 f
W\ MMI
3 -L- TI 94 99.78
BEGIN TR l0 RIGHT
00
a
to
MOO,
S•N' I I I I N
as I ? I ? I
1 I
ddddddcn? II I ??
a? I? I
N
c"cn?,AO?a I I I I u7
?G a I I I ?' s? ?? o
x o I o No
3 LL tlS9g5 -/. + \• I I I N
?n m ?2
I I
a o
m I - 449+64.77
Q v _-
pz I f'c,BZ 449+64.77
N LEFT
d g X s
Vol 450
I 6 M.Z1,11.59N -?_
ro ?? \ ?OI.83•
N9372
O Xr I T L ,6516Z
01'W
W AyroD-b
11 d d II d d- ^ Z I N ? I L${ .3 °m c
?NaQQo Z ' 0+25b - -- --- ---- -------
+ m$
c.l?o as 08Z ° -- - - -- Zz
08z
w????a ? x o mT
tq _ r
'i, y I w
x ? I M.60. 1
? 6 8 I
3.1£95. 6'
o ° dddd?n
X _ ((??11QQ
X X M I o? CV Z OQ?aL I
I o fig.' r
-? r y
I v+ ?.
cb :0yrOD? g
0 11 d d d 4 d to V1
? I w??wyulo ?
1
r I ?? 2
oo ?0 I ro?so63 " y
0/2 lcl?
- 0
v
Z
m 455
r r N A
O < G
z> g o
y o I Nn I xo -x?i SCj7 zn mK (?Jl ?
ro 1 ?yrOD? r a?I S? Sp AN N
o ?S, E? d d d u u ?^ ,; ?? ?? ,fl z m l? m
M(A ?G O co I ? z z
?-%jUa {d? y W z r i o
?LNlVty x z? z.? aCrl
1?..(r Of Vf a C.0
8b x
Z$
-Tl
m oz,I ssrv n z z w n n
? o
alas 01/28/03
s11350s $3WIls S31VO$ 3WWOOS $3113$
CO,NTTRA CT: TIP PROJECT: R -2502B
0 0 0
T o m o o ? aso `y
n y ,.
m vZi CO) n to i I IN
D h ?? s
o ? ° 'y y ? q? €N ? '_? n
0 0 j, a
CIO \ o
;pr
n ,
0 N N t31 1 O n 1 r o
° o x
o 0 N O I n °+ N
II II II• II II II Z 0 b ?,? ?
v O, ° O, V o
a
c ° ° iao y x, i
r 3 o o 'TJ
cn =
o b
?• O
0 m m
7 7
M?l
z v
?C I
°g
m m D P4
m n O n,
?n y
a
bbd y
° y?t? o O ??
?
-4D 0
10 ?00
,°o °° y ??? N~~ Z t?
0
10
qh?^r_ Oxon b ?®
140,
-44 b o o y ?j 1?,, ??'yyy
W y
C C 10 y + Z ^ ry `J
_ w I
?+J hy'i V J '?1 O
N W `? y cau W 09
Iw Z ® C
a It ?d
rn o?A cz ZpOx O
vvy
w y
4 pi cm
_cz
try y a 8 O+ N O f?
tc4lp'?? .off x° xo. ?y b 00
b = n?? ? 1 y O? ? ?V ? e C
b a? g ? ?x E b y y
llo? Coll b z
(A Q? yn x
?wOy ? ~o
OOr2y
CIO)
b
cl y
14
E :k + IS
10, 14
C7 n ? b `° ? II ? a
C) 2! w
+
x° b d y u Q! r- o cn N
?6 ? ? ? yab ? w ?, U7 e
y x ? ?" 'ti r-I cn IV Or Q
x o`' 8? aA rn o t W
o? ?z it z P
Itbb8r in
ar;?
y Zz
? c°x

n-oJUp-sf ]M2III'IW6p'u?P-p?4"QZOSZ?Ii'u6p•OIZI£QUO'J-Fps"p205Z?'IIU6p•+ex.-PR4'ZOSZ?II'III?4_Z052?II'ans•ZOSZ?'uIV'ZOSZ-'uld'B4ZOSZu'uld'i0Z052?'uld'90Z052?•ula'Sd205Z?•I?4'14205Z?'u6P'ss-/\P? Q2052 u'u6p.-P"FPS 4ZOsZ,.u6P'ulo-Ap,-gZOsz,:38 ail
I II ?f' I I y? ? ' ;" ?
I I
O ---- w r-- -
II II --- 930
I III I Y ------ ------- --'--_ `I --- -- --
\ I - I III ' --- '' ' o
O I III 9
'Ld £Q l II I I `'S o
? I
29
C
tw;
° ti N T _
I II o o,
I II II
I 1
I III 1 ? ti ___
N
I I o ° 0 I?
I \ V o N '?? P
,, D I III z _- \\\\\ ?_/ a
/ 1 I \
I
I m
I 1 1
/ 1 1
I I\
o I I
20
i I I I II iii - ZB2.9J. Nog ao5 . e o
', / ml ,L zzro m
I I Q N
8.7
41S c 4 24' 24 4' i © V? C'ro
m I 8
I /----- ? 4\5
!a/Ox mm
1 =
\ ? nn I
so
a ?
ryOS
c
2
S'e

S
°n
mm`x
tO
m
p
?w o
w D
m z
c r
'e I ? 410 _ A\0
m II """
I -
z ?
4 -?
I rAQ
I 01
s17gs.5? I I ? I ? M
\ „ S,6 I I Oa
U' I? I
m ? 1 I? II
a ? II .I I
?II
n ? III
I
300
Z
N
n
I I , s M
°o I N
173.5 n Z I III III - Q Ln
09•E `?. O
I
a 2` ? I P ?I Ali ?, o, ? ONo
m° ? \ M
III
x I I I I m a ~~ ? a
?? I I ?I I•' o ? ? e n n 11?
- 41Q _ ? N o ?I II III ? ? o w??`?°
07.87• N Q? I 121 Z W ??
917_.26•f ?__ln I III II gll , w ?, ? ??.
N?
_ III II II m? I \\.\ ,?
/9 - III II II ? \\\\
90 - III I ° ???ODv
a " A
f[?? I I ;111 p n n(n??Qn gN
0`ai x I I I 1 I ry.?s 5 ???01?N1°+!
R7R NO WO
° `I bb ? ? '??,j?2??-•?„1 I III ?I olll I i y `O ??Olb
°, I I v l i a?
4? ??
24
o ° C1S3 NbMS 9° `0? 1° o a-3 III I Imlll 'I O i `
2 1 ?
la it a ? ?? ? `?N mA q ? - III I I I ?
3.23'
f _ II
O til.i o N C?•` ----- F- 52 _29'S7•E _R ??
3 1° y x © ooyop ° q I I I I I " v O n H
dl39001 ?? y? c> a, ?/ ©= a - I l R I I 1 M• ,bp l Q n n 11
- ("?Y,?O i} A " i / Q (m °m o I /- I I I I I B ??l?ll??
?__ q 1 ?w 1a? am 4 i? I ?++ O'4?
a0 i i - n m r I III I I 1 `a N?+
S??USH/NC RD I 1/. A? b*t I ' - 1?. •F b,
? Id 1 V
?m ?? ?`M - I II + I © tNn
mm fo ? ?? tilO
c
NO1 i1 V? n n n ® ..` £ 'v,- ??? ` I II I \\ SQ6 > T x SZ ?s
r" 0 -M
V
°?? IR + bl o I. IIII I o \? ?N Cla
-ICA z.,, z
? 2 n d? cN'1? ? I 9.75 I _ _- mo ?r
OZK
m 4 2' in - s B ?eN 9 „?? a C+1
Doo ti a F? A? y ,
Do -1
5 FOB `W f? .?
r m 21 or ?d 96598 v W (? I j m ?n r r? y r 'ly
m Mb°6831ww1? 45 -l- OS+80£ d1S 3NIlH?ldW z p 3zy z? pN'.
°
i I
rri
A
Ilu6py0Zl£0"PZI+P-Sr ZOSZJII'IIu6P-P-PAV-g205ZA1'Ubp.OIZIMUII-AP- -gMsZJ'IIuBP'lam-PAV-ZOSZJn'InAV'ZOSZ?II'ans•Z052?'uIq'Z052J'uId•84205ZJ'uId•Ltl205U•ultl•94209ZJ'UI4'S4ZOSZ?'IJG'I4ZOSZ?'u6P'ss-Aprg205ZJ•u6P'usp-APrgZ052J'u6P'ulo-Ap?-g205ZJ :JH 8/17/99
AJ OIP Wd £6'Ob°£0 6002/0£/IU VSL- J -
366 £?6/S MA TCHLINE S TA W
? 308+50 -L-
_ m I ? I
Cl W
\ _ M 'go-
I I
84
.' 6/ry N i x y
I ? II III \\ ?' d
?? I b
~ C
° NN
III m o
`r' II I I n ? \
I I
m o C3
o 1 5 I l 310
/QO I I Q u z
I I I -z
9 ? III III
I II
0 0
o ? m ? ? I II II I?'?O
" gy m i ? III Iq ? s r
I I I II I
- _ ? III
II I III ?O ``'?
yam. I ? I I I ---- --- -
t I ? I I III
/
° I II III Syr m-b
' ?- I I a
N NQ
I? £ 4 w o w
I I I N44'39 S•W o r
O ? , ; I 159. ? `" <
1 n
I / C
0 0" p I. I -aa _ o
41,
\ 00 I --- _ off`
1
544.'4444'5 .57'E Y N @ I N
I a _
1 N44'44
N/8 1 I I o I I I I Im A `?•F•Nw
°,l k o y I I I I IA ?K 315 zH ug +
?2 I a z V
I I ?
?Y?SB, I ? 1 I I I ? o + N? ??
I ?
.k i N m
o1
k I
O \ ,?? I II I x 45.93'
k I I 438' 8'W
° ??I I II I ? _ __
m I O I o No
°m p 0 I I \ I "?
m ? M I III \I' r ? 4
-? ? m I I I I ? Z
n n ?
iD _ in I I I I II I 3 5.1P
oQb? N N N44' 2'57'
o I III
CD
?.
I
1 3 I oo? I I 9?, C
I I o ti
I I I I W ? ??
II ?I I a?
N i I II III ?? ^oe.
m \ - _
m Im o 41e.Iv
N46'03'00'W
Z kqg• ATEI w
I U&
y
320
,? ? ? m I III I `,'?'
S 8.75' 1
_ m
41 24'
rz --- I I I I
m I II o A
0
m III I III ' II '<^ $z tiF
ml z
D I I II m S' ii $? z() z N
a
T Q (n ?°
On1
ut A I I I l a I / ?? •i0 PN ? 0
p? N
o I? I ' c? zb z m
I N iz Ir
tl 1S 3NIIHO 1 m z Z
os+ln b 9 C-
??? r sy i?
Zz z zy m m
a W pn
z
m
0

