R2500

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, AMCMWAVA
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B.i Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 7, 1995
MEMORANbUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
Monica Swih rt
From: Eric Gala
mb. '7
Subject: Addendu `to EA/FONSI for US 1 - SR 1423
Lee County
TIP #R-2500A
DEHNR # 95-0443, DEM # 10819
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that 0.2 acres of waters including wetlands will be impacted.
DOT states that the 68 foot median will be PAVED (page 1). DEM suspects that this
is a typo error.
DEM requested on January 4, 1993 that DOT install hazardous spill catch basins at all
water supply stream crossings. DOT does not discuss this topic in the addendum.
Two water supply tributaries will be impacted by the interchange. DOT should adhere
to DOT's Stream relocations/ channelization guidelines.
DEM cannot endorse the document until the above concerns are adequately
addressed. DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude
the denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
us1 amend.ea
cc: Raleigh COE
Byron Brady, DOT
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
RECEIVED
~ w Department of E iro 'ment, Health, and Natural Resource pp
9 177 ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Leg late a and Intergovernmental Affairs
r oject Review Form ENIARONMtI?'h`NObIENC
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response D e (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: F&44 v •? ?O )
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
VAir El Coastal Management ? Water Planning
El Fayetteville
? Water -Resources ? Environmental Health
ater
Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid waste management
Raleigh r
and Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
ecreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
Washington
? Coastal Management Consultant
Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS nica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS-104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

US 1 - SR 1423 (Ferrell Road)
Proposed Interchange North of Sanford
Lee County
State Project 6.409006T
T.I.P. Project R-2500A

ADDENDUM TO
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

y
91801q 4-
ate H. Fran lin Vic , P. E.; Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
US 1 - SR 1423 (Farrell Road)
Proposed Interchange North of Sanford
Lee County
State Project 6.409006T
T.I.P. Project R-2500A
ADDENDUM TO
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
September 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
Byr E. Brady, P.E..
Pro ct Planning Eng eer
Z.A. Bissett Jr., . ., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
??..^?ESSIQN;,.?
i ? SE Al ?
1968
i
.•?.
??•?•?? EUGENt %
SUMMARY
Addendum to State EA/FONSI
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Type of Action
This is an addendum to a State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact.
2. Additional Information
The following person can be contacted for additional information
about this project.
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Panning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
3. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct
a diamond shaped interchange at the existing US 1 and SR 1423 (Farrell
Road) grade separation. The project is located north of the city of
Sanford in Lee County (See Figure 1). The total estimated cost for this
project is $3,715,000.
4. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
Based on the planning and environmental studies, it is determined
that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the
quality of the human or natural environment. The proposed project will
have a positive overall impact by providing direct and convenient access
to the area involved which will include the proposed Lee County Airport.
Negative impacts include the conversion of a small amount of farmland and
woodland to highway purposes. During the construction period, increased
noise levels are possible. One resident and no businesses will be
relocated as a result of this project.
5. Alternatives Considered
The recommended improvements described in this document are
considered to be the most feasible means of providing full access to the
project area.
6. State and Local Agencies contacted at the beginning of this study
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives
and History
The agencies designated with a asterisk (*) responded with comments.
Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix.
V
0
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project to minimize impacts to
aquatic and semiaquatic organisms.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY
I. STATUS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................. 1
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................ 1
' A. Roadways .............................................. 1
B. Structures ........................................... 1
C. Traffic Volumes ................ ..................... 1
` D. Accident Study ...................................... 2
E. Capacity Analysis ..................................... 2
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................... 2
IV. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ......................................... 2
V. ALTERNATIVES ............................................... 2
A. Recommended Alternative ................:.............. 2
B. "No Build" Alternative ................................ 3
VI. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT .......... 3
A. Natural and Ecological Resources ...................... 3
1. Wetlands ......................................... 3
2. Plant Communities ................................ 5
3. Soils ... ..................................... 7
4. Erosion Control .................................. 7
5. Groundwater ...................................... 8
6. Water Resources .................................. 8
7. Rare and Endangered Species ...................... 10
B. Historic and Cultural Resources ....................... 13
C. . Land Use .............................................. 13
1. Existing Land Use ................................ 13
2. Future Land Use .................................. 14
D. Prime and Important Farmland .......................... 14
E. Hazardous Materials ................................... 14
F. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ......................... 14
G. Social Impacts ........................................ 15
H. Economic Impacts ...................................... 15
I. Relocatees ............................................ 15
VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................... 17
ADDENDUM TO
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
US 1 - SR 1423 (Farrell Road)
Proposed Interchange North of Sanford
Lee County
State Project 6.409006T
T.I.P. Project R-2500A
I. STATUS OF PROJECT
The Environmental Assessment, R-2500, was signed in June, 1992. This
report is an addendum to the R-2500 project. The project consists of
constructing a diamond type interchange at the existing grade separation
of SR 1423 (Farrell Road) and US 1. This is to be accomplished by adding
four ramps and utilizing the existing bridge over US 1.
The current estimated cost for this project is $3,715,000, of which
$3,600,000 is for construction and $115,000 is for right-of-way.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Roadways
In the area of the subject project, proposed US 1 will be a four-lane
divided facility with a 68-foot rpaved median and 12-foot lanes. The
shoulders are 10 feet in width with 2-foot being paved. The posted speed
limit is 55 miles per hour. This segment of US 1 is classified as
Principle Arterial in the Functional Classification System.
SR 1423 (Farrell Road) is classified as a Secondary Road in the
Functional Classification System. This roadway has 8-foot lanes and
unpaved shoulders. The existing speed limit is 55 miles per hour.
B. Structures
The structure (Bridge No. 41) which carries SR 1423 (Farrell Road)
over US 1 was constructed in 1969. The bridge consists of a reinforced
concrete deck on I-Beams and plate girders. The structure has a vertical
clearance of 17'-7" and a bridge roadway width of 30'-0". The structure
has a sufficiency rating of 78.5 and a remaining life of 34 years, but the
existing one-bar metal rails require additional posts and positive
attachments at the end posts. Also, the bridge will have to be widened
from two to three lanes to accommodate the required turning movements.
C. Traffic Volumes
The estimated 1996 and 2016 are shown in Figure No. 4 in the
Appendix. These totals reflect proposed development with the interchange
in place and the interchange in place without proposed development.
2
D. Accident Study
An accident study, for the period January 1991 through June 1994,
showed no accidents within 100 feet of the intersection of SR 1423
(Farrell Road) and US 1.
E. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these
conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level of
service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience and safety. Six levels of service are defined for
each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They
are given letter designations from A to F, with level of service A
representing the best operating conditions and level of service F
representing the worst.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The project calls for a diamond-type interchange at the grade
separation where SR 1423 passes over US 1 north of Sanford. This is to be
accomplished by adding ramps in each of the four quadrants and utilizing
the existing. bridge over US 1. The ramp terminals in all four quadrants
are to be constructed far enough away from the bridge to allow for
adequate stopping sight distance for both approach directions along
SR 1423. The bridge over US 1 will be widened to three lanes to
accommodate the required turning movements.
The estimated construction cost for the project is $3,600,000 which
includes the cost of the proposed interchange ramps, signing, traffic,
control, and the proposed widening of Bridge No. 41 over US 1.
Right-of-way costs are $115,000, which gives a total of $3,115,000.
IV. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to provide access to the proposed Lee
County Airport and business development. This interchange will have a
savings of 8.4 miles (round trip) to the south and 5.8 miles (round trip)
to the north. These distances were calculated from the new Airport to the
US 1/ Farrell Road interchange. This proposed interchange location also
conforms with the Lee County Airport Master Plan.
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Recommended Alternative
This alternative calls for constructing a full diamond type
interchange at the existing at the existing grade separation where SR 1423
crosses over US 1 north of Sanford. Also, the existing bridge will be
widened to three lanes. Access ramps are to be constructed in all four
quadrants, and ramp terminals are to be placed to allow adequate stopping
sight distance for SR 1423 traffic. The estimated cost of this
alternative is $3,715,000, including $115,000 for right-of-way, and
3,600,000 for construction.
B. The "No Build" Alternative
The "No Build" Alternative would avoid the negative impacts of the
proposed project, such as the disruption to the natural environment by the
use of additional land for highway purposes and increased noise impacts.
However, benefits of the proposed. action would also be eliminated. This
interchange will serve the proposed Lee County Airport. Consequently, a
"no build" decision is not recommended.
No other construction alternatives were studied. The recommended
improvement is considered to be the most feasible means of providing full
access to the area.
VI. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Natural and Ecological Resources
1. Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code
of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence
of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology.
A single wetland site is located in the study area and is found
along the banks of the unnamed tributary to Copper Mine Creek on the
western side of US 1. The wetland site carries a National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) classification of PF01 (Palustrine Forested
Broad-leaved Deciduous) and occurs in a forested stand that is
composed almost exclusively of species such as sweet gum, red maple,
and sourwood. The ground cover consisted of woody vines, sedge,
needle rush, and knotweed. The water source for this wetland is an
overflow from a farm pond located northwest of the study area.
4
Jurisdictional wetland sites were evaluated using the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Wetland Rating
System. Using this system, sites receive a wetland score from 0 to
100 points (100 being highest) based on individual wetland values
that are grouped into water quality, landscape, habitat, and human
values. Each of these groups is weighted to achieve the final
wetland score. Groups are weighted separately to reflect the DEM's
emphasis on water quality.
The wetland site in the study area is given a score of 36 points
using the DEM wetland rating system.
Anticipated Impacts: Wetlands
The construction of the proposed project has the potential to
impact jurisdictional wetlands located in the study area. Potential
impacts are the loss of species diversity and change in species
composition from the removal of canopy trees, alterations in
hydrology, and sediment runoff from construction related activities.
TABLE 1
Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Alluvial Wetland 0.01 (0.02)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the
COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States from the
proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or
part, by another Federal agency or department where:
(1) that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the
council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(2) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because it is included within a
category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also required.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United
States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DEM is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide permit. Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
may result in a discharge to the Waters of the United States.
2. Plant Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the
project study area: The Man Dominated Community and The Mixed
Hardwood Forest Community. Community boundaries are frequently
ill-defined; contiguous communities generally merge without any
transition zone between them. Many faunal species are highly
adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial communities
discussed.
Man Dominated Community
The man dominated community is divided into two sub communities
in the study area. These subdivisions are the maintained roadside
and the disturbed roadside communities.
The maintained roadside is a community that experiences frequent
and regular mowing and contains species such as bermuda C nodon
dact lon , fescue Festuca sp.), plantain (Plantago spp.), and smooth
crabgrass (Digitaria isc aemum).
The disturbed roadside experiences less frequent mowing and has
a much higher species diversity than the maintained roadside. This
community is dominated by: korean clover Les edeza sti ulacea ,
winged sumac Rhus co allina wild carrot Daucus carota ,
blackberry Rubus spp. orsenettle (Sola?num caro inense , re maple
Acer rubrum , tulip poplar (Lirioden rod n tulips era), an narrowleaf
vetch Vida angustifolia).
Some animal species flourish in man dominated habitats. Examples
of habitats found in this community are old field, meadow, ecotone,
and shrub-scrub. Species likely to occur in man dominated
communities include: Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousei , carolina anole
(AAnol?is carolinensis , eastern kingsnake Lam ro eltis ge?tuluus ,
indigo bunting Passerina c anea , blue gros ea Guiraca caerulea ,
6
rufous-sided towhee Pi ilo erythrophthalmus), eastern cottontail
(SSylvila us floridanus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis , and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). These
species utilize habitats provided by this community for foraging,
nesting, and shelter. Animals found in this community can often also
be found utilizing habitats in the mixed hardwood forest community.
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
A great deal of variation occurs in the canopy of this community
throughout the study area. This variation is due to past cultivation
and selective logging by man. Loblolly pine Pinus taeda is the
dominant canopy species in areas where cultivation has ceased most
recently and hardwood species such as white oak uercus alba , sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple, red oak _CQ. rubra , and
sourwood Ox dendrum arboreum are more common in older stands. The
understory in this community is almost entirely red maple and dogwood
Cornus florida . The ground cover in this community is dominated by
pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.), and
species from the man dominated communities on the slopes and running
pine L co odium flabellifo?rme), southern lady fern A?th rium
splenioides), netted chain fern (Woodwardia arolata , and ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron) in depressions.
Wooded communities provide shelter and shade that is not found
in the more open habitats characteristic of man dominated
communities. It is the density of cover that creates a higher
diversity of organisms than is found in other communities in the
study area. The ground covering of leaf litter found in this
community provides habitat for shrews Blarina sp.) and woodland
salamanders Plethodon spp.). Other species that are unique to
woodland communities that are likely to be found in the study area
are: eastern box turtle Terra ene caroling), gray fox Unc on
cinereoar enteus , and black-and-white warb er Mniotilta varia
Many o the species discussed in the man dominate community may also
be found utilizing woodland habitats. The following table summarizes
potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed right of way width, from 244 m (800 ft) to 37 m (120
ft). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right
of way; therefore, actual impacts may be.considerably less.
TABLE 2
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY
Man Dominated
Mixed Hardwood Forest
Total Impacts
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
3.8 (9.3)
4.5 (11.2)
8.3 (20.5)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
1
The construction of the proposed project will result in
temporary impacts to the existing man dominated community and the
conversion of much of the mixed forest community in the study area to
a man dominated community. The loss of mixed forest will result in
the displacement of some species of plants and animals that are not
adapted to exist in man dominated communities. It is recommended
that the removal of the mature trees from the mixed forest community
be.minimized during the construction of the project.
Potential impacts to the aquatic environment include increased
sedimentation, nutrient runoff, and toxic runoff from construction
related erosion.
Organisms that utilize this intermittent stream to complete
their life cycles can be affected by increased sedimentation and
toxic runoff from construction related erosion, and nutrient runoff
from chemical fertilizers used in roadside landscaping. These
factors act to decrease successful reproduction in individual species
and decrease community diversity. Other species which utilize these
streams to forage are affected through biomagnification of pollutants
and loss of prey species. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines
will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project to minimize impacts to aquatic and semiaquatic organisms.
3. Soils
Bedrock at the project site is composed of Triassic Basin
material from the Chatham Group, specifically mudstone and sandstone.
Hard Rock is typically encountered at depths greater than sixty
inches, however, near the project site, rock outcrops were observed.
Soils at the project site are from the Mayodan-Pinkney
Association. These are sandy, silty, surficial soils with a sandy,
clayey subsoil. Topography is gently sloping and the soils are well
drained.
Engineering properties of the soils indicate slight erosion and
equipment limitations. Shallow excavations are moderately limited by
the clay content of the subsoil. Low soil strength severely limits
usage for local roads and streets and makes the soil poorly suited
for roadfill and topsoil. Construction of embankments is moderately
to severely affected due to difficulties in compacting the soils and
seepage. Soil reaction, measured in pH, is strong to medium acid, pH
4.5 to 6.0. Corrosivity to uncoated steel is high and to concrete is
• moderate. The depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than
six feet.
4. Erosion Control
Erosion damage is expected to be slight throughout project
limits. Effective erosion control methods will be utilized to
minimize this damage.
8
5. Groundwater
Groundwater is not expected to be impacted during this
construction. The depth to the seasonal high water table is greater
than six feet. The nearest sizeable drainageways to the project are
the Copper Mine and Lonnie Wombles Creeks. Each is approximately
one-half mile from the project and should not affect the depth to
groundwater at the project site.
6. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water
quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are
also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Stream Characteristics
The proposed project is located within the Cape Fear River
Drainage Basin. Specific water resources located in the study area
include an unnamed tributary to Copper Mine Creek and an unnamed
tributary to Wombles Creek.
The tributary to Copper Mine Creek is an intermittent stream and
serves to accept overflow from a farm pond adjacent. to the project
alignment. This stream is approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) wide and has a
sandy substrate. Flash flooding seems to be the major means of
inundation for this stream and water only persists in a few stagnant
pools adjacent to the road culvert.
The tributary to Wombles Creek has a very poorly defined stream
bed and experiences very infrequent inundation. The stream beds
substrate is composed almost entirely of leaf litter. No depressions
suitable to form pools were observed.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Unnamed tributaries in
the study area carry the same best usage classification as the
streams to which they are tributaries. The following table lists best
usage classifications for all water resources likely to be impacted
by the proposed project.
9
TABLE 3
Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE
Copper Mine Creek
Womble Creek
CLASSIFICATION
WS-IV
WS-IV
Note: WS-IV is defined as waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds and suitable
for all Class C uses.
Class C is defined as waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1
mile) of the subject project study area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed
by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring
program which. addresses long term trends in water quality. The
program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms' at fixed monitoring sites.
Macro invertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass are
reflections of water quality. Specific data is not available for
streams in the study area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a
permit. The NPDES lists no pollutant dischargers for streams in the
study area.
Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Construction related impacts include reduced water quality,
increased sedimentation, toxic runoff, alterations of the water level
due to interruptions or additions to water flow, and the destruction
of natural substrate due to stream channelization. Reduced water
quality could include changes in turbidity, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and nutrient limitation. If construction takes during "dry"
periods or periods of no flow these impacts will be greatly reduced.
10
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project.
7. Rare and Endangered Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability tc
coexist with man. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
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 May 12, 1994, the
FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Lee County.
A brief description of each species characteristics and habitat
follows.
TABLE 4
Federally-Protected Species
for Lee County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Ptilimnium nodosum* harperella E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
No specimen from Lee County found in the past twenty years
(1973-1993).
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) E
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow. Its
body is flushed with a pale. s i 1 very yellow, and a black band runs
along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins are yellowish and somewhat
pointed. The upperlip is black and the lower lip has a black bar
along its margin.
11
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble,
or boulder substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow
pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with water willow beds.
Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater, among large rock
outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. The Cape Fear
shiner is thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other
periphytes. Captive specimens feed readily on plant and animal
material.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in North
• Carolina. The strongest population of the Cape Fear shiner is in
Chatham and Lee counties from the Locksville dam upstream to Rocky
River and Bear Creek. Another population is located above the Rocky
River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third population
is found in the Deep River system in Randolph and Moore counties.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No water resources that provide suitable habitat for the Cape
Fear shiner are located in the study area. Therefore no impacts to
this species will result from the construction of the proposed
project.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of
the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with
horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are
white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are >60 years old. and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range. of the RCW is up to 200
hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
• These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6 to 30.3
• m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1 to 15.1 m (30-50 ft)
high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap
that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and
June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
12
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Pine stands located in the study area are to young to provide
suitable foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. No
impacts to this species will result from the construction of the
proposed project.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) E
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with fibrous
roots and erect to spreading stems. The stems are green and often
have a purplish tinge at the base and they may branch above mid-stem.
The leaves are hollow, cylindrical, and septate, with broadly
clasping bases. Flowers are umbels, each umbel subtended by an
involucre of small lanceolate bracts.
North Carolina currently has two known populations of
harperella, one in Granville and one in Chatham County. This plant
can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals and the
margins of clear, swift-flowing stream sections, and the edges of
intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet savannah meadows in the
coastal plain. It is always found in saturated substrates and
tolerates periodic, moderate flooding. There is a preference for
sunny areas and this species is abundant where it is sheltered from
stream erosion, usually on the downstream side of large rocks or
amidst thick clones of water willow.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Suitable habitat for harperella is not found in the study area.
Therefore, no effects to this species will result from the
construction of the proposed project.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 2 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Lee
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction
although no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of
Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Listed below are the federal candidate species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species
list is provided for information purposes as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
13
TABLE 5
Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Lee County
SCIENTIFIC NC
NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Lindera subcoriacea bog spicebush E No
Parnassia Carolina grass-
caroliniana* of-parnassus E No
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Lee County in the past twenty
years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site
visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the data
base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique
habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
B. Historic and Cultural Resources
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, conducted a review of the project and they are aware
of no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance which would be affected by the project. (See memorandum in
the appendix)
No known archaeological sites are located within the project area.
The SHPO indicated it is unlikely any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be affected
by the project. There are no buildings, structures, objects, districts, or
sites located in the area of potential effect of the project that are
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. Therefore, this completes the requirements of G.S. 121-12a.
C. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use
The project area is rural, with small farms and woodlands. One
farm is located in the southeast quadrant of the interchange. Several
structures, including single family residences are located in the
northwest quadrant.
14
2. Future Land Use
According to Lee County's 1988 Land Development Plan, little
change is expected within the project area, which is designated Low
Density Residential/Agricultural in the plan. Forestry is likely to
remain the most prominent land use in the northern portion of Lee
County. The County has proposed the construction of an airport
facility to the southeast of the proposed interchange.
The project area is classified as a Residential/Agricultural
District in the County's zoning ordinance. Only very low density
residential development and agriculture related services are
permitted in this district. Other uses, such as the proposed airport,
may be permitted as a special use district.
D. Prime and Important Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires state agencies to consider the
impacts of construction and land acquisition projects on prime farmlands.
The proposed interchange will impact approximately 22 acres of prime
farmland soils. However, approximately one-quarter of the farmland soils
is occupied by residences and associated structures. Only a small portion
of the affected area is currently being farmed.
E. Hazardous Materials
The field reconnaissance identified no sites for underground storage
tanks, landfills or any potential contamination sources within the project
limits. The only structure in the vicinity is a residential dwelling in
the southwest. quadrant of the interchange. No indications of USTs were
detected. The files of the Division of Solid Waste Management and the
Division of Environmental Management were also consulted. No contamination
sources or events have been reported in the vicinity of the project.
F. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Raleigh Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources. Lee County has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect of the air quality of the region
of this attainment area.
The project proposes the construction of a diamond-type interchange
for US 1 and SR 1423. One residence will be acquired by right-of-way
needed for the ramp in the northwest quadrant of the proposed interchange.
No other sensitive receptors were identified in the vicinity of the
project. Hence, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be
insignificant.
15
Noise levels could temporarily increase in the area during construction,
but it will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and
NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
G. Social Impacts
The proposed project is located in Lee County near the city of
Sanford. Lee county is in the center of the state and is bordered by
Chatham, Monroe, and Harnett Counties.
The current population of Lee County and the population projections
are listed below.
Year Population Projections
1994 44,131
1995 44,553
2000 46,458
2010 49,681
The site where the proposed interchange is to be constructed has
little development. The proposed action will cross fields and woodlands.
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, interfere
with accessibility of facilities or services, and will displace one
resident and no businesses. It will give the general public improved
access to US 1.
H. Economic Impacts
The proposed impact will not adversely impact public facilities or
any services.
I. Relocatees
The proposed improvements require the relocation of one residence.
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable housing will be
available prior to construction. 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 able 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
16
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 qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program will be conducted in accordance with 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 project.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations 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 housing in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement housing offered will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and
be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation
officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to
replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants 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 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 increases in 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.
17
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 $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's 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 state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is unlikely that this program
will be necessary since it is used, as the name implies, only as a "last
resort" and there appears to be adequate opportunities for relocation
within the area. However, it will be available if necessary.
VII. Findin Of No Significant Impact
Based upon the analysis of 'the potential environmental impacts
included in this document, no significant adverse effects on the
environment are anticipated as a result of its construction. This Finding
of No Significant Impact completes the environmental review. An
Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared for this project.
BB/plr
-------------
?• 1

