20141132 All Versions_Environmental Impact Statement_20010427

` FHWA-NC-EIS-99-02-DS
' .": Federal FIighway Administration ' ` ` , ' ' ' " `
` IVorth Garoliria Division :' ' > „': < > ` '
i� Y i ¢. x
t ' - US 1 � '�' , Y ,� £ ,
FROM SANDHILL ROAD (SR 1971) TO NIARSTON ROAD (SR 1001) -
� � � �', f ) a i - . . _,,
`-"i RICHMOND COUNTX. � ` �
' '-�- < . FEDERAI,-AID pRO.TECT N(?. NHF 1(1), _ > t "' � ?
, , : ' � � _ ; STATE PROJECT ATO; 8.T580501 'r; .; � , � '
i ; r �rt T I.P NU R 2501 �:: � �
, ..
H
�f a. l i'! { { �F d�°�^� ; y Y6 . .4 ! �'�'' + '•�.H✓
� � d: -, �S� ....
` ", � '� ` , ',=' � = : �: ADNIINISTRATIV� ACTION . : ' "" s :,
;� ���'7 �� fl SUPPLEMEIVTAL DRAFT EIVVIRO-NMENTAL IMPACT 5TATEMENT' �; �'
a;���' Sr Y '� F 3's -'y F- l �: �; �`tY� ,�_.: l��� s:-
t � . 4 i.. � S�A:h A � ai ..:.:. ai .: �' .A e b��
>, � Subm�tted Pursuant to the Nahonal Environmental PoHty Act 42 U S C: 4332 f2) (c)^
kp
� '#�'` �, Ste � �^l a,� k '�' �a ' , b� tL� :. . � �� ./€ � r� i ?' .,. -'� ��. �
. . ... f:'... ._ „., . . . _. ,.. . .� `z
r� `
�'�^� � _. Ci.
�T. �l6�30125 ��.
bui:ld
�F TFIl's
OF
� � "s .
r� : .=, � " �;, :
ives foP impropfng "iravel'
•owed-in,Tune i99.9..This
�'bx Rqad (SR 16Db} to 1vlarst9n,`Road (S�t iOAlj:ancl
i wifih this°exten,sion. "This Suppleme�tal Diaft EIS a�o`do
l prelimtnary,a'ICernarive. , ; y� *� r� ��� ��?
�'i ..t�'a , a. i'. . _. a� .'�4 '���'�',.. �."�:�.
saon tlus �upplementa] Draft EI� aze'due by �
Wilham D Gilmore at the above address. s r�
[Y�`! y
i �'x .. . A, �z.'sr � � . i 3'
�
i : •. �',
x ��,�'s?i+ �#� `"�"' .� ':a�f!
� � �
,k
�
DI�� P.�:; n
& En v'aai�pn
�;��s .�;;:;
27G99-i548 �
t41 � «;
�., "' �. ° "
4it[ons on US. 1
�nzen�s the evaluatton of a� � �"'�',�
��. : ,. -, �
,e t�� � ,. i � � �.
74 t'ry'va ,aj. . '� y;.,.
`' ° ` ' " and s$ould be.
;� >. ',.
' {�..4' �:.5 ��..1;:
�? j���
' p � j .
��:H
2 e� i� i��' ,

US 1
FROM SANDHILL ROAD (SR 1971) TO MARSTON ROAD (SR 1001)
RICHMOND COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. NHF-1(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.T580501
T.I.P. NO. R-2501
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFI' EPiVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I_ ' ;\i iIIH�ITIII
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY
PRESNELL ASSOCIATES, INC. �.•` Ql�^„.;";
7508 East Independence Blvd, Suite 102 �.�'� ��Or''pEESSI�
Chazlotte, North Cazolina 28227 ': 4Q SE AL
� : ! 13690
' ;F'
's, ,p ,R'C�ryE`
•.,��o,yq�......�
Ronald C. Sm' , P.E. .,,��+D �C.��
Project Manager
�
J e R. Smith, C.E.P.
ect Planner
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
�
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
/"�/ �
Robert Andre oyner, P.E.
Project Manager
Consulting Engineering Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch

Project Commitments
US i
From Sandtrill Road (SR 1971) to Marston Road (SR 1001)
Richmond County
Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-1(1)
State Project No. 8.T580501
T.I.P. No. R-2501
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Condirions, Section 404 Only Condifions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Pracrices for Protection of Surface Waters,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special
commitrnents have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Hiahwav Desi¢n Branch
Any indirect impact to shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostium) wil� be minimized by
adherence to NCDOT's Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds as well as Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (1998).
Proiect Develoament and Environmental Analvsis Branch
An intensive archaeological survey of high probability non-eroded soils, where sites exhibiting
integrity are likely to remaiq will be conducted for the Preferred Corridor prior to preparation of
the Final Environmental Document. The survey areas will be selected in consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer. Disturbed areas, such as existing roads and developed
acreage, will be excluded from the survey. Any cemeteries discovered during the survey will be
recorded following the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology Guidelines a�id existing state
statutes.
An additional invesrigation for the red-cockaded woodpecker may be required for a pine tree
observed in an azea northeast of the intersection of US 1 and Fox Road (SR 1606). Due to
potential hazazds encountered during this investigation, the origin of extensive sap observed on
the tree during aerial surveys could not be conclusively determined.
The Cazolina heelspitter was added to the LI.S. Fish and Wildlife's Threatened and Endangered
Species list for Richmond County in February 2001. Surveys for the mussel will be completed
prior to prepazarion of the Final Envimnmental Document.
Supplemental Draft Envimnmental Ixnpact Statement Greensheet
Apri12001 Page 1 of 1

�-, :-�. .: n. .. : .., : .: . "': ��
.a
`:�
r
�unr,rc exrnun r
,
f
�
F
� ��
i `�'
...�. rS� .._ . . .. . _.
�.
� FE:
�.
r
i
US'�.. _. -
RQAD.(SR T9i1)�'QMt1�2ST't�Nlt(3AD (SI�:IOQI} " . .
� `RICEiIYtQrID .�0i3Nt'Y�
�,�1IrAIID PR(7JECT NO. NHF-1(1)
;T`AZ'� FiiO�.IECT?�70: $.T�80301
,T;I,P. T�IQ. R-250i ` :
,.
t
� �,=
,
�5 y
`
S
�;S � 4��
� �.i-` F
(f
., a . ..�( .. . .s ` S 4
Ya S *�
_ .t£ :.
_ t �3;.. _ �,�. t ° � .t-
'� 2 f
e. t
a/ .� i , s�, t .
..� .. � -.r '
� :i � - l
�� ' � d y , Y
�� t 1 � f .
.. �.
Ky� � _ S �.4�� Y { xl .
� . :t
' S ,-�.` `� M
� : �i
} � V
1 ,"
Q } � "
� �' h " t
r ,. � . ,.
`+ t
_ _ ' S
{`. Y � i
�
r '� t ... ." • `r� '��.'
)
,. � � � x
..
. .
a
�:;j „ r�_ . .�, � -.,'. ,..' s
, ... , �-. _ ...: . , . .
. . .. _
�t. _., � . . ;.: , .
l. �' \
T ^a ! •
1 { '
; . .
�
� ! 4 •:
.g ✓^
Y' } ' ,l )
W
(F
4 } _
� _ � Y `�. �` �.�-.�al. �.i t��
`Y
l
,+, 3 t d` - F ,�. .T`
.�
Y �.
}.� d : t ` ��r! r� . ti�` . .:'i
"M` !_
♦ ''
5� j. _ J a: t M
' � s ;.
�' w �
!; �' i. � _ .i � '
� t < � . } . rr s '
., ," a t ., � a..
� ' ��.. . . . '�":� i £ . ., w . � . . a . . ,. , i. .. � . _ . . . ..
i4

E.O DRAF1' EIS ERRATA INFORMATION
Teact conections to the June 1999 Draft Environmental Impact Statement are underlined
as follows:
. Page S-1, S.3 Description of Proposed Action, last sentence:
The 2002-2008 Draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies various
improvements along existing US 1 from the South Carolina state line to the Virginia
state line.
• Page S-2, first pazagraph, second sentence:
This roadway is identified as project number R-2501 in the 2002-2008 Diaft North
Cazolina Transportation Improvement Program.
. Page S-2, first pazagraph, third sentence:
The approximate 31 kilometers (19.2 miles) proposed US 1 project will consist of
approximately 21 kilometers (13 miles) on new locarion and approximately 10
kilometers L.2 milesl of widenin eg xistin�.
Page S-2, S.4 Major Actions Proposed by North Cazolina Department of
Transportation in the Same Geographic Area, first sentence:
The North Cazolina Deparhnent of Transportation's 2002-2008 Draft Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.) has ei t other projects in the same geogtaphic azea as
the proposed action, including the construction of the following:
Delete T.I.P. Nos. R-512 and R-2501C.
T.I.P. Proiect No. W-4001: Widen for center two-wav left tum lane on US 74 from
US 220 to US 1
T.I.P. Project No. K-3808: I-73 (US 1) New Rest Area/Welcome Center
T.I.P. Pmject No. R-4425: US 1 National Highwav Svstem Guardrail Rehabilitation
E-1

• Page S-5, S.5.5 Build Altematives, Altemative Comdor 7, first sentence:
This corridor is approximately 31 ldlometers 19.2 miles) in length (see Figure 2.2).
Page S-6, third paragraph:
From the intersection with existing US 1 north, the remaining portion of Altemative
Corridor No. 7 consists of widening existing US 1 either as a four-lane divided
e�ressway or a five-lane facility to its northem terminus at Marston Road (SR 10011.
. Page S-6, Alternative Corridor 14, last sentence:
Corridor No. 14 is approximately 30.9 kilometers (19.1 miles� in length.
• Page S-7, first pazagraph, third sentence:
Fmm its intersection with existing US 1 and continuing north, the remaining portion
of the project will be constructed as either a four-lane divided. rural expressway or a
five-lane facilitv. Corridor No. 21 is annroximatelv 31 kilometers (19.2 milesl in
len h.
. Page S-7, Altemative Corridor 24, last sentence:
Corridor No.24 is approximately 30.91dlometers (19.1 miles� in length.
. Page S-7, Relocations, first pazagraph:
Tota1 relocations for the proposed project range from a high of 125 relocations for
Altemative Corridor No. 7 to 88 relocarions for Corridor No. 24. Corridor Nos. 14
and 21 would require approximately 121 and 92 relocations, respectively.
. Page S-7, Relocations, second paragraph, first sentence:
Altemative Corridor No. 7 would displace 117 residences followed by Altemative
Corridor No. 14 with approximately 113 residential relocations.
. Page S-7, Relocarions, second pazagraph, third sentence:
For Altemative Corridor No. 21 approximately 73 residences would be displaced
whereas Corridor No. 24 would displace 69 residences.
E-2

. Page S-7, Relocations, last pazagraph, last sentence:
All four altematives would require the displacement of 1 fann and 1 nonprofit
struchue.
� Page S-8, Table S.1 Summary of Impacts: US 1 Bypass/Widening
Revise Table S.1 to include pmject extension impacts.
. Page S-9, Prime/Important Farmland, first paragraph, second sentence:
Altemative Corridor No. 21 would 'unpact the most prime/important fannland with
approximately 100.3 hectares 248.7 acres) while Alternative Corridor No. 14 would
impact the least amount width 873 hectazes 2( 16•7 acres).
. Page S-9, Wetlands, first pazagraph:
The amount of wetlands impacted by each alternarive range from 22.5 hectazes 55.5
acres) for Alternative Corridor No. ? to 25.1 hectazes (62.0 acres) for Alternative
Corridor No. 24. Alternative Corridor No. 14 will impact approximately 25.0
hectazes 61.8 acres) of wetlands and Corridox No. 21 will impact approximately 22.6
hectazes 55.7 acres).
Page 1-2, 1.1 Description of Proposed Action, first sentence:
The proposed action consists of the widening and/or relocation of US 1 in Richmond
County from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) south of Rockingham to Mazston Road (SR
1001) north of Rockingham, a distance of approximately 31 kilometers 19.2 miles).
This portion of the US 1 project is identified as project number R-2501 in the 2002-
2008 Draft Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.).
• Page 1-2, 1.1 Description of Proposed Action, fourth sentence:
The draft TIP establishes a schedule for R-2501 to begin right of way acquisition in
FI' 2005 and conshuction to start beyond FY 2008.
Page 1-3, Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1 is replaced with Figure I.1 in the SDEIS.
E-3

. Page 1-11, first pazagraph, trrird sentence:
US 1 from Aberdeen Road to the end of the project at Mazston Road (SR 10011, with
the excention of a three-lane section at the N.0 Motor Sueedwav, consists of a two-
lane section with a 7.2 meter (24-foot) pavement and 1.8 to 3.0-meter (6 to 10-foot)
shoulders.
. Page 1-ll,second paragraph,second sentence:
Five intersections along existing US 1 are signalized, including US 74, Hancock
Street, Lawrence Stteet, Richmond Road (SR 1423), and Wire Grass Road (SR 1640).
• Page 1-1 l, last pazagraph:
Other major projects proposed for construction by NCDOT along US 1 or within the
unmediate vicinity of US 1 include the following:
Remove R-2501 C and R-512.
❑ W-4001: Widen for center two-wav left turn ]ane on US 74 &om US 220 to
US 1
Status: Right-of-way FFI' Ol
❑ K-3808: I-73 (US 1) New Rest Area/Welcome Center
Status: Unfunded
❑ R-4425: US 1 National Hiehwav System Guazdrail Rehabilitation
Status: Design FY 07
- Page 1-12, 1.7.1 Existing Traffic, last sentence:
Continuing north from SR 1640 to the end of the pmject, traffic volumes range from
3,600 to 5.560 wd.
. Page 1-15, Figure 13 Average Daily Traffic
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
E-4

. Page 1-19, Table 1.1 Exisring US 1-1994 and Future Mainline Traffic Analysis
Revise Table 1.1 to include project extension.
. Page 1-20, second pazagraph, fifth sentence:
From SR 1640 to the end of the project at Marston Road (SR 1001�, traffic volumes
aze pmjected to range from 7� vpd to 11,020 vpd.
. Page 1-21, i.9 Safety, first pazagaph, second sentence:
A h�affic accident analysis of US 1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to Mazston Road
SR 1001 was conducted for the period of September 1, 1994 through June 30, 1997.
Tlus analysis indicates that 325 accidents and approximately $1.193.713 in property
damage were recorded within the project corridor.
. Page 1-22, Table 1.2, Accident Data Suimnary
Revise Table 1.2 to include project extension.
• Page 1-23, second paragraph, second and third sentences:
A more detailed review of accident data for US 1 reveals that "rear-end" accidents
resulting from slowed or stopped tr�c constitute the highest percentage of accidents
28.62% . There were also a high percentage of angle accidents 21.85% .
Page 2-18, 2.43.6 Segments O, P, & Q
This section needs to be eliminated.
. Page 2-18, Altemative Corridor No. 7, first sentence:
This corridor is approximately 31.0 kilometers 19.2 miles) in length and consists of
segments C, E, F, H, HZ, L, O. P and O.
• Page 2-19, Figure 2.2 Build Altematives
Revise Sheet 1 of2 to include project extension.
. Page 2-21, Figure 2.2 Build Altematives
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
E-5

. Page 2-23, fourth paragraph:
From the intersection with exisring US 1 north, the remaining portion of Alternative
Corridor No. 7 consists of widening existing US 1 to either a four-lane divided
expressway or a five-lane facilitv to its northern ternrinus, at Marston Road (SR
1001).
• Page 2-23, Altemative Corridor No. 14, last sentence:
Corridor No. 14 is approximately 30.9 kilometers 19.1 miles) in length and consists
of segments D, E, F, H, H2, L, O. P and O.
. Page 2-24, second pazagraph, third and fourth sentences:
From its intersecrion with existing US 1 and continuing north of Chock Creek, the
remaining portion of the project will be constructed as either a four-lane divided
expressway or a five-]ane facilitv. Corridor No. 21 is approximately 31.0 kilometers
19.2 miles) in length and consists of segments C, E, F, I, J, K, L, O. P and O.
• Page 2-24, Altemative Corridor No. 24, second sentence:
Corridor No. 24 is approximately 30.91dlometers 19.1 miles) in length and consists
of segments D, E, F, I, 7, K, L, O. P and O.
. Page 2-29, 2.7.1.2 Four-Lane Upgrade of Existing US 1
Delete the phrase "four-lane".
Page 2-29, 2.7.1.2 Four-Lane Upgrade of Existing US 1 second sentence:
The existing rivo-lane roadway will be improved to either a four-lane divided
expressway with a 5_3 meter 17.5 ft median width or a five-]ane facilitv. The design
speed will be 100 kilometers/hour (60 mph).
• Page 2-31, Table 2.3 (cont.) US 1 Widening Basic Design Criteria
Revise four-lane divided section design criteria and add five-lane section design
criteria.
E-6