......_,._..... .....w.?n-...? ,.. ,n•,n?..?s .., ,fin•ec-<n ?-nZosz i•?i5n iico-RO?-a?nCJ?'u6D'UIP'Rp J-O)fIC7J %AN
IIU6P'IOZI£0-PZ4P-SI-ZOSZAII'IIu6P'uIP-PRV"QZOSZJII'u6P'OIZI£OUOP-AP?OZOSZ"llu6P-4.m P?4'ZOSZ'II'Iiln4'ZOSZ+II'u1V'CUSL=-w.+-tl?cusc+?rv t?wsc+••rv -?-ouzo- - ----- ---- - -
l.-ADIP Wd 9S'Ib'£O 000Z/0£/10 VSLOO£ J u6P'90-45G-RpJ- QZOSZJ\(PJd\,CPMppoy\QZOSZJ\ J
MATCHLINE STA 321+50 -L-
._ I m
304.9. °
279.33' ;
O
24' N46'03'00'W ?z
o m ? °s
m ? of ?
J400 c?a ??I?ODv i oo I I N
wq n, I c Cl X
a??; - --I m I U
z
_ ___ ___ ? O I ° I IN Ab
Ul
_ _ _ 323.24' 539 •28. - F`. -1
.4
--- tiJ N 1 y
O
539•q •I E
39'4 R.E I ?' Sri
`O ? o m _ I
2 5 Q 5. -
- } 39
10
S39.44'171 A Z II N V?^? ^ 0 D
° ? - _ _ _ _ 119.19= ?- gel yy° s ay ti' o
50/C °
• ? ?"- ?' O 325
o ? ? ? I X
2 I ? 1 I I I
I
N III I
10
I - -
X ? I m?
a f aA
267,5q.
NJ$-
? O
O m0
Z
?. 5 I X
538577.71• 8.07' I^?
74.24•E - I d N38'23•?.WiJ \ N38.23'23-
? ..pp 91
u. ?
m 8 .193. 10 T ,' I ; o_ 4-24
1; Z4 N I Ini N I ,y m--- °
- N a I a ?u` _ _ ? m
O A - I N - s ? +~ o f
O _
Z ` SO/[ ?- __ BJ 3'24
w oo -_ -
??° SI 4 4E I u'A N3 _?
I
• - X _ 330
_ ----------------- 1.p3. ? 2:J m m I ___
536'SB'Ip•E a A I ? _
o <
N -
_ I o
--` Z I 375 n N38•p323,W_
175.50. _
-` --` 375 375
N I (?
X -- Ry [1" Wes
m
N 1
o -- - __---__
-i m o
' y N
1 I
___ I I p? Y N N
5°'C
m rn
mrn X --- _ 5a/------- ------------------
------------- z 556,19'
N .°n r 535`79q O? I °nm N38.19'2p•W -
4a ~ f m y °p'' E
rn ? n w I ?°
? I O
s IN
- --> - _ c S
------ ------- C --c ^' aaaa $ O
"? 0.34• I o 8.75' oo a= b "' Zf O
s3 I e _? g? 8A m` N `?
rn °p'43•E 4' 24' 24' n o I 9 .r, '°' N
?N y
n - h I° vS? H era w rtl Z= Z
0 m
Z
u= ` p
- - --- ~ I O
335 wm? ?
m a = m
-l- 00+S££ d1S 3NIIHO1'VV4 8b
m9 ?? Y zo
?A? Zy zCA
M` O1
0
m
0
........._..,._ ........ n-...?-...? -d- d ..?? .., .5 -so-cn -n ? n ?? ?•i ifin•? ?<n-An -nznr? .•? ifin•i iin-An i-nznc» : jv
IIUBP'1021f0-PZIiP-sl"205Z?II'IIU6P'u?D"PA4 9ZOSZ-0I'u6P'OIZI£000O-APrQ205Z?'IIuOP'lea-pn4-ZOSZ?II"IIIn4'GOSC?II-viv-GUSC• ?rv u?cusv ??? L?wac? ?!- 3 ZGSZ - -w..- •-- - -- -?? - - - -- ----••- - - ----
AJaMOIP Wd L£°90'£0 b00Z/0£/10 VSL00£ 0 u6P"10-4s0-APB"GZOSZJ\IOJd\AOMPOOH\QZOSZJ\'J 8/17/99
MATCHLINE STA 335+00 -L-
335
- N
I ? a -565.00'
?I
m o o ? ` N4() 3.
-
f
385.90.
\S29'J7./\ A I a N\? JK ___
8.75' I u
4' 24' 24' -
< ,f
r Q
I
573.62'
I
I
I
I
I i Ln
1 ? 4
I Q I s
M
I
X'
I a
o?
I P, r
I I ?A
?I I Q
wK
M1 n
111
? I
I
Q -LL, -- _
u$ 360` '---- _J
z ------
? N I I
Z I I .
I I I.
Ln 385
I M
I x
I ?
I
$ I z7 55 . \ y
09 y G'
I ?
I ?
I I ?° S9F °9?,
I I -
I I '
I
I -
O I I I ° l9 S
O °O
I-------- -------- r -
W D ?
I a I _ ?
n n
OD n
rn Cy ti
CED
3.0£.OS.LS? N 7 6'
?- ??ZL'Z19 I 6'06'27'W
M
h' ? o ?3 3s5? > o
I ?
a.
0
m a j I92
O g6`? n N '?
a
ml ? n
?' I m
N C - .Lb
? Z I .L b'b9£
o "I
I
.9 O
I .5 r
oF??as N
3.2,6b.LS I . .
- I 1
_? ?? O O w I ? I O.
?1 cn OO m M.L b 0bN 'm ot?o??L ---
rr,
----- ------ -------
y?4'---- 1-- los 0
rri --
co N I a z 'O Z I
'rl r ? OiN ? 875' x: o? ? Sz mK N ?
4' 24' 4' 4' o n I zrl O '° H p
a N C
z
m ai m
?N
I : o m z C"
P
.?. O Z O
? - Z f?f5
I AiO? I ? Q pNr y1•C ;?
-l- OS+8b£ d1S 3NIIHOlbW -0 =roY
R? on? ?r
=Z z> ;z Z?
l ?p z zy n[f -4
N y Z
m p
0
I IU60'1021f0'p211p-sl"2052 Jill 1u6p.-p-PAW gZOsZ ill'u6p•OIZI£0003- Rpm gZOsZ J'IIU6p'Lam'pR4'205Z?11'II1?4'ZOSZAI'ulg'ZOSU'016•adZOSU'uld'LdZOSZU'U16'9dZOSZ YUld'SdZOSZJ'IJ6.1620sZ"u6p'SS-.Cpu'g20szj bp'USp"Ap,QzosZ0'u6p'u1o'lprgZOSZ,'dtl
8/17/99
.Llamolp Wd LZ1151£0 b00Z/0£/10 VSLOV£ J vvV tlU v
MATCHLINE STA 34850 ss? °S£
"?
0
+
1' ?11 ? . s' _ 'M?'r n S
II m 2? m2 . --^I C ?f n "V1
24' - 1 350 N O
1in11 i ` W?
1` S _,-'' Iraun3l'' '?- u I N 1 Ln en ??I?OD?
`?- 1105 0b I ? Co
O" n n " n " r
` '' 3• Sib .? OVE 9
S!?, oNdl lna ? o 0
o n -4 - C
I %
\ I 1 - 4 +
_ -- .15'19 I
a
08 9 + lb
s m OS 08 90
OO.ZSS O n " " " U1
boy`'- 110 S N139tl Z1 3.1 Npq
rqN
o tn?Q +
O ? w
Oh 1 11 '
93
Z Q
f OLS 7d 3
.45'16 9? 8(L?r N
$NlllOa M
3•LO.LO.Z55 I O
S, r
n a. I I ve ?L
380 m o
yam I ? mm '' _ _ ? m° ?
`0 n ? I ? ar Ci Z
I o' ? \Lr' r
a
? 3? "' u; I 9S
I y r \ '' as
o m s
m_
a 3j0 I 0) ti
-360 16S I _
m/ 3 I - o
0 29• I 1 21• ..
T O
yo'a F I 1 ' 96- .. 2.91'
3SS 60 n o i? 37 1?? /
I ? O ?r N ? d/
_ 5 pL
36 \ o?N masp?r
Wmm SS °' o or-
350 S a
\ fS
'(W? y? 3 t•65
?S?I NA 360 O gob 6651 , V _____
----- ---
SO Jbo
\
9 J N -- '
\ ? 3SS
1 3
' S
I 1
? 3 I 1
- ° 35p ,I,tiC
' S9 a0-1 I O I I
70
?} a• Z I 1 vJ`
` w? gA5
Cq ? ' I 1 at.
r? \ a
rn m
? ? '> ? ? 8.75 z4'
rn \ ?= a
M 1 1
W o x 6 0 X I 4 0
C
? I I
-,I C3
O
?\ ?ti7 I ? I
I ,
9Sv6 ? ? 1? 1 2 N ?s A
1 I 1 n z a O 1 O
r /? ` 'A '' 1 W < n f
I I c?i aH ro $?' 1
rn
S ?a? Say _ .I ?? °~I n
c'N Zm?m
mz z r z
z 0
o p ??.m
00+Z9E d1S 3NIIH IV
n y ? 7+ Z w
NV z
0
O•
O
IIU6D'IOZI£0-P211p-51-ZOSZ?II'Iiu6p•u?p-PF4"OZOSZ?II'u6p'OIZI£0???-'?P? QZOSZ?'IIIF4'ZOSZ?II'ens'2052'?IQ'2052'X14'84Z052?'?I4'l4205Z?'u10.9a205Z?'X10'SdZ052?'I?d'IOZ052?'u6P'SS-.(P? QZOSZ?'uBP'usP"FPS-4ZOSZ?'?6P'ulo-FP?-OZOSZ?ja
• ____ .... _..._.._ .__-.. _ .... ........... .. ..F,,.,,,-??-r,...,>,.?>. ro ,?. ro.nnnu. o??o?.:? 8/17/99
MATCHLINE STA 362+00 -L-
V,:
I oII
NI
Oa
I ?
I I
e.7
390 I 4, I ?I r =98'5190
-L- POT 363+76B4 18.75 BEGIN RANSITION 4 I I -- ios _
II ----
I I II ?I
I ?I
m I 390
m
365
n N
I j w???'~ti•
b4ttOO75 / - - 365+43B&
`R w y. -L- t
?? + II - - I - I IN TRANSIT/ L
\?a a, 1 I
W-- nr -
?o ----- -------
IDS ------ --------- ----- -----ro---- ---- ----
-------- - -
1
r ? I I
??'??'? ? •? , © ? Q I I I 33
>??? ? ?? II=I ?? o
o ?
x
y'i??q ? I ? I n o
r r r r4A m
N>o -
cwo ? d ° I c
c(+ m
{ ° / I I \ +
O6 ? ? ? I rA
I i O ?y?ma
-i?oD ? I I r 0 4 Mtn
rrrr rcnr I I O? Midi
4wa?tgo I I I `t?Z`tita
LNCn +q ° yJl -
A L'iw?* 1 ^ I I ?b
r,
° u u r u ptN
1 \ O gbb'ito mwcLnw y
I I "? NN;
° 370 R ti w C$
cn
I
? I I
1 I ??1trn ma
I I rpnnvl
° I \? N
M I - e s? a
p7 b
cn ?? 37 +? J9 1 I w d
rn Np TRANS
rn [ - pOT 3 SON GHT { "??''?„
IRTjST 32 3 29s
m 72+ .4g 1 I 9\
rn ' s
y
O \
rn I I 1 33 G,
?, 1 I O 'Qi
? ? I l 8?0
i
r /
o° m ? I o?
rn
Q o
zt ? / M I ?
r
?/ M I y N1
a
l I 3 1
/ 1 I O dI
4, m I -L- T1 3rn N
/ s 4 I I -- << 37?'Ji a> p
/ S za O ? O
o 1 nm 8m 8? zo
MAT b o?I =r' ?o o„ o
CHLWE STq 375+00 32s?ul ?zr Z Z o
wpb °
375 A ^
?' e'CI 9r =
>z z
Z $CA p? 1p a
ro? y z
°
m
0
.
..........?__ .... i w.,.w?...-... , ,n..n?...-. ?.? ,R?.ec-[n .-n?n?? ?•i ?Rn•? icn-.(n i'n?nc? ,•u6O•uiO-FO?'OJ?cI? : ?u
IIu6P'10ZI£0-pZ,p-sI-Z OSZuII'Iiu6D'uuP-PFV-QZOSZuii'u60'OIZI£OUOO'RDU-gZOS2u'IIUOP'l8A-pAq ZOSZ?Ii'llln4'ZOSGuII'ul4'CVSL? w? tl?LVSG? ?rv t?wsc= w? 3 zosz? -- S-w=o- -- -w - -- --• - ---- -----
Rjax,olD Wd 8£'OS bO b002/O£/10 tl5100£ 7 u6P•0? 141J Cpl gZOSZ ?\Io?d\.COx.DOOy\g205Z,\u ail
MATCHLINE STA 375+00
375
?I M
? I ? II
M I I
N
3' 24' 4'
I N /.Nj
FFb?? ? ?
h ry., r
P
L`J N N
O la /
N
M
Ln
O M /
M I M
I 320
I ° /
.dam '
340 cL a w I N /
• ?`7 x
m
m
ti
I
I ? C L
I N
O ?
335
n ?y
21 v
380
330 I ko 2
M
I
I
i ?
325
I
-320 325
0
I w S4,
I N
ti I 0 =1
O I m rn
I I '9F
I in
In ? O
I I M M \
I \
loo. O
- I D lP ?O
32o I dd
?o I
h
m
11,o I m
`'
I o
385
I
\ I I mna
s?
o I Na
d
? I ao . p0
s I I : ? ''
o sB IOI s?
o ?h
I ? m I
3 4' 4' 2 ' 24' 4
O I'Tn? '`'
u?
? I O ?p0
oy F
m
rn
= 310?O
0
m - - ' o sz ?g a
O ?Q I ? i om $Cr1 zn m° (Jl .pmn
N y
5z ED
305 z
O O
Q o)
m 05+88£ d1S 3NIlH01dW >" a
?b =
6y IT?
.z g?4 Ix
NN zz zW pc O
N z
T
O
V)
IIUBP'IOZI£0 DZI+D-sl-20S2?II'iNBp'UlD-D?V aZ052u11'uBP'OIZI£Ouoo"FPu-4ZOSZu'IFUBP'+aM-P?4"205Zu1i'III?V'2052uIi'uIQ'ZOSZu'ultl'BtlZ052u'ultl'LtlZOSZ?'ultl•9tlZOSZ?'ultl•Stl205Zu'IU0•IOZ052u'uBP'ss-RDu"9205Zu'uBD'usD-FDU'02052u'uBD'ulo-.CDU-9ZOSZu yea
8/17/99
/r I O
+50 "?.
388
MA-??H?INE ST A I I
\ 1
I I
I % \
I
I %
5 '
300
\ T
N I H
pp 1 7? \
?:9 1 ? e
I
N
y TR I
1 n ,DZ ?/ I
I '\ ? c\ Z / TR I
11 n?
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
w
299 295 2 4' 23 K
1
? I I '1 ? r n
1 1 ; ?
I I 1
I I
11 I 1
? ? 1 I
Z _ T I 1 I 1
cvy N
?p1 _i
yp`\ \\ [? II ? I 11 _ II
\\\\ \\\ II I 1 I 1 /' ? II II, 1
\ 1 I I
6l \ 1 I 1
?r \tnN ? 1
b d I A
1
,? a y i9?\ \ r
m _ iI I \, ? 1
3 in \ I 1 r 11
\ I lif) 1 1
r° a I
/f \\\ ? I m?\ w 1
6^ 1 1
II \ man - G' (. -y \
I 4V\\
/ 1 ~
? ? I i 1 Qmd ©Q
1
--- I I Np
T I lltly M.Bb
?J
° I LO
? "? I 4 N
. ' I r
01M aN ? ?
I D
II - N a ?R?
I I I 8
n ?O i
as N ?o
290
Lo (b C>
rn I I R ??rn
? ? I I y
rn ? O I
rn 290 N r p r aN
N0
I
O I 4' 24 400 24' 4 ?N
? "1 I
rn I
I ?
w
o
D I
_ ? o? 8? $n m` tNii ?
o o?I =r 0 pN o T
O d W O MNII^^ ?y &? Z= ill
C+ u m V, I?' r"
m? z z
MAT wad ?k ;m °
N
CHLINE S TA T n
40,2+00
Ir IT
oz mS
z
0
0