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
R-2500
Proposed Interchange for US 1
at SR 1423
p 0.5 1 MILE
-p V
\ .?• ?,??$€ t Y§?'? .} ? A?? x84 } «'4 ?..? .'.?., ? ,?., $ d ., u? '? ? ? ? "h" ' ,?_ ?r 5?` ?sfi .`?
a € a ,?s t a." ` M?'
a? q t x.31 N , rat a.6, ., eY'+a4 y?a J= ` 'do- frz?j
,WIN
wkj -A,
a }`
i`
IVI
a =8 '?. 9+- try -E 4.w t«?
}
.; `,,a E ' ?. ? •.. ?"/ ??e;.??`3?e?.??I? ?1?*7F"?? ? ??+ #'aL ?? ??§?? ? ???i'D?rj ? `? P ^r ?%?
^?- `.??.?"`." t ?'? ..#?, .may. ?,, s *?^ y , -. ,. ? ? ur_.• ,§ „ ? G ?? I } x 3t t `+ ? ,? _ ? $
44
it?w ?kx lei Y,6.pt f.rF?=? p 41?" 4 ?r ?y f
i r?'? s d"":`' s ',tipfQ G.t'? • iZ ?Qq¢ } q f °I, ?p i a x '' 1 l?} . '} LSt
?

PHOTOS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
VIEW OF US 1 LOOKING TOWARD RALEIGH
IVIEW OF US 1 LOOKING TOWARD SANFORD

VIEW OF SR 1423 LOOKING SOUTHEAST
PHOTOS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
VIEW OF SR 1423 LOOKING NORTHWEST
Proposed US 1 and SR 1423 Interchange
Estimated 1996/2016 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
With Proposed Development and With Interchange
4
891 t 89

c
t `13
~ ?4
9 4 7
~6 '? r C 33 SR 1466
Z
6 12 y ! 7 /'
]
3
4 37
1
4 30
1
4? \ 7
i? 112
4 34
,011 1t0 US1
331 `33
~ 3 L
2
1
11
4
2 7 4 2
4
/
r6
/ ? i_ 19 : 6 2 F1
.
. 39
SR 1423
_
q 31? 11! _
7/-
48
2r 2 1 61
1719
17 \
? t
/ $
36 36
2
6
SR 1426
2
} 6
11 3 1 11`3113

311 1
`31
Z
`
i
2
4 Z
38 9?2 19
?; 28 1
?. 25
13 SR 1415
$

25
38

7

1s
71-

3 1 25
11
18 1
7
13 i
4 \ Rq
20 20
R-2500A
LEE COUNTY
MAY, 1994
1021 I t 02
Proposed US 1 and SR 1423 Interchange
Estimated 1996/2016 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
With Proposed Development and Without Interchange
a
89 i 89

f
5// 1 \\5
L4
11
1 17
38 6 3 5
X3
1 1
SR 1466
$ --
8 36 2 , 7 `? -?
3 40 4 2 6
1 5
2

2 \ 19
~

18
US 1
38
SR 1423
Z
38
46 j i
82 82
2.
14
SR 1426
9.
14

I
211 \2
$ \ t 5.

LQ 12 9 32 9
1
4
-? f 16 32
23
SR 1415
?-
as 19 ?? 12, 7/-
32
25 1
a 1 16
25 -1 \ 16
? / i
41 41
R-2500A
LEE COUNTY
MAY, 1994
44 1
44
102 11102
-a SUV[ o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Htmt, Jr., Governor
Beny Ray Mccain, secretary
March 29, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT:
Deputy State or c Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
?F
z
OF ? ? ?+
H?Gh,zl:
L`?R
Interchange at 1423 on US 1, 6.409006T, R-
2500A, Lee County, GS 94-0019, GS 94-0050
Thank you for your letter of February 8, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Kenneth Robinson and Anna Gray concerning the above project.
During the course of the archaeological investigation, one historic site and one
prehistoric site were located and evaluated. We concur that the two sites,
31 LE91 &91 * * and 31 LE92 * * are not eligible for the National Register under
Criterion D. No additional archaeological investigations for the project as currently
proposed are recommended.
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: T. Padgett

109 Fast Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 27, 1994
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Addendum to State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact for US 1 - SR 1423 (Ferrell Road) Proposed
Interchange North of Sanford, Lee County, State Project 6.409006T,
T.I.P. Project R-2500A
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved Addendum to
State Environmental Assessment/FONSI for the subject proposed highway
improvement. This report records the determination that implementing the
proposed action will not have a significant effect upon the quality of the
human environment.
S
incerely, n
11H . li'?Ck z M
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
'0
oink
e ?. SU1F v
• °Naiv.wd..
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPOIU'ATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 2$201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5M SECRETARY
June 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Unit
FROM: INIatt K. Smith, Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed construction of an interchananae
for US 1 at SR 1423, Lee County, TIP ;# R-
250OA; State Project # 6.409006T.
ATTENTION: Nancy Campanella, Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natilral resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this report copied onto disc format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: R-2500A

e)
Constuction of Interchange for US 1
at SR 1423
TIP No. R-2500A
State Project No. 6.409006T
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2500A
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Matt K. Smith, BIOLOGIST
June 30, 1994
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Methodology ...................................1
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................2
2.1 Soils ..........................................2
2.2 Water Resources ................................2
2.2.1 Stream Characteristics ................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .............3
2.2.3 Water Quality... ....................3
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources..4
3.0 Biotic Resources ................. ..................4
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................5
3.1.1 Man Dominated Community ............... 5
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community ....... 5
3.2 Aquatic Communities............... ...........6
3.2.1 Intermittent Stream Communities ....... 6
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Resources..........7
4.0 Special Topics ......................................8
4.1 Waters of the United States .... ..............8
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands
and Surface Waters . ...............8
4.1.2 Anticipated Impacts: Wetlands .......... 9
4.1.3 Permits ................................9
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation.... 10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .....................10
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .............11
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ...............13
5.0 References ..........................................15
1?
1
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project. The project lies in Lee
County, at the intersection of US 1 and SR 1423, 9.7 km (6
mi) north of Sanford, the county seat (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the construction of an
interchange for US 1 at the intersection of US 1 and SR 1423
in Lee County. The right-of-way width for this project
ranges from 244 m (800 ft) to 37 m (120 ft) and will occupy
approximately 9 Hectares (20 Acres)..
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Colon, Moncure), National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) Maps, NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:100)
and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of Lee County.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis publication of the Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Lee County. Information concerning
the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the
study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) list of protected and candidate species and the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Matt K. Smith on June 21, 1994.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using a variety of observation techniques: active searching

x)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTS 03
TRANSPORTATION l
DIVISION OFMGHWAYS 1
PLANNTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
R-2500
Proposed Interchange for US 1
at SR 1423
2
and capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursory studies for aquatic organisms were
conducted using visual observations; tactile searches for
benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then
released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment
Laboratory, 1987).
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and.distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Lee County lies in the piedmont and coastal plain
Physiographic Providence. The topography of the County is
characterized by rolling hills.
2.1 Soils
The proposed project occurs on soils of the Mayodan
series. This series consists wel•i drained soils that occur
on piedmont uplands. This series does not include any hydric
soils or soils that may contain inclusions of hydric soils.
An inventory of specific soil types which occur in the
project area follows (Table 1).
Table 1. County Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
MfD Mayodan Fine Sandy loam 8-15% Nonhydric
MfB Mayaodan Fine Sandy loam 2-8% Nonhydric
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.

2.2.1 Stream Characteristics
The proposed project is located within the Cape Fear
River Drainage Basin. Specific water resources located in
the study area include an unnamed tributary to Copper Mine
Creek and an unnamed tributary to Wombles Creek.
The tributary to Copper Mine Creek is an intermittent
stream and serves to accept overflow from a farm pond
adjacent to the project alignment. This stream is
approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) wide and has a sandy substrate.
Flash flooding seems to be the major means of inundation for
this stream and water only persists in a.few stagnant pools
adjacent to the road culvert.
The tributary to Wombles Creek has a very poorly defined
stream bed and experiences very infrequent inundation. The
stream beds substrate is composed almost entirely- of leaf
litter. No depressions suitable to form pools were observed.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Unnamed tributaries in the study area carry the same best
usage classification as the streams to which they are
tributaries. Table 2 lists best usage classifications for
all water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project.
Table 2. Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE
Copper Mine Creek
Womble Creek
CLASSIFICATION
WS-IV
WS-IV
Note: WS-IV is defined'as waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds and suitable for all Class C uses.
Class C is defined as waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation,' and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1 mile) of the subject project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
is managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
4
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macro invertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. Specific data is not available for streams in the
study area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. The NPDES lists no
pollutant dischargers for streams in the study area.
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Construction related impacts include reduced water
quality, increased sedimentation, toxic runoff, alterations
of the water level due to interruptions or additions to water
flow, and the destruction of natural substrate, due to stream
channelization. Reduced water quality could include changes
in turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient
limitation. If construction takes during "dry" periods or
periods of no flow these impacts will be greatly reduced.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of 'topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed. A complete listing of fauna known to occur in
the study area can be found in Appendix A.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
I-

