U-3456_complete file

®s stem
.? ?.
PROGRAM
March 15, 2007
0 C2
Mr. Richard Spencer gyp`'
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ?'6ny
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Mr. Spencer
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
U-3456, Widening of US 1, Richmond County; Yadkin River Basin (CU
03040201); Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide mitigation for the unavoidable impacts associated with the above referenced
project as requested by NCDOT in a letter dated February 19, 2007. This project is included in
the NCDOT's Design Build Program. The impacts as reported by the NCDOT are as follows:
Riparian Wetland Impacts: 0.08 acre
Non-Riparian Wetland Impacts: 0.13 acre
Stream Impacts: 107 feet
Compensatory wetland and stream mitigation associated with this project will be
provided in accordance with Section X of the Memorandum of Agreement between the N. C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of Transportation, and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers signed on July 22, 2003 (Tri-Party MOA). EEP commits to
implement sufficient compensatory riparian and non-riparian wetland mitigation up to 0.16 and
0.26 wetland credits, respectively and stream mitigation up to 214 stream credits to offset the
impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is
permitted. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance
letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File U-3456 ,'/ ® A
/
U ?- c -? - NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

PROGRAM
March 15, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
U-3456, Widening of US 1, Richmond County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the wetland and stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated February 19, 2007, the impacts are located in CU
03040201 of the Yadkin River Basin in the Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as
follows..
Riparian Wetland Impacts: 0.08 acre
Non-Riparian Wetland Impacts: 0.13 acre
Stream Impacts: 107 feet
This project is included in the NCDOT's Design Build Program. EEP commits to
implementing sufficient compensatory stream and wetland mitigation to offset the impacts
associated with this project by the end of the MCA Year in which this project is permitted, in
accordance with Section X of the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, signed on July 22, 2003. If the above
referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be
valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE - Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: U-3456
., W-5 MR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
10
y
dM
y W n?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
f6*
?.;. 6'
s 1ho rye`
?S'AD 4i4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION %4
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 19, 2007
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Director
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
Subject: Request for Stream and Wetland Mitigation for the Widening of US 1, Richmond
County. Federal Project No. STP-0001(7), WBS No. 34950.1.1, State Project No.
8.1581301, T.I.P. No. U-3456, Division 8.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the project
in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the US Army
Corp of Engineers (USAGE), the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
The NCDOT proposes to widen US 1 from SR 1424 to SR 1640/SR 1442, in Richmond County.
There will be impacts to a jurisdictional stream and two wetlands associated with this project which
will require compensatory mitigation. We have avoided and minimized the impacts to Waters of the
US to the greatest extent possible as described in the permit application. An application for a
Nationwide Permit 14 and General Water Quality Certification 3404 will be submitted upon receipt
of acceptance of this mitigation. A copy of the permit application, when submitted, can be found at
http://www.ncdot. org//planning/pe/naturalunit/Applications.html.
The project is located in the Sandhills region of the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North
Carolina in the Yadkin River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03040201, sub-basin 03-07-16.
Mitigation is required for the following impacts:
• 107 linear feet of warm perennial stream (unnamed tributary to Falling Creek)
• 0.08 acres of riverine wetland
• 0.13 acres of non-riverine wetland
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Of 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
0
Please send the letter of confirmation to Richard Spencer at U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, PO Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890. Mr. Spencer's
FAX number is 910-251-4025.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires a
formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John
Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
Please respond to NCDOT in writing within 10 business days with an EEP acceptance letter for this
NCDOT project.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ashley Cox at 91.9-715-5534.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Polly Lespinasse, NCDWQ
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., NCDOT Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
2
4

O ?
°

^V
N
?

>

- ro
a¢
E- ?D
z?z
?wU
¢
?0
f?0O
?
o
x
rs
?1oz
ouzo-,
0
E-z
WOx??E.
?U
E-
wL1
>
-
rx?wt

aQ ?0R: T
w °a?

U)
0
IC) Q p
U a
z

0-0

co m

C: ? o LO in

Z
Q
J

W
>

a) oa Z
~

2 a) U W
CO

co -a
_0 Z
Q
W
J
U
- o

co O
r-
O
co
YO 0
(Z C6 C6
W E
o

E
m _

z ?
0

C w U ?
d

W
Q U
Q (n m O

W
U
Q

v
?

_ ? U
C6 m O O

Z O O
LL

ry
_ _ .- ? U M
O M
O (O
O
? N?? Q O O
U 77
H
U = ?

m
v
I- ?- X >
? c W =
'
1L p
a Q --°
"

Z
J
w m
m
a
o
E
>

W

o 0 0
LL, a) ?--

? T

Cn ? LL LL

CC

0 0 +
M r W

(n co
(n
J

? ? J
CV ?
O
m LO?t
o
N
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DAB 15'
TO {._ ? EF. O OR ROOM. BLDG.
p REF. NO. OROOo
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
?. PLEAS! ANSWER FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY, SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
d,? srn7e
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. Nguus TOLSON
GOVERNOR 3RETARY
i OV-IS J& do
All M
March 15, 1999
6t
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR"
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the widening of US 1 from Lawson
Lane to the intersection with SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road) and
SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road), Richmond County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-0001(7), State Project No. 8.1581301,
TIP Project No. U-3456
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project
(see attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for April 27, 1999 at 10:00 AM in the Roadway Design Conference Room,
Building A, Century Center Complex (Room 162). You may provide us with your comments at
the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Beverly G. Robinson, Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 229.
WDG/plr
Attachment

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # U-3456
PROJECT # 8.1581301
F.A. PROJECT # STP-0001(7)
DIVISION: 8 COUNTY: Richmond
ROUTE: US 1
Date: March 15, 1999
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
Programming
® Planning
Design
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Urban Principal Arterial-Other
LENGTH: 2.7 miles
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: To improve safety and traffic flow and reduce the number of
accidents.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: The proposed project will include the widening of US 1
(Fayetteville Road) from Lawson Road to the intersection with SR 1640 (Wiregrass
Road) and SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road), a distance of 2.7 miles. The recommended cross-
section is a three-lane curb and gutter section, 40 feet wide from face to face and 8 foot
berms on 100 feet of right-of-way. The proposed right of way width will accommodate a
future multi-lane facility.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA August 2000
FONSI May 2001
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes ? No
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($) , or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full F-] Partial r_? None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 0
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: Two-lane section with curb and gutter west of Lawson
Lane, two-lane shoulder section east of Lawson Lane
with two small three-lane shoulder sections.
Proposed: Three lane curb and gutter section on multi-lane right of
way.
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (1999): 10796
Design Year (2025): 17603
% TTST DUAL DHV
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ® 3R
DESIGN SPEED: 50 mph (81 km/h)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ....................... $ 6,300,770
Right of Way Cost (including relocation, $ 900,000
utilities and acquisition) ...... ............ (TIP)
Force Account Items ........................... $
Preliminary Engineering ......................... $
Total Cost ................................... $ 7,200,770
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction .................................. $ 6,300,000
Right of Way .................................. $ 900,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 7,200,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
® Pavement:
®Surface ......................................... $ 282.450
®Base ........................................... $ 629.925
? Milling & Recycling ............................... $
? Turnouts ....................................... $
? $
? Shoulders:
? Paved .......................................... $
? Earthen ........................................ $
® Earthwork ............................................ $ 913,635
® Fine Grading ........................................... $ 100.000
? Subsurface Items ....................................... $
® Subgrade and Stabilization ................................ $ 113,400
® Drainage (List any special items) ........................... $ 500.000
? Sub-Drainage ......................................... $
? Structures Width x Length
? Bridge Rehabilitation -X----- .......... $
?NewBridge x.......... $
? New Bridge x .......... $
? New Bridge x - - - - - .......... $
? Widen Bridge x .......... $
? Remove Bridge x .......... $
? New Culvert: Size Length _ _ _ _ _ .......... $
? Culvert Extension ................................. $
? Retaining Walls .................................. $
? Noise Walls ..................................... $
? Other Misc. Structures ............................. $
® Concrete Curb & Gutter .................................
? Concrete Sidewalk .....................................
? Guardrail ............................................
? Fencing: W.W. ? and/or C.L. ..........................
® Erosion Control .......................................
? Landscaping ..........................................
® LEFT TURN LANE
® UTILITIES

$ 316.800

$ 80.000

$ 80.000
$ 200.000

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
? Lighting ............................................. $
® Traffic Control ........................................ $ 163,800
? Signing:
? New .......................................... $
? Upgraded ....................................... $
® Traffic Signals:
® New .......................................... $ 45.000
? 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 ......................................... $ 32,760
® Markers ......................................... $
? $
? Delineators ........................................... $
®Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc ...................... $ 2,022,000
Contract Cost Subtotal ................................ $ 5 479 770
Engineering & Contingencies ................................. $ 821,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs ................................ $
Force Account ............................................ $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: ..................... $ 6,300,770
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 60 feet
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
Yes ? No
® New Right of Way Needed: Width 100 feet .......... $ 900,000(TIP)
? Easements: Type Width .......... $
? Utilities: .............................................. $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: .................................. $ 900,000(TIP)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 7,200,770
Prepared By: BGR Date: 3/15/99
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. &, Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
i 1

v' /

j
`sue _\ .. . ..

Al \
Op
?R
Haman [ 3 ??``??
?F<
s
Elle,be
I C H M O N
?7o 5andhdfl Rx.

n
0 KILOMETERS 2
0 MILES 1
+,...,., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
M s PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U - 345 of
US 9 (FAYETT[ VOLLE ROAD)
FROM LAWSON LANE TO
SIX 1640 (WORE GRASS ROAD)/
OR 9442 (O.E DBETT0ER ROAD)
ROCKONGNAM
ROCHMOND COUNTY
IFO®URE 9
f
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 1999
ti
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
i
This responds to your letter of May 10, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed widening of US 1 (Fayetteville Road) from Lawson Lane to SR 1640 (Wiregrass
Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road), at Rockingham, Richmond County, North Carolina (TIP # U-
3456). This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also
serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen the existing US
1 to multi-lanes. The project study will include a three-lane curb and gutter facility and a five-
lane curb and gutter facility. One hundred feet of right-of-way (ROW) will be acquired for the
proposed improvements.
The mission of the Service is working with others to provide leadership in the conservation,
protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of
all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments
at this time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your
planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be

avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, and without impeding
fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be
reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by
using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Hamlet 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows
wetland resources along the proposed project corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful
for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed
wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination
occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize
delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion to the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
2
4
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species that are known
to occur in Richmond County. At this time there are four species listed as endangered, the red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), rough-
leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). In
addition, there are 15 Federal Species of Concern (FSC). Habitat requirements for the federally-
listed species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding protected
species:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
3
of
R
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Federal Species of Concern are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains
concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation
status of these taxa. Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would
encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort
to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
oHefner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Attachment
4

z
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Grao
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Beverly Robinson)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/22/99:919/856-4520 Extension 32:\U-3456.tip
5

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: C t EF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG..

WVy
?44fta- 12
(11 A
FRO REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
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
[3 PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE -REPLY FOR. MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION - ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

1?1?p?P
Z 5 ?pp3
AVM
,
?? S?v'ION

rw
M
•
•
0
o?
M
ti
U
0
pftmiil
I VICINITY MAP FOR PROJECT U-3456
See SbBet 1-A For Index of Sheets ----
See Sheet 1-8 For Conventlonal5ymbols
e 1,
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 5 0 50 Igo

PLANS
50 5 0 50 1 0

PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
1 ? 10 0
go -
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2005 = 13900
ADT 2025 = 22100
DHV = 10%
D = 60%
T = 11%
TTST 6% DUAL 5%
V = 50mph
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
141 GSO DIVISION OF, HIGHWAYS
r 6 2003 RICHMOND COUNTY
MYSECTI N PFI SUBMITTAL
LOCATION: US 1 FROM SR 424 (ROBERDEL ROAD)
TO SR 1640 (WIAGRASS ROAD)) /SR 1442
(LEDBETTER ROAD) IN ROCKTNGHAM
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING,
AND SIGNALS
A PORTION OF THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF ROCKINGHAM.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III, EXCEPT IN WETLANDS.
NCEIOT CONTACT :TERESA M.BRUTON,P.E,PROJECT ENGINEER, DESIGN SERVICES
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY F.A. PROJECT STP-000 IM = 2.898 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURES F.A. PROJECT STP-0001(7) = 0.000 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 34950.1.1 = 2.898 MILES
2002 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
R/ W PROD. DATE: J-1T, 2004
R/W DATE: 0.6.6,, 2004 GLENDA GIBSON, P.E. ,
LETTING PROD. DATE: July, 2006 EARTH TECH PROJECT MANAGER
MIKE PEKAREK
P
E

LETTING DATE: 0.6.6',2006 ,
.
.
EARTH TECH PROJECT D=GN ENGINEER

01
Prepared In the Offloe of.
E A R T H` T E C H
A *L/CO INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY
FOR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 475
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
(919)-854-6200
FAX [phone]

BTA71 STAn WD ADP9 = - /mT ?m
•?. U-3456 1
RATE YAW.x. RAM.DI.RU
34950.1.1 STP-0001 PE

0
a
0
z
tiw
ti
m
W
J
P
P
l END STATE PROJECT 34950JJ (U-3456,)
STA 167+00.00
END F,A.PROJECT STP4Wl(7)
END CONSTRUCTION
poS
E
U'f ?

Sp
'O
1

m

0
0
0
M
CID
Q
Z
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DD NOT USE PM R/W AMUISMON
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DD NOT URe FOR C0MTRUCn0N
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1
FEDERAL HIGHWAY
G
Ol
V
m
m
as
v'tv
(o v
V) C6
Mm
0
L
a?
Y 9m
oqP
0
mLm
aZn
E Lm
- L-
PL Stu 64+92.63 PI Sto 67+75.48
A= r3T14Z(U) A /` Jr 14Z (Hr)
D = 0'3422,6' D = 0'3422.6°
L = 282,65' L = 282.85'
T=141.44' T=141.44'
R = /0=00' R = 10.000.00'
SE=NC SE=NC
12
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO MOT 086 "it /W AC?VEWMX
PRELIMIN
DD NOT 1188 RY PLANS
C?NBTBUCTION
D9 883.. PC fF'--..
`li / eg/06?
\? X5.59- ? ? I I ? \\
S61'aig7? \` /
dl ? e?
ECM 10
V SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
y FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 19
FOR -Y9- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24
2650'
14791'S3'E AXLE -$ EIP 192.79'
ECM 50.05' 94.84 154A9' I N805725'E h
140,90' NBI99'49'E N80'69'25'E
N7812' Ni812'J9'E
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
U-3456 10
-Y11- $R 1504 ROADWAY DESIGN - HYDRAULICS
-Y12- PHILADELPHIA DR, ENGINEER ENGINEER
PI Sta N+60J4
10'56' 437" (RT) 700

465
43
D = 5
L = 191DY
3 K T = 95.8!'
00'
00 -00'
4 200 ? 12-600
.
R = IA 20,500
?J 4W 20,600 20600

\ -L- US 1 -,1
1 -"qoo -L- US , 7,: i
I
-1 -rop -L_ US i
1
10 400
200
200
g
7001
200 2005 ADT
2025 AD7
1200+ 400

EIP ' _ 100 INCOMPLE E PLA NS
'
'
flw OAia oi: N FAATX i t C x
TDICOrporate Center DrNe, 9ulte 475
O I Rala h, NC 27607 rAX)
3378 -Y12- SR 1682 -Y13- SR 1666 3+75 95+5 LT GRAPHIC SCALE
Ne7z4 ?9T+00 99+f6 LT
I -- 4_ PATTERSON RD. ELLEN DR
L- 99+16 - 100+ LT N2s5ps,N WRR!•ii?
Ba T I ,I BYII 141 PO 5+00.00 g /
qq YI 10+B 99 OFF -13,96' Obi
Iii 5 t'. t. ro°°C
I I P' ?l ? 0 °9T? _ 7q9
POTSta. 11+50.
BEGIN CONSTCTION . I GG i WILLIAM DOWDY 5¢ 95/ Maa °'N
I RICHMOND COUNTY DB 1141 PG 385 \
-7 0 316
S C r t. OB 740 PG 748 w OB 590 P 456
Nh f'. Nb ?n
LYNWOOD COVINGTON
11 2 ?.. i OQ / j? D8 772 PG 295
r° ++a
I'IIiI i + `
PECOLIA wI BERTHA ALFORD
MORE III.. m o % : 08 706 PG 525. R n w /
I DB 720 PG 729 1 i I ,r.?. t U p m / g1a?y N a
25.32' ti ^ 2 dCj -L- POTSY0.98 41 N
+67,4 I I i 'tj oo°0 6. ?N 0. - e t:
7 i.
& G rJ +x7.43 , 1/ L_ 6D' cxl?p asew?,
138.70'
.. 152.60' END
A+972 - I W BEG C P
NBI'20'42E "wJ1B320 2' - - - Y I I \
-L' POT _ +15.44 1 ? 25.04'
N83'20'42'E TggH m I I I I
((((````""""'''' I .:1 35'-105' PECOLIA HORE w x APoo' a2 ADE + I? I d F x 14 rp
B 8 720 I I M 1 ET
INO TERIj)3..MILLIAM-Y11- POTSta. f'OT ?H 7 ??piDIT E ERENCE OEE? N
_ POTStG /0+00.00 GRA 5 H ERM p,. C VINGTOI A, 9+I6 LT e
BEG \Q .
TAPER 7N
TAX AP E DET o"?? a D
89 7p 4,R f m o,? °2 / 1 M IDI TCH DIT H
4(Y-12d TO 1I I 0TO
'DFANF I TO LT.
45 4 O LT. 1 9_(._ ' 45 PUE t Zi
i+2919 a - - - P E PD W V
- - E P ??-
D '
}
,15? r?' 15
3_R
Icy ZU
-k y ?
-ICY T,PROPANP4,F3? I
*;I T
xLe 1I
? S,- S9 6075 8'bF?1SETi L FI I
:? Iy yI b IP RAP APRON
"- 5 TNS CLASS B { YI 1
"y .y,??? 145Y FF '
, ??± ,-yy,-? ± ), LET VELOCITYf6.75fp :a +
NO''OEHD''R W NCE ra
iPBri? 1N; 7 END C-& G
y ?! LEON W -Y12- STA+2 3
_k v 08 690 P 253 513
DS 1017 P 353 I +50
PEI 9 Pb, 8 F m
f EC RDY DIITCH
+ ?. 1:AROF01IZTd 1?E
m
so"'.
e / - . 4a
237A• '
NB7p33B.W ?I a
]II ?
i
/ aXo
i
Al
2N5'j,Ep'6
556.0 O - ?
'
PROPANE TANK 60.0011I
EIP -?'-'-•?._ W' ia' I I
?'?., 236,59'
SB9'2q? gJ'ry kp
I
4
24" CB
ti

y m?„ „F
I
? 4Y/A_ 3 BL-115 PINC 86+23.69
A E DIPoANZE a BYII-115 POT 8+64,25
B E,6 44 542 PG rn. BY12-115 POT 5+00.0
N897B'2gE 8 PG 8 El y -L- 93+06.17 OFF 46. '
'° IS
R5
EIP
DO?tY SETTLE
T. pp
\ \ - 9 PG 11 sy. /0j2e
199,87' 9r?0i,
---1 x t
EIP
'SBND
F1 w
`' WILLIAM NICHOLSON \
DB 451 PG 349 °o
PB 9 PG 8
- ± -170.85
NB9Te?--

pNC

us iw In R?
TFVmv REM
/

3
_
l ? 1
E-?+
8 ? a

' a
25
-7d
"t8'OFFSET
+
?, -Y13- STA+2321 z _
LYNWOOD COVINGTON

OB 772 PG 295 °

ro
A
-YJ3-
I
' I
4.
g gp ppq ?y
21TNS' C LASSOB
II W
T Y0
FF
,
,
CH I F
-
?
Q ?

A 14+00 T.
n
BYI3-143 PI

/? PROCC??
PANE 7ANX
I 1I

1 . f
-Y13- 13+0'
3+19.43 OFF 10.73'
N/.^. I , 5
r P.
I
EIP St . 14'
,i REBAR NS
G7J ?
? 15' g EXISTING 18' PIPE -
_ --N8211 24?'f - _. _ ___
4fhL? ? ., N .. .. N .. ..
-- o- - F j
PC APTON E E E PD + E P
- + U
F? PDE
°w 1 pp LR ?
EX" EXIST Q
aaA° EXI EXI q5I TNS ASSO B
14 SY FR
RPARWI
LYNWOOD COVINGTON
DB 772 pLfPGG Z95I Epp$5 g pp qp E
I'THICKCW/FILTER FABRIC
DETAIL
SPECIAL CUT DITCH C
(Not to Scale)
t al o''1 r D1tcY
Ground a p ?ot70 Sape
I
D = 2 Ft.
-YI3- 11+34 - 14+00 RT
M
(00
O
2
a SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
U ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 20
U FOR -Y11- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24
Z FOR -Y12- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24
FOR -Y13- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24

UD Imi' 08X 1XXR /W ACOU?TFON

PRELIMIN Y PLANS
? NoT ,>? WNtf&xQ[[OE7
-L-
PI Sto 115+48,3
w A 3' 40' 549' (LT)
e o D = 0' 4258-7
o
= L = 514,)9'
T = 257JY
R = 8,000.W
SE = NC
0

EIP \
j
O
m
co
O
Z
O
s
V
U
2
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
U-3456 11
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT USE PoR /SP AC0111NTTON
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
00 NOT OEE PO WNBTROCT[ON
aE EA RI N®IT B 0 N
701Cor0orafe CXr Orlre.Sutie 475
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 20
I
3
n ? OH
z
JULIA WILLIAMS
RICHM(1N ATSHFNIDV? HIGH
FIELO5C400L
C
Ot
N
2
aQ
1

N
/
0
L
a
/M
Dm
0-D?
E D9,
o'D
YLm
t H -L- -DRI- -Yl5A-
PI Sta 115+4813 P/ Sta 130+9720 PI Sta 10+68.85 PI Sta 11+2572 Pl Sta 12+17.46
0= 3"40'549'(LT) A 647'46,6(RT) p= 88"07'l3A'(LT) A= 88'04'57.0'(RT) A= 4'08'12.4'(LT)
D = 0'42' 583' D = 0' 2454.7' D = 163" 42'08V D = 163'42' 08.0' D = 3't0` 592'
L = 51409' L = 1,63692' L = 53,83' L = 53.81' L = 129.96'
T = 257J3' T = 819.42' T = 33.87' T = 3395' T = 65.01'
R = 8.000.00' R = 13,800.00' R = 35.00` R = 35.00' R = 1900.00'
s,oo' SE = NC SE = NC I I
NB9'94'O6'W'-' '
-Y14- Q
PI Stu 12+73J3 I
I A= 18'44'31.T (RT);
D = I2' 19'18V
L = 152JI' m
T = 7674' I
R = 465,00'
I
00
I ao
I
I
_o
u 319.9
RALPH A.SOUDER
D9 1053 PC 448
DB 1088 PC 159
r
t
i
?m I I ?
ULIA WILLIAMS
D6 90 PG 331 BL-118 PINC 112+23.85
BY14-118 POT 5+00.00
-L- 119+04.42 OFF 23.97'
RIP SYSFFLASS B
RALPH A.SOUDER
we, DO 1053 PC 449
DO 1088 PC 159
c:
?(?I r ?R7S Lq
I
i ? II ?I 5 SY A?FASSROH
?' 141
ECM
I
sl

BI
o n
l
nZ ,
I
I .NOTE. GRAVES WERE LOCATED BY APPROXIMATE CENTER SHOTS. SIZE IS 4' X 7' PLOTS.
120. RUTH BLUE 140. DR. F. D. QUICK
19. LULAR MEDLEY 141. JAMES R. SEALS
122, ALEXANDER BELL 142. ETHEL J. MCLENDON
123. WRLIAM ALEXANDER BELL 143. LOUISE GOODWIN
129, A.OONME STANBECK 144. UNKOWN
I
125. CLYDE 1. STANBACK 145. WILL 0. CARR, JR.
126, GAIL V. CAMPBELL 146. WILLIAM ANT. HOWARD
127. 'AD'E M. DAVIS 147. BERKLEY H.GOULD
12B. VERNON J. DAVIS 14 B. HELEN A.l U.FORD
129. LILLIE J.FEROUSON 149. JEFFREY J.MOORE
30. JAMES L.FEBGUSON 150. ERIC E. FURNACE
1
36 CORRINE J. WASHINGTON 151. UNKNOWN
32. FRANK W. WASHINGTON
1 152, MANSON JACKSON,SR.
33. UNKNOWN 153. MAMIE S. JACKSON
34. WILLIE BOSTICK 154. STEVEN COVINGTON
1
35. ANNIE C. BOSTICK 155. LOTTIE H. COVINGTON
' 136. UNKNOWN
13T.
UNKNOWN 156. JAMES E. AARON, SR.
I? N
136. EORA V. BOSTICK

139. HENRY FLETCHER =
m

SOUTHERN INVESTMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
DO 332 PG 319
?
6 I PB I PC 102 5
IT i i
} A 9 11 1
Nn 1 I?
I I il.
-mJ c I I
m
CEMETARY O ± ?y f.FAfETAAY

R t' I o` I' ?{0R 1
EXI EXI l EXI rl ?? ®? "1 I® @8®
R DE 1 E I-------- F- o,sEM?W---fl4K = 0 0?'s3°'-°-= 6' x 1
E - _
,
RETEX.P
.. 15" cONC
40.. -, -",>?s-=- -- --
_ US I FAYET7£VII,fE RO -„_ --- _ -
4? 'FIfT.IXI OFF 29' w 15 PIE a" - - -
wil cONC _-'_. - -RCO - asew t5 7? cra 6 3saw .. _ 15 R RAID ,750
!? 9' N? OO} CB 2'-6'CAa '/ ?_._- F E I Er Z.
45'-120' gy n7' 'u .?. X ' F E E ?t?65
Ina?:? Tz' D I. IsBXD ti' - RIP s AASS 9
PRON--?../ 50
O FF
?s E pLpLRREEEEFFppRpM?ED gSOOpR NROpjLEf rvor7? - s IT CL P('d. /0+il
\ 1,. E I'INHICKCL RIP BRP YYY
\ T ILTE FA IC
\ 4 x 4 PTSta. JO
'FSET MCCASKILL OIL COMPANY JAMES PORTER fi N 8230
a 1 5 o m DO 760 PO 008
.' STA7 t T ;`' ", I A -L' POTSt0.119+15.00 OB 670 PC 706 MCCASKILL OIL COMPANY
D6 670 PC 706
RIIpp55RAP ?RbN \ -P BK , J -Y14- POTSta. 10+00.00
7TNS CLASS B
YO FF co
B'wN\ ?MM 11. ??w +l1?
- ? WAtt1` ?Y ? n
i>K ?--- 518'30'01'W
J9 -""'?
II \ ,, , ' { EIP
C 1 ,
14 4
BY4?2+ SO 7+ 7?
0
Fp,40THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF RICHMOND COUNTY
p'; 1 l DB 521 PC 31
2
0
1Z
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET N0.
W456 12
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO N07 UM FOR fW ACQUISMON
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CDNBTRUCTM14
in the
p1; E A A T N T! O W
701 Corporate Center Drlve, 1U11e 475
RNe19n, NC 275607
(9191454-6200 - 19191 B59-62591(0.X1
GRAPHIC SCALE
-Y15A- LOCKLEAR DR. BEGIN C__ff
5 SITCHN TDOXSED
300= E DDII
20,77,1 70:000j L100 20 700 X8001(W P?p t0
RE IZ800 l- U$ 1 w TAC ROY QIIOTCH
2005 AOT STp. Ipt,, gLT.
2025 PDT SEE PROf1LE & XSECT
SSTAC9+OY0 10
P CH
SEEj/??PRO FLE & TRSECT
L11??
I
j ENCE 0.6' CHL A45"
?Jr,.Y FI.
JAMES TERRY
D9 498 PC 44 r
`C2
4 St TERRY LITTLE OSHO
'?5,54 -L- POL
-' OT !0 -DR3- 1
II
PDE1 PUE .
Y_
OOFfS?7
F
-n
S7A 0 DL
PUE 1
1
!d !d J
E F F +F F
11 c I 1 \
+ r , . +46 I r-,
( POT a, N 0.0X I9FD
WDr E CO `
_ IWO
X
JEFFREY PRESSLEY
O6 p00 PC 449
11+45.00 BONNIEIE W Po 922 PC 2 PC18548
DB 688 PC 40C
b+,, rat ?coNC?
JAMES PORTER PO 22 PC IB
DB 728 PC 497 -L- POC a.130+5675 L---1
PO 22 PC 18 .. -nPd- P11TCfn IMfnnn _ .,.,• _.
'SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
I ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
FOR -L- PROFILES SEE SHEET 20 & 21
FOR -Y15A- PROFILE SEE SHEET 25
NOTE:SUPERELEVAI ROTATES TOWARD FOR -DR/- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
ISLAND STA 124+20 TO 124+90 FOR -DR3- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
FOR -DR3- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
l R8.0oI -DR4- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
U•3A56 IS
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER 1
E
&= 647 46,6 (RT) es = r 2556H = 62122,4 11
D = 0'24547' 547° Ls = 200,00' = r25` 56E
L = 1,63692' LT = 133,34' L I= 44375
T = 819.42' ST = 66b7' 71 = 222JO'
R = 13400.00 = 4,000.00'
SE=NC E=X
a
?O
Z
SOO
BINS
0
ys?
'h. RAM K.AGARWAL
DB 1028 PC 425
JOHN EYANS BL-12 PINC 14+57 8T
•-'•--08.16 PC 3 2 `'`"
PB ia-FB'le-_ BYI5-120 POT +00.00 ;~
131+38.67 OFF 18.33
F? s &.R? +', fir;?
8'O
25
EG TAp
5869 \
E / -" 0.10 A SOIL
POE 011
E DI t \
POE \
ANU as I F 1, P
F
! j 49 s'
! s
ass B EN !l
15Fp
(!W i SEEPROFIILEE.pXpSECT m
aR• l ? jI NSFFLAS? B m
j POT +80 $
-„ _ 11N I
Al I II
TIETO?N Al :OSH 1
II
? j 1
EIP I
I ? I
= F Zb' Dbb"
= 200A0'
133-
= 66,67
1
ECM
L
o '^
h
137,83' ECM
NB9.561' 01..-
m ?w
g" {
IP
i;3 101
W. T. USSERY
DO 862 PC 97
h?
,;N.

CLASSO 8
a RAlk l
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO I= UBR FOR /T/ ACOUIRITION
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
DO NOT UURR OONR'TRUCTNIN
of E A R 7 N IV T R C N
701 Corporate Canter Drive, Suite 475

N pro
2 On
0
TEARY WILLIAMS v
DO 823 PC 226 =3 !- p
SY FFA?RbN a N
6 N EO
O
4/ J }a
125
m m i
- F J
- iD' " - u,ww,v CB
100'R
J .? OFF -2
R
3 p_E_ o g
-??-- E ?yy ? ? ---- ??2'•`ff?CR`G'swlstwc vw _ -
v f i,11 1` 3 + F
END+TAPER
m 41 I v I
r
? 4P'-I ' .1 /
L===
I Aisl'-`} a l? ?j 6'OFF 1 6 71
! // ll t1 sFD Da JOE BURNS
U NS361 1 ;
sat - / 1 1. Mn A
PS 3 PG 245 44f-"'v
? `?;j"'° dory 1 11 , • ? ? ? T. - D
'? ? /`+? 1 Ilon NafloraNE ? ?? I
! 1 11? ?_uANrv?---1 f;
Z I 9 x----X--
_
WD
1 / o ? + v X-soCX--x
i.t,lirr?' 1 11 11111' w cONC N `,...?
SMA
J&BRRY TILL81 bus S r?t.I
0 83 P .
x x 5
PC IS 0 I 1
i II 1 111.` oU`--. '15-14 T 7+63,96 EDWIN PINEDA I ( 11? _I
- 131+ 0p OFF 282,26 DO IDT5 PC 241
PAA11-5 .I0pTgOCH PO 22 PC M CONSTRU C TON CO. INC. SPEDE CAI DITCH
EPROFILE & XSECT 8 22 PO 19 'j (Not to Scale)
E-?N PROP.OITCH
E%ISi. DITCH I Front D
.5?-UI.63' N lot e< Ditch
N857B'S4'E ?- 173,36' GrOUnd j?R 2 D A lp'(k Tope
13+0000 EIP ryes zz'jB'E - 208.84, 6,y I F CHARLES MCDONAL
-sta. C STRII ION EIP N85.2P46'E L DB 943 PC 512
EIP D = 2 Ft. PB 3 PC 245
-YI6- 11+50 - 14+00 LT CTnl
12.8
20700 J
20,700 2-500
20,300
L- US 1 l? r
2? i Tool `00
`
I Y -L- US 1
pep 3
GO
2005 ADT
400 T? 2025 AOT
/1000
-Y15- RAIDER RD. -Y16- SR 164 4
MANER DR.
_ 1 1
+I m 1 1 ?
`i
9s 1
1
NTA
Z. ? I
m TO EXIST?0ITCN
397,34
seoz4'zo'w ??a.
NEOCON UCT II
NOTE-INCREASED WEDGING FROM STA 141+00 TO 149+00
TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE
"'LOS' FbPEITTI?Li"R(faw.?28''do. rr ?n ?uag
-
0S
C4R

II I
I
NIL ?' ?Ij?,l
I Ilzil
I ' 23fD
1 1
I THICK NAISSS IFWA
a
15" EnsTHC'ntw

Im ?
I? se?6
'\ X B05 ?