.... ?.n.?n-,??? ?.? .n.?n???? ... ?nn.ee-<n ? n?n??,?iiRn•iiso-.(o?-a?nc»'u6o•uio',CO?'a?nc?? : at1
.....?...-_,.- ....n....-.o....- _
IIu6P'IOZI£0-PZ4o-sI-ZOSZull-llu6P'ulo-PA4 QZOSZ/li'u6P•OIZIEOUOO'APU'aZOSZu'iluop:}e- PA4-Z OSGUII'lll-zuS4'11--lq 6-6+w? V?cusc ?rv c?zosz. ? =-cso - -- -- ---- ---- - -
A-molP Ad ZS:IZ:oo KOZ/OE/10 VSLOOE J u6P•ZI"45d-APj VZosz-f.ld\AO-PG08\OZOSZJ\%J
pp+ZOb tl1S 3NIlH?ldw a
I R Y n p (?)
I c.r8'+`d' Ivw
I cl"n?'??n?i
am I ? ? N
a ? m ? b? O
q• 3 23 24' / m s ,tn
? I
, o ? g0 ?Oe
? I I a K ?/ ..
I
I -ni z Y R Y n t
1
w
w+
° I I / 405 i1N
? I
I I I O
1 / I? C I
1
co
j co
C?j
--
} I. I , I -----
NC GRID
II I I, NAD 83
z 4 , J?N
/lVD o
o / ?I I
° I
W3. v
I©
zw.oo•.
o°
SOO'41WE Z¢
O YI
I oft a I?
I $ N
I q I ? o
i 1 I \
• I
00
O ? D
f I ?...
o ? m I ox I 2? ? ?...\
o v
mF I : I ? \
If if ri T?m- ? f
1
A to I ? z
48' I 11 ?.
L I T li H- IE
N1 1
209.60. :n
O?
Soo-4rO2'E X0 I ? 1 c m I co
'? o ? •41
I,
. m K
N
00
<m
NN O
x i 11 m n ?, 4/ ? 46.
IE D I_ 1 I m K\
1 o• a Ogg L
o
I Sw
I
I M L yrOH
s 1 I N I m m o n?NC., R o
1 ?itN?ya
I v ?i.tNO
I y I v ? to +
1
I ? I I I p n R ? n 1
g y i t ??c' g? ?j1v ?
Pm I I
z 1 co w
20
I >= 0
? w
? ? zn I >
- °or 1 h
IE ° 1 R p Y R
m 1 NtI?q?C`
? ? ? I ?la6.pN
rn 4?
p o
S8Z? ?1 _ I 415
m
w
y ^m4 \ 1 24i? A
ro 4
Q1 / ?} I
Q1 ? ? 1 o
?? 1 ^^N??N? LtlW = _ $ ? $ z z? N
o a T ?k5?b d pN s s >oz _ N
z z
m
_1' O ?zN ?z a.d
ar
o
? "'p? 9? aC17
? 1 ?V1
1'a?Z C"1 c\ ZCI
!E nD+ 20^
z 9z
`D zz zm ion N
y z
m
0
i
- i r .1
>-sl'205Z jII'IIU60'wP-DR4-QZ052?11'u6P'OIZI£Ouoo-CPU-42052 ?'IIu6p'S14s-uo10'?+s0205Z?II'I I-P.+- P^4 6US6-'ll-11- 6US6=II - wsc• ??? o?c??c c w=c- -•- -?
A'--O1P Wd 61'I£'b0 KOZ/O£/IO oSd00f J u6P'N 4Sd-!PJ OZOSZJ\(oJd\ADMP00y\OZOSZJ\:J
MATCHLINE STA 428+50 -L-

eb
-l- OS+Zbb V IS 3NIIHO1dW
? J
?iu6D'?NIfO"D]I1D"sl"ZOSZJII'IIU6D'uJP-PFV"CIZOSZill, u6P'OIZIEo- CPU-OZOSZJ'IIU6P'+ax."PF4-ZOSZiII'III?4'Z052?II'ans,2052u'u10.84205Z?'lud'IOZOSZJ'u6D'S5'.(PU"OZOSZJ'u6P'USP-RPM"OZOGZ4'u6P'-I--.(Pu"0205Zu:3H 8/17/99
• r °
- - nu6nu?o-o.C- aJnc]AI•u6P'0121[OVaa-.CPi-QZOSZj'IIu6P's+4s-uDld-u;s'OZOSZuII'Ilu6P'+aro-D?4-Z052u1i'l IIR4'ZOSZuII'uIQ'Z052u'uld'84Z052u'uld'Ld2057J'uld•9dZOSZj'uld'SdZOSZ,'lud-IdZOSZu'u6D'--APJ-pZOSZu'u6P'usP-API-QZOSZ"u6P'ulo-FPl-OZOSZU'j8
8/17/99
Zua-OlP Nd bFVVO b00Z/O£/10 VSL00£ J uPP'bl usti -PU- 9C OS.... U?d?nvmyvva ?vcu5c•?•?
MATCHLINE STA 428+50 -L-
? ?' 111,15 ? I r
N I
ir,
m? N ?W
O ° I 275 430
? m ? >R
v
O ?
24' 24' I $L Z h \ ^???
I I ??S h ? ? dd1 ?
SLZ I 25 n
p ? I
ti
a I ? I
I 1 I I ti
Ti - I I + N ?y
y ?Z
? 1 ,t6' 9Z ? pan333 ? ?? v I
I 6+ ?NId?l9 -l9 ?
1
o I I I ?,?
I
` I D
o ?? 1 s ?O•?z
I S
270 I 1 0
s
3 ?? 5 ;5 -b? o ?C • ---_AiNnoo oNOWHON ---
l 5.0 • N A1NnOJ 380OV4
o ,0'18
I
`a I
2 1,
I \ ti
+ I\ a
I \
yam' I I
°
o, c° a I n I \
t
20
Im I -
I I
D
N i
90 G'
I I
? I I
I I
I N I
440
? I I
? I I
m
q
cn I I
m I s I?
0 y N rN
I + NI p
« b .. Zf ?o
m I m >_ $Xl SA 0, a
24' ' 3' 4' o ~ z ° p
oI z ?o AN `? m
A N 9 I?j"yI ?, y N a
/{?I\6' 75 fD? M CC y Z 111 IA z
lJ C ' ( v mz Wz p\ y z
m om P` p °
N m I ??? z? ;!?7
I Iro Sr
-l- OS+Zbb VIS 3NIN31M ?p zy AN
0
°
I 1 10 4 Ilu6p•1021£0-PZIiD-si 205Zu1i'IN6P'uuP"p64-9ZOSZ?11'ubD'Oi21f0uorRpr0205Zu'Ilu6p'ia?+ pR4"ZOSZ?II'lli?U'ZOSZuII'ula'ZOSZu'uld'80Z052?'uld'LaZ052?'IU0•ItlZOSZu'u6D'ss-,cPu"OZOSZU'u6P'usD-?D?"9205Zu'u6D'ulo-FPu"OZOSZuiN
_..___ ... ,,,.., ,.?, 8/17/99
M L6i i
6Z110
Z^
cp
/22 03W
ti C>
naaaaa
636 r
/vJ5o63 y? ~.
MATCHLINE STA 442+50 -L-
DWQ comments for R-2501C, R-2502B, R-2562C
Subject: DWQ comments for R-2501C, R-2502B, R-2562C
From: Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 200417:29:08 -0500
To: "Marshall W. Clawson PE" <mclawson @dot. state.nc.us>
Thanks for working with me on these projects. If my comments are
redundant or you just do not understand what I am trying to
describe, I ask for your patients, please.
R-2501C: no major issues at this time
R-2502B: The Jan. 15 meeting (DOT PD&EA, USACE, and DWQ) made the
decision to conduct an on-site 2A-4A meeting to discuss bridge
length. DWQ recognizes the tremendous commitment on the part of DOT
for the longer bridge length. It is difficult to determine if the
longer bridge is 'long enough' given the high quality bottomland
hardwood system being impacted by this project. The impacts from
this project are within a WSII SW HQW CA area. Due to the CA
designation, the proper placement and number of the haz. spill catch
basins is very important. It is an important factor to get the
drainage from the old bridge system into a haz. spill catch basin.
Please determine the depth to ground water under the proposed basin
on sheet 13. Drowning Creek is on the 303(d) list for 'fish
advisory for mercury'.
R-2562C I referred to the notes of our conversation as I reviewed
these plans, and I was not able to understand my notes about the
bridge over the swamp ...... I just could not figure out. I have made
my comments based on the 8.5 X 11 sheets, so if my comments make no
sense what so ever, maybe that's why.... Sheet 4, the area between
102 + 00 and 103 + 00, I am confused: just what empties into the
pipe, and is it going directly into the impacted surface waters
areas at both ends of the pipe. Sheet 6, is this dumping directly
into the wetland on the Mary Beth Stout Edge side of the road?
Sheet 8, does this dump into the stream? Sheet 10, Due to the fill
and clearing, will there be greater impacts on the wetland system
overall?
I would like to review the meeting minutes, and I may have more
comments based on the minutes.
Marshall, thanks again. Beth
1 of 1 2/6/2004 5:29 PM
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: C v; 5 M I115t.her Fax#: - 3 53
Company: us '? Date: 91 1-710 4
Number of pages including cover sheet: 5
Notes or special instructions:
"6,s 5
T'?i5 is 4,e- +n4rwu-+on 6en4 ou-f Vrq 1?-maj -trGM
M D'Y'5ka61. -1 W ou.?d [?IeE 4-0 d`i'5CU65 uy- l-! 5C,6 W k-e41 y OU-
A ?v?- T?rv?Q•
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarohna
AaAmally
f
Subject:
Team Members:
Minutes from Interagency 4B Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
on February 18, 2004 for R-2502B in Richmond/Moore Counties
Richard Spencer-USACE (present)
Beth Barns -NCDWQ (absent)
Travis Wilson-NCWRC (present)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (absent)
Chris Militscher-EPA (present)
Brett Feulner-PDEA (present)
Jay McInnis-PDEA (present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Dan Duffield, NCDOT Hydraulics
David Scheffel, NCDOT Design Services Design
Malcolm Watson, NCDOT Design Services Design
Grant Ginn, HSMM
Roy Currin, HSMM
Beth's Comments via e-mail, that on Jan. 15 meeting (DOT PD&EA, USACE, and DWQ)
made the decision to conduct an on-site 2A-4A meeting to discuss bridge length. DWQ
recognizes the tremendous commitment on the part of DOT for the longer bridge length. It is
difficult to determine if the longer bridge is 'long enough' given the high quality bottomland
hardwood system being impacted by this project. The impacts from this project are within a
WSII SW HQW CA area. Due to the CA designation, the proper placement and number of
the haz. spill catch basins is very important. It is an important factor to get the drainage from
the old bridge system into a haz. spill catch basin. Please determine the depth to ground
water under the proposed basin on sheet 13. Drowning Creek is on the 303(d) list for'fish
advisory for mercury'.
I would like to review the meeting minutes, and I may have more comments
based on the minutes.
Jay McInnis - Taking this project back to 2A to discuss a bridge length.
Discussion - It is agreed that since this is a pipeline project that the alignment is pretty much
already set and all that needs to be discussed is the length of the bridge and a site visit will be
scheduled in the near future.
Richard - Need to check with DQW about the location of the Hazardous Spill Basins
Marshall - They are not required through out the whole project, but will check with DWQ
Richard - Need to make sure the driveway tie to the property in the wetlands near the bridge
is included in the permit now, so during construction a permit mod won't have to be issued
for this.
Richard - Would like to see where the terrace is so he can have an idea of the floodplain
Richard - Need to reserve my comments until after the site visit
Richard and Travis - Need to have Geotech go out before we can have a site visit, so the
water table will be known before hand.
Meeting Adjourned