3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified
in the project study area: The Man Dominated Community and
The Mixed Hardwood Forest Community. Community boundaries
are frequently ill-defined; contiguous communities generally
merge without any transition zone between them. Many faunal
species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range
of terrestrial communities discussed.
3.1.1 Man Dominated Community
The man dominated community is divided into two sub
communities in the study area. These subdivisions are the
maintained roadside and the disturbed roadside communities.
The maintained roadside is a community that experiences
frequent and regular mowing and contains species such as
Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon), fescue (Festuca sp.), plantain
(Plantago spp.), and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria. ischaemum).
The disturbed roadside experiences less frequent mowing
and has a much higher species diversity than the maintained
roadside. This community is dominated by: korean clover
(Lespedeza stipulacea), winged su'fiac (Rhus copallina), wild
carrot (Daucus ca.rota), blackberry (Rubus spp.), horsenettle
(Solanum carolinense), red maple (Ater rubrum), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and narrowleaf vetch (Vicia
angustifolia.).
Some animal species flourish in man dominated habitats.
Examples of habitats found in this community are old field,
meadow, ecotone., and shrub-scrub. Species likely to occur in
man dominated communities include: Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousei), carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern
kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), indigo bunting (Passerina
cyanea), blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), rufous-sided
towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus). These species utilize habitats provided by
this community for foraging, nesting, and shelter. Animals
found in this community can often also be found utilizing
habitats in the mixed hardwood forest. community.
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
A great deal of variation occurs in the canopy of this
community throughout the study area. This variation is due
to past cultivation and selective logging by man. Loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) is the dominant canopy species in areas
where cultivation has ceased most recently and hardwood
6
species such as white oak (Querc.us alba), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styra.ciflua.), red maple, red oak (Q. rubra), and
sourwood (oxydendrum arboreum) are more common in older
stands. The understory in this community is almost entirely
red maple and dogwood (Cornus florida). The ground cover in
this community is dominated by pipsissewa (Chimaphila
macula.ta), heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.), and species from the
man dominated communities on the slopes and running pine
(Lycopodiurn flabelliforme), southern lady fern (Athyrium
asplenioides), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata.), and
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyn.euron) in depressions.
Wooded communities provide shelter and shade that is not
found in the more open habitats characteristic of man
dominated communities. It is the density of cover that
creates a higher diversity of organisms than is found in
other communities in the study area. The ground covering of
leaf litter found in this community provides habitat for
shrews (Blarina sp.) and woodland salamanders (Plethodon
spp.). Other species that are unique to woodland communities
that are likely to be found in the study area are: eastern
box turtle (Terra.pene carolina), gray fox (Uncyon
cinereoargenteus), and black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta
varia). Many of the species discussed in the man dominated
community may also be found utiliz"ing woodland habitats.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
The intermittent streams found in the study area provide
a habitat necessary for many semi aquatic species to complete
their life histories. Factors such as water quality, length
of inundation, and substrate composition control the number
and diversity of species that can utilize the habitats
provided. The terrestrial communities adjacent to the stream
channel also greatly influence aquatic community composition.
3.2.1 Intermittent Stream Communities
Intermittent streams located in the study area often
experience an interruption of flow during periods of little
rainfall. Often in these streams flow is only established
during and shortly after major rain events. During periods
when water levels fall below that necessary to maintain flow
small stagnant pools form along the stream course. It is
these pools which are important in the life cycles of many
terrestrial organisms which require aquatic environments for
reproduction.
Organisms such as toads (Bufo spp.), salamanders
(Ambystoma spp.), and insects (Insecta) lay eggs and have
larva that develop in these temporary pools in intermittent

streams. These organisms often have highly specialized life
cycles that coincide with periods when inundation is most
likely to occur. This increases the reproductive success of
species that reproduce in intermittent stream pools.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
width, from 244 m (800 ft) to 37 m (120 ft). Usually,
project construction does not require the entire right of
way; therefore, actual impacts mary be considerably less.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Man Dominated 3.8 (9.3)
Mixed Hardwood Forest 4.5 (11.2)
Total Impacts 8.3 (20.5)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
The construction of the proposed project will result in
temporary impacts to the existing man dominated community and
the conversion of much of the mixed forest community in the
study area to a man dominated community. The loss of mixed
forest will result in the displacement of some species of
plants and animals that are not adapted to exist in man
dominated communities. It is recommended that the removal of
the mature trees from the mixed forest community be minimized
during the construction of the project-
1
t
Potential impacts to the aquatic environment include
increased sedimentation, nutrient runoff, and toxic runoff
from construction related erosion.
8
Organisms that utilize this intermittent stream to
complete their life cycles can be affected by increased
sedimentation and toxic runoff from construction related
erosion, and nutrient runoff from chemical fertilizers used
in roadside landscaping. These factors act to decrease
successful reproduction. in individual species and decrease
community diversity. Other species which utilize these
streams to forage are affected through biomagnification of
pollutants and loss of prey species. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project to minimize
impacts to aquatic and semiaquatic organisms.
4.0 Special Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal' Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology.
A single wetland site is located in the study area and
is found along the banks of the unnamed tributary to Copper
Mine Creek on the western side of US 1. The wetland site
carries a National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification of 1
PF01 (Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous) and occurs
in a forested stand that is composed almost exclusively of
species such as sweet gum, red maple, and sourwood. The
ground cover consisted of woody vines (Smilax spp.), sedge
(Carex sp.), needle rush (Juncus sp.), and knotweed
9
(Polygonum sp.). The water- source for this wetland is an
overflow from a farm pond located northwest of the study
area.
Jurisdictional wetland sites were evaluated using the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Wetland Rating System. Using this system sites receive a
wetland score from 0 to 100 points (100 being highest) based
on individual wetland values that are grouped into water
quality, landscape, habitat, and human values. Each of these
groups is weighted to acheive the final wetland score.
Groups are weighted separately to reflect the DEM's emphasis
on water quality.
.The wetland site in the study area is ggiven.a score of
36 points using the DEM wetland rating system.
4.1.2 Anticipated Impacts: Wetlands
The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to impact jurisdictional wetlands located in the
study area. Potential impacts are the loss of species
diversity and change in species composition from the removal
of canopy trees, alterations in hydrology, and sediment
runoff from construction related activities.
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Alluvial Wetland 0.01 (0.02)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters
are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or
department where:.
(1) that agency or department has determined the pursuant to
the council on environmental quality regulation for
10
implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act;
(2) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it
is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment, and;
(3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency' or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs
with that determination.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
into waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401
permit from DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of a CAMA or
Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) prior to the issuance of the Nationwide permit.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state.
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the
Waters -of the United States.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Permits authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
11
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of May 12, 1994, the FWS lists the
following federally-protected species for Lee County (Table
5). A brief description of each species characteristics and
habitat follows.
Table 5. Federally-Protected Species
for Lee County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Ptilimnium nodosum* harperella E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"*" No specimen from Lee County found in the past twenty
years (1973-1993).
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) E
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9/26/87
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore,
Randolph.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky
minnow. Its body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow, and
a black band runs along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins
are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upperlip is black
and the lower lip has a black bar along its margin.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel,
cobble, or boulder substrates. It is most often observed
inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with
water willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting
s1ackwater, among large rock outcrops and in flooded side
channels and pools. The Cape Fear shiner is thought to feed
on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes. Captive
specimens feed readily on plant and animal material.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in
North Carolina. The strongest population of the Cape Fear
shiner is in Chatham and Lee counties from the Locksville dam
upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek. Another population
?I
12
is located above the Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham
County, and the third population is found in the Deep River
system in Randolph and Moore counties.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No water resources that provide suitable habitat for the
Cape Fear shiner are located in the study area. Therefore no
impacts to this species will result from the construction of
the proposed project.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bert ie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden,,Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks
on the sides of the nape in the male., The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks.
The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black
cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and
are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively
and usually in trees that are infected
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are
from 3.6 to 30.3 m (12-100 ft) above th
9.1 to 15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They ca
in living pine trees
with the fungus that
located in colonies
e ground and average
n be identified by a

large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree.
The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Pine stands located in the study area are to young to
provide suitable foraging habitat for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. No impacts to this species will result from the
construction of the proposed project.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) E
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1933
Flowers Present: late July - August
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Granville, Lee.
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with
fibrous roots and erect to spreading stems. The stems are
green and often have a purplish tinge at the base and they
may branch above mid-stem. The leaves are hollow,
cylindrical, and septate, with broadly clasping bases.
Flowers are umbels, each umbel subtended by an invoiucre of
small lanceolate bracts.
North Carolina currently has-two known populations of
harperella, one in Granville and one in Chatham County.
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or
gravel shoals and the margins of clear, swift-flowing stream
sections, and the edges of intermittent pineland ponds or
low, wet savannah meadows in the coastal plain. It is always
found in saturated substrates and tolerates periodic,
moderate flooding. There is a preference for sunny areas and
this species is abundant where it is sheltered from stream
erosion, usually on the downstream side of large rocks or
amidst thick clones of water willow.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Suitable habitat for harperella is not found in the
study area. Therefore, no effects to this species will
result from the construction of the proposed project.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species }
f+
There are 2 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Lee County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no

14
sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 6 lists federal candidate species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 6. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Lee County
SCIENTIFIC NC
NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Lindera subcoria.cea bog spicebush E No
Parnassia. Carolina grass-
carolinianaX of-parnassus E No
NOTE: Population not documented in Lee County in the
past twenty years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.

15
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survev of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program_
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macro invertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Wetland Rating System." 3rd version.
Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill; The University of North
Carolina Press.

.ft
16
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.

t

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF US 1 FROM NORTH
US 15-501 NEAR SANFORD TO SR 1127 (NEW HILL ROAD) IN
OF
WAKE COUNTY
R-2500A & B Project 6.409006T Lee, Chatham and Wake Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
public meeting on August 4, 1994 between the hours of 4:00 pm and
7:00 pm at the Moncure Elementary School cafeteria just west of
Moncure on Moncure School Road. Interested individuals may attend
this informal drop in meeting at their convenience between the
above stated hours. Department of Transportation personnel will be
available to provide information, answer questions, and take
comments regarding this project.
The proposed project will add two additional lanes on US 1 mostly
on existing right of way. Some minor amounts of additional right
of way will be required to contain construction. A new interchange
is proposed at Farrell Road in Lee County where additional right of
way and the relocation of one home will be required.
Anyone desiring additional information about the public meeting may
contact C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. at the above address or phone
[phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending
the public hearing. To request the above you may call Mr. Goode at
the above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the
hearing.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor January 04, 1993 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGe

Through: e
John Dorne`?tN
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galambf
Subject: EA/FONSI US '1 from north of US 15-501 to US 64
Lee, Chatham and Wake Counties
State Project DOT No. 6.409006T, TIP #R-2500
EHNR # 93-0367, DEM WQ # 7690
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA/FONSI prepared
for this project which will impact 9.58 acres of wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project.
2. Six of the 76 stream crossings will occur at water supply (WS) classified
streams. DEM recommends that DOT install hazardous spill catch basins at
the WS crossings.
3. The document states that the existing highway has a "D" LOS. Table 1
indicates that the LOS is "B". Please explain the discrepancy.
4. DEM prefers to discuss wetland mitigation in an environmental document (prior
to the permitting phase). DEM prefers that mitigation be in the following
sequence: restoration, creation, enhancement and banking. Mitigation ratios of
at least 2:1 (mitigated acreage:lost acreage) should be discussed.
5. Wetland location maps should be included in all environmental documents.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affi rrtative Action Employer
January 4, 1993
Page 2
6. Endorsement of the EA/FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
nc1 wake.ea
cc: Eric Galamb
Department of Environment, HeattI% and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
s-63 l I b q 6
Project Review Form
:
Project Number. County: 1J,/" Date

? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
/a a/- q-:::,
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Air []Coastal Management Water Planning

? Mooresville Water []Water Resources Environmental Health

Raleigh Groundwater

Land Quality Engineer
Wildlife []Solid Waste Management
orest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington ? Recreational Consultant [] Land Resources ? David Foster

? Wilmington 0Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation []Other (specify)
Others
Environmental Management
El Winston-Salem
h. `°`"an r?* =.j,? sj??,;°fa.;x
'.;' :?? •.ru..... •?•
•R
A
Stiff, e?9 ?
L
VE
DEC 10 199?
Manager Sign-Off/Region: r:: _E I Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:

SEC T! 0 N
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient Information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN T0:
Melba McGee
PS 10,
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.

US 1
From North of US 15-501 near Sanford to US 64 in Cary
Lee, Chatham and Wake Counties
State Project No. 6.409006T
T.I.P. Project No. R-2500
q
r
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
r
J
Date 'Ward, P.E.
yanager of Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT

US 1
From North of US 15-501 near Sanford to US 64 in Cary
Lee, Chatham and Wake Counties
State Project No. 6.409006T
T.I.P. Project No. R-2500

State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
November, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
M Byro E. Brady
Proj t Planning Engineer
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
CARO
:. ?•?Q?pFE C?ql :q 'i
r SEAL =
6976
V. P
i
i
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is an Administrative Action, State Environmental Assessment/
Finding of No Significant Impact.
2. Description of Action
The N. C. Division of Highways proposes to widen US 1 from two lanes
to a four-lane divided facility from North of US 15-501 near Sanford to
the US 64 interchange in Cary, a distance of 26.5 miles. The proposed
roadway is to have 10-foot grassed outside and median shoulders (with the
exception of 2-foot paved) and is to be constructed almost entirely within
the existing right-of-way. It is also recommended that the existing
concrete pavement on US 1 in Wake and"Chatham Counties be rehabilitated as
part of this project. The specific pavement treatment is to be determined
by a detailed pavement design.
The total estimated cost of the project is $60,406,000.
3. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered:
A. "Do-Nothing" alternative
B. Alternate modes of transportation
C. Postponement of proposed action
D. Alternate types of highway improvement
4. Environmental Impacts
Although the proposed improvements may require additional right-of-
way at several locations to contain construction, any adverse impact is
expected to be minimal. There is one site in the project area that is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. There will be an
increase in the noise level due to the widening of the highway, but this
increase will not exceed acceptable levels. An estimated 9.58 acres of
wetlands will be impacted by the project and will require mitigation.
The primary benefits are economic gains resulting from the
improvement in highway transportation. Another major benefit will be
safety and traffic operational improvements realized due to the addition
of two lanes and a grassed median which will also provide for a more
efficient roadway. The proposed improvements will follow the existing
highway and will require the acquisition of minimum additional
right-of-way.
5. Actions Required by other Federal Agencies
A combination of Individual and Nationwide Permits may be required
from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for this project under the
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
4
6.
Federal, State and Local Agencies which will be asked to comment
on the Environmental Assessment Finding Of No Significant Impact
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville and Raleigh
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
U.S. Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U.S. Coast Guard - Portsmouth
Chairmen, Wake, Chatham, & Lee County Commissioners
Mayor, Town of Apex
Mayor, Town of Cary
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Triangle J Council of Governments
7. Special Environmental Commitments
a. The proposed new Deep River bridge should be constructed as to
not obstruct the flow of the Lockville Canal, a component of the
Lockville Dam, Canal and Powerhouse site which is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
b. The project will consider the joint use of the right-of-way on
the east side of US 1 in the vicinity of Shearon Harris Lake for
a future equestrian trail per the request of the Triangle
Greenways Council at such time as they present plans for NCDOT
review.
C. NCDOT will coordinate with the North Carolina Botanical Garden
and state agencies in an attempt to relocate as many dutchman's
britches (Dicentra cucullaris) and Buttercup Phacelia (Phacelia
ranunculaceae?om the West side of the Haw River bridge
replacement.
d. The activity status of trees used as foraging habitat for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides Borealis) shall be re-assessed
closer to the construction date to determine if any active
colonies exist within 0.5 miles of the project site.
e. A scientific survey is to be conducted to confirm or refute the
presence of the Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in
the project area prior to construction.
f. Construction activities centered around the construction of the
new Deep and Haw River Bridges should be planned and implemented
to assure the survival of the Cape Fear Shiner population. This
plan should be implemented after consultation with the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
8. Basis for Environmental Assessment
On the basis of the planning and environmental studies, it
determined that this project will not have significant detrimental
upon the quality of the human environment. The project has been
by appropriate state and local agencies and no objections have
raised. As a result, it is concluded that an Environmenta
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to this
was
effects
reviewed
been
project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . . . . . . 1
B. Historical Background and Status (T.I.P.) . . . . . . 1
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended
t
Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. General Location . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Length of Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4. Truck Data . .
*
?
? 2
Anticipated
and
5. Design Speed Proposed
Speed Limit .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
6. Cross Section Description . . . . . . . . . . . 2
7. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
8. Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9. Access Control . . . . 2
10. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control 2
11. Bridge Work Required . . . . . . 3
12. Special Permits Required of Division
of Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
13. Staging . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
14. Changes in the State Highway System . . . . . . 4
15. Estimate of Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility. . . . . . . 5
1. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Existing Roadway Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 5
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied . . . . . 5
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders . . . . . . . 5
C. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . 5
d. Degree of Roadside Interference . . . . . . 5
e. Type of Roadside Development . . . . . . . 5
f. Vertical Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . 5
g. Restricted Sight Distance . . . . . . . . . 6
h. Structures
?
? 6
Control.
Type of
i. Intersecting Roads and 9
j. Speed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
k. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. Accident Investigation . . . . . . . . . . 11
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
III.. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.
Neighborhood Analysis . . . . . . . . . r
. . 14
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses . . . . . . 14
4. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . 15
a. Historical - Architectural Resources . . . . 15
b. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C. Env ironmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Natural, Ecological, and Scenic Resources . . . . 16
2. Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . 17
3. Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Noise Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. "Do-Nothing" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 29
C. Postponement of Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . 29
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvement . . . . . . . . 29
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A. Agency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 .+
FIGURES
APPENDIX
US 1
From North of US 15-501 near Sanford to US 64 in Cary
Lee, Chatham and Wake Counties
State Project No. 6.409006T
T.I.P. Project No. R-2500
I. Description of the Project
A. General Description:
This project consists of the widening of US 1 from two lanes to a
four-lane divided roadway from North of US 15-501 near Sanford to the
US 64 interchange in Southwest Wake County. The section is 26.5 miles in
length and includes new bridges over the Deep and Haw Rivers.
The location of the proposed project is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
US 1 is classified as a Principal Arterial on the North Carolina
Functional Classification System and as a Federal Aid Primary on the
Federal Aid System. US 1 is also part of the North Carolina Intrastate
System.
B. Historical Background and Status T.I.P.
This section of US 1 was completed to existing widths from 1959 to
1975. The Lee County section to the Deep River was constructed on new
location in 1975. The section from the Deep River to Merry Oaks was
constructed on new location in 1959. The remaining section from Merry
Oaks to the US 64 interchange was constructed on new location in 1963.
The proposed widening of US 1 is included in the "1993-1999 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program" (TIP). The TIP includes a total
funding of $59,075,000 for the 26.5 mile project. The project is
scheduled for Right-of-Way acquisition in Fiscal Year 1994 and
Construction in Fiscal Year 1995.
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative:
1. General Location:
The location of the project is on US 1 from north of US 15-501
near Sanford to the US 64 interchange in Southwest Wake County. It
is recommended that the studied portion of US 1 be widened to a four-
lane divided roadway.
2. Length of Proposed Project:
The length of the proposed project is 26.5 miles.
3. Traffic Volumes:
1991: Traffic volumes (two way) along the proposed route ranged
from 3,100 vehicles per day (vpd) to 9,800 vpd.
2
1996: Traffic volumes (two way) along the proposed route range
from
3,700 vpd to 11,700 vpd.
f rom
2016: Traffic volumes (two way) along the proposed route range
6,600 vpd to 21,100 vpd.
The estimated 1991, 1996 and 2016 traffic volumes and major
turning movements are shown in Figures 3A through 31.
`
4. Truck Data:
Truck traffic along the proposed route is 10% (5% duals, 5%
TTST). See Figure 3-J.
5. Design Speed Proposed and Anticipated Speed Limit:
The design speed for the proposed project is 70 MPH. The
anticipated posted speed limit is 55 MPH.
6. Cross Section Description:
The proposed section of US 1 will have two 24-foot travelways
separated by a 36-foot median. In addition, the roadway will have
10-foot grassed shoulders (outside and median). The outside shoulder
will include 4-foot paved and the median shoulder will include 2-foot
paved. See Figure 4.
7. Right-of-Way:
Sufficient right-of-way already exists along US 1 to construct
the project. Additional right-of-way and/or easements may be
required to construct the new bridges crossing the Deep and Haw
rivers.
8. Bikeways:

Existing bicycle highway routes, the "Carolina Connection" and
the "Cape Fear Run", proceed parallel to two sections of US 1, and
each route crosses US 1 once. Further need for bikeways along the
project was not identified in the planning process.
9. Access Control:
The entire length on the project is access controlled.
10. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control:
All intersections along the project length are either grade
separations or interchanges.
3
11. Bridge Work Required:
Lee County
Buffalo Creek: Culvert No. 33 carries Buffalo Creek under US 1
and will be extended to accommodate the proposed widening. No
maintenance work is required.
SR 1415: Bridge No. 39 carries US 1 over SR 1415 and will be
rehabilitated including: additional metal rail posts, anchor railing
ends, and replace joint seals at end bents. This bridge has an
existing roadway width of 43'-9".
Construct a new bridge for Northbound US 1 over SR 1415 with a
44-foot width and new ramps.
Chatham County
Deep River: Bridge No. 7 carries US 1 over the Deep River and
will be replaced with a new structure with a roadway width of 44'-0".
The bridge.has an existing roadway width of 28'-1".
Construct a new bridge for Northbound US 1 over the Deep River
with a 44-foot width.
Haw River: Bridge No. 53 carries US 1 over the Haw River and
will be rehabilitated including: repair concrete posts and rail,
retrofit guardrail, repair North endbent backwall, add approach
slabs, rehabilitate deck, and add overlay, and widen to a width of
30'-0". The bridge has an existing roadway width of 28'-1".
Construct a new bridge for Northbound US 1 over the Haw River
with a 44-foot width.
SR 1972: Bridge No. 63 carries SR 1972 over US 1 and will be
rehabilitated including: retrofit guardrail, replace deck joint
seals, add approach slab, and jack up all four spans to increase the
vertical clearance to meet the minimum standard of 16'-6". The
bridge has an existing roadway width of 28'-0".
SR 1011: Bridge No. 68 carries US 1 over SR 1011 and the CSX
Railroad and will be replaced with a new structure with a roadway
width of 44'-0". The bridge has an existing roadway width of 28'-1".
Construct a new bridge for Northbound US 1 over SR 1011 with a
44-foot width and a new Northbound off ramp.
4
Wake County
SR 1134: Bridge No. 74 carries SR 1134 over US 1 and will be
replaced with a new 30 foot, four span structure.
SR 1127: Bridge No. 103 carries SR 1127 over US 1 and will be
rehabilitated including: retrofit guardrail, replace deck joint
seals, add approach slabs, clean and paint bearings and jackup all
four spans in order to increase vertical clearance to the minimum
standard of 16'-6". The bridge has an existing roadway width of
281-011.
Y
SR 1149: Bridge No. 123 carries SR 1149 over US 1 and will be
rehabilitated including: retrofit guardrail, replace deck joint
seals, add approach slabs, clean and paint structural steel, repair
substructure and jackup all four spans in order to increase the
vertical clearance to the minimum standard of 16'-6". The bridge has
an existing roadway width of 24'-0".
NC 55: Bridge No. 71 carries NC 55 over US 1 and will be
rehabilitated including: retrofit guardrail, replace deck joints
seals, clean and paint bearings, clean and paint structural steel,
add approach slabs and jackup all four spans in order to increase
vertical clearance to the minimum standard of 16'-6". The bridge has
an existing roadway width of 28'-0".
12. Special Permits Required of Division of Highways
Based on the estimated impacts to wetlands (See Table 4), it is
anticipated that a combination of Individual and Nationwide Section
404 Permits may be applicable; although, final permit decisions are
left to the discretionary authority of the Corps of Engineers.
13. Staging:
The entire project is funded to be constructed initially.
14. Changes in the State Highway System:
No changes to the existing primary highway system will result
from the proposed project.
15. Estimate of Cost:
Roadway (includes 15% for
Engineering & Contingencies) - $51,200,000
Structures - 8,706,000
Right-of-Way - 500,000
TOTAL $60,406,000
i
5
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility:
1. General Description:
The proposed project consists of widening the existing US 1 from
two lanes to a four-lane divided roadway with shoulders. This project
will provide a higher level of service for US 1.
2. Existing Roadway'Inventory:
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied:
The length of the studied project, from North of US 15-501
to the US 64 interchange in Southwest Wake County, is 26.5
miles.
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders:
The section of US 1 within the project limits has 2-12 foot
lanes with the exception of the interchanges at SR 1012 and
SR 1972 in Chatham County, and the interchanges at SR 1127 and
NC 55 in Wake County which have two 24 foot travelways.
Shoulder width of the roadway in Lee County consists of a
14' section of which 4' is paved. The Chatham County roadway
section consists of 10 foot shoulders of which 4' is stabilized.
The Wake County shoulder section ranges from 10' to 12' and has
a stabilized shoulder ranging from 6' to 8'.
C. Right-of-Way:
The existing main line right-of-way has a 340 foot width in
Lee County, a 260 foot width in Chatham County, and the Wake
County width ranges from 245' to 270'.
d. Degree of Roadside Interference:
There is no interference from roadside development along
the subject route due to complete access control of the
facility.
e. Type of Roadside Development:
There is very little development along the entire length of
the project. The only development in the area of the project is
located in the vicinity of several interchanges.
f. Vertical Curvature:
The existing roadway has vertical grades which range from
(-)4 percent to (+)4 percent.
6
g. Restricted Sight Distance:
Approximately fifteen percent of the studied route has
restricted passing sight distance due to the poor horizontal and
vertical curvature along the project.
h. Structures:
There are twenty-two major structures along the proposed
project with descriptions as follows:
Lee County
Buffalo Creek: This structure (Culvert No. 33) carries
US 1 across Buffalo Creek and was built in 1974. The structure
consists of a double 10' x '10' reinforced concrete box culvert.
Norfolk and Southern Railroad: This structure (Bridge No.
R-38) carries tFe NO?TTc an Sout ern Railroad across US 1 and
was built in 1974. Its superstructure consists of a concrete
deck on I-Beams and plate girders. The structure has a vertical
clearance of 19'-11" and an estimated remaining life of 38
years.
SR 1415: This structure (Bridge No. 39) carries US 1
across SR 1415 (Colon Road) and was built in 1974. Its
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on I-Beams
and plate girders and has a bridge roadway width of 43'-9". The
structure has a vertical clearance of 15'-6", a sufficiency
rating of 95.0, and an estimated remaining life of 36 years.
SR 1426: This structure (Bridge No. 40) carries SR 1426
(Zion Church Road) across US 1 and was built in 1974. Its
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on I-Beams
and plate girders. The structure has a vertical clearance of
161-511, a sufficiency rating of 70.7, and an estimated remaining
life of 34 years.