I J ??I ` NIR ` I ?(

p I

? JOHN ACKOR
?1m
A Y, ?'-
A -- •` DO 742 PC 693
l
A
OK o U 1?
'(
Lr
F m PB 3 PC 245
`
v
? QO
oF
9g9
A6 N o
6
k?
JOHN DUNN
=
p,I
\2 DB 767 PC 75
?'•
6
BILLY DUNN PEI 3 PC 245
DO 753 PG 8
X 3 PC 245
++,,
11 i CHARLES MCOOQ1D
1 1 DO 943 PC 512
1 PB 3 PC 245
j xt
'"TZ ?E 1
1- - - yA>U?y?tM..i^v^v
99.39'

'
"59'E NB3.4T'59'E M 99.39
N83'47'59'E 100,00'
SB3.9T58
GO

Q
-TIE-AN PROP. DITCH
TO XIST. DITCH

a`r SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 21
U FOR -Y15- PROFILE SEE SHEET 25

Z FOR -Y16- PROFILE SEE SHEET 25
FOR -DR5- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
n
-C-
PIs Stu 140+4604 PI Stu 143+3680 PIS S
es = (2556.6' A= 6'2F22.4"(LT) 9s =
Ls = 200.00' D = P2556e Ls =
LT = 13334' L = 44375 LT =
ST = 66b"7' T = 222J0' ST =
R = 4.000.00'
SE = .03
-Yl7A- -Yne-
P1 Sto 160+4991 PI Sto 15+85.57 PI Sta 12+67.76
A= 2'58' 038' (RT) A = 2T 33' 05j* (LT) A= Jr 00'55.,P (R7')
D = 0'42 583' D = 956'148" D = 5'56'14e
L = 414.37' L = 464DY L = 522.37'
T = 20723' T = 23659' T = 26776'
R = 8,000.00' R = 965.00' R = 965.00'
l(1
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT 089 FOR /W ACOUf81T10N
PRELIMINA RY PLANS
DO Nor o8B FO ? CONBT UMON
-Y17A- SR 1442
LEDBEITER RD.
4700
7,400
3d? 0 /300
20100 Z400 L_3? 9700
-L- US i IZO] C L600 -L- US 1
x 2600
2005 ADT
9ACQ 2025 ADT
Y17B- SR 1640
WIREGRASS RD.
n
E
-L- rur -)r . tat yAf END C G ! /,} ! s
-Yl7A- PTSto.18+13.01 -YtW srA+3OJ9
TERRY WILLIAMS -YI78- PCStu.10+00D0 Ff!
DB 523 PC 26 ??p RAP pppON - / : 43'-138'
7 PC 56 IITHS C 4.55 I '? 0 M SCO OLE Os, B'OFFS
PB ET
22 SY PN Lie B P Pr C ORMED SC?O? fLO??E ' C - C
BL-122 PINC 142+63.11 T?'itl?k?w% ISLTER FA PC K A IL E A C `
-L- 149+39.77 OFF 37.05'
45
ppR FORgMED SCOUq %, E k45 45 + PD F RgEFORMED SCOU$ OLE LIFER, LASS RIP + PO ±UQ
WPsINER: CLASS B RIP AP I'THICK W/FILTER FABRIC 8'OFFI THICK ,r PRVORMEO SCOUHOLE
LIN g C ASS D RIP RAP 4 ?_p?-- y, y,6nAC Aro
I'THICK/FILTER FABRIC 4 + w E
ORMMED SCOUR HOLE PD '? E x' CB gp' R
- .y
CLAS$ B RIP RAP W
K W/FILLTER FABRIC + 4 F?? ° v x.8
q
SPE
463 + PDE _-
---}? PDE -
PUE?/? _ ?E r e / G Z
N CB _
§ - - N 11_ 4.9' 43.7' -d r
os 7An? 14 0' _ I OFFSET
MCI
`" r-s . -aw-- ~ a ?p4 _ - ?" _? _ -- •PUMP +E a ?? ? ? I
t 5 _ - wrL Nc ^ao DI + vENT° ? 'q
xs . I" cw_ m -`°`6n 1 " E 1 caps o'o? ? 1 t c3
+ / PUMP 1B _
ravc
,oil- I \ } z c
&G - I C m I
- - -_ I ? F' ! { VIII I KENNETH J. LAYTON, INC.
KEROSENE 0 -,'`.g- 1
CI\EW / 5 I ZAf wI W I, I I_--I
OB 722 PC 110
+I s II ' ?i saaD ?J A W. J. BARNHARDT
i
} o a l? ssn .g oe szz PG 335 /??r p m
PS 7 PG 56 / y, lY
123 PINC 150+91.05 =
7oLd I
a 11 1 16L 1 I. I ?- Rc nNe ra 1 ??II ' L? / I I
BY17-123 POT 12+85.06
1 I - L „' .FD / ?_ ND C & G o d L- 157+67.40 OFF 59.90'
cl E? l ? t? 1 ;z?,? I I ` 1 1 I c, m , ?
"5o o I f? ! '? ; ?j ?? {y Q < ?s- rrre srA+S 6 r
' wo 1` 1 ?• w C \ i / ?^ v ?,y/c` ? a as
I a9 r
y.-r?
_ _ .U
u u- I 1 m , ?N ?? \
f'
w 1 HENRY USSERY i I 1 4 ERICA S. WALL ?/
m pEC OY TCC h'
' m n-r w u'
{ u v 1 DB II25 PC 430 DB 1052 PG 415 S7pA I 7
?4N ACKOR w I 5 PB 3 PC 245 0 III I I I A SEEP OS E XSEgT 5Sp7EC R8? YTCH
PB B 7' 3 42 PG 69? I ?? N? 1 1 N .J ------ x ?'RO5F4 L
SiA ??+ P k ? xsecr
P
z \ i N BROADUS - x
Q ° YNTHIA BENNETT 1
JAMES C
B. USSERY KILPATRICK OB 450 yyl Il/f//` _
l'} I 008 7T5 PPC490 OB 1122 PC 365 3
PG 0001
34 ? 245 p4 / o
3 M
I PS 3 PG 24S PS 246
zn.a1' G a s co
I 50.75' 3L 4N 6 8'2' C 7.9( "' ANGLE IRON
L EIP 2 _
p0.02' N7'E EIP `r 1^.^ Q
49.98' UP N16Y9'05'E T'9j, '?1 //
I N76'48'18'E
?E ?`Siy, - ras?L 1 Z
DP " a MARGARET MCOUAGE 27 \
3
196]8' --------? o S PB 3 PG 245 h??\ M D0.0
LI ' n HORACE LAMPLEY
513'io'44'N /?.
n
o 52 04. 355 PG 105
WILLIAM BARNWAROT ?'S r
DB 114 PC 44
PB 3 PG 245 6B9 W
?6 179.27' `?
PAVEMENT REMOVAL Z
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
NOTE: INCREASED W DGlNG FROM FOR -L- PROFILES SEE SHEET 21& 22
STA 141+00 TO 149+00 TO IMPROVE FOR YI7A- PROFILE SEE SHEET 25
DRAINAGE FOR -YI78- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
- L-
PL Stu 160+49.91 P( Stu 164+45.47
A= Z 58'039 (RT) A= 24r 54.r (LT)
D = 9 42' 58.30 D = 0' 42'583'
L = 41437' L = 37676'
T = 20723' T = 188.42'
R = 8=.00' R = 8,000.07
SE=NC SE=NC
END STATE PROJECT (U-3456)
PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
U-3456 75
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
INCOMPLE
DD NM 0m POR E PLANS
/W ACDD®LT[oN
PRELIMIN
Do tm VSB Po Y PLANS
CoNSTAuenozz

m e
p(; E A R 7 N t e D N
" 701Corpprote Copt- DrIm SUIts 475
8
EIP ?„_
4SING R/R
NNE
Na
m
VINE-
1060.34' ...-?'?
Go
0
Z
/r
V
2
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 22
-YI7B-
P1 Sto 16+3088
A= 12 4952e (LT)
D = 556'14.6
L = 216JY
T = 1085N
R = 96530'
-Yl7A-
P/ Stu 12+30.67
A= /4' 07'152' (RT)
D = 5'5614.6
L = 23783'
T = 11952'
R = 965.00'
-Yf1A-
PI Stu 15+8557
A ° 2T 33' 05J' (LT
D = 55614.6
L = 46403'
T = 23659'
R = 96530'
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO,
U 3456 16
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INC E PLANS
DO NO
A W ACOMSMON
PRE
? RY PLANS

DO
VTMIIO
CONSTAUC77ON
E A A T H ICI
T i 0 N
7O1 Corporate Center OrNe.Sulte 475

h

Ng
I.7 1 0
WI;
_J
M
co
O
Z
O
W
U
Z
M
co
0
Z
O
U
Z
FOR -Yf7A- PROFILE SEE SHEET 25
FOR -Yf7B- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
v
k I
STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TZANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 10, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration I
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager 4" 4?"
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: US 1 (Fayetteville Road) Widening from Lawson Lane to SR 1640
(Wiregrass Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road), Rockingham,
Richmond County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0001(7), State
Project No. 8.1581301, TIP Project U-3456
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying the proposed improvements to US 1. The project is included in
the Draft 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way acquisition in fiscal year 2004 and construction in fiscal year 2005.
The proposed project will begin at Lawson Lane and end at SR 1640 (Wiregrass
Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road). Proposed improvements will include widening the existing
US 1 to multi-lanes. The project study will include a three-lane curb and gutter facility and a
five-lane curb and gutter facility. One hundred feet of right of way will be acquired for the
proposed improvements.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by July 14, 1999 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ms. Beverly G.
Robinson, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 229.
WDG/plr
Attachment D
MAY 1419991
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
t

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Beverly G. Robinson V iI GNU<I7???
Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: US 1 (Fayetteville Road) Widening from Lawson Lane to SR
1640 (Wiregrass Road)/ SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road),
Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Project
STP-0001(7), State Project No. 8.15813 TIP Project No.
U-3456
A scoping meeting was held in the Roadway Design Conference Room (Room 162)
Century Center Building A, on April 27, 1999. The following persons were in attendance:
Felix Davila
Renee Gledhill-Earley
John Hennessy
Bill Rosser
Bill Campbell
Dan Duffield
Bob Deaton
Shannon Ransom
Art McMillian
Brenda Moore
Paul Rochester
Eugene Tarascio
Dale Burton
Betty C. Yancey
Derrick Lewis
Brian K. Mayhew
Ian Thompson
Eric Midkiff
Beverly Robinson
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Cultural Resources/SHPO
Division of Water Quality
Division 8-Division Engineer
Division 8 - District Engineer
Hydraulics Unit
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Traffic Control
Roadway Design Unit
Roadway Design Unit
Roadway Design Unit
Geotechnical Unit
Location and Surveys Unit
Right of Way Branch
Programming and TIP
Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The following is a summary of the comments made at the meeting and through
written comments.
0
& 1

Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to improve capacity and safety along the subject
roadway.
Functional Classification -
US 1 is designated as an Urban Principal Arterial on the Statewide Functional
Classification System and as a Major Thoroughfare on the Rockingham-Hamlet
Thoroughfare Plan.
Project Termini
The limits of the project as described in the TIP, will begin at Lawson Lane and end.
at SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road).
At the scoping meeting there was discussion of extending the project limits
approximately 0.35 mile west of Lawson Lane to an existing multi-lane section. This option
will be studied in more detail as the project progresses.
Ali ent
Improvements will begin at Lawson Lane and end at SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR
1422 (Ledbetter Road) and will follow the existing US 1 for the entire length of the project.
All improvements are proposed along the existing US 1. Symmetrical and best-fit
alternatives will be studied for the proposed alignment.
Intersections
Most of the intersections along US 1 are T-intersections. Two intersections, SR 1422
(Ledbetter Road)/ SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road) and SR 1682 (Patterson Road)/SR 1504
(Philadelphia Road), are four-leg intersections. All intersections in the project vicinity are
stop sign controlled. Per the Feasibility Study, a signal is recommended for the Wiregrass
Road/Ledbetter Road intersection.
Typical Section
The existing typical section of US 1 west of Lawson Lane is currently a three-lane
40-feet curb and gutter facility. East of Lawson Lane, US 1 is currently a two-lane roadway,
24-feet wide with 2-foot paved shoulders and 8-foot grass shoulders. There are two short
sections within the project limits that are three-lane shoulder sections 40-feet wide. The three
lane sections are located near the Richmond Senior High School and between SR 1635 (Mt.
Olive Church Road) and SR 1503 (Philadelphia Road).
Proposed improvements per the Feasibility Study include widening US 1 to a three
lane curb and gutter facility, 40-feet face-to-face with 8-foot berms.
At the scoping meeting a five-lane curb and gutter facility was also discussed as a
proposed typical section option. The project study will include the three-lane and five-lane

curb and gutter sections. The typical section will be determined once projected volumes are
analyzed and costs for both sections compared.
Right of Way
The existing right of way along US 1 is approximately 60 feet in width.
The feasibility study recommends 100 feet of right of way for the proposed
improvements.
Adjacent Projects
TIP Project R-2501 proposes the US 1 Bypass of Rockingham. This project will
provide a four-lane divided controlled access facility on new location. Current plans indicate
the proposed US 1 Bypass will follow the existing alignment of US lfrom east of this project
to the intersection of Ledbetter and Wiregrass Road where the project will turn southward on
new location. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for FY 2003 to Post Year and
construction is scheduled for Post Year.
Structures
No structures are proposed for this project.
Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends an architectural survey
be conducted for the proposed project. There are no known archaeological sites along the
proposed project, therefore SHPO does not recommend an archaeological survey be
conducted.
Natural Resources
The Division of Water Quality had no comments at the scoping meeting concerning
the proposed project.
Utilities
Utilities along the existing US 1 include telephone, power, water and sewer. The
utility impact rating for the proposed project is low.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation does not'recommend any special
bicycle accommodations for the proposed project. This route is not designated as a bicycle
route and does not correspond to a Bicycle TIP request. City of Rockingham Officials did
not attend the need for pedestrian accommodations has not been identified to date.

Traffic Projections
Traffic Projections are due from Statewide Planning in June. This information will
be available upon request once it is received.
Funding
The TIP and current cost estimate for the proposed project is $7,200,000, which
includes $6,300,000 for construction and $900,000 for right of way acquisition for the three-
lane curb and gutter section. The current cost estimate for the five-lane curb and gutter
section is $10,400,000, which includes $9,500,000 for construction and $900,000 for right of
way acquisition.
Miscellaneous
Access will not be controlled along the project.
The posted speed limit along the project is 45 miles per hour. US 1 is posted 55
miles per hour east of the Wiregrass Road/Ledbetter Road intersection.
TIP Project U-3456 is consistent with the Rockingham-Hamlet Thoroughfare Plan.
Schedule
Milestones have been established as follows:
Mapping for Functional Design June 1 1999
Functional Design and Cost Estimate December 1, 1999
Citizens Informational Workshop Fall 1999
Environmental Assessment August 2000
Public Hearing November 2000
FONSI May 2001
Right of Way Acquisition Fiscal Year 2004
Construction Fiscal Year 2005

Vii
Q Elleroe A' V
?R I C H M O N D
M 5-A.11r R- a,-
9 Ro0erdeI Marston
{i
6 ingham
?c 77
va ?i IHamlet*
74
/
II ? V
A3t

/j
//
i

?E®otaeeROAD'
?lramQ
? ?
_.. \ Vhf .•..,. •'? ,? 4 "cn9,.. - lpt
610k3lCalCis'
` Z??
:
' ? h

`
y
2 J1
!i9'!@! AICHMONO SENIOR
laln>a crluim Q
0 KILOMETERS Z
0 MILES t
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
»...•' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U - 366 S
US 9 (FGi Y ETTIEVOO L E ROAD)
FROM LAWSON LANE TO
OR 1640' (WORE GRASS ROADV
OR 9442 (L EDBETTER [ROAD)
ROCELON®HAM
ROCO{MOND COO NTY
FOGURIE 9

4*
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
A ??
NCDENR
May 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager. NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of US 1 (Fayetteville Road) from Lawson Lane to SR
1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road), Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-0001(7), State Project No. 8.1581301, TIP U-3456.
Reference your correspondence dated May 10, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP U-3456. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals no perennial streams in the project area. However,
further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are indentified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during.the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/21/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) 1, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/21/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3456\comments\U-3456 scoping comments.doc
'N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO i"i1? F. N
. y R
IVr?
M; NO. ROO BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND. FIL ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME - ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH. MORE. DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS R YOUR INFORMATION
'
? FO YOUR COMMENTS
? PLEASE ANSWER
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
?KE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
i
? ? r
?, R-, F?
? , x
"' s ?--
{ l ._
? .?
{
\?y?
Y

ox: TnT£„
a
pig ?.-"'. ?, •-' j ?'oai?lt?c. ?(-?!?t?
5q ?vr??Cs
??°' aw1NN'c e a", V;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?
DEPARTMENT
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
OF TRANSPOR'A
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 10, 1999
Mr. John Hennessy
DWQ-DENR
4401 Reedy Creek Road

William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: US 1 (Fayetteville Road) Widening from Lawson Lane to SR 1640
(Wiregrass Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road), Rockingham,
Richmond County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0001(7), State
Project No. 8.1581301, TIP Project U-3456
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying the proposed improvements to US 1. The project is included in
the Draft 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way acquisition in fiscal year 2004 and construction in fiscal year 2005.
The proposed project will begin at Lawson Lane and end at SR 1640 (Wiregrass
Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road). Proposed improvements will include widening the existing
US 1 to multi-lanes. The project study will include a three-lane curb and gutter facility and a
five-lane curb and gutter facility. One hundred feet of right of way will be acquired for the
proposed improvements.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by July 14, 1999 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ms. Beverly G.
Robinson, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 229.
WDG/plr
Attachment
Ank
s. STA7F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HuNT 1R. F.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. MORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETA :
May 7, 1999
tiiEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Beverly G. Robinson f G
?C Project Planning Engine Project Development and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: US 1 (Fayetteville Road) Widening from Lawson Lane to SR
1640 (Wiregrass Road)/ SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road),
Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Project
STP-0001(7), State Project No. 8.1581301, TIP Project No.
U-3456
A scoping meeting was held in the Roadway Design Conference Room (Room 162)
Century Center Building A, on April 27, 1999. The following persons were in attendance:
Felix Davila
Renee Gledhill-Earley
John Hennessy
Bill Rosser
Bill Campbell
Dan Duffield
Bob Deaton
Shannon Ransom
Art McMillian
Brenda Moore
Paul Rochester
Eugene Tarascio
Dale Burton
Betty C. Yancey
Derrick Lewis
Brian K. Mayhew
Ian Thompson
Eric Midkiff
Beverly Robinson
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Cultural Resources/SHPO
Division of Water Quality
Division 8-Division Engineer
Division 8 - District Engineer
Hydraulics Unit
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Traffic Control
Roadway Design Unit
Roadway Design Unit
Roadway Design Unit
Geotechnical Unit
Location and Surveys Unit
Right of Way Branch
Programming and TIP
Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The following is a summary of the comments made at the meeting and through
written comments.

Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to improve capacity and safety along the subject
roadway.
Functional Classification
US 1 is designated as an Urban Principal Arterial on the Statewide Functional
Classification System and as a Major Thoroughfare on the Rockingham-Hamlet
Thoroughfare Plan. -
Project Termini
The limits of the project as described in the TIP, will begin at Lawson Lane and end
at SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road).
At the scoping meeting there was discussion of extending the project limits
approximately 0.35 mile west of Lawson Lane to an existing multi-lane section. This option
will be studied in more detail as the project progresses.
Ali ent
Improvements will begin at Lawson Lane and end at SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR
1422 (Ledbetter Road) and will follow the existing US 1 for the entire length of the project.
All improvements are proposed along the existing US 1. Symmetrical and best-fit
alternatives will be studied for the proposed alignment.
Intersections
Most of the intersections along US 1 are T-intersections. Two intersections, SR 1422
(Ledbetter Road)/ SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road) and SR 1682 (Patterson Road)/SR 1504
(Philadelphia Road), are four-leg intersections. All intersections in the project vicinity are
stop sign controlled. Per the Feasibility Study, a signal is recommended for the Wiregrass
Road/Ledbetter Road intersection.
Typical Section
The existing typical section of US 1 west of Lawson Lane is currently a three-lane
40-feet curb and gutter facility. East of Lawson Lane, US 1 is currently a two-lane roadway,
24-feet wide with 2-foot paved shoulders and 8-foot grass shoulders. There are two short
sections within the project limits that are three-lane shoulder sections 40-feet wide. The three
lane sections are located near the Richmond Senior High School and between SR 1635 (Mt.
Olive Church Road) and SR 1503 (Philadelphia Road).
Proposed improvements per the Feasibility Study include widening US 1 to a three
lane curb and gutter facility, 40-feet face-to-face with 8-foot berms.
At the scoping meeting a five-lane curb and gutter facility was also discussed as a
proposed typical section option. The project study will include the three-lane and five-lane
curb and gutter sections. The typical section will be determined once projected volumes are
analyzed and costs for both sections compared.
Right of Way
The existing right of way along US 1 is approximately 60 feet in width.
The feasibility study recommends 100 feet of right of way for the proposed
improvements.
Adjacent Projects
TIP Project R-2501 proposes the US 1 Bypass of Rockingham. This project will
provide a four-lane divided controlled access facility on new location. Current plans indicate
the proposed US 1 Bypass will follow the existing alignment of US Ifrom east of this project
to the intersection of Ledbetter and Wiregrass Road where the project will turn southward on
new location. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for FY 2003 to Post Year and
construction is scheduled for Post Year.
Structures
No structures are proposed for this project.
Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends an architectural survey
be conducted for the proposed project. There are no known archaeological sites along the
proposed project, therefore SHPO does not recommend an archaeological survey be
conducted.
Natural Resources
The Division of Water Quality had no comments at the scoping meeting concerning
the proposed project.
Utilities
Utilities along the existing US 1 include telephone, power, water and sewer. The
utility impact rating for the proposed project is low.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation does not recommend any special
bicycle accommodations for the proposed project. This route is not designated as a bicycle
route and does not correspond to a Bicycle TIP request. City of Rockingham Officials did
not attend the need for pedestrian accommodations has not been identified to date.
Traffic Projections
Traffic Projections are due from Statewide Planning in June. This information will
be available upon request once it is received.
Fundin
The TIP and current cost estimate for the proposed project is $7,200,000, which
includes $6,300,000 for construction and $900,000 for right of way acquisition for the three-
lane curb and gutter section. The current cost estimate for the five-lane curb and gutter
section is $10,400,000, which includes $9,500,000 for construction and $900,000 for right of
way acquisition.
Miscellaneous
Access will not be controlled along the project.
The posted speed limit along the project is 45 miles per hour. US 1 is posted 55
miles per hour east of the Wiregrass Road/Ledbetter Road intersection.
TIP Project U-3456 is consistent with the Rockingham-Hamlet Thoroughfare Plan.
Schedule
Milestones have been established as follows:
Mapping for Functional Design June 1, 1999
Functional Design and Cost Estimate December 1, 1999
Citizens Informational Workshop Fall 1999
Environmental Assessment August 2000
Public Hearing November 2000
FONSI May 2001
Right of Way Acquisition Fiscal Year 2004
Construction Fiscal Year 2005
?a7 Norman 2 3
3
r al'
s v
Oe EIIerbe
)R I CH M O N
Sondhillt R.
s;i RoOerdel Mars

'SC P

i 1

.
` p
2 US l WA "."am mm®+l,@ j
\
?' .,' "
? ? p fRf,1¢'iCa •`
17? i r0y

_.. _. .. _ -. -. y
s
?fQ

_...n+nreio / '
p?
r?'raratar53
r? v 16/1?tOp •
.
;\RICHMONO SENIOR
.HIGH SCH60L i H %
?Qa \
tnq - i

_r :._...i
..... _.....
/

0 KILOMETERS 2
0 WILES
......_? ....................
... ..._.,

FOGURIE 9
,...., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
y n PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U - 343 8
US 9 (FAV ETTfEVOLL E ROAD)
FROM LAWGON LANE TO
OR 9640 (WIRE GRA88 ROADV
OR 1,642 (L EDB ETTER ROAD)
ROCKONGHAN
Ir rkwil"
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 2763(; 3726_-
?u
1, u t
August 21, 2001 ? b c
I
Mr.
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager ?t?f vitlP
NCDOT ?i tjALilY SECTION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of July 3, 2001, requesting comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA), dated May 9, 2001, for the widening, on
existing alignment, of US 1 (Fayetteville Road), from SR 1424 (Roberdel Road) to SR 1640 (Wiregrass
Road)/SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road), Rockingham County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3456). This report is
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d)
and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Purpose and Need
The Service concurs that the primary purpose and needs for this project have been adequately stated and
supported by written discussion and tabular data.
Alternatives Analysis
According to the FEA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has selected a "Best
Fit" alternative that involves widening US 1 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility with sidewalks
constructed on the north side of the facility from Old Aberdeen Road (SR 1426) to SR 1424. The total
project length is 2.9 miles. The Service concurs with this decision. However, the Service retains the
right to recommend other alternatives if data not contained in this FEA become available, and to provide
comments on the final alignment.
Wetlands
As required by the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Environmental Protection agency, the NCDOT should first
endeavor to avoid, then minimize, and finally compensate for wetland losses that would be incurred if
this project is implemented. As noted on page 26 in Table 4 of the FEA, the preferred alternative will
result in no impact to wetlands, and 40 feet of an unnamed tributary to Falling Creek. Falling Creek is
located outside the right-of-way and will not be impacted by construction activities. However, because
the selected alternative is a curb and gutter design, there is potential for stormwater impacts to the water
quality of Falling Creek and the unnamed tributary. Project design should include provisions for
stormwater collection and treatment before discharging to adjacent waters and wetlands.
r, "'*
Endangered Species
The Service notes that the FEA
on federally-listed threatened andro dades sdiscussion (page 15) of the
potential project related impacts
Richmond County, and NCDOT
en. There are five has determined that here will be `fN Ef -
of the listed species. The Service concurs with NCDOT T's Y protected species listed
fect
for that this concurrence applies o Ef" of the project on any
information only to these species up to the date Effect,
this letter Shou ns Note, however,
become available relative to these, or any other listed
required. species, additional dsuadditional
rveys maybe
Section 4(1)
Section 4(f) of the Depa
Transportation may Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that the Secretary of
y not approve the use of land from an
and waterfowl refuge, or other designated area, purchased all, or in part, with Federal funds unless a
(1) there is no feasible prudent alternative r the use of the land
from the property and (2), the action includes all possible and
from such use. planning to minimize harm to the property
This document does not contain a 4
lands will be impacted b ( declaration; however, our records indicate that no such
by this project. public
Summary
The Service considers that this FEA adequately addresses the existi ng
resources. However, based on fish and wildlife resources, and
waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these
implement d as descr bed w 11 notlhavrmation provided, the Service cannot concl
have significant impact on natural resources under tour jurisdiohon,
unless adequate provision is made for alleviating potential stormwater
The Service related impacts.
appreciates the opportunitY to comment on the project. Please advise us o
project plans and provide us with your response to any issues we have
any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom of any changes in
raised in this lett er. If you have
McCartney at [phone], Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
cc:
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
COE, Wilmington, NC
(Richard Spencer)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy) ?
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA ( Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:08/20/01:919/856.4520 extension 32:\U_3456.ea
e •,s
August 21, 2003
Subject: Draft Minutes Interagency Hydraulic Review Meeting on August 21,2003,
for U3456, Richmond County.
Team Members:
Richard Spencer - USACE (Present)
Beth Barnes for Cynthia Van Der Wiele - NCDWQ (Present)
Travis Wilson - NCWRC (Present)
Gary Jordan - USFWS (Absent)
Christopher Militscher - USEPA-Raleigh (Present)
Matt Haney - NCDOT PDEA (Present)
Kanchana Noland for Teresa Bruton - NCDOT Des. Serv.(Present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson - NCDOT Hydraulics
Elizabeth Lusk - NCDOT PDEA
Mark Laugisch - NCDOT Roadside Environmental
Mark Kamprath - Earth Tech
Rhett Butler - Earth Tech
Anne Gamber - NCDOT Hydraulics
The meeting began at 3:40. Marshall gave a description of the project and it was agreed to proceed
sheet by sheet. The following are the issues discussed:
1. Environmental Document: The independent utility and date and type of document were
questioned. The document was an EA signed in May of 2001. The document will be reviewed
to see if this project has independent utility. The delineation was completed, however it needs
to be investigated to ensure that streams were also delineated at that time.
2. Preformed Scour Holes: All preformed scour holes need to be placed outside the wetlands.
3. Stream near Station 91+50: The stream near Station 91+50 was not located on the plans. Matt
Haney will provide a GPS location of the stream. The roadway drainage needs to be treated
before it is combined with the stream.
The meeting adjourned at 4:10.
? r
."I

11*0
M

O
O"1111li,
411111111
M'
•0
? .3'1s-_
.
, . I
1 ,441'
,4e4 ?