August 4, 2004
Mr. Marshall W. Clawson, P.E.
Project Engineer for Special Studies
Hydraulic Design Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Re: Hazardous Spill Basins
US 1
Richmond and Moore County
State Project 6.589009T (R-2502B)
A&E Comm.: 30075B
Mr. Clawson,
We have reevaluated the hazardous spill basins for the above referenced project based on agency
comments during the on-site meeting on June 2, 2004. As requested, we investigated first the
possibility of containing the entire design volume within the basins without excavating the
natural ground. This effort involved consideration of raising the berm elevations and expanding
the basin areas. Additionally, since we are in the process of revising the typical section to reduce
the median width, we were also able to increase the basin volumes by adjusting the roadway toe-
of-slopes.
Of the four hazardous spill basins on this project, three have been satisfactorily redesigned to
contain the entire design volume without excavation into natural ground. The forth basin,
located at Sta. 413+00 Lt., has been designed to contain the entire design volume however will
require excavation below natural ground. Under the current design configuration of the roadway
this excavation is unavoidable since the basin is adjacent to a sag in the alignment and a cut ditch
on the left side of the road. The roadway ditch is cut to approximately elevation 281 and we are
proposing a basin bottom elevation of 280. The natural ground elevation is at approximately
285. In order to design a basin or containment system that does not require excavation below
natural ground, the roadway grade would need to be raised significantly which would lead to
many other complications in design and constructability.
The primary concern that has been raised to excavating the basins below natural ground is the
possibility of intercepting the groundwater table. However, this particular basin is located such
that the excavation would occur on the side of a slope. Although seeps may develop at the toe of
the basin sides, the groundwater will be allowed to drain freely out of the basin since the outlet of
the basin will remain open except- for emergency situations. In our judgment the basin
containment volume will not be compromised by groundwater input.
If you require any additional information, please advise.
Sincerely,
HSMM
S. Grant Ginn, P.E.
16
W
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division or Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, 6ovemor William 6. Raw, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Urrek P.E., D'aeclor
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
Street Address: 2321 Craboree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604.2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ContactlnfotmaHon: Phone iF. 919-733-1786
Pax 919-733-6893
Fax To: CAri , Hl:lllsd,tr Fax #: 851 - +.-463
Company: ttsA Date: 6I rgln#.
Number of pages including cover sheet: 5
Notes or special instructions:
Ci.ri.s 6
'rh+6 K lhp in?o rme}:on Se n-H o,.i V?9 t'.-mc,.l -Gram
Marshaal. x wo"d Kik -6 6, s- 4,-, 14 5C43 l,rhen yo?

401wet?rAwt wunft --
16M Ail 8- Wbr.. RW.O. N.0 CWt. 27699•te93
IlC
Lj
2321 Gnbt"8OUbm , SUM 250, Rdblok NOM 0=11 17501 ?
N
1'Ll
ll
C

Pbpne:919-13117861 FA7(81979393936 /fbnrbh ,pub3
`{
nn Egiel OppgbnW/NYmaGWahOonfinPbyer-5pr'Ri4dn6?10%PoE Cme
P 0
1
alO
na
).Q&CQllk
?mr
dpe,
• • •QSJJIFISNKZIJ JNHTIIOW JNSOH'd JO HOVd ISUI a
xO SJrifisa i
WO MOW
,,ZS,TO HdIJ GaSdVIa
8'b:TT LT-OIIK a IJ IUVIs
SAS SsOKd
£S£i,9S86 : BNOHd
£689££L6T6 rMI
SQNFi7IJHM-IQ aKVN
OS:TT HnI VOOZ-LT-OnK aIVG
NOIZVEROO ONIMS
Q2 and 10K question
Subject: Q2 and 10K question
From: Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:33:42 -0400
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
An interesting question: CA impacts; high quality bollomland hardwood (cypress)
system; extensive wetland system; current 2 lane road going to 4 lanes; DOT has
committed to much longer bridge length with deck drains going to basins;
hazardous spill catch basins are located on the 'high ground'; ground water level is
near soil surface.
DOT initially proposed two bridges; DOT has agreed to narrow the median between
the bridges or build a 'single' bridge with Jersey barriers separating the 4 lanes of
traffic, and an 'innovative design' approach to getting the required volume for the
HSCB.
The HSCB must be designed to hold Q2 plus 10K gallons. If DOT will narrow the
median and be as creative as possible with the HSCB, due to the high ground water
level, can DWQ allow for any reduction in the required Q2 volume?
1 of 1 6/3/2004 3:37 PM
4- - a5 o B

-geA t? Ct r 'k-L s

So.r?ah 1i5?1,?5
arN-k

s'?s d= s < ?S ?P
OvN

H C-L- Cl A?,Jso ?,? ?I 'D qZ4
1 E
Z
4,1,61oi, 41,t"5o' ^ ot I Ka ,to
1 / FFtl p% . &Xxlt?-, Co r9 DW
b C `?

T 64)tJtJ l-lz2m o
J N? ,? ,,", Ica o ? P

Kl ?. ,ldDe:D? Dl v, 0'

x-15 C P? L? Z ?-- l a k 1?..- -I- ??d?s,.._ w?-? }-

,? ti? c w '?' ( I t

Q 250 2

dt?f?r?corLS ?a..? ?7 gnu- ?c?bo
-ro m S( Ylv l (G d a e 1'- Q (/ZdA wed
L
f
J,15/04
U- 4-o i s
?? fAA 5
?jioA!, v1VFNTi"
F? Lim ?Avi
gc-DWQ 715. 6394
'233-9,fg41 x -2-10
733 -7P 44 Yz9_
? Z 50 2
1!-Iti FsaYn.?s IvG i?W 7I5. ??94
Jay c ks pD 73 3-74x
8- 3G5¢
v,us N CD wQ Tl?. 639 4
To Y?,?-- A)c05T-- 0?fiz '733 -?w2?9
1419 g,?W- 4-1 7z-
P 233 -?b4,4 x Z/?
obr spy ?? 5q 7 33 - 7?0- X z9.3
B- 3gso
x}11 N C.Dr, P ? 5. 8 3 9 s}

?kszc? 9544 Z(15-
7 33 - 7S44 0-7-3

D
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:
.-?8-o° ?. y
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:
b
J es A. McInnis Jr., P.E.
Project Development Engineer .?•`???????••`''••.
CARO(
?ESStpN?'? s
,••'t?
?O
+
obert P. Hanson, P.
Project Development Unit Head y •'•f G! NE?•,r'
. ?'••' ''? .?
Nc
?.
ti?
N???
.,,?A;
9 .Zg_od
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................
1. Type of Action ............................................................................................................................................ .
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 ....................................................................................................................... IV
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................1
A. Project Purpose ........................................................................... ...............................................................
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 .......................................................................................................11
L. Utilities .....................................................................................................................................................11
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................1 I
A. Existing Facility Widening Alternatives ..................................................................................................1 I
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
I. Air Quality Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 27
J. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................. 28
K. Geodetic Survey Markers ........................................................................................................................ 28
L. Public Facilities/Emergency Services ...................................................................................................... 29
V1. 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
01
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 1
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-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
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 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
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 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
RX19TING RRIDGE 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 or a possioie iuu 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 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 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.
5
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. Ca aci
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-B-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 313 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'

8'
2'
SOUTHBOUND CENTER NORTHBOUND
LANES T LANEG 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' 12' RAISED MEDIAN 12' 12'
10' 10'
4 4 r- * ? -* 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' 39 12' 12'
10' 10'
4' PA EV D SHOULDER SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND PAVED SHOULDER
LANES LANES
DESIGN 4
FOUR LANES WITH 30' MEDIAN
AND 10' SHOULDERS
200' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
l Z" 12' 4b' T
GRASSED MEDIAN
10' 0'
6'

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 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 Hoffinan 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
I B . 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 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 crinipes Alabama beaksedge E Moore Y
Rudbeckia heliopsidis Sun-facing coneflower E Moore Y
Solidago vema 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 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 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 35 ppm for a I-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).
a
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 D 1 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 Hoffinan 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
? A ? ? ?. b Yi11aICe
? d If H M O D
•?. .••• , s......... `-, RoDerCel Ma ton' ,
?•? S gyn. \\
? ? c«ikw. % a Nam at*
_.. .r1an '` _ s 61v
1
3
V.-1473•,
MOORE COUNTY

, . s END PROJECT
om
? ,

L
L S
I
Drawring 0
' •
i -
•? % i i
% C
, j
? 1 ? 1 7..
h
i j
RI 'MOND 'POUNTY
?• ?
'
'
_ _, . MACKALL
j
MILITARY ..?; HOKE
•\ i

RESERVATON
,•I
COUNTY
Y 1003 1500
Q ,
. / ye
7 _ _ •..
•
1475 HOFFMAN 1 •?
..i
- 3.9
7 POP. 349 i

.?
.1601
i' KILOMETERS
0 1 3

MILES
NNEY LAKE •1 1479 ?•
FISH HATCHERY' `• ?`^?° ,•?•
-dam Cri.1,
i
Ov
43
`'• ,, G
Ma,aton G
9 ,oo, S
1536 e O
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
t OF TRANSPORTATION
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

?
T
' m
' m
? m W
;D x
O
O

N
m

?

E

M

0
M
o
0

TI

OD

fS 'a
? F
O

C
Z fp
n.
F 0

cc)
m -?
k +

O o o
a C
m
m z
Y y R m -1 N o

O
CC)

O O
.. O

CD O

m O o

O

R Q 3
V l S ?
k 1 b?6

O ?s

A D

4
1
Wl
r.
f i
?t1

,• ?x. 4 g Sr j ?: ? ? F ? ? yyyyyy
CC`9 P

3 R
iz`
$ A
%S

-rw
t
I

7, 41?
71 ,
}
P 'T r ,?4 ?n Y? rt N
4$4'Yt ?
C w

e

r ? x? ?; ? yy!

?T IIt A4 "'*?a t ? ? ; n fa. a r? II y ? fi
t & . I'll I I.haw `4 IWIMA1
N0.
b?
?Ap
4 A

V
Z r' Ad
i

Y
4 !
Z
n

C)
N
X
C
N
N
m
`1^• 'e
V
Z
0
L
C7

N
O
W
T
0
M O

Z H
o

N ? ti 8

? ?
C
m 2 0
ziT ° P a

_ O
C N
M ;
o
T
m €S

z
-Ti
C)
c
m
W
D
z
0
U)
C7
D
m
D
70
C/)
O
G
T
0
C $
r"? S
y?O
Z z
zm
o=
2 -?
0a
C
r
Am o
N O
3 zg
m =
v
D
Z
0
i
O
6
C
N
Z
01
T
A

D D R
N
c
°
vm ? 8
N ?

A

lp 2 m
? m
D? ? A
°0. m
v

C H i
M Z MO,
m
tomc

v o
D
Z
0
T
m
0
zg
N Z.
2
C €
W
D
o
Z z
O €?
C z
0
M
0
0
O
Ti
Z
N
Ln
N
O
O
.N

O
O
n
N

V
D 70 0
O C_
7Q M
C/) O C)
M CA
C) m

?/ T
N
0 N
z cn
CA 0
N)
s
0
5O
€?
?o
z
O
T
0
C
X
Z /
N
f
A o
p
I 6
0 \
mm
v
Z
z Z0
mg
6 I