SR 1423: This structure (Bridge No. 41) carries SR 1423
(FarreTl Road) across US 1 and was built in 1974. Its
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on I-Beams
and has a bridge roadway width of 30'-0". The structure has a
vertical clearance of 17'-7", a sufficiency rating of 83.4, and
an estimated remaining life of 34 years.
SR 1466: This structure (Bridge No. 42) carries SR 1466
(Deep River Road) across US 1 and was built in 1974. Its
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on
continuous plate girders and has a bridge roadway width of
56'-1". The structure has a vertical clearance of 16'-11", a
sufficiency rating of 94.9, and an estimated remaining life of
36 years.
7
Chatham County
Deep River: This structure (Bridge No. 7) carries US 1
over the Deep River and was built in 1957. Its superstructure
consists of a reinforced concrete deck on*continuous I-Beams and
has a bridge roadway width of 28'-1". The structure has a
sufficiency rating of 50.5 and an estimated remaining life of 11
years.
SR 1012: This structure (Bridge No. 24) carries SR 1012
(Moncure-Pittsboro Road) across US 1 and was built in 1957. Its
superstructure consists of reinforced concrete deck girders and
has a bridge roadway width of 28'-1". The structure has a
vertical clearance of 16'-1", a sufficiency rating of 69.5, and
an estimated remaining life of 21 years.
CSX Railroad: This structure (Bridge No. R-32) carries the
CSX Rallrodd across US 1 and was built in 1974. Its
superstructure consists of reinforced concrete deck girders and
has a vertical clearance of 17'-0". The bridge has an estimated
remaining life of 18 years.
SR 1931: This structure (Bridge No. 41) carries SR 1931
(Provence Church Road) across US 1 and was built in 1958. Its
superstructure consists of reinforced concrete deck girders and
has a bridge roadway width of 24'-0". The structure has a
vertical clearance of 17'-4", a sufficiency rating of 63.4, and
an estimated life of 18 years.
Haw River: This structure (Bridge No. 53) carries US 1
across the Haw River and was built in 1957. Its superstructure
consists of a reinforced concrete deck on continuous I-Beams and
has a bridge roadway width of 28'-1". The structure has a
sufficiency rating of 77.0 and an estimated remaining life of 20
years.
SR 1972: This structure (Bridge No. 63) carries SR 1972
(Pea Ridge Road) across US 1 and was built in 1957. Its
superstructure consists of reinforced concrete deck girders and
has a bridge roadway width of 28'-0". The structure has a
vertical clearance of 15'-4", a sufficiency rating of 81.2, and
an estimated remaining life of 22 years.
SR 1910: This structure (Bridge No. 67) carries SR 1910
(Merry Oaks Church Road) across US 1 and was built in 1957. Its
superstructure consists of reinforced concrete deck girders and
has a bridge roadway width of 24'-0". The structure has a
vertical clearance of 15'-10", a sufficiency rating of 54.2, and
an estimated remaining life of 22 years.
SR 1011 & CSX Railroad: This structure (Bridge No. 68)
carries US 1 across SR 1011 (Old US 1) and the CSX Railroad and
was built in 1962. Its superstructure consists of a reinforced
8
concrete deck on I-Beams and has a bridge roadway width of
28'-1". The structure has a vertical clearance of 21'-1", a
sufficiency rating of 57.1, and an estimated remaining life of 4
years.
Wake County
Norfolk & Southern Railroad: This structure (Bridge No.
R-42) carries NorFol-k-T-So-ut-Tiern ern Railroad across US 1 and `
was built in 1962. Its superstructure consists of a concrete
floor on I-Beams. The structure has a vertical clearance of
15'-1" and an estimated remaining life of 35 years.
SR 1134: This structure (Bridge No. 74) carries SR 1134
(Shearon Harris Road) across US 1 and was built in 1962. Its
superstructure consists of -a reinforced concrete floor on
prestressed concrete girders and has a bridge roadway width of
24'-0". The structure has a vertical clearance of 14'-4", a
sufficiency rating of 46.9, and an estimated remaining life of
20 years.
SR 1127: This structure (Bridge No. 103) carries SR 1127
(Rex Road) across US 1 and was built in 1962. Its
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor on
prestressed concrete girders and has a bridge roadway width of
28'-0". The structure has a vertical clearance of 14'-9", a
sufficiency rating of 56.9, and an estimated remaining life of
25 years.
SR 1149: This structure (Bridge No. 123) carries SR 1149
(Friendship Road) across US 1 and was built in 1962. Its
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor on
I-Beams and has a bridge roadway width of 24'-0". The structure
has a vertical clearance of 14'-10", a sufficiency rating of
47.3, and an estimated remaining life of 20 years.
SR 1153: This structure (Bridge No. 136) carries SR 1153
(Tingen RoaT) across US 1 and was built in 1962. Its
superstructure consists of reinforced concrete floor on
prestressed concrete girders and has a bridge roadway width of
24'-0". The structure has a vertical clearance of 15'-8", a
sufficiency rating of 62.4, and an estimated remaining life of
25 years.
NC 55: This structure (Bridge No. 71) carries NC 55 across
US 1 and was built in 1962. Its superstructure consists of a
reinforced concrete floor on I-Beams and has a bridge roadway
width of 28'-0". The structure has a vertical clearance of
151-411, a sufficiency rating of 67.4, and an estimated remaining
life of 20 years.
9
Seaboard Railroad: This structure (Bridge No. R-144)
carries tWe Sea oar Railroad across US 1 and was built in 1959.
Its superstructure consists of a concrete closed deck on plate
girders. The structure has a vertical clearance of 14'-7" and
an estimated remaining life of 20 years.
SR 1010: This structure (Bridge No. 163) carries SR 1010
(Ten-Ten Road) across US 1 and was built in 1959. Its
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor on
I-Beams. The structure has a vertical clearance of 15'-0", a
sufficiency rating of 51.0, and an estimated remaining life of
20 years.
i. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control:
The entire length on the project is fully access
controlled. Interchanges or grade separations are provided at
all crossing roadways.
j. Speed Zones:
The existing posted speed limit in the project area is
55 MPH.
k. School Bus Data:
The studied section of US 1 is used by portions of the
school systems of Lee, Chatham, and Wake Counties. At the
present time, 22 school buses carry students to and from school
on this section of US 1.
This breakdown includes 10 buses per day (bpd) for Lee
County and 12 bpd for Wake County. The Chatham County Board of
Education reported that they have no buses which use the Chatham
County section of US 1.
B. Transportation Plan:
The proposed improvements to US 1 are listed in the Raleigh
Thoroughfare Plan dated February 10, 1986. This plan lists US 1 as a
Freeway. In the Chatham County Thoroughfare Plan dated September 28,
19839 US 1 is listed as a Principal Arterial. The Sanford Thoroughfare
Plan dated April 16, 1992, has US 1 shown as a Freeway/Expressway.
= C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity:
Volumes:
1991 Average Daily Traffic (two way):
3,100 - 9,800 vehicles per day (vpd)
10
1996 Average Daily Traffic (two way):
3,700 - 11,700 vpd.
2016 Average Daily Traffic: (two way):
6,600 - 21,100 vpd
The 1991 and estimated 2016 traffic volumes and major turning
movements are shown in Figure 3.
Capacity:
The existing Level Of Service (LOS) was computed for the rural
two-lane section of the studied project. The existing highway is
currently operating at LOS "D". The LOS for the year 2016 was computed
using the existing two-lane conditions which resulted in a LOS of "D".
The LOS for the year 2016 was also computed using a proposed
four-lane divided cross section and resulted in a LOS of "C". See Table 1
for capacity results.
TABLE 1
1991 Traffic 2016 Traffic
Location existing 2-lane future 4-lane
Between SR 1415
& US 15-501 B A
Between SR 1466
& SR 1415 B A
Between SR 1012
& SR 1466 B A
Between SR 1972
& SR 1012 B A
Between SR 1011
& SR 1972 B A
Between SR 1127
& SR 1011 B A
Between NC 55
& SR 1127 B A
Between SR 1010
& NC 55 C B
Between US 64
& SR 1010 D C
A
I
11
Only two interchanges along the project were within distances close
enough to compute their capacities. Of these two (SR 1466 and NC 55)
interchanges, NC 55 was the worst case. Capacities of the ramps for the
NC 55 interchange was computed using the 2016 year traffic. Weaving
vehicles had a LOS A and the nonweaving vehicles had a LOS B.
D. Accident Investigation:
Accident histories along the studied sections of US 1 indicate
accident rates that are lower than the current statewide averages. The
proposed improvements to this facility, such as the addition of two extra
lanes, will result in safer passing along US 1 which will result in a
potentially safer roadway.
Table 2 gives a comparison between the accident rates for US 1 and
the statewide accident rate for Rural U.S. Routes.
TABLE 2
Accident Rates
Total Accident Rate
(accidents per 100
million vehicle miles)
Fatal Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Non-Fatal Injury Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Night Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Statewide Average for two-lane
us 1 Rural N. C. Routes (1991)*
56.80 166.3
1.24 2.4
16.82 79.5
21.18 44.9
*The Statewide Average for two-lane Rural N. C. Routes (1991) does not
reflect the access control of US 1. No data is available for two-lane
access control facilities.
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community:
The benefits to the state, region, and community will be primarily a
higher capacity facility connecting the City of Raleigh with the City of
Sanford. These improvements to US 1 will also provide for greater safety
along the length of the project.
12
III. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects:
1. Land Use:
The proposed project lies within the planning and zoning
jurisdictions of the Counties of Wake, Lee, and Chatham, and the
Towns of Apex and Cary. All have adopted and enforce zoning
ordinances and subdivision regulations. Wake County adopted its
amended General Development Plan in 1989. Chatham County has
developed a Land Development Win: Eastern Chatham County, also
adopted in 1989. Lee County s Land Development Plan was adopted in
1988. Apex adopted its 2010 Land Use Plan in 1989. Cary adopted its
amended Comprehensive Growth Plan ie 1989.
The proposed project area lies in predominantly rural sections
of all three counties. The land uses adjacent to the existing
roadway are comprised primarily of forested areas and cultivated
fields. Some residential structures are located near the roadway.
Harris Lake, owned by Carolina Power and Light Company and part of
the Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power Plant complex lie south of US 1,
near New Hill.
Land uses become more suburban in the Apex and Cary area, with a
mixture of residential subdivisions, light industrial and commercial
uses in the project's vicinity. McGregor Village shopping center and
office park are located at the US 1-US 64 interchange. The existing
zoning in the five previously identified areas are as follows:
Wake County: Most of the land north of US 1 in Wake County is
zoned R-30, Residential District, which permits single family
development on lots at least 30,000 square feet in size. South of
US 1, the land is generally zoned R-80, Residential District, a very
low density district permitting residential development on two acre
lots. The only non-residential district is located at the interchange
of US 1 and SR 1155 where Highway District commercial zoning is
located at all four quadrants.
Chatham County: Land on both sides of US 1 from the Wake County
line to the intersection of US 1 and the Seaboard System Railway is
zoned Heavy Industrial. From the Railway west to the Haw River, the r
Heavy Industrial zoning continues on the south side of the roadway,
but on the north side the land is zoned RA-40, Residential
Agricultural District.
A very low density Residential District, RA-5, is located north
of US 1 on each side of the Haw River. This zoning classification
also occurs north of US 1 at the Cape Fear River. The remaining land
adjacent to US 1 in the vicinity of Moncure is zoned RA-40.
Lee County: The majority of land in Lee County adjacent to US 1
is zoned R-A, Residential Agriculture. This district permits very
low density residential development in addition to agricultural uses.
13
A large Light Industrial District is located on the north side
of US 1, along the Norfolk Southern Railway near Sanford. A somewhat
smaller Heavy Industrial District is located in the southwest
quadrant of the Railway's intersection with US 1.
Three Mixed Residential Districts occur along US 1 in Lee
County. One at the interchange of US 1 and SR 1415 (Colon Road), one
just north of Lonnie Wombles Creek on US 1, and the last on the south
side of US 1 at SR 1434. This zoning classification permits single
family and multifamily development, as well as mobile homes.
A Highway Commercial District is located at the interchange of
SR 1466 and US 1.
Town of Apex: Land on both sides of US 1 from the Town's
southwestern extraterritorial (ETJ) boundary to Whiteoak Creek is
zoned I-2, Industrial District.'-From Whiteoak Creek to just west of
NC 55, the land on the north side of US 1 is zoned RA, Residential-
Agricultural District. The land at the interchange of NC 55 and US 1
is zoned Highway Commercial District. Shopping Centers are also
permitted in this district. The area just east of the NC 55
intersection to near the interchange of US 1 and SR 1010 is zoned
Industrial on both sides of the roadway. The two northern quadrants
of the intersection are zoned Highway Commercial. The two southern
quadrants are zoned RA. A small area of R-10, Residential District,
a medium density classification, is located on the north side of US 1
at the Town's eastern ETJ boundary.
Town of Cary: Cary's planning jurisdiction abuts Apex's
jurisdiction roughly one-quarter mile east of the intersection of
SR 1010 (Penny Road) and US 1. On the north side of US 1, Cary has
designated most of the land for light industrial development. Zoning
districts located in the area to US 64 include I-1, Industrial
District - Light Industry, I-P, Industrial Performance District -
Industry and Warehousing, 0&I, Office and Institutional District -
Office, Hospitals, and Public Buildings, and B-2, Commercial
District - Highway Oriented Businesses.
I-1 and I-P districts are also located on the south side of the
roadway, as well as two residential districts, R-12, Residential
District - Planned Unit Development, and R-30, Residential District -
Single Family. A B-3, Shopping Center District, is located on the
south side of US 1 at its interchange with US 64.
FUTURE LAND USE PLANS
Wake County: The General Development Plan Map indicates that
the area around US 1 is designated as a Rural Planning Area.
The County intends to encourage the type of development which
will maintain the rural character of the area. Urban development on
land contiguous to municipalities may eventually occur in Rural
Planning Areas.
14
Chatham County: The Eastern Chatham County Land Development
Plan identifies several objectives o r the US 1 planning area. These
objectives include promoting employment and heavy industry in
appropriate locations, encouraging residential and commercial
development in the Moncure and Haywood area, and discouraging intense
development in all other areas of the Cape Fear and Haw River
Townships. Industrial development in the vicinity of US 1 in Chatham
County is dependent on the extension of water services to the area.
Lee County: According to the Lee County Land Development Plan
Map, most of the land in the vicinity of US 1 is expected to maintain
Low Density Residential and Agricultural land uses. Industrial
development is planned in the vicinity of the Norfolk Southern
Railway. This is reflected in the area's current zoning designation.
A small area of land is designated for Recreational uses between
US 1 and SR 1466 at Deep River.' -After acquisition of land in this
area, the County plans to construct a public marina at Deep River.
Town of Apex: The 2010 Land Use Plan designates land on the
south side of US 1 for industrial development from its southwestern
ETJ boundary to just west of NC 55. A Community Commercial node is
designated at the intersection of NC 55 and US 1. On the north side,
from the ETJ boundary to the town limits, the land is designated for
Medium-High Residential development. Industrial development makes up
the rest of the northern side to NC 55.
East of NC 55, Industrial development is planned to occur as far
east as SR 1010, where another Community Commercial node is planned.
On the south side, Commercial development is anticipated east to the
ETJ boundary. On the north side, Low Density Residential development
is expected to the ETJ boundary.
Town of Cater The Town is currently in the process of updating
its land use plan. The Comprehensive Growth Plan indicates that
additional industrial and office an inst-it tional development is
anticipated for the land in the vicinity of US 1 and US 64.
2. Neighborhood Analysis:
The proposed project extends through portions of Lee, Chatham,
and Wake Counties. The neighborhood characteristics from beginning
to end are rural. There are no dwellings within the proposed project
site. The entire area is characterized predominantly by woodlands.
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses:
There will be no relocation of any family or business from this
project.
4. Public Facilities:
There are no public facilities along the proposed project site.
15
5. Historic and Cultural Resources:
a. Historical-Architectural Resources:
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina
General Statute 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action
will have an adverse effect upon a property listed in the
National Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina
Historical Commission will be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect on historic architectural
properties for this project was delineated, and the area was
reviewed by DOT staff. The North Carolina State Preservation
Office was consulted and concurred that there would be no
adverse effect on the Lockville Dam, Canal, and Powerhouse
National Register Complex if the proposed bridge over the Deep
River is constructed to span the canal and if the piers for this
bridge are placed so that the flow within the canal is not
restricted. (The SHPO letter dated January 14, 1992 is included
in the Appendix.)
This completes compliance with GS 121-12(a).
b. Archaeological Resources:
One historic archaeological property recorded within the
highway project area is the Lockville Dam, Canal and Powerhouse
site (individually listed on the National Register of Historic
Places) which is a part of a larger Lockville Historic District.
The district is not listed on the National Register but is
potentially eligible for listing.
The Lockville Historic District is located at the Deep
River in Chatham County adjacent to US 1 and is recorded as
State Archaeological Site No. 31CH690. The district is
comprised of archaeological, architectural and industrial
archaeological structures and features.
Lockville was originally known as Ramsey's Mill and also
was called Lockport. This site, where Ramsey's Mill was
established in the 1760's, also housed an encampment of British
Generals Cornwallis and Greene during the Revolutionary War.
The area also played an important role in water and railroad
transportation improvements in the nineteenth century.
It is concluded that there will be no adverse impact on the
district provided that (a) the new bridge over the Deep River
completely spans the Lockville Canal and does not impede water
flow through the canal and (b) an archaeological site consisting
of an intact cellar and foundation is avoided.
16
The remainder of the project
of grading conducted when the US 1
cleared in the late 1950's through
appear that the remainder of the
significant archaeological sites.
B. Economic Effects:
area is disturbed as a result
right-of-way was acquired and
early 1970's. It does not
project will disturb any
With no additional right-of-way required for this project, there will
be no decrease in the property tax assessments. Moreover, property values
and economic development will probably increase to some degree after the
completion of the project which will result in an overall increase in the
local tax base. Also, the improved transportation facility will enhance
the potential for economic development and travel.
C. Environmental Effects:
1. Natural, Ecological, and Scenic Resources:
The following sections describe the natural and disturbed,
natural land parcels, which occupy the impact zones of the proposed
project.
a. Plant Communities:
Eight plant communities were identified in the study area.
Upland plant communities are comprised on Man-Dominated Forest
Areas, Dry-Mesic Oak, Hickory Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest, Scrub Pine Forest and Pine Plantation. Wetland plant
communities include Piedmont Alluvial Forests and Rocky Bar
communities.
b. Man-Dominated Systems:
Man-dominated lands within the study area are where man's
activities prevent natural plant succession. Wide strips of
road shoulder and cleared maintained highway right-of-way
preclude natural plant succession. As a result, herbaceous
annuals and perennials dominate the vegetative component.
Typical roadside plants are Venius looking-glass
(Specularia perfoliata), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Senecio
(Senecio smallii), dwarf dandelion (Kri is vir inica), ox-eye
daisy (Chr santhemum leucanthemum), Queen Anne s lace (Daucus
carota), espedeza (Les edeza virginica), vetch (Vicia sp.),
five-fingers (Potent a canadensis), sow-thistle (Sonchus
as per) and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Grasses such as
blue grass (Poa pratense), orchard grass (Dactylus glomerata),
bent grass (Agrostis sp.), and Panicum (Panicum sp.) are
abundant. Dewberry (Rebus trivialis) and winged sumac (Rhus
copalina) form dense thickets at edges of this community.
17
Dry-Mesic Oak, Hickory Forest: This community is dominated
by a mixture of oaks and hickories, with white oak (uercus
alba) being the most prevelant species. Associated species
include black oak (Q_ Velutina), post oak (Q_ stellata), water
oak (Q nigra), mockernut (Carva alba) and pignut hickory (C.
lg abra). Understory species include red maple (Acer rubrum),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
dogwood (Cornus florida), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum).
miu
The shrub?ayer is comprised of blueberries (Vacciniu i-5-5.
viburnum (Viburnum rafinesguianum), and American holly (Ilex
opaca). T e er layer is generally sparse. Partridge berry
(Mitchella repens), spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), and
pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata) were observed.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest: This community is found on
lower slopes and in ravines in the project area. It is
associated with well-drained small stream bottoms that have no
associated wetlands. Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red
maple, Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sourwood, and an
occasional beech (Betula ni ra) make up the canopy. Disturbance
in the form of past logging has resulted in the recruitment of
loblolly (Pinus tseda) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata) at
various community sites. Subcanopy species include ironwood,
dogwood, and redbud (Cercis canadensis). Blueberries,
viburnums, and sassafras (Sassafras albidum) predominate in the
shrub layer. A rich her aceous layer supports moonseed
(Menispermum canadense), Solomons's seal (Polygonatum biflorum),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and strawberry bush
(Euon mus americanus) are common. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica is pro-mac in disturbed areas.
Scrub Pine Forest: Scrub pine forests are prevalent in the
western end of the project area. Previously cleared areas now
support young pine, primarily loblolly. A thick shrub growth of
sweetgum is interspersed with dewberry, forming impenetrable
thickets. Yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and
green-brier (Smilax bona-nox) are prolific vines.
Pine Plantation: Small acreages have been cleared and are
planted in pine plantation in the study area. Loblolly pine is
the dominant species planted. The average diameter at breast
height (dbh) is 9 to 10 inches. Shade tolerant hardwood species
such as red maple, sweetgum, American holly and blueberries form
a dense midstory. Poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron), Christmas
fern, yellow jessamine, and greenbriar are common herbs and
vines.
2. Threatened and Endangered Species:
a. Federally-Listed Species:
Plants and Animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
18
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended.
Scoping comments received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
report several federally Endangered species known to occur in
Wake, Chatham and Lee Counties (Table 2). In addition, several
Candidate species may occur in the area. These are species
which are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section
7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has specific nesting and '
foraging habitat requirements. A nesting habitat consists of
pine or pine-hardwood stands (50 percent or more pine) over 60
years of age. Available foraging habitat is defined as pine and
pine-hardwood stands (50 percent or more pine) over 30 years of
age contiguous to and within 0.5 miles of the colony centroid.
The 0.5 mile radius from the colony centroid represents the
foraging range of clans and may encompass areas outside of the
project area.
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat was identified within
0.5 miles of US 1, and it was determined that clearing for
roadway expansion would eliminate strips of this habitat.
Surveys were concentrated in the vicinity of the towns of Merry
Oaks and New Hill.
The next step was to determine if RCW colonies were
present. A colony site must be contiguous with foraging
habitat. Nonforaging habitat 10 acres or larger in size and 330
feet or greater in width would make adjacent foraging habitat
noncontiguous. Subsequent surveys, by a team of two NCDOT
biologists, were conducted which revealed no active colonies
within 0.5 miles of US 1. The activity status of these trees is
to be re-assessed prior to right-of-way acquisition.
The Bald Eagle is associated with coasts, rivers and lakes,
usually nesting near bodies of water where they feed. To
confirm or refute the presence of this organism, a scientific
survey was conducted in the vicinity of the Haw and Deep Rivers
to look for nests and/or the organism. No evidence of nests or
the bird was seen. The proposed action will have no impact upon
this species.
The Dwarf Wedge Mussel prefers areas of deep runs with
coarse sands. Within the project area, Swift Creek and four
associated, unnamed tributaries are within the Neuse River
basin. Published freshwater mussel survey results from
September 1986 through October 1990 conducted by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) do not list Swift Creek in
Wake County as having been surveyed. It is recommended that
sound, scientific surveys be conducted to confirm or refute the
19
presence of this organism. This survey will be conducted prior
to right-of-way acquisition and between the late Spring through
early Fall.
Cape Fear shiner is endemic to the Cape Fear drainage in
North Carolina and is currently known from three populations in
Lee and Chatham Counties. The strongest population appears to
occur at the confluence of the Deep and Rocky Rivers in Lee and
Chatham Counties, approximately 5 river miles from where US 1
crosses the Deep River.
Based on the proximity of the Cape Fear shiner population
to the project area, it is likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. Construction activities should be planned and
implemented with the survival of the species and the protection
of its habitat in mind. This plan shall be implement prior to
construction after consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Michaux's Sumac is endemic to the inner coastal plain and
lower piedmont of North Carolina. It is an erect, rhizomatous
shrub, growing to a height of 0.2 to 0.4 meters. White to
greenish-yellow flowers appear in June and are followed by red
fruits. Limited suitable habitat exists in the study area. A
plant by plant search was conducted in these areas on June 24,
1991 to confirm or refute the presence of this species. No
specimens were seen within the impact area. The proposed action
will not impact this species.
Harperella is an annual member of the carrot family
(Apiaceae) and grows to a height of 0.2 to 1.0 meters and was
last observed in this vicinity in 1978. Small white flowers
occur from May to frost. Habitat is reworked frequently enough,
that harperella populations are rarely able to grow in the same
location through many consecutive years. A scientific survey
was conducted June 27, 1991 to confirm or refute the presence of
this species. No evidence of harperella was seen. The proposed
action will have no impact on this species.
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Wake, Chatham and Lee Counties
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis
Haaiaeetus eucocephalus
Alasmidonta heterodon
Notro is mekistocholas
Rhus michauxii
Ptilimnium nodosum
Red-cockaded Woodpecker(W/L/C) E
Bald Eagle (W/C) E
Dwarf-wedge Mussel (W) E
Cape Fear Shiner (C/L) E
Michaux' Poison Sumac (C/L) E
Harperella (C/L) E
20
b. State-Listed Species:
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act of 1979,
administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission and the N. C. Department of Agriculture.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
reports six state protected species within the immediate project
area. In addition, the USFWS provided information on several
Candidate (C) species that occur in the project corridor. The
following state designations for these species are provided in
Table 4.
TABLE 4
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
Wake, Chatham and Lee Counties
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS/RANK
Hemidactylium scutatum
Vi osa constricts
Aimo hila aestivalis
Nestronia umber-ula
Parnassia caroliniana
Trillium usi um
var. pusi um
Four-toed Salamander * (W) SC/S3
Notched Rainbow * (L/C) SC/S3
Bachman's Sparrow (W) SC/S3
Nestronia (C/W) T/S3
Carolina Grass-of-Parnassus (L) E/S2
Carolina Trillium (W)
Note: W, C and L denote Wake, Chatham and Lee Counties
* Species that occur in the project area
E/S2
NC Rank Designations: S1=Critically imperiled in NC because of
extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or because of some factor making
it especially vulnerable to extirpation from NC; S2=Imperiled in NC
because or rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals; S3=
Rare or uncommon in NC (21 to 100 occurrences)
Buttercup Phacelia (Phacelia ranunculaceae) is a state-
listed Candidate species. Habitat is alluvial woods and
floodplains. NCNHP records document a very large population of
this plant occurring on the west side of the Haw River at US 1.
It occurs to either side of the bridge crossing.
Bridge replacement will eliminate a portion of this
population. Staking the population, for visibility to
construction crews, is an appropriate measure for its
protection. Damage may then be minimized. In addition, it is
recommended to coordinate with the North Carolina Botanical
Garden and state agencies, in an attempt to relocate as many of
these plants which cannot be avoided.
21
The locally rare dutchman's britches (Dicentra cucullaris)
is found to the south side of the Haw River bridge. Though not
listed by the state, this is the only known population in
Chatham County. This population is likely to be impacted by
subject project. NCDOT will coordinate with the North Carolina
Botanical Garden in an attempt to relocate the population.
3. Wildlife Habitat:
The rural nature of the area, coupled with the diversity of
plant community types, provides a variety of opportunities for
wildlife. Upland and bottomland forests adjacent to shrub-scrub
pine, mixed herbaceous and maintained areas provide ecotonal areas
rich for forgaging, while the forests provide cover. Common animals
tied to ecotonal areas are the Carolina short-tailed shrew (Blarina
carolinsis), eastern mole (Scalo us aquaticus), red bat (Lasiurus
borealis), eastern harvest mice -(Reithrodontomys humilis), hispid
cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus
floridanus).
Upland forests of the area, support a sizable white-tail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis
pennsy vanicus) population. Numerous eastern box turtles (Terrapene
Carolina) were noted. Reptiles, such as the five-lined skink
(Eumeces fascistus) and ground skink (Scincella lateralis) are
common. Bird life is rich in these areas. The pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus), yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), hairy woodpecker (P.
villosus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) are birds
sited in the study area.
Wetland communities provide a variety of opportunities for
wildlife. Of special interest are the bottomland hardwood forests
associated with the Haw and Deep Rivers. Such forests act as natural
corridors for the passage of mammals because they extend for many
miles in uninterrupted strips. They also serve as refuges for
mammals forced from more disturbed upland sites. Such mammals as
beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), muskrats (Ondatra
zibethicus), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) inhabit these wetland
sites.
Wetland communities are also valuable habitats for reptiles and
amphibians. Spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R. palustris), dwarf salamander (Eurycea
quadridiqitata), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
auriculatus), yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripta), northern water
snake (Nerodiea sipedon), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) are but a
few of the reptiles and amphibians likely to be found in the alluvial
forests and stream edges of the area.
22
The two major aquatic systems located in the study area, the Haw
and Deep Rivers, are home to several species as reported by fisheries
biologist Shari Bryant of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NRWRC). Species that may be found in the Haw River are redear
sunfish Mtalurus omis microlophus), bluegill (Le_Pomis macrochirus),
catfish unctatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) and ybrid striped bass.
The most common fish to be found in the Deep River are bluegill,
largemouth bass, and crappie (Pomoxis sp.). The Deep River also
supports small populations of the Federally Endangered Cape Fear
shiner (Notropis mekistocholas).
Impacts due to the proposed widening will be reflected in the
creation of new habitat and in the alteration and elimination of
previously existing habitat. Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving
organisms will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced.
4. Wetlands: Wetlands in the study area include Piedmont Alluvial
Forest and Rocky Bar Community.
a. Piedmont Alluvial Forest: Well-developed Piedmont alluvial
forests are associated with the Haw and Deep Rivers.
Floodplains are seasonally or intermittently flooded. Flood
tolerant species such as river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), hackberry (Celti- s faevigata), and red
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) are common canopy components. Box
elder (Acerne undo), red buckeye (Aesculus pavia), pawpaw
(Asimina tri oba), bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia), and
coral-berry (Symphoricarpus orbiculatus) are very common in the
understory. A diverse herb layer supports Japanese honeysuckle,
Nemophila (Ne_moPhila micr?ocaly), chickweed (Stellaria media),
wild chervil (Chaero h llum tainturieri), wi geranium
(Geranium maculatum , windflower (Tha ictrum thalictroides),
viol (Viop ?ionacea) henbit (Lame purpureum), and
saxifrage (Saxifraga virginiensis).
The Haw River site has several unique features. The.
state-listed candidate species, Phacelia (Phacelia ranunculacea)
occurs here in abundance on the west banhe river,
extending to either side of the bridge. The locally rare,
dutchman's britches (Dicentra cucullaria) is found to the south
side of the Haw River bridge. This is the only known population
in Chatham County. Toothworts (Cardamine angustata and C.
concatenata) both occur here. Seldom are they found together in
tie same general area. A small patch of puttyroot (Aplectrum
h ey male) occurs to the north of the bridge on the north slope
face. It is fairly uncommon in the eastern Piedmont.
Small acreages of alluvial forest are associated with
narrow stream crossings in the project area. Plant composition
is fairly uniform from site to site. [Comprising the canopy are
tulip tree and sweetgum]. Red Maple dominates the understory.
23
Most sites show evidence of disturbance, evidenced by the
presence of scattered loblolly pines, which sometime make up
more than fifty percent of the canopy. Herbaceous flora is
comprised of slender spikegrass (Chasmanthium laxum), false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum), sedges, touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), rush
(Juncus effusus), netted chain-fern (Woodwardia aereolata),
southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides), cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), and yellow-root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima).
b. Rocky Bar Community: Rock outcrops, gravel bars and some
sand occur in the Deep River channel, beneath the bridge
crossing at US 1. This is a highly dynamic community, dominated
by flooding, sediment input and disturbance from the river.
Because of community dynamics, the system does not support a
forest canopy.
The vegetational structure is composed of a rich herbaceous
layer interspersed with a few scattered shrubs and trees.
Typical herbs and shrubs include rush (Juncus effusus),
Justichia (Justicia americana), pickerel weed (Pontederia
cordata), false dragons head (Physostegia virginiana), indian
hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), smartweed (Polygonum virginianum),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), touch-me-not (Impatiens
capensis), sedges, and spang egrass (Chasmanthium latifolium).
Black willow (Salix nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
red ash (Fraxinus ep nns-lvanica), and river birch (Betu a nigra)
are found on the fringes o this community.
Plant Community Impacts: The construction of this project
will eliminate a large acreage of highly previously disturbed
upland habitat. Large expanses of highway right-of-way have
been cleared and are currently being maintained. Clearing
operations, soil compaction, and soil erosion will result in the
direct loss and creation of "edge" species.
The replacement approachways over the Haw and Deep
Rivers are viewed as direct, primary impacts. Portions of
alluvial forests will be destroyed by construction activities.
This will alter the hydrology of surrounding wetland systems.
Rocky Bar communities may be important for aquatic life in
the Deep River. By filtering out sediment, vegetated bars also
improve water quality. Many of these bars will be modified,
either directly or indirectly, by bridge construction.
Specifically, a disruption in hydrologic continuity, shading,
some soil compaction, increased sediment load, land clearing,
and associated erosion due to construction activities will
occur.
Anticipated impacts to each community are summarized in
Table 5 below. Calculations are based on 260 feet of right-
of-way. Values are expressed in acres.
24
TABLE 5
ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
PLANT COMMUNITY
Uplands
Man-dominated Areas
Dry Mesic Oak, Hickory Forest
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Scrub Pine Forest
Pine Plantation
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
136.1
39.0
88.5
104.8
0.6
Upland Total 369.0
Wetlands
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Rocky Bar Community
5. Farmland:
9.48
0.1
Wetland Total 9.58
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the potential impact of
construction and other land acquisition projects on prime and
important farmland. The proposed improvements occur within existing
right-of-way throughout the project's length and is therefore exempt
from consideration under the rules of the Act.
6. Water ualit :
Seventy-six stream and river crossings are located within the
US 1 project area. Most of the streams encountered have very narrow
channel widths varying from two to ten feet with little or no
associated wetlands. The flow rate was usually sluggish and most
stream substrates are highly silted. Adjacent vegetation is of the
mesic mixed hardwood type with percent pine varying from site to
site. These crossings fall within the confines of the Neuse and Cape
Fear River Basins, with the majority falling within the Cape Fear
River Basin.
"Best Usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). A
summary of "best usage" water classifications for each water resource
component likely to receive impacts are listed in Table 6 below. A
brief summary of the "best usage" for which the waters in each class
must be protected, follows. In addition, any stream which is not
named in the schedule of stream classifications carries the same
classification as that assigned to the stream segment to which it is
a tributary.
25
TABLE 6
"Best Usage" Classification of Water Resources
Water Resource Classification
Swift Creek WS-111 NSW
Four unnamed tributaries WS-111 NSW
Middle Creek C NSW
Three unnamed tributaries C NSW
White Oak Creek C NSW
Twenty-two unnamed tributaries C NSW
Tom Jack Creek C NSW
Thirteen unnamed tributaries C NSW
Shaddox Creek C
Six unnamed tributaries C
Haw River WS-111
Deep River C
Four unnamed tributaries C
Wombles Creek C
Nine unnamed tributaries C
Copper Mine C
Two unnamed tributaries C
Gum Fork C
Two unnamed tributaries C
WS-111 indicates a water supply segment with no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or discharges and is suitable
for all Class C uses.
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and
agriculture.
NSW is a supplemental classification denoting Nutrient Sensitive
Waters which indicates waters needing additional nutrient management
(Particularly fertilizer run-off) due to macroscopic vegetation.
Seventy-six drainages in the study area will receive impacts
from the subject project. Culverts and/or pipes will be extended,
reducing the linear feet of natural stream channel. Other potential
impacts are increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion;
increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway run-off;
scouring of streambeds due to the channelization of streams;
alterations of water level due to interruptions or additions to
surficial and/or groundwater flow; and the removal of vegetative
cover.
7. Air ualit :
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Lee and Chatham Counties
is designated to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. However, Wake County has recently been designated
26
as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and ozone. In addition,
the current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures (TCM) for Wake County. Part of the
project is located in the Greater Raleigh Urbanized Area Thoroughfare
Plan (TP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Both the TP
and TIP have been determined to conform to the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the Interim Conformity Guidance dated June 7, 1991 by
the Greater Raleigh Transportation Advisory Committee and the USDOT.
Therefore, the project is considered to be in conformance to the SIP.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Also, the air quality of the area will not deteriorate due
to improved traffic operations along the facility.
8. Noise ualit :
A "worst case" scenario was used dealing with traffic noise
activity category B of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) with
the proposed construction. For the "no build" alternative, one
residential receptor is predicted to approach its FHWA criterion.
However, no receptors are expected to exceed their corresponding
noise abatement criteria with either the build or "no build"
alternative. The exterior noise increase for the receptors in the
area is expected to range from +2 to +7 dBA with the proposed
construction and from +2 to +3 dBA in regard to the "no build"
alternative. Generally, a 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered
to be a barely perceptible change, a 5 dBA change is readily
noticeable, and a 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a
doubling or halving of the loudness of sound. Due to the scope of
the project and the limited number of impacts, noise abatement does
not appear reasonable, and none is proposed for this project.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (highway traffic
noise) and Part 770 (air quality), and no additional reports are
required.
9. Hazardous Waste:
There are no known hazardous waste sites located within the US 1
corridor.
10. Construction Impacts:
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase.
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required by the plans or Special Provisions, or
27
unless disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution. The contractor
shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both
during the work and until the completion of all seeding and
mulching or other erosion control measures specified, in a
manner which will effectively control erosion and
siltation.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. In
addition, care is to be taken not to block existing
drainage ditches.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established
during the removal of any structures to prevent the
migration of rodents into surrounding areas.
d. Precautions are to be taken to prevent waterlines along the
project from being damaged and to minimize disruption of
water service. The contractor is to prepare a work
schedule which will minimize possible impacts on water
service. The contractor shall consult appropriate
officials in preparing this schedule.
e. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the contractor shall obtain a
certification from the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to
the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to
insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
g. Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists and area residents.
28
h. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the
use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used
as needed.
29
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
4