• Page 2-35, Figure 2.5 US 1 Widening Typical Section
Replace Figure 2.5 with SDEIS Figures 2.2 to 2.7.
. Page 2-42, Table 2.4 2020 Mainline Traffic Analysis
Revise Table 2.4 to include pmject extension.
• Page 2-45, Cost Estimates, third sentence:
The esrimated costs range from 166.73 million for Altemative Corridor No. 14 to
177.93 million for Alternative Corridor No. 21.
• Page 2-45, Table 2.7 Preliminary Cost Estimates
Revise Table 2.7 to include project extension costs.
. Page 3-16, Schools, last sentence:
A new pre-ldndergarten through third grade school has been constructed along
County Home Road (SR 1624) east of Wire Grass Road (SR 1640).
• Page 3-19, Figure 33 Community Facilities and Emergency Services
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
. Page 3-31, Figure 3.4 Prime and Important Fannland
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
. Page 3-35, Figure 3.5 Water Resources
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
Page 3-41, Figure 3.6 100 Yeaz Floodplains
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
• Page 3-55, Figure 3.7 Noise Receptors
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
E-7

• Page 3-58, second paragraph, second and third sentences:
The results of the field reconnaissance revealed that within the bypass study area, a
total of 23 sites or facilities were suspected of having involvement with above-gound
storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (iJSTs) and/or regulated materials.
7n addition, a total of 17 sites were identified as existing, modified or abandoned
gasoline service starions along existing US 1 and have the potential for involvement
with USTs.
• Page 3-61, Figure 3.8 Potential Hazardous Material Sites
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
. Page 3-63, Table 3.8 Potential Hazardous Material Sites US 1, R-2501
Revise Table 3.8 to include project extension sites.
. Page 3-85, Figure 3.9 Wetland Areas
Revise Sheet 2 of 2 to include project extension.
. Page 4-2, Table 4.1 Land Use Impacts
Revise Table 4.1 to include project extension impacts.
• Page 4-2, Table 4.2 Fazmland Impacts
Revise Table 4.2 to include project extension impacts.
. Page 4-7, Table 43 Approximate Income Level of Residential Relocafions
Revise Table 4.3 to include project extension.
. Page 4-8, Table 4.4 Number of Relocations for Proposed US 1 Improvements
Revise Table 4.4 to include project relocations.
. Page 4-8, third paragraph, first and second sentences:
Altemative Corridor No. 7 impacts 117 residences, 6 business units, 1 fann and 1
nonnrofit structure for a total of 125 relocations. Of these 125, there aze 10 minority-
owned residential units and no minority-owned business units.
�

• Page 4-8, fourth pazagraph, first and second sentences:
Alternative Corridor No. 14 impacts 113 residences, 6 business units, 1 farm and 1
nonnrofit structure for a total of 121 relocations. Of these 121, there are 10 minority-
owned residential units and no minority-owned business units.
Page 4-8, last paragraph, first and second sentences:
Alternative Corridor No. 21 impacts 73 residences, 17 business units, 1 fazm and 1
nonnrofit structure, for a total of 92 relocations. Of these 92 there aze 3 minority-
owned residential urrits and 1 minority-owned business unit.
• Page 4-9, first paragraph, first and second sentences:
Alternative Corridor No. 24 impacts 69 residences, 17 business units, 1 farm and 1
nonnrofit structure, for a total of 88 relocations. Of these 88, there are 3 minority-
owned residential units and 1 minority-owned business unit.
. Page 4-11, fourth pazagraph:
Therefore, the proposed US 1 project will create approximately 799 jobs for
Altemative Corridors Nos. 7 and 14 and approximately 884 jobs for Alternative
Corridors Nos. 21 and 24.
. Page 4-12, third bullet:
Alternative Corridor No. 7 requires 117 residential and 6 business relocations.
Altemative Corridor No. 14 requires 113 residential and 6 business relocations.
Altemative Corridor No. 21 requires 73 residential and 17 business relocations.
Alternative Corridor No. 24 requires 69 residential and 17 business relocations.
All four altematives impact minority-owned residential units and one nonprofit
organization.
Page 4-15, Table 4.6 Maximum One-Hour and Eight-Hour CO Concentrations
Revise Table 4.6 to include project extension.
E-9

• Page 4-21, first pazagraph, first sentence:
From existing US 1, neaz either Wire Grass Road (SR 1640) or Fox Road (SR 1606)
to Mazston Road (SR 10011, the remaining portion of the pmject consists of widening
existing US 1 as either a four-lane divided expresswav or a five-lane facilitv.
• Page 4-22, Table 4.8 US 1, R-2501 66 dBA Noise Contour Location
Revise Table 4.8 to include pmject extension.
. Page 4-25, fourth pazagraph, last sentence:
Based on these findings, construction oF noise walls, for those residences along US I
north from Wire Grass Road (SR 1640) to Marston Road (SR 10011 was not
considered to be reasonable or feasible as a means of noise abatement.
. Page 4-28, 4.10 Wetland Impacts, fourth sentence:
As indicted in Table 4.9, Altemative Corridor No. 7 will impact the least amount of
jurisdictional wetlands, followed by Alternative Corridor No. 21 with 22_58 hectares
55.74 acres) ofwetland impacts.
. Page 4-28, Table 4.9 Wetland Impacts
Revise Table 4.9 to include project extension.
. Page 4-48, Table 4.10 Summary of Impacts: US 1 Bypass/Widening
Revise Table 4.10 to include pmject extension.
E-10

f
/
i y
. �
� " VV'Y�''. _ '
FRO1kI SAI�TbH�T.L RQAD (SR 19Ti� TO �TC)N ROl1D ($R F001}
' It��'HM(7ND Ct1iJI�1`CX •
:- FEI?F�tt�.�A�T7 PRC?Jfi��"N0:1�13iF' 1(�) ' -
, ,, �'I`�TE PT�iO�C'.F �I�. $�TS$Q501 -
,. . �
T I.P,.1VQ�:R-250.1.; . . `''�
,. ,
=y ,
�. ; ". = �
� :;� ,t
. ,�' _
- i5 �� � •rai � A K' { 1
{`_ y
x - r �, �, � y zr �. *e
t
�. ' y
; ' ' r
! r ,�`4 4 +` F ` r f cr
, ...
.-, .. . ,: •' _
. , y i
. .. . ".:� . '
} �..,. . ;. � ��� t
f,` �
4 t, Y
y X
{ 5 v t t.
x }�'
r �'
.
..� " s '" .:�
S
a - :�
; y`'F �
� Y
{ ,�
K
i
t S
• e�
'1�.� F. �y'=...
. .-' �� Y�=. • r� _.. 'u � .
(.
T ' ! �
\ 5'
f.
r a -: ,
y )%
r
r
i �
^� !.
, . . -, . ,... _
a � ;
'.Y
' h
Z
!
. ..��� .� ��y.���� .
„ . r
I� T .: fk, A i .
- i.a . �� S .. <�.
' _ x
� '
...� . �, ,q .' gyn .
:�_ .. '>� . �
��. 4 A
°y '
r y .
:€
r . . A �i.A. �- A - _ .
. . . . _ . . . . �.... . � . � . 1 . . ... � 'i. .. 3 :�4�.. . . . ' ..

S.0 SUMMARY (DEIS S.1)
S.1 Purpose of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The purpose of this Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) is to
document those changes that have occurred for the proposed US 1 Bypass improvements
from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to north of Fox Road (SR 160� since the approval of the
DEIS, document the extension of the proposed project from north of Fox Road (SR 1606)
to Mazston Road (SR 1001), and to evaluate an additional preliminary alternative, the
improvement of NC 177 from US 1 north to the South Cazolina state line as requested by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Changes in the initial project scope aze
described in the following section. In accordance with the procedures for the preparation
of environmental documents (T6640.8A), whenever there are changes, new informarion
or further developments on a project wluch result in significant impacts not previously
evaluated in the DEIS, a supplemental EIS is necessary. Pazentherical numbers following
section tifles indicate the DEIS sections that aze supplemented. Information contained in
the DEIS that remains valid is not restated in the Supplemental DEIS.
The proposed action is the construction of a four-lane divided, fully controlled access
freeway on new location from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to existing US 1 either neaz Wire
Grass Road (SR 1640) or Fox Road (SR 1606) and the widening of exisring US 1 from
either Wire Grass Road (SR 1640) or Fox Road (SR 1606) to Mazston Road (SR 1001).
The need for these improvements was recognized as eazly as 1972 in a thoroughfaze plan
developed for Richmond County. The project is currently included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2002-2008 Draft Transportation Impmvement Program as
T.I.P. Project No. R-2501.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) evaluating alternatives for improving
US 1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to north of Fox Road (SR 1606) was approved in
June 1999. The puipose of the US 1 project is to improve travel conditions in Richmond
County by reducing overall travel time and alleviating traffic congestion in downtown
Rockingham by diverting both through traffic and truck traffic from local streets.
Improving US I to a multilane roadway would also provide a safer, more efficient facility
for local and through traf�ic as opposed to an existing two-lane rural highway.
Alternatives that were considered and eliminated in the DEIS include the No-Build,
Transportation System Management (TSM), Mass Transit, and Improve Existing
S-1

FaciliGes Altemarives. The four Build Alternatives identified as reasonable and feasible
altematives in the DEIS and evaluated for potential impacts include Altematives 7, 14,
21, and 24.
On September 14, 1999, a Corridor Public Hearing was held to present the "reasonable
and feasible" alternatives to the public. Altemative Corridor No. 21 was selected as the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative (LEDPA) by the Project Team on
October 28, 1999, and selected as the Preferred Altemative by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on January 3, 2000.
Subsequent to the selection of the LEDPA, there were concerns about treating the
widening section of US 1 from north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Mazston Road (SR 1001)
as a sepazate pmject or segment. Rather than include this segment with T.I.P. Project No.
R-2502, the US 1 widening section north of Marston Road (SR 1001), it was determined
that the most practicable decision would be to evaluate this section and docuxnent the
results in a supplemental document to the T.I.P. Project No. R-2501 project.
S.2 Changes in Project Scope and Circumstances Since the DEIS
Due to changes in the scope of the proposed US 1 improvements following the approval
of the DEIS, the proposed action and the potential environmental consequences are not
completely described. The two major changes that require supplemental documentation
and evaluation in this SDEIS aze:
. the extension of the proposed widening of US 1 from north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to
Mazston Road (SR 1001) as either a four-lane divided expressway or a five-lane
facility.
. the development of a preliminary altemative for improving NC 177 from its juncture
with US 1 north to the South Carolina state line as an alternative to the US 1 Bypass.
S-2

S.3
Major Actions Proposed by North Carolina Department of Transportation in the
Same Geographic Area (DEIS S.4)
The North Cazolina Department of Transportation's Draft 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.) has eight other projects in the same geographic area as the
proposed action, including the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
�
T.I.P. Project No. R-3421: I-73/I-74 Corridor
T.I.P. Project No. R-2502: US 1 Impmvements from SR 1001 to Moore County
line
T.I.P. Pmject No. U-2583: US 1 Widening from US 74 Bypass to SR 1974
T.I.P. Project No. U-3456: US 1 Widening from Lawson Lane to SR 1640
T.I.P. Project No. B-2607: US 1 CSX Railroad bridge replacement
T.I.P. Project No. K-3808: I-73 (LJS 1) New Rest Area/Welcome Center
T.I.P. Project No. W-4001: Widening for center two-way left tum lane on US 74
from US 220 to US 1
T.I.P. Project No. R-4425
Rehabilitation
S.4 Alteraatives Considered (DEIS S.5)
US 1 National Highway System Guazdrail
5.4.1 Preliminary Build Alternatives (DEIS 5.5.4)
Studv Alternative Subsequent to the DEIS INC 177 Alternative�
Improvements to existing NC 177 from its intersection with existing US 1 to the South
Carolina state line were examined as an altemative to the construction of a US 1 Bypass.
Based on the number of potential residential and business relocations, social impacts to
the town of Hamlet and its neighboring communities, and the potential economic impacts
to existing highway — related businesses, including those in the Hamlet business district,
widening existing NC 177 through Hamlet was not considered to be a viable or feasible
alternative. Therefore, the NC 177 Altemative would include a bypass of the Town of
Hamlet on new location.
The additional length, the ntunber of re]ocarions, and the amount of wetland and stream
impacts of the NC 177 Altemative make it undesirable. It is also unlikely that
improvements to NC 177, including a bypass of Hamlet, would divert enough traffic
from existing US 1 to alleviate congestion and truck traffic in downtown Rockingham,
S-3

thus necessitating improvements to US 1 anyway. Therefore, the NC 177 Altemative
would not satisfy the project's overall purpose and need and is eliminated from fiuther
consideration.
5.4.2 US 1 from north of Fox Road (SR 160� to Marston Road (SR 1001)
The northem termini of the proposed action is being extended from north of Fox Road
(SR 1606) to Mazston Road (SR 1001), a distance of appmximately 6 kilometers (4
miles). Beginning just north of Fox Road (SR 1606), the extension will be widened as
either a fout-lane divided section with two lanes in each direction separated by a raised
median, or as a five-lane section with two lanes in each direction and a center hun lane as
the median. For the four-lane roadway typicals, both symmetrical and non-symmetrical
widening shoulder sections are proposed in addition to a curb and gutter section within
the Nor[h Cazolina Motor Speedway azea. The proposed typical sec6ons for the five lane
section would also include either a symmetrical or non-symmetrical shoulder section and
a curb and gutter section at the speedway.
The design speed would be 1001dlometers/hour (60 mph) for the shoulder sections and
80 kilometers (50 mph) for the curb and gutter sections. The proposed right of way will
vary from the existing 30 meters (100 feet) to approximately 45 meters (148 feet). The
typical sections and the design criteria for the four-lane divided sections aze shown in
Figures 2.2, 23, and 2.4. Typical sections along with the design criteria for the five-lane
sections aze shown in Figures 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7.
S.5 Summary of Impacts (DEIS S.�
A summary of the potential impacts of the proposed extension is presented in Table S.1
and briefly described as follows:
Land Use Imnacts
Land use along the project extension was sepazated into three categories:
urban/developed, agricultural, and naturaUundisturbed uses. As shown in Table 5.1,
developed use constitutes the lazgest land use impacts by the proposed extension.
S-4

Table S.1 Summary of Impacts: US 1 Extension
Impacts
Length 61¢u (3.7 mi)
Intersections 4
Grade Sepazations 0
Relocations
Residential 2
Business 0
Non Profit 1
Fazms 0
Total 3
Acreage Required
Undisturbed Land 329 ha (8.13 ac)
Agricultural Land 0 ha (0 ac)
Developed Land 5.55 ha (13.71 ac)
Tatal 8.84 ha (21.84 ac)
Prime/Statewide Important Familand 0.28 ha (0.68 ac)
S�eam Crossings 0
StreamImpacu 0
Open Water Ympacu 0
WeUand Impacts 0.1 ha (02 ac)
Floodplain Impacts 0
Historic Property Impacts 0
Puk Impacts 0
Noise Impacts 0
Hazazdous Material Sites 0
(excluding USTs)
Right-of-Way Cost $1,670,600
Utility Cost $400,000
Construction Cost $10,900,000
Wetland Mitiga6on Cost $6,500
Total $12,977,100

Prime/Important Farmlands
The proposed widening extension would impact approximately 0.28 hectares (0.68 acres)
of statewide and local important farmlands. Based on the site assessments shown on the
Fannland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD 1006, the project extension has a total site
assessment score below 160. No mitigation for farmland loss is required for the
extension.
Relocations
The proposed extension would result in the displacement of two residential units and one
nonprofit structure. None of the relocations aze minority-owned.
Noise
There are no sensitive receptors located along existing US 1 in the project extension that
would experience future noise levels that would approach or exceed the noise abatement
criteria.
Wetlands
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands along the project extension will be unavoidable due to
construction of the impmvements to existing US 1. Based on preliminary design, the
proposed extension will impact approximately 0.1 hectazes (0.2 acres) of jurisdictional
wetlands.
Hazazdous Materials
There are six sites or facilities within the proposed extension suspected of having
involvement with above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (LTSTs)
and/or regulated materials. Most of these sites either store petroleum pmducts such as
gasoline and diesel fuels or represent auto salvage/junkyazds. It is anticipated that these
sites could either be avoided or would not prevent construction of the impmvements.
S.6 Selection of Preferred Alternative
The Corridor Public Hearing was held on September 14, 1999. After the Corridor Public
Hearing, a Project Team Meeting was held on October 28, 1999 to select the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) or Prefeired Altemative.
At the meeting, Alternative Comdor No. 21 was selected as the LEDPA. Altemative
�

Corridor No. 21 was selected as the Preferred Alternative by the North Cazolina
Depaztment of Transportation on January 3, 2000. Subsequent to the selection of the
LEDPA, there were concems about trearing the widening of existing US 1 from north of
Fox Road (SR 1606) to Marston Road (SR 1001) as a separate project or segment.
Based on this decision, it was detemuned that the widening of US 1 north of Fox Road
(SR 1606) to Mazston Road (SR 1001), which was originally part of this US 1 pmject, be
evaluated and the results included into a Supplemental Draft Envuonmental Impact
Statement (SDEIS) to the T.I.P. Project No. R-2501 pmject. In addition, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) felt it was necessary to include in the
Supplemental DEIS an evaluation of an additional preliminary altemative, the
improvement of NC 177, as an alternative to the US 1 project.
NEPA/404 Mereer Process
In accordance with the May 1, 1992, agreement between the U.S. Depardnent of
Transportation, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the North Cazolina Department of Transportation
has developed a process of operating procedures designed to improve interagency
coordination and integrate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act.
In this process, a series of steps or concurtence points have been established that will
provide a uniform progression of the project and a better understanding of specific issues
as they develop. Consensus on each step or concurrence point must be achieved by the
Project Team prior to proceeding to the next stage of the pmject. The Project Team is
established by NCDOT and FHWA in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) at the be° nning of the planning stage. The Project Team will
meet to review, discuss, and reach consensus on each concurrence point of the pmject.
Upon reaching consensus by the Project Team, the Corps will issue a written
concurrence.
The first step in this process is Concurrence Point Number 1, the Purpose of and Need for
Action. Concurrence on the purpose and need for this project was provided in the
NCDOT memorandum dated October 2, 1997, entitled "Integration of the Section 404
S-7

and NEPA process — A Team Appmach for Transportation Projects in North Cazolina."
A letter dated November 23, 1998, from the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington Dish-ict) reaffirmed their concurrence on the purpose and need for the US 1
pmject. (see Appendix A).
The second step or Concurrence Point Number 2 is the development of those alternatives
which could be considered both reasonable and feasible (that meet the purpose and need
of the pmject) for construction of the proposed acrion. A Project Team meeting was held
on September 16, 1998, to discuss refinement of the reasonable and feasible alternatives.
Corridor Segments M and N were eliminated because of their potential adverse
environmental impacts and as a result of NCDOT's decision to reconsider widening of
existing US 1 from its northern project terminus south to a point where a logical
connection could be made to a four-lane controlled access facility on new location.
Corridor B was eliminated because of environmental justice concems. The elimination
of these cortidors resulted in four build altematives remaining as "reasonable and
feasible" from the original tw+enty-seven alternatives. These alternatives (Altemate 7, 14,
21 and 24) were presented and evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS), which was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June
30, 1999.
Altematives 14 and 24 were eliminated from further consideration since they have more
impacts to the natural environment than Altematives 7 and 21. Altemative 7 was
eliminated from fiirther consideration since it has more relocations than Altemative 21.
Therefore, Alternates 7, 14 and 24 were eliminated from fixrther consideration and
Alternate 21 remains as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative for
the project.
Following review of the detailed studies for the No-Build Altemative, the Improve
Existing Facilities alternative, and the four build altemates presented in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and a formal Corridor Public Hearing, the Section
404/NEPA Merger Project Team verbally concluded on October 28, 1999, that
Alternative No. 21 was the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Altemative.
6`ID

Alternative Corridor No. 21 is described as follows and its potential impacts aze
smnmarized in Table 5.2. Alternative Corridor 21 begins south of Rockingham near
Sandhill Road (SR 1971) then follows a route north of the Loch Haven Golf Course,
continues south of the Rocldngham-Hamlet Airport, crosses US 74 east of Pineleigh
Avenue (SR 1670) and continues northeasterly and ties back to existing US 1 at Fox
Road (SR 1606). Interchanges are planned at the US 74 Bypass, Airport Road (SR 1966)
and at US 74. Grade separations aze planned at Sandhill Road (SR 1971), Hamer Mill
Road (SR 1105), Hylan Avenue (SR 1901), Wire Grass Road (SR 1640) and County
Home Road (SR 1624). At-grade intersections are planned at existing US 1 South,
existing US 1 North, Fox Road (SR 1606), Cognac Road (SR 1605), NC 177 and
Beaverdam Church Road (SR 1486).
Although Alternative Corridor No. 21 had the most merit of any of the build alternatives
considered, EPA was reluctant to concur on a LEDPA without information regarding
NC 177 as a bypass altemative. Further coordination with the Section 404/NEPA Merger
Project Team was achieved by providing subsequent documentation to both EPA and the
Cotps of Engineers conceming the feasibility of utilizing NC 177 as a bypass altemative.
NC 177 Altemarives, including those on new location, were evaluated and aze presented
in Chapter 2. Based on comments received from EPA and the Corps of Engineers, the
additional documentation satisfied their concerns that improvements to NC 177 would
not satisfy the project's purpose and need; therefore, was not a reasonable and feasible
altemative. The Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team concurred in writing on
February 15, 2001, with the "altematives to be studied in detail" in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (Concurrence Point No. 2) and with the "Altemarive
Corridor No. 21" as the Least Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Altemative for
the US 1 project (Concurrence Point No. 3) (see Project Team Meeting Agreement dated
February 15, 2001, in Appendix A).
�

Table S.2 Snmmary of Impacts
Alternative Corridor 21
Impacts
Lengths
Along New Location 22.5 lan (14 mi)
Along Existing US 1 S.S lan (5.3 mi)
Total 30.5 lan (19.3 mi)
Intersections 7
Interchanges 3
Grade Separations 5
Relocations
Residential 73
Business 17
Non Profit 1
Farnis 1
Total 92
Acreage Required
Undisturbed I.and 265 ha (655 ac)
Agricultural Land 9 ha (22 ac)
Developed I,and 79 ha (195 ac)
Total 353 ha (872 ac)
Prime/Statewide Important Farniland 100 ha (249 ac)
Streazn Crossings 10
Sheam Impacts 1,153 m(3,783 LF)
Open Water Iinpacts 1 ha (3 ac)
Wetland Impacts 22.6 ha (55.7 ac)
Floodplain Impacts I 1.1 ha (24.5 ac)
Historic Property Impacts 0
Pazk Impacts 0
Noise Im�pacts 0
� Hazazdous Material Sites 0
(excluding USTs)
Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) $2334
Ufility Cost (millions $) $1.58
Conshuction Cost (millions $) $15015
Wetland Mitigation Cost (millions $) $1.91
Sfream Mitigation Cost (millions $) $0.95
Total (millions $) $177.93

� e;
y
. U$ i
� - �o� s�nmt�.L�:�ianr� �s� ��zi�� �ro �ts�
- �c�o� co�rrY �
�EI7ERAL-AID �RQ�E�'F NO. IiTF
= STATE T'ROJEC'F NO. S�TS80'
� - , ; T�I:P� �TOF R-25f�f .
i
_�'�
•t ' �.I.i � .
e ��
i.:8.
. �
.. h � ,? °*, s
s . >t�'. +:�.:
P
�
5 a.
{ l
,. .. . .. � . . . 3.
m�.. � i ' ..� �,`°'`a
'f ,
i',F }
�,.;
�
i
^ x.:
.,
- ,
t
!. ¢
_ , %
�:.
�t Roan �s�i z:ooi) ,
1(t>-:,
%� 4
x
T- '
Z s R, '
�` e"
3 j
t .' '
" �',. �YD-:
t' �''�� ,�,
.+ - � <
k,. "
p�, 4 � _
-.
l
. i �;� lY
e: r. l x
. , .i
A t r rr
c } c � �
+e^' � t � `.�.
fy y
! �
3'_
1
)
�t,
V . i�t'•�. I •.� I
I f i
i� . ��' p ' ••._ •'.' �. � • ..
.�
}. . , . t . _ ., `, -.
. .. . . . . _. .. , . , . a , �
h
�
t i
S .R
S.
i
.
,
�' ��, '.:3 - :��
. ,
, � ., � a;; � -
, ,. . . .,. a ' <. � _:
T �t' _ , .:.:��- _ ' _ -
..
.. . , : •�f'�.L�� Y�..<rV��.l�lS.\��k.7 . � ' �_�,
� �' � i . d, C ., .} ) . ry.','�.
� „f _ . . . . . . . . �. , p�F � �. . . . .. . -.
r� ? � %',���
4 f'
Ey
� h'
... ..°." . r . ,. , ._ ...
�`#:
f .
i � i
B � . 4
i
: 'PF � .s�� .. u. . .�k
.' KL �.
i
, t`'
�S�'�., : _. _ .

SECTION
E.0
S.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAF1' EIS ERRATA INFORMATION
SUMMARY (DEIS S.1) .........................
PAGE
............................................... E-1
��1
S.1 Putpose of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement ................ S-1
S.2 Changes in Project Scope and Circumstances Since the DEIS ............................ S-2
S.3 Major Actions Proposed by North Carolina Department of Transportarion
in the Same Geographic Area (DEIS S.4) ........................................................... S-3
S.4 Alternatives Considered (DEIS S.5) ....................................................................5-3
S.4.1 Preliminary Build Altematives (DEIS 5.5.4) .......................................... S-3
S.4.2 US i from north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Marston Road (SR 1001) ... S-4
S.5 Summary of Impacts (DEIS S.6) ......................................................................... S-4
S.6 Selection of Preferred Alternative ....................................................................... S-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..
LIST OF FIGURES .............
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR (DEIS 1.0)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
.............................................................. i
...
............................................................ iv
........................................................... iv
.........................................................1-1
Description of Proposed Acrion (DEIS 1.1) ..
Project Setting (DEIS 12) .............................
Project History (DEIS 1.4) .............................
Existing Roadway System (DEIS 1.6)...........
Tr�c/Level of Service (LOS) (DEIS 1.7) ...
Safety (DEIS 1.9) ...........................................
2.0 ALTERNATIVES (DEIS 2.0) ...................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
2.1 NC 177 Alternative (DEIS 2.4) ...............................................................
2.2 Fina1 Build Altema6ves/Typical Sections/Koadway Design Criteria
(DEIS 2.5 and 2.7) ...................................................................................
2.3 Tr�c Analysis of Proposed Action (DEIS 2.8) .....................................
2.4 Cost Estimates (DEIS 2.9) .......................................................................
2.5 Preferred Altemative ................................................................................
.......... I-2
..........1-2
..........1-2
..........1-6
.......... 1-6
.......... 1-6
... 2-1
2-1
........... 2-7
........... 2-7
.......... 2-7
........ 2-16

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION
PAGE
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (DEIS 3.0) ................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Prime and Important Farmland (DEIS 3.23) ....................................................... 3-1
3.2 Hazazdous Materials (DEIS 3.2.9) ....................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters (DEIS 33.4) ......................................................... 3-5
3.3.1 Wetland Descriptions (DEIS 3.3.4.1) ......................................................3-6
33.2 Wetland Functions (DEIS 3.3.4.2) ........................................................... 3-8
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (DEIS 4.0) ................................................ 4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
,.
4.10
4.11
Land Use Impacts (DEIS 4.1) ..............................................................................4-]
Farmland Impacts (DEIS 4.2) .............................................................................. 4-1
Social Impacts (DEIS 43) ................................................................................... 4-2
4.3.1 Community Facilities (DEIS 43.3) ......................................................... 4-2
4.3.2 Social Groups Specially Benefited or Harmed (DEIS 43.5) ................... 4-2
Relocation Impacts (DEIS 4.5) ............................................................................ 4-3
Economic Impacts (DEIS 4.6) ............................................................................. 4-3
AirQuality (DEIS 4.'� ......................................................................................... 4-4
Noise(DEIS 4.8) .................................................................................................. 4-7
4.7.1 No-Build (DEIS 4.8.1) .............................................................................4-7
4.7.2 Build Altemative (DEIS 4.8.2) ................................................................ 4-8
4.73 Noise Contours (DEIS 4.83) ................................................................... 4-8
4.7.4 Noise Abatement (DEIS 4.8.4) ................................................................ 4-8
Water Resource/Water Quality Impacts (DEIS 4.9) .......................................... 4-11
Wetland Impacts (DEIS 4.10) ............................................................................ 4-12
4.9.1 Wetland Mitigation (DEIS 4.10.1) ......................................................... 4-12
4.9.2 Pernuts (DEIS 4.10.2) ............................................................................4-12
Hazardous Materials (DEIS 4.16) ...................................................................... 4-12
Summary of Environmental Consequences (DEIS 4.23) .................................. 4-13
5.0 REF'ERENCES (DEIS 5.0) ............................................................................................ 5-1
6.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGAIVIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES
OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT ............................................................................ 6-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A- Correspondence and Coordination
Appendix B - Relocation Report
Appendix C - Form AD-1000
ii

SECTION
1.1
1.2
13
2.1
2.2
23
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.2
3.3
LIST OF FIGURES
US1 Pmject Location Map ....................................................................................
US1 Project Extension ..........................................................................................
AverageDaily Traffic ............................................................................................
NC177 Altematives ..............................................................................................
Typical Section — Four Lane Divided Shoulder — Non Sytnmetrical .....................
Typical Section - Four Lane Divided C& G .........................................................
Typical Section — Four Lane Divided Shoulder Symmetrical ................................
Typical Section — Five Lane Shoulder — Non Syminetrical ...................................
Typical Section - Five Lane C& G .........................................................................
Typical Section — Five Lane Shoulder Synunetrical ...............................................
Prime, Unique & Important Fazmland .....................................................................
PAGE
......1-3
.....1-4
.....1-7
..... 2-3
..... 2-8
...... 2-9
....2-10
....2-11
.... 2-12
2-13
........ 3-2
Potenhal Hazazdous Matenal Sites .................................................................................. 3-3
WetlandAreas .................................................................................................................. 3-7
iii

LIST OF TABLES
SECTION
PAGE
S.1 Summary of Impacts: US 1 Extension ............................................................................ S-5
S.2 Surrunary of Impacts: Altemative Corridor 21 ............................................................. S-10
2.1 US 1 Widening Basic Design Criteria ...........................................................................2-14
2.2 Preliminary Cost Estimates ............................................................................................ 2-16
3.1 Potential Hazazdous Material Sites ..................................................................................3-4
4.1 Land Use Impacts ............................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Farmland Impacts ............................................................................................................. 4-2
43 Number of Relocarions .................................................................................................... 4-3
4.4 Maximum One-Hour and Eight-Hour Concentrations .................................................... 4-6
4.5 66 dBA Noise Contour Location ..................................................................................... 4-8
4.6 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................................... 414
rv

. .
r �
r ,
R + :
j `'f �y.
~ .A T{C
^ ^ VY �
. ._ ., . . , .. . <..
� ' FROil1 SANDI�ILL $�:4A (SR 1971):TO 1�IAILSTON �f7Ai) (SR:1�Odt)
t ; RICFIAfi�?ND CCSL�}Tl' :''
_ ` F�D$I�AI,:AI��PROJ��T' NO, °1.�3�'.1(1) .='
K; , ; . � ; ' S'F?,T�S PIt�JE�'T 1VfJ 8:T5$0501 �
, ,
, T`.T;P ..N(?; R-2541
. .,. ,
;: �
-1.: �: ' e s �:. ' - . ,� . 'i . 'S
't '.. '.:- P�., x .: �. ' .
.
. . . .. . ... � ' A �
. . .�. � � . .. '.:. .�- . .:..
A
:Y
. ' .s e �. . ..
d. , i- . -..., . - °
. _ �
� i � .d '� �.�-.f
x
.i �- t�' ; # [.
� f
i v 1
V. ti�. 4 7: a � ''� S $
:�
4 i f �: } ...'.; - { '._ �
�': A ', \
S 41 � 4
y . �:1
t
e t I .l
.; ; ' .� .,l �:..
I ` � �:. I.�. e '. c��' 1 .
-..1 : . ,•. . . \ ....;i ( ..�. .... . G -
n � Y .� � � d � M1
�'.:y i Y� �'s Y
�
� � � i
S� }y �i:
I -� •�
R L i
Y .
� . .. � . � . .�
F
. �... . e �..
.' �a • a, . . � . 1 >. .. � i�,
t.
f
f
1
��
2
•i •
\'
.� _
� i...
� l
'�.
y .
� � �
t
"YZ t., a ��.t
� �. f
..
� t k
P
`-: �� �.� P��J�'E �Q� �I� ,�E�� ��,R ` �
� :,..
� ;�,�"R
, ,
�� ;:x „
_ t,.:, , , , i
j.: � — ' 3
-'- � 1,. .. rv ._ ,.
.. , i... .�. . �.;
c
. � �� ��.. �- �
: � . :'. , t..` r.. . f . »'+.
"" . -. .. . -.
. . ,h. : . , . .v ... _ ..- ..
.�i ` t .
- x' . . ._ ..'z' . . , ,� �... . � , , . . 'w* � .