a
0
0
0
i
m
- z
i
i
i
l T
0
C-
m
n
-v
N ,% /fG
m
n
D
r ; N
o
C) ,.???
N
O
Lr)
N

. F-
U
W
O
CL
N
LLI
O
Y
O W
Z ?
co
U
F- J
U Q 0
W M Z

V)
O _
Z
O
U N
a: O O
H w
O
w
W

O
Z
O
eo
0
3
'a
°a
0
99
J
V
10
MI
I ZJ 4m

'rl?
H
0
3
a
0
O
m
u
?o
M

W
a
J
zz
O
m
r
Z
N
LLJ
z
Q
J
O
H
O
N
co
M
W
U
LL
TIP PROJECT R-2502
ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
lop s / PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
%DUAL %TTST
YEAR 2005
VOLUMES
YEAR 2025
SR 1484 (POWERS ST.)
100
? 2
00
OA
SR 1483 (DAWKINS LN.)
100
200
7
A?
SR 1695 (MERCER ST.)
300
? 4
00
OA
??6p 200
SR 1482 (CASHION ST.) -100
100 100
200
OA\?? ?so i -100 10700
16700
100
-100
100
10700
-100
100
-100
100
-100 //10800
100 16900
-100
16900
OLD COACH LN. 300
200 400
` 300 11000
17300 600
1000 900
-100
? ?p.0 \1400
O 200
-100
100 SR 1001 (MARSTON RD.)
US 1
11000
17200
w" A0.
MATCHLINE A
-------- --------
US 1
?/v",
w 11000
17100/,
200
300
-100
100 300
10800 /?A,? ??00
16900 j 6
SR 1604 (STROMAN RD.)
NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 4
FIGURE 4
PINE ST. -to
.9
6/.DIRECTIONAL r A? `\y
%DHV SIMS ST. 100\? i 60
`?o PM so/ PEAK HOUR 200 y51
I4,13I DIRECTION
BOWEN ST. 100?? -100 US 1
/oTTST 200 100 100
%DUAL o
10 10800
0 16700
' 100\1 -100 /
200 `? J oo -100? 100 ? 000
SR 1475 (CADDEL RD.) 10 16700
X0,0 -100
230???? so 100 100 10700 100 16700
3500
1000
1500 10700
1300 16700
2000
SANDHILLS WILDLIFE DEPOT 1(? M 60 11000
-100 17200
100 100
200 US 1
-100
100/ TIP PROJECT R-2502
SR 1479 (JAMES G. WATSON RD.) 200 1 11000
?300 -100 I /. 17200 ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
? 10 pMPM ? 200
?? 1) ? -100
100 YEAR 2005 ADTVOLUMES
11000 YEAR 2025
17100
100
100 100
-100 ?00 WILL YATES RD.
11000 / 100 10
JORDYN LANE DR. 17100 (? 6p NOT TO SCALE
100
100 100
200
-100
10 (2) loo
1) 11000
17100
i / 100
100 100 vowo _ 200
10 P 0 SR 1603 (OLD LAUREL HILL RD.)
11000 100
h
17100/ (?,4160
SHEET 2 OF 4
US 1
-------- --------
MATCHLINE A
FIGURE 4
TIP PROJECT R-2502
ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
?q
SR 1527 (VINCENT GIBSON AVE.) rCy<i
?9?53 11000 NF
1710%
200
400 100 Qty`
200
JAMES KELLY RD. ^^ h?
? 100
200
11000 U$ 1
100 l 17100% p
WALL AVE. ?A 200 1-100
00 ^Q?y,
-100 ^
6000 100
800 300 ,l 41000
HART AVE.
0 300
400
0 11000
300 17100
400 200
US 1
10700
SR 1004 (BOSTICK RD.) 700 16700 300
??00 400
__ 400
60
0 '0 600
M
300
400
BRACEY ST. 100
? 00 10600
-100 16500
0A 100
Mss -100
100
200
10900
17100 ?6P
Q h?
?y,
Ien„

800
\1200
J
McCOY DR.

TILLEY ST. 200
400 100 US 1

1060
100 / 16500

M6?
? 200 200
100 00 600
,
e 200 1000
400

Ash 600
10800 7?? Mso SR 1474 (SCHOOL DR.)
6
16700 I
MgTC
US 1
hi j-
_
e
17100
YEAR 2005
YEAR 2025 ADT VOLUMES
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
`101 60/ i PEAK HOUR
?,13\ 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
--- i _ ----
- -' 10700 RICHMOND COUNTY
16400
300
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
l o p M so _ i PEAK HOUR
(,13) DIRECTION
%DUAL %TTST
900
400 1400
SPECIAL FORCES WAY
600 -
1000 $? p
11000 / (3,1)
17000 J
-100
100
200 GLIDER RD.
100 10 P
\
11000 M
17000 (? 1)
100 100
100
200 MCKEITHAN RD.
-100
100 10 Mp 60
11000 (2?
170001
100 100
100
US 1
200 HAILEY AMES ST.
-100
100 10 PM 60
---?
1100
/ (2,1)
0
17000 If
100 200
100 300 LEADER LN.
-100