10
A. "Do-Nothing" Alternative:
The "do-nothing" alternative would deprive the cities of Sanford and
Raleigh of an improved link between these two population centers as well
as depriving Sanford of a multilane link to the state's Interstate highway
system. These improvements are needed for a more efficient transportation
system. This "do-nothing" alternative would not serve the travel desires
of the state or local area.
The existing Level Of Service (LOS) of US 1 is at "D" and will
decrease to LOS "E" by the year 2016 if improvements are not made.
Furthermore, the "do-nothing" alternative would decrease the chances
of expanded economic growth for these areas of Lee, Chatham, and Wake
Counties.
In summary, the "no build" option is not considered prudent due to
the importance of these improvements for the future of this area of the
State.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation:
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode in this area and
the project is an improvement of the existing highway network.
C. Postponement of Proposed Action:
Because the proposed improvements to the project will make US 1 a
safer and more efficient facility connecting Sanford and Raleigh as well
as increasing the capacity of US 1, postponing the implementation of the
subject project is not considered a prudent course of action.
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvements:
Widening US 1 to a four-lane divided facility within the existing
right-of-way was the only alternative considered for the following reason.
This type of improvement is the most feasible, practical, and least
impacting solution for providing a high capacity, full access controlled
section of rural highway in this region.
Q

30
V.
A. Agency Coordination:
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state
and federal agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental
input were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from
those marked with an asterisk (*):
*U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville and Raleigh
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
U.S. Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U.S. Coast Guard - Portsmouth
State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Human Resources
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Triangle J Council of Governments
Chairmen, Wake, Chatham, & Lee County Commissioners
Mayor, Town of Apex
Mayor, Town of Cary
B. Public Involvement:
There was no Public Information Workshop conducted for this project
due to the fact that all right-of-way needed to construct the project has
already been acquired. Additionally, the project route is entirely in a
rural section of these three counties and does not involve any relocatees.
4<
v! 2., •r
I? S I? P q .. .4
o I° ? Ij Ia
A N
I> Im Z? 8
g P7 O 6
X i
Gicf ? 9 I ? 4 t
m T;e

loN IM I $ D C, 3
I-
o x I
s
' _
r -ti v ? H
w
IO \' 1 V ? r °? N C
O

1.3
a' w
r w
2
a ? ? V1
z D

S
??
oN v C ? A 0
i ? + _ m
4

lm d-
i w
N 1
?
_
_
q
?
N
V
1, F' I?
e s a ?
•? ? .
+ I- .}r?° lip
H
C)
',.
1`
1
-
I4u
' V
?. I;
t. ?
?
• / ? , 9•
?
?
- ris
C?
1/jv/
??r
?
J?
1
ag~0
., r
C
q
)
-

4fI? y ` 1 a
- m
ti 9• N Iglu- F
q CD g
x N t s \ I? C
N + '_

m .°. F'. ? S ?
,a
S \\\
s? m N
Ig"
16
•~ '
° Fq-/
I
Y
N r e

e IN ?

I> D + to I+ ?
Main
PAS r
3 ?
' xoPPD4S
i
/off 's '
?Ia ?a
?
+ .
a
la ? v
S Tr s

+ IN
?;
Iffi
!
Z I
4
9 o ?I
?
o IN m
0
?. 7
?? 9
1 =

?;
I= .2
., `I
Ig v o
HARRIS
'4E' II .?
a
?
I?
S . $
?
?
? Z ?
G
o
\i
o 4 y c?
_ .9 _ Z
o
W I

3.0 7
m

C
m
m
T
Abe z
?o z z 4
-o
cnpi
23 MrnrnTl xr
o e
or
g a
r 0

I
a
I
Im

I C
1 / I
X,
U- Z. 91
ce)
_ ?\ 1 Q
oN _ 09
i ; j oo c 1
^ry Q
a
1.6 h / \ 3
cp. o? I Oa tea/ p (?fo 1
a/ j ? w = ,7
p
u1 > 0
LLj
1.6 z co -Zt
Z U W 2 u) ?-
.5 V der 0
T
^ry ? 1
??a co
U
4 ;a? V
L m 4,°x
C, Lu 1=
bb
W N/
' F- Q
0
m W
7 ( Z c) Z >
azv0?
is ••
N J 0 3.4r t^-?j b "? 2
LLI
p_00LL ary FpSP?O
?f-cc 0 /
Oy`r O
ryh `Q/ r
Q
Cy °
eek ? 3 cp. A \?P
1.5
_ m Q iv: r FPS Q?? GPI b Q
W 0 U
Z _ I \ h
CO.
W6 4,:D
0o F •: ? ?/
Qp? Qw?z? 'roQ'":::'?`'
= p e?j W FAS Q ?? . ? r:q r. .2 r)
JF W ?W> 'c- Q
m co z 0 ?r \ N h j 2 z??`i? o ?Q
2.0
in, Q?
Ck IN,
a
r 1.5 a/
1
I
hW
l Q/
4 .
ah
^(b N/
ppa ry c( 0?
.1V? .6
1
? hop ??:
e Q `?''
?onn? Womble os O
c) 0
?/q 4 F..?m h?i one`
v
x z zz v o C,???
rMine Cre, W U L N
W M ?!
c'! lr z .6 H Z F- *- e Lic / G° , 2 ryb J W 0 o
4 Z k
?a
o Creek
Q '0 Q Z ?ryp
W) cl
l 9,
1ao 6 b LL`? ??y m m z 0
`' ry
ry' b O
ok h? \ 1p D,O/ N. O
?i. 0 Q / . 1 N P h?
9 / O `b
1 \ 'n Q / /
00 p.
1
co + , U h
ry 'i • - .5 aj o .6
ry L .9
? 7 !?, ? • ary 'dry ,iv 1S. 'mod/ / C'?, ? ? f I
CA.
LL-
ry b
3 ) ` b
N g b
h' 1, V 8 \ A a, ?q
$ ry ?? Q 1' h
Z /mob/
ry1? ry A Ljf W r^^. CAROTIN 0.
ry/ h h 9 fly ? ??p/?
b
r> cn ./ 1p/ \h 0 P7 uffalO h`'/ ?h° ry a Creek
b
fp ?.
CV/
4,1
12 ?/ F
'? ryi a .8 ?y ..S ?' 1?/ ? '? ?• Jt'
O ! SoUK T . j? 0
?? c / b ERN \ 1, c' 2 7
glg, --? - ?i RA/6.Wq Y:'r': ? 5 • B ? 1.3 ?? Pry .:? :v j+'v
0
/.
1.6
7( N;
VV J61
9
Ico ?? N a Iw A I? - 7 /?
Iw O
a 2.9 Q
IO cni Cn
a
?I / J W
A ? •3 .9 IA
IN O= ?D
py.. 1
Vfe u9 ?o z m IN /,
la a. c3 N ? • Z .3 ?.,? . ?? ? to •I ° ? ?°b
N
•4 G) 00 C-1
-n Z
9 I? L 6 0 -(J) M
I X /b
Or I? I= ?,, 0 °
IJ 'A IN N C ? 2 9
9 21
.I Z
j
I_ C. C#3 _ ".
Icn ? ?
mnm S? INIJ J? /?
IIN I10 n T P
-CU ?xn o
m? r
? m ?•6I" Ito I= ti
p m =i
?N? la
O n m ?? Cl)
n
CD a n= ` j Zz Io
o ?;K a
M CD -4
OD -n
?? can x >
/?y LA
O D cn
In?i / Csk a to :•:i ° m
X
00
)•:. A
14
Y" D m Q
7.j ?0 _
D
In r-
0 m
/ :f s
Cl)
z m
VI z z RAILROAD
^: !::ci. :fir V 9 ? <;•: ;j'+?',.• , ?':`?^
C) -10
C- Z Z Cn z ?] \ J i:;,t F'9?/ Off`
n x 'ti I '''' :? • • .:
c=ai a°?o \ 3
m pl ti) 0 a
T
Zz>
;Dl pli
rl)
SR-1010 4- 38
41
NC-55 4- 59
96 US 1 t98 EST. 1991 ADT VOLUMES IN
5.73
HUNDREDS
4-22 37
1.'1`' 6 4
25-? 11j(4 37
80 1 1 ), 74
32 '28 179
1:) I 36 ?-66
58
SR-1127 4- 6
-? 8
SR-1011 4- 7
-, 11
SR-1972 {- 8
34 1 4)T 3 -066
391
31? 1
6 2 Z
,
2 ,
4 39
1 1
f' ? ? ?1 f_
2
6 ? _y
32 I 1
2
8 4, 4 31 132
I
c
_
_-
S