113

eel

\.
1485
1

J
? 14 11 6
" ei l 11412 ?1 e

\\ Il
?
'9]2 I 1 I
?
1 / Z 561 _ I
e sla

'

2 1136
%
Isle ? 1.89
1416
" I5 siaL
u1 _49e
z
,
ROJEC

1 1?
CITY LIMITS li
I
\ 1451 1424 , 15 9
1557
11J
14
le
/ 1
?-

?-?? I 45

/ I J `+ 157 J
05
tl
~
11e 1199
, 16
J
RPC A
I 19 2 ee y

J eel
I 6
9 i ,641 r-
6
114 te13 t8!J f of I l

?
7 Y 1
2
618 \ ?
1 16 2 ? ? _
1 I :I 1 ?.' ?_ 0 I
2 I ,roe
`
1 1650
to
STATE OF NOR014; i CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND COUNTY
PFI SUBMITTAL
LOCATION: US I FROM SR 1424 (ROBERDEL ROAD)
TO SR 1640 (WIREGRASS ROAD)) /SR 1442
(LEDBETTER ROAD) IN ROCKI11rGHAM
e?.n ?.. r?nn. vearu-r av.e.Nn na ....s •?.
?'N.C'.' U-3456 _ i
rlen na,Na rAVea.Na Dl1fAlIItON
34950.1.1 STP-00 ---PE

?nGGJjICZ ' AXTyh^ad ba. &"
C7 C61-0
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING,
AND SIGNALS nues?
VICINITY MAP FOR PROJECT U-3456
W
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 34950.7.1(0--3456) W
-L- TA 14+00 BEGIN FA, PROJECT STP-0001(1) m
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
w ?o
oe ? a N
0 4?c
y
0 o`u ¢
m
U ?
w a (0 f
a a h
w
N
w ?
1
O N
¢ A
I?
W O
a
a' y
°
? A
O
? n
o j o z
y j? u
A
1 x i
0
I
429 {'? ? N
y1 ?.('?, \ V N
n A? S? ? CN ? m r
y p?`
? FI
'1o
` I }
yL
i I
m ?
See Sheet I-A For Index of Sheets -A For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 1-8 for Conventlonal Symbols
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
50 5 0 50 1 0 ADT 2005 = 13900
ADT 2025 = 22100
O PLANS DHV = 10°k
50 50 1 0 D = 60%
T = 11%
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) TTST 6% DUAL 5%
1 0 10 20 V = 50mph
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
0
z
w
J
W
w
N
a
Noweem
VS 1

12
p RA !la } 'D ?° ne c T'(LC RI-w/0K&-P1'C-
af' ?DIfb'lese °^ ?2?uch?9 a1{s.
Lq?, +kt pAn.-et yTaw,.1 Kv fR
m f 4' «+(n Itv?Gu>r `t,PQ.c. _...
WO fls (
$ END STATE PROJECT 34950.1.1(U--3456) .Ih Crld
Q -L- STA 167+00,? ((?
END FA.PROJECT STP-000!(1)
END CONSTRUCTION
O
w
J
Y
J
> ? p?S
1b SoU
4
6
P
16 0
v > ? f
y
a ? c o
°n W O
"
0o
90
P
b
Z
ti
A PORTION OF THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF ROCKINGHAM.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD 111, EXCEPT IN WETLANDS.
NCDOT CON2ACT : TERESA M. BRUTON, P.E., PROJECT ENGINEER, DESIGN SERVICES
PROJECT LENGTH Prepared In the Off/ce of, HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
LENGTH ROADWAY F.A. PROJECT STP-000117) = 2.898 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURES F.A. PROJECT STP•000IM = 0.000 MILES E A R T H ` T E C H
TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 34950.1.1 = 2.898 MILES
2002 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS A tgCO INTERNATIONAL LTD, COMPANY toDx ATARx EAMPRITN.P.EAUxx xAMPR4TH,PS.
SIGMTUISE;
FOR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROADWAY DESIGN
R/W PROD. DATE: J,e1r,2004
R/W DATE: Oee.6e.,2004 701 Corporate Center Drive ENGINEER
GLENDA GIMSON, P.E. Suite 475
LETTING PROD. DATE: J.Ir,2006 RARTH TECH PROTECT MANAGER Raleigh, N.C.27607
MIKE PE[AREC, P.E. (919)-854-6200
LETTING DATE: O?t?6a.,2006 EARTH TECH PROTECT DESIGN ENOINERR FAX [phone]
CLBNDA GIBSON P, ,E _
SIGNATURE: --
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FM R/W AC0=TRWe
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT U56 FOR CONRTAUCTIM
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DERBIE BARBOUAPA
STATE DESIGN ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Nttl NL.
u- 4
'.OADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT UAR Polk '/w Acclummon
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
DO NOT USE PO CONS'MUCMON
T?
BEGIN STATE PROJECT (U-3456) Elp /
-L- POT STA 14+00 <
R
.I
Q
Ny
2onr I ? , 'l.
% EIP
l I Nw? BSSJ.
/ S aB%, )g, ?` ,7y
0n i• .5 `" EIP /0
?NgAPO0,0
DATUM DESCRIPTION
THE LOCALIZED COORDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED FOR THIS PIWEC'T
IS BASED ON THE STATE PUKE COORDINATES ESTABLISHED BY
NCGS FOR MONUMENT FRUTTL ND'
WITH HAD 83 STATE PLANE GRID COORDINATES OF
NORTHING 427332490f0 EASTINGi 18414.11&6!
THE AVERAGE COMBINED GRID FACTOR USED ON THIS PROJECT
(GROUND TO GRID) IS. 0-099M2
THE NCUMBERT GRID BEARING AND
LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCE FROM
'FWUTTIANO' TO -L- STATION 1440000 IS
N 71' 50`550' W 30.301B6'
ALL LINEAR DIMENSIONS ARE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL DISTANCES
VERTICAL DATUM USED IS NGVO 29
EAST SIDE CEMETERY m
NO DEED REFERENCE 21T V /
_ s01L
a s "UASSIE REECE J 22 52'w
15
a,t ?s OB 2TT Prae 'Az IP
9zSF OB 548 P ' 8 '?, ? EIP
EP PS 51 - B ') ly, 5A6'49'z4'W JAL
BPS -93' --- BL-127 IN
iI _--QYI 7 PO
hBS, ?w, .? { P I OA
I BEG 00111 Y6Z
?r "yN°.:?...>f~.Y BENF.FURR END C
/ PAUL ZARO n DB 363 PG 2T8 ! ,. X
41 ,
r.I DB 678 PG YBh 2aj% D8 1086 PG 546-Y1?A+2C
ykD i Gp PB 7 PC 145 PS 3 PG 145
?r w o 8YI r2 PINC 7¢+96.15 ` Tyrn ML \.
/ L I +3/4.0 OFF -43,179 F r
1
fSF?o
/ f, O\?/ ?" /l? - I I,,PSFD ? l ?? Isr
LUCILLE WfTAYIdk,
21 08 554 ?PG
PB 11 PG 45'Lt
ff OFFS
+ •w Y G..
i ?
? 4? 4;r,;J ?.;;. F; ;n? -., .fib/, ?.
wr T M/.T
ye/X- 72 X_- LLiND kXn
_. -
s, F/Ye77P1lf. eC 6 ---. ..-?-'-- mJu"--
L-
B5i 31. 4' m
e
_,?t"YS cam' .. ?_ _-
iM R// IP
TIE C^' G 1 E ---E
CITY OF ROCKINGHAM a` ?` IssLNC jA?? !SaLRD w I q I '? \!,
of h
IRON
't / ! / SNAFi/
87iB w ? ? ? ? S? 4t'
lYrf l I tp' ?I N 4 fft `
" EIP GEORGE?.C. EWING ;.
EIP OB 480 ; PG 386
OB 536 ".PG 62 f
DS T62 'PG 8T8
PB 3 nPG 145 'f
! fl ??
J. r
as11? '? ?S?O scE c' `?
^? 1 /S
06pI 1?3o Ct /.?' S I 1':n.
BEG C ' J
fY? Y sra+
a' / eo
066a of: E A A T N IV T e e.
701 Corporate Cant- DrIve. Suite 475
Rolelpn_NC 27607
(9195 851-6259(FAX)
[phone]
GRAPHIC SCALE
/
GLENN MANNING
DB 622 PG 526
l ?J
PB 3 PG 145,

Sp,;D
L-F
-- r
J kle,7ey LIA RA
%!/ `" ?7! a 10 197 P
> -75 / rr x -- C
FFS lr+,? V I_ ,rl?o

m /O t m Jn
y I b'c uD iD 4a?PQ'
h 1 _41/ 0?k ° A4 I Ecu -L- POTSta.15+3575 "'?D
/EIP ss9'zrlT•w Y: WILLIAM BARNHARDT
8+07.42 = -Y1- POrSht. 12+3270 N M DS 662 PD 716
DB 620 PG 52
V 7+83.83 PS 23 PO 132

}L-114+82.81OFF 27.03'
EASTSICE fflT SET(
?a..u.7A ?4 ' m I
I' ISFD
/ u
- F_
/iw n
ryyA ^AQ / M' ?J
P1
hti
V
_? z94ao' ??
sn7rn,-
.25' w'/LT Z?f6_OW
21'01'w EIP ;§611-
JAIAGARWAL
GB 761 PG34
fJ' `N' a
r4 ?
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 17

Pl Stc 16+5355 Pl Sta 11+85J7 EXIST
?= 33'47'04Z(LT) n= 68.31'07.6`(LT) JAMES B.LASSITER u /56 5
AonOw DESIGN nr
IN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
D = 2255'059' D = 54'34'027' + CONSTRU DB 660 PG 612 ` ENGINEER ENGINEER
I L 125.51 1D PB 3 PG 202
= = *?,
L 147.4!
T 75.9Z T 70Z
R 250.00' R = 10500' ? l ,'. B6sIJe°Me,," b roT33
r.
aaTM 7/ d W4 A J??O.
DRII- O+OO(p + i?, raga \ a + S°s
P/SYa 10+6260
+
A= 37'15'59.1 (LT) s JOLT ES BY2-128 POT 5+00.00
D = 54' 34'027' SPEC ROY DV? 3 sa a t, fltf Ia6 ' PC 299
STa 9+00 0 ': ''es PB 3 c zo1 -L- 27+80,58 OFF -620.36'
L = 6829' sTA Il+oo pyT. J ?.
a
T 35.40' /yy SEE PROFLE 6 XS;C'ly, p2 F \ +°??` fa
= h,, / : l C P\ J° nPa in I
E A A i N T W C x
R l05W C7? '?, 3r-'9j W6a of:
T '? v SUSAN WIL,S0q
+ aOFq C/ k q OB 666 2a 756 t.t 701COrooratN Canter Orlre, 10'. 475
•?? ?Rx ?8 0 ,??/? .eN va Rale10M1NC 2"6Dt
\ RAM N. AGAAWAL GRAPHIC SCALE E t
PAC RDY Dj H JOHN M. PHILLIPS
po
/ />9 0A t / yr TA. + 0 f 08 T61PG 739 2' SO..
/?IAIIIE - P S O. /0 .OD? ruI TA , OB 39T PC 186 PB 7 PC 201
A- &EE PI6 x CT. PB 3 PG 2a ro S. DAWKINS v sal?0, \ al\ % / \ R ?2?'4 56 L w
^. DB 993 PG 200 ag P6iPo < ?e 1 p 9B,W \. 3a ,. / W °°' ;1 ?o3a, ?s9 p'O6
PB 4 PC 27 +aba ?` 1! TRAM DAVIDSON ESQ R\ % P1p GI GR' B q
Pa -z \ G2 r + OB 253 PC 43' 587.4°•'N EIP
gm- In -Y A I ' PB 7 PG laic < \ 55y4e
e°,os y
ER ?? r' a Y - ' a ?1 yy
BRIAN BELCH
TDB 1012 PC 377 / •? ?, f? 3'•- -f - .fir d.. % .\?' o ``^ /? gq'16 mo.
PB 4 PG 2T ` -tR ?( ° z • o
n
o
I A _ ?' R{ L? _ /? 'J '?ti?% X820: Cw EIP ?w
EIP 40, c? PTSa-
02 R a 07 3
FENCE F
Past '` y ? \ 0? BETTY MoLAURIN 53q
N \ \\ o/ ^ / \: / / '''` 5 / •? % f / DB 544 PC 247 M
° Pea Pc 2a
cl H0+p i PRENTICE SPENCER
7 r f - ?^ R=40• F. ID' ROLAND JONES J9. ?,?°s L ?pb89 qd DB 682 PC 484
seg \ _ I '? '.DB 1056 PC 797
os ?L F? +Ir' ga63 P11 3 PG 201
S3
..??? 3PB0 PG 201 ?Aa e'
°ze \ ° r !CA- j s a ?wr \ u 80.00
\ ` f 9 /A14 , S6213'30'W
+ \
?y v ? / a .? W rF 1, ,? ^? o6:jaw ?p m
R 01'
Y' t ?s I \ 5 H? R
NELL,C OPELAND R. H. JONES, JR.
-Y2- POT
P ROY DITCH ,. DB 676 PC 577
STA.TA.Sia. 13+5000 ; NO REFERENCE s 1
I ?, z I I
II+009+00 TO AT. . Ell / / °• ` Y2A- POl'Sta.12 +9891 rr11? ?N3 PC, 201 PB 3 PC 201
Yti, SEE PROFILE & %SECT -, F/`? • • ? mns `?'?:?- ? `", j U 7 "i\";. J`O j `?• t•' / /? ',{ 'N.,.? ?' 4 X168.95' /b? \ c.•. e I JAMES STEPHENSi• JAY RAMEY, JR.
JULIA RATLIFF PCSfo. 15+77.63 / /// y3 ESQ ?\ ?%- EP .. •93.\ - a 0 r' LO(TIE Mc00NAL0
DB 19T PC I88 0 j.Y / \ \' ` \ 51,625N3'W'i \, ; f S ''•,. DB 520 PG 2 'y z D5 442 PC 464
N6`d A G DB 124 PC B6D
.rly ° PS 3 PC 2a
r?C•' ?, // / 1 •^„j s• •`? ! Os .? 1.,3 c. 1- DB 604 PC 700 PB PC 201
h + ,. \
N
\\ 4 Nv DITo w2 a a o BY2-129 PINC 10+81.6 `\---- - c 7 PB 3 PC 201
\ S cov?Rw/MH a / ?yv 1Y?- 14+36.00 OFF 5s78' v i e Q?? POTSF7l1Q0 "'
I ( ` \ F1 mA
-\ Stc. 21+66.38 % HA V L N ??. DEBORAH 8.4 SOIL W ?I 1 o h? _.:
J ?, >" OB PC BXVI. DB 1049 PC j W/LTA
i f7TSto. f1+353 -
/ °r DB 1oT4 Pc 453 PB 3 rc za U_??V - -1.r WD 2I ?? W 6 1 -
Sta. 10+00 B s Pc 2a a ---
?y2 02' POT 14+21.9 1 / lM1 / EG C & G S ss? 3 r - POTStO. +4j \\a\ N scAU ,; sl _ \\ m
BEG &0 813; POT 5+00,027452'
j /1 c .r.1 a+ BL 103 AINC 17 0 I ! 1v2sr, - R8- Y Sttl. N V \ 4 ?'uc r zi 4 s.o
121}33.06 OFF / At rD ,I TV99"74?9-(f F
1q5 31. Rzs & t' c + \, \ - -© 1, 0
w PU LIE 1 L PE xIST c?t3E E 1 -DR7- POT57p 10+0000 ?'
?_- ___ Lli
111 / sR 9' ?° to '•F R IC I uus - - - PU C E E PUE- PUE E - E' S } /GEL-_E E
24• _DR- - L CBS I I C PUE -_PLE
DI a 13'GE, FZ,;- u.i'" t4
y 1, ?.
CURB ?\ D ' tiP" I 4J
tG4 C CDP?B EIP
^5 C C_\ 1d J A/'?' lf.I „'J' 2 W
Nw"
+ ? ' ? ; CB L ,.?, r7 At - TBJ W/MH ? ._._ - -- - _ Lo' ctc 13? r,6 - D' cea 27 ? !
11 IN. N APO PrT, 9-f
.y W!, _ /fl_ETEu TBJB W/MH .y _ I• o. ••n '
_ L. _'__ __@.6.58 ? C•\ - - - ___.- _.__ _ _ 2
SOIL
CB Z 1 CB EAL EXI611NC 1 I ^ / EIP IH I 1 30' CAG 11 1 Q
LL - ?' 1 nom, E G E _+' ---- ) w p +?
E + ® 45'-12 -Y /?If Cdr E I r r - -
6'OFFS CB ?tEO 3 QO sOr I I l " C '"I---- F1 C F R lrJ.
' i'•?\ - ! J Ih" E C 1 ?, + E E
-1 \ I 4Y'120'8'd EF 55 AD to
6urc + / B / ?' ?_? m- E rr„I + I III p 1 ? 1 9,1 SCOTT 70-,W ,C &I?? ': i C +05 / 1 _ ' C ut t- M rr ,1Re 1, F ~ O I
THOMASg., _ _I - 0. CVLX L6 tp- I m W . U
DB RR tt cca;" I L- St?. 29+61.40rurx
C o v
PG 356 I •,.-,V G C & G 01' Qyi N Eu_ - ?C3 1 % Q
e EEXXIIS5
\ REPL rh5FD N
+2 IroE 2 REM T DI KENNETH TANNER e o saLL i I I W a
Z? BJS / I AND w/ B ?/(' " { sr 0 PB4, X40 " O Z m POTSf0.10+95.00 Mo.? ! E p
R \ ORE SAM ANN ER i ?O y ? D CONSTRUCTION m iWI T6P T NK ION BASIN :b
\ DB 63 PC 56 e,ep a o E ?I % s I 1 z 1 1
i G_ P
m ' ?i RE7 Tp UT RIP?y I RE?ySPAVED DITC ?• / r 1.7 \ ??? ? ? c m ? s I _ `" ? - 1 1 ? + I
(' v N ECM . ON I •` / f N? 1 ? O
' A .4 J I :: ApD ?XT PIPE 8' 5 TN5LA \ ? '?4fl 1 }y T 1' r''''T (r :f I O rn I
?. ?? L: ADJ JB TDP 14 SY t l / i? ? ?`? `.+?J J 1 I s ' SdL I 1 t 1 I I
I I ?, 1\ REM, JB I' ?i ? ?s /2 +ra,R sat m LT_'t?_" AVIE DAW
KjN 1513K
PIDDLE R?ERTIES, LLC B 1073-110 17 W/LT J JB TOPA985 PC r A1 END CONSTRU t otls o \J I w 1?07•StQ.10+95.00 PS 621 PA °
DB
4s Wa . J yw y
P II I 6227'45'E 107.76' j.
I > END CONSTRU 0 Q
C • + •-' \ {{„ '(
1
1'29'W 0.06 E 2 23'4PE
32,13 29.88 r N6Y
a , = A ,r n Y 't a>y ATLANTIC FINANCIAL WILLIAM USSERY
qI R NEY PATTERSC>f! p n 3a' I y • \ ?.Y ?, WILLIAM USSERY
Lo JAIAGARWAL C DB 958 PG N6 GROUP.LLC. 2. 3 _I Do 85 BP PC661
. I EXI t 4 I \ \ r.. f 08 105 PC 204 D8 1054 PC 313 II ?, i
08 761 PG 34 { r ?.t PB 4 PC 16 PB 4 PG 16 ?a T- G I:I I ° n S 28' 4' 47.1' tot I s• t siB? JOHN H. LONG I C i
32
HAZEL YATES a%s -Y2- SR 1424 OB 660 PC 332
'10 -J= i 3 I ' OT 7 .25 r - + BY4 131 POT 1+62
°•. PEI 4 y( ., - CO RU 0 d .71 D9 668 PG 48 6,500 ROBERDEL RD. P I
?Q Il. a -Y4- 12+98.93 OFF -13.69 PB rt PG 32 PAVEMENT REMOVAL
am 71 crnN; _1 "? ,? RONNIE JACOBS /I,
uDR W oB 966 Pc 226 nsoG s FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET A
3 ° j 1ti Eia?O IR s r ( ?? FOR -Y2- PROFILE SEE SHEET 23
o xy "' .,izN3q 'iIp r;S i C? r aI 1t-n -L- US 1 FOR -Y3- PROFILE SEE SHEET 23
y 0 _, .!/6812'O6E 200 2Lb
i / i ,I 5 415se soo? `' -L- US 1 FOR -Y4- PROFILE SEE SHEET 23
m - rcae 10oa'a,r N6s•ts'gl? 3?d sos UP
FOR -DR6- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
ate" If
Too Zoos aor 600 FOR -DR7- PROFILE SEE SHEEP 27
00? ?I 2005 wr
m sesne,Ba' f c r t; 2025 AUr
ll 2025 nor FOR -DRB- PROFILE SEE SHEET 27
?i? °JZ,.W II -Y3- COLONIAL AVE. -Y4- SKYLINE DR. FOR -OR9- PROFILE SEE SHEET 27
m FOR -DRIO- PROFILE SEE SHEET 27
INCOMPLE E PLANS
W NOT USE FOR /A AC°IxNIT10N
PREI'IMIN RY PLANS
No NOT L1NN ro L%NNrAOCIION

-L- -Y6-
Pls Sta 39+73.08 PI Sta 41+3925 Pis Sta 43+0524 PI Sta 12+81J7
Bs = 5' 58' 05.9' A= 7.54' 24.4 (RT) es = 558' 05.9' A= 24 04' 21S (LT)
Ls = 250.00' D = F 4628.7" Ls = 250.00' D = 22.55' 05.9 a j
LT = 166.76 L = 165.60 LT = 16676 L = 105.04
ST = 83.42' T = 82.93' ST = 83,42• T = 53.30 4
R = 1,200.0(Y R = 250,0 Y \ 9?x ' ',
NSE _ .06 ? /lkvE t Qoktrd. ? /?? l ?' 9 2? J ?\
I wlm ? GEORGE K. BRITT
i OB 728 PC IBJ o 2 r;f0
PB H ,PG 66 /
BILLY MOSS, JR.
F DB 1103 PG 9 ?c: ? j ? / 1b
e . PB II PC 66 tw: NHS??9YB, \.r\i ?O\/
Q vv ? Pr A
vQ 9y \ , /
-T -31AA9D-
hs,P , CITY OF ROCKINGHAM
NflYg z6,w DO 696 PG 325 C?" ?' ?\ }
+27 ?/
? - EI ; vJ yS, E? .i: ?y qO o 1; t•, \?\ + ?\ P / ?'o..ho ?\\?
J C A IRS. )E ?''1 '{ I ? l 6j / \?
JAY RAMEY, JR. ?? Arab Js J4zDN
•
OB 724 PC 860 qP P ?E'ro stt -
4167 ?, ;;,t
PB 3 PC 201 3 $73• '43'W JAMES MABE b' , • /. 1{l?IE,
ff -,a w Y6.
€VERETT STROMAN MARY HAYWDOD 1 OP OB fil0 PG 386 p /
r DO 1017 PC 416 re ;BBPCPC 212 li TSSa. 38+0632 PB 11 PO 66152 ENDPAPER
.J c 40
y6 J
CHARLES DYSON MI - - J
DB 530 PC 43e y/? y J ?? "' ' uv BLk106 PING 31+851123 - n {
PB 3 PC 201 x 1 ( ;R:'-"° POCSYO.41+689
BY5=106 POT 5+0 / - !A
LK? s;" J? W -Y6- PTSta.13+329 +
$ a L 38+60,70 OFF )26.60'
V5t n S' 1 45'-IZCr E---?_
$6 TTBJ 8'OFF
:D "F4 SE N _ .. c) COVER I ? ? F..._ ... L' 3dFCF7 . '?? 3 ' m I l I
Cbt?V CB II?TNS C A$5'JN a F?•' ,
i
SSA N• W iMBJ922 SY r1 >m C ?ER y?°` w 7
15? F Iti >< mUR_.
?

E
`' WW CTOY ftBJBJ + 45 - 4s J
ADJ DI P
NV DI
/
I 1,1 if COVER
F+
Y

END C_& GG_
-Y5- SFA+85
1 .. elf T DETEN?ION @ASIN -L- POSSta.38+36.
`- cc & c ?O bF BAN z"
`I -Y5-
ENO C & G 1 0
lit
srA+4 r* L
a POT ta.10+00,
__ i
-L sr
??
RIDDLE PROPERTIES, LLC
DO 1113 PG R 1
1
O
PO 621- A
.
1 BSY
ASH PN XiNE II
•?--?
vEY M
I
!?
I ??''? ?
.

DJ MH
`RE
6 ?I P
IiLnP?PO ?J c9
7Y 7SNk485 ovAC twn0 .e
MT BO%
? cpaNnsN J
LA
N
CA
m Y5-132 POT 6+81.46
m t38+ ,74 OFF 207.96'
ER
WESLEY DENHAM
? ?cl D8 985 PC 431
PS 650 - F
9.
0
a:< EIP
LL? yyppa
r•R
FC
z
a °
M
U7 r- O ±
0
I
mco
3 L. & T. TRUCKING
COMPANY, INC.
OB 600 PG 236
I. I

4-
i

U-3456 6
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR /W ACQUMMON
PRELIMINA RY PLANS
0o NOT O b CONlTRUCAON
rt \?O91 F ORn OI:1C ! A R 7 R T R C M
rq e %' SP971 ., 701 Corpor RClel ANCr 27607 Sulie 475
e B'Jl• f ] ,{.
ti` f `•, ?''?. !! GRAPHIC SCALE

HORACE RUSSELL
W/a DB 696 PC 749
x 95r EIS PDE= 11 D1 1 ? OR
2 C n
3SP
L° li
D _i %E
ISEx N
sas N
5l' m?

user, 9

-? Ir-.
6
N WESLEY DENHAM
DO 93T PC 135
a oNC? I I TONY MARTIN
DID 1060 PG 489
,I, N y .I
:s m
'

Y? I N,
w aU, FF;f'- 4-
k: y'nI f g?35X
0cR^n'.:?.r-
""'? ? Z2' CNIJ A 358w
o?
4 /
m ?6 9?' w
- I P A1'Ap EIP
& , 59Y
rP ?
-o
-Y6- LAWSON ST,
I ..
22J? 3 ?) r
-L- US T 2005 AOT
2025 ADT
\ L i
BO
DO 915 NNIE PGDI5fi
PB q PG 66 %vvv HAZEL
DB 995 PG --
?`?? OB 650 PO 255 ????--JJJ!
/ N
'EOU?O. !i Cr 3? o:?'ana twNw m l ,rte yV ?\
a I i f,
V V \
U ° I V' ? l 1
4) D- R1 /;
+ '? r 6 0 ail /r//
f Y J+ 1 I I
5aS
E % 14 co
EXMG G vw PUEy+ W>I S'S'A /EiP
1 _ PUF I
ECW
IM
Q
2
Q'
Z
1
{ t?
r. 11900 S75d,!=
"VGpAIu
- 41!
JOHN M d(
De 281 Pc
DO 426 P
t?
% ? I E0"I
158U11U
i
AARY SMITH
15 527 PC 129
8 13 PC 25
so
\RI?

FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 18
FOR -Y6- PROFILE SEE SHEET 23

'' EDGAR L. WHITE 1 ! r E:Y -'Q-
IF DB 527 PC 0 PI Sta 12*02,76 PI Sto 12 02.39
/ 0 II PC 6 ' 0 3 4= 985252S (LT) 0= 18'16'21e(LT)
i
r l o D = 5434' 02.7' D = 12'19'18V
'ss R is l ??l L = 181.2' L = 148.30'
T = 122LY T = 74.78'
'86.2 ' `r ? ?, 'X' BEG7 N R C ON R = 105,00' R = 465.Od
'S. ry7 985P. ''7" - a W fh.56'
?i 5382P / /? r SSG.
2J'S9T aM
??F .\ W t
4L; ? I l ? h?8 ? '
WHITEFORD?CARRIKER, JR.
ck ?. ? I R .. DB PB 579 PG 8 PG 6 61 - FP 1
1 P. r4 I 1W r?,
7z. isr
?.p'ER 1 (,iz-W I.a 167.76'C WILLIAM WRIGHT °pw I { °?
ND 1,, S82.3 • e'w Em DB I P PC 522 I •:' '\, f
E 461 ,? T' S, x m PB I PG 6 PAC ROT DITCH 1 % {
SPECIRD?`1YIT, 1\ /5 mm p TA 14+00 TO }' 19 `M 7
STA. 1+ 0 ti F 6? ' Oro CM p rdq.+ ?A. I5+00 ! m
1 / :N 7 E PROFIL & XSA
e .v
S A. 2R+p5p0 AT NC M °qe. 4' Z i? r?
&?%SECT t? L*.'?c v a2,4, BEG +00
TAPER r `? 1.i RSti5 o9'w °o "et h
HAZEL JENKINS k +Y R YB P
DE, 650 PC 255 E1 N A + ! 7 &S`, r ; E1P
08995 PCI
II
DAVID 6j,
Y 2?e, by9ti .` i •\ o -F C w ,?.. BURLINGAM? s m e?'IS a5A5 r J
f, e? °5 5e R ?B Yls 6" ???
,cv ¢ + FENCE
W POST + pq. m ° GNR?
r p a N>s' I aDC is f
1 OV9l12A On'f. csnn n n _ ,,,Y I cPFr RnY ni ru 7R1)•w "?J ? `??"'•. '? '.•'
BERNICE LEIGH
\ NO EED
REF RENCE ?•`
?Ir
rl t
-4 I ',JOHN M.WEBB
E •j DB 4PGP200
340
F--
E
,5 1 61
R3Y ;

\c\
? \s4\
TONY MARTIN ?:\\
?08 1060 PC 489
0
MARY SMITH /
08 527 PG 129
P8 13 PG 25
01
Y05".Al
550
C
rn
m
r

\
LN
Lot
am
D
D
L
Om
L
0 0--
: Ll9
'D b ?-

o'
JOHN
NO DFI
PQ BP
U
XSECT
V0FPUE PUE XUE PDE
DIPUE / f --- -- DI -
UJ ® ? EXISTM w 1. IS'
_C8 T^e y 'I i? - ----'-
ApN?1 ?L?L
:I &ETFLIN FPIPE PAC Oc r faWwvJet 3ra°ssr
4-- '; ' 19' 43.7' E &1' N 2'20'45.7' E
y 24' y
CB ' 7 0•R Ag 15. co
5 00 R 7o
4 + Q + B 4S
77 1 F --
DRIP IRA' PR E \? % E E E--
1 9 u 7 r
0 I.
m I w
ap. \\ T,0' ?
I B 13 PI 43+48.89 = _ _ }
?'; 8 7 1 P T 8+18.16
- 5 +31. OFF -3.97` - r "'j a' lzf&f
BL-109 PINC 44+82.73

A OGSSu?Gcni L OT TI BY8-109 POT 8+35.98
o -L- 51+65.06 OFF -3.83'
ROCKINGHAM CITY LIMIT
I;
-Y8- SR 1426
Z p
\ PD ` QOb
OUS SP3LLL CADISINP-1 OLD ABERDEEN RD.
POE SHEETS
\ IP R P APRON
TN CLASS B
?
/00-
\ I SY
F -Y7REV- FRAN DR.
/00
20

\ \ -L- US 1 -L- US 1
\
\ z?5 ACT
?025 nor

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N.
U-3456 7
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR /W A0OUBITION
PRELIMINA RY PLANS
DO NOT RRR !0 cOxFmUOITON
EIP
Po
119 nY Olfiu f:'" f A R T X T/ O N
?OV{13E 701C0 o Lenter Orl-Suite 175
RO1.109 NC 27
igig)
,

q
1 GRAPHIC SCALE
2 ' 2 ' S
?
5gi3,?
5

oa'
6
? °

y5?
q
,'T}
t
J 4

d 41
r'

Ul
,` EW 250,01'
56276'10'
W
01
M CV -
1
Y
+v
I.L.
THOMAS PHIFER

.
m DB 744 PC 199
i h
<
WILLIAM USSERY oN PB 5 PG 138 { y
f DB 1035 PG 509 Z T-
n
+ i f 21
DS 1038 PG 458 .
PB 5 PG 138 0 N f' k
OL0I
JJ

N

?