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR (DEIS 1.0)
The purpose of this Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) is to:
1) document those changes for the pmposed US 1 impmvements from Sandhill Road (SR
1971) to north of Fox Road (SR 1606) that have occurred since the approval of the DEIS;
2) idenrify those impacts as a result of extending the proposed project from north of Fox
Road (SR 1606) to Marston Road (SR 1001); and 3) evaluate an additional preliminary
altemative, the improvement of NC 177 from its juncture with eacisting US 1 north to the
South Carolina state line, as an alternative to the US 1 Bypass.
The extension of the pmposed widening improvements of US 1 from north of Fox Road
(SR 1606) to Marston Road (SR 1001) was originally included in the US 1 pmjecYs
inirial scope but was excluded from the DEIS approved for US 1 in June 1999. The
extension was excluded from the DEIS because NCDOT felt this section of US 1 could
be expedited through the NEPA pmcess by pmcessing this segment as either a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) or as an Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSn. However, due to concems about treating the extension as a
separate project or segment, it was decided to include the section with the original
project.
After circulation and approval of the DEIS in June, 1999, and after the Post Corridor
Hearing Meeting, the NEPA/404 Merger Project Team met to select the Least
Environxnentally Damaging Practicable Altemative (LEDPA). Although Altemative
Corridor No. 21 was verbally selected as the LEDPA or preferred corridor, the
Environmental Protecrion Agency (EPA), expressed a desire for additional
docuxnentation regazding the utilization of NC 177 as an altemative to the US 1 Bypass
and improvements. Rather than evaluate the NC 177 Alternative in a sepazate document
or wait until the submittal of the FEIS, EPA requested that the docuxnentation be included
in the Supplemental DEIS.
In accordance with the procedures for the prepazation of environmental documents as
identified in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, whenever there aze changes, new
information or fiuther developments on a project which result in significant impacts not
previously evaluated in the DEIS, a supplemental EIS is necessary.
1-1

1.1 Description of Proposed Action (DEIS 1.1)
The proposed action is to extend the widening of US 1 in Richmond Counry from north
of Fox Road (SR 1606) north of Rockingham to Mazston Road (SR 1001), a distance of
approximately 6 kilometers (3.7 miles). This portion of the US 1 project is included as a
part of project number R-2501 in the North Carolina Department of Transportation Draft
2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP establishes a schedule
for Project No. R-2501 to begin right of way acquisirion in F'Y 2005 and construction to
start in F'Y 2008.
1.2 Project Setting (DEIS 1.2)
The proposed project is located in the south central Piedmont region of North Carolina in
Richmond County, see Figure 1.1, Project Location Map. Richmond County is bordered
by Montgomery and Moore counties to the north, Scotland County to the east, the Pee
Dee River and Anson County to the west, and South Cazolina to the south. The cities of
Rockingham and Hamlet constitute the largest municipalities within Richmond County,
and generally provide the majority of employment opportunities within the county. The
improvements of existing US 1 under study begins just north of Fox Road (SR 1606) and
continues northeast along existing US 1 to Marston Road (SR 1001), see Figure 1.2,
Project Extension.
1.3 Project History (DEIS 1.4)
The planning, engineering and environmental studies for the proposed US 1 Rockingham
Bypass (T.I.P. No. R-2501) began in 1994. The purpose of the studies was to document
the human and natural environmental impacts associated with a range of altematives,
which could be considered both reasonable and feasible for consttuction of the pmposed
action. The altematives which were determined to be "reasonable and feasible", with the
exception of the extension of existing US I and the NC 177 Altemative (see Section 2.1),
are presented in the Altematives section of the DEIS and evaluated in the Envimnmental
Consequences secrion. The Technical Memorandum for the Natural Systems Report,
Phase I and Phase II Architectural Survey, Air Quality Analysis, Noise Analysis and
Hydraulic Location Report prepazed for the US 1 Rockingham Bypass included the
proposed extension of the project a]ong existing US 1 as presented in this supplemental
DEIS.
1-2

1
Figure 1.1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
US 1, TIP NO. R-2501
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RICHMOND COUNiY, NORTH CAROLINA
N
�
�
N.T.S.

�
\�
I / �
/
��couRSe !
� _ _ _
� RAIIROAD
�
�. .
/
����
_-- �
-J
t
(tARR��D /
�
s
�
�
GAME
(q�� / .
i
/
/
i /��
/� r,SANDHILLS C,AME LAND�
• �
/
,'
1
�
/�
..
��vuvv �
ALT. 21 ; ,. ;
- �
US 1 EXTENSION �
i000 o soo i000
I
GRAPHIC SCALE IN METERS
�
/
�-=� j
�� .
�o �q, ,__�
n� �
`r
i
L_
, �_ -- `
^`-' ���
N
W
Z
a
oz
��
w
�
�
�
Figure 1.2
PROJECT EXTENSION
US 1, TIP ND. R-2501
SUPPLEMENTAL
DRAF7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RICHMOND COUNlY, NORTH CAROLINA

1.4 Esisting Roadway System (DEIS 1.�
US 1 is a two-lane shoulder section fi-om north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Cognac Road
(SR 1605). Fmm Cognac Road to the NC 177/US 1 intersection, US 1 is a three-lane
shoulder section with the center lane used for two-way left huns. US 1 is a three-lane
shoulder section with two-lanes northbound and one lane southbound from NC 177 to
Mazston Road (SR 1001).
There is no control of access along US 1 within the proposed extension azea. US 1
intersects with Cognac Road (SR 1605), L. G. Dewitt Road (SR 1536), NC 177,
Beaverdam Church Road (SR 1486), and Marston Road (SR 1001). The five
intersections along this secrion of US 1 aze all at-gade and are stop sign controlled, with
the stop occurring on the cross street.
1.5 Traffic/Level of Service (LOS) (DEIS 1.'n
The 1994 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on US 1 in the pmposed extension area
range from 3,700 vehicles per day (vpd) to 5,560 vpd, see Figure 13, Average Daily
Traffic. Existing traffic data indicates that US 1 is currently operating at a level of
service (LOS) C during peak traffic hours. When special events are held at the North
Carolina Motor Speedway and on summer weekends when vacation traffic increases,
levels of service decrease. By 2020, average daily traffic on this section of US 1 neaz
Rockingham is projected to range from 7,280 vpd to 11,020 vpd and will experience a
LOS D or worse during peak hours.
1.6 Safety (DEIS 1.9)
Even though the total accident rate for the proposed extension (97.06 ACC/MVK) is less
than the statewide average for all US routes (124.27 ACC/MVK), 32.26% of the tota131
accidents that occurred from September 1, 1994 thmugh June 3Q 1997 were "rear-end"
accidents resulting from slowed or stopped traffic. Multi-laning this section of US 1 with
provisions for ]eft turn lanes should eliminate the majority of these types of accidents.
1-6

�..
��
�'.
. �;
�'
�
�.
I
1
�A
l.i
1
A'
��ta�r 5
y � �'i:.
�
;n :
�;.i. "`n.. r
4
s.
s i
�
_ r
R
^� [ :
�
5 f
i 4
c
5
s
r n
n
rf .
i
S
, . �'
,,,:a
e
I.< '',
'
i - t a
r
p- r� �^.
k +a n
�S,_
: 5 ... "i
Y A T S
; 4 j i.0
�
' yY
X
. : � .- }�.'.: ? { ' _
Y� a L �
i ..
� . . .
Sy= "-
� t'IY!
(n
.1
l kq �j
4
4L ,A
�r .
` .
..> . .,.. .` t ` . .:.
- ; 2,t�. A►T�`T�RNAT'IVES _ `
.::
�
.
-,
:

2.0 ALTERNATIVES (DEIS 2.0)
The DEIS identified four build altematives. For all four altematives, the proposed
extension of the US 1 widening from north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Marston Road (SR
1001) is identical. Included in this chapter is a description of an additional preliminary
altemative, a description of the proposed extension, a description of the preferred
alternarive or Least Environmenta7ly Damaging Pracrical Altemative (LEDPA), and a
discussion of additional roadway chazacteristics and costs.
2.1 NC 177 Alternative (DEIS 2.4)
Improvements to existing NC 177 from its juncture with existing US 1 to the South
Carolina state line were examined as an alternative to the construction of a US 1 Bypass.
NC 177 is a three-lane, rural roadway with one travel lane in each d'uection and a center
tum lane from the intersecrion at US 1 to the intersection of Fox Road (SR 1606). NC
177 becomes a two-lane highway at Fox Road and continues south with two lanes to Pine
Street in Hamlet. NC 177 transitions back to a three-lane facility with a center tum lane
at Pine Street and continues unril existing US 74. NC 177 is a two-lane highway from
US 74 south to the South Cazolina line. NC 177 generally runs parallel to the CSX
railroad that travels from South Carolina through Richmond County and the City of
Hamlet, and into Moore County. The location of the CSX railroad restricts the possibility
of widening NC 177 to the east.
The NC 177 Altemative would include a bypass of the Town of Hamlet on new location.
Existing land use along NC 177 through Hamlet consists primarily of dense, single-
family residential and a few commercial businesses, mostly concentrated near the
intersection of existing US 74. Widening existing NC 177 through Hamlet would result
in the acquisition and relocation of approximately 87 residences and 2 businesses,
including those located in the community of Dobbins Heights. Also, unlike a new
location alternative, it is not reasonable to acquire full control of access on a widening
alternarive, thus limiting the effectiveness of the facility to operate as a bypass.
Improvements to NC 177 thmugh Hamlet would severely disrupt the overall chazacter of
tlris area and could result in disproportionate adverse impacts to the minority community
of Dobbins Heights. It is estimated that approximately 26 residences would be impacted
within the community of Dobbins Heights. Other ]and use concerns include potential
economic impacts to the Pine Hills Industrial Park located just north of Dobbins Heights,
2-1

potentia] adverse impacts associated with Hamlet City Park, and impacts to the Hamlet
Housing Authority development located just east of NC 177 near Winona Avenue.
Therefore, based on the number of potential residential and business relocations, social
impacts to the town of Hamlet and its neighboring communities, and the potential
economic impacts to exisring highway — related businesses including those in the Hamlet
business district, widening existing NC 177 through Hamlet was not considered to be a
reasonable or feasible alternative. Consequently, widening the entire portion of NC 177
through Richmond County cannot be considered as an altemative to the proposed US 1
Bypass.
As an altemative to widening the entire portion of NC 177, consideration was given to
utilizing two segments of NC 177 located outside the city limits of Hamlet (see Figure
2.1). These areas inc]ude the section from just north of Dobbins Heights to the
intersection of NC 177 and US 1 north (NC 177 North Alternate) and the section of NC
177 south of Hamlet (NC 177 South Alternate). As was the case for selecting alternatives
for the US 1 Bypass, one of the major determining factors in developing a reasonable and
feasible altemative is the location of a possible interchange with existing US 74. Since
the presence of the extensive CSX railmad yards and the town of Hamlet preclude an
altemative east of NC 177, the most logical ]ocation for an interchange with US 74 would
be located west of NC 177 and outside the limits of residential and commercial
development within Hamlet. This area was originally evaluated in ffie Route Location
Study for the US 1 Rockingham Bypass and eventually recommended as part of the
"preferred altemative," Corridor No. 21. The location of this potential interchange area
was agreed to by representarives of the cities of Rockingham and Hamlet as the most
logical location for an existing US 74 interchange.
When comparing the segment of NC 177 south of Hamlet with the segment of US 1 south
of Rockingham, both segments carry a relatively low amount of existing and projected
traffic demand. As evidenced by existing traffic volumes (shown on Figure 23 in Tra�c
Forecasts for US l, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., December 1994), the segment of
US 1 has the higher voluxne indicating that the US 1 facility is being utilized more than
2-2

V
\
� �Z
J
O
o�
ra
U
� �
O
N
�
�
\
-��J
/
�
1103
J
104
�� �
U� /OV�
= 2
�
Q�
�
�
_-:;.:x::2:'.>.>_`, , 1705
. /
,
,
� CWRSE r- _.
° 1994
e �Rq1, �a6 .
`�b�� p�P /
G'yf
� �
TO TO
WADESBORO� ASHEBORO
O �
�1 ��1 �4 .
� , z
o � � ��
� � � � ��
\ . e
�
a
o d ,l� - � — — ,
� .
�
0
�: ��
♦ a��
, m °y
�
� ��
$
1 ; ��
,
N,
1136 1 '
1
\ � �
�� I��
i
�
l .� a
� 1915 ,
\
\
Ls�3-��" ,� �i[ • � �
_ _ ��,� .�. ' ,�,)
� - �� ' � .
�� ~' � /�� • f` :
- -_ - -��� � � _`���'.
�/% /` <�,F � ~ -
� � � � ����■
r s!l���� � �
�r►n \��1�1--
� �. � �•• 't; ----,-.�� +�
� - �%_�`�r'r���i� \ 1�!i
/-
/�/� '/// �.. ��.� �l'l \�\
�
; ,i��� ;- � -� � �.��A:
�
' "�i' / P,� ��
/ � ���
��•�� � _ � ` i • , �
� ��� -
SR
F
q�G,yc
�'� �RFF/r
�

existing NC 177. It can also be assumed that h-actor-trailer traffic is utilizing US 1 South,
since truck traffic on US 1 can divert to the four-lane NC 220 before reaching
Rockingham, while truck traffic on NC 177 must negotiate the two-lane roadway and
traffic signal restrictions thmugh Hamlet.
A potential altemative to the proposed Alternative 21 corridor, a westem bypass of
Hamlet, would begin at the interchange of NC 177 and the US 74 Bypass and would
require the alternative to intersect existing US 74 in the same interchange location as
Altemative No. 21. Tlus would lengthen the pmject appmximately 3.1 kilometers (1.9
miles) and increase potential construction and right of way costs. 1n addition, this
alternative would require a number of residential relocations, some of which are located
within the city limits of Hamlet. It was estimated that the NC 177 South Alternative
would impact appmximately 65 residences and 3 businesses between the US 74 Bypass
and Hylan Avenue (SR 1909). Based on National Wetland Inventory (NWn mapping,
this alternative would cross a jurisdictional wetland associated with a smal] hibutary of
Matks Creek and is estimated to impact approximately 8.75 hectares (21.6 acres) of
weUands. Due to the addirional length of this alternative as well as potential relocation
and wetland impacts, this altemative was considered to be less desirable than the
Altemative No. 21 corridor.
The most logical altemative that utilizes existing NC 177 north of Hamlet would continue
northeast from County Home Road (SR 1624) after intersecting with existing US 74 and
rie into NC 177 approximately 1.3 Idlometers (0.81 miles) north of Ponderosa Drive. The
distance on new location from where the NC 177 Altemative diverges from Alternative
Corridor No. 21 to just north of Ponderosa Drive is approximately 4.5 kilometers (2.8
mi]es). This altemative would cross several small creeks and tributaries and two
jurisdictional weUands associated with Coming Pond and Whitlock Pond. It is estimated
that approximately 12.9 hectares (31.9 acres) of wetland would be impacted by this
altemative. Residential relocations (10) would be minor as residences in this azea are few
and widely scattered. The location of this altemative may limit the future expansion of
the Pine Hills Industrial Pazk, since the bypass would be a controlled access facility and
no interchanges are currently proposed in this area.
2-5

From just north of Ponderosa Drive and continuing north to US 1, widening of NC 177
would occur to the west to avoid the CSX railroad. The approxunate length of this
section of NC 17'7 is 7.0 Idlometers (4.3 miles). Social and environmental impacts are
anticipated to be minor, as NC 177 has already been widened to a three-lane facility from
Fox Road to US 1 north. However, it is estimated there would be approximately 21
residential and 3 business relocations and potential impacts to a jurisdictional wetland
associated with a tributary to Chock Creek near Cognac. In all likelihood, ttus altemative
would require additional right of way from the North Carolina Motor Speedway just
south of US 1. This NC 177 North Altemarive is similaz to Corridor Segment M, which
was eliminated and is documented on page 2-18 in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Corridor M was eliminated from further evaluation based on concerns by the
regulatory agencies and the general public. This decision was reached because of the
environmental impacts (wetlands; plant and animal habitat loss), human impacts
(relocations) associated with Segment M, and the need for improvements to existing
US 1.
From a regional overview, it appears that US 1 and NC 177 both serve a similaz function
from their juncture just north of the NC Motor Speedway until both US 1 and NC 177
intersect SC 9 neaz Wallace, South Carolina. The primary difference being that US 1
serves Rockingham while NC 177 serves the town of Hamlet. Based on ttus perspective,
it can be rationalized that existing NC 177, or at least the northern section of NC 177,
would already be serving as a bypass or alternative for those motorists desiring to avoid
traffic in downtown Rockingham. However, future traffic projections do not support this
assumprion since 2020 ADT volumes on existing US 1 south of NC 177 both with and
without the proposed US 1 Bypass traffic are over 60 percent higher than traffic volumes
pmjected for NC 177 south of US 1. Therefore, it is likely that improvements to NC 177
(widening and/or a bypass of Hamlet to the west or to the east) would not divert enough
traffic from existing US 1 to alleviate congestion and truck traffic in downtown
Rockingham, thus necessitating improvements to US 1 anyway. 1n conclusion, the NC
177 Alternative would not satisfy the projecYs overall purpose and need and is no longer
considered for further evaluation.
2-6