200 10 PM 60
?
11000
(2?
17100
100
McRAE ST. 200 -100
?-- 100
0 PiW 60 -100
(2,1) 100
YEAR 205
YEAR 20225 ADT VOLUMES
NOT TO SCALE
SHEET 4 OF 4
1600 (RUSHING RD.)
ti
17100
F .
J 11000
I 17100
US 1 _100
100
Q?h
^.. h?
-100 100
100 200
SR
cam` ??000 70AM?
FIGURE 4
P
_ :i _ ?r' .._ :, i: ::?_ 'f
- . ?.
',.may : 1 {•
? T ' _ x - R a7 .. __-_ .r'-' , - - {';/I JI ''G :'J e? ?d.. _ iu!3 =. _
- g 114 I J,/_ - 3' - - '- rr; I I gip` J I i - = -
2
-:,-:. _ ,. .__ .r. r .. • :. c, ._:- ? ? -- - " #?'?` - w.i,t? e
.,. = Y 12-1
.z. _ \
a
'r ?TF4i cT /( r - _
,__ ,_..._.._ _ J?
r`i' -rr2_'#-a'? ?? '""`.r w,?3? II
? v%
izh?= __: : .u•a'"i'-4- ' ... - z:: - ,
a,:ma
- - F.
y_ r.-
ur ?
c
T? ?
ME 1-50'. .n, -..::.=-?a+!^?„u•r
e goo
$ +.1 ?•:T :ir,- ?s.?
-: e.-- _£- -'i --' __, - -s' '
?T41z;- z_
r
_.6=:: l _.r'=-rt?'_ + x' 4" "J - -
-"
+_: _+ 1"t - - J i ,r fir:- -
_ „: .5 _
-.
r 11 Sdc'a';""'; ..•'-"PY _: '__ ?_ ... x: e _Sr 1._ -_ - ,4''„W??i r? ,?_: . hl --b/' ` S • \. "
`4a=", -,, ;4 ;i. Egg! ", r" - }}-,.
<.- - : sue`
?". _ 'e r?? '/I' _ 'I
.:;,; ? ` ..5 f '`
i..' .. , -y - ,_ T,ix? .#,' C"'?:: '°S .`. ,r? f'}',•y(I? sy --:. v... e ei, °£ '!.' - ice. _ _ee Fr,?a 2 v _ T 'Aa.+. 2i?a2r -ce Y. ! . _2v r:. '?F•,as_;' :r Sr} , 9i'. - J _ 'Z: \ F rr
m Y :. f, k.ars,=_ ,- " 1'?s :(.:. - " - // - =; C
s_
11
s'.
.. m Yp,.t
`!?M'`4',+- •+?•sa."s. - ..v?,'_ :4rrz- 'a.? I J -7r V
?7=? - i F-!'f 1 --_ \Z' ' •y?i 7', f. _y -•.`?'
hI;:f;!F2`'3ks,• F 4 _.'; ,•;+2:Mar ,' !' .+ `4c,;_;+;e.::1, t1' t a 1 _ •:'<_
.,r_ ri,P §, rr}e' _ },f 'b,'rFe l f? ),h? ,r _
v%_5,._5,, ' , ai •;},: _ Y_J 1 _ ice-
:a,
rs:• _:w•` +s\s=hu5•: - i1 'lci - - A - j .-.-?°a"ay*+s*--'err,=a,ra,a-= R -
.. . y. ,
„Y
,a
.'.:_..z_av'' s?.:.. ''" `D - Ik 't( _ -_
,:.,GV^:'nyr,'.i;,,;.. /j , le _ f_ - -_ '-;3` -: ?G < /I y F J.o I -1, I 1, ?-,. I - - - 1 _ _ / 1Y _ ?.'."•,,
I
, n ='
_" I w
r. - - 4
, : ? , ?x:11• _ I? 'T =
k 1 , ' . ?rf p' 1•
'-'- :.,r_ - ' _ ` l f _.0 . -b-- , ?.- - ? _# 'r;szi r l- t 4/ .!},•.,S;.ur,
i•, a'-4i5`F;z 1111 ir 5;z .,_, _?.. ,.v : • r r_ ..z ' ._ ,y - e l? ,, ' ti? 'i . ..,2.__ -
• gg r. :r y _ r. ?-. .
ai 'R' _ . .i,-, ly'! ,1,:?•= Al;g •?, - - - -, . y''rc:
u r
r
+;rx_
w, -' --
--'f _ I F? ?. -'e"-'r?-..f :!`_?,,-,ice"-•i:t'22'"5
;--e ,
}r. -
c2:t2 •'2 .•Y r'd I I J :'`l 1• _ l i `?r•4c:-_ ,n,?:.. , ..1_.- -
?._ : `', -' - ' }l, \ 'r
?Jrer= rtb'"` n I. _ e= ? _, i / ©- _. - , {.. , d? i, ;k 1e
ti { s d ?. --
g '
_ _
a?.u ,+4' { _ _ _. _ 1 _.r _ `._r .?- .+ 7.-: .}i "' I :.?_•......,v.7+1 +*.i,yyr-.-.- ... r .u .*r..??nr:'_,. :,3Y1:''
a
- -
a
_ 4..
Y ? r
.. a.F? 7 1 l .-: - Nt.,..._. r,• - _ _ = I I,. - y,,,. M1'?•-ii/ 47
i // •?/ti'v`- _ t//? _ - ?? y. 4{ `-? {c•``?i4:;f._
.1 -EIIE
- IF= f ??\'.,A' /?yJ ` /\S H?A, .? .en e? f-:-,+5-.+
\
f'.? - -
a -
-s4 1 /\{v - ''??F f . Yl':.` Y r •2 2}a., K:ri? _ -az7`. _
?,i sti1.F5y,
f y, _r3
u - - - -
-' - a R.
.
., , t:.' , / - ,y,. :((f Y ,s: i - {,?7 ,. .
,, . 5?,, .: _ -z45:,vI` =3 - N. ?_-.: a•.:+,4 ,r.
{? , dam,; t sr,;;3ax 5r
_- , u / _: a ^!,a_ fry
,
'' -- x.
h ,
t ' w...., ti: l > -. % / J ' . --. 1 -1 I : // ?' vl •„'a?`--J',?'-'_', IT.
_ :Tz1- f_-, _-- '
?.
r b r _ _r h am:=ate
,..Y i d f -
-- -' t a tz " i jN f F t' r ;. ` i? s
„ . J ./ .y. . , ? ^,. - , „I i , .. .: •,a, a ? -11 e' -. - f .-:, I- : \ ' \ .%'a h L+i I? ' - :. - r _ - .
?! "? - - '
` r=
Il „ IM. :- .. .. f. - ? a F- __ il,_ =M-i_?.
2.. :•" °j !( !'1 l : ; , 4! ,; . .• y1. -^'ar'r It Y ';",;
:
,
C ""
4 `l a i. f. V .? "'1 ` j Y/..\ - { ?fdv=.'
" Q ` '3rd 1a- '1 : ! /_ - ???. -'?''? = s I kvs
} _a= - €I i 3 y 5_
L l ... j -..: ?? - ,, t u - r _ • - I": --,,r,;._ Sum'`=+-="._,-'-°_- I
•'?. ' ?:? //??_ _ ? `. -, ' , L' r! ? :.'f-? , ?;:;Tt+nz #" ?_'- ' ? _ __
".,
2!; .: _n r / ," ::-_. - d,- _ , tz .... € : ,. .?.-_..._ .,:.r,;urY -- T ws -'.. ;'p;;• 'v;-.. .}
r,.:: ..t;n, . , a ( :,- :,1 ¢ r -. • . *;,q k' .,; , ,- ;t. ==_z,;r - . .. fv:r • _ - -_ ' _m
:? i _ - - 1-11 r.:a: 4. .r - _ \, - .,, 'sue . - a .a. : _ -' '' ` - - - -:o--=:- - - -^z r'+
• -- _ _ \ - / 4ep fi ¢ ; .€ : cam: r ?X£?y!i?` - -
f f•-
s
.- _._..._-/
-
: > =. i. I ? :A F,= L -
_ .. _': I;Y s ' =rz _ u;r. f
: _-Zn- ' - . _
_r'._. .. -aas""`ze`- , \.. r.a . t . • . r;,b '• a;r_-_.:?r,. '-mss - a - _ _ _ -
:
u '
_ .... v '_a4
k ?
- ??. .? ' ?, .'
- - - a
_ s --
- - -
'j!G' •i ? / - •,z,d•:- = ? - - 4?-- -- . I . ,- - - I ?? - , , , I : ? 'I r - = -- =-- ?" ? ' ?3r ?-? -
.. -' /
1 -
Z _
/( . . ,\ t -
i ?_
_ i `- {
- . , .. ,-7 L 31R - _ emu. ?",T _ ,} } 5 :? - ' i'?l• i..
r
/ ?? ? ?-- I 11 I q% .%;;; - I ? I - -9
°Ti
i
r
,
T
/? a uk ?'2 "' ';
r
F E
i , _,. _
1 rF:
T j t fi
^ i -
I
J 1. I .. -.. ..-+. S, ._' _ a.•=r.:_?
O ': 1 ,.. fr,
- _ s - •r L -..:..,'j. `r { S4 {
r.- .?., - - _:. o
,_ _ - _ r.. . ? ..., ,?...; ?',-?'ts ,Trkp .r;?t;? " 'a"' ;fit - _ a4au'S'•,''.?'ver'r,._ ?-`r;Tf??? L?`'r+
- - yg,..
1 n
,
Tr.=: ,,..r
22A _=...- -^-2:____; ._ i-:?_ r5'iu
:..__„?`'-- :,. -:-.-: :r _ D :, __ < ,•-.: i
15.
.. _._F r -- ,_ _ _? T r-: :.;r,•'=t =s;` _r?`'K,?4 _ _.*:,?
•,?, / _:_ _ f..ty{ _=--- ?: r:.?', __ :•_arrk;P, . Y .?i__.:. 5 a•-•f,? -!3
.:r: - ,-. f;.s-+:"`s: ;; : i_. ' -- zv - _ __ia arI.a} _ ., -- a_
r
Z y
..... rr...,.a:...--- "_?::-_Q _rs._,n ..,T F:: _ , -
.:='`:.v-=.; ...::_.r, __ z31a1 ' 'a- :r-:'.r: - xfi4, ham: :iTl•-,,- Sa?.Sz?iSk9' pia
a -• ! s .??._,_.?. : __ k .- 3 - ? - /', A.% --....
,r z
,. :: ?_;.z..Y =_r?.. '..: .., ._.e;ps - --- Ai ;}.__.. t::a ter` --•e=es'? -
I
,.. _
_-.-_ _
_a:_. _.i•a' , -. ' - 2.:£ 3=2
11 4." t '.; •.y - - - -- - - _ '':•. ^ 1F ;_
.. _-.--.__..___ .: .2 ,,,
+r „?.._ -, - -
Z =l f•F.: ._
I ti } 5'. ':3 k"'?*ti - - %.. l/ `Z`` - ?L 4. A
'i.. } t3?i - ! cI _.?r.r?, t ,_._-bv /I! .£. - - vt'-.: , r
!,
_ JJ }
J .:> xi'. , . r, zp. ! q ;e:._--. _ -
r { J ,,, of -
} - ??
-' ,- -:u- 4-,.-_ X31 ?r..-;Yr: _ ,.=,vfi??}?r., -:'.,?•'r??-a}''f ,t :...i?- i=is• y r 5 := .,g>.
r, - ,af
( _=':-„.+Z __ - '-r_ _ - - 4;: .: ti ,„rl+.?`_ ,- a .
_ _ __
in 11 . ( ! -.•c
_.. :....._..a 'i ..: .,. k.,. _ . \
E fr:._ ., _,_. _ - _-_ F _. -p r-r--r- \,, /,..- _ .1:'
-
tea.,:,
_ =?a _-z ._ she"' _ - - {.-a"c_ ..•,. ?. .5'': ytr'?. -t !! ?
. r I : -; _ - ?i ,
- „ +_. rte,. r _- ,_: : r a" _ a - - '
v i' i.. - -Mte , ate:-=`: r a ! 1 ?+ \ + 4 r __ .j a
4
I
_ .- ,-W.._ _s ` :.:?. =: _ ?.}s =.,._ m.. .s?. , t -- - rr ",: - }
t`.rt//+''•:rr r ,rz:.,:, ,°.-1- . .... = , a _ -?r 3 - = t`? .„ ,? ,
_.rr_ t. f {t--i . tom'??''' ?m ' _ -=' '.F3c_ ..Z_ i- . JiY_ a.- '?i ', m, \ 11
11
r__:_ ??
?. Z ? 1 ?
I:rrr_? 5 _ _ _ `
I 'L
,
u„ - f ,. v ,_ _ 70 b 3
r? x
'fi.., L, -- " , k. ? " 2 ',--,--__r'. r - ?,,," I , - ? Al
w%- , _ -- -, ?? -
/? y
4
ors: 5 . ..- . _ . a a a_- 4 - - '"`+q `'fir '3
y z `
_ -; ??.,; - - ]- -\" , ?
_ _ y _
T_
_ p, - - r - F
- - 3 _ - , a s 3
-
- - -
-- - - s ?
r - }
-.T
.?_ ,.> f ;..: ? ? _ ?. --„'? _ r"`- 4- \ ..113
, 11 -ice ,,.? } rp j. -` ;"°,,,?; I •;
? a far l j N, NO ,? a++ -rat g ',, J ti` b ""? - - : 1' r ".
... _€ - k 'T .`"` `.? s_.-. '_ e > f 3/i l r ,a,R lr1/ 'i , - ?t } j ?' # a. - '§ ?; . s--r I I
N n?, F
r4 ? f ?r. ' # r <r , / ?1? p J 4
, ( 7 1: I ?, ... il I - - - -- --,_,?,,?". , . - 11
F._ •-I> ;9 S s`ue`-`.' , -,t l - -R ? r ''i''._-.---
_ O -0 z O 7o m = - - I h J- ?\ n Ti re- P
u
A m Q T U ? i 4 `. 1'
Ornmm.?p 1 t `?'- k A n
-- W ;g :a:? : , ,, I ,?? ? ? , I'r? , ?---,- ??- -1 . - - I Z Z Z Y Z m _ ?' ,g4' J ,'`' ' _t y?•? y r'! t ?I - 5 tt
I
'b /!? ZZQ pW G - O \ _ ai y,l .,!wz :.- T '`,: j?,,11 - i _ {'/` ?' `pis
r • -? m c D A i '. ,l .;1 ,? . eT oI I J, JA y. ?a - 1, v a
> C m M Z "17 t F -- I, 4
i _ r_ m V 1 s, `" V ' _ ? y Q-
a
?V
? °--
J, , F p yam. ,
?kl rt7 (A R: - , ?, r , , ? 1? ". , : k", -: , I 1. ? ? 11 " , ?.1, - :: .",i, I ::: I ?, 11 -W
5 r _ - ) 11 2, S •Y y
• --_- ,':..? .E4`gx vb ' r 1, tit F" _' _ a., - ni..
3
.r., a1 .z'.. .. ,, r :: - ..-l' - r' r _ . _ .- .{ 1 11 - . S. ,..cr .ia d
:.
v
pp
'' t<::. . ?_ v r _ nn, , F - 4 '} 1 '
?. _ y - Lei ;. ?N' , k (? f' l) :? 1.: I
?7.?T I-- :b:.'- - _.s !, °?`.,_N?: ±f" l .r ?.,,a,. vr. ,:,::,,:ay. -J'",?F.
JFti! n'.L. ..... .. .v..: v
ti
i-, ,/ I'. '€ i r 4
..
.,.,.,.,-J' ,? .'; R' '`k Fyw., ;a 'I. '01
11
T k 4 a FA4 1 l 1 , I/ :
Xl:fi, X! . F N k y? , ? 1 a E if_ `'. / ??. 4 1 r`k' I= I
47 4 I -.1_-_.-._-?1,_'" ,,, -A :: hr = b •' -?--a ? :-- 1 4?7 , h - k p ;' 44 X4 d v
,qtr 'y1"
2y 4.1 Y ! S ' ,sv
i O C °y -1 ,? ' , R7 .Il. r''? ,4 i?,, //??i - \11541? fir ''";
1 4 .--1. _l V, ih ,.. `? r ''r''k mss' ""e' ?
m `=; , , `? Z N e 2'.' . v, tl x'4.4' r w'""n ! fF,ti +ix?,,? v'"
;,t• r
_ rI R xt FS .,
O r4 ti, : M ' ",- _:' 11 ?1 '", V d ?{.iIll! S E',,k,,,XEk,,,+ vv;'vd v, fir t< "ki
`$Xd`k,? 3 A f "4 'S
$ a ?? RI ? s ' I ?,yy/ a l'_ 1? .},? , 1 ,i, - d 1 IIS i t y,i mr ..I. , . , 3: S n 4? "4 a,. q .J. t4 d 'f T y N - - _.il:/' I . Q,?' V a;, , . }yl 1 k d 1 ° 'S f " , rY 'y
d .^r?y C s 1 .. , , a?. * / .,_.`>•" S ` 1 of ? `f"" z . ,N; sa " m O w a a T 3 ?4Er _ ?' a .
. R7?'. -0 Z t• k . F 1? 1:I -' 7j m ... ' ,n"i+ it y.ya. sr?? ? It
- _3 a 4MS '
v,. r. ;a - - 144.. -- 71 - =.iIf -"s 'P! -- s' ve„ .?:.II 4 '^ x'•,? I {{,fr l ,?. r / ",', ?yrf ,
ti.. ?:: 'b?, r-_, .1 1 'T, ff, ?' ' 4 -1 L I / " i .f
m i ? F I 4,, 3) ,'..ly 1 }. I ? :.-,'It+rfp! d v, / I ka 1 1 s
_ ?Q ,n,_.. e4 -tl.- ' - _ 4 r rr -' '', ))",Ws? Oi - _. -,-? I ., Ih'Ir
rµ,.'•„ '<,, r' Xw,v? ".1' f n-•..::. ?•"?! 3 `?' ` t4:y„yitl '•T 1. dIX?,,, ? %, Yt .'1 RUN! yi'b 4 M.
`l l rz
. 7 . ,a '' -+y ,{;c .W? .'t - iw. t...'1- t Fxi r - ?1s _
-6-, i ?` 1 . ? : NO :,. #.,xiii has, 1 tows 4r gi
\ // t s ? - a ; ,gy m " ?? yy .1
.: ,
' -` i ,,rf F . 74 ,} r s -Ea.fs- .. , _ - h` I - I/ 3 .1;3 ,6 r_'?_, `-
. s - 3 . 2 _ i dl '147; ?JF
.71511. I
,? y .?
. . 3r 5 _ 3 `--i rk d -4 --'-4 t, ,w -_ a''1 r
Lk"LF"k r :,':,
4.: r< 56 _
11 JS .
l , ',i i ik i
--. i
.r
..: 'O •x,
' t t k 4`x ?` yd ..rr'
i 1Y 5 - '. .. c _ lb -??
a.
-- - - -
- 1 - -
z - - - -- _ ? -
- 11,
=-:l 3 ... :d- -y ..ti`}I? __ - ' _ max'' 42'M: .","g4'? ` . Li aF- -
_ --` , 3.1 , ::..1, • "',?? -', ! u7 F - ,• ',?--Fl;: , •h 9 - L -'r i,k .i r_ r,
i,:F -:_ -? _,
.=v:_: _
* 5 v "
=
', - ,_ - --. ?Ji ? _,:,S:G , .' ,y - :?'..; + ;. `14.i , v,'v? r
,;,u:,v. _ r -;3_-'' 3 i. :. ' : :. ` - t ? 111111:"
{
. _ W,t ,'.:.,-_'. i 1. s ,< '•.,:_ :`.. y t. :ice-•,y t
4 .. '. ?'.?'•?-aaF ..'i _"1 1t'S'y.;.,,. r t• -:.-_ ?1'S
'-.?.- ''Fy4` ?: !Y t rr 1, - r ' c Y ''•-, ,
, - - ,I ?:". :- -:.,-", 5 v.. PT „y... tS`i: 7 i . ,? 1 . P. .c;' l.- . _ .; . _ I ?s .
a F'
i
In,-??'- .:.? .' .'x' - 4' 1 " ,, :+ iV - 'K„' ` r
'I 'i 1 '1' _ {-!- I
;'?' ';• ?' 'n mod'- aT "I - !
rf'" ? •f
i k S..
3,f -11 k „r,
rah f' _ r - S .. ;1' ? ' t?
I Y rya 'X III.
=:vr._ J9 3 Y s' € ?` A k "7 , - \ L v-at 'i A4. ^^ ?3:d
.'"4 {!` y , F„ lr'"-? .? g.1,$:e? v Rhas? ''r#,y
n
L:fSi 5.., t_ __''m i-',i' 'S ilk = '2, y? - f 3 .?,_-. - _ 3 .f)v? ?1? kf ?: IN r, ?f
5=-s-".'?' 'b3 ,: ` ? ((t _ ? f C• y ? . r . _ f
*Illdl ' ''-: .. ,t .,. '. 3@r_ ,s ::',: "fL:::_ ?? ? _ ,: Sv'?--a=4 . h 4? - i ?kfE;•F` z ;5,!,:?3
J'
- IN f y 1 -ti { Mfr - I - S _ gg'
..._ . '. - ., _ >'s„ ti, Y _ , . 3 r b ,e}
4 , f
?'
... ':-, :"?s`i, !""r =,.1. !,
. >tt - 'S-
' .. W r „! :, ,1;a.4"„A!,:• „•N : ti. '4', ."? '!'r_..i 'i d'.' l 'F
..
;?e, , •, ,4, //// 9 ,*?y Rr.ri - ' t.,.aMq,,: . ...
.Yy 45, y.. s 4.: _{ 4: M _ v? vhu:1 .'?„ df, '.4 453 .'',v
i f as .rL •>_v-.1 'i' 1-.../ .:af'ii
ks:,^: i4Xr4:•, . k 31,. , "ti „ ii i<,. ? N y,. 'F /?.1 :
i^3'iF
it % ?]
I
.:. at4. 4,L ^,4 /' r IN , RT " y - - - ?. iie
!ms's''' ',,?4, _ r)C t" `'?.":f ,- mv'..'. ,.,h... 'rs,,,. ."..+ _k.
r? k,?
^' c .:' _. , k : _ .,?,?yl`
r
.rak:., v v.,v 1 C r^.!::I' : ;,a I l. 11 h.. , -,!*^' S _ .,# f
`4 -,h,. '^'' `"r 'eFpL. ..
1f `k .._ - ., s d- 4 , ,' IN
S., 4
` , x± 4 ,n•', 4.i v' ,4 ,v . [ , , 49u" r r. _ 11
l w., ,.sd,i r v 7u ° P dw.hk :'T ryy! r : 4:is ,.y : „ y , 4 '4 ,5 ?
i:,4 , t t. ,v ` ,?
:'a. i'igg
I! I
?l ,,,r. 4 "c :YL$1
_! ,L , i..i4 i iA! r„ 4d 'A , Iv' '
;:
.rt: . _ ,.''. 4v^.'7f{4d,E -.:A ni `.:.?'1.i4 4 -
141 ?y
k,.. 1.r wdvr a.,. .-- rrd,PSrfit?7dk .S -ic.
n
, - 'I
??u.
:.: .:. s v 4 ,: -. .J{ ,, ."I . is M.. },
_. - . !e. ',! ... ,l? ,. -v .kv:,.• !'! .n r i ..:1r }ate, - - '.4 rdav, . 'i i .?,. .,?. .S'
F
a,,,,. : ,: .2 "EI'1 I !.? : I'grR, ,, ?Y1 1!i, af 4y t ,µr ch: L
x f AI
,-.,,f 41 t "4 `?:.i. d i 7 ';,-
+. -' - tl '' t ! - :°9''.,. gi k
, 11 pd
-- . .}_ -s? +., .., t. - r? ? ti. x' 11.. ' r 1 :"_,1k!r`; k,_ w s v4.? .f
fi '~
iy'.;.
--_ .- ! Fhl • ,-4- =,f^-U,? _4 - Y 4? I l it fx ,) - "v ' I_1 t of - W ?' r E - _
r
{
f - 3 a' i t4 -
_ r y 7 -
___: - ..? .. .-' . .rlf.. _: , ;i "S - I ?/ yr"_ ,p:
' - f -' _ ` d - ., -Y al ! i _ ?.; 4 l q + rKy4 g 1 ! X,
- µ
.: y.r r
?,?,-'?..... ? ri * - (' ''` \v? j4' L \ _ " ifl 4§-•,.,,.+''Y Y , 7''r4 }
-~ r' t - l am'. `.-s, _'i - v ?; I I. t4 i ?° `I- ???`' - , - ?4 t:.. k 7'r'v ?{X 7
?•q ,: - P j.. - ;^`r: 'r I ?i •i _ - l !__ I?ri _ ,o { r _. 1 I .s _'} i a 4' .1f - r ''?, , w,+11Gf `.1 ` ?,.? !.,}°•:; r? 4., l' '? ,+ '44?'
- ? ? ?E-1. - -r-, y i ? I ? I 'i a
., £
`tp : "- P ?`??l __'-r ., ', 1 3t ?' 1* ; r i, FK L, y,
W
:F :. _ X h
3
L .
I? . , v e 41>1 :4
` ?' = 7 r!. yc 'i l'?,' E 0- } y„ 1? ?$],•.e'-_ '? fl r..F ?l v y •BIRC! r.±' ??_?5??
a o fsP j 11 mT .{-'1 ' '-+l• f ?:? `I^ ++.<
T }
?, i C .' f _ _ n__? ,?- <t? s a f fsl
. t ? UH-i - -f ?? _ ?: ' y -? - - _-r -n I r - i ' a ?s -f .. - _ - r _1 '` eda' I, , C". .Q? _-^??--- I ': tii • .`k y {'^'F?.>5,37?1 r- 1-1
421
11. `
+
r`
it, . ,; , 3 , ?-? -? ?3 - - :yY 3- _ _ ?w r'..t3y:. _' .'n .? _ ?'"-? y, 'X 1p ?r ,r, I 1 1< _ i - 1k _ "i:'r'? U 9 j, '?S '4 '1.;i45
?t. I 14 5
. 4L 1 ' S +_4_F \\ - t
, d?ik = rg,`4 } t2 'IV .. ' t k,; ' zr l 1 -.. o - :+ °t:l d
f ? ?. , j - , i - ??-.-?- If - - , - ... "I
'?' v.... F} .? ,. '?i``aC'
Z.,Z ?y'p vSb i ya •ll YI L. Ci k
r .. s7;.. ,&- I,''`J'.:•'. x,07: , r:,_ •1 ': - - 1,
, F ! . f ?-?• F r 73 °c-110 :X}'i 4 D 411 SS ,. ,_ //? a lz? .-?',G-,a r.
L s =''f w , "fie
I 1, r sr - ,r
4 I'av.. vE [`v ' b: 7+ r ????? yy y 4'
y: -
i y : ,. an ? ? J'. ,,ay fd A, ,4SLAI :,' :i• l2! ,,^'ST L, _ ,
v {„._:42/e2,t ..a, i'_ '4!• -
,i.
.. .E'. f s ya f. luffg-pil
Z ,zP >r h!-
1 r'
rn ? e _u „#;+{#, dlh:,: .r .,'X, \ ,
rv
;", S}'Ig3 g3r;. v i:d?a"d h 4 da`!?v '-'a!
:d Iv22 ih2}I c,".
,r a V • - vv ?,,, ,. 4,' ' ;!; riu4d :; L°?yr•, a 7 / : :f r f r , ,T?' h r. v k, p . ..•
}.iy' , ,r6 y 1 'L ! .,,,'eu5c„' }ic itY, ., v4 al' ' taCr2X'.,.:.E- 1 ft ,yeu. ,k22e?v 114 4 r
:' r:. v1111111111. k w. 3.F,r,4;`mk"4 M„ '". =: •: .;Y;'?`d ,?'t dk. ?'',: - a ,y. '6, t`
'll .
,,„ v, '4 "11-1 w f v? _ •.,,,r :rR ' f,,.
':4+ L_ •,.'F „n,:d,4:1 `4„S'! Y ,., h 4 `g 'j, '.-'r,,,-l..
, ti" ' ' 4 ' ' 4,,
,!,?,. x!SI ,.. , .:-, 2 _.k o + 4 '"4-, ,E,.v1: ? 11 `vv "Vh ?:,, -}N';jYadv, .?` . I . 'Xiii .13;::,,
rA,cv y ' r ::? ::!! :7 V• 6
, .
?g ';! .:
-.,.F. . h ? ?!"'_
v
Xw3, to- t ,..,,4w.E„ i ts „ a#-1; F d,h," , , ,,
'4; Ah. I?fl nxf: ,• x. `1,?.?;?4? ?r G YG,"E Ea
}
F.
a% f a'+n '!gait' vox"3 "' 1 yy he t?,?,,„, 44JJ.?!,?. fix,, a ., 4"
4 ?
it 4f r , •, fi
.ri
:,<d 1,:ir': k_ 5
r
1? O
:h ' ! ...:. 3'9 €., !r"..
4S'' !, f,' Y y v:",,,v' .,., . rL
., ,4y4, : h _ ,r'la . ' r?""' 3 9 - °k - 'Yom`"' / ^'"^ .,_y -
I it Ill ,
' - ih( ?{
a I `
q
t _ - 7
?,I{y ,€ ? M f. tf' .. . n r?„•y: _ - f, ?:yL . •? 1,,, l,(
i -11 w;'??.
•A?'Ie!4
5 ! ?1_ ',.'Vf.'ir??l' ?L ?•'?. ?h''''? k '9'...'k'? / i:, 'T'1r'1,? ' ?,i? ??? ?'.. Y ?\ L T: y,.i'i
?7.. 0 •
, t'-v nly},`LI -''<' ?? r? ?'.?w1 I 1, " i "il / Y .II r / :': t ti,• .. ?:'_ !'ti
F?
y?l 11 ?d.4 i'*1 - f; i$4"IL S _ . -?.,FTr :? ' li 'I f 7 ,` !.6 All ..? } X.t:'A:_. r 'r n
'
h
! .'M iii: rE d '!r y,
,: ? 11 I 1.-- ` rx. ?'ac x?re =k, t: - Y,,_ 1 ti 1 ?'k:. -1, _f ` °i^' ?'.,? n. i? , ;*, 0'
_ ' y
-` - f . ! s' .,,'Jjj$}s - :.>r t _ J!JJ'?: -", , I : r r?+ ? 1 , ?y? I `4. --
r lJ t _ %t1` l,
a,?.,.?.-, ?-` ° ice` f?I 3 `r '
01
I I L ?, ?.Ij- -?? I "'l L _
5 <V?
/ ` rat r`1 .1, T ) a1'. 1??7 _x141
- >` [/
_ -, ' ' _
N , , : , , \ . - . .
.:' - : X - _ ,. - -n
o? a
r - - -
d
I
tf
11
?-"' /i ?,., ;\ J! Y f
Y
'4 - -- .mo d-'s`4%' ,
. ? L , . ) ?, T? I
r h
Y
1 I ? » ,
t 1 f,. ;1 r
v - - S - u -
F C
ac
`? .d. { ,
R s '}a?'' r ,`•: 1``?_ _ - -a, , hr .f -.;4 -a.C lI ,Y- '"t
" '- 7 1' , II ,? a
u 7 qtr. a?.,., sue, b
M t * *