{[

aLK
BLS
r.
f
ANj7 t•
P
i

PUE A
PUE PUE P PUE I PUE P E EXIS7
t
PUE
Nil PCSiS
_ F
JTL C
S
KLM
_• DI
?..o.....,,?ym? i -' ? DR- --- ---s ---------
° $ N 82' 49' 15.5' E

CB 75C
+80 °
--
H9
E
E
E E
E
RIP RAP APRON
p
7 IN,SFYCLASS B

ANDCSLUICE GAWTELL r0O
___? Q ryora
F
PbE r/u
pp g S LL I
, NE PAUj &PIGRA?IN?CNPLANS
E TS 7B && 333000
qq
S ?ASSRBN

c v)

KENNETH J.LAYTON INC.
DB 1027 PC 404 Q
DB 728 PG 835
PS 667 - G

z
a

U
R8
61??5j972j?f z
5
esz?R,', ,3
PAVEMENT REMOVAL
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
'\"V?N'*--`FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 18
FOR -Y7REV- PROFILE SEE SHEET 21
5 FOR -Y8- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24
THOMAS PHIFEA
DB 744 PG 199
PB 5 PO 138

UE
L,j
E y
W
-• W
'i
-
P1 SYa 64+92.63 L-
P1 Sto 67+75.48
A = f 37' 14,2' (LT) , = f 37' l4,2' (RT)
D = P 34'226* D = 0' 34'22.6'
L = 282B5' L = 282,85'
T=141.44' T=141.44'
R = 10A00.00' R = 10=.W
SE = NC SE = NC
w
irmu
FS??
Wmm
?00
Y
PROJECT REFERENCE NO, SHEET NO.
U-3456 8
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS I
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT UN FOR /W ACOU077T014
PRELIMIN
m NOT UIWJ PO RY PLANS
CONRTRUCTION
OH'Nq of: E AR TNIV T'R a W
701 Corpora+e tenter DIT-, Sd+e 475
R.I.10h, NC 27607
GRAPHIC SCALE
2
26.50' u
N7971'5J'E AXLE EIP 192.79' rIP u10
16,00' ECH 50.05' 94.00' 154,49'
44- 1110'17'11'1 / m
NB 179'49'E 111011'25'E
140.2Z._
i'24'28-W N78'12'79'E
N78Y2'J9O
N.
Loo,

51)/6

0
2
Q
U
z
08 983 PC 71
BY9-045er OT 7+99.88
/ y7 73+85.37 F?5'
e°/
r. CCC ND//CAI CC/ - rno

-L-
PI Sto 78+5139 P1 Sto 83+25.45
Z ° 2' 40'20.e (LT) 0 = 245355 355 (RT)
D = 0' 3,,22.5 D = IT 34'22V
L = 466.43' L = 48169'
T = 23326' T = 240.89'
R = 10,000.00' R = 1000.00'
SE = NC SE = NC
lj.'
N8779'00'W
EP
JOAN HEARNE 9
OB 756 PC 819 0
08 936 PC 119 b
PB 7 PG 33

4
I614' l- ;.
5017318'E? N
11215 COIRIGfoN 6TACE1 Pfi i PG JJ •? 742,12' ?t I6'A/YI
N82'48'30'E NB226'34'E S N
N
M 7
$ WALTER McCAIN c + 4N
WALTER MOCAIN DB 347 PC 434 ;- rM- u -
473 PG 391 m OB 433 PC 391 LL
LL
P8 7 PC 33 DB 502 PC 2 ' C)
0 DB 728 PC 843 `t.. Z d. p r
PB 7 PG 33 l,p. N
O
o l 4M + ,-)
uP 'E 2500' m 1
EIP _ BESSIE MORMAN NB229'51'E }??
OB 898 PC 191 1 S ?5
' ?. PB T PC 33 - 0 1 30
N C
m 1 Yro A+3<
3 W15'r,
r o '? >E n'AVO
179
+ ,i,';r + mp 6L ti m
S
PUE ` PUE\ E
'E'"`?7'RAUDE =9935.W'\ -
. _L ?- _

ERNEST WANNAMAKER o 0
DS 243 PG 126 '
OB 250 PG 539 m h
a
i
MAMIE WANNAMAKER
118 983 PC 71
0
Em me
68.19' FM
0 889w'65'f 404J'
58971'$gE
n
h EA+
E E- --
h
W
a.
QOO
h
BYIO-138 POT 5+00.00
-YIO- 10+00.01OFF -21.36'
N12-54'57'W
sQej R,W G ?. ^?
-' 2520 ) 57958'O3W 116.85' G ?
EIP
WILLIAM SMITH 2OL06'
J 08 442 PC 158 219. 91 'E z 0
O 7533 PS 7 PC 33 7449
8226756. 7 L? d o
IAu WALTEW'MOCAIN ; o /0
DB 433'. PC 391 m o `rPOTSta,10+70.00
PD 7 yPG 73 .__ ?.,u. 1.`? it { I._ RFl:fAl MAIC'TPII/'7-iml -

zRl I (li
-Y10- SR 1503
PHILADELPHIA DR.
Mo
400 100 IZ700
-L- US 1
2005 ADT
2025 ADT
p + BOBBY FLETCHER '-IL!
OB 730 PC 860 E
D PB 4 PC 83
21278'.__.
BOLT V A
WALTERx6D3r44E
49'? MoCAIN WALTER-CCOVING?ON, JR. \\\\\ °`
'694•d DB T28 OB 674 ?C 251+ \ \ f
PC 843 PS 4 P 87 ? N',+ \\\\ r ma,
JOB 433
PIW J PC 391 : 102.89 („ 80LT, -r 91.40' 83.04
PP 33 N81.49'39'E? C) "N8222'S2'E NB222'S2'E
BYIO-139 PINC rT+61.4 ,
c; W6 H
e DB 973 Pc s
A7?A YID 12+67:46 OFF 25.80' i
?AABARA EYERETT i PB 4 PC 3 .f^ m L.?/'
RMB +SAITCH DB 714 PC 143 IZ
dNrtu , l >A. Q T PS 4 PG 83 -q END T
' DI
Js' \M,"-j Ii CEI , ,.. ------
«? l e7
? I FY6TINA A/6 '9
li
1 Q,
P7T1,J74A OV T0Y,7D/ ?°' I ? '` ; L'? i? r4? I
I '
\\ -L- P .81+43•
DEBORAH BURTON A "g-YID- POTSta.,13+1958 4
DS 674 PC 208 PROPANE TANK
? n fS ?? 1
[,7 u
PB 7 PC 70 fwi? H ?.
SHERRY COVINGTON f.? ^
DS 962 PC 2T8 ? Al.
a? EP 562'7606
s 11 ', BL-140 PINC+, 74+83.20 =
09
8YI0- 140 P . 8+44.25
M
,29.68'
f -L- 81+64,55 -P,
j
5
1sit?
4Ab'u0
E--t--Ea
:RTHA ALFaRD . 7
B T3.2,,,PC 7
B??4" 83
' -RIP RAP APRON
IRON' S ,.,J TN?S F$I=ASS B
PAUL EDBETTER
DB 884 PC 150
0
56 ov,
4
IW ,?? Q I„ i 1If,
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NC,
U-3456 9
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT 966 POR /11 Acallu oN
PRELIMINA RY PLANS
DO NOT 1186 Po CON87 UMON
Di; . E A B T B r. f A O N
i01Coroorote Center Drlve,Sulre 475
I

m I
'
m
c rv /?/,I N h

SHERRY COVINGTON
7
` DB 969 PC 106
PB 76 PC 477

`ws
i
? 5
/
I
I L?
m

h `?
I 1
I ?2
it 1 I o

n n

`
I-L,I 'A
AP _ ?z*
.AS B. Y ' 'Y YI Y 1 Y
s
~t e ? xA-
5l ?' ''.\Y
III ? ?Y?vx??
Lr \ ?; __? 2j t^ BL-114 INC 80#69.22 / F
\ C'---- T I s' -L- 87 51.85 OFF 33.25'
4 W MINNIE SMITH I UNKNOWN OWNER
m ; 7y'PD IDS 57 5T0 PG 881 NO OFFD REFERENCE
N $ I PS 76 PG 411 PIS 76 PC 477 -
m N ? I
.4 I a i
m,? Q
395.92' Q I 6
5B3Y6'9241 191,90' I
SB)'46'92'W DP I
0 n I )q?9,?W
EIP I 1 55?
EO ?- 24).87' 2 I
CIP N84'92'I$'E 99,06' AXLE
se9wr16'w 83'54' 80.27 SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
$B4.42'15'N S84.42'16'W 2s9:RISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
sB;. 2' 550',4 FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 19
Fni? -Ylo- PRI1Fll F QFF q"PFr 7d
1
t ?97.61
N87'07'02 E .142 B
IR A POLLAR a L- N87670
B 946 PC 479' PWSCILLA FLETCHER
8 76 PC 47P'?ri DB 981 PC 120
PER -tgS h"p8 75g??j PC H
g?r.q?a
b31? 8 .I.PSAMBB+0O ?T.T:
'60 FIOHN MCCALL
901 PC 186
P 4
B 76 PC 47T 1
AUTHOR SPENCER
OB 564 PC 266 +
PS T6 PC 477 ?} Y N

L
j s
`
I ISELX
F X W/L
t 1 '''
, ?
hle
' -112-
PI Sto 11+6OJ4
A= 10'5643.7IRTI
D = 5' 43'46S
L = 191.03'
e T = 95,81'
a R = IAOO.OO'
-
0 ,
03.78' -??
NB 7'2N8 /'q5•E I .t
I DP ` \
BOLT BYIH41POT•, 5+00.00
8 I -YITr 10+69.99 OFF -13.96' rn
POTSta.1I+50.00
I BEGIN CONSTRUCTION g
+ RICHMOND COUNTY
^ 5 C ?,; DB 740 PG 748
"o p + SS'
N= ' ?? 4
I D2 ? -6E.
PECOLIA HOKE
D8 T20 PG T29
w
r 25.32' U11
. Il 4?
67.431 - 11
0
138.70' 62.60' EN C A+972 II I - !G 57A TBS 199.20' +67 47 h
N8720'42'E N8720' 2'E YII SI - - it
N8320'42'E
?-L- POTSta`?3+15.44 I I PECOLId HOKE w
ors ER '6 SE
tt -yJJ-POT$tQ, tQ+OT.90SEf DJT B?120p PG 729
WILLIAMS
TOAF,FEPAENCE DEED - POTSIQ. 10+00.00 5 + HEG TAPER WITH CRIADE P °.
01 40'-120' I DI ETE 0yE3?A7I5L TO
E S i:r.5 { a ;s? s' !, Al of /B\ T. 95+50 LT
CB
Q 5
.4L
15'
Y `I'.Y Y Ys'YY
1 Y s V Y Y Y
Y.. Y.YY Y Y
y y y y LEON WALH
{ 353
DB 690 PPdd
l F
'57
,
08 pT
G
PB9 PQB
,

237.W
NB72
'

I_ 3
38'W
CB r..l, SfR
r
3'R / 1
F.?
pANE)t.
a ? G
I. O?ILyT&HX!F T
Cd 7
Solt
/
r /G? ISaRO
PAOrANE 7NVR O.odlIl
n
??. 236.59
58929'-
a

24'
4-
7;;;
7a'-46.44?087542 PC 177
Na97879-E B 1PC 8 EIPI
• IP dP APRS11 DP 11
0
D066Y SETTLE
T.11 LPB 9 PCC0"
19,9,8
31
ssr.'')
-Yll- SR 1504
PHILADELPHIA DR.
700
500
400
20500 A 200 1z
L400 20,
-L- US 1 200 I
4m I-inD _L- US 1
1 600
700
1200
-Y12- SR 1682
PATTERSON RD.
ryN
12,800
20.600
-L- US 1
- 2005 ADT
2025 ADT
DETAIL
BERM DITCH WITH GRADE
(Not to Scale)
D
rI
R D
0 1.0 Ft•
b 5 Ft,
RDWY I
-Y13- SR 1666
ELLEN DR
J 9 +75 - 95+5 L1
_
= 99+
OA
g
I
. IL
1
Io
L ")6sNg9

8 _ W
,
/ S?
aD
?5•p9 O
A?
y lr
,
WILLIAM DOWDY Sti; R5C 1 9'w \
DB 1147 PG 385 st
OB 871 PC 316
OB 590'PG 456 .',
R Div NWOOD o o c y! LYDS T72 COVC 295 ON
re) +
LL BERTHA ALFORD
. y'. LL
/
'ftDB 706 PO 525
? a ? z ° N -L- POTSto.98 41 ° FL A
? - 0, 1 I
? w? + '? 1 L L 'iJ I
'-g 6C'CiL 6 49ftN W
T- L
I
T
R GALLE r. I II N ?, r. 1 r(. N-a 1 ?..
ET
AS?7+01 TO
J 0
DITCH 1$.
v w / I x RM prE? I _ ITCHgS?7gb?µ'?py+g
<oo S} +rn ^? .r WTH p6ER A . 0+00 TO I STA. 103+LE ^ 1 / A, 02+00 LT.+?1
Al. 4 r?,
PDT '?PUEUET.( 1 PDE PDE.1 --PUE--?P
EX p Ng -_E +sM
-91TNShc4 SYSFF 93"' `:V
BL 115 PINC 86+23.69
BYII-115 POT 8+64.25
BY12-115 POT 5+00.00
DS TT2 PG 295
(( 21PTTpS CLA550B
c - t03_- __.
A010
Ja 4+00 RT.
Al
a ? ypp?I
PAO('2F TANM.
S//9 8Y
-L- 93+06.17 OFF 46, LYNWOOD COVINGTON
WILLIAM NICHOLSON
DB 451 PG 349
PB 9 PG 6
70,85
10.73'
200.60•
N897-? -?
N/C

?1 N
p -
E
+90-1!3- -
r
4-

71
PI-61 rgr 1. 15' B
te'- -82-115 24:3'-E -
3" -= E--p- E ?--- E--'v- _
URI TNNRS AP APRON
E
EXI l0 SY FF,^'``'^ #-POE PDE
/W J RAT
EXIST
PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO,
U-3456 10
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT UM FOR /A A0QWS 7TON
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
DO NOT U61% FO I CONRTRUCTION
Of i- DF• E A R T HJFI T t C H
701 Corporate Cent- Orlva,Suife 415
RClelgh, NC 27607
E
GRAPHIC SCALE
H)7b3 )/,
9
z-vcw
F.
r Ag40 XISr lp
ND 4
A S EP ?q ?y.14
W REBAR7.?N5W

5 LYNWOOD COVINGTON
DB T72
PG 295
pLp
SS CCgg pp HRp?pE
'
K?0 LS
?
I
NIC
TER
FABRIC
DETAIL
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
+ (Not to Scale)
WE
FpFprortt
?ope
Y-
I
Ground S
y 0 F`o
6.56 D = 2 Ft.
13.30' -Y13- 11+34 - 14+00 RT
m
00

Z
1
110
O

V

2
al
S
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 20
FOR -Y11- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24
FOR -Y12- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24
FOR -Y13- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24

L-
P/ Sto 115+4833
Z = 3' 40'549 QT)
D = 0' 40 583'
L = 514.09'
T = 257JJ'
R = 8,000.0('
SE = NC
EIP \
N h
t
n r OR
0
i11
2
F'. I I fill IA WII11.1-
Pao EC R FERENCE NO . .. SHEFh'0.
U-'456
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT USE PM ZW ACODUMm
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
M NOT U89 PO CONP9AUC ON
of; E 1 III TIII e)I I C M
101 Corporate Center D11-,State 4T5
R.I.IOII, NC 2I60R
19191851-6200 - f919I854-62 594FAx7
GRAPHIC SCALE

LYNWOOD COVINGTON
08 7 T7 2 2 PG 295 NTi
'!t' v
co
+ It i

HACINS TITUS EST OB 901 PG 371 .
k.
9'T'
a
' .
q

0 I)" T86 PC PG EI 82
DB 678 PG 455
PB I PG 102 '

-
C
`
_ . i
L HENRY USSERY d p
? t
C
" +... DB 769 PG 528 I_ O ? (\ N

3+95
bTAM

Etp
E. PS 599 - H -IJ
m m
O
//
I?
? ?

5F I
I 1 \\
-
4 W

L 10
TO
+ A.105+20 LT. +(p
AS
+
45 \, by
?y 0e. i ti
e ti j
I

±95 I

. I
TD

p TC 4 •____
J(
_ -
??
- f Lu

L

n 45 E---°
?

E
E
P 45

DE

UE PU
E I
n
PUE PUE
PUE ? ?E E
?Ml- P F

---- P--

?
E

PUE -
x
E. I
u

PUE ?E /

W

_? -^?
-- C DI F

_ _
„I
-
-
--?';
1--

----------

---
-
j -
-----r--
-
-
--
-- ,,I

\

--
tralNC a7lf-
r
L 2'-6'C8G- CR
? 15' 1 ?n Cg
r ?? ?, ,OR
1 -
? C8 1 J "-D
RE AI FI L
__ _
- _
-- ms
- ..Q pR->.
- - _ _-
- -•JG:rt:.. .. - ._
c+0
NC msmc RA1 EIP EMTW M - _ - - - _ _
---^_.-- - 4.Y Pw 3.45 xW 6,T5'
j I'-6 geG I
-
-
-- :z
.
- -- v cw I Ii
D SETS
C
j $ I/S FAYCFI(l7CL NG ;" USi ' 5Q' 09 9 - -
69

E R
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF RICHMOND COUNTY
DB 521 PG 31 BEGIN RWAIL 7
tort

I BST 91',,K-
11
ie w0 lip
1
ly
7 ti
Elp

I6ILACRER51
I?
? l
.. H^/ ?61N Ih
CONCH Nw.$:
A ;.
AfHl-ETIr FIELD
k
_ CUNC_
I
1
C
c
?/ -
--` seTtw esr
SENIOR SCH00-
AlKLETIC FIELD
M
co
z
O
ce
U
Z
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 20

E
0
E L- -DRI- -Y15A-
P1 Sta 115+4813 P1 Sto 130+9720 PI Sto 10+68B5 PI Sto 11+25.72 PI Sto 12+17,46
o = 3' 40' 54.9' (LT) o = 6 47' 46.6 (RT) p = 88' 07' 13.0' (LT) A= 88' 04'57.0- (RT) L = 4' 08'12.4- (LT)
D = O '4Z 58.3' D = O 24'54.7' D = 16Y 42' 08.0' D = 163' 42' 08,0' D = 3' 10'592
L = 514,09' L = 1,63692' L = 53.83' L = 53.8Y L = 12996'
LT = 257J3' T = 819.42' T = 33B7' T = 3365' T = 65.01'
R = 8,000.00' R = 13,800.00 R = 35.00 R = 35.00' R = 1,800,0'
B9 SE = NC SE = NC I
N'3406'W? I
-Y14-
PI Sto 12±73J3 l
,n?= lT44'31.5'(RT) s"
D = 12'19' 18A'
L = 152J1'
T = 7674' l m c
R = 465.00'
N
o0
l m°
l
z
m °w -? ?70'01'S4'W
RALPH A.SOUDER
DS 1053 PC 448
OB 1088 PC 159
rc ??
4
N , tl
I? RALPH A.S000ER
DB 10
53 PC 448
j
°B 1088 PC 159
? JULIA WILLIAMS
DB 901 Pc 331 BL-118 PING 112+23,85 I L' IP R T
TNS C ASS B
BYI4-118 POT 5+00.00 t SY
-L- 119+04.42 OFF 23,97'
rpRIP RAP APRON ` +
I 2, / 7 SYSFFLASS B L1 L._ rl... H+ .,
lu Nb1.05,OCF<f ?-? _.- LCF
?I
RI
?l
rl
^g
l
I .NOTE: GRAVES WERE LOCATED BY APPROXIMATE CENTER SHOTS. SIZE IS 4'X 7' PLOTS.
120. RUTH GLUE 1140. OR F. D. GLICK
12). LULAR MEDLEY 41. JAMES R. SEALS
I 122. ALEXANDER BELL 142. ETHEL J. MCLENDON
123. WILLIAM ALEXANDER BELL 143. LOUISE GOODWIN
124. A. DONNIE ST'ANBECK 144, UNKOWN
125. CLYDE I. STANSACK IRS. WLL 0. CARR, JR.
126. GAIL V. CAMPBELL H6. WILLIAM ANT. HOWARD
127. SADIE M. DAVIS 147. BERKLEY H. GOULD
128. VERNON J. DAVIS 148. HELEN A. MUMFORD
i 129. LILLJE J. FERGUSON 149. JEFFREY J. MOORE
131.30. JAMES L.FERGUSON 150. ERIC E. FURNACE
CORRINE J. WASHINGTON 151. UNKNOWN
132. FRANK W. WASHINGTON 152. MANSON JACKSDN, SR.
133. UNKNOWN 153. MAMIE S. JACKSON
134, WILLIE BOSTICK 154. STEVEN COVINGTON
135. ANNIE C. BOSTICK 1(Y 155. LOTTIE H. COVINGTON
136. UNKNOWN CV 156. JAMES E.AARON,SR.
137. UNKNOWN
R 138. NEDRA V. BOSTICK t
x 139 HENRY FLETCHER o m
y Sf SOUTHERN INVESTMENT AND J .Ifs
Q9ft{ 11 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY I I t? ,
DS 332 PC 319 1 !
. R I PB I PG 102 I l
108x1 ?' r I h7
v I r r I I 5?
hell (( N ? I I ?,?
° l „ I A 'Tl
%C I Lon I I S^J
12? R I I '?'
OR
1 CEMETAH" O + l CFMETARY ;]*
1 c Tn " III POC +00 k)
?W I; I I -DR2-
}! ? j xr
a1 !
238 UE
® ca% R®?52Q I
® / ?fQlRa]' C, v Y5
PNOI[Cf NEFERENC I.0 l 51EfT N0.
U-3/56 2
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
t
?g
0
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT UBB POR /• ACYIMSMON
PRELIMINA RY PLANS
0o NOT UM FO 001NBTAUCI90N
?. E A R T N ®T t, 0 x
701Corpprpte Center Drlve, Sulte 475
Ie
-Y15A- LOCKLEAR DR. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION

200? E ED
DITCH TROEXSDIT
3-
IZBOO l00- 100- ?
20700 1J L100 LLOO DB 475 CECTERRY
OqqBOOEKS & PG88S /0 10
-L- US 1 ?
2005 ADT
2025 AOT gEC RDY pTITCH
5j'pA; I9p+51°.28°LT.
P
ROF
ILEEE & XSECT
SEE
pp
C
IIpp
??
S5
gF"ILES& xSECT
PRO
EE

VII I,i
? . 7 N84.38 06 E M
C.
E
I II 'Cn.
POS1 '. u
8459
S_ +
t y
^
J K i JAMES TEARY
r
DB 498 PC 44
?
MA
IE TERRY LITTLE
n
y
0B72 PC 706 ISDK
{§QT STA+3699
?-
1 ,
[ ?
ti PROPANE -YI
I
ry P
S B

1 -L- llA
1.
T S
Y F
?kk---ppp -
)
St +T554 -L- 12§+67J5 + 2OF SET
rst to - - PcrrSto.i1O+OOJ o
OO\ 1- _ _
PUE
it
WA L -n; S m 1
I ?.
Y5 J• ..,,r .?--?fi Tu'L ?'' _ . T 15"- - ._ - - _ }5' -
I $ a.
W I B. R RET EX. Pl I. 1 N. r--b-lcw \m 3751
p = _ - ?.. '? • - Ls I Fk errtv.uf Pc _ 9_5sr---- _ -=?-s`-s '- s.r. c - - - - _ _ _ -1- Ti:h Fr i4., P J O
I hl U CB t ,f ?. Ll la AI 49R-
R
n cH. a 35EW t5•
I` -- _ ..W _ rJ, ' 1 . L1,L 3 esnw T5' I j GRAD 950 RADd 50.00' Lu I , /- F F ?-F F W
Q- a CO C8 7-ECBG ???? F p C E UJI E 7?
45/FSETil35' .?T' -?? + ?+ j _ x..3- x E F \ P" 1 PW U
E 72, D I. SDKD 36:- DE \ g I C
ISrCUr.
u E?p'?- p?E' ABAN7 /?'"RTPSRpCPL gPRpN E 'C' S? .;f" 1 j Q
ZC /? 1. I'I h E E FLINER CMLA0g5 CgOUpIPRRgP 1 ?t1r1.'I S N 5 SY FFASS B r.20
LLD I' THIK FILTER FARIC CONIsr l_ PO40- 0JAMES PORTER PTSta, /0 WOE CO 8'OF 5ET MCCASKILL OIL COMPANY Af 82' 30'
} L:Is,--
-L- A +3 DO
' w -L- POTSYa.118+1500 670 Po 108 OB 780 Pc eoe X
_ MCCASKILL OIL COMPANY pr-c) 10 JEFFREY PRESSLEY
POT o. t1+45 00 DB 9°00 PC 449
RAP RAP AR J+` 5 ' 1 N ?P i , J "ce-1 -Y14- POTSta 10+00.00 DO 670 PG TOB d
55 77
811, R2 fr.. sw v' ftONNIE WALL DB 992 PG 54B y?
p 5 t aA,L (Y? DS 688 PC 400 PS 22 Po 18
m ?,... '.r
7 YD FFLAS$ B?' by y N'? ` I^?? PS 22 PC IB IB ,; canr.
JAMES PORTER
r W ty Q oa Tee Po 497 -L- POC a. l30+5675
Pe zz PO IB -DR4- Sta. 10+00.00
_Y A+ N v i P I55.00' Q J
py63g a ' f 7 , b- -S78-30'01'W 2 POTSto,11+OOA0
C EIP EMD
P
\A, SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
8Y14 11\ y44 ' 1 x ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
YI4- 2850 7+4 74 c I FOR -L- PROFILES SEE SHEET 20 & 21
B OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION UT FOR -Y/5A- PROFILE SEE SHEET 25
x n/I ° I OF oe si1 PN° 3couNTY U NOTE: SUPERELEVATION ROTATES TOWARD FOFOR -DRI- PROFILE R OR2-DR
SEE SHEET 226
%f ISLAND STA 124+20 TO 124PX FOR -DR3- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
Z IS ^ -J. ° ( oe.on FOR -DR4- PROFILE SEE SHEEP 26
-L- -Yl7A- -Yl7B-
Pls Sto 140+4804 PI Sto 143+36.80 PIS SIC 146+25J2 PI Sta 160+4991 PI Sto 15+8557 PI Sto 12+6776
Bs = f 25 566 0 = 621' 22.4" (LT) Bs = f 2556.6' A = 2' 56'030 (RT) A = 27'33' 05,1' (LT) A= 31' 00' 55.4' (RT)
Ls = 200,0' D = 1' 25566* Ls = 200.00' D = 0' 42' 58.3' D = 556'14e D = 5"56'14.6
LT = 133.34' L = 44375 LT = 133-34' L = 414-37' L = 464.03' L = 522.37'
ST = 66.67' T = 222JO' ST = 6667' T = 20723' T = 23659' T = 267.76'
R = 4,000.00' R = 8,000.00' R = 965.00' R = 965.00'
SE _ .03

-Yl7A- SR 1442
LEDBE TER RD.
'L
7,409
I? 309
zoao9 z? ? sly
-L- US 17 /?? -L- US 1
600 /-;Loo
55,500 2005 ADT
! 9'" 2025 ADT
-Yl7B- SR 1640
WIREGRASS RD.
N

ain
? UP
.+ Op
air
ALm
TERRY WILLIAMS
DO 823 PC 26
PB 7 PC 56
-L- 149+39.77 OFF 37.05'
P CD
EE?gCMED55CgOUq OLpE LINER
11 LTHIC OK WA%FILTERI F DRIC? I' THICK W
E
w /
77
- uEr? I
_ _ _T- _ r=' I 11501
DIAEw / I s'
r__._? ?I 11, ? 11 I
y C !SBR'J
/ 'I I I a,E 1,
1 1 I '4 I ( I 11
I '" ? !i ISfU {? I of Ohl 1 1
70 L&
w I I J IL i ¢i I eaoFaNc ntiR I _IQ? i'• I s o
IsED C a31 1 r`? J dal
1 w
w°.r'??^T,,, F? ? i 11 II?1 •.1 it c ?Ir40Lllp
I
_?31?? 111
y .) ? I I' I t1 w w0 1 1
a - I SCI I CJ
w I r 1 ?, ?
HENRY Y
-S.r}Ix c .y % B E25 UPC E430 LVJ W N ;?II ?1 I, II 1 u2 ' 1A
I'.
J N ACKOR rf N . ?I ,A PB 3 PC 245 '?L` g??,II I {I '1 ?.,?'' 3 '•
PG 342P PC 6 e N I N._.
6 CYNTHIA BRENNETT
JAMES B. USSERY " KILPATRICK DPoB 450
v } I 1 I DB 913 PC 490 DO 1122 PO 5
?f- DO T75. PC 34 PC 0001 245
I PS 3 PC 245 PB 33
0
I
49.
50'35 N
766110
EIP 100.02' N76'19'OS'C CIP
I 49.90' N16,00E
1?7E
OP "- MARGARET MCOUACE
196.10' lr ,,S58 PIS 3 PO 245
S13'30'44'W N o
WILLIAM B 245 DT
DB 1149 PC 44
PO 3 PC PG 245
-L- YUI JIa, l:
-Y17A- PT.Sta.
-YnB- PCSYo.
4
PS
1
E
_ dvinm _----E
IC noD I."' Dlr E O: z+? + vEN1u ' e
I'
I U 1 taus r-omp
Ir- ? 11• i j ? .1
1 \\ ? c ___ Ean j
J a_NOSEIv2'yo ?:,,.p_?l.
ssLrD (f W.J.BARNHARDT
7 /'1 \ DB 622 PC 338
PB T PC 56 .. ?i
l ( ? I s6,'Se N
j I / I ss. I
ERICA S. WALL \ SPECgR+DY \ TCTyO /
DO 1052 PG 418 ? >) EA;?R0 XSECT 1.
4
1
2nA 0112"Pr

PROJECT 0.r"lR-7CE NO. SHEET NO.
U-3456 14
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR /w' ACOU39I71710N
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
DO NOT USE PO CON9TAUCPWN
DE E A A T w W1 T" O x
70i Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
P
YR

I ')
L
43'-738'
j/"', B'OFFSET
C
I 5? T
n -- O
ppN 2
C" C)
i- 0 ?a
KENNETH J. LAYTON, INC.
DB T22 PC 90
?B PING 1+91.05 c
BY17YI7-1 23 POT 12 12+85.06
T, -L- 157+67.40 OFF 59.90'
Ar6v-AApCIII55R8gg0 TLLITCH
?
?I XSECT
EE`PROF?LE
/ x

t"?B7•n IgON

ANGLE
W

c
.
p SOIL
i
LIAM M WAtp P5
AABo G 521 n HORACE LAMPLEY
OB 355 PC 105
O

S? c
m
,,

/s 24.2 PAVEMENT REMOVAL
Z
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
NOTE:INCREASED WEDGING FROM FOR -L- PROFILES SEE SHEET 21 & 22
STA 141+00 TO 149+00 TO IMPROVE FOR -Yl7A- PROFILE SEE SHEET 25
DRAINAGE FOR -Yl7B- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26
e9

I'
C
P
L
L
M?
aQ
?m
?N
N?
am
0
a
? am
OWN
ti OO
Dm
o ?.
- L-
PI Sto 160+4991 PI Sto 164+45.47
A = 2' 58'03.? (RT) ZS = 2' 4t'54J' (LT)
D = IT 42' 58.3' D = 0' 42' 58.3'
L = 414.37' L = 37676'
T = 20723' T = 188.42'
R = 8.000.00' R = 8=.00'
SE = NC SE = NO
C
U
EIP
Nq
g60.e4' !'" v
END STATE PROJECT (U-3456)
co
Q
z
V
U
z

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
U-3456 15
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT UM TOR /F ACOUISMON
PRELIMINA RY PLANS
DO NOT UM PO CONSTRUCTION
eF. e A R 7 H
4
1511w M.
N ?
DN
Ns
T R 6 N
Drive. Suite 475
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 22
R
-Yl7B-
PI Sta 16+3088
Z?= 12' 49 525' (LT)
D = 5' 56'14e
L = 216J1'
T = 10851'
R = 965.00'
-Y17A-
PI Sta 12+3087
= 14' 07'15Z (RT)
D = S 56 14.6
L = 237.83'
T = 11952'
R = 965110'
-Yl7A-
PI Sta 15+8557
A= 2T 33' 05J' (LT)
D 5' 515'14e
L = 46403'
T = 23659'
R = 965.00'

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET N0.
UJ456 16
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT UM FOR /7F ACOUISMON
PREI.IMIN RY PLANS
M NOT USE PO CONSMUCTION
d; E A R 7 N W) T- O M
101 CorDOrar: Center Orly Sun: 415
AO1,IoQ,NC 27607
9191 551-625 91FA
GRAPHIC SCALE

N9

E
E
0
4

M
Go
4
z
0
L
U
U
z
M
co
Q
z
0
c?
U
z
FOR -Yl7A- PROFILE SEE SHEET 25
FOR -Y178- PROFILE SEE SHEET 26

WAMichael F. Easley, Governor
\O?0 RQG WilliamG. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
0) ?- Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
> y Acting Director
p -? Division of Water Quality
September 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
Through: John Domey, NC Division of Water Qual&D
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator C(, & J
Subject: Federal Environmental Assessment for US 1 (Fayetteville Road), from SR 1424
(Roberdel Road) to SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road).
Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0001(7), State Project
No. 8.1581301, TIP Project U-3456
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact
waters of the state including wetlands. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of
the aforementioned document:
A) The DWQ-supports the "Finding of No Significant Impact" due to the minimal amount of
impacts to surface waters and wetlands from the construction of the proposed project
B)
C)
DWQ notes the use of hazardous spill catch basins as part of NCDOT's environmental
commitments to this project.
Section 14. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts (pages 12-13): This section fails to address the
issue of secondary and cumulative impacts resulting from the construction of the project.
"The implementation of the proposed project is not expected to attract additional traffic or
development and generally would not appear to promote secondary or cumulative impacts"
(page 13). How was this conclusion reached? There is no supporting evidence (of either a
quantitative or qualitative nature) to make this a defensible conclusion. This is a five-lane
curb and gutter project with no control of access. The EA further fails to address the issue in
the fourth paragraph on page 13 by claiming that "it is not part of the actual road construction
process". This statement would probably not pass muster if the project were to come under
judicial review.
A §401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure
that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost [ 15A NCAC 2H
.0506(a) and (b)]. In short, the DWQ must address the following factors:
1. Will U-3456 remove or degrade the water bodies?
2. Does a practical alternative exist?
3. Will U-3456 degrade groundwater or surface water?
4. Will U-3456 minimize adverse impacts to surface waters?
5. Does U-3456 protect downstream water quality using on-site storm water controls?
6. Does U-3456 provide for replacement of existing uses through mitigation?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwebands/
7• Will U-3456 result in cumulative or secondary impacts
downstream water quality standards? In the document's
make an informed analysis of this impact. that will cause a violation of
present form, DWQ cannot
At the minimum, acumulative/second
scenarios based on past and projected ? impact assessment would include performing build-out
development ed acit growth rates, city/county land use plans, market conditions,
cap y, building puts (whether they are inconsistent with the current land use
and other indicators. Additional guidance h erfo
can be found using the following resources: p ruing secondary and cumulative impacts analysis
Canter, L.W. and J. Kamath. 1995- Environmental Impact Assessment ReQuestionnaire checklist view. Volume 15 31 for cumulative impacts.
• Cooper, T.A. and L.W. 1 339.
impact statements. Environmental
Canter 1997. Documentation of cumulative impacts in environmental
• Council on Environ Impact Assessment Review. 17•
mental Quality. • 385-411
Environmental Poli 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the Nationa
Rumrill J.N. O' Act. Washington, D.C., CE Executive Z
and L.W. Canter. 1997. Addressing future actions of the president.
Project Appraisal. 12(4); 207_218 s in cumulative effects assessment.
Final permit authorization will require the sub formal a
satisfactory answers mittal of a
to the above questions as well as and written
The NCDWQ appreciates application the opportunity to provide concurrence from the NCDWQ•
any questions or require any additional information, please contact
Your project. Should you have
919.733.5715 Cynthia Van Der Wiele at
cc: Richard Spence, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh Field Office .,
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
File Copy s
D Wnt of Environment and Natural Resources
Of. ^Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date Received: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville p Air ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Q Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville ? Groundwater
ildlife ? Water Resources
mot" G
.c
?"
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer r
_
? Environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem marks & Recreation ? Other
ater Quality
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
MG1 U11IN ! V:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative d& Intergovernmental Affairs
lip