2.2 Final Build Altematives/Typical Sections/Roadway Design Criteria (DEIS 2.5 and
2.'n
The Build Alternative consists of widening the existing roadway to a four lane divided
section or a five lane section from north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Mazston Road
(SR 1001). The four-lane divided section would consist of two lanes in each direction
separated by a raised 5.3 meter (17.5 foot) median, while the five lane section would
consist of two lanes in each direction with a center tum lane. The design speed would be
100 kilometers/hour (60 mph) for the shoulder sections and 80 kilometers (50 mph) for
the curb and gutter sections. The proposed right-of-way will vary from the existing 30
meters (100 feet) to approximately 45 meters (148 feet). The typical sections for the
four-lane divided sections aze shown on Figures 2.2, 23 and 2.4, and the five lane
sections are shown on Figures 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7. The design criteria for the four-lane
divided section and the five-lane section is shown on Table 2.1.
2.3 Traffic Analysis of Proposed Action (DEIS 2.8)
The results of the traffic analysis conducted for the pmposed extension of US 1
improvements from north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Marston Road (SR 1001) indicate
this secrion would operate at a level of service (LOS) A as either a four-lane divided
expressway or as a five-lane section. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the
procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCl�, Special Report 209,
Chapter 7, "Multilane Rural and Suburban Highways." The analysis was performed
using the highway capacity software (HCS), Multilane Highways Release 2.3d. A
signalized intersection analysis was also conducted for the intersection of US 1 and NC
177 with yeaz 2020 traffic and the results indicate the intersection would operate at LOS
B.
2.4 Cost Estimates (DEIS 2.9)
Estimated construction and right-of-way costs aze presented in Table 2.2. Right-of-way
costs include the costs of relocating residences, businesses and general land acquisition.
2-7

(30')
SLOPE
�
����) � �Z4�)
5 m 0.45
c,.5•> c,.5��
2R
+4.0 m(13') WHERE GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED
7.2 m 3.0 m 5.4 i
�24�) ����) ��8�)
� i4'>"1f
2.S _ � � I
_---__-���
FOUR LANE DIVIDED SHOULDER SECTION
NON—SYMMETRICAL WIDENING EXISTING FACILITY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
DESIGN YEAR(2020) ADT: 6.880 TO 9.280
DESIGN YEAR 24hrq TRUCKS: 9.4�
DESIGN SPEED: 700 km/h (60 mp� MAXIMUM GRADE: 4�
MINIMUM RADIUS: 400 m(1.312.3 ft� VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 5.0 m(16.4 f�
SUPERELEVATION: RATE OF VERTICAL CURVATURE:
e(MAX): 0.70 CREST: K= 105 (DESIRABLE�
L MIN: 140 m(459.3 ft) SAG: _ K= 51 (DESIRABLE�
1.8 m 3.0 m
(6') i���)
SLOPE

PROP
0.6
�2�)
(50')
��
20.9 m
(69.5')
4�) (17.5')
GRADE
POINT 5 m0.45
(1.5') (1.5�
' ' 2R I I EXISTING SLOPE
EXISTING
_ � _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-------- 6 �-� -----------�
���* � REMOVE �
— — — _ — — _ _ ry I EXISTING PAVEMENT I
VARIABLE SLOPE
DESIGN CRITERIA:
PROP
75 m R�
(50')
m 3.0 m
� (10')
0.6 m
�2�) �.Py'�
T�
J f1PC ZR
FOUR LANE DIVIDED CURB & GUTTER SECTION
WIDENING EXISTING FACILITY
DESIGN YEAR(2020) ADT: 7.280 TO 9.280
DESIGN YEAR 24hr90 TRUCKS: 9•4%
DESIGN SPEED: _80 kmL(50 �h) MAXIMUM GRADE: 4�
MINIMUM RADIUS: 250 m(820.2 ft� VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 5.0 m(16.4 ftZ
SUPERELEVATION: RATE OF VERTICAL CURVATURE:
e(MAX): 0.06 CREST: K= 49 (DESIRABLE)
L MIN: 77 m(253.6 ft� SAG: K= 32 (DESIRABLE�
SLOPE
• HOMEOWNER MA%. MOWABLE SLOPE 4:1

DESIGN CRITERIA:
F'74]»
����) � i24�)
['Y�
�
I
5 m 0.45
- ���5�) �1.5') -
r REMOVE �
f 7
EXISTING PAVEMENT
• 4.0 m(13'0 WFIERE GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED
m 3.0 m 5.4 m ��B �^ 3.0 m
) (10') ��8�) (6') � � �
2
�4 )�
2S /6: 7 . ,
FOUR LANE DIVIDED SHOULDER SECTION
SYMMETRICAL WIDENING EXISTING FACILITY
DESIGN YEAR(2020) ADT: 6.880 TO 9.280
DESIGN YEAR 24hr� TRUCKS: 9.4%
DESIGN SPEED: 100 km/h (60 mph� MAXIMUM GRADE: 4%
MINIMUM RADIUS: 400 m(1.372.3 ft� VERTICAL CLEARANCE: _ 5.0 m,_(16.4 ft�
SUPERELEVATION: RATE OF VERTICAL CURVATURE:
e(MAX): 0.10 CREST: K= 105 (DESIRABLEZ
L MIN: 740 m(459.3 ft� SAG: K= 51 (DESIRABLE)
SLOPE

�
SLOPE
����)
2R
+4.0 m(73') WFIERE GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED
9.0 m
2R I
—��_—_
EXI571NG PAVEMENT
FIVE LANE SHOULDER SECTION
NON—SYMMETRICAL WIDENING EXISTING FACILITY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
DESIGN YEAR(2020) ADT: 6.880 TO 9.280
DESIGN YEAR 24hr% TRUCKS: 9•4%
DESIGN SPEED: 100 km/h f60 mp� MAXIMUM GRADE: 4%
MINIMUM RADIUS: 400 m(1,372.3 ft� VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 5.0 m(16.4 ft�
SUPERELEVATION: RATE OF VERTICAL CURVATURE:
e(MAX): 0.10 CREST: K= 105 �DESIRABLE�
L MIN: 140 m(459.3 ft� SAG: K= 51 (DESIRABLE�
S.Om 5.4m ��8�^ 3.0
����) ��8�) (6') i10
,� ��� s: t ..,
F9S�7,7

PROP
(50')
(64')
3.0 m
n o�)
0.6 m PROFILE
ZR � E7(ISTING SIOPE — — —POINT
(Z')
EXISTING
— 6:\ --_— —
_--__—_ ,`�p}l I ------_----�
� EXISTING PAVEMENT �
— — — — r
VARIABLE SLOPE
DESIGN CRITERIA:
DESIGN YEAR(2020) ADT: 7.280 TO 9.280
DESIGN YEAR 24hr% TRUCKS: 9.4�
DESIGN SPEED: 80 k�h (50 m�hL MAXIMUM GRADE: 4�
PROP
R/W
15 m
(50')
3.0 m
c�o•>
0.6 m
.
�y� , �p�Fl
ti
JPE ZR c� 1
FIVE LANE CURB & GUTTER SECTION
WIDENING EXISTING FACILITY
MINIMUM RADIUS: - 250 m(820.2 ft) VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 5.0 m(16.4 ft�
SUPERELEVATION: RATE OF VERTICAL CURVATURE:
e(MAX): 0.06 CREST: K= 49 (DESIRABLEZ
L MIN: 77 m(253.6 ft� SAG: K= 32 (DESIRABLE�
s�oae
• HOMEOWNER MAX. MOWABLE SLOPE 4:1

9.0 m
VARIABLE SLOPE
DESIGN CRITERIA:
2S
�
n 9.0 m
(30')
GRADE
POINT
� 2R
_ — — — — _ _ — — _ — �
EXISTING PAVEMENT
• 4.0 m(13'0 WFiERE GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED
FIVE LANE SHOULDER SECTION
SYMMETRICAL WIDENING EXISTING FACILITY
DESIGN YEAR(2020) ADT: 6.880 TO 9.280
DESIGN YEAR 24hr� TRUCKS: 9.4�
DESIGN SPEED: 100 km/h (60 mph� MAXIMUM GRADE: 4%
MINIMUM RADIUS: 400 m(1.312.3 ft� VERTICAL CLEARANCE: 5.0 m(16.4 ft
SUPERELEVATION: RATE OF VERTICAL CURVATURE:
e(MAX): 0.10 CREST: K= 105 (DESIRABLE�
L MIN: 740 m L59.3 ftL SAG: K= 51 (DESIRABLE�
3.0 m 5.4 m ��B �^ 3.0
����) ��8�) (6') i10
)
�6:1 ..�
VARIABLE SLOPE

TABLE 2.1
US 1 Widenin Basic Desi Criteria 4-Lane Divided Section
CRITERIA RECOMNIENDED STANDARD
METRIC ENGLISH
Type ofFacility Expressway Expressway
Type of Terrain Rolling Rolling
Number of Lanes 4 Lane Divided 4 Lane Divided
Design Vehicle WB 15 WB 50
Design Speed — Shoulder Section 1001ffn/hr 60 mph
Design Speed — Curb & Gutter Section 801an/hr 50 mph
Horizontal Alignment:
• Min. radius Shoulder Section 400 m 1,3123 ft
• Maat. Se rate Shoulder Section 0.10 m/m 0.10 ft/ft
• Min. radius C& G Section 250 m 820.2 ft
• Maac. Se rate C& G Section 0.06 m/m 0.06 ft/ft
Vertical Alignment:
• Maximum grade 4% 4%
• Min. stopping sight distance 205 m 650 ft
Shoulder Section
• Desirable crest vertical "K" factor 105 310
Shoulder Section
• Desirable sag vertical "K" factor 51 160
Shoulder Section
• Min. stopping sight distance 139.4 m 475 ft
Curb & Gutter Section
• Desirable crest vertical "K" factor 49 160
Curb & Gutter Section
• Desirable sag vertical "K" factor 32 110
Curb & Gutter Section
Pavement Width 7.2 m each direction 24 ft each direction
(3.6 m standard lane width) (12 ft standazd lane
width
Median Width: 53 m 17.5 ft
Shoulder Widths:
• Outside 3.0 m 10 ft
• Median Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter
Paved Shoulder Widths:
• Outside 12 m 4 ft
Right-of-Way Width
• Width (Varies) 30 m to 60 m 100 ft to 200 ft
• Control of Access Driveway Driveway
I,evel of Service A A

TABLE 2.1 (cont)
US 1 Widenin Basic Desi Criteria 5-Lane Section
CRITERIA RECOMMENDED STANDARD
METRIC ENGLISH
Type ofFacility Multilane Multilane
Type of Temain Rolling Rolling
Number of Lanes 5 Lanes 5 Lanes
Design Vehicle WB 15 WB 50
Design Speed — Shoulder Section 1001an/hr 60 mph
Design Speed — Curb & Gutter Section 801an/hr 50 mph
Horizontal Alignment:
• Min. radius Shoulder Section 400 m 1,3123 ft
• Max. Se rate Shoulder Section 0.10 m/m 0.10 ft/ft
• Min. radius C& G Section 250 m 820.2 ft
• Max. Se rate C& G Section 0.06 m/m 0.06 ft/ft
Vertical Alignment:
• Maacimum grade 4% 4%
• Min. stopping sight distance 205 m 650 ft
Shoulder Section
• Desirable crest vertical "K" factor 105 310
Shoulder Section
• Desirable sag vertical "K" factor 51 160
Shoulder Section
• Min. stopping sight distance 139.4 m 475 ft
Cwb & Gutter Section
• Desirable crest vertical "K" factor 49 160
Curb & Gutter Section
• Desirable sag vertical "K" factor 32 110
Curb & Gutter Section
Pavement Width 7.2 m each direction 24 ft each direction
(3.6 m standazd lane width) (12 ft standazd lane
width
Shoulder Widths:
• Outside 3.0 m 10 ft
Paved Shoulder Widths:
• Outside 1.2 m 4 ft
Right-of-Way Width
• Width (Varies) 30 m to 60 m 100 ft to 200 ft
• Control ofAccess Driveway Driveway
Level of Service A A

TABLE 2.2
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Costs Thousand $
Right-of-way $1,670,600
Utilities $400,000
Construction $10,900,000
Wetland Mitigation $6,500
Total $12,977,100
2.5 Preferred Alternative
On February 15, 2001, the Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team concurred that
"Alternative Corridor No. 21" is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Altemative (LEDPA). Since the proposed extension of the US 1 widening from north of
Fox Road (SR 1606) to Marston Road (SR 1001) is identical for all of the build
alternates, there are no changes or additional impacts that will affect the designation of
Corridor No. 21 as the Preferred Altemative by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
2-16

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (DEIS 3.0)
This section presents a descriptive inventory and evaluation of the existing social,
economic, cultural, physical and natural environment of the pmject extension area
which was not included in the June 1999 DEIS. This background information wiil
serve as a basis for determining the specific impacts of the proposed action presented in
Chapter 2 of this report.
3.1 Prime and Important Farmland (DEIS 3.2.3)
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR 568) requires that for all lughway
projects involving federal action, the impact of land acquisition and construction
activities must be considered regazding prime and statewide important fazmland, as
defined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Based on information
provided by the NRCS, soils within the project extension area which aze considered to
be prime, unique, and important fazmland aze shown in Figure 3.1.
Prime fazmland is defined as "that land best suited for producing food, feed, fiber,
forage, and oil seed crops". These soils aze favorable for all major crops common to
the country, have a favorable growing season, and receive the moisture needed to
produce high yields on an average of eight out of every ten years. Land that is already
in or committed to urban development or water storage is not included. Fazmland of
state and local importance is defined as "soils important for agriculture as determined
by the appropriate state or local govemment agency." Coordination with the NRCS
was initiated by submitting Form AD 1006 -"Farmland Conversion Impact Rating."
The NRCS responded by completing this form and providing a relative value of
fazmland that may be converted by each aIternative (See form in Appendix B).
3.2 Hazardous Materials/Storage Tanks (DEIS 3.2.9)
A review of the US 1 project extension area was conducted for the purpose of
identifying potential sources of regulated, toxic and/or hazazdous materials and sites
known to use, store, treat, transport and/or dispose of such materials. The review
consisted of a drive-through reconnaissance of the area and a limited review of
avai]able environment regulatory agency data sources. Potential hazazdous material
sites and undergound and above ground storage tanks (USTs and ASTs) located within
the extension azea are shown in Figure 3.2 and aze described in Table 3.1.
3-1

TABLE 3.1
POTENTraT,
�7,_ARnOUS MATERIAL/UST/AST SITES
US 1, R-2501
Site #& Facility Name Location Potential Environmental Concern
Ken's Auto Parts
(29) Pit Stop gas starion
(30) North Carolina Motor
Speedway
(31) Pitt Road gas st;
(32) Unoccupied gas
station
(33) Highway Constructors
Inc.
US 1 North � Regulated
US 1 North � Possible USTs; no
US 1/NC 177 � USTs, regulated materials
US 1/NC 177 I USTs
US 1 North � Possible USTs
US 1 North � Possible ASTs, USTs
materials
found
The drive-through reconnaissance was conducted in September, 1995 in search of
locations with visible evidence of potential environmental concerns. The results of
the field reconnaissance revealed that within the extension area, a total of six sites or
facilities were suspected of having involvement with above-ground storage tanks
(ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or regulated materials. These
facilities can be a source of soil and water contamination for metals, solvents, and
petroleum hydrocarbons.
The results of the research conducted in reviewing various regulatory agency data
sources for hazardous material sites aze summarized as follows:
A current database of underground storage tank registrations for Richmond County
indicated registrarion information for seven (7) facilities within the subject alignment.
Additionally, seven (7) facilities observed during the reconnaissance are suspected of
having one or more USTs on-site. However, either no registration information was
located for these tanks based on the current facility name (or absence thereof for
abandoned facilities), or none was required by law.
3-4