D PROJECT
J P% I f W f 4/ - V-
--I rA
RICHMnND-- COUNTY-T, ---_ T=_ -_ -
- - - - - DO -- ?%
- ?IV t-
-- r
1475 HO FFNIJ[1V
P OP. 349 6 ; r

MdUNNEY LAKE' f" ?.
,
FISH HATCHERY; 1479 Entwistle

McKINNEY
-- r
LAKE ,I
PROJECT CORRIDOR

---- : --------- t -- -- PROTECTED WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED (WSWII)
-- -- --
• _ •'- - ? r" r K 603
?----------- ? Gee --- --
- PROTECTED WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED (WSWIII)
- - - - - Marston '
- 1col WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA
1536 CID HIGH QUALITY WATER ZONE
BEGIN PROJECT
177
TIP PROJECT R-2502
WATER SUPPLY WATER SHEDS
AND HOW ZONES IN PROJECT AREA
\ J .r 1 0 KILOMETERS
23
O -11 2
MILES
r
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:
b: h
h .:
T I' ? . ? 7
A-
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,
Alex Morrison, Jr., P.
1- 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 Timpv Wilmington 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. Timpv.
A-2
Q?PQ??EHT oFTyF?Zm United States Department of the Interior
y ' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
a _- a Post Office Box 33726
?4gCH 3 .s` 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:
RE C El
rn Ail. . .
L Y'
Y 3-
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 tilt; 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 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 ?(/
DrGa nB 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
?PQS?EST OF Ty?ya United States Department of the Interior
° s FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
a
D Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
?lggCH 3 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:
1. 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
5. 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) (Picoides borealis) 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 asperulaefolia) 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;
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 future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the mann r 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, loner 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,
rohn. 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
Plants
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Roseate Tern
Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
6 Waccamaw Silverside
Mussels
Dwarf-wedge Mussel
Tar Spinymussel
Mammals
___I Eastern Cougar
?) Red Wolf
American Chaffseed
Harperella
Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
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.
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.
i
35'
79'30'
80' 79'45'

1 '-
i 411) -1Tmlk V S c s ' - \

G
?I J
?a

? a.
v
I ?.
A

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o 1 z 3 a s MILES
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program
0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
40 expires 1/31/99
rSWr
r y
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G.
July 28, 1998
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Bldg.
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
?V
w

.? ?-`2g 199
4 ?
4-7
.as r-?
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
e"? Swt
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor . Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
June 22, 19 V
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch 1998
Transportation Bldg. ,
Raleigh NC 27611
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,
cdr'-..?? ^A?r-
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 a
?d ais
? S
>
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.lG
From: David Brook o
m'*:?_.
Deputy State Histolj? 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**, 31RH321/321**, 31RH322/322**, 31RH323, and
31MR355) are recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In our
October 1, 1999, letter we determined sites 31RHI32, 318, 320/320**, 321/321**, 322/322**,
323, and 31NW 55 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/I33**.
? 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
TJp ^ Z 5 0 Federal Aid # N County C u1`1
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
L p'M Nt n1 ?3? US Tto Cam- l.Uv
On U G • 2l , l ?J 1 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 properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential efteci.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based orr the historical information available and the photographs of each property, proaernes
identified as o I S
considered not eligible 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:
Representative, NCD

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

la
Historic Preservation
ate
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-19
?,?GE-IrNOND-
Tip # 1z- 1.90 Federal Aid /# 1/4 County 1-?ldO ?i
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description

P-
On J !EJq , 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/consuitatiol,
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 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 ?-a 1l-lq %Le-3 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:
q'?- c ctA,(A
Representative,
'Sr la,?
Date
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
<-101
o-,
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-20
y ?A?4
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 (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:
31 RH 132 Prehistoric Destroyed
31 RH318 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, 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
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:ldb
Enclosure:
cc: Tom Padgett
A-22
i
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
Page 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
ission
Thi Revise text to include
Table of Contents in
s om
within the report.
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 11 contains no page
numbers (14 additional pages). Appendix 11 and all
additional ages
4. 1-56 Figure references are inconsistent, Five figures (Fig. 1-5) are identified
dditional Revise Figure
numbers to avoid
duplicate numbers, and lack reference
identification within text between p. 1-41; an a
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
l f 19 shovel tests excavated at I Om
rimarily address artifact
intervals Additional testing
emphasizing larger
or
inadequate to determine potentia p
frequency and are not reliable units, or closer
subsurface features 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

6. 31-34 31RH319/319**, "...artifacts to 80 cmbs further work."
Test Unit I Level 1 (0-24 cmbs),
and Level 4
Level 2 (24-40 cmbs)
ting is
Ad
nelain the
without any clear stratigraphic
" ,
(60-80 cmbs) contained abifacts
demarcation. archaeological materials (Total=124). frit I
7

Test Unit 1 Level 3 (40-60 cmbs) ak
Lek of
contained no artifacts. The absence in
of artifacts may indicate a siof site
stratigraphic separation between have not been

dditional
Level 2 and Level 4. A
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

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
.ems
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
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
?..
SEC ?j 1V,, U
ji.q- 2 41998
iV.C. STATE CLEAFNGH00SE.