US 1 (Fayetteville Road),
From SR 1424 (Roberdel Road) to
SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0001(7)
State Project No. 8.1581301
TIP Project No. U-3456

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
5'-3-01
Date
Date
r v
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

,y,, Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
4r
US 1 (Fayetteville Road),
From SR 1424 (Roberdel Road) to
SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0001(7)
State Project No. 8.1581301
TIP Project No. U-3456
Environmental Assessment
Document Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
Beverly G. Robins n
Project Development Engineer
i D/
S. Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Project Development Unit Head

CARN/
cCtnl._'9
SE AL
19791
FRIG Map` ???•
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Summary ................................................................................... ................................. 1
1. Description of the Proposed Action ............................................................... 1
II. Purpose of Project ........................................................ .................................. 1
A. Need for the Proposed Improvement ............... .................................. 1
1. Traffic Volume ..................................... .................................. 1
2. Capacity ............................................... .................................. 2
3. Accident Analysis ................................ .................................. 2
4. Thoroughfare Plan ............................... .................................. 2
III. Existing Conditions ...................................................... .................................. 2
A. Existing Typical Section .................................. .................................. 2
B. Existing Right of Way ..................................... .................................. 2
C. Access Control ................................................. .................................. 2
D. Speed Limits .................................................... .................................. 3
E. Functional Classification ................................................................... 3
F. Utilities ............................................................. .................................. 3
G. Structures ......................................................... .................................. 3
H. Intersecting Road and Types of Control ............................................ 3
IV. Proposed Improvements .............................................. ................................... 3
A. Project Length ................................................. ................................... 3
B. Proposed Typical Section ............................... ................................... 3
C. Proposed Alignment ........................................ ................................... 3
D. Structures ........................................................ ................................... 4
E. Right of Way 4
F. Design Speed .................................................. ...................................
G. Type of Intersection Control ........................... ................................... 4
H. Access Control ................................................ ................................... 4
1. Bicycle Accommodations ............................... ................................... 4
J. Sidewalks ........................................................ ................................... 4
K. Cost Estimates ................................................. ................................... 5
L. Project Terminals ............................................ ................................... 5
V. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ..............................................................
A. Design Alternatives ............................................................................
0
1. Alternate 1 (Symmetrical) ......................................................
2. Alternate 2 (Best Fit) (Recommended) ..................................
B. "No-Build" Alternative ......................................................................
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation .................................................
VI. Adjacent Projects ...........................................................................................
VII. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...........................................................
A. Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................
1. Architectural Historic Resources ..........................................
2. Archaeological Resources .....................................................
B. Social and Economic Environment ...................................................
1. Community Profile .................................................................
2. Population ..............................................................................
3. Business Activity/Employment Centers ................................
4. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions .............................
5. Land Use Planning .................................................................
a. Status of Planning ......................................................
6. Project Impact Assessment ....................................................
a. Economic Development Opportunities ......................
b. Accessibility Considerations ......................................
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Relocatees ..............................................................................
Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion ...............
Tax Base Changes, Changes in Employment ........................
Visual Impacts .......................................................................
Farmland Impacts ...................................................................
Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watershed .........................
Title VI and Environmental Justice .......................................
Secondary/Cumulative Impacts .............................................
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
C. Natural Resources .............................................................................. 14
1. Biotic Resources .................................................................... 14
a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................ 14
b. Aquatic Communities ................................................ 17
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. 17
2. Water Resources .................................................................... 20
a. Physical Characteristics of Impacted Surface Water.. 21
b. Best Usage Classification .......................................... 21
3. Water Quality 22
a. General Watershed Characteristics ............................ 22
b. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring/Biologic
Water Quality Monitoring ...................................... 22
C. Point Source Discharge .............................................. 23
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. 23
4. Jurisdictional Topics .............................................................. 24
a. Waters of the United States ........................................ 24
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ....... 25
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. 25
d. Permits and Consultations ......................................... 26
e. Section 404 Permits ................................................... 26
f. Water Quality Certification ........................................ 26
g. Mitigation of Wetland Impacts ...:.............................. 27
h. Avoidance .................................................................. 27
i. Minimization .............................................................. 27
j. Compensatory Mitigation .......................................... 27
5. Rare & Protected Species ....................................................... 28
a. Federally - Protected Species .................................... 28
b. Federal Species of Concern ...................................... 31
6. Physical Characteristics ......................................................... 33
a. Regional Characteristics ............................................ 33
b. Soils ......................................................................:.... 33
7. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns ................. 35
- - D. -Traffic-Noise-Analysis
E. Air Quality Analysis ... 39--
F. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage
Tank Facilities ........................................................................ 41
G. Geodetic Markers ............................................................................... 44
VIII. Comments, Coordination, and Public Involvement ....................................... 45
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3a Existing Typical Section
Figure 3b Existing Typical Section
Figure 4 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 5 Lane Configurations
Figure 6 Project Volumes
Figure 7 Thoroughfare Plan
Tables
Table 1 1990 Population by Race and Hispanic Origin (Richmond County) 7
Table 2 1990 Population by Age (Richmond County) 8
Table 3 Estimated Area Impacts to Biotic Communities 18
Table 4 Anticipated Impacts to Streams and Wetlands 26
Table 5 Federally Protected Species for Richmond County 28
Table 6 Federal Species of Concern for Richmond County 32
Table 7 Soils occurring in the Project Area 34
Table 8 Potential Forest Productivity of Soils in the Project Area 35
US 1 (Fayetteville Road),
From SR 1424 (Roberdel Road) to
SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0001(7)
State Project No. 8.1581301
TIP Project No. U-3456
SUMMARY
1. Description of the Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen US 1 to a five-lane facility utilizing curb and gutter.
The proposed improvements will begin 800 ft (243.84 m) west of SR 1424
(Roberdel Road) and end 600 ft (182.88 m) east of SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1442
(Ledbetter Road). The recommended typical section is a five-lane, 64-foot face-to-face
of curbs with gutter facility.
The proposed project is included in the last approved 2000-2006 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 and construction for FY 2006.
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $14,875,000, which
includes $8,900,000 for construction and $6,250,000 for right of way acquisition. The
TIP cost estimate is $10,650,000 which includes $1,400,000 for right of way acquisition,
$8,900,000 for construction and $350,000 for prior years planning.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Approximately 2 residences, 4 businesses, and 1 non-profit organization will be
relocated as a result of this alternative.
No wetlands will be impacted as a result of the proposed project. 40 ft (12.2 m)
of streams will be impacted as a result of implementing the project.
Table N5 (Appendix B page B-9) indicates 55 residential receptors and 7
impacted commercial receptors will be impacted by noise increase as a result of
implementing the project.
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
Hazardous spill catch basins will be required at stream crossings along the section
of US 1 between Roberdel Road and Mt. Olive Church Road because this portion of US 1
is within 1 mile of the water supply intake on Hinson Lake.
A Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5 (a) 14 permit is likely to be applicable at most
stream/wetland crossings found in the project study area. However, final decisions
concerning applicable permits for the proposed project rest with the COE.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the
DWQ prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit.
An existing 24 inch (0.61 m) pipe is located east of Philadelphia Drive. Hydraulic
recommendations will be given during final design.
4. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project.
Alignment
All improvements are proposed along existing US 1. Symmetrical and best-fit
alternatives were studied for the proposed alignment.
Typical Section
A five-lane curb and gutter section was the only typical. section studied for the
proposed project. This typical section will provide five 12-foot lanes with two through
lanes in each direction and a continuous center turn lane.
No-Build
The No-Build option was rejected as the existing facility will not effectively serve
the projected volumes.
5. Coordination
The following federal; state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Mayor of Rockingham.
Planning Director, City of Rockingham
Rockingham City Council
Richmond County Commissioners
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposed project and assessment can be
obtained by contacting the following:
William Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
US 1 (Fayetteville Road),
From SR 1424 (Roberdel Road) to
SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road)
Rockingham, Richmond County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-0001(7)
State Project No. 8.1581301
TIP Project No. U-3456
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen US 1 (Fayetteville Road) to a five-lane facility utilizing curb and
gutter.
The proposed improvements will begin 800 ft (243.84 m) west of SR 1424
(Roberdel Road) and end 600 ft (182.88 m) east of SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1442
(Ledbetter Road). The recommended typical section is a five-lane, 64-foot face-to-face
of curbs with gutter facility.
The proposed project is included in the last approved 2000-2006 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 and construction for FY 2006.
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $14,875,000, which
includes $8,900,000 for construction and $6,250,000 for right of way acquisition. The
TIP cost is $10,650,000 which includes $1,400,000 for right of way acquisition,
$8,900,000 for construction and $350,000 for prior years planning.
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need for the Proposed Improvement
The purpose of this project is to improve safety and provide better traffic carrying
capacity along US 1.
1. Traffic Volume
The 2005 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ranges from 11,900-17,900 vehicles per
day (vpd). For the design year 2025 the estimated traffic volume ranges from 19,100 vpd
to 27,800 vpd. See Figure 6.
2. Capacity
A capacity analysis was performed for the proposed project to predict the level of
service (LOS) for the project. The mainline analysis of US 1 within the project limits is
currently operating at LOS E, and it is projected that the roadway will operate at LOS E
in the design year 2025 without improvements. If the proposed US 1 Bypass is
constructed, mainline US 1 within the project limits will operate at LOS C in the current
year and at LOS F in the design year 2025. See Figure 5 for the proposed lane
configuration.
Wiregrass Road/Ledbetter Road intersection with US 1 is currently signalized and
will operate at a LOS D in 2025.
3. Accident Analysis
During the three-year period from January 1996 to December 1998, there were
76 accidents reported on US 1 within the project limits. One fatality was reported. Forty
seven percent of the accidents along this portion were rear-end collisions. The accident
rate along US 1 within the project limits is 320.40 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles
(acc/l 00mvm). Compared to the statewide rate of 290.84 acc/100mvm for urban US
routes US 1 is slightly above the statewide rate.
4. Thoroughfare Plan
US 1 is designated as a. Major Thoroughfare on the Rockingham-Hamlet
Thoroughfare Plan. The proposed improvements are in conformance with the
thoroughfare plan. Construction of this project will be a step toward implementation of
these long-range plans, which were adopted by local governments and NCDOT. (See
Figure 7).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Existing Typical Section
The existing typical section along US 1 is a 40-foot (12.2-m) wide roadway with
curb and gutter west of Roberdel Road. East of Roberdel Road US 1 is a two-lane
roadway 24 foot (7.3-m) wide with 2-foot (0.6-m) paved shoulders and 8-foot (2.4--m)
soil shoulders.
B. Existing Right of Way
Existing right of way along US 1 is approximately 60 feet (18.3-m).
C. Access Control
No control of access exists along the studied section.
2
D. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit is 45mph (75 kph).
E. Functional Classification
US 1 is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial on the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
F. Utilities
Aerial telephone, power, water, and sewer are all located along US 1. The utility
impact rating is low.
G. Structures
There is an existing 24-inch (0.61 m) pipe east of Philadelphia Drive.
H. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
Most of the intersections along US 1 are T-intersections. Two intersections,
SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road)/SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road) and SR 1682 (Patterson Road)/
SR 1504 (Philadelphia Road) are four leg intersections. The Wiregrass Road/Ledbetter
Road intersection is signalized. All other intersections in the project vicinity are stop
sign controlled.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Proiect Length
The total project length is 2.9 miles (4.67 km).
B. Proposed Typical Section
A five-lane curb and gutter facility is proposed for US 1 (64 feet (19.5 m),
face-to-face of curbing) from SR 1424 (Roberdel Road) to SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)/
SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road). The typical section will consist of two 12-foot (3.6 m) travel
lanes in each direction separated by a continuous center turn lane. The proposed typical
section is shown in figure 4.
C. Proposed Alignment
The proposed alignment will include widening on both sides. This alignment will
minimize impacts and costs for the proposed project. Beginning 800 ft (243.84 m) west
of Roberdel Road to Lawson Lane and from 200 feet (60.96 m) east of Raider Road to
Wiregrass Road/Ledbetter Road existing US 1 will be widened symmetrically about the
3
existing centerline. From Mt. Olive Garden Road to Richmond Senior High School
Football and Track Field and from 300 feet (91.4 m) west of Raider Road to 200 ft
(60.96 m) east of Raider Road existing US 1 will be widened to the south of the existing
centerline. From Lawson Lane to Mt Olive Garden Road and from the Richmond Senior
High School Football and Track Field to 300 feet (91.4 m) west of Raider Road existing
US 1 will be widened to the north of the existing centerline.
D. Structures
There is an existing 24 inch (0.61 m) pipe east of Philadelphia Drive. Hydraulic
recommendation for this location will be given during final design.
E. Right of Way
Approximately 100 feet (30 m) of right of way will be required to accommodate
the proposed improvements along with temporary construction easements.
F. Design Speed
A 50 mph (81 km/h) design speed is proposed for the subject project.
G. Types of Intersection Control
The signal at the intersection of Wiregrass Road/Ledbetter Road and US 1 will be
upgraded. All other intersections along the project will be stop sign controlled.
H. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for this facility.
I. Bicycle Accommodations
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation does not recommend any
special bicycle accommodations for the proposed project. This route is not designated as
a bicycle route and does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request. There does not appear
to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this project.
3. Sidewalks
New sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of US 1 from Old Aberdeen
Road (SR 1426) to Roberdel Road (SR 1424). In accordance with NCDOT's pedestrian
policy, the City of Rockingham will be required to participate in the funding of the
sidewalk.
4
K. Cost Estimates
The current estimated cost for the proposed five-lane curb and gutter section is
$14,875,000, which includes $ 8,900,000 for construction and $5,975,000 for right of
way acquisition.
L. Proiect Terminals
The proposed project begins at SR 1424 (Roberdel Road) and ends at SR 1640
(Wiregrass Road)/SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road).
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
1. Alternate 1 (Symmetrical)
This alternate proposes to widen US 1 to a five lane curb and gutter facility with
sidewalks constructed on the north side of the facility from Old Aberdeen Road
(SR 1426) to Roberdel Road (SR 1424). This alternate was developed as the original
alternative for the proposed project. The estimated cost for this alternative is
approximately $9,100,000 for construction and $7,250,000 for right of way acquisition.
Approximately 5 businesses and 1 non-profit organizations would be relocated as a result
of this alternative.
2. Alternate 2 (Best Fit) (Recommended)
This alternate will widen US 1 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility with
sidewalks constructed on the north side of the facility from Old Aberdeen Road
(SR 1426) to Roberdel Road (SR 1424). This alternate was developed as a measure to
minimize cost to the project area. The construction cost for this alternative is $8,900,000
and the right of way acquisition cost is $6,250,000. Approximately 2 residences,
4 businesses, and 1 non-profit organization will be relocated as a result of this alternative.
B. "No -Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative is not recommended. This alternative does not meet
the purpose of the project to improve traffic carrying capacity, improve the safety of the
highway and reduce the accidents along the subject roadway.
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation
It was determined that no alternate mode of transportation would be a practical
alternative to the recommended alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant
mode of transportation in the project area. Staggering work hours, car-pooling,
5
and van-pooling are possible ways to generally reduce highway congestion; however,
these congestion management measures are not controlled by the NCDOT and cannot be
incorporated into this project.
VI. ADJACENT PROJECTS
R-2501
TIP Project R-2501 proposes to construct the US 1 Bypass of Rockingham. This
project will be a four-lane divided controlled access facility on new location. Current
plans indicate US 1 Bypass will follow the existing alignment of US 1 from east of this
project to the intersection with Wiregrass and Ledbetter Road where the project will turn
southward on new location. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for FY 2004 and
construction is scheduled for FY 2006.
VII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Architectural Historic Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 35 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the ACHP will
be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106 the Historic Architectural Resources section of the
NCDOT surveyed the project area. There are no properties less than 50 years old which
are considered to meet Criterion G within the project area of potential effect (APE).
There are properties over 50 years old within the project's APE, but based on historical
information available and photographs of each property, those properties are considered
not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
There are no National Register listed properties within the project APE. See concurrence
form on page A-8 of the appendix.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites along the proposed project; therefore the
State Historic Preservation Office did not recommend archaeological survey. See letter
from the Department of Cultural Resources on page A-7 of the appendix.
6
B. Social and Economic Environment
1. Community Profile
The City of Rockingham and Richmond County is in the south-central portion of
the State, just west of Fayetteville, along the border with South Carolina. Richmond
County is surrounded by Anson, Montgomery, Moore, and Scotland Counties, and South
Carolina. The county lies in both the Yadkin and Lumber River Basins. A portion of the
western end of the project is located within the town limits of Rockingham. Fayetteville
Road is a one of several routes serving as a corridor leading into and away from
Rockingham.
2. Population
According to the 1990 Census, the population of Richmond County was 44,518.
The Office of State Planning (OSPL) estimates that the 1998 population was 45,507.
Between 1990 and 1998 Richmond County grew by approximately 2.2%.
Table 1. 1990 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins (Richmond Co.)
Project Area County North Carol ina
Number % Number % Number %
Total Population -
1990 4338 100 44,518 100 6,628,637 100
White 3397 78.4 30,72.1 69.2 5,011,248 75.6
Black '841 19A 12,863 28.8 1,455,340 21.8
American Indian '33 0:7 547 1.2 82,606 1.3
Asian/Pacific
Islander 44. 1.0 74 .17 50,395 -0.8
Hispanic 23 0.5 307 0.6 69,020 0.1
Other 0 0 6 .03 29,048 0.4
OSPL estimates for 1998 are that 30,462 (66.94 %) County residents are white and
15,045 (33.06 %) are non-white. OSPL also estimates the 1990 county Hispanic
population at 307 or .68 %, somewhat less than the statewide average of 1.16%. The
1998 median age for Richmond County was 35.72 years, in comparison with the state
average of 35.47 years.
7
Table 2 1990 Population by Age (Richmond Co.)
Project Area County North Carol ina
Number % Number % Number %o
Total Population -
1990 4,338 100% 44,518 100% 6,628,637
0 to 64 3,860 89% 38,292 86% 5,826,580 87.9
65 or above 478 11% 6226 14% 802,057 12.1
3. Business Activity/Employment Centers
While the project corridor is not heavily commercialized, there are a few areas
with commercial/business activity, most of which is concentrated toward the two ends of
the project. On the western portion of the project, closer to Rockingham, there is a
concentration of commercial/industrial activity where a shopping center with a grocery
store and several associated small shops lie next to several other manufacturing and light
industrial activities, a furniture business and mini-storage facility.
On the eastern end of the project, there are several businesses located near the
intersection of Fayetteville Road and SR 1442/SR 1640, these being primarily
convenience store type services.
4. Public Facilities. Schools and Institutions
Richmond Senior High School is located on the south side of the Fayetteville
Road. There are several churches and a cemetery located along the length of the project.
There are no other public facilities or institutions located along this portion of
Fayetteville Road.
There are no emergency-related services located along the project route.
5. Land Use Planning
a. Status of Planning
Much of the project lies within the City limits of Rockingham and its
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
Richmond County does not currently have any planning documents in effect
which prescribe future land uses along the project corridor.
A portion of the project also lies outside Rockingham's limits, under the
jurisdiction of Richmond County. Richmond County does not currently have any zoning
or land use regulations or planning documents in effect which prescribe particular or
specific land uses along the project corridor.
8
6. Proiect Impact Assessment
a. Economic Development Opportunities
The proposed project improvements would not appear to either increase or curtail
specific economic activity/opportunities in the immediate project vicinity, as the project
improvements are not expected to attract new levels of traffic, or provide new access to
developable lands.
In addition, the project would not appear to generate new development or alter
existing patterns of development which might disrupt the surrounding community.
However, the increase in traffic capacity may allow conditions to change over a longer
period of time.
As there are areas zoned by Rockingham for business/light industrial, as well as
several large areas of undeveloped wooded land adjacent to the road, it would not be
unreasonable to consider that Fayetteville road may undergo a transition to a more
densely developed corridor. This is especially true considering the road's role as a
corridor to and from the central business district of Rockingham.
b. Accessibility Considerations
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 extends the protection of the
1964 Civil Rights Act to the disabled, prohibiting discrimination in public
accommodations and transportation and other services.
The project would not appear to impose excessive barriers to accessibility. The
change from a two-lane to a multi-lane facility will increase the difficulty in crossing the
road. The most immediate area of concern is the Richmond Senior High School, as there
is likely pedestrian activity to and from the school during the morning and afternoon
hours.
7. Relocatees
All property acquisitions are subject to the Uniform Relocatrion and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This Act provides for uniform
and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit
associations, or farms by federal and federally-assisted programs, and, establishes uniform
and equitable land acquisition policies.
Relocation assistance payments and counseling will be provided to persons and
businesses in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Properties Acquisition Policies Act, as amended, to ensure adequate relocation and
decent, safe and sanitary home for displaced residents. All eligible displacees will be
entitles to moving expenses. All benefits and services will be provided equitably to all
9
residential and business relocatees without regard to race, color, religion, age, national
origins and disability as specified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When relocation is necessary, it is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has
the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation.
(1) Relocation Assistance
(2) Relocation Moving Payments
(3) Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
These regulations and programs help ensure that property owners are compensated fairly
for the loss of value of their property.
Approximately 7 properties will be relocated as a result of the proposed
improvements. The relocatees will include 2 residential properties, 4 businesses and
1 non-profit organization (see Appendix pages B-1 and B-2). Several decent and safe
comparable replacement housing is available in the project area.
8. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
Impacts to communities and neighborhoods can include splitting neighborhoods,
isolating portions of a community, generating new development or changing
development patterns, changing property values or creating a barrier separating residents
from community facilities.
As it is currently proposed, this road widening project would not split or isolate
the community or the surrounding neighborhoods along the project route. The
implementation of the proposed project would not generate new development or alter
existing patterns of development which might disrupt the surrounding community.
However, the change from a two-lane to a multi-lane facility will, in some situations,
increase the difficulty in crossing the road. There may be some disruption for various
pedestrians, in that the wider road may create some difficulty for various residents who
might routinely cross the road for various purposes. The most immediate area of such
concern would be the Richmond Senior High School.
In addition, there will likely be some concern from residents whose long
established homes will now be closer in proximity to the widened roadway. Impacts
resulting from this closer proximity may be increased vehicle noise and possibly some
light intrusion at night from headlights of turning and passing vehicles.
9. Tax base Changes. Changes in Employment
As there do not appear to be many relocations associated with this project,
potential changes to the local tax base should be slight. With few residences and
10
businesses being relocated or lost, there would not appear to be substantial changes in the
tax base or employment base as a result of the proposed project improvements.
10. Visual Impacts
Visually, one of the most readily apparent impacts for the land along this road
may be the loss of some vegetation along the project route. As the road widening will
extend into areas of property which are either currently undeveloped or are now
residential yards, there may be some loss of vegetation and of various trees which are
currently located close to the existing road. While the loss of such vegetation will have
some visual impact, such losses would not appear to be substantial or highly adverse
visual impacts.
11. Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96,
Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils,
as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). These soils
are determined by the SCS based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of
economic resources. Land which is planned or zoned for urban development is not
subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
The project is located in a transitional area, just east of the town of Rockingham.
The land use throughout the project route is a mix of residential, some small businesses,
churches, with no apparent agricultural land uses.
The proposed project would not disturb or disrupt any farming operations.
Therefore, farmland mitigation or avoidance is not necessary.
12. Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, declared it the policy of the
United States to preserve certain selected rivers, "which, with their immediate
environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and
wildlife, historic cultural, or other similar values." The Act established the Wild and
Scenic River System. The Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 declared it the policy
of North Carolina to retain "the natural and scenic conditions in some of the State's
valuable rivers by maintaining them in a free-flowing state and to protect their water
quality and adjacent lands by retaining these natural and scenic conditions." At present,
designated state Natural and Scenic Rivers are identical with designated federal Wild and
Scenic Rivers.
11
No river, stream or creek within the project area has been designated as a Wild
and Scenic River. The project area is not within or adjacent to a water supply watershed.
13. Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there be no
discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin,
age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," provides
that "each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its
provisions apply fully to American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental
justice refers to the equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with
respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.
The recommended best fit alternative impacts 2 residential, 5 business and 1 non
profit properties. The two residential properties are also minority owned and occupied.
The symmetrical alternative impacts 5 business, and 2 non profit properties. No minority
impacts will occur with the symmetrical alternative.
This project does not appear to place disproportionately high or adverse impacts
upon those areas having low income and/or minority populations which are located near
the project. While Census data for the proposed project indicates that there may be some
residential areas within the project corridor that may have the potential for environmental
justice conflicts, these areas do not appear to be adversely or disproportionately affected
by the proposed project.
As this widening project would involve relatively few relocations, the potential
for environmental justice generally appears to be very low. This assessment has not
found any evidence or indication of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, age, sex, or disability. This project is being implemented in accordance with
Executive Order. 12898.
14. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
Secondary effects are indirect impacts which are caused by or result from the
project, although these maybe later in time or further removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the results of the incremental impacts of '
the project when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities,
regardless of which entities undertake these other activities. Cumulative effects can }
result from individually minor but collectively significant activities taking place over a
period of time.
12
One unintended consequence of roadway improvements can be - depending upon
local land development regulations, development demand, water/sewer availability, and
other factors - encouragement of unplanned development and sprawl. Improvements to
levels of service, better accommodation of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in
travel times can have land development impacts outside of the project area.
The implementation of the proposed project is not expected to attract additional
traffic or development and generally would not appear to promote secondary or
cumulative effects, in the form of additional development, along the project corridor. As
the project consists of widening the existing road in order to alleviate traffic congestion to
improve flow and safety, the proposed improvements would not dramatically alter the
surrounding land use, provide or impose new intersections/interchanges, increase access
to undeveloped lands, or alter existing development patterns. The likelihood of
secondary/cumulative impacts appears to be generally low for this project. tA,
However, as the project will result in the widening of Fayetteville Road from a two
lane shoulder section to a multi-lane cross section, this corridor will have an expanded
capacity for traffic flow. While expanded traffic capacity and enhanced level of service
may benefit some aspects of the area in general, the larger road facility may pose some
negative aspects further out in the future in terms of accessibility and congestion. This
may especially be true if local land use and development decisions contribute to increased
levels of traffic, and thus reduce levels of service along the length of the project. As there
are areas zoned by Rockingham for business/light industrial, as well as several large areas
of undeveloped wooded land adjacent to the road, it would not be unreasonable to consider
that Fayetteville Road will undergo a transition to a more densely developed corridor at
some point in the future. This is especially true considering the road's role as a corridor to
and from the central business district of Rockingham.
Many of the ultimate consequences of road improvement projects are dependent
upon a variety of issues and decisions which are not part of the actual road construction
process, but have much to do with a myriad of decisions made by the local government(s)
at a later point in time.
Many of these issues and decisions relate to such items as local land development
regulations, planning and zoning, development demand, availability of utility
infrastructure (water and sewer), local economic development efforts, as well as other
factors which are part of a local economy. In addition, improvements to a particular
road's level of service, better accommodation of merging and exiting traffic movements,
and reductions in travel times can have impacts to surrounding land use which lie beyond
the immediate project area.
,5"J
13
C. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
This section describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as
well as the relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. The
composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography, soils, hydrology and past land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications,
defined by the dominant plant species observed. Representative animal species which are
likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism
refer to the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the project area:
Commercial/Residential Development, Upland Pine/Hardwood Forest, Pine Plantation,
and Headwater Forest. Community composition in the project vicinity is primarily
reflective of the current and prior land uses of the area. All community types exhibit
some degree of past or continued human disturbance which has affected their structure or
species composition. Much of the original forest has been converted to managed pine
plantations, and a substantial area has been urbanized and currently supports residential
dwellings. Community boundaries within the project area tend to be well defined since
forested communities usually border open, disturbed areas. Furthermore, many of the
biotic communities in this part of the state were historically fire influenced. As a result
of the fire suppression, changes in vegetative dominance have occurred within the
community types.
The landscape immediately surrounding the project area is occupied to a large
extent by agriculture and forestland, interspersed with minor development along
roadways. Remaining forests are frequently found along slopes or bottomlands, or as
buffers between fields or around residential areas. As a result, the forested communities
within the project area constitute a small forest fragment.
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of
terrestrial communities discussed. Raccoon, Virginia opossum and northern cardinal are
examples of species which likely occur in all of the habitats in the project area. These
species area adapted to forest/clearing boundary conditions and likely utilize numerous
habitats to some extent for shelter, foraging, or movement corridors. Such species may
not be listed for each community described.
14
Commercial/Residential Development
The commercial/residential development community occupies 75 percent of the
project area and consists of areas heavily impacted and maintained by human
development activities. The project area to a large extent consists of commercial and
residential lawns and roadside areas, interspersed with buildings and roadways.
Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing and herbicide
application, inhibit natural succession and keep this community in an early successional
state. As a result, the vegetation of this community is dominated by grasses and herbs,
with scattered trees and shrubs. Included I this community are the road shoulders and
maintained right of way of existing US 1, utility right of way, and a borrow pit which
exists adjacent to the proposed project area.
Common plants of this community are fescue, crabgrass, wild onion, and foxtail
grass. Important associate species include goldenrod, dandelion, clover, plantain,
blackberry, wood sorrel, henbit, Japanese honey suckle, Queen Ann's lace, broomsedge,
and aster. Planted horticultural trees and shrubs include loblolly pine, longleaf pin, black
cherry, and various oaks. Seedlings of various tree species occur along road slopes,
utility right of way, embankments where mowing is less frequent. These species include
white oak, yellow poplar, sweetgum, winged sumac, and water oak. The borrow pit site
is vegetated with stunted loblolly pines, turkey oak, water oak, and yellow jessimine.
Wildlife found in this communities is limited and consists primarily of wide-
ranging, adaptable species such as meadow vole, hispid cotton rat, white footed mouse,
eastern harvest mouse, and eastern cottontail rabbit, which are well suited to coexistence
with human development. Nocturnal mammals common to suburban areas, such as
raccoon and Virginia opossum, may travel periodically through the project area, and gray
squirrels may inhabit forested fringes. Common reptiles include the eastern fence lizard
and eastern box turtle, and bird populations likely include species such as northern
cardinal, Carolina chickadee, American robin, mourning dove, common grackle, and
European starling. Predators found in this community are the black racer, rat snake, and
red-tailed hawk.
Upland Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest
The upland pine/mixed hardwood forest comprises 15 percent of the project area
and occurs in seven separate stands scattered along the proposed corridor. This
community represents a heterogeneous assemblage of variable ages from approximately
5-50 years old. Stands range from dry, sandy ridges to more mesic slopes and sloughs.
Stands range in density from 30-100 percent cover, and understory density is likewise
variable.
Dominant vegetation of the overstory and midstory of this forest includes loblolly
pine, longleaf pine, water oak, turkey oak, red maple, mockernut hickory, black cherry,
live oak, blackjack oak, white oak, sweetgum, yellow poplar, American holly, red cedar,
Chinese privet, hawthorn, dogwood, and blueberry. Understory vegetation consists of
15
greenbrier, trumpet creeper, grape, catbrier, yellow jessimine, Japanese honeysuckle,
wisteria, blackberry, pokeberry, broomsedge, and dog fennel.
Wildlife expected in this community includes the gray squirrel, southern short-
tailed shrew, eastern box turtle, eastern garter snake, and five lined skink. Other species,
such as white-tailed deer and red fox, likely alternate between the pine/hardwoods forests
and the surrounding open areas. Birds which inhabit this community type are blue jay,
downy woodpecker, Carolina wren, crow, and pine warbler.
Pine Plantation
This community occurs over 5 percent of the project area and occurs in two stands
varying in age from approximately 15-25 years. The stands are fully stocked with
approximately 80-100 percent cover. There is some evidence that these stands are
periodically raked for pine straw production. Dominant overstory species in this
community are planted longleaf pine and loblolly pine. Very few midstory trees or
shrubs are present due to intensive competition control. Species which are present in the
understory in limited numbers are water oak, black cherry, live oak, yellow jessimine,
broomsedge, and dog fennel.
Wildlife found in this community would be similar to that found in upland
Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest, though likely with lower densities due to the reduced
habitat value of these forests.
Headwater Forest
This community type comprises 5 percent of the project area and occurs in two
locations to the south of existing US 1. This community occurs at the top of small
drainages where groundwater seeps and lateral drainage initiate the formation of
intermittent streams. Because of the presence of significant groundwater seepage, these
communities are classified as wetlands. The two sites present within the project are
variable in age; one has recently been clear-cut and is regenerating with young
hardwoods (5-10 years old), the other is relatively mature though it is bisected by a
cleared powerline right of way. An intermittent stream passes through one of the
headwater forests present and flows southward toward Falling Creek.
Dominant vegetation found in this community includes sweetgum, yellow poplar,
willow, red maple, black gum, black cherry, and sweetbay in the overstory. The midstory
and understory are comprised of Chinese privet, bamboo, switch can, blackberry,
catbrier, greenbrier, netted chain, and poison ivy.
Wildlife expected in this community includes gray squirrel, red fox, raccoon,
eastern screech owl, red-headed woodpecker, yellow bellied sapsucker, downy
woodpecker, common flicker, blue-gray gnatcher, yellow warbler, and northern parula.
Also present are various semiaquatic species which utilize both the forest and the
intermittent stream as habitat. Such species include amphibians such as southern dusky
16
salamander, spring peeper, pickerel frog, Fowler's toad, and upland chorus frog, along
with reptiles such as northern water snake and eastern ribbon snake.
b. Aquatic Communities
. One aquatic community type, defined as a Coastal Plain Intermittent Stream, will
be impacted by the proposed project. Intermittent streams exhibit variable water flow
conditions and may experience interrupted flows during dry intervals, which usually
occur in the summer months. As a result, climatological events greatly influence the
faunal composition of these streams and may cause the fauna to vary from year to year.
During dry periods these streams may retain water in deeper pools, although water flow
through channel ceases. These pools can provide habitat for a great diversity of aquatic
and semiaquatic species. However, fish diversity in intermittent streams is usually
lacking due to stream size and limited water flow. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a
water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities. In general, a higher diversity
of species can be found in streams which are shaded by a dense canopy of trees and
shrubs.
Intermittent streams are utilized by a variety of aquatic/semiaquatic insects such
as dragonfly and stonefly and certain species of crayfish. Small fish which may inhabit
deeper pools which retain water include mosquito fish and eastern mud minnow. The
intermittent stream habitat is also utilized by several semiaquatic species described under
the Headwater Forest terrestrial community type.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms
affected. Temporary versus permanent impacts are considered as well, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting
from project construction. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities
reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated
impacts are derived based on the project length of 2.7 mi. (4.5 km) and the expanded
right of way width of an additional 40 ft (12.2 m) along the length of the project.
However, project construction often does not require the entire right of way and certain
portions of the project area are already paved; therefore, actual impacts may be somewhat
less.
17
Table 3 Estimated Area Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Alternative 1
Symmetrical
Ac ha Alternative 2
Best Fit
Ac(ha)
Commercial/Residential
Development 4.1 (10.1) 12.9 (5.3)
Upland Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.7(0.7) 0.0(0.0)
Pine Plantation 0.7 (0.3 0.0 0.0)
Headwater Forest 0.4(0.2) 0.0(0.0)
Total 12.9 (5.3 12.9 5.3
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres)
Total impacts indicated in Table 3 are identical for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
because the right of way width is similar for both. Also, as indicated, it is possible to
avoid all existing forested communities with a "best fit" alternative which emphasized
widening in currently developed areas.
The projected loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from project construction will
have minimal impact on populations of native flora and fauna. The majority of the
project will impact commercial and residential areas, and thus will not have large-scale
effects on the natural communities of the project region. Such areas are already highly
altered from their natural state, and residual species are well adapted to such distributed
conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common
throughout North Carolina and are well adapted to persisting in disturbed areas.
Although the impacted forested communities have moderate value as wildlife habitat,
only a small area of these communities will be distributed. Only narrow bands along
edges of the forested communities will be impacted, and the displacement of native flora
and fauna away from the project area should be minor. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities should repopulate areas suitable for the species following project
completion. As a result, it is unlikely that existing species will be displaced significantly
from the project area following construction. However, to minimize the temporary
effects of project construction, all cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated
soon after project completion to minimize the loss of wildlife habitat.
Because the project consists of widening an existing roadway, fragmentation of
natural habitats and disruption of normal wildlife movement should not be a serious
concern. The existing roadway already partially disrupts the natural movements of
wildlife in habitat corridors, such that the proposed project is not expected to create
unusual environmental conditions. Although road width, traffic use, and traffic speed
may increase, making the roadway a more formidable barrier to wildlife movement, large
mammals occurring in the project area are highly adaptive and will likely persist despite
such obstacles. Wildlife crossings will probably become less frequent and more difficult
for smaller and less mobile fauna, especially reptiles and amphibians.
Although direct effects on biotic communities should be minimal, secondary
development impacts resulting from project construction may be of greater concern. It is
18
assumed that construction of the proposed project will accelerate the process of
commercial and residential development in the project vicinity. By providing better
access to the town of Rockingham, it is likely that residential and commercial
development will expand along both sides of the existing roadway. This development
will result in a reduction in the remaining acreage of forestland in the vicinity, with a
corresponding shift in community flora and fauna. Widespread secondary development