A current listing of leaking underground storage tank (LUS'1� reported incidents for
Richmond County indicated no LUST incidents were within the subject alignment.
Any of the aforementioned facilities suspected of having on-site USTs, also have the
potential for a LUST incident. A review was conducted of a current lisring of facilities
which have been issued identification numbers by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This
database is a listing of faciliries which generate, treat, transport, store and/or dispose of
hazardous waste. No facilities involved with hazardous waste were located within the
subject extension.
A review of the North Carolina Superfund Branch Federal Site List, List of InacGve
Sites, and the North Carolina National Prioriries List (NPL) revealed no potential,
inactive, or national priority sites within the subject eactension. Current editions of the
North Carolina Inactive Sites Inventory, Active Peimitted Solid Waste Landfills, and
the North Cazolina Solid Waste Division, Open Dumps Inventory lists were reviewed.
No landfills or solid waste facilities were located within the subject extension.
3.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters (DEIS 3.3.4)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into
"Waters of the United States". Although the principal administrative agency of the
CWA is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the COE has major responsibility
for implementation, pemutting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The COE
regulatory prograzn is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams aze subject to jurisdictional
consideration under the Section 404 pmgram. However, by regulation, wetlands are
also considered "waters of the United States". Wetlands aze defined as:
Those azeas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and
similar areas. [33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)]
3-5

COE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and evidence of wetland hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination.
Former wetlands which appeaz to be actively cultivated or utilized for the production of
fann commodifies may be "prior converted" (PC) croplands and not subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the CWA. Recent federal guidanCe
outlined in the Interagency Statement of Principles Concerning Federal Wetlands
Programs on Agricultural Lands dated 23 August 1993 indicates that the NRCS will be
responsible for jurisdictional determinarions on farmland. PC cropland has been
defined as wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically
altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985,
to the extent they no longer exhibit important wetland values (Section 512.15 of the
National Food Security Act Manual, August 1988). Any PC designations will require
confirmation with local NRCS officials during delineation phases of this project;
however, discussion with NRCS officials indicates only one field within Richmond
County currenUy has PC status and one field is under consideration.
3.3.1 Wetland Descriptions (DEIS 3.3.4.1)
Jurisdictional wetlands within the extended project corridor are primarily palustrine in
nature, as defined in Cowardin et al. (1979), and as identified on NWI mapping. Some
wetland systems aze deSned as palustrine but are hydrologically riverine influenced.
Wetland systems vary in vegetative composition, depending on hydrological regime
and site specific disturbances. All wetlands within the extended pmject corridor (see
Figure 3.3) have been disturbed and altered to some extent, so special modifiers
denoting particular disturbance factors have not been utilized in this classification
scheme except where necessary to dif%rentiate communities. Four wetland types were
identified, palustrine forested, palustrine scrub-shrub, palustrine unconsolidated bottom,
and palustrine emergent. Each of these community types were discussed in the June
1999 DEIS.
3-6

I
� ���
,`
�
A
�
FMGj
� �i
I
�
�
� ` E
�
z
�— �
U
�
�
o p�.+,
fS
1
1
N�1
�ZI
'JJ"
1
pWl
Z��
(n C� �
r
�
�
�
.
/
���
•
•�
.
�
O
�
�
0
�
►'���
0
Z
Q
J
W
g
Q
C7
�
J
J
2
�
�
� �
M �
� �
�L �
�
�,��
�z
��
0
^ ��
O (/l V
b
��a�
Zf0
p W Z
,� � J
JH �
0.awZ
����
,�NZU
y �o
a w�
S
U
� �
�
� i�� �'�
�s � ♦
� �,
��, �,i
� ��,i
�
�
�
Oy
Od
\�,�bd
U
Q
Z
C'3

3.3.2 Wetiand Functions (DEIS 3.3.4.2)
A functional assessment of wetland systems present within the extended project
corridor was conducted using the Guidance for Rating the Yalues of Wetlands in North
Carolina.• Fourth Yersion, developed by DWQ (DENR 1995). The procedure rates
wetlands according to six functional attributes: water storage, bank/shoreline
stabilizarion, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and
recreationaUeducational value. Attributes are weighted to enhance the results in favor
of water quality functions. Pollutant removal is weighted to be the most important
wetland attribute, while water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, and aquatic life
functions aze given equal weight as secondary attributes, and wildlife habitat and
recreation/education functions aze given minimal credit. The ratinQs of the six
attributes aze summed to pmvide a score for each wetland system. Scores range from 0
to 100; higher scores indicate higher wetland values. The DWQ rating system was
applied to the wetlands along US 1 north within the extended corridor and the score
was 38, indicating a low to medium value.
�

4
1 y:iY b �. ..,.�...:�.
�V
x
[
�
� , e J
� �..r ..., .: i.. .. y .�... . .
,1
'.�': . �� t i r ;::1 }
i
P.Wi L. - t :�<
� Y
� �.� � �1'�V��2.+�l�T�IIEI�'� CQfiTSEQ��TCES
� .. r � -
, ... ..: . : ,.
;. . , -:.:.
. : �. �, , _ - . : : - .
:
, _ . , .

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (DEIS 4.0)
This section evaluates the additional specific impacts, both beneficial and adverse,
associated with the construction of the proposed project extension improvements of
existing US 1. The environmental consequences of the proposed project extension will
include those impacts on the economic, social, cultival, physical and natural
environment as described in Section 3, Affected Environment in this SDEIS and in the
June 1999 DEIS.
4.1 Land Use Impacts (DEIS 4.1)
The land use impacts for the project extension aze shown in Table 4.1. For comparative
purposes, land use in the study area was divided into three sepazate categories:
urban/developed, agricultural and naturaUundishubed uses. As shown in Table 4.1,
developed use consritutes the largest land use impacts by the proposed project.
4.2 Farmland Impacts (DEIS 4.2)
In accordance with the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and state
Executive Order 96, the impact of the proposed project extension on prune, unique and
statewide/local important farmlands was determined. As required by the FPPA,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms (US Department of Agiculture Form AD-
1006) were completed and processed for the project extension (see Appendix C).
In order to determine the overall impact on farmlands, the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) assigns ratings based on a relative value of the fazmland
that would be converted by the proposed pmject. For those sites receiving a total score
of less than 160, minimal consideration for protection is given. Sites receiving a rating
of 160 or more should be provided with the ma�timum consideration for protection
including avoidance, if possible. Based upon the site assessments shown on the
Fannland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD 1006, the project extension has a tota]
site assessment score below 160. Therefore, no mitigation for fazmland loss is required
for the project.
4-1

��� Impacts based on preliminary design.
4.3 Social Impacts (DEIS 4.3)
The construction of the impmvements to the project extension along existing US 1 will
result in both social and economic changes in the study atea. However, since access
will be maintained for all existing adjacent properties, these changes aze anticipated to
be minor. The impacts that were addressed include changes in neighborhood and
community cohesion, travel pattems and accessibility, impacts on community facilities
(e.g. schools, churches, businesses, recreation areas; emergency services), highway
safety, and impacts on general social groups such as elderly, handicapped, nondrivers,
transit-dependent, and minority and ethnic groups.
4.3.1 Community Facilities (DEIS 4.3.3)
Impacts on community facilities due to the construction of improvements to existing
US 1 are expected to be minor. There aze no schools, churches, parks (including the
Sandhills Game Land) or fire stations anricipated to be displaced and access to and
from these facilities should actually be improved resulting in shorter h�avel times and
delay. Construction of the project will allow law enforcement officials and the fire
depar[ment to travel faster and respond more efficiently to emergency situations within
the extension area.
4.3.2 Social Groups Specially Benefited or Harmed (DEIS 4.3.5�
In accordance with Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations" federal agencies aze mandated to
determine whether a proposed action or pmject will have an adverse or disproportionate
impact on minority and/or low-income populations. EO 12898 also mandates federal
agencies to ensure that members or representatives of a potentially affected community
have the opportunity to provide their input regazding the impact of the project.
4-2

Based on census information and field reviews, attempts were made to identify those
communities or areas likely to receive disproportionately adverse human and/or
environmental impacts from the extension of the project. Citizen Informational
Workshops and Public Hearings were held, and newsletters distributed to invite public
patticipation in the pmject development process. (See Section 6.0 of the DEIS for a
full descrip6on of the Public Involvement Activities for this project.) This project is
being implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
4.4 Relocation Impacts (DEIS 4.5)
The number of residential, business, church and nonprofit displacements for the project
extension was determined by reviewing current t� maps, aerial maps and by
conducting site visits. A summary of relocation impacts is presented in Table 43.
Detailed information is provided in the US 1 Improvements: Relocation Assistance
Reports (2000) included in Appendix C.
Table 4.3 Number of Relocations for Proposed US 1 Improvements
Displacements
Residential Business Farm Nonprofit Tota] Minority Owned
Residential Business
2 0 0 1 3 0 0
Source: US 1 Improvements: Relocarion Assistance Reports (2000), appended by reference.
These residential and business relocations will not have a substantial impact on
employment in the study area. Based on the relocation reports, there is adequate
replacement housing, as well as, business opportunities available for any displaced
resident or business witkun the study area. No housing shortage would be caused by the
proposed pmject.
4.5 Economic Impacts (DEIS 4.�
The proposed and improvements to existing US 1 will have an overall positive impact
on the local area's economy by providing better access to businesses and industries in
Richmond County, increasing construction employment opportunities, and generating
additional income from potential new development. Regional impacts on the economy
4-3

include increased government revenues created from transportation — related taxes and
an overall reduction in travel costs.
Construction costs are presented and discussed in Section 1.7. Based upon highway
statistics, each one million dollars of construction expenditures creates an average of
6.7 jobs. Therefore, the proposed US 1 project extension will create approximately 73
jobs.
In addition to jobs created, there aze specific local impacts, both positive and negative,
that are likely to occur as a result of the proposed pmject extension. These would
include:
. Improved accessibility and traffic safety within the study azea could attract new
residents and businesses to Richmond County;
• A temporary negative impact would include access disnxption during
conshuction. While the proposed improvement is under construction, residents
may have to change established daily routes until the pmject is completed; and
• The project extension requires 2 residential and 1 nonprofit struchue. No
minority-owned residential units, churches or schools aze impacted.
4.6 Air Quality (DEIS 4.'n
The mobile source related pollutants of greatest concern are cazbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxides (NO,�, transportarion hydrocazbons (HC) and particulate matter (PM).
The major pollutant emitted by motor vehicles is CO, which is formed primarily by fuel
combusrion activities associated with transportation.
A microsca]e CO analysis comparing no-build and build conditions was used to assess
the air quality impacts associated with the pmposed project. Specific details regazding
this analysis aze outlined in Air Quality Analysis Technical Memorandum (1999)
conducted for this project.
The dispersion of CO in the study area was simulated using CAL3QHC; a
microcomputerized dispersion model developed to predict the level of CO or other inert
pollutant concentrations from motor vehicles h�aveling neaz roadway intersections. For
..

the purposes of this project, the CAL3QHC model was adapted to perform as a line
source model in order to predict and compaze CO concenirations along free flow
sections of the pmject.
Data inputs to the CAL3QHC model include motor vehicle emission factors, worst-case
meteomlogical conditions, and receptor and roadway site geometry. Emission Factors
for Richmond County were generated from MOBII,ES.Oa based on recommended input
data outlined in the "Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of
Transportation Facilities" as provided by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Air Quality. CO
emission factors were based on various assumprions that include ambient temperature,
vehicle mix, vehicle speed, vehicle registration distribution, and percent cold and hot
starts. MOBILES.Oa and CAL3QHC input factors used for this analysis aze outlined in
Table 4.5 of the June 1999 Draft Envimnmental Impact Statement.
Conshuction year (2010) and design yeaz (2020) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes
for both the No-Build and Build Alternatives were based on the traffic study prepazed
by NCDOT for this project, "Traffic Forecasts for US 1, Pmposed Rockingham Bypass
from South Cazolina Border to NC 177, Richmond County, R-2501, December 1994."
Construction year (2010) traffic volumes were determined based on a straight-line
interpolation between year 2000 and design yeaz 2020 traffic voluxnes. These volumes
were then converted into peak hour counts for input into the CAL3QHC model. The
analysis of the No-Build Alternative was performed by evaluating the existing section
of US 1 with the highest amount of traffic both with and without the US 1 Bypass. This
section of existing US 1 occurs between Richmond Road (SR 1423) and Roberdel
Road, just nor[h of downtown Rockingham. In addition, those areas of exisring US 1
proposed to be widened were also modeled for the No-Build Altemative.
The results of the microscale CO analysis aze shown in Table 4.4. Also shown in Table
4.4, are the corresponding peak hour volumes used to analyze each segment. As
anticipated, predicted CO levels for those sections along existing US 1 are lower or
approximately the same for the Build Alternative as compazed to the No-Build.
Design year (2020) build levels for existing US 1 are slightly higher than Construction
year (2010) levels due to projected traffic volume increases. Based on the analysis
4-5

Q
Jm
Q
f
N
Z
�
0 f
Q �
� Z
�
iZ
W 0
2 V
Op
�V
� �
f 7
�O
S
� f
S
t9
W
�
A
c
,`wy
W
� M �
N
N N N
� ^ m
� m �
w n a
N � �
N N N
M O m
� 0 �
N N �
O O N
N N N
m ° �
0 N m
m ry n
N O N
N N N
m � �
b N 0
0
0
K
m
d
� � s`
h Z m
8 3 �
b N $
m° � n
K R U
y N Z
B
m
m
Q
n
�
�
@
@
�
_ �
� °
m Z
K �
N �
K�
m�
��
� q
3E
�v
o�
os
m
y °c
� m
�s
�
„m
�Z
`o�
�
�°
$ E
n �
5�
`o a
LL

conducted for this project, no exceedances of the one-hour or eight-hour standazd aze
predicted to occur for either the Build or No-Build Altemative.
Pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Richmond County has been
designated as an attainment area for all transportation-related pollutants. According to
the calculated future emissions of CO, the proposed construction improvements to
existing US 1 are not expected to adversely affect air quality. All predicted carbon
monoxide concentrations are below the one-hour and eight-hour NAAQS.
This project is in an air quality azea that does not require h�ansportation control
measures. Therefore, the Amended Final Confornvty Guidelines issued by both the
U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environrrtental Protection Agency,
which ate in effect as of September 15, 1997, do not apply to this project. Based on
this analysis, the proposed project is in compliance with the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the Attainment and Maintenance of National and State Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
4.7 Noise (DEIS 4.8)
A preliminary noise analysis was conducted For the proposed project in order to
determine existing noise levels, evaluate future noise levels, determine impacted areas,
and examine the feasibility of noise mitigation measures in impacted azeas. This
analysis is described in the Noise Technical Memorandum (1999) conducted for this
project.
Future noise levels were modeled for the No-Build and Build Altematives. An
analysis of the No-Build Alternative was performed assuming the current roadway
configuration and year 2020 No-Build traffic data as provided in the traffic study
prepared by NCDOT for this project, "Traffic Forecasts for US 1, Proposed
Rockingham Bypass from South Carolina Border to NC 177, Richmond County, R-
2501, December 1994." Yeaz 2020 traffic for existing US 1 are projected to range
from 7,280 to 11,020 vpd.
4.7.1 No-Build (DEIS 4.8.1)
This section was discussed in Section 4.8.1 of the June 1999 DEIS.
:b7

4.7.2 Build Alternative (DEIS 4.8.2)
Fmm north of Fox Road (SR 1606) and continuing north to the project terminus at
Marston Road (SR 1001) land uses adjacent to existing US 1 consist primarily of
isolated single-family residences and commercial uses including the North Carolina
Motor Speedway and the Rockingham Dragway. As a result, no noise-sensitive sites
were idenrified for this section of US 1.
4.7.3 Noise Contours (DEIS 4.8.3)
T'he location of the 66 dBA Leq noise contour for the proposed project was determined
(see Table 4.5). The 66 dBA noise contour was used to identify additional sites that
might approach or exceed the FHWA criteria for Activity Category B.
Note: Distances are left and right of the proposed centerline.
The results of locating the 66 dBA noise contour for the US 1 project indicates that no
residences along existing US 1 in the project extension would experience future noise
levels that may approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC).
4.7.4 Noise Abatement (DEIS 4.8.4)
The North Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has developed a tr�c
noise abatement policy consistent with FHWA guidelines to determine the need,
feasibility, and reasonableness of noise abatement measures for all major highway
projects. Under FHWA guidelines, noise abatement should be considered for those
receptors whose design year noise ]evels are predicted to approach (within 1 dBA) or
exceed their respecrive NAC or when the predicted design yeaz tr�c noise levels
substantially exceed exisring noise levels as defined as follows:
(a) when existing noise levels aze less than or equal to 50 dBA Leq and
predicted noise levels cause an increase of 15 dBA or more; or
9�3