A-25
P.O. BOX 27667, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 / 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
.67747
., . ;yN,....a?..+ i
ter,,; ?' _ s.3d
r ?' d L
5

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee 1
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 1-7667 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
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 19, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO. Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
FROM: Mary Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Coordinator m?-12127
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping, DENR# 98-E-0839,
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
supply astream crossings. DWQ requests that hese catch
Identify the responsible party forms
be placed at all
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 500/6 recycled/ 1 o% 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.
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:\980839; US 1 Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
A-30
I 7 V W R V I I I l.. 1 f 1 r ? L L V -- ..
0 1 -
linaWildli£e Resources Commission ' _-
_ ? _Norrh Caro
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
1'C): Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM, David Cox, llighway Project Coor '
Habitat Conservation Program
DA*1'1?: July 20, 1908
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for IJS 1 improvements.
from SR 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 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 pryJect. 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; l NCAC 25).
We have been involved in the scoping meeting for this project and are aware that
there is potential for this project to impact the NCWRC Sandhills Game Land and
possibly some lands adjoining the McKinney Lake Fish Hatchery which is also operated
by the. NC11 R('. In these areas there is high potential for finding Red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) colonies as we manage our property to benefit these
birds. NCD6'C 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. Description 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 usA 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
A-31
1.4k-Wr,,t- 1 riI- r , r MLL:? Lrir-,L 1 LL • 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 uccoml?lislted through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COI:). 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 i mpacted 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
clTccts of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources Ahivh will result
froin secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other sate, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
A-32
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
July 6, 1998

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison' C /?
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/t1
A-33
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1-7687
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
SOIL & WATER
CONS
State of No.1h Carolina t}
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing OBice:y ^ Lam' INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number:
9O - tD 9? -/ Due Date: 7 - ?' • y
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained m order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal 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.
O 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 NPDFS permit-whichever is later.

O Water Use permit
pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(

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.
inspection Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
On-site 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
213.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality
d if 20 days
one or
sedimentation control plan will be require
Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.

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
d number of saes of affected land. Any are mined greater
i
30 days
ne an
with type m
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit an be issued.

mit
i On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days I day
(N/A)
ng per
O North Carolina Burn
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than
activities are involved Inspections should be
d clearin
f I day
(N/A)
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils g
groun
five acres o
d at least ten days before actual bum is planned"
t
e
reques
N/A 90-120 days
O Oil Refuting 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 construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also requ
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
A
i
if
(60 days)
icat
on.
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Class
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
i
red
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be requ
upon completion
A-34
Uepuf III ICt 11 v1 u " -
Health and NOturc71 Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G•. P•E,
Director and State Geologist
Project Number:
?.I
•? - Nn r
PROJECT REVIEW CorirIr"la . l? ?- v+V
0 09 3 17 County: v
??
Project Name:
II NC Of ce of State Plannin - Geodetic Survey
ro ect will impact geodetic survey manioc-• N•C•
This p j y rior to construction at P.O•
Geodetic Surve should be contacted p [phone]. Intentional
-Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27 27611 011
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey r:.arkers•
Other (comments attached)
For more inforrnationcotact t--e 11- 3-office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey office
w?U Date
Y
jt L e e
erosion and Sediee^_tation Control'
No ccr.-ent
This project will require _`nine,any Tana-disturbi-nc acti itytifion
control plan prior to _
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
Environmental
If d l
an environmental document is doca::?ebts tiru'tsry he s`=^i Environ`e as
-
Policy P.ct (sEPa) requirements, the plan. control p
part of the erosion and sedimentation
d within a F•gz Quality
k11- If any portion of the prcj==L - locate f Ea•?ironmental
Water Zone (FQW), as classified by the Division of
.ent, increased des---n standards for ssdiment a ? erosion
Manage
control will apply.
L T v ^ rol plan
ra•n
The erosion and sedimenta?_^n thetDepartmenteof1 this
•
- by the Diision of
project should be prepare
under the erosion control -prgrZmSedelegation dimentaticn°ControllCo lssion.
•,.--.. = -
g: c'^.:ra1; from the
other (comrents attached)
9!S/733-4574.
F,:r mcre in fsr--•natLJn con _ _.-
G?29?9 ?
L.-_
21 7,L
?rl: (i j ]::-:;rte A-35
-1 7

Tti
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
F DIVISION OF FOREST RESOURCES
:
• r 2411 Old US 70 West
e Clayton, NC 27520
July 7, 1998
- NCDENR

-A A4
MEMORANDUM
JAMES B. HUNTJR _ -.-
`,GOVERNOR

TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
- WAYNE MCDEvrrr
SECRETARY- =
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
' 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
4
a • 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
rts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a tub grinder. This practice will
ff
e
o
minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped fires and smoke management problems to
•?- - residences, highways, schools, and towns.
If debris burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open burning as
4
.
Moore County is a non-high hazard county, and
31
113-60
h G
S
21 throu
113-60
S
G
d
d
.
.
.
g
.
.
.
er
.
un
covere
G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning permit would apply.
S•-,T 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.
t.c.= Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill, exposing
illing petroleum or other substances.
or s
stem
t s
th
p
,
y
e roo
=:.? .- • . '':; 6. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area.
a We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage the impact on forest
.. resources be considered during the planning process.

7 _ r cc: Warren Boyette

t
A-36 P.O. BOX 29581, RALEIGH, NC 27626-0581
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] y3 H
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
f
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.
Y
B-2
RELOCATION
REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
El E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F_? D1=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
1 1 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 DWELLI NG 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
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS 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? 70400m 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? (= ?' r
r
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source). t3 ,;± ti'p
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24

9/19/00 ZZ S h'c?
-
M. Bailey, R/W Agent Date 7 ate
Approved by
For, 15.4 Revised tion'Agent
Note: This relocation report was prepared using preliminary designs. It is ion once
anticipated the actual number of relocations for this portion of the project will be I
less than indicated on this report. .
n ?
D-J
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
T

n
I*
? 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 Coun 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 Q 0-20M Q $ 0-150 1
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 5 150-250 Q 20?OM 6 150-250 Q
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M 1 250400 Q 40-70m 14 250-400 3
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 3 400-600 Q 70400M 21 400-600 3
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up p 600 up p 100 u? 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 displace(
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 Richmonc
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 an(
on-ground investigation.

David M. Bailey, Division R/W Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
B-$ onglnal s 1 copy: State Keiocauon Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
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

A
IL S ,
LANG ?
1qN 1MiCHM
Im
:'"-"' • rn•. MOORE COUNTY
.„- ENO PROJECT
IBM
` ,..., 0
/
4TY y r i' CAMP
i MACKALL
tUMATON ' r. COUNTY
r!>! 30
Setup # 1 Go?N y
A?.,? Gp??PaO
kw'? S
C-1
0 KILOIETEAS 3
10 MILES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
MANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IRAPNCH
US I
SR 1001 TO EXISTING FOUR LANES
NORTH OF NOORE COUNTY LINE
RCHMONO-MOORE COUNTIES
TIP PROJECT R-2502
TABLE C 1

R
BEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140
130 ---
120
110 ----
100
90-
D
E 80
I
B 70--
E
L 60
S
50 -----
40 ----
30
20
Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
Firecrackers
Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
Textile loom
Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
??.
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory - M 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
JUST AUDIBLE
Whisper
10 -----
A
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 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
k - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
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)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Lea(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
C-3

cl-I
W)
N
r-+
? H
W ?
O
U
U U
0
a z o
H w 0
W?
0'a
zb
W o 0 0 0 0
D
F ?
H
Q z N Q C O O O O

w

4t U
Q ? r? v? o

?JC?W

pa?F
6 ¢ p 0 0 0 0
Q o0 0? ?'
oz
H
?a
OU 0 M 00 0, M O

?y ?
N N

N
N
N

ri
a

w C) 00 CN 00

O "
z

to M M M N
0

a v
°
'o
?
U
En M

? to
t-
v o 0,

o
w ccn rn En W
Q o 0
C ?p „eh
cn C/) W cn

°
?
w O

w
w w

C-4

4
0
>o
.? o
r. U
d r
U
O
W
L
? y
H
ri Q
°v
b
o
O ed
MC Q
G
V1 N
., r-
- N
N
O
fV
a
H
Q ?
w o
U-1
W 4 0
` W 0
? v
U
?+ b
H?
Ca ¢
rn O W fV
O

O 0
0 0
U ? F
?
O
te
,
a
Q a W r. 0 0 o O o

N O O O O O

W n
W
dw
r?
d.
c

0

0

0

0

0
z N

w '; o O o 0 0
w
cn
oz
x
o
0
0
0
0
0

w

U ? 0 0 0 0 0

o 0 0 0 0
n

z
o
F
a M ? o w
o w
(n
A V3 cn W W
O O O O
~ M l? O

O
et .?.
N
w w w w

C-5
z
a
w
0
0
v N
Nz
Y W
C?
e? cs
h
Cd U
O ?
? .O
C
? b
¢a
?+ N
s
APPENDIX D
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA
APPENDIX D
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA

R
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 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

MOORE COUNTY 4
- _-A C

i
END PROJECT
S A N D H L Drowning O

ND-- COUNTY
RICHM
9.
;'
; ```• J CAMP
MACKALL
,?'' _ ;:' = ?004 %? I R?Ap
AIL MILITARY
R ESERVATON
1003 ;
'•v' i
i• _.._..-.-•
1 •
. ?,
1475 HOFFMAN •?.?..
-
'
J POP. 349 i
`,

••.
McKINNEY LAKE!. ;''
1479 - ?
.._'Y- . "
FISH HATCHERY; Entwistle

' S
MK/NNEY
LAKE

` `•,, !; %' event PROJECT CORRIDOR
1603

QI POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITE S
Marston
1001

1536 i

o BEGIN PROJECT

TIP PROJECT R-2502
"' `', a POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES

IN PROJECT AREA

' f KILOMETERS
3
0 1 2
2
MILES
t
FIGURE DI

r ?,
Subject:
Team Members:
Minutes from Interagency 4B Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
on February 18, 2004 for R-2502B in Richmond/Moore Counties
Richard Spencer-USACE (present)
Beth Barns -NCDWQ (absent)
Travis Wilson-NCWRC (present)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (absent)
Chris Militscher-EPA (present)
Brett Feulner-PDEA (present)
Jay McInnis-PDEA (present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Dan Duffield, NCDOT Hydraulics
David Scheffel, NCDOT Design Services Design
Malcolm Watson, NCDOT Design Services Design
Grant Ginn, HSMM
Roy Currin, HSMM
Beth's Comments via e-mail, that on Jan. 15 meeting (DOT PD&EA, USACE, and DWQ)
made the decision to conduct an on-site 2A-4A meeting to discuss bridge length. DWQ
recognizes the tremendous commitment on the part of DOT for the longer bridge length. It is
difficult to determine if the longer bridge is 'long enough' given the high quality bottomland
hardwood system being impacted by this project. The impacts from this project are within a
WSII SW HQW CA area. Due to the CA designation, the proper placement and number of
the haz. spill catch basins is very important. It is an important factor to get the drainage from
the old bridge system into a haz. spill catch basin. Please determine the depth to ground
water under the proposed basin on sheet 13. Drowning Creek is on the 303(d) list for 'fish
advisory for mercury'.
I would like to review the meeting minutes, and I may have more comments
based on the minutes.
Jay McInnis - Taking this project back to 2A to discuss a bridge length.
Discussion - It is agreed-that since this is a pipeline project that the alignment is pretty much
already set and all that needs to be discussed is the length of the bridge and a site visit will be
scheduled in the near future.
Richard - Need to check with DQW about the location of the Hazardous Spill Basins
Marshall - They are not required through out the whole project, but will check with DWQ
Richard - Need to make, sure the driveway tie to the property in the wetlands near the bridge
is included in the permit'Ainw, so during construction a permit mod won't have to be issued
for this.
Richard - Would like to see where the terrace is so he can have an idea of the floodplain
Richard - Need to reserve my comments until after the site visit
Richard and Travis - Need to have Geotech go out before we can have a site visit, so the
water table will be known before hand.
Meeting Adjourned