could extirpate some species of plants and animals from the project vicinity and could
significantly fragment remaining forested habitats.
Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to aquatic communities downstream of the project area
primarily consist of increased sedimentation of the stream channel and toxic inputs from
stormwater runoff. Increased sedimentation during construction activities and road
surface runoff after construction are widely recognized as factors that can contribute to
cumulative degradation of water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally high sensitive
to changes in water quality. Effects are generally most severe at the point of stream
crossings, but can extend downstream for a considerable distance, if not controlled.
If precautionary measures are not taken, excessive soil erosion from construction
sites may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
1) Increased turbidity and sedimentation
2) Reduced light penetration due to reduced water clarity
3) Reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen
4) Increased nutrient loading
Sedimentation in rivers and streams reduces water clarity and light penetration,
affecting the photosynthetic ability and growth of aquatic vegetation. Suspended
particles may also impact bentic filter feeders inhabiting downstream areas by clogging
their filtration apparatuses or by covering them with excessive sediment. Sedimentation
affects the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water column by raising water
temperature. Warmer water contains less oxygen and results in a reduction in aquatic life
dependent on high oxygen concentrations. Moreover, increased nutrient loadings can
result in the accelerated growth of certain types of algae at the expense of other aquatic
organisms. The loss of aquatic plants and animals resulting from these processes may
ultimately affect terrestrial fauna which feed upon these resources.
In addition, the removal of streamside vegetation increases the exposure of the
water's surface to direct sunlight, which results in locally elevated water temperatures
and reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen. The removal or burial of these
streambank plants also decreases the food and shelter resources available to aquatic
organisms, and disturbance of streambank vegetation enhances the likelihood of erosion
and sedimentation. Revegetation of streamside zones following construction stabilizes
the soil and shades the water surface, thus mitigating these processes.
19
Alterations in aquatic communities can result from the installation and/or
extension of pipes or culverts. Impacts often associated with in-stream construction
include loss of natural stream substrates, increased channelization of water flow, and
scouring of stream channels. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate available
to aquatic organisms, resulting in changes in aquatic community composition. In
addition, water movement through these structures becomes more direct, thus increasing
the flow velocity. As a result, scouring zones may develop within the stream channel at
pipe or culvert outflows.
Lastly, toxic substances from roadways (e.g. oil, gas, etc.) may enter surface
waters through stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. Such chemical substances
may result in the direct mortality of aquatic species inhabiting the water resources located
in the project area.
Construction of the proposed project will require a portion of the intermittent
stream to be piped, and impacts to the stream will occur regardless of the alternative
chosen. However, the proposed project should have only minor impacts on downstream
aquatic communities, assuming precautionary measures are taken. Local erosion from
construction activities may be high during construction, but appropriate use of BMPs
should prevent most sediment from reaching surface waters. Erosion rates should
diminish rapidly following project completion if exposed soils are revegetated and
streambanks are stabilized. Minimizing the area of streambank disturbance will greatly
aid in limiting erosion from the project area and protecting aquatic communities.
Following project completion, road shoulders should aid in absorbing toxic runoff from
roadways. Other considerations to protect intermittent stream communities include:
1) Scheduling in stream activities, when applicable, during periods of low
flow.
2) Consideration in bioengineering techniques for streambank
protection/stabilization
3) Using native vegetation to stabilize streambanks
4) Minimizing/eliminating the use of fertilizers adjacent to streams
2. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
This section describes the physical characteristics, Best Usage Standards, and
water quality aspects of the water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
20
a. Physical Characteristics of Impacted Surface Waters
Water resources within the project vicinity are part of Hydrologic Unit 03040202
of the Yadkin River drainage basin. In general, the project area occurs along a low ridge
separating two watersheds. To the north, water drains toward Hitchcock Creek, while to
the south, water drains toward Falling Creek. Both of these perennial streams are well
outside the proposed project area, but surface water runoff leaving the site may
eventually make its way to these streams via tributaries and subsurface flow. Hitchcock
Creek originates northeast of the project area approximately 9.4 mi. (15.7 km) upstream
and flows southeastward, joining the Yadkin/Pee Dee River west of the city of
Rockingham, approximately 9.2 mi. (15.3 km) downstream. At its closest point,
Hitchcock Creek passes within 1.2 mi. (2.0 km) of the project area at the western end.
Falling Creek has its headwaters east of the project area approximately 4.7 km (2.8 mi)
upstream and flows eastward, joining Hitchcock Creek west of the city of Rockingham,
approximately 3.2 mi. (5.3 km) downstream. At its closest point, Falling Creek passes
within 0.6 mi. (1.0 km) of the project area at the western end. Tributaries of both streams
occur within 328 ft (100 m) of the project area along both sides of existing US 1.
No perennial streams are located within the project area. However, one unnamed
intermittent stream is located within the project area and is crossed by existing US 1.
This stream flows southward and is a tributary of Falling Creek. The substrate is
composed primarily of sandy sediments. This tributary appears to have intermittent flow,
though certain deeper pools may retain water nearly year-round.
At the project site, the stream is approximately 3.0 ft (0.9 m) wide and 0.5 ft
(0.2 m) deep. The floodplain is currently lined with forested vegetation which extends
approximately 10-20 ft (3-6 m) along both sides of the stream channel. This intermittent
stream will be piped under the proposed roadway widening.
b. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage.
Unnamed streams or tributaries carry the same best usage classification as that assigned
to the stream segment to which they are a tributary. As a result, the intermittent stream in
the project area carries the best usage classification of WS-III as assigned to Falling
Creek. Class WS-III waters are protected as water supplies which generally occur in low
to moderately developed watersheds. Under this classification, point source discharges
of treated wastewater are permitted, and local programs to control nonpoint source and
stormwater discharge of pollution are required. Class WS-III waters are also suitable for
all Class C uses. Class C waters are defined as suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Most of the project area lies in protected water supply watersheds for either
Hitchcock Creek (Roberdel Lake) to the north or Falling Creek (Hinson Lake) to the
south. Both lakes supply water to the city of Rockingham. Roberdel Lake (DWQ Index
21
No. 13-39-9=(0.3)) and all of its tributaries have best usage classifications of WS-III
(8/3/92). Below the dam at Roberdel Lake, Hitchcock Creek (DWQ Index No. 13-39-
(10)) is classified as Class C (9/1/74). Hinson Lake (DWQ Index No. 13-39-12-(1)) and
all of its tributaries have best usage classifications of WS-III (8/3/92).
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mi. (1.6 km) of project
study area.
3. Water Ouality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the project
area. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point
sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based
on published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These
data provide insight into the value of water resources within the project area to meet
human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
a. General Watershed Characteristics
The watersheds of both Hitchcock Creek and Falling Creek are dominated by
nearly equal proportions of forestland and residential/commercial development.
Agricultural lands make up a minor component of both watersheds. Nonpoint source
runoff from developed residential and commercial areas is likely to be the primary source
of water quality degradation to the water resources located in the project vicinity.
However, the low intensity of such development and the limited surface area of
impervious surfaces suggests that nonpoint source inputs from developed lands are likely
not severe. Inputs of nonpoint source pollution from agricultural areas within the project
area are probably also a contributing factor, but to a minor extent. The high proportion of
surface area occupied by forestland, along with the gently sloping topography and low
erodibility of the soils, suggest that sedimentation of surface waters is probably moderate
to low for both watersheds.
b. Ambient Water Ouality MonitorinE/Biologic Water Ouality
Monitoring
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the
17 river basins of North Carolina which includes biologic, chemical, and physical data
that are collected at fixed sampling points. Based on these data, basinwide water quality
is reassessed every five years for each river basin. A water quality monitoring site is
located at the dam of Roberdel Lake (Q9440000), approximately 2.0 mi. (3.3 km)
downstream of the project area. According to the Yadkin River Basin Basinwide
Assessment Report (DWQ, 1997), Hitchcock Creek received a Good bioclassification in
1996 and Roberdel Lake is designated as Fully Supporting its uses.
22
C. Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by
the DWQ. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. No permitted dischargers
are listed for water resources within the project area.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources which often result from highway construction
occur primarily because of increased sedimentation as a result of accelerated soil erosion
from exposed areas. Sedimentation and substrate disturbance occurring during
construction can significantly reduce water clarity and dissolved oxygen content, in
addition to the direct clogging of stream channels. Effects are usually most severe locally
but may extend downstream for considerable distance, with decreasing intensity.
However, impacts can be minimized through adequate planning which emphasizes the
reduction of disturbed surface area and by protecting exposed areas from the energy of
falling and flowing waters. Use of BMPs will also help to ensure that impacts to water
quality are temporary and localized rather than long-term and extensive.
Long term impacts to water resources resulting from the proposed project are
expected to be minor, given the site characteristics, project design, and proximity to
surface waters. Soil erosion from exposed areas should be slight due to the nearly level
topography of the site and the sandy texture of most soils. In addition, throughout most
of the project area, the distance to perennial channels and the expected low water
velocities suggest that most sediment lost from the project area will probably be
deposited before reaching permanent waterways. Impacts to water resources could be
further minimized by the selection of the best fit alternative which would avoid the
headwater seeps which occur to the south of existing US 1. Erosion from the project area
would probably be most pronounced in the immediate area of these headwater drainages.
The unnamed tributary to Falling Creek will be impacted by piping the stream
and/or stream relocation. Likely impacts from this construction include water flow
alterations and a decrease in natural stream characteristics. The placement of pipes
within the stream channel will create artificial substrate conditions and will accelerate
water flow. Increased water flow increases the potential for streambank scouring at
outfalls during flood events.
The increase in impervious surface area and the presence of roadway construction
machinery and traffic runoff will facilitate the introduction of toxic compounds (gas, oil,
etc.) into streams. It is anticipated that widening existing US 1 will likely increase traffic
use, thereby leading to an increase of toxic compounds being washed into the tributary of
Falling Creek. Use of heavy machinery along streams also increases the risk of
accidental discharge of petrochemicals or other toxins into surface waters. Prompt
revegetation of roadside buffers may aid in absorbing these toxins before they reach
23
surface water resources. Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic
substances during construction should also be enforced.
Due to the cumulative effect of water quality degradation and the municipal water
supply usage of water resources downstream, consideration should be taken to minimize
sediment and toxic discharge into surface waters. In order to minimize potential impacts
to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters will be enforced during the construction phase of the
project. This would include:
1) elimination or reduction of direct and nonpoint discharge into the water bodies
and minimization of activities conducted in streams.
2) installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth berms to control runoff
during construction.
3) placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce
runoff and decrease sediment loadings.
4) elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams
to minimize disturbed surface area in close proximity to surface waters and to reduce
the potential for accidental discharge of toxins into water bodies.
5) protection of existing streambank vegetation to the greatest extent possible.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provided inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analysis required to
satisfy regulatory authority to project construction.
a. 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 (CFR) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
24
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were delineated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". Criteria to delineate
jurisdictional wetlands include:
1) presence of hydric soils,
2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and
3) evidence of prescribed hydrologic characteristics during the growing season
All of these features must be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Two jurisdictional wetland sites occur in the project area. These sites correspond
to the headwater forest community described in Section D.1 Soil cores taken throughout
these areas exhibit hydric characteristics which include low chroma colors (10 YR 5/2)
and mottling. Evidence of wetland hydrology included the presence of inundation and
saturated soils. Where surface water was not present, hydrology was evidenced by
oxidized rhizospheres, water stained litter, and surface flow channels. Vegetation in the
community is dominated by faculative vegetation, such as sweetgum, red maple, yellow
poplar, willow, and greenbrier. The indicator status for the vegetation found in the
wetland area is predominantly FAC to FAW. Field delineation wetland boundaries were
confirmed by the Corps of Engineers on June 29, 2000.
The classification scheme developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) provides a
uniform approach in classifying wetland and open water systems. Based on this system,
two wetlands in the project area would be classified as PFO1 C. These classifications are
interpreted as palustrine (P), forested (FO), broad-leaved deciduous vegetation (1) with a
seasonally flooded water regime.
The DWQ has instituted a numerical rating system from 0-100 to gauge wetland
quality. The fourth version of this rating system assesses wetlands on the basis of water
storage, pollutant removal, bank/shoreline stabilization, aquatic life value attributes.
Other wetland functions considered are wildlife habitat and recreational, educational, and
economic value. The DWQ ratings for these two wetlands are 55 and 41.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project may impact surface waters and wetlands, depending on the
final alternative selected (Table 4). Anticipated wetland impacts were estimated using
the proposed ROW expansion of 40.0 ft (12.2 m). Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right of way; therefore, actual wetland impacts may be somewhat less.
The area of wetland and surface water impacts may also be modified by potential changes
in roadway design.
25
Table 4 Anticipated Impacts to Streams and Wetlands
Wetland Impacts ac(ha) Stream Impacts ft m)
Alternative 1- Symmetrical 0.4 0.2 40.0 12.2
-
Alternative 2 -best fit 0.0 0.0) 40.0 (12.2)
A "best fit" design is recommended to reduce impacts to wetlands. Existing US 1
can be widened to the north and thereby avoid the two wetland systems which occur to
the south. Both alternatives will impact the intermittent stream which must be crossed by
the alignment.
d. Permits and Consultations
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting water quality of
public water resources. Surface water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment
and consideration with respect to most regulatory permits. These permits are authorized
under the Clean Water Act and under separate state laws regarding significant water
resources.
e. Section 404 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters may occur from project
construction. 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". Both proposed alternatives will require
impacts to the intermittent stream. In addition, selection of Alternative 1 would result in
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.
Given the magnitude of potential impacts, a Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5 (a) 14 is
likely to be applicable at most stream/wetland crossing found in the project study area.
However, final decisions concerning applicable permits for the proposed project rest with
the COE.
L Water Ouality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the
DWQ prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into Waters of the United
States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401 permit from
the DWQ is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 permit.
26
g. Mitigation of Wetland Impacts
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "No net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of the Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
h. Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
indetermining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable
in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Wetlands can be avoided by the selection of the "best fit" design which widens to
the north of existing US 1 and avoids wetland communities located to the south.
However, the proposed intermittent stream crossing is unavoidable.
L Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States could be minimized by
modifications in design such as:
1) perpendicular stream crossings
2) Reduction of fill slopes and median widths
3) Elimination of staging areas in lowland sites
4) Reduced clearing and grubbing activity in or near floodplain systems
j. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in
each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
27
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation may be required for unavoidable impacts given the new
mitigation thresholds for Nationwide Permit 14. However, if avoidance and
minimization are emphasized in the project, minimal residual loss of wetland and streams
should occur, which may fall below the compensatory mitigation threshold. Final
decisions concerning compensatory mitigation rest with the COE and DWQ.
5. Rare and Protected Species
Threatened or endangered species are species whose population are in decline and
which face probable extinction in the near future without strict conservation management.
Federal law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, protects plant
and animal species which have been classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened (PT). Provision of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA require that any action which is likely to adversely affect such
federally classified species be subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Other potentially endangered species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws. In North Carolina, protection of endangered species fall under
N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979, administered and enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
and the N.C. Department of Agriculture, respectively.
a. Federally-Protected Species
As of February 26, 2001, the USFWS lists the following federally protected
species for Richmond County (Table 5). A brief description of the characteristics and
habitat requirements of each species follows Table 5, along with a conclusion regarding
potential project impacts.
Table 5 Federally Protected Species for Richmond Countv
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Aci enser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon Endanger d
L simachia as erulaefolia Rough-leaved loosestrife Endangered
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Rhus Michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered
Lasmi ona decorata Carolina heels litter Endangered
Acipenser brevirosrum (short-nosed sturgeon) Endangered
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small species of fish which occurs in the lower
sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats. The short-nosed sturgeon prefers
deep channels with a salinity less than sea water.
28
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed
by dams or pollutants to reproduce successfully. It is an anadromous species that spawns
upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within close proximity of the rivers
mouth.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Habitat for the short-nosed sturgeon does not exist in the project area. There are no
perennial streams which will be impacted by the proposed project. A review of the
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no record of known
populations of short-nosed sturgeon within 1.2 mi. (2.0 km) of the project area. Thus, no
impacts to this species are impacted.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems and whorled
leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers which usually occur in threes or fours.
Fruits are present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North
and South Carolina. This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on wet,
peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic
soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low shrub
community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of
unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained. Rough-leaved loosestrife
rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife does not exist in the project area. Although
two wetlands are present, these sites are vegetated with dense stands of hardwoods. No
organic soils are present, and none of the area have been maintained by fire to provide
adequate openness. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no record of known populations of rough-leaved loosestrife within 1.2 mi.
(2.0 km) of the project area. Thus, no impacts to this species are anticipated.
Picoides borealis (red cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
29
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
lack a thick understory, and 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 500.0 acres (200.0 hectares).
This acreage must be contiguous and suitable for nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees that are infected with the
fungus that causes red heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100 ft
(3.6-30.3 m) above the ground and average 30-50 ft (9.1-15.7 m) high. They can be
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree.
Biological Conclusion: . NO EFFECT
Nesting habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist in the project
area. Marginal foraging habitat is present, but these forests are not adjacent to suitable
nesting habitat and are not of sufficient contiguous are to provide foraging opportunities.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no record
of known populations of the red-cockaded woodpecker within 1.2 mi. (2.0 km) of the
project area. Thus, no impacts to this species are anticipated.
Rhus Michauxii (Michaux sumac) Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of
Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants and red densely short-pubescent drupe. This plant occurs in
rocky or sand open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils and
occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it
can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as
Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Marginal habitat for Michaux's sumac exists along some of the roadside
shoulders and in parts of the abandoned borrow pit. A survey was conducted on August
4, 2000 throughout the entire length of the project to identify individuals of this species.
However, no individuals were found in any part of the project area. A review of the
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no record of known
populations of Michaux's sumac within 1.2 mi. (2.0 km) of the project area. Thus, no
impacts to this species are anticipated.
Lasmigona decorata (Carolina heelsplitter) Endangered
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoidal, unsculptured shell which is
greenish, yellowish, or brownish in color with greenish or blackish rays. The nacre is
30
usually pearly-white to bluish-white graying to orange near the umbo and in older
specimens the entire nacre may be mottled orange. The umbo is flattened and the beaks
are depressed and project a little above the hinge line.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in creeks, streams, and rivers.
Individuals are most often found in shaded areas, either in a ponded portion of a small
stream, or in runs along steep banks with a moderate current. Water less than three feet
deep and substrates that are composed of soft mud, sand, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel
are preferred. Presently, only three known populations of this mussel species exists; two
of these populations are found in the North Carolina streams of Waxhaw Creek, Catawba
River System, Union County and Goose Creek, Pee Dee River System, Union County. No
impact to this species is anticipated.
b. Federal Species of Concern
Seventeen Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are listed by the USFWS for
Richmond County as of June 16, 2000 (Table 6). FSC 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. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be
included for consideration.
In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded limited state protection under the NC State Endangered
Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Species listed
under state laws may or may not be federally protected species. Species with state
designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), and Watch List (W) are not
protected under state laws; however, evidence suggests that populations of these species
are also in decline.
Table 6 lists Federal Species of Concern, the state status of these species (if
afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each
species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of
these species may be upgraded in the future.
31
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern for Richmond County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis
Corynorhinus (Plecotus)
rafinesquii
Etheostoma collis collis
Heterodon simus
Moxostoma sp.
Moxostroma robustum
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus
Atrytone arogos arogos
Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana
Astragalus michauxii
Kalmia cuneata
Lilium iridollae
Lindera subcoriacea
Bachman's sparrow
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Carolina darter
Southern hognose snake
Carolina redhorse
Robust redhorse
Northern pine snake
Arogos skipper
Georgia indigo-bush
SC Yes
SC/PT ** No
SC No
SR/PSC * Yes
SR No
SC No
SC Yes
SR** No
E* Yes
Sandhills milkvetch T
White wicky E-SC
Sandhills bog lily
Bog spicebush
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed
Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickering's dawnflower
T*
Yes
No
No
E No
C No
E Yes
pickeringii
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C No
14* scabrifolia Roughleaf ,yellow=eyed grass C No
"E"-- An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"-- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"-- A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"-- A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with
1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare
throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina, from a main range in a different
part of the country or the world.
"SR"-- A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more
common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"P-"-- denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years
ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
32
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed one record of conferva pondweed 1.1 mi. (1.8 km) south of the project
area along SR 1640. This population will not be impacted by the proposed project.
Based on available information, no impacts to state listed species are anticipated
6. Physical Characteristics Of Proiect Area
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed below with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography
significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other
possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the
project area present important management limitations due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and
quality of water resources; limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and
the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
a. Reiional Characteristics
The project area of Richmond County lies in the Sandhills region of the Coastal
Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. The topography of the Sandhills region
of Richmond County is characterized by rolling hills with somewhat steeper slopes along
major drainageways and occasional level alluvial plains. Upland hills tend to be dry and
sandy, while stream and river bottomlands are wet and mucky. In vicinity of the project
area, topography is moderately sloping, with slopes of approximately 0-10 percent.
Project elevations range from 300 ft (91 m) to 350 ft (107 m) above mean sea level.
Parent material for soils in the Sandhills region of Richmond County is primarily marine
sediments, with some fluvial elements along waterways.
The project area occurs along a low ridge separating two minor drainageways.
Slopes tend to fall away to both the north and south from the existing roadway. The
majority of the project area is occupied by residential and commercial development along
existing US 1, interspersed with small stands of forest. Limited areas of agriculture also
occur within the project vicinity. Residential and commercial development appears to be
increasing in the project vicinity as the town of Rockingham expands eastward. It is
estimated that in the future, land use in the project vicinity will shift away from
agriculture and toward more intensive land development.
b. Soils
The dominant soils occurring within the project area are generally of the Ailey-
Wakulla-Candor association (MRCS 1999). These soils occur on broad ridges and side
slopes in the Sandhills region of the Coastal Plain, on sites which are nearly level to
moderately steep. They are well drained to somewhat excessively drained soils that have
33
a 20-40 inch (thick sandy surface layer. Parent material is unconsolidated marine
sediments.
Table 7 provides an inventory of the specific soil types which occur in the project
area. A brief description of each soil type is also provided. Proportional area of each soil
type was determined from NRCS soil maps of the project area.
Table 7 Soils occurring in the uroiect area.
II. III. Soil Series % Slope % of Project Area Hydric Class
AcB-AcC Ailey loamy sand 0-15 20 I
AuB-AuC Ailey-Urban Land Complex 0-15 20 I
PoB Pelion loamy sand 2-8 15 I
WcB Wakulla and Candor Soils .0-8 45 I
Note: H Hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as a major component.
I Soils with inclusions of hydric soils in depressional areas.
NH Nonhydric soils.
Ailey loamy sand soils are well drained, have moderate permeability, and have a
seasonal high water table of greater than 6.0 ft (1.8 m) below the surface. Exposed areas
are subject to a slight to moderate erosion hazard.
Ailey-Urban Land Complex soils are disturbed soils that were originally
comprised of the Ailey series. However, excavation, filling, and paving of these soils for
various human activities have disturbed physical characteristics of the soil profile to such
an extent that soil classification is not possible. Soil physical properties are dependent
upon the degree of manipulation and the characteristics fill material. Residual areas of
Ailey soils have properties similar to those described for Ailey loamy sand.
Pelion loamy sand soils are moderately well drained, have moderately slow to
slow permeability, and have a seasonal high water table of 1.0-2.5 ft (0.3-0.8 m) below
the surface. Exposed areas are subject to a slight erosion hazard.
Wakulla and Candor Soils are mapped together in an undifferentiated map unit
due to the complex manner in which these soils are interspersed in the landscape.
`vVakulia and Candor Soils are described as somewhat excessively drained and rapidly
permeable, with a seasonal high water table greater than 6.0 ft (1.8 m). In exposed areas,
surface water runoff causes a slight erosion hazard.
Erosion hazards are generally slight primarily due to the nearly level topography
of the project area and the predominantly sandy soil texture. Surface runoff velocity
under such conditions is low, limiting its erosive potential. Although none of the soils in
the project area are considered hydric, they do have the potential for hydric inclusions in
wet topographic depressions, and hydric soils were observed at two locations at the
headwaters of intermittent streams.
34
As indicated in Table 8, forest productivity for soils occurring in the project area
is moderate as compared to other soils in the Coastal Plain region. Some areas along the
project corridor currently support productive forestland, and evidence of active
management was observed. Forests occurred on all of the soil types present.
Table 8. Potential Forest Productivitv of Soils in the Project Area.
IV. Soil Series V. Site Index - Loblolly Pine
Ailey loamy sand 80
Pelion loamy sand 80
Wakulla and Candor Soils 73
Note: Site Index is defined as the expected average height in feet of dominant trees
in an even aged stand at 50 years of age.
7. Floodulains Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable. The
project is within a water supply watershed protected area. Approximately 3000 feet
(914 m) from Lawson Lane, this section of US 1 is within one mile of the water supply
intake on Hinson Lake, therefore it is anticipated that hazardous spill basins will be
required. Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the specification,
installation, and maintenance of more stringent erosion and sedimentation control
methods.
Groundwater resources will not be affected by the project, as the roadway is
primarily on fill.
D. Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect on noise levels in the
immediate project area as a result of construction to widen US 1 from SR 1424 (Roberdel
Road), SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road)/SR 1460 (Wiregrass Road). The assessment results
includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. Results of the study also includes a comparison
of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts are likely to occur as a result of the project. Traffic noise impacts determined by
following the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
If traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur at noise sensitive receptors, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the
noise impacts must be considered.
35
Characteristics of Noise
Sound is measured and described by units called decibels. Since the range of
energy found throughout the spectrum of normal hearing is so wide the scale used to
define these levels must be able to represent huge variations in energy. To compensate
for this wide range of numbers a base 10 logarithmic scale is used to make the numbers
more normal.
The weighting-A system used to correlate human hearing to frequency response is
A-weighted scale and the resultant sound pressure level called the A-weighted sound
pressure level, identifiable by the abbreviated description dB(A).
Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N 1. Traffic
noise levels are presented in decibels, using A-weighting scale. Review of Table N1
(Appendix B page B-3) indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to
fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine whether highway noise levels are compatible with various land
uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement
criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These
abatement criteria and procedures are in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal
Regulation Part 772, Department of Transportation, FHWA, Procedure for Abatement of
Highway Traffic Noise and construction noise. A summary of the Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) for various land uses is presented in Table N2.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken to determine existing noise levels for the
identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the
existing acoustic environment and to provide a base line reference level for assessing the
impact of future noise level receptors in the project area. Existing noise level along US 1
were measured at 50 ft (15 meters) from the centerline of the nearest lane of travel
ranged from 64.8 to 65.0 dBA. The location ambient measurement location and
measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N 1 and Table N3, respectively
(Appendix B page B-3 and B-5).
36
Procedure For Predictine Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the year
2025.
Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning
within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels.
The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors in the project
area.
Table N5 (Appendix B page B-9) indicates 55 impacted residential receptors and
7 impacted commercial receptors. Further review f this table indicates that 54 residential
receptors and 5 commercial receptors are already approaching or exceeding FHWA noise
abatement criteria, with no improvements to US 1.
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 90 ft (27.2 m)
and 160 ft (48.5 m) from the center of the proposed roadway.
Table N6 (Appendix page B-10) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. The predicted noise level increases
for this project range from +9 to +11 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely
possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the
loudness of the sound.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied
with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable
measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at-grade.
37
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough
and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It
then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet (15 meters) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 400 feet (120 meters) long. An access opening of 40 feet (12 meters) (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
This section of US I has no control of access. The road is characterized by
medium to dense development with numerous driveway connections. The construction
of noise barriers along this facility would severely limit safe site distance. The existence
of so many driveway connections would render noise walls useless because of necessary
breaks. Therefore, no noise walls are proposed for the proposed project.
"No-Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If
the proposed widening did not occur, 54 impacted residential receptors and 5 impacted
commercial receptors would experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or
exceeding the FHWANAC. Also the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase
in the exterior noise levels up to +8 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely changes of
possible to detect noise level 2-3 dBA and a 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to
moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
38
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
due to the lack of access control and the existence of many driveway cuts along this
facility. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports
will be submitted for this project.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, neither NCDOT nor
the FHWA will be responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued after the date of design public (Date of
Public Knowledge).
As shown in Table N5 (Appendix page B-9) 55 impacted residential receptors and
7 impacted commercial receptors are predicted. It should be noted that 54 residential and
5 commercial receptors are already exceeding acceptable FHWA noise level guidelines
with no improvements to US 1. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level
contours are 89.2 and 159 feet (27.2 and 48.5 meters) from the center of the proposed
roadway.
E. Air Ouality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. Traffic is the center of concern when determining
the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway facility.
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC),
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented herein is concerned with the flow.
CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background.
The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways
in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 328 ft (100 meters)) of the receptor location.
The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point
that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the
upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local CO concentration was determined by the using line source
computer modeling and the background component was obtained from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
39
Once the two concentration components were resolved, they were added together to
determine the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to compare to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the year 2005 and the Design year 2025, using the
EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile source
emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable
for most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located along the limits
of the right-of-way at approximately 49-ft (15 meters) from the centerline of the proposed
roadway. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentration for the evaluation build years
of 2005 and 2025 is 2.6 ppm. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the
evaluation no-build years of 2005 and 2025 are 4.8 and 5.0 ppm, respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO
level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al through A4 in the appendix for input
data and output.
Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence,
the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
40
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 6 to 12 miles
(10 to 20 kilometers) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as
a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will
cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. In the
future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the
lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after
December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
The project is located in Richmond, which have been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 and 93 is
not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project
is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
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 done will be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are
necessary.
F. Hazardous Material Involvement and Undereround Storage Tank Facilities
Based on a field reconnaissance survey, ten (10) facilities with the possibility for
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) were identified in the vicinity of the project. A brief
description of these facilities are as follows:
41
1) Northside Quick Lube Owner: Donnie Fabis
2133 Fayetteville Road 1505 Fayetteville Road
Rockingham, NC 28379 Rockingham, NC 28379
Facility ID# 0-018323
. This active auto repair station is located 300 feet (91.4 m) west of Lawson Lane
on the north side of US 1. This facility once operated as a gas station with one (1) UST
field containing three (3) 4,000 gallons (15141.7 liters) tanks, approximately 90 feet
(27.4 m) from the centerline of US 1. The UST's were removed in 1993. The site does
not appear to be under remediation at this time.
2) Havoline Carolina Kwik Lube
2142 Fayetteville Road
Rockingham, NC 28379
Facility ID# 0-01210
Owner: Jay Denham
423 Hawthorne Avenue
Rockingham, NC 28379
This facility currently operates as a quick lube and is located 200 feet (61 m)
west of Lawson Lane on the south side of US 1. It appears a gas station once operated at
this site, because the UST registry shows four (4) 4,000 gallons (1514.7 m) tanks were
removed in 1992. The UST field was approximately 98 feet (30 m) from the centerline
of US 1. The site does not appear to be under remediation at this time.
3) Lodal-South Inc. Owner: Horace & Patricia Russell
2207 Fayetteville Road 3773 Boy Scout Camp Road
Rockingham, NC 28379 Kannapolis, NC 28081
This trucking service station is located directly across from Lawson Lane on the
south side of US 1. This facility has one (1) UST field containing two (2) tanks,
approximately 250 feet (76.2 m)from the centerline of US 1. There is no information in
the DEM registry and no further information could be obtained from the property owner
at the time of the site visit. This site does not appear to be under remediation at this time.
4) Abandoned Garage Owner: William & Carolyn Ussery Jr.
US 1 3773 Boy Scout Road
Rockingham, NC 28379 Rockingham, NC 28379
This abandoned garage is located 0.1 mile (0.16 km) east of Old Aberdeen Road
on the north side of US 1. The facility may have previously operated as a service station.
There was no evidence of USTs found at the time of the site visit, but an in-ground oil
changing pit was noted in the building. This site does not appear to be under remediation
at this time.
5) McCain & Sons Grocery Owner: Walter & Johnsie McCain
us 1 331 Buttercup Drive
Rockingham, NC 28379 Hamlet, NC 28345
42
This facility is located in the NW quadrant of US 1 and SR 1503. From the
information gathered from the site visit there are two (2) UST located approximately
38 feet (11.6 m) from the centerline of US 1 on either side of existing pump island. The
size of the tanks is not known and no information on this facility was found in the DEM
registry. This site does not appear to be under remediation at this time.
6) Haven of Truth and
Deliverance Ministries
736 US 1
Rockingham, NC 28379
Owner: Leon & Pauline Wall
P.O. Box 1502
Rockingham, NC 28380
This facility is currently operating as a church, is located in the SW quadrant of
SR 1682 (Patterson Road) and US 1. From information gathered from the site visit, this
facility once operated as a gas station and a magnetic reading facility. There is a pump
island approximately 32 feet (9.75 m) from the centerline of US 1. This facility does not
appear to be under remediation at this time.
7) Abandoned Service Station
854 US 1
Rockingham, NC 28379
Owner: McCaskill Oil Co.
814 E Broad Avenue
Rockingham, NC 28379
This abandoned service station is located 500 feet (152 m) east of the high school
entrance on US 1. During a site survey a pump island and a former UST pit was found,
approximately 54 feet (16.5 m) from the centerline of US 1. There is no information in
the DEM registry on this facility. This facility does not appear to be under remediation at
this time.
8) Custom Monument Company
895 US 1
Rockingham, NC 28379
Owner: Eric Evans
420 Roberdel School Road
Rockingham, NC 28378
This facility is located 0.5 miles (0.8 km) west of SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road) on
the north side of US 1. From information gathered at the site survey, this facility once
operated as a gas station. A possible former UST pit was found on the east side of the
building and was found approximately 123 feet (32.5 m) from the centerline of US 1.
The current owner believes the tanks were removed about ten (10) years ago. No
information could be found in the DEM registry on this facility. This site does not appear
to be under remediation at this time.
9) Linkers Grocery
954 US 1
Rockingham, NC 28379
Owner: Billy H. Linker, Sr.
958 US 1
Rockingham, NC 28379
This facility is located 0.2 miles (0.32 km) west of SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road) on
the south side of US 1 and currently operates as a wood working shop. Two fill ports
were found approximately 41 feet (12.5 m) from the centerline of US 1. The current
43
owner said it has not operated as a gas station since 1977 and the two (2) 550 gallon
(2082 liters) tanks had been filled with water. No information could be found in the
DEM registry on this facility. This site does not appear to be under remediation at this
time.
10) The Pantry #3147
US 1 and Wiregrass Road
Rockingham, NC 28379
Facility # 0-023345
Owner: The Pantry INC
P. O. Box 1410
1801 Douglas Drive
Sanford, NC 27330
This active gas station is located at the intersection of US 1 and Wiregrass Road
and has two (2) UST fields. The first contains four (4) tanks varying in size from 2,000
to 10,000 gallons (7571 to 37854 liters) approximately 66 feet (20 m) from the centerline
of US 1. The second contains one (1) 2,000 gallon tank approximately 100 feet (30.3 m)
from the centerline of US 1 next to the building. The tanks were upgraded in February
2000. This site does not appear to be under remediation at this time.
Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. The research shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites
occur within the project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, there are no other
properties with potential environmental conflicts, which could potentially impact this
project.
The project will be designed to minimize impacts to UST sites because of
potential environmental liabilities for proper cleanup and remediation if contamination
exists. If the site cannot be avoided, a "Preliminary Site Assessment" should be
performed prior to right-of-way acquisition to determine the existence and extent of any
contamination. This assessment will also be used by the Department to estimate the
associated cleanup cost.
G. Geodetic Markers
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers
44
VIII. COMMENTS. COORDINATION. AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On May 10, 1999 a letter was mailed to the following federal, state and local
agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed
project (Note an asterisk indicates those agencies who responded to this letter):
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural Resources
* North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
* North Carolina Department of Administration
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
Pee Dee Council of Governments
Mayor of Rockingham
Planning Director, City of Rockingham
Rockingham City Councilman
Richmond County Commissioner
Rockingham City Manager
A Citizens Information Workshop was held on December 8, 1999, to obtain
comments and suggestions about the project from the public. Approximately 24 persons
attended this meeting, including NCDOT representatives. Most of the comments
received concerned impacts to individual properties, the proposed typical section and the
right of way acquisition process.
BGR/plr
45
FIGURES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 1 (FAI'ETTEVILLE ROAD)
FROM SR 1424 (ROBL'RDEL ROAD)
TO SR 1640 (1'*'IERGRASS ROM V
SR 1422 (LEDBETTER ROAD)
ROCKINGHL?N1, RICHINIOND COU n'
TIP NO. U-3456
I NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 I
4? p 5n °
g,`8 y 1
a+a.. an . ...x }'IN J. ! a..??' ha b? % TR 'S • . ?R' R. ?. 5 '.' ` + ll .. .#,.. ?. i ??' +I?iL .. irY .4k, $.
MIK
Z
O
H
V
w
N
J
Q
V