(b) when exisring noise levels aze greater than 50 dBA Leq and predicted
noise levels cause an increase of 10 dBA or more.
As demonstrated by the noise analysis conducted for this project, none of the identified
noise receptor sites will experience future noise levels that approach or exceed their
respective NAC. A comparison of existing noise levels with design year noise levels
with the project indicates that for those sites that have existing noise levels greater than
50 dBA Leq, none of the sites would experience a noise level increase geater than 9.0
�:� -�
For those sites whose existing noise levels aze less than or equal to 50 dBA Leq, none
of the sites will experience a noise level increase greater than 9.8 dBA Leq. Noise
abatement measures were considered for those residences or sites along the widening
portion of existing US 1 that were determined to approach or exceed the NAC through
the use of the 66 dBA noise contour.
The opportunities for abating traffic noise at these residences aze limited. The primary
means of mitigating noise impacts as offered by FHWA aze as follows:
Traffic management measures (e.g., tr�c control devices and signing for
prohibition of certain vehicle types, modified speed limits, and exclusive lane
designations).
. Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments.
• Acquisition of property rights (either in fee or lesser interest) for construction
of noise barriers.
Construction of noise barriers (including ]andscaping for aesthetic purposes)
whether within or outside the highway right of way.
• Acquisition of real property or intetests therein (predominantly unimproved
property) to serve as a buffer zone to preempt development which would be
adversely impacted by traffic noise.
�

• Noise insulation of public use or non-profit institutional structutes.
A preliminary evaluation as to the reasonableness of various noise abatement measures
was conducted with respect to the affected residences.
Trafiic Management Measures: Traffic management measures were not considered
feasible for abating noise impacts for any receptor. Measures such as installation of
additional traffic control devices, prohibition of vehicle types, time-use restrictions,
speed limit reductions and exclusive lane designations would be adversely detrimental
to the projecYs ability to function as a principal arterial and major north-south route.
Restricting truck traffic would be very difficult to enforce and was considered to be a
disincentive to economic development.
Alteration of Horizontal and Vertical Alignments: The selection of a preferred
alignment usually includes shifting the alignment both vertically and horizontally,
wherever feasible, to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. Based on the projecYs
topography, which consists of slopes, hills, and ditches, it is ]ikely that the final design
would result in slightly different noise levels than those predicted for this study.
Construction of Noise Barriers: The construction of noise barriers is generally the
most reasonable method for abating noise impacts. The NCDOT has established a
policy for determining the feasibility and reasonableness of when and where barriers
should be constructed.
Feasibility deals primarily with engineering considerations. Since the widening portion
of US 1 is proposed as a non-controlled access facility, it would not be feasible to
provide noise abatement such as noise bazriers for those residences or land uses
adjacent to existing US 1. For a noise barrier to be effective, it must be of adequate
height and length to shield the receptors from the project. Driveway or access openings
would compromise the overall effectiveness of the battier and would also create a
safety concem due to restricted sight distances at these openings if a barrier was
constructed.
4-10

An evaluation of reasonableness includes such factors as barrier cost, required barrier
height, decibel reducrion achieved, degree of noise impact, public support and
consideration of safety and/or drainage problems. Since many of the existing homes
along US 1 aze spread apart from each other and aze set back from the roadway at
various distances, it would not be considered reasonable or cost-effective to provide
noise walls for isolated receptors. Based on these findings, construction of noise wa11s
for those residences along US 1 north in the project extension was not considered to be
reasonable or feasible as a means of noise abatement.
Noise Information for the Public and Local Officials:
The "Date of Public Knowledge" of the location of a proposed highway
pmject will be the appmval date of the Record of Decision (ROD) or the
Design Public Heating, whichever comes later. After this date, the Federal
and/or State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development for which building permits aze
issued within the noise impact azea of the proposed highway project.
. For development occnrring after this public knowledge date, it is the
responsibility of the local governing bodies to insure that noise compatible
designs are utilized.
• The date for determining when undeveloped land is "...planned, designed, and
programmed..." for development will be the issuance of a building pennit for
an individual site.
4.8 Water Resource/Water Quality Impacts (DEIS 4.9)
The Preferred AlternaUve has the potential to adversely affect the quality of water in
surrounding streams as a result of stormwater runoff, which carries sediments from
construction, heavy metals, petroleum products, pesticides and fertilizers, and
hazardous materials. The impacts on water quality depends on the size of the streams
crossed and the actual number of stream crossings. In the project extension area there
are no stream crossings, however, two small streams near the existing US 1 may be
temporarily and locally affected by road construcrion.
4-11

4.9 Wetland Impacts (DEIS 4.10)
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be unavoidable due to construction of the
improvements to existing US 1. The potential wetland impacts for the Preferred
Alternative are based on preliminary designs, approximate construcrion limits and
delineated wetland azeas. The delineated wetlands were verified by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers in 1998. The Preferred Altemarive will impact 0.1 hectares (0.2 acres) of
jurisdictional wetlands based on preliminary design.
4.9.1 Wetland Mitigation (DEIS 4.10.1)
This section was discussed in Section 4.10.1 of the June 1999 DEIS.
4.9.1.1 Avoidance and Minimization (DEIS 4.10.1.1)
Minirrrization of wefland impacts has been achieved by utilizing the existing roadway.
Other measures as indicated in Section 4.10.1.1 of the June 1999 DEIS will be
considered during final design.
4.9.1.2 Compensatory Mitigation (DEIS 4.10.1.2)
This section was discussed in Section 4.10.1.2 of the June 1999 DEIS.
4.9.2 Permits (DEIS 4.10.2)
The amount of wetlands impacted by the project extension will not change the permit
requirements as stated in Section 4.10.2 of the June 1999 DEIS.
4.10 Hazardous Materials/Storage Tanks (DEIS 4.1�
A limited Phase I survey was conducted to identify known and/or potenrial hazazdous
waste sites and underground and above ground storage tanks in the project study area.
The results of this survey aze discussed in detail in Section 3.2 of this document.
Figure 3.2 includes those sites which have the potenrial to impact the proposed
Preferred Alternative. Most of these sites either store petroleum pmducts such as
gasoline and diesel fuels or represent auto salvage/junkyards. It is anricipated that these
sites could either be avoided by the widening or would not pose enough concern to
prevent construction of the project.
4-12

4.11 Summary of Environmental Consequences (DEIS 4.23)
The potential impacts and costs associated with the proposed extension of US 1
improvements has been described and evaluated throughout this section of the report.
The pmposed extension involves socioeconomic and envimnment impacts including
residential relocations, monetary commitments for right of way acquisifion and
cons�uction costs, and the physical alteration of the natural envimnment such as
wetlands, fazmlands and wildlife habitat. Esrimated impacts and costs associated with
the pmject extension are summarized in Table 4.6.
4-13

l
G ° e %
I. �
� ,$ j f
{� �
� • �� �'
FRf]M S�1NA�IILi. RQAD (SR 19"�1);T� iV[ARSTCIN R�f�D'(SR 1'OOlj
. ` �� = _ idICI-�Iv10NIl, COUN'�Y : „`;� . �-= `
.. F�ABIi�1L—�1ID P1�07EC'F�NO; IV�I�'—I(1)
� : .; S�'AT� PIiOJ�CT IVO: &.T�805P1 , `
T..
�':I:� N� : &-25�1 , :.' , �
y —
r" e �
, . �, � L M..•
m:� ; � �Ce, $
a,��
fr r.:; • ,., r`, .
a
v' = i
t } ? r
X
q+Y - y':` �c.�� f
, � . r� < i �
, �,:5 .} i, l, i 4\ , y *,<'.
..'�6" i � �' ° ^ -
� �'d , i'Y ! :. v1
d':^t 8 +� . h _
f
Y � F 4 � `
f • k
r J
N 1�
� �~ �
�,. 4� �
i
. � 1
� 1
� F� y � .+. � �t '� f. . "
:a"� ,"� '�.f aG'i' �
t
S �>
� /, L
I �
� ) T
` 4
Y j 4 ` „'r
�_ F. � { Y F�,.x
Y_ 9 (
t �
b..
' � � t y
1
I .ea
�I E �4 � � C
�r
1
s
1� W�:" ' v. - '. r
'K .. i �..i- , r
t:: �
t ��. • ' e
1. Y 4 5_ °�' �
��r
. .'� T "� ��.� S i . `: �.'�������� ` .�������� . �' ���..
.'.4 . )., rl -
# �.
� y.
N x < , e:> .
y� t ,- t� >j .
-'.i: >. , z
' i
; ,..i v- ,., s J �:
: r'z R�-:. r3 -�' „= y '
� ��' . e . �� �' q �_ Y • .� 4 _C � . �-fD
. e v M.`�" , Yz ��
.T
.. . _ .
:-. .. . .... _.: ... ;;,
= r
... ... ..,.. ..1 ._.. 9 .�., r.'<f re'r.l.. .. . �i. ; ,...

5.0 REFERENCES (DEIS 5.0)
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetland
and Deenwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, D.C., 1979.
Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of En�neers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1." Vicksburg, M.S., 1987.
Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I. Stage 2— Assessment of Environmental
Features, US 1 Bypass. Raleigh, N.C., 1996.
Environmental Services, Inc. Phase 1 Hazardous Materials Review. Raleigh, N.C.,
1996
Envimnmental Services, Inc. Natural Svstems Renort Proposed US 1 Rockin�
Bwass. Raleigh, N.C., 1998.
Environxnental Services, Inc. Red-Cockaded Woodnecker Survev_. Raleigh, N.C.,
1999
Environmental Services, Inc. Wetland and Stream Evaluation. Supnlemental Area.
Raleigh, N.C., 1999.
I,ouis Berger & Associates, Inc. Traffic Forecast for US 1 Bwass. Cary, N.C., 1994.
Mattson, Richard A. Phase 1 Survev Report for US 1. Charlotte, N.C., 1995.
Mattson, Richazd H. Phase II(Intensive Level Architectural Survev and Evaluations
US 1. Rockineham Bypass. Charlotte, N.C., 1998.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Guidance for Ratine the
Values of Wetlands in North Cazolina Fourth Version. Raleigh, N.C., 1995.
NC Department of Transportation. Transnortation Imnrovement Pmgram (T I.P.I
1998-2004. Raleigh, N.C., 1997.
Presnell Associates, Inc. Phase I Location and Environmental Studv. Charlotte, N.C.,
1997.
Presnell Associates, Inc. Air Oualitv Technical Memorandum. Charlotte, N.C., 1999.
Presnell Associates, Inc. Hvdraulic Technical Memorandum. Charlotte, N.C., 1999.
5-1

Presnell Associates, Inc. Noise Analvsis Technical Memorandum. Charlotte, N.C.,
1999.
Presnell Associates, Inc. Traffic Analvsis Technical Memorandum. Chazlotte, N.C.,
1999.
Presnell Associates, Inc. I-73 Location Renort, Environmental Screenine. Chazlotte,
N.C., 1999.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hydric Map
Units. 1991.
US Depaztment of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Richmond
Countv Soil Survev, unpublished.
U.S. Geological Survey, Diess, N.C. 7.5 Minute Ouadran�le. 1971 (Photorevised
1982).
U.S. Geological Survey, Rockineham, N.C. 7.5 Minute Ouadrangle. 1956
(Photorevised 1982).
U.S. Geological Survey, Ghio. N.C.-S.C. 7.5 Minute OuadranQle. 1949 (Photorevised
1982).
U.S. Geological Survey, Marston. N.C. 7.5 Minute Ouadran�le. 1949 (Photorevised
1982).
U.S. Geological Survey, Hamlet. N.C. 7.5 Minute OuadranQle. 1957 (Photorevised
1982).
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and N.C.
Department of Transportation US 1 TIP No. R-2501, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. June 1999.
5-2

, _
„ .: , ,.
. .
_�. . ; . � �, , �. � ;:: , «�
} �..: -
r;.`�.^�' y�C tif 3� - f s TF,
> t �.
° *TS-��.,_y ,
.: . , :- ..�. . �
.. . ..n.- , w"
. :: . . .. � '�= .... . .: � ...� ..: �t . . �
:¢� ��b� �armx�r.� i�o�n (s� is�ir�o n�s�Q�r z�o� Esx ;ooa7 ;�4',
: ° . � ::. �c��rm co�r��r�. .; ;
:_- .F���RAT.,-A�nrRcr7�G�r.rro: r� tEiy�<; ,� �: ' �
� � �. �TAT� �RD.TEC'�.�!1i?, 8.TS80501 _ ;' � <
: �.� ` ;: T.�,i' Nf? k�=2SQ3 , ; '`
r 4
J '. � f ' . _ tR � �, *n .f
!
� � x i ) S" e . . �H. "• �.' t,*�u
, . _ �.:.: ' k i, , 4F
t, �l y *
� �'� . u
. t
< 5.r .:s y n , '� :-.� f> `�
i t .°3 - C:; � �e
._ �l { r. , - 'h r "c
� ' � '' T
�
�' �� ia' b �'.; r .m :} t�„ � � 3
� 1 . t � �°.� a
� �_v .. y + �1
F R 3 ,� � �y, Y y'�.4
X S } �
i
g k a v 9
P" i � r ..t ��. .5 .� i 5 �+�`' > e '� yx ���' '� � r `
, r g t .
r f ) r } :
S�` � ;
� } 4 � �
k �
l :' ���{ .7.. '. �� �"
� � � 3�' S Y rJ' 4 S iAF
f e o- �4 - �
4 :)� � • +,•� � � _.
. J l 4 ..t � i �' . Y.`
f ,4 ' 1 ��.� �
�
1 } �
�
.ti / j� .. ♦ : '� �� t 5 ? �
� � t �� � f
F 3 J�
1 f </
_ �1; ��. 2 n .X .i.
t >t
e t. � Y
_ , ns,'.^ _ - � Y:
r. `
;`!'. _ 3 1
C 1
%
v a
M. . . ..� .., �
. �`. . � '. 1 ' .
i, i
! 4•�
. � �
> >
. .. � . ._ , , '. .
:.
... .. . . .... ..i. . . z � e _ . -.._ . . .t.. �, _ . .. ... ` .
✓
, , . �, . . � W.� . .
_ f 4
C � ,
� Y .� . .' . , .: .. . .
i ?� �� , * �� , ��1Y �1�� O� +y�.J �""�V��1c./� ,�:,��.
��i��T�Z�T�+�!��� A� �E��C��"� T�'
`� :��+0�� CC�►�'� C��.'�'I�� ��':�.�'�1Y�E1�T"�' ,�:
i �v r�,�
�- r ;, � k ,� , - , .'��' f'���.L
S' i 41 f�;A 4
:�' .a' j l.. " �� .'�� i ..;
. .
<£
4 1 �
� ' '� t . i � _. 1 .; � _
f � 1 'i }' Y +_
. '�e' - a +' 4 =� ^a � ^ '
-.l 'frY' . ,� i �yPeA� �
� 4 4 ��
� � k'
f •'. Y` , l� � �' �.
}_...:� _dv+A , ,r .«dl . .� . _ a 6, lC a. . s.. . oa t..4,.. a. .. . -. , a ..