x_10
9 - 2)?? -O14
31 2,
0 x'28
T31
V 1? ,/5 6 4-10
A
-? 7 ? 1
T -? 14
37 3-?
-4--',),. 2 l
li
430
?33
3
1 7
I
1
SR-1012 4-
) ?; ?_ 1

37 i 36
?
t
t
133
S
SR-1466 ?- 7 4-7
10
) T
(4
9
8 2 1
39 `i 32
35 ' S t 35
SR-1415 4- 7 1t) i 4_11

US 15-501 4-61
-. 57
rn:, NI-DOI
37 5 T(l ? s
1 132
z 30
31 X35 R-2500
?1(S ? 43 US_1, FOUR LINES OF US 15-501 TO
X US 6L LEE - CHATHAM - WAKE
661 25-0
_ 245) (2 --x'32 COUNTIES
• 3
1', 27 154 NOVEMBER. 1991
FIGURE NO. 3 A

115 ( 8S 1 ?t Tl17 T 1 ADT V? M IN

SR

?- 45

r?

0
?( -26

-

44
HUNDREDS
-1010 , ? .
' ?_
-? 1R
?/
?
j _?
49 30
-? 15 45
95 1 1? 88
1
33

794
37 ,

C-55
71
?-
2p
i `15
i 2 43

78
f-

-?
23
40 0

5)T(4
-'4

-?79 A
-
69 45 1
6 ? e 1 Q
3 47
SR-1127 7 2 I 5 13
-? 9 7 2 4)I -? 15
371, 32 ? '?5 38 139
SR-1011 f- 8 ) 1? -1 6 12
+_
10 13
_ 1 A
2)
T(
A 10
17
1
0
1
1
2,
4 ,34
x
1 137
SR-1972 4--- 11 7
4 +-12
-10 9 ?
*
4 --0 9
43 I 4 -? 4
036
I 44

SR-1012
?- i 4
-1)
(-1
~1
1

431. 2
42 44
11
1
44
1 -
7 1
SR-1466 4-10 ;" ? ?_ 9
-+12 -- 0 2 1
10
45 Z 43
40 Z 1 46
SR-1415 4- 8 6 4-13
-? 7 ? -? 1 1
42? 6 -0 1 t i
142
1 , 40
35 5

42
R-2500
US 15-501 t
- 73 t )1(S
f' ti? X52 US 1. FOUR_LANES OF US 15 501 TO

68
A) 1i,
-?38 US 64. LEE -CHATHAM WAKE
COUNTIES
30
771 371 10
36
1
68 NOVEMBER 1991
FIGURE NO 3 B

r
2071
SR-1010 4- 82
-10
88
1721
NC-55 4- 128
US 1
20
1211
157 ?
32) I ?18 3 l3 8 x_81
54-10 `,?(g 81
2 159
60
1170
69
4
' 62 ,# `` 78 142
f i 4_.
EST. 2016 ADT VOLUMES IN
HUNDREDS
-? 125 41
73 00

84 1 11
67
9 1?I 6

' l63
?.
____+
141
T84
SR-1127 f- 13 4 )1?3 ? 9 f_24
_i:
-? 17 4 ?'
4 _-?
13 0 -)1T(2 28

69
1 1
60
67
169
SR-1011 4- 15 - f' i `1?
- „ 4-22

-? 23 =s
4>
-?30
19-? I
66 I
i 4 so
'?2
166
SR-1972 4- 19 4
??2 13 ?-21
-? 15
A6) T (6 -* 14
79 6 -'?
g?
X61
176

SR-1012
f- 2 7
)?(
l- 2

f_
2
-? 2 -102

79 1 2-0

777 I, '
6
2

176

SR-1466
4-19 2 1 1

J
4 13
"-
? ?- 17
18
-?
2
j
-? 16
14 4J
(
83 1 4, 74
1
80
75 ??
SR-1415 4-
15
2
1 ?i•?
2 11
?_24
13
791 „ j
Z
66
US 15-501 2?1c 11
4- 131 y
123
142
COPY - NGOO I
2)T(2 19
69 173
9
?- 75 R-2500
/_- ,-93 US 1 FOUR LANES OF US 15-501 TO
i US 64 LEE - CHATHAM - WAKE
54 'J 5a>1 ? 69 COUNTIES
I
67 62 ?120 NOVEMBER 1991
FIGURE NO. 3 C
999 US 1 ?i s7 T, o84 EST. 1991 ADT VOLUMES
798 AT AM PEAK HOUR
155 ?( 46 353 -
615
SR-1010 ?- 514 y 105 4
-10 389 116 1
NC-55
SR-1127
SR-1011
SR-1972
SR-1012
SR-1466
SR-1415
266-? 6 i2 324
9101
7 8,1
309
1829
45
7
669

?
1'e,
V
132
1

??-7 518

844
4-
-? 182

566
/?
2? l39
-?
792 -0 930
5181 348 1608 1400

- 38
f :)1 42 27
i ` 4 189
81 ?
70
3> I ? -?
234

353
1 3
292
60232
7237
136 1r 1?0 _
5 70 x,_135

-+98 1
T(
_+97
32 5 5
362 I
? 65,
333 , 76
?
1
246
4- 89 o 2
`?9 4
27 36 4_71

85
-?
4
53 )j

108
193
- ?
387
1 56-?
3 ',236
4 T 397
f- 69 3
? 443
114 .
? 36 ,- 61 Ncoel

?j -+80
88 55_? 3 (1 1
357 1 3'' ,
3 7 353
1 1
1367
4- 70
+120 )
f ?? 1 C 4-90
-? 120 95 L 4? T? -* 110
3761 "1 35
52 1
1406
3 19

i- 101 14)
? 4
? f- 66
8

126
1 .0 4-
-? 72
j
-? 107
338
1 61 21 I l 3 1378
11 354
284 ,47
Em
4-269
US 15-501 11 Al - US 1. FOUR LANES OF US 15-501
?"- 542 --4/354-- 351 10--US- 64 LEE - CHATHAM -
-?335 WAKE COUNTIES
0 562 262)T(2--3
602 1 269 -?
283 rL 321 T606 NOVEMBER. 1991
y

A
4
FIGURE NO. 3 D

SR-1010 {- 611
-, 4 63
NC-55 ?_ 795
1189 I US 1 ?87 ?1290 ST. 1,996 ADT VOLUMES
950 AT AM PEAK HOUR
184 I (55 125 20 -732
138 4? _0
317---0 '!j(14 386
10831 8Z 965
? 544 368 T986
152 38 ?- 616 1004
If r? 4-
-? 217
-it
943 674 -? 27)T(46
1107
52
616 413
1901 ?474 lq? SR-1127 4 46 ;*:3 32 4_224
- ?' c

-? 97 10 ? -?
83 ---10 4 J I r 278

9
411 4

347
274
71

?280

SR-1011 4- 161 1r J1 i 6 83 4_160
-? 116 1? ?? -101 15
38-?
430 I
? 77
3
95 208
1 0
T291

SR-1972 4- 106 1
Oi?S 243 '---85
-0 101 1 -?231

459 67 10

32?
6
129
2;j

T471
4
0
6

SR-1012

4- 83
6 ?
I
(
17
3?6 ? 43

3

4- 73 core _ NMI
-? 105 4
/
g
-1.95
-?
65 I
111
??
423 1 4 i
411 4 418
12
j435

SR-1466 4-- 143' :1( ?. 83 4- 107
--+143 j 54)T
i2 -* 131
113 (
446J 23 , 4
16

378 '
2
, 1482
SR-1415 4
- ,20 1V 78
10
4-150

-? 86

0

T r
A --------------

--* 128
4 01
1 73 4
25 T449
13? 420

US 15-501

4- 645 337
3) (5
1r I yr1 ,6

4-320
2
8-2500
US 1. FOUR LANES OF US -5"l
4-- 418
O U
TS 64. LEE - CHATHAM - WAKE
_0 669 1 3 12
T( * 398 COUNTIES
716 320 I 337 2 7
381 1720
NOVEMBER 1991
FIGURE NO. 3 E
SR-1010 4- 1107
-? 838
NC-55 1439
170
SR-1127 4- 82
2152 1 US 1
. 1719 338
333 10
61
2 6
2
i
250
574-? ?
)T(31
1959 14, 1747
984 '666
2? ( ? 36 1115
?
39
)
A
1220 -0 49
T (83
11141 94,
747 732
344
18 1 (349
?? 7
57
4
2003
T864
4_405
-? 176 18
151 4
)
T( -0
' 7 4 504
7581 7),
7
627 502
?29
?513
SR-1011 4- 291 2 ) 112 ?-1 150
290
r ? i ?_
-0 210 2 _?'
69
139)T(-,Al

209
777 1 1391
7
14 388 2
L
?532
SR-1972 ?-- 192 0? 1
1( 3 ?-8 78
i
? ,._154

-? 182
?
1
1 1
2
-416
10

830
1
1
120-10
-- 33
41
4530
1

1857
7 3 34 ?
SR-1012 4- 149 65

'V) 31 .4-77

4
132
f-
-10
6?

j

-
190 118-? ' I (24 173
7651 Z
7 3 761
'k22
792
1

SR-1466 {- 259' -
1150
4-194
-, 259
SR-1415 ?- 218
204-? 98> I (-2A2 -0 237
8071 4-2',,
684 757
'l 12 1877

31?
? I (?2 142
(1-8
8 272
-? 156 231
-?
726 132 )?4 I (7
1 2-4, 765 T817
610 101
92
US 15-501 1169 24
f--- ?) ??-^ 580
76 R-m
i 4-757 US_t FOUR LANES OF US 15 501 TO
--10 1211
579-
0 4

565 49 -? 720 U6 64, LEE - CHATHAM - WAKE

COUNTIE

12 9 6 -

6101.

694 T 1308
S
NOVEMBER. 1991

FIGURE NO. 3 F
?2335 EST. 2QI ?A T VOLUMES
AT AM PEAK HOUR
1325
-10.
705
?1791
1817

COPY .- NCOOT

0
1099 1 US 1
798 '4
3 ti o37 EST. 1991 ADT VOLUMES

167 134 _
336
4 AT PM PEAK HOUR
SR-1010 4 512
- 28 -407
-? 407 183 4)
T(
214 9
59 407
8361 10, 811
1
285
7879
260 ,
NC-55 ?_
735 2?? 36 ,5 481 781

i 4-
-10 144 )
-A -
868 666 T129
42 ,059

58
333 I 258
,i

7 450

1521
SR-1127 ?_ 69 38 I (37
j
? /?,.-29 70
. .4 4_
-? 88 3
? ? --?
48 ? I ? 89
1 2
264 251
13446
2452

SR-1011 4- 43 0 31 4_46
-0 90 0 )T( -?93
78 12
2
265 ` 12

? t 59
439
4
24

T453
,
SR-1972 4- 102 2 )1? ?-5 83 4-202
-10. 56 ? -+68

20-?.
389
1 3-5-'?.
144
I
?42g

T 489
350
SR-1012 4-- 103 6 1 I (13
/ 62
i
t 1 4_ 86 1'oC.-N000T
-?
!Y,
??
/?

_
------------
+83 ------
100 59 -0 j1
'?111
376 1 15
3
6 .4 0
T 476

SR -1466
4- 120' 1
5 4
-
70
1 C
4-- 90
- 120 45 -? 110
95 1
395 t 9 , 460
343 2g t515
SR-1415 4- 47 2 ) I (50 T 35 4_71
-? 91 6 4
-
4
--? 134
358 77 *
1
" 1
0
)T(7
0 7 i
1497
?.
8 480
300 '26 ZM

US 15-501
4-- 483 t 1 47
5
f' ??' 44-^ 295
i 3 US 1. FOUR LANES OF US 15.501
4-- 356
TO US 64. LEE -CHATHAM • WA E
-, 754 0 - 502 COUNTIES
6 1
426
57 1,
2 77 1T 29
465
T
322 671 NOVEMBER. 1991
FIGURE NO. 3 G
SR-1010 4- 61
-? -
485
NC-55 4- 87
1308 I US 1 51 ?1234 EST. 1996 ADT VOLUMES
i 950 400 AT PM PEAK HOUR
0 199 159 -3 ?-484
218 ? ?
255-10 i, Jj170 484
9951 12, 965
310 39 11046
4 2 ) 143 /-8 572 ?-929
1033
SR-1127
17?
793-r 50 T(35
397 69
308 ' 536
44
45 1(44 35
?? 5
1261
T621
4-84
4- 82
-i:
-? 104 4
?
4 -?
57 2) I
(5 106

315 1 2
300
532
x539
SR-1011 4- 51 0 _
37
4_54
-? 107 OJ ) T( -110

93-? 14 2
316 1 14?
309 524
T540

SR-1972 4- 121 2J) J ! 13 9 -241
_10 67 L"J" 4-)T -?81

464

24 ?
-
421
20
(52

51
5

582
4 18
SR-1012 4- 123 31)
?? is 4-- 74
(13 102
4-

-?
3 10
?
j? ?
?98
119 70 3
449 18 i
1 4 7 536
12
1567

SR-1466 4- 143'
'
6
`
4
83
t
f
i 1
r -
` 4-107
-? 143 113 54) jrlA2 -0 131
472 I 23 , 8

j
410 35
1
614

SR-1415 4- 63
21),,( 60 _
8 42
?_85
-? 109 7 ?1 /r --
160
428 92
' 1
I 1599
?,
10 572
359 4,31
COOT - NCDOT
13 56 4-351 8-2500
US 15-501 2 4_424 US 1. FOUR LANES OF U 15 501 TO
4-- 575 T US 64. LEE - CHATHAM - WAKB
-? 897 507 214 26 --+ 589 COUNTIES
784 1
383'i 561 1798 NOVEMBER. 1991

6
2367 1 Us 1
1719
' 92
360 288
1010 ?- 1104
SR ~ 724
j 60
-
-? 879 395
462-? /?
20)T 127
1801 I 22)j, 1747
i561 14
456) I784
1582 f/
NC-55 333 1035
4
3
877
21894
1682
-10
1870
SR-1127 4 148
P.
covr - Ncoot
635 R
US 15-501 4--- 1041 24 tot 76 ? 767 US 1. FOUR LANES ES Q F US 15-501 TO
US 44. LEE - CHATHAM - WAKE
-? 1624 1?J 382?? 47 -0, 066 CO NTI S
1420 1 918 -0 693 1016 11445 NOVEMBER, 1991
1435 --? 91)T(63
970
, -
719 I 125
? 558 80
0
81 (.j(80 4 63
? 4 ?9
-?
2282
?1124
4 152
-il?
-? 188 ?
4 -?
103 --0 ) I ( 192
571 1 4 '
544 27963
1976

SR-1011 ?_ 92
( 7
0 )i
f) y
r^ 67
i v
98
?-
-?193 -A
T

?
- 199
168 251
(4
573 I
i 25,
560 949
52
1978

SR-1972 4-- 219

4 ) ?
r f-179

,(205

4
.--436
-? 121 6> T -? 146

841
1 _
43 ?
7Z 3
9
4
?,9;?