V
Z
H
W

,\ 7 L?
V
O O
00
CC
r
o N
?o 0
N
a-
E
N ?
r C-)
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I L I
II
I?
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
II
II
II
II
II
? II
II
N ? I I
r M I I
O O N
r M
II
II
II
II
N I?
CL II
II
E
I
10
O j
I
I
\
\
M
W
1?
Z
O
F-
V
W
N
J
Q
V

Z
H
N
X
W

\ 1
\
O o
I
0o E
QI Cq
N
I
I
I
I
I
I?
I ?
I
?I
ui
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
II
I I
II
II
it
II
II
II
II
II
it
II
II
II
II
II
II
-hl
)II
II
I
I
I
I
I
A
7 \
N TIIR
E o
N ,O
r
M
7??
;o E
r co
.4mop
E
N
rM E
O
00
1 vi
;o El
.
Chi
a-t
N
m
M
W
D
0
LL
Q
7
Z
O
H
V
W
N
J
Q
V
: L+i
D
W
N
0
0
Ime
o ?
M
Nt E
E °
N ?
E
N

?IE
E
N 10
O-
N M p
E °
0,0 E
o O *o
fE
0
a6
7
NT
W
LL
U-3456 PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION
SR 1424
I
I
I
LAWSON LANE
A
%%?? ----------- ---------- -------?
r
US1 (FAYETTEVILLR RD.)
I
p I
S I
' I
I
SR 1424
SKYLINE DR.
SR 1503
Al US1(FAYETTEVILLE RD.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
SR1645
w igreir r 1r v11.l.r, x-1.)
SR 1644
SR 1489
I
I
Il
I\IV US1 (FAYETTEVIL.LE RD.)
SR 1640
WLREGRASS RD.
US 1 (FAYETTEVILLE RD.) LA
SR 1504
SR 168?
FRAN ROAD
US1 (FAYETTEVILLE RD.) B
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--- --- -- 2=27
----------- ------ --------- ------_ ---------
-
B
SR1666
SCHOOL DR.
-------- --------
- - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - = - - - - - - -- - - A ? - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - -
SR 1426
I
I
Jul
Figure 5
CHURCH ROAD LOCK ROAD
ESTIMATED 2005/2025 ADT IN HUNDREDS
RICHMOND COUNTY
1Ta
SR 1424
0
6 i... ?F j
101 ,
52 13 138
78 _2X 219
H
U-3456
UVWSON I-XNE FRAN RD. SR 1426
28 ,o0 1 23} 0
431 =2 37
o
32 11 1 1 3 T
A
US-1
a 3 3 5 221
° 01
~ 1
Y0 $ 8 o
SKYLINE DR.
CHURCH RD.
2? o
o
ti
G N
O ..
US-1 2S ter}
24? / m
?/ y H
1,35
211.
H
SR 1504
7 f^ 7
11
?fV of
o 128
5 t-? L ?20-6?
H
125
200
LEGEND
0000 vp0
DhV Design Hourly volume (X)
D DPreolionolW
?m DAreUlon of D
12.11 OwlTruol(,TTST 17J
om/pm AU or Pm PeoK
101-. T?' 60
NOT TO SCALE
LOCK RD. (DIRT RD.)
3S $
4 ? y
Q
?? ?1 2U7
125

--?
8

5 130 127 2

208 205 4 2
z
6

13
$
7 a (4
0
2
?
$
I V 4
SR 1645 PATTERS ON DR. SR 1666
(SR 1662)

IV\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
y
t??
?
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 1
FROM I.AWSON IANF.
10 1VIREGRASS4,LDBE I7LR ROAD
RICHMOND COUNTY
U-3456
FIGURE 6

SR 1442
47
f /e
O ?
10- 60 2' ?1 7''; 21 14?' 266
(5,6)
i
i
RICHN10ND SENIOR 1
HIGH
4 ° o 0 4fi ti
0?aI 0' a
r. e1i o~ N 2
E
j + 2
SR 1644
SR 1640
A
128
206 US-1
pm US-1
10- 60
(5,6)
I
IIO i;` a?
3
'b +r a ?F
l °? J ? Qo
y ? f sf r 1BQ ,'? ? ? ? fA?N?uF
k?' X94
S 1 ?
oi?
'WASHINGTON STS
i "
X ;
?4,° ? n ?? c
_ FAD
COUN,n, HO
- a
41,
411
MYu
%
_ J yf . ?P W^ ` ? ^
- /N
AqLk RD
r
I 0 1 r, ,
e - -
C, 3
? r
?, bA 8b08
_ X19 w
J OLD UURI GBURG RD
3
LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED
FREEWA`U
SYPRESSWAY ¦ ¦ ¦
u MAJOR ?.?. ••
MINOR - -
INTERCHANGE
GRADE
SEPARATION
i
PROPOSED
ONE-MAY PAIR
ADOPTED BY:
CITY OF ROCKINGHAM MAY 14,1996
CITY OF HAMLET APRIL 16, 1996
f RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
BY STATEWIDE PLANNING
BRANCH CTOBER 70 i996
N.C.DEpr:RTMErfT OF
TRANSPORTATION _ DeCF?aeA 6, "a96--?
PUBLIC HEARINGS APRIL 16 'LAY 14 1906
APRIL 3, 1996
*? FIGURE 7
?'?', - - - ?' RECOMMENDEt7
N '
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
FOR
R ld C 1 LIVGHAM
HAMLET
RICFLIIO-D C01--NTY
NORTH C4ROLl,",4
by 4.
NoN C-4- D.Pcmor a!TVmro -
pnvw of3q*---ls-id. F2-? H.-d
p.- m k
U. S. LA, a cf 7,.-P.-
BASE: ;993
APPENDIX A
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
0-ECEIU 4
IJUL 2a t'
a`?FG, `+fvrsia SF P?
tvANAiY
This responds to your letter of May 10, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed widening of US 1 (Fayetteville Road) from Lawson Lane to SR 1640 (Wiregrass
Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road), at Rockingham, Richmond County, North Carolina (TIP # U-
3456). This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also
serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen the existing US
1 to multi-lanes. The project study will include a three-lane curb and gutter facility and a five-
lane curb and gutter facility. One hundred feet of right-of-way (ROW) will be acquired for the
proposed improvements.
The mission of the Service is working with others to provide leadership in the conservation,
protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of
all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments
at this time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your
planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
A-1
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, and without impeding
fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be
reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by
using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Hamlet 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows
wetland resources along the proposed project corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful
for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed
wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination
occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize
delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion to the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
A-2
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species that are known
to occur in Richmond County. At this time there are four species listed as endangered, the red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), rough-
leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). In
addition, there are 15 Federal Species of Concern (FSC). Habitat requirements for the federally-
listed species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding protected...
species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
A-3
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Federal Species of Concern are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains
concerned, but further biological research and field study.are needed to resolve the conservation
status of these taxa. Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would
encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort
to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
YZef ner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Attachment
A-4
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Beverly Robinson)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/22/99:919/856-4520 Extension 32:\U-3456.tip
A-5
...T m. A N
S
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 20, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of TrX.rtation
FROM: David Brook aI i
Deputy State I-1stokic?P s a ion Offic r
SUBJECT: Widening US 1 from Lawson Lane to
intersection with SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road)
and SR 1442 (Ledbetter Road), Richmond
County, Federal Aid Project STP-0001(7), State
Project 8.1581301, TIP U-3456, ER 99-8538
Division of Archives and History
+
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your memorandum of March 15, 1999, concerning the above project.
We recommend that a survey for historic architectural properties be conducted for the
project area. The municipal survey for Rockingham did not extend as far as the area of
potential effect for this road widening.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
A-6
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
?n
?pNMV??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 30, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transpto\rtation
r lFROM: David Brook iistLn-cese Deputy St ate rvation O ficer .
SUBJECT: Improvements to US 1 (Fayetteville Road),
widening from Lawson Lane to SR 1640
(Wiregrass Road) / SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road,
Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-00001(7), State Project
8.1581301, TIP U-3456, 99-E-4220-0705
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
On April 27, 1999, Renee Gledhill-Earley of our staff met with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the
above referenced project. We recommended an architectural survey be conducted for
the proposed project. There are no known archaeological sites along the proposed
project; therefore, we do not recommend an archaeological survey.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of the architectural
survey from NCDOT.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB: slw a? Rfi
a
cc: State Clearinghouse
Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church M`' ti---. c? fT1
Tom Padgett 4 L
C; i?n
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g°?(?
TIP # Federal Aid # ' J I `P 000 100 County I G r?? o 4 D
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
\A IICV, K/ I N 6 05 1 -"FA"1F-'rsL-V1k F Rp
2-11L, A
, representatives of the
On
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) <? ?g
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) DES
V, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other ?QP;?5r TVl0"Cz
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
' Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreeC

vz?
Signed:
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the h' torical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 0-VT r F.TI e --) I - 1--`? are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
FHwA, r the tvision Administrator, or other Federal Agency
,Z
Date
State Historic 1Ir-esbrvation Officer
Z_
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-8
,,,Salta
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
July 13, 1999
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
SCH File # 99-E-4220-0705; Scoping Proposed Improvements to US 1 (Fayetteville Rd.) by Widening
from Lawson Lane to SR 1640 (Wiregrass Rd/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Rd.) in Rockingham, NC; TIP
#U-3456
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Attachments
cc: Region H
Sincereely,,,J
6? O?
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
A-9
1'4LWr,L9YiLr+rhiLLJ LhKr- Ir-L yly-JLO-70Jy JUfI 1J i7 14._il IYU.UUl r.U4
Memo 1 June 15, 1999
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the protect. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
.fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway constructiou;and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-10
if the wood products cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the
material or turn it into mulch with a tub grinder. This practice will minimize the
need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped fires and smoke management
problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
4. If woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and
regulations of open burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-
60.31. Richmond County is a non-high hazard county, and G. S. 113-60.24
requiring a regular burning permit would apply.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to
forestland outside the right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be
permanently damaged by heavy equipment. Efforts should be to avoid skinning of
the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill, exposing the root system,
or spilling petroleum or other substances.
6. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area should be
addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage
the impact on our forestland be considered during the planning process.
cc: Warren Boyette
A-11
State of Notch Carr ling
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Reviewing O@icelttJC-?+?t,?c,G?j O
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number:"-/q- k - 0 70? Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer s
stems Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
t
O
i
y
not discharging into state surface waters. con
racts.
n-s
te inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater fa
iliti Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application
c
es
discharging into state surface watem conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of
plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge
and Fill Permit
O Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D. 1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820.
O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or
b
more acres to
e disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality
Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and S2000 for each additional acre or part must
accompany the plan
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance.
O Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater
than one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received
before the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
O Special Ground Clearance Bunting Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned"
O Oil Refuting Facilities N/A
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion. A-12
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
30 days
(90 days)
90-120 days
(N/A)
30 days
(N/A)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
60 days
60 days
(90 days)
20 days
(30 days)
(30 days)
30 days
(60 days)
1 day
(N/A)
1 day
(N/A)
90-120 days
(N/A)
30 days
(60 days)
Continued on reverse
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of 55,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that 10 days
any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged (N/A)
according to ENR rules and regulations.
O Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
O State Lakes Congruction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions & 15-20 days
drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
O 401 Water Quality Certification N/A
60 days
(130 days)
O CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)
O CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
O Several geodetic monuments are located in or new the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
O Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
O Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
O Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stornwater Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
O Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfrn Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
O Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
O Mooresville Regional Office O Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Stmt, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
O Washington Regional Office O Wilmington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
919) 946.6481 A 13 [phone]
O Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone]
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Services Section
November 10, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
K
This is in response to your letter of May 10, 1999, requesting our comments on
"US 1 (Fayetteville Road) Widening from Lawson Lane to SR 1640 (Wiregrass
Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road), Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-0001(7), State Project No. 8.1581301, TIP Project U-3456" (Regulatory
Division Action ID 199901217).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
A-14
November 10, 1999
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"US 1 (Fayetteville Road) Widening from Lawson Lane to SR 1640 (Wiregrass
Road)/SR 1.422 (Ledbetter Road), Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-0001(7), State Project No. 8.1581301, TIP Project U-3456" (Regulatory
Division Action ID 199901217)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section, at
(910).251-4728
The proposed roadway improvement is located in Richmond County and partially
within the jurisdictional limits of the city of Rockingham, bath of which arc participant. in
the National Flood Insurance Program. Based on a review of Panels 95 and 125 of the
September 1989 Richmond County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood
Insurance Rate Map, the proposed improvements are not located in an identified flood
hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of the pertinent United States Geological
Survey quadrangle sheet, ("Hamlet, N.C."), which indicates that the roadway in this area
is located along a drainage divide.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC Mr. Dave Timpy Wilmington Field Office
Regulatory Division, at [phone]
Based on information provided by NCDOT, the proposed project may impact
wetlands associated with Hitchcock Creek. More information is needed on the extent
and location and community type of all the impacted wetlands in the project vicinity
before an environmental assessment can be made.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or
fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with
this project, including disposal of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy,
impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed,
including the extent and location of any work in wetlands, our Regulatory Division would
appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for project-specific determinations of
DA permit requirements.
Should you have any questions concerning DA permits, please contact Mr. Timpy.
A-15
311 East Franklin Street - Rockingham, N.C. 28379 - Telephone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
May 13, 1999
Ms. Beverly G. Robinson
Project Planning Engineer
Proj. Dev. & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Dept. of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Ms. Robinson:
n11,M¢zun CRY
Vs
1
kinghs?
SUBJ: US 1 (Fayetteville Road) Widening from Lawson Lane to ` SR 1640
(Wiregrass Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road), Rockingham, Richmond
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-0001(7), State Project No. 8.158301,
TIP Project U-3456
In reviewing the above referenced project, the City does not know of any potential
adverse environmental impact that might result from the project.
Rockingham strongly encourages NC DOT to use the five-lane curb and gutter facility.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
ohnny S on
City Manager
JS:th
cc: G. R. Kindley, NC DOT Board Member
A-16
E! Vj
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary `'?:' ?•?io??sse CDENR
tsA?y
Kerr T. Stevens, Director " LA
May 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality PIV-
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of US1 (Fayetteville Road) from Lawson Lane to SR
1640 (Wiregrass Road)/SR 1422 (Ledbetter Road), Rockingham, Richmond County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-0001(7), State Project No. 8.1581301, TIP U-3456.
Reference your correspondence dated May 10, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP U-3456. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals no perennial streams in the project area. However,
further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are indentified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ'realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
A-17
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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/21/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey.
Activities.
1. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
A-18
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/21/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3456\comments\U-3456 scoping comments.doc
A-19
APPENDIX B

RELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. CORRIDOR a DESIGN REVISED 06/12/01
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT: 8.1581301 CCUNTY Richmond ::ternate 1 of 2 Altemate
!.D. NO.: U-3456 F.A. PROJECT STP-0001 (7)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening US 1 from SR 1424 (Roberdel Rd.) to SR 1640 (Ledbetter Rd.)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants I
Total
Minorities
0-15M I 15-25M 25-35M I 35-50M I
50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0
Businesses 5 0 I 5 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 0 0-20M 0 .j SO-150 0 0-20M 7 SO-150 5
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 j 150-250 0 20-40M I 17 150-250 5
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M 0 250.400 0 40-70M 1 36 250.400 8
X 1. Will special relocaton services be necessary? 70-100M 0 i 400-600 0 70-100M 20 I 400-600 I 5
I X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up I 0 600 up 0 100 up 18 600 up 5
displacement? TOTAL I 0 0 98 28
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project? 2. Community Center AKA Philadelphia Community Church; Richmond
X 4. Will any business to displaced? ;f so, Senior High School Ball Field (miscellaneous move).
indicate size, type. estimated number of
employees, mincries. etc. 4. Thrift shop 2 employees, no minority; Texaco 6 employees. 3 minority;
Hair Oasis 3 employees, no minority; Carolina Kwik Lube 3 employees,
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing snortage? No minority; Custom Woodwork 2 employees, no minority.
NIA 6. Source for availave housing (list). 14. Internet MLS and Newspapers.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Rescr Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, msabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
N/A I 11. Is public housing available?
N/A I 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a prcblem of housing within
financial means?
i X 14. Are suitable business sites availacle (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 118

6i'201 - - Q ' C C G?i -/A
_7
Denise Thomsen Right of Way Acent Date Aooroved by Date
Form 15.4 Revised 10/00 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Division Right of Way
Office
RELOCATION REPORT
IX E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? CESIGN REVISED 06/12/01
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT: 8.1581301 COUNTY Richmond Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
I.C. No.: U-3453 F.A. PROJECT 1 (7)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening US 1 from SR 1424 (Roberdel Rd.) to SR 1640 (Ledbetter Rc.)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M
35-50M I 50 UP
Residential 1 1 2 2 0 1 I 1 I 0 0
Businesses 4 0 4 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners I Tenants For Sale I For Rent
Non-Profit 1 ( 0 1 0 0-20M 0 1 so-ISO 1 0-20M I 7 I SO-150 5
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 01 150.250 0 20-40M I 17 150-250 5
Yes No Ex lain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 1 250-400 0 40-70M I 36 250-400 8
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 i 400-600 0 70-100M I 20 400-600 5
X I 2. Will schools or churches be affec: by 100 up I 0 I 600 up I 0 100 UPI 18 I 600 UP 5
displacement? TOTAL 1 1 98 28
X 3. Will business services still be avaiiable after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project? 2. Community Center AKA Philadelphia Community Church.
X I 4. Will any business be displaced? if so. 4. Thrift shop 2 employees, no minority; Texaco 6 employees, 3 minority;
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. Hair Oasis 3 employees, no minority; Carolina Kwik Lube 3 employees,
No minority; Custom Woodwork 2 employees, no minority.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Internet MLS and Newspapers.
X 6. Source for available housing (list). 8. If needed, last resort housing will be administered according to State
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? And Federal guidelines and regulations.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 11. Section 8 Housing is available in Hamlet and Rockingham in Richmond
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly. etc. County.
families? 12. Available information indicates there is adequate DSS housing.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 14. Internet MLS and Newspapers.
X I 11. Is public housing available?
X I 12. Is it felt there will be adequate OSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION.? 18

o"i1201
2
B
Right of Wav Agent Date - Aooroved by / Date
Form 15.4 Revised 10/00 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Division Right of Way
Office
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
R
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130- --- - ---------------
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey. crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 --- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 --- --------------------------------------=-----------------------------------------------------------------
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
B-3
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior)
I churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
-j
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
B-4
V
a?
a
W
M W
z a
H°z
H
W
?c
tn
d
M
i
A
r-+
O
U
b
c
0
U_
N
?h
d'
O
Cd
Q
O
3
CCS
a
O
Lz,

W
?
Q o 00
O w -ma
c
O

a N

_/
W co cts
u . C7 0
En
w
D
o

U
o
U
O

a
O
°

N L
?
x

? U
O
? a
°
o
a?
3
w

E^ -- N

w
O
a?
cc
a?
c
a?
s
w
O
L
Y
Q?
U
e
0
w
y
L
a?
E
tn
b ?
cd
N
E
L
a?
3
a
H
a?
a?
H
?O
C
8
F
w
F-
O
z
°
on
a
VJ
VJ
O
z?
w
W Vl
Hz°
U
1.0
kn
ll:t
en
a
ICI
0
b
U

W I i I I ? I i I i ; i! ';
?
? W W I
.:
? I I I I
to o io h Io io i I j! !•
o ?o log Irn j? ?° Ion ?rn Ivy Ion log ion ?O Irn o? ;0 0
Q W U
z r.a z I+
1# I+
1# I+
! + ?+ ?+ i+ I+ I+ I
# I# I# i # I# I + + I+ !+ I+ + + I !+ j+ I+ 1+ 1+
# #
'# 1#
?
I I
•k
I I I_?
j I
I
___ _
1 ?
I
I? i
I I I I
? ?
1 i
I I
I j I I i '
•
?O

n ?O

r O ?O IM 100

N

ti In r I? n jr

N IN 00

O
t- !1-O V'
I 10 O O 'M 10 IO N O? 1? IM
I
lar
W I¢
I*
*
Ir• I* ?t• I* lil• I*•
?• I*• i* j? IiF I•It ?, ? i ??• I?I• IN• lit lit IM• !* IiF

W ' I
i
!

i I I I
p
. I I
j I j j I j i
a l i i I I;' I l
j! i I j I
1 l i i l i
j ? ! 1 i
I

l0 0 0 0 to Io to io to to to to to io o q O to Co io to ;o iO o io io

3 0 Ivi

^ vi ^

^' M el 'N Ivi IC O w; I'In ^ ivj Ivl 0

^? IN IN I? M M N IN I!f Iv I•- N
^
M O
O IO I^ C t,6 Ivi Iii IM ri
M M N IM M 'N IM I!1' IN IM
0 r.a i
1 I I I 1 I f I '
U ? j I
I i 1 I I I I ?

? ?
I i
i I I

? w ? i i I
! ! ? •

O I
?
h i
i'i i
.
I_ I- I_ I_
a I
_ _ I_ I7 I_ I
?
•
?
',,,']
I_
I I
_ I_ ._ I_ I_ I_ IC i.
l
? Q il ? ? l I
a I z ? ? I I I ? I; l i i I ? 'o i ? I I ?!
L
u cWi? W
O
? i
o ! I I I I I i
I ! a I I I ? I

W C
e

C I? h

b I _

? r.
oo v1 lef
?O M IN ICT r.. IiN IN 10s l
b I? I,? Ivl ISO I?p "o I? 'h I? ?O I'p
? W _
?Y r I^ ?N O ioo ten
'O
ISO I4-1 Io !%c
3 I i I I i r o i I •
L
0) 41)
4 I= ?-
Q O
z W fY? N I i I I I , ; i I ? I N i .
?i
;1 !Iil ?i f'fI

iO ^ I ? I j ? i i j I
U iU IU lU im Im 'm Im Im Im ;m Im im iU IU IU 1 N
2 I I
U jU 107 Im :m :m im m m :m
.
?
W I j .
- I
? 'TI 1 I
W
O r
?_ .
1 a? a? a? a? a> a? a? j a> a? 1
!fn rtn IN to 'U iU V IU U IU iU IU U N Vi Vl I
i
I
' y
. a?
3 ' 0 u
({f N N 'U U U U U U U U

z i Q N
fn
Vi
Vl to to
C C C I C C C C I C I C
i o V1d! U N I N : U I N • d N i 10 N N N !
'
'
'
' •N , v) : C C C C C C C C
? " N - N y N N N d N N 61
0?.. Iz
Lf G I
L7 I
L7 f,N I.N y
I
O b I
E i.E I I'N I'y 6 !D M
I
'Q
F 1 N :7 'O '7 •,
iC i0 I'3 N iN N IN :N N IN
u. m m IIM m IW W :CX f? fx i? I? ,a lla! Im m ;m ! " O O d N ''U N N N . O rN
w m m I? ;oG 44 ;? ia: i0. ;? 'w
(] r. IN iM let IV1 1.0 Ir- 100 1C7, 10 i^- 1 IV1 O t- 100 i0s 10 N IM ?} w1 i?
N lm
:z !SE
r
U _
^ I^ i^ !N N iN IN N !N 'N

iQ
LL]
1-:
3 ?
ed `o
o.
V
t =
O C
wx
O lC
V ? W
o ?
C
b 'O
? C
b
? o
oA
N
O id
' U
C ?
O N
U ?
n
a> p4
° U
a
y M
in N
3 °? U
L a
O .y
a
o ?
a ?
N N
O. O
J
N
N
coO
In.
C/1
? O
z?
w V/
w
kr)
M
a
A
O
b
O
U

:
i I I. . I I I I
i
' ! 1

'

W

O Lill

.] Q

W U

C71 l
i
h 10 !o,
+ I+ + i+ I+ 1+ + i+

a,

+

I
C7,
+

I
+ I

o l?
OC ' 10 10
+ ! 1+ 1+ I+
+ 1

10 h !? h io p?
? 1? 10
+ I+ 1+ 1+
ra I## 1#
I I # I I
I# I#
( # I # # I# 1 i#
I ! I I I
i
I I
(7\ 00 ?o O W) NT 7 eY i

O? ?

O?

Ol I ? I II i
! I; I
O 00 O O? i ??! i I
1 I I;
N v? 'M M 'O ,? O? O 10

w Q w I* ;ct I * I I* I* j* at ! I* !* i* ?* ?*

W !

i
1
Cf)
.I
I
j

'I i I ? I 1 •
, 1 I , I
? !
CY.,! I
I
I 1
a l
I
I
?
I ? I
I I! I
I i! i
I I j l i i
! I I I
i 1 i. .
?^

1

? !
I
a I I

a I

ce i i j

a ?a Ilo4 lm: j

Ij i

I.j I I I

j I.a 1 ?.a 1 I

..a I 1

;J i 1

C4 I I

.j ! i 1' j

-a !o4 io4 '-3 ij l

.a i.j
lE-` -
o i.
l0 .
0 .
0 0 to jo to o Io jo l0 ?o to to io j o to 0 o l o Io 10 0 0 I o io
Q I?
3 0 v1
M N
? O O
M ?o I? la; r ?0
^ I^ I^ ^ Ien ?0
en 00
M N 1^ 10, O !m
M I^ IN et IM ?O
M vi
N cri
vl en I
N t+i !r1 h wi v'i I
N iM M M IM 1 tvi 10
M ;M
I I
A
O IU i
I ! I I l
' I
I ,
I I ' i I
! I I

W
W? --
(! 1 ? - }-
I ---+ - i
l i i I
I
?
? 1 1
I 1 i
z old "'
U
?!
o,

I I
i
I! i
1
}
I
l
I
I I I
i
I
I I 1 I
1 i 1 I
I !
I
I ? ! I I
W
(? N W

O
W (7j 10 i00 It- v-? h !et Icn 10 O
0 loo I?^ 0 IIfs j?0 n , O' O IN \O Ien !M i0 IO 10 1O O

I\.o I o IIn I?0 110 i?o l'o !'.O 1\?O ?o
Z in
\O 1?0 I%D \0 ?o %h \0
^ i ?
h
I
I
I
Q z ?? O: 1 i I I I ! 1 I I
I i
I i ? ! I
! I I
?,
Q
? ; i I I i I
y! I I , I I I I I I ? I I i

?
.

W ..a i 1?
I I I
I
X O N ! I I 1 1 i
I
z W CC ? I i
r? L j 1- i 1 I?-
I
! ?., i •
I i I I I ? I !
z
IIm 11M .00 100 !m 1170 Iim IIm IU
o 100 :ao IIm .;CO IIcn ICO im I00 :m im 100 ICO iW 10C1 Im 40 Im :IM
O I W I 1 I '
'COO

H IH
i j i I ! j I i
C4 41
-

W
.
' 'Y 1 1 I
,
O
•
I
L
d
?
O
/]
iC
s V ,y .U :N iN
N
.U V IlU y .U U U
c
i
U U N i UU NU
NU 'NU fUU
y
. ;y ''N
V NU IVU
, U IU Ud I(]y 'U U 'tA
U U iU U U U L
CC C 'C
i
f-
C C
C C C •C IC C ''C C IC CI, .0 C C C .C C C ,- C
c
I
c
,L3 I"0 I..? .'n !? "d t7 I'°_ '2 !'°_ A.
:
?
A
?
;z
{a..
O ;.<
:i En N
.
N 1 y 'n I
E
N N I
y Icy IAN NN N I to i to N ?N a rn 1 N N •''? ?N '?N N '?N IAN !s' I N
D y y 10 • ! N N N N N N N N :..C N 0 U N N U I N N d N d N N 7
loG Icy '? I loC lc? !0: C:4 ;c:4 c4 a4 ;U 44 a Icy Icy r? :cn la' ioC rx u: oC 954 !Co
u
a •-
W :`- ,
-t- ?- -- -1.- - ._ - - --- - ._ _ _-. _T-
Ioo l0 ;- IN iM !"T Ike) '?o it loo I? ;O V ^ 1N IM 'j IV's ,0 it 00 .C iQ IN IM
M iM IM tM IM IM IK1 'M IM i'ef i;It?' Imo' !? ?' '.? IVY !? lm
N 'M
'
U i !
N
1N
I
a Q
00
00
co 00
3 ?
? L
o 0
i Y
s a
0 0
c0
? X
N N
Q ?
•? C M
.0 3 F+1
C H
U ^ Coo
N N >
o ?
c
b 'O
? C
?' W
on
v
O cif
? N
U ?
N
a
o U
C
H M
rn N
L
? N
U
ce
O p,
E
O .N
O C
L
a cv
N N
G C
M
V
DA
R7
Or
V1
z?
W
Hz°
U
w
110
to
V
M
a
H
0
0
b
0
U_

I
? I° , ° ?o to to
o
o ?O
?
w '-
w
W I° o? ?o+ I° ?
v. IOC I i
I
o,
Ion
I I^ --
> J + I+ + I+ 1+ + 1+ 1+ I+ I+
Z Z '? ? ? I I ? I* '+ I* I? i* !*

I?
I I I
I i
I I
i
10 O 1 0 O h
?--? O
M
Vl
M M IN N IN IN IN N
?
i
It- 1-
in in 'n ;n
r-

W
¢ I
I+r !* i
l
+
+r j*
I* I*
I*
I* I !
Iw I* I«• j* I* j* I« ;*
W ?? j
I I ( I I i 1 I
I I
a I j ; ! ! T-? j ! I
1
LL) I I I 1 1 1 !
L40) I
p
z I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I

I I ( I ! 1 11 I I ? 1 . 1 j l
Q I I
j I 1
I I
I I I I 1
W -
F i I I I
[J] a j 1 •: 1
I 1 1
1 1 i 1 1 1 i
1 1 1
i 1 1
1 1 1 1

I
? ? !
a ?x Ia l ?
a I
a I '
a c? la ?
a ?
x -JTT
?x is a la la a
Irk
0 0 0 0 0 0 IO 0 0 i O • O O IO 10 IO ;O IO
*
3 Q M M N
IM iM IM N
M o,
N t IN O
N IM N ?O O
N O In 1.4 I? In i?
N N IN IN IN IN i
IN

p I U I I i I I
E~
cn
? ? ^
? I
I I I i !
O I c ( I
O 1 _
I
I I
i I
`
z
1
I
,
I
? z I
?? I
°-I oll?l I ?i
1 I I I I
I
F- 0 j
I I I
1
?

m a
?_ w
cl ? 1 I ;_i
W IO O I- I N IV v? I .
;
1 !
d lN 'N !N 'N IN IN
C??+ 7p? w
Z ^ 1,0 1.0 1?0 ISO ISO ISO i?G ?O 10 NO I?G 1%O O'O !%O 11.0 110 ISO
6.
Q a ? i I I
O I ?
I I I I ;' ? I
?t
I i
¢ !
00) z
X
W ?¢ ?
- ? I
! I I i? I
Z w 02 -
I
N l
I I I

I

i? ? ! I
I I i I ; ?
? j I I
I '
.
IM IM !m !m lV Im im Im !m ! M !co Ion im as Im .U im
!Q o f ? I 1 1 I ? I I i

- '
x 1w c TAT
o;
I
o Ivy
k i= 3 Ian Io Ian Ia> a? 'a? Ia> 'a? Ian ia? 10 0 :N
ca 'v ':v Icy ;v, I? ci ,v I? v v Iv r v .a :H Ia
'
!
'
i

z I Q
s Ic
c
a
c
H e
c c c Ie c jc e e
a I yc i a> 1 a? I S I a? a? a? a? a? I a> • a? a? a? I ? ?
-
cIv
'v vIv rv
v
j
'o
!
I
dIv
_
_
v•
v
E oI
ti1•5
°-:
0 rn •Vl •N ' yr V1 i w '•VJ I fA I* •N Prn ,•vi N N N y v)
o Q
? is ?. ! 0 N I N 1 0 ' O N' N N N N N N N 0.,N N
LL IW W 44 I? IM :,CG 1w IC! ?ce jc jx ?f1; 1 :C04 _ m 1W
w
• h 'lam ioo 10\ IN iM !et 'N '?o 'n 100 :o` !O
I
I
D :n
i? !? AD " Ib '?o
?h i
?0
I
'
U ?
I
A
?
N -h
n
H 00
M 00
3
O G
y
o a QO
c MM?
? O W
U
o ?
e
b 'o
1 C
>,• w
'O
? O
N
O ?
y cO
O N
O r
U ?
N t
> R
0
C
I.?
G.
y
O U.
c U
y M
? N
L
3 °-
? u
o .?
?• O
O c
fl, t0
w W)
0 _N
O O
cu r_
Q O
a
W
F+1
W
H
z?
a
rW
i1
°z
V-4
1.0
V1
M
i
a
O
b
fi
O
U_
COO

p
O
w w o 0 0
F
-
U F
< 0
a ?
?
?

p

o 0

0
?
w
0
O U
j
a
W Q U v' N t-
w
Q C/) U

O N
X a W
0?
? `* te)
v'
OwH
a?F.

Q ¢ o o 0
r
W Q
'o V'i N
v v
?0Z
-a
F Q Q
O
rG U p
'b N j r4 O

N N I N F
n
i

a
o o
W ?

W
r.a i'•`
W Q

o
? I M
o? ? o?

O as M
c
r
a
k
M M
r ?
I

a?
3 ?
ca •-?
s ? w
r? i 0
O uj

a N ?
E N
? v
N
w
D

o
tv
v? 'o
04.
V =
N O
? H
3
C
0 0
w w
N
L?
? O
O O
? V
w a
4.
h O
i Y
C a0i
t? U
? N
V y
a?+
?o
v 4•,
a? .o
Y ?
a
o
w ?
d y
h ?
? y
N ?
0
U
O ?
CZ ?o
C)
M Qf?
E
vi N
r-
-- N
w
a
al
F-?
M
a
H
c
O
U
b
Q
O
U

w

N
U? E
W
. ^ I N M
?
?
yy

¢ W W
[r] N
^' ' M
co U
?
z
z
cl)
Q
1
o 0
0
i
U
z d
o
o O
o
W N
W
.a
CN
W
?
^ O O O

O I
z
C4
O
a
O -
N LO
M
w _
-
F
w
04
?i1
i N
M
0
F
ell
W
o 0
0

O
II
V
o o
i
i
O

c
0 n
U
J O
..a
O w
o F¢-
p
? W
z
_O c-4
v
F.
a V ..r
?
C4
U s
W
Q V] 'o
? LY+
N 0
d' ?
cn .?
O
O

v.
U.
N
O
-4
I
/Q
N
z
W
F
w
0
E
0
0
a?
a?
V N
?w
U ..a
C W
C .?
co 0
y L
s
N
lC U
C O
O .0
C C
N ?
.D .D
y y
Q Q
N
•
f
TABLE Al
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
RUN: U-3456 US 1, Year 2005, Build
J06: U-3456: US-1, Richmond County YR 2005
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
* LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE vrn rr _ " -
LINK DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (?H)
----
*
------------------------ --------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 695. 11.7 .0 13.
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 695. 11.7 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
-------=----------
* COORDINATES (M)
* Z
RECEPTOR X Y
__
------------------------- *----------------------------------
1. R/W, 15.2m From CL * -9.8 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.6
DEGR. * 4
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.60 PPM AT 4 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
i
B-11
TABLE A2
Z
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3456: US-1, Richmond County Y 2025 RUN: U-3456 : US 1, Year 2025, Build
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
------------------------*-----------------------------•
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0
*
Y2
-----------
805.0
-805.0
LENGTH BRG TYPE
(M) (DEG)
----------------
1610. 360. AG
1610. 180. AG
VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------------------
1105. 8.0 .0 13.2
1105. 8.0 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 15.2m From CL * -9.8 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.6
DEGR. * 2
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.60 PPM AT 2 DEGREES FROM REC1
a
B-12
TABLE A3
1 ?
r
}
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3456: US-1, Richmond County RUN: 0-3456: US 1, Year 2005, No-Build
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
* LINK COORDINATES (M)
* LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------ ---- *---------------------------------------- *--------------------- --------------- ----- ------------ --
--
Far Lane Link
1 * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1390. 18.9 .0 9.6
.
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1390. 18.9 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
*
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *------- -------------------------------------
1. R/W, 9.1m From CL * -7.3 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 4.8
DEGR. * 5
v THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 4.80 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
-r
B-13
TABLE A4
ti
*
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3456: US 1 Richmond County No Build Y RUN: US 1, Year 2025, No-Build
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -.805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 2210. 12.4 .0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 2210. 12.4 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y 2
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 9.1m From CL * -7.3 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 5.0
DEGR. * 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.00 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
w-
4
B-14

??a D
0,9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WErLAjVD ANDST? ,?Ery
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R QRaNCh
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 7, 2005
Mr. Richard Spencer
Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
SUBJECT: Request for Re-verification of Jurisdictional Determination for
proposed US 1 (Fayetteville Road) improvements from SR 1424
(Roberdel Road) to SR 1640 (Wiregrass Road) / SR 1442 (Ledbetter
Road) in Richmond County, Division 8, Federal Project No. STP-
0001(7), WBS Element: 34950.1.1, T.I.P. No. U-3456.
Dear Mr. Spencer:
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) issued a Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
(USACE Action ID: 200101026) for the referenced project on November 25, 2002, for two (2) delineated
wetlands. The Notification-noted the date of the USACE field inspection as June 29, 2000, and included
an expiration date of November 25, 2005. As the tentative letting date for the project is May 15, 2007,
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Natural Environment Unit requests a re-
verification of the jurisdictional determination. Please see the attached supporting documents:
1) Copy of USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination (Action ID: 200101026), dated
November 25, 2002.
2) Four preliminary project drawings showing Site Vicinity Map (Sheet No. 1), and the two wetlands
(Sheets Nos. 8, 9, and 10).
Please contact me at 919-715-1624 to schedule a field visit at your earliest convenience, and if you have
any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
William A. Barrett.
Environmental Supervisor, Natural Environment Unit
cc: U-2702 project file
John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
LOCATION:
TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
I r 1 [-T (r{f A3-.x F

Y U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200101026
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Requestor:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Authorized
County: Richmond
t:?
? `-'-a E?l4,rr
J-1 A
Size and Location of Project (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.. tir reject No. U-
3456, State Project No. 8.1581301, Proposed US 1 (Fayetteville Road) improvements from SR 1424
(Roberdel Road) to SR 1426 (Aberdeen Road) in Richmond County, North Carolina.
Basis for Determination: Onsite field inspection of jurisdictional areas.
On June 29, 2000 Mr. David Timpy inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional boundaries as field delineated by the
NCDOT and/or its representatives for the subject NCDOT project/corridor. The project site was inspected and the
delineated jurisdictional boundaries were found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The field
delineated wetland jurisdictional limits, as shown on the attached plan can be relied on for project planning and
impact assessment. This verification is valid for five (5) years from the date of the verification.
Any placement of dredged or fill material within the delineated jurisdictional limits will require
Department of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
USC 1344). Any un-authorized placement of dredged or fill material within the delineated jurisdictional
limits would be a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311) and subject to
enforcement action. If you have any questions regarding this verification or the Corps of Engineers'
regulatory program, please contact Mr. Richard K. Spencer at 910-251-4172.
Project Manager Signature :4
Rich Date November 25, 2002

Expiration Date November 25, 2005
CF: James Hauser, PDEA, NCDOT ?
Art King, DEO, Div. 8 NCDOT
f
N
CV I
z
s
c
a
C
Lr
v
(Y;
i

PI Stu 1146014
A= 1056' 43T (RT)
D = 5'43' 465
L = 191DY
F T = 95Br
R = 1400.00'
P \
10\
?g
I DP
0
D7.7e'
N9724? q51
? I
I POTSM 11+50.00
BEGIN GUNS7RUCT1
N Y'
I g
PECOLIA HOKE
S: I 1 OB 720 PC T29
a
I$ \v
?Ili 1 esr ----' _ ? J
^ r,` BYI? (r141POT 5+00,00
-YIIk 10+8699 OFF -13.96'
i y
5 V
E III _ ` F RICHMOND COUNTY
D8
D8 740 40 PC 748
138.70' 15E.60' - 4+97 1
N8320'42'E .. N83 2-

-L-
+15.44
TER WLUAMS -Yl1- POT a. +07
NO . CE DEER _ Q, +00.00
t
i
TAX
' y
44-120' DI
OFFSET
I58N0 PRO. N NN
POE

y? \ 15/ 15-

:Y y, IY1±Y?v :k
/
?.?Y xL x Y J-'
lac ??'?
I LEON WAhL yl2 Y 4 A+ 3 F
53
D IW P 2
B Id7 P 353 T
_ PB 9 Pta? 8 , + n
r ?I ?ITCH
} S EC R$
ppY
pp
S5
+ .? •
O
p
R
k
A:
X?E T
R
F11
R m

277.u' I / <
N87

PROPANE 7AM3 SAD'
L^ Lam, I
BP - -1
276,59'
58929- ?4I(•
o,

01
i? -14--

I I 1-KO
t,
25.04'
++.6L43
PECOLIA HOKE
DB 720 PO T29
1 M DITBP
t4.'
r
r? lI
-Y11- SR 1504
PHILADELPHIA DR.
700
FJO-0
12700 407 200 /Z800 /&000
20'600
I 4W
20,500 fo-O 20,600
L- US 1 1 10 -L- US 1 ? I A I- US 1
4-0 t F am
?
2005 ACT
700 ? } 2025 ;OF
6200= i
DETAIL
BERM DITCH WITH GRADE
1 Not to Scale)
Natura 1 ?
Ground N4R D 2?
? RDWY
4 Ft, •r
Min. D = 1.0 Ft.
b = 5 Ft.
-Y12- SR 1682 Y13- SR 166b
PATTERSON RD. ELLEN DR.
(82O/
WILLIAM DOWDY
DB 047 PG 385
W OB 871 PO 716 w
OB 590 PC 456 n ^'
re II ON up
o ? N O t0 z
_ ?. M + a
7 ± in LL
/
?y m a
I o a ni ijl
KI L" -t0+
J I
?tA?9§+is Lr ,? / 1
rv A Ij / I
E
PI
w
WALT
4-
.n ?
i HS I PAYE=1,F P7'1?lrr
? N
_-?, -ri
' t-RI Pf RAP APS5RDp 85 *=o "
5 NS 14 SYSFg F
BL-115 PINC 86+23.69 = l' w e ?s xD c a c
3
R NIE A N BYII-115 POT 8+64.25 y rl7' sra+23
PG D7 "X BY12-115 POT 5+00.00.',3
P6 8 EIP" -L- 93+06.17 OFF 46.4P' LYNWOOD COVINGTON
CB T72 PC 295
KY, SETTLE 1'\
?9 PC B se's. a
199.87' ? 4j ,n, ? ??
OP S Ly+
[(y7 H
W 0
WILLIAM NICHOLSON "
OB 451PG 349 e
P8 9 PC 8 h
70.85 ?q'??PROPa E TANK
F 10.10..73' _ -60 %
200.60' \
NB918E
N/C {Qi' '?' ' 4
II
.0
-L- 9T+00 - 99+16 N>B9PS"
-L- 99+16 - 100+6660 LT - 65r'gyw
8 /
BERTHA ALFORD
OB 706 PC 525.
1{
WO I I P/zSFD
u
p
ITCH
I` M L I/ I A.
182+00 LT.
4 IA. I J' L3 45 m <
PUE - -- UE
,Zulu
4-
4. ^; / o?s3xc RE
& RERAR N
--"`-- -RT'-- N DZ- IZ4.3'r
7
RITryRSAP PRONE
CCL
3 E m
POE
0 SY F
1 f

ARAN
o EXI
6

LYNWOOD COVINGTON
PC
295
DB TT2
P@
C
, 4 ,FO IVI EFI?L??AT
DETAIL
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
D (Not to Scale)

Ground pp`
:7 p FwkN°t Slope
D=2Ft.
-Y13-11+34 -14+00 RT
•
"I
M
W

Q
Z

Cie

Z
INCOMPL PLANS
no 79m' UM 80 Aowj=T N

PRELIMIN t
PLANS

N417' as
DD
mucrmx
o?
'?/ J9>N
i
4 LY B TT2 PC 2295 ON
HTR
M
PUE

SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 20
FOR -Y11- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24
FOR Y12- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24
FOR -YI3- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEEL NO.
0-3456 8
IOADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
- L-
PI Sto 64+9263 PI Sto 67+75,46
A= f 37' 14Z (LT) 0= f 37' 14Z (RT)
D = 0342W D = 034226'
L = 26285' L = 26295'
T=141.44' T=141.44'
R m 10,000110 R = 10,000.0
SE = NC SE = NC
INCOMPLE E PLANS
Do NCf CY DD4 /7 ACAN WrM
PRELIMIN Y PLANS
DO KM UM CONID=CCM1'm
F A A T R t17 D D N
'OlCore rote Center DrIve,SuIte 415
THOMAS PHIFER
DB 144 PG E9
PB 5 PG 138
26.50'
N791'S3'E AXLE UP 1920 94.60 154.49 IED51'25'E
ECM 50'05' N6179'491 98059'25'E
140 0 M812'39'E In
N1A12'39'E ? .

N'S.Sy
-0-I7)'E

Q
z
a
0
Z
I
1
Al
'P
OB 9&1 PG 11
s1s??•?E
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ISLAND OFFSET DETAIL
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 19
FOR -Y9- PROFILE SEE SHEET 24

0
p= 240' 20,8' (LT) p= 245' 35.7 (RT)
D = 0' 34' 22.64 0 = 0`34'2W
L = 466.43' L = 481.69'
T = 23326' T = 240,89'
R = 10,000.00" RE 10=W
SE = NC
?Ia N254'S1"WL l Y1 ?•aO'
25.20' 4 ST950'03'W 66.65' I
i -WILLIAM NH
1, 1
15,33' yj Pet T PC 33 34.19'
Lo 226'35 , N
WALTER(N0 AIN ;; '
12391 DO 433:yPG
W8
714'00'W FIP : a PB 7 [PC 3S , j? y
JOAN HEARNE
OB 756 PG BE c o m t (? o
OB 936 PG 109 H y i
PB T PG 33 ?.?...-4ir. ?y<? L• 75.337 Lui
6.14' 2
k` , 50773'IB'E B'R/W +78.50 BUL
W T
V &W fL( m i \ cmwoleW STREET Re 7 Pc 17 1 742.12' s
L45'
? < N62'481301E 9 S N827674'E N N i C
-k OP \141
rvm OF
1 i 1 NR226
o 1 1 V WALTER MOCAIN a I \
o
c m "' oWALTER MDCNN OB 347 PG 934 ?, f. ? LL "11 II
,? OB 433 PG 391 OB 433 PG 391 p
OB 502 PG 2 ?? U 1 0
" E. PB T Pc 37 a DB 728 PC 843 a e;o $1
^?r?7 P87 PG 33 s
1 1N 141 {'. c a c 1 -
a -+ 1 u
a I wy e wo ) 25.00' $ c o2 no
L
5 S o BES$IE MORMAN '^; NB224'51'
?+ d I )56.13' 6JP rAo JN?OB 898 PC 191 1? I 4 is
9yW '37, .. , .. F, ti.PB 7 PG 33 $ 1 g ,i0 W
t f w . 8_ .t ° W no- A+ -rro
.
AND
11 I 1 i '? ? AS e SPLK
11 2 I N e, { BUS /
1 +15
YW 'AtWau. PUE RADa9935?W `PUE\J{__ E- rR B
.. E 'R' ?m OR 20'0
ERNEST WANNAMAKER 'c 0W DEBORAH BURTON
DB 243 PC 126 °
r I, DB 674 PG 206
E`
v
DO 250 PC 539 c y PB T PG TO
(

Cr

1
MAKER
WP
9I
C 71
OB
83 v,

? 68.79' EIP
SB911'SS¢ 40.47
c
569 ? P'
%
o
1155'E
795.42'
y S83.46'42'W
DP
.do
BYIO-138 POT 5+00.00
-YIOO- 10+00.01 OFF -21.36'
L, {% DP
'`TE'A 201.06'
ti Y i?7T55'2VE
_ _ wm
\ /O S
f
NCON RUCT ON
¢ o
V jm BOBBY FLETCHER °
OB T30 PG 860 i .
PS 4 PG 83
212.T8' _j?_ BOLT
N807144'E U'1
LTER
(CAIN WALTER AVINGr{N,JR.
728 DS 614 257''
843 PEI 4 83
^433 102,g9' BOLT 91.40'
G - NB22T5
11814919% '1 j BYIO-139 PI C +67.4
33
YID- 12+6716 OFF -25.80'
BARA
VIM ITSCM ??DB 1H PD M3 EVERETT
-E AE 7+OS L . PB 4EPG 83
-- -PUIRAOiO
CB
4? new en
-YID- SR 1503
PHILADELPHIA DR.
500!
7m
400 100 /Z700
199 0 UP my
L-UUS1
2005 ADT
2025 ADT
63.04' \? 40
'E N8 2' v i
s X97
MrW M SMITH h HTN Ne7ro7
Da 9T3 PC m IRGINIA POLI
- g PB 9 BB 946 PC '
PB 76 PG 41
1- _*? Cul1 TdaFR
?7 Q {
?i
61' ISBLWO
,02-E 142,61
¦ , N87'07'0
FLETCHER
?775?'.'`OB 9BI PG 120
1 IPB 7PG OTZ;H
is A: RB',+1?°o i?.
•• 113456 A 9
KYDRAU5
IOADWAY DESIGN E
JGIN6:P
ENGINEER INCOMPLE E PLANS

m N= lm VUR /// A00031192027
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
ro .OR6 G0NMUC970N
E R R T N W A R N
701COMW&6 Center 2r1Ve. SuNe 475

I I I?
m• m
wN ?"
g
? I
1
SHERRY COVINGTON
OB 969 PG 106
P8 76 PG 4T7
EXMI6IIPG t
=c -F E ? pc 20• ? HN NCCALL \? • I U
-E V? 11 I sH'.x0? a °FD 63 D 6P9 EJ B 90PG E6 I'
Pa ifi Pc 4n 1 1
• _ ?.s70 d - ¢ AUTHOR SPENCER ?w 4 T,s,?W f Ep? A OCITY=Ni.lfp o,
1 1?1 GLENN WR.LANIS DB 569 PG 266 1 5 'AS
-L- P 81•M3A9. OB 96 PC M9 RIP RAP APRON I PS 76 PG 4n 4 FF
\\\ TS F a s s
ti -Y10- POTSTa 13+1958 "- - y s 9 a? LE RON D sNY d
w PROPANE TANK b N ,'{
EP 5623! Ir 9Lx rnT I I E ?,, ?., s
i I s Y
3 k 46' CHL (APP 0%.)
\ SNEAKY COVNGTON 6p l 1 ?1 Y ( P ?.
a DB 962 PC 278 EP 56126'06 PAUL LEDBETTER 1 1,.?X 1 r P
UB BB4 PD 150
11( BL-140 PINC 74+83.20 = 1 e 3
GPO I o ? % ????? ? ?
•.8+44.25 6AN0 1 y? ^^w
1 BYIO- 140 P07
-L- 81+64.55 9.68' 61 w r I
INOT SETT .. 1 % 4
h I 1 JI m„ BL-114 INC 869.22
.. ------ } I „ " -L- 87 51.85 OFIF 33.25' M, SMITH
NNIE
1 ` I UNKNOWN OWNER
\ L? DB 570 PD 8E NO DEED REFERENCE
4 II `*1 m ? (SrO I PS 76 PC 4n PB 76 PC 477
C 4n
CK) I
Pr I
?? I Q
m N n?
r ?? Z ? gF
I r;
? Q I
5 ? I
I
191.90' EIP
S87.46'42'W I
fl°6i 0A
Nrv I V ?
G Z I
EIP
0 243.87' 99.06' A%LE
OP DP N34.42'IS'E SB4'4YI6'W SB442'B 5644296'W 62 SEND OF S OR
ET DETAIL
B.sr 6fi?`FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 19
9e44216'W me _vin- ocncu c cFF SHFFT ,
lo'?
\O
4111111111
M
>643
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OFF ]HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND COUNTY

PFI SUBMITTAL
LOCATION: US 1 FROM SR 1424 (ROBERDEL ROAD)
TO SR 1640 (WIREGRASS ROAD) /SR 1442
(LEDBETTER ROAD) IN ROCKINGHAM
TYPE OF WORK. GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING,
AND SIGNALS

f 2 1?1
\ w w
VICINITY MAP FOR PROJECT U?3456

Q

V? °
a

=
a
a

w
-r Ni w a u
o
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 34950JJ (U-3456) t °a
_ =
A 14+00 w / o-
m
BEGIN FA. PROJECT STP-0001(7) Q / p r
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
w
o
/ -" i
>
I2
A
o h Z;
i ? s ' 10
p h v
i
h ? /

vC
1.I
w
P
w m
i p
w a
a

0
° w a
o
• w ?
5 V? ? o z
o / a y o
w
O } /
Q
a
~ to
}?// Itu ? vii
• I

yy `? ?

?
?
h
M
a
//
V
n \ y N
S
'
4? Gr r I
?m I
00
See Sheet I-A For Index of Sheets
V See Sheet i-8 For Conventlonal Symbols
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
50 0 510 Igo ADT 2005 = 13900
ADT 2025 = 22100
O PLANS DHV = 10%
D = 60%
D 5 50 1 0
T = 11%
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) TTST 6% DUAL 5%
V = 50mph
1 1 0
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
L
9
i
m
n 2
4 y
v2A ?
PA 3
O
b
y
m
i
A PORTION OF THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF ROCKINGHAM.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III, EXCEPT IN WETLANDS.
NCDOT CONTACT :TERESA M.ERUTON,P.E,PROJECT ENGLIVEE ,DESIGN SERVICES
as A'AW MOn= ROONNO NO m
.c. U-3456 I
ean wwaNa unoxw oomtv:re,
O
Q
O
W
o?
W
J
N
P
P
N
,
h
END RA.PROJNCT STP400!(7)
END CONSTRUCTION
.PloS
7110 Sots
m

F
f
0
0
y0
?

Q
Z
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO Nor oR FM RAW AMUMnON
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO M" ORt FM CONFl UMM
HYDRAULICS ENGDNEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT LENGTH Prepared In the orflce of. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

LENGTH ROADWAY F,A.PROJECT STP-0001(1) = 2,898 MILES E A R T H ` T E C N
LENGTH STRUCTURES F.A. PROJECT STP-0001(11 = 0,000 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 34950.1.1 = 2.898 MILES
AVICO INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY mmv AIAM RMWJM H,P&
A1T1
G
SM STANDARD SPECBRCAMONS
FOR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMNT OF TRANSPORTATION SI
N
88.
ROADWAY DESIGN MmRm A4RWU$P.R
STARS DESIGN BVC%I?ZsBR
R/W PROD.DATE-z J,1u2004 701 Corporate Center Drive ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
R/W DATE: Oc"6r,2004 GLENDA GIBSON. P.E. , Suite 475 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADAUMSTRATIOA
2006
JO
DATE
LETTING PROD EARTR TECR PRomar mANAGRR Raleigh, N.C. 27607
y,
:
, MI[E PEBARB$ P.E. (919)-854-6200
LETTING DATE, 0.64, 2006 EARTR TECH PRGU= DEN(W RNGMERR FAX [phone] GEZMM G®SONPA APPROVED
SfGNASUAB: DD7SION ADSIDGSSRA70R MSS
I CITY