11054
758 I
223
SR-1012 -- 56
?
/ -4 134
i L ?- 185

-? 216
j
3?j -? 178
127 114
8 15
1 33i
793 971
422
T 1028

SR-1466 4-259' 11
11 4
150
?
422

?- 194
-? 260 A
12 -? 238
2 05 -0 I
857j 4-2-,. 993
74
4 ' 63 ?1113
SR-1415 4- 114 1
109
- 76
i4
?_ 153

-? 198
1?
A
4 -----------------
-0 290
7 76 I 167-+ 3
4
4 )T(1
J
188
1037
11085
651 56
x2234 EST. 2016 AD VOLUMES
AT PM PEAK HOUR
4 876
FIGURE No. 3 1
NOVEMBER, 1991
R-2500
US 1, FOUR LANES NORTH OF US 15-501 TO
US 647. LLl -CHATHAM-WAKE COUNTIES
EST. 1996/2016 ADT IN HUNDREDS PY P011'1'li

ROUTF 1996 2016
TT'ST5
'
DU
.
ADT IN 100'S 1
, AL% DIM DI R%
US-1 232 418 5 5 11 55
SR-1010 94 170 1 3 11 55
SR-1011 29 52 6 4 11 55
NC-55 li7 283 3 4 11 55
SR-1972 21 35 4 3 11 55
SR-1127 28 52 2 4 11 55
SR-1012 2 4 3 3 11 55
SR-1466 22 37 3 3 11 55
SR-1415 24 43 1 1 11 55
US 15-501 141 254 2 3 11 55
FIGURE NO. 3 1

,
s
Cnrv NCnOT
w
a-
0
J
,I'
NW
V

a
I1
r
Z
Z 2
O LLI
U O
W W-
2
cn 0
Cl) W
O cf)
ir O
U a
O
Ir
C
Q
Z --
cn
J M
W
cr
a O
O
(n
N
cr
z
Q
0
w
7-
cn
Cl)
a
cr
CD
c
w
C0
0
CL
0
Ct
n
(7
z
Z
W
W
a_ :D
cn
0
C)
z
X
w

"0
w
a
0
J
N

United States Department of the Interior
N ?J
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
o
o Raleigh Field Office
' Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 17, 1990

.14V
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways Z) TV
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 Y

Subject: Scoping Comments for US 1; from Nob1 in Lee County
to US 64 in Wake County; Lee, Chatham, k-e Counties; State
Project No. 6.409006T, TIP No. R-2500.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your letter of November 26, 1990, requesting comments on
the proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. At least 34 stream and/or
wetland crossings are present in the study corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and implementation of all stream crossing
structures.
The enclosed pages identify the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of
age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2
mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed
within the project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and you should
contact this office for further information.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours,
LIP, ?fu"? (-)Q?dL
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Enclosures
A
MMV1Jr.u tixx"U VI i-vv
Wake County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Bachman's warbler 4Vermivora bachmanii) - E*
Michaux' poison-sumac (Rhus michausii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Act, and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of status review species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will *be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - SR
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus) - SR
Lewis' heartleaf (Hexastylis lewisii) - SR
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - SR
Carolina trillium (Trillium pusilltu-n var. pusillm) - SR
*Considered extirpated in North Carolina.
t

REVISED APRIL 5, 1990
Lee County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E'
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) - E
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Act, and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of status review species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii) - SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - SR
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - SR
Nestronia (Nestronia umbelluia) - SR

1
REVISED APRIL 5, 1990
Chatham County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) - E
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened,-are under status review by the Service.
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Act, and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of status review species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Nestronia-(Nestronia umbellula) - SR
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - SR
Lewis' heartleaf (Hexastvlis lewisii) - SR
Stream mock bishop-eed (Ptilimnium nodosum) - SR

4
US.Department Commander Federal Building
of Transportation Fifth Coast Guard District 431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23?f6 ff4
Staff Syntg'04) 398
Un ted States Phone: (+s-6422
Coast GuOr+d
16590
0 3 DEC 1991
Mr. Byron E. Brady
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Brady:
This is in response to your request of March 8,
determination as to whether Coast Guard permits
for the construction of two bridges-across the
Rivers in Chatham County, North Carolina.
1991, for a
will be required
Deep and Haw
Concluding our site visit with a review of the information you
provided reveals that the Deep and Haw Rivers fall within the
provisions of Section 107 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
1982, and are excluded from Coast Guard bridge permitting
requirements. This legislation excludes non-tidal waterways
which are not used or susceptible for use by interstate or
foreign commerce from bridge permit requirements.
The fact that a bridge permit is not required does not relieve
you of the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of
any other Federal, State, or local agency who may have
jurisdiction over any other aspect of the project.
Sincerely,
T. E. BERNARD
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard
Chiet, Aids to Navigation
and Waterways Management Branch
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
s
?. SUTp o .
V.;
1990
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
James G. Martin, Governor 0, / Division dArchives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary Poole V?::1: ? O'Quinn t/ William S. Price, Jr., Director
Dude& Frev t'.t _ LrLgon
Newnwri . Da,-:3 Shull-.r
December 27, 1990 Norwood_ Ellica Nedvcdek
Modal Webb Springer
Tewell Elmore_
MEMORANDUM Grimes _
TO: L. J. Ward, 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 north of US 15-501 in Lee County
to US 64 in Wake County, Lee, Chatham, and Wake
Counties, State Project No. 6.409006T, TIP
R-2500, CH 91-E-4220-0361
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the area adjacent to
the existing road and the area has never been surveyed to locate such
resources. Portions of the existing right-of-way for US 1 were purchased
and roughly prepared in the past and it is likely that the road widening
in this area will not affect significant archaeological sites.
We recommend that your office forward information to us regarding which
portions of the right-of-way have been prepared for future construction
so we may complete our assessment of potential effects. We also request
information concerning the proposed bridge replacements connected with
this project.
Chatham County was comprehensively surveyed in the 1980s. This inventory
includes the following structures of historical importance within the
general area of the project. These properties are not on the state study
list for the National Register, but should be evaluated in terms of
National Register eligibility.
James A. Parham House. East side of SR 1936, 2 miles northwest
of the junction of SR 1011.
Dr. Patrick D. Lassiter House. End of SR 1937, 0.6 mile southwest
of the junction of SR 1012.
109 East ones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
December 27, 1990, Page Two
Merry Oaks Baptist Church. Northwest side of SR 1011, at junction
of SR 1910.
Kendricks House. East side of SR 1910, 0.15 mile north of junction
of SR 1011.
Tucker House. North side of SR 1011, 0.2 mile northeast of junction
of SR 1910. _
Merry Oaks Multiple Resource. Northwest side of SR 1011 from SR
1910 to us 1.
Robert Yates House. South side of SR 19119 0.3 mile northeast of
the junction of SR 1912.
Enclosed is a map showing the locations of'these historic structures in
relation to the proposed project.
An architectural inventory of Wake County is currently under way. Preliminary
research shows the following structures that may be of historic and archi-
tectural significance:
Shady Grove Baptist Church Cemetery. Northwest side of US 1 south,
1 mile east of Chatham County line.
Penny Ashley House. West side of SR 1156, 0.8 mile southwest of
junction with SR 1153.
Hunter-Prince House. East side of SR 1153, 0.6 mile southeast of
junction with SR 1156.
Since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory of Lee County has
never been conducted, there may be historically significant structures of
which we are unaware located within the planning area. We recommend that a
comprehensive survey of the proposed project vicinity be conducted by an
architectural historian to identify the presence and significance of any
historic structures.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for
federal permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
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 Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosures
cc: State Clearinghouse
t??q
QwM

North Carolina Department of Cultural W
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
?Q Q
October 29, 1991
?y
MEMORANDUM
S s<f,lAnd ron o rchi History
7illi n . PriR ., Director
Cl
TO: L. J. Ward, 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 north of US 15-501 in Lee County
to US 64 in Wake County, Chatham, Lee, and
Wake Counties, R-2500, GS 92-0040
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 1991, concerning the above
project.
On October 23, 1991, we met with Ken Robinson, archaeologist for the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, concerning this project.
As a result of discussions at the meeting, we will wait to comment on
the project in terms of both historic architectural and archaeological
resources after we have received the archaeological survey report.
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 Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: B. Church
K. Robinson
109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
,,}y .,aSWpo
?`? auw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
January 14, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation ,
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Archaeological Study, US Highway 1 Improvements
from north of US 15-501 in Lee County to US 64
in Wake County, Lee, Chatham, and Wake Counties,
TIP R-2500, State No. 6.49006T, ER 92-7643
Thank you for your letter of November 26, 1991, concerning the above
project. We have reviewed the referenced report by Kenneth W. Robinson of
your staff and 'would like to comment.
During the course of the survey Mr. Robinson recorded several components
of the large Lockville Complex. The Lockville Dam, Canal, and Powerhouse
are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Robinson's survey
indicates that the significant elements of the Lockville Complex will not be
affected by the proposed project if the proposed bridge over the Deep River
is constructed to span the canal and the piers for this bridge are placed so
that the flow within the canal is not restricted.
Mr. Robinson also recorded the remains of a retaining wall, well, cellar, and
house foundation adjacent to the existing Department of Transportation
right-of-way as part of the Lockville Complex (31 CH690). The area of these
remains should be staked and flagged prior to construction and avoided by
construction and staging activities. If avoidance of these remains is not
possible and area outside of the existing right-of-way is necessary for this
project, additional archaeological investigations will be necessary prior to
project implementation.
In summary, we concur with the findings in Mr. Robinson's report and agree
that if the above stipulations are followed, the project will not adversely
affect the Lockville Dam, Canal, and Powerhouse property.
109 East ones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
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: Kenneth Robinson
Bryon Brady
Charles Bruton
North Carolina
Department of Administra
James G. Martin, Governor

January 10, 1991
KArMnnn nirn inn
?" ?C1`11 A
n-(
?C' iiarri? S. Lofton;-S
Z"' t / fi f
TO: L.J. Ward, N.6l?j Department of Transportation
FROM: Chrys Baggett, N.C. State Clearinghouse
RE: SCH File #91-E-0361; Improvments to US 1, Lee, Chatham
and Wake Counties (TIP #R-2500)
Attached are additional comments which were submitted following
our clearance letter on your:
Notification to Clearinghouse of Intent to Apply for
Federal Assistance
X Environmental Review
Other
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact
me at [phone].
CB/it
Attachment
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
7 8 9 I
0
.,. ? 997
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
John N. Morris
Director
December 31, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO : - `-1
Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherland
SUBJECT: 91-0361, Impro ements to US.1, Lee, Chatham and
Wake Counties
We have the following comments on the above project:
1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize bridges whenever,
possible to minimize habitat losses and floodplain
encroachment.
2. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
3. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize the use of
porous pavement and grass swales.
4. At bridge crossings of navigable rivers, e.g. Haw and Deep
Rivers work with Lee and Chatham Counties to provide public
access if such access is needed.
CJ9
19
A
P.U. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
STATE 4
6 . [ t Z ?&
O
??Y QuM vd?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
,16 West Edenton Street • Education Building
Weigh, NC 27603-1712
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Z? OF I
may, ?
M
Rc`y`BRAC?f:??'
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways /
Highway Building
FROM: Charles H. Wea
Assistant Sta a erintendent for Auxiliary Services
NC Department f Public Instruction
217 W. Jones t., Ed. Annex I
Bob Etheridge
Superintendent
December 7, 1990
RE: US 1; from North of US 15-501 in Lee County to US 64 in Wake County;
Lee, Chatham, and Wake Counties; State Project No. 6.409006T, T.I.P. No.
R-2500
Please find attached communication from Donny L. Hunter, Superintendent for Lee
County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment

an equal opportunity/afjirnrati: a action employer
Lee County Schools
Taus C-
Student P.O. BOX 1010
OSanford, North Carolina 27331-1010
Achirotmrnt
919/774-6226
DONNY L. HUNTER
Superintendent
December 4, 1990
MARION S. CARVER
Assistant Superintendent
LINDA A. GALES
Director of Personnel Services
LINDA S. HIGGINS
Assistant Superintendent
J.L. SEAMAN
Administrative Assistant
RECEIVED
DEC b 1990
y..tiOF
a.°.r 00L PLAu04tts G
Mr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Education Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1712
Dear Mr. Weaver:
Thank you for the information on the proposed US 1; from North of US
15-501 in Lee County to US 64 in Wake County; Lee, Chatham, and Wake
Counties. We support this project. It is much needed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donny L. Hunter
Superintendent
DLH/pe
r
r
4ctFNlVb??d ,
206
? p
a? o t??
n
to.
. pbb
MAILED TO
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27,611
KNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
L: J. WARD
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FROM
MS. JEANETTE TOMCZAK
CLEARINGHOUSE STAFF
SCOPING FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 1 FROM
NORTH OF US 15-501 IN LEE COUNTY TO US 64 IN WAKE COUNTY
(TIP R-2500)
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 91E42200361. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 12/28/90.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].

I
Triangle Greenways Council
Research
P.O. Box 12276

!
w l!,7

L. J. Ward, Manager Vll
Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT, P.O. Box 25201 A'
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201.:
fk ._
RE: US 1 In Lee,_-Chatham,Nand Wake Counties,'-
State Project
No.
6.409006T„slid T I.P. 09. R-2500

Dear Mr. Ward:-,.
,< c
The Triangle-Greenways Council (faGc) is a nonprofit l ganization
operating in the counties served b".the Triangle J Cocil of
TGC advocateshe
Governments'.` : -'Among its activities, b, .the
creation of'l al greenway programs, he protection of-potential
and existing greenway corridors, and tale development greenway
trails andt.related,'f ilities. The TGC also constructW2 and
maintains trails for pub", c use through tplunteer eff s.
Greenways provide many benefits, and serve:public pur = es
including transportation, recreation, and cqnservation.,?
Several years ago the TGC received as_z4Ql grapt from 'the Wake
County Parks .and Recreation Commission to`v4dertake?everal
projects. One of these was a feasibility stu'2 unpublished) of
the potential for establishing equestrian traiiV'.. nd the
Shearon Harris plant site and lake. The study hound that such
trails were neededin the region and the potential was good at
the potential site., It was obvious also, thit'encircling Harris
Lake with an equestrian trail will be_most difficult along the
north side where the lake is. crossed-by"US 1. The proposed
improvement to US 1 provides the. opportunity to assure safe and
continuous trail access along the edge of the highway
right-of-way. The environmental review for US 1 improvements
should explore alternatives for accommodating future equestrian
trails at Shearon Harris, as well as the impacts of providing or
declining to provide such passage.
Both the Deep River and the Haw River have been identified as
potential recreational use corridors for both canoes and hikers.
These rivers cross beneath US 1 in close proximity to another
transportation/recreation facility: the US 1 Bike Route. The
critical mass of these corridors begs attention in the planning
and environmental review. The provision of public access to
these rivers should be evaluated in conjunction with bridge
design alternatives, as well as the impacts of providing or
declining to provide such access.
DOT attention to these issues will provide an opportunity for the
proposed highway improvements to be accomplished in a way that
will complement surrounding community activities.
Sincerely,
PC-w- f
Larkin Kirkman
Secretary
lilt
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
lo
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Eoc ?olamh j?EWt - pe"4
F
ROM:: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
nt
/^-
?'fA/
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
i

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1.
DEPARTMENT OF T ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 21 1993
OCT 2 61993
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Galamb
DEM-DEHNR
Archdale
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch/ ?''
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the interchange at SR 1423
on US 1; Lee County; State Project Number 6.409006T;
TIP Number R-2500A.
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 receive your early
input about the scope of work that should be performed and thereby enable
us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this project is
scheduled for November 9, 1993 at 2:00 in the Planning and Environmental
Branch Conference Room (Room 470 in the Highway Building). You may provide
us with comments at that meeting or you may 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
contact Nancy Campanella or Byron Brady, Project Planning Engineer, at
[phone] in Raleigh.
HFV/wp
r
?? Ills
4

P RQ JE T SC OP IN G SHEET
Date October 21, 1993
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2500 A
Project # 6.409006 T
F.A. Project #
Division 8
County Lee
Route US 1 Functional Classification Interchange
Length
Purpose of Project: Interchange for US 1 at SR 1423 to provide
access for proposed Lee County airport.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Construct diamond interchange for Us 1 at
SR 1423 in Lee County.
will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No _X_
If yes, by whom and amount: W or M
How and when will this be paid? This project is a part of
R-2500, therefore will be state funded.
Page 1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: Interchange
Type of Access Control: Full _X_ Partial None _
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges 1 Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway:
Traffic: Current 300 Design Year 1992
o Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of way cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition). . . . . . . . . .
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ 3,550,000.00

TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right.of way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
shoulders: Paved. . . ... . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subsurface Items : . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
New Bridges x $
Widen Bridge, REHAB & x $
Remove Bridge x $
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . $
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
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . . $
Other . . $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 3,086,000.00
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . $ 464,000.00
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $ 3,550,000.00
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
_X_ New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Nancy Campanella Date: _
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Board of Tran. Member
Manager, Program and
Policy Branch
Asst. Highway Admin.
Secondary Roads. Off.
Construction Branch
Landscape
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Chief Engineer
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
INIT. DATE
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
• -------------
O?
?? I
O
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
R-2500
Proposed Interchange for US 1
at SR 1423
`r
0 0.5 I MILE 1