6.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM
COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT (DEIS 8.0)
Federal A encies
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Deparlment of Commerce
U.S. Deparhment of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Resources
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Envimnxnental Protection Agency
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. General Services Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
State A encies
N.C. Department of Administration, Clearinghouse
Local Aeencies
City of Rocldngham
City of Hamlet
Richmond County
Public Review Locations
Rockingham Town Hall
Richmond County Public Library
North Carolina Department of Transportafion Division Eight Office
6-1

,. J.. , , ..,_ . . ..,
..-. ' . �. �. : . :.. .::. -
..
_'" '.,.:_ ., . ,.'�., ., �. ....;' -'^. , � .:- , .. . 5.�. � � �
„ r c.: " �.i�r.
�
' -�f t t .=S .
,
. ._. ' - ^° '' `_F
,:, . ... .: , .
i r - L .� i
� � U� I"o-
� FR03vi SANDHTLL R�AD (�R i971).TQ;M.4IR�'�ON ROA� iSR-1�01) ,_
RICI-i�V�f3�' CaLtNFIr . .�
�EI3ERALrAffl.PROJECTNOwNHF'-1(1�'< _ , :.
`� :, ; �.TAT'� PR(].TECT NO. $:'I'S$OSi�I
� �, .
� � 'F �;P. N0.1��501 , , ,� ,
. ;
. ,�-
. . �. " ��, � � a v�` � � s ,
t ,. ., � � x
r:,f s _ } F µ �n
c_ '
a
��. 1 ..>; y�, �,
a `
�'s =
T ," -.L'.�? ti< t'.r S� � ;t, � a
z *�r � s � � ;�
0
i •.
t {:
�'
k`
-' 1e
�} j !� ry�
�ir
�
� . f � . a .
r•
� + .
,. . . .. ° .,.'�, . ,.
.). ,l
£ A �..4 i ) f`�'.
z � t d ���
a' x � : '.
� , f y `" � �S � [ Cs. %
� � ..- . �t�?
1' l
�2� � � ♦ 1
�' }
Y':
Y � i +.
�
Y•
t f
Y S� �� ` f. � Y A♦
r g
• Y i. .
; 1 � �'. +t
t"
i -' � t � :
� .,.. .. . .,�: .. .� +
} Y
� 3 F
p � t
�: �
� �
+ P �
f �
� 2 1
rt 1
� {
'Y` f
F
,
1.. 2 !
" .-•� . • ������� �
.;.,�+,s . F .s , _ .�"'.-. _.. , . . .-'
� •"
2 �'•
� •.
�ii�� 1 6:� 5� .
• �:",%. . .?
4 . L
_ 1•.-�1 .L• � .
J6
„
,.. 5� �
-1
y ::{
Y :�i
T. -�
>'yY
:rs't

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2
Alternatives To Be Studied In Detail In The DEIS
And
Concurrence Point No. 3
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
US 1
T.I.P. No.: R-2501
NCDOT Project No.: 8.T580501
Project Description: The proposed acrion consists of the widening and/or relocarion of US 1 in
Richmond County &om Sandhill Road (SR 1971) south of Rocldngham to Marston Road (SR 1001) north
of Rocldngham, a distance of approzimately 31 ldlometers (19.2 miles). 1'he segment of the R-2501
project from the US 74 Bypass southward into South Cazolina along US 1 will be the probable routing of
the I-73 Coxridor.
The proposed project from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to Fox Road (SR 160� north of Rocldngham will
consist of a four-lane divided freeway with full access control. Interchanges for this section of the project
aze.being planned at the US 74 Bypass, Airport Road (SR 1966) and US 74. From north of Fox Road (SR
1606) to the project terminus at Mazston Road (SR 1001) the project will consist of widening the existing
roadway to either a four-lane divided facility or a five-lane section.
Pnrpose of and Need for Action: The purpose of the US 1 Bypass and improvements to existing US 1
is to impro�e h-avel conditions in Richmond County. The proposed project will reduce overal] �avel time
and alleviate h�affic congestion in downtown Rocldngham by diverting through traffic and truck ttaffic
from local streets. The conslruction of the US 1 project will provide a safer, more efficient facility for
local and through ireffic.
Concurrence on the piu-pose and need for the project was provided in the NCDOT memorandum dated
October 2, 1997 enritled, "Integration of the Secrion 404 and NEPA Process — A Team Approach for
Transportarion Projects in North Cazolina." A letter dated November 23, 1998 from the Department of
the Amiy, Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District) reaffirmed their concurrence on the purpose and
need for the US 1 project (see attached letter).
Developmeat of Reasonable/Feasible Alternatives: In February 1997, 4he Phase I Route Location and
Environmental Study for the US 1 Rockingham Bypass was completed. The purpose of the Phase I study
was to provide sufficient documentation in terms of social and environmental impacts to allow the

selection of those altemarives which could be considered both reasonable and feasible for construcrion of
the proposed action: A Project Team meering was held on September 16, 1998 (see attached minutes) to
discuss refinement of the reasonable and feasible altematives presented in the Phase I document. As a
result of this meeting, Comdor Segments M and N were eliminated because of their potential adverse
environmental impacts and as a result of NCDOT's decision to reconsider widening of existing US 1
from its northern project terminus south to a point where a logical connection could be made to a four-
lane controlled access facility on new location. Comdor B was eliminated because of environmental
justice concems. The eliminarion of these corridors resulted in four build alternarives remaining as
"reasonable anii feasible" from the original twenty-seven alternatives. These altemarives (Alternate 7, 14,
21 and 24) were presented and evaluated in the Dreft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). A figure
showing these altemariyes is attached. Although concurrence is implied in the November 23, 1998 Corps
of Engineers' letter, ttus form will reaffirm concurrence with the "aitematives to be studied in detail" in the
DraB Environmental Impact Statement (Concutrence Point No. 2).
The DEIS, whiqh was appmved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 30, 1999,
evaluated three basic alternatives iri detail: the No-Build alternative, the "Improve Existing Facilities"
altemative, and the Bypass altemative. The Bypass altemative consisted of three primary corridors
located between Rockingham and Hanilet with several crossover corridors. Following detailed
evaluations, the "Improve Existing Faciliries" altemative, the No-Build altemative and twenty-three
bypass altematives were eliminated from fisther consideration. Four (4) bypass altematives (Altemates
7, 14, 21 and 24) were identified as final build alternates and were further evaluated in the DEIS.
A summary of the evaluation process and the reasons for the elimination of the No-Build altemarive, the
"Improve Existing Facilities" altemative and three of the final build altemates is listed as follows:
Elimination of the No-Build Alternative:
The No-Build Altemative would not satisfy proj ected US 1 transportation needs and is not consistent with
the goals of the Rocldngham-Hamlet Thoroughfaze Plan or the NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program, Transportation 2001. Based on this evaluation, the No-Build Alternarive is not a reasonable or
feasible altemative and was eliminated from further study. The No-Build Altemative provides a do-
nothing condition for qualitative comparison to the build alternatives, but is typically not an effecrive
altecnative.
Elimination of "Improve Eaisting Facilities" Alternative:
The "Improve Existing Faci]ities" Alteinarive is not consistent with local and statewide long-range plans
to provide a fully controlled, bypass facility (freeway) around Rocldngham. Widening of the existing

facility would not alleviate through or truck traffic congestion within the. downtown azea. Therefore,
based on these factors and the potential impacts to residences, businesses and the Rockingham Historic
District, the "Ixnproue Exisring Facilities" Altemarive was not considered as a reasonable and feasible
altemarive.
Elimination of Alternates 7,14 and 24:
Altematives 14 and 24 were eliminated &om fiuther consideration since they have more impacts to the
natural environment than Altematives 7 and 21. Altemative 7 was eliminated from further consideration
since it has more relocations than Altemative 21. Therefore, Altemates 7, 14 and 24 were eliminated
from further consideration and Altemate 21 remains as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative for the project.
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative: Following review of the detailed studies
for the No-Build Altemative, the Improve Existing Faciliries altemative, and the four build altemates
presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a formal. Corridor Public Aearing, the Section
404/NEPA Merger Project Team verbally concluded on October 28, 1999 that Alternative No. 21 was
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Altemarive (see attached minutes). Altemative No. 21
includes the construction of a four-lane divided frceway on new location along the route described below.
Alternarive Corridor 21 begins south of Roclangham near Sandhill Road (SR 1971) then follows a route
north of the Loch Haven Golf Course, continues south of the Rocldngham-Hamlet Airport, crosses US 74
east of Pineleigh Avenue (SR 1670) and continues northeasterly and ties back to existing US 1 at Fox
Road. Interchanges are planned at the US 74 Bypass, Airport Road (SR 196� and at US 74. Crrade
separations aze planned at Sandhill Road (SR 1971), Hamer Mill Road (SR 1105), Hylan Avenue (SR
1901), Wiregrass Road (SR 1640) and County Home Road (SR 1624). At-grade.intersections aze planned
at existing US 1 South, existing US 1 North, Fox Road (SR 160�, Cognac Road (SR 1605), NC 177 and
Beaverdam Church Road (SR 148�.
Shortly after the team meeting, it was disclosed through a memorandum from Mr. Ted Bisterfeld of the
Office of Envizonmental Assessment, that a representative of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) had not been able to participate in the meeting. Although EPA expressed their belief that
Alternative Corridor No. 21 had the most merit of any of the build alternatives considered, EPA was
reluctant to concur on a LEDPA without fiuther information regazding NC 177 as a bypass altemative.
Fin-ther coordination with the Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team was achieved by providing
subsequent documentafion to both EPA and the Corps of Engineers conceming the feasibility of utilizing
NC 177 as a bypass altemarive. NC 177 Altematives, including those on new alignment, were evaluated

and will be presented ir� a Snpplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Based on comments
received from EPA and the Corps of Engineers, the additional documentation satisfied their concems that
improvemen4s to NC 177 would nat satisfy the projecYs putpose and need and; theiefore, was not a
reasonable and feasible alternarive.
The Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team concurred on February 15, 2001 with the
"alternatives to be studied in detail". in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(Concurrence Point No. 2) and that "Alternative Corridor No. 21" is the Least
Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Altemative For the US 1 project (Concurrence
Point No. 3). /)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Enviroamental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resoarces
N.C. DENR —
Division of Water Quality
Federal Highway Administration
N.C. Department of Transportation

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. 80X 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-7890
IN REPIY RFFEq TO
Re�ulatory Division
November 23, 1993
Action ID No. 199500459, TIP R-2501, Improvements to US 1, Rockingham, Richmond
County, North Carolina.
Mr. VJilliam D. Gilmore, P.E., Mana_er
Plamiing and Environmentai Branch V
Division of Highways
North Cazolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27611-5201
Deaz Mr. Gilmore:
�,__...
Y= r �
�,: �=i � ,� ,� � ' ;
� .� .
' . L,
: ' •-
.l � :
.`
'.L <•.�
9 �
:j � ( 1 �
� 19�g s
� ' A
f:;,�, :
��,�
:J _ .
�=�.: .
�4•� 4.•.r .._...'....
Reference the September 14, 1998, project team meeting rega;ding the proposed relocation
of US 1 azound Rockingham, Richmond County, North Cazotina, The purpose of the meeting
was to discuss the projecYs status and proposed altematives. .
The altemative corridors presented by NCDOT were initially recommended for detailed
study in the "Phase I Location and Environmental Study" dated Febraary.1997. This study
recommended ten altemative corridars (including the no-build alternative) to be studied in a
compazable level of detail in the Phase II level effort. The corridor segments discussed during
the referenced meeting include Segments B, M, N, and 0.
NCDOT advised that environmental jusrice issues exist along Segment B. Due to the
magnitude of these issues, NCDOT requested concurrence from the project team to eliminate
Segment B from further consideration. T'he estimated wefland impacts along Alternative
Corridor B aze approximately 99 acres and aze the lowest among the alternative corridors undet
consideration. Based on the environmental justice issues and higher wefland impacts of the other
altemative corridors, we concur with the decision to eliminate Segment B from further
consideration.

Additionally, NCDOT requested concurrence on adding Se;ment 0 and elimination of two
new location Segments M and N. Segment 0 would widen die eastern portion of US 1 and starts
where Se�ment L ends on US 1 and continues along US 1 to NC 177. According to the Phase I
study, this Segment was eliminated due to "the local and statewide goals to provide a fuily
controlled access facility for the entire projecY'. Based on the reduction of wetland impacts of
Segment O versus the new location segments (M and 2�, we concur wwith elimination of
Segments M and N and addin� Se�ment 0.
During the meeting, we informed IVCDOT that we have not concurred on the purpose and
need for the subject project. Subsequently, through telephone conversations with Mr, Jay
Bissette, NCDOT, it was leamed that concurrence on purpose and need for the subject project
was provided in our memorandum dated 2 October 1997, subject: "Integration of the Section 404
and NEPA process- A Team Approach for Transportation Projects in North Cazolina." This
letter reaffirms our earlier concurrence on the purpose and need for the subject project.
It is our understanding that the remaining seven altemative corridors, including the no-
build altemative, will be evaluated in detail and included in the draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The decision on whether to prepaze a draft EIS or environmental assessment
will be discussed at the next project team meeting.
Should you have any questions, please contact me, Wilmington Field Office; Regulatory
Divisiori, at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
r (/��iA�� ��-Y`'i'il
� �` C
° Dave Timpy
Regulatory project Manager
Wilmington Field Office

Copies Furnished:
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Mazine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 23516
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Bos 33726
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27636-3726
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Ei�vironment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27607
Mr. David Cox
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1141 I-85 Service Road
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27522
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Section, Region IV
Water Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S W
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

5 �� h K • A � •'th
t
� aA�
r k �,.;.. � u h:'.
t Y 4
WS 1
: ; < < FItOM SANDHIE,I: RO:
, �'
. .- 4 . . 3�ti�1:.1�'t
STA'
',
H ,.,
�� - -
R �t
� {
t
a' `
4 . . {�
"E PR�J�CT AI(�: $.T:
T:I.P.1�0.•Ii-2501
z,
;Y
(y
.F T y�
a a,'
_
1 'i
s� t �"�F..,
N.
��
iS'T'QN T�0.4b (SE3 1 OQ1)
Y:
��—��l�,�i', �
�$OSOi . ` *
�
1'n
.Y.
t e. .
,, .
;'�;,
r . `
� f
x,:.
. r.;
� r a �- e' e
`� , 4. � !��Y ht _ 4` N l^� "
`. }
M,�,� �' 'R t t t ; _ 9 .'i
R - Y Y: S �a':',
Y.. � x
f r i)��- t 2 ( : `yi � t
� 5 . � i'�.� ..1�
N':.
y t y ` F, �
s.=� � a L ,�„ � �::�
- t y S . k -♦ C JY t •
F . � d i : 3 F� �y�.
- '€�� $ Y�.,r � j ' {
y '
�r � 4 -� �
'f�_ F f
' _ $'n 4 �ja��.
' x
t _ 3
1 r ' ^t
�
''
Y
F� .. y ) 1
�
I {
�t
l �' f
{ ). �
j t ��
xjl � d� a
)
Y. i .
y -
� �� ! i
•l.� J
l
a F ;
,i_ �� ._ .�.,.. .. , , . _ . . � ._
- � "
t�
k
^;k .
t �
�„ �'. o � �, r.
� y
fs
#r::a
t, '
: .3.
i ' .
''i 1:
.. tr1 � . 'L-
k
,...� ,... - o
r _
p4a ?.,
� � : , _
i �.. �-�>� -
�. µ
(
, ' '. , ''t . . ,
Y.. ,• , � ,:-- .
'� . i °
Y "
{ ' c� .3' ✓ .� .
�'t . J: 1 ,_ ;t' e�':.�. �.t . .. . . x.. .. .z'. Y'.:....�.�ry:��-.

RELOCATlON REPORT,
�X �.�.a. � �,vecWUUK � 11e�ICiN
'FtOJECT: 8.T580501 r.ni �u,,. i
FA.
Bypass
. . �eTf�w�rrEO o�t�C�a
��=___�� .�Z
� �
�v��s�
� -■r:a� _vv��
�_ '�Q�
_ . �... _•--- �--•..ca.w.. .«,a�.. r. ...«...�
X 9. Vum schook or Murchoe ba aRect by
J�mwnf�
3. WIII businets servioe� � ye avaqeble aPoer
��fr ��
x' 4. wm eny M�(nsu o. dkplaoed� rc so,
indlw0e slzs� tYDe, vctpr�aled nu��bar of
. �. �Y�. �rlorpise, etc.
X 6. Wpl �ation c�y�s a fauaMp ahp�pe7
& Sourw ior avap�py �0 (pW-
X 7. YVIi addltlonel►�p��D Droorams ba needed7
A. qlrrdA l.aat Rawrt HwrYp p� �
Y. Ars Q1019 Iv9�� diablBd� eWerlY. efa
ramrss7
X 10. wp pubNc lauwnp ba needed for pro)ac�!
11. Is puWlo howln0 evaYsbM7
12. M k felt tlrn wA9 bs �deqwb D86 houdnp
' 18. VI�tlNn ba�e �0�061� M��rx�
drnr�ial rtl�ntT
14. M wlbbls bwlnaq qtes �,�yy �
eo�wee�
16. Phrnber months eetime�d m mrr�s
S' .�O n�
North Caro�ina D�psrlment of Tnnsporfagon
ARLA REtACA710N OFFICE
U-15M 15-25M 2$-3$M
0 2 �
vu.ue or:ow�ur►�s�� . :; : ;•: a
�� Tsnants Fa
� 0 i o�tsa 0 o,lor
za�or p 1saa�o �
'�01 2 �� o aaa
•,.... 0 +«�... p rr�ow
100 ur p !00 w p 700 ur
�er/1L 9 -.� � - . `
� .. , .. : NIY�blfi Rwai�Y_.r::a.�, ..
of 1 Attemat
L . . . : .�. ..
35�OM 50 UP
�_ 0
W
3. No b1aMN� �pl�pm�n{�,
s. �nbm�t MLf �nd nwnp�pM,
�. If nMrl�l, l�t raa! houdnp wNl b� admNUt�nd aeaordlny
b Stsfa and Faduat OWd�Yna �nd �spW�yens.
tt. s.ouon � Nou.r�a I� avw.en M H.ml.t.ed Roddnpl,m,
M RlcAmonfl Cwnty,
1Z. Awll�ble hNanndlon Indl�ahs th�rw �e www�.n. nnc
houdnp.
7�. Int�t MLS and n�wsp��.
_ A •:, :.: ;.,,;: ' I
• . ••:r• . �^ij��`,;' �w�'
';i•:-..u�.. i� �3'✓`:�M
Z '�°�
Z �PY M� R�iocolon
,. .�. . . .
. `g'ii�tr,.M�•.: :.,= ...
� 'c�j� lllr Ar::;;
. • •����5 jjy .
. ` �.�J1.'.]f;��

,
i; R 4 s.�s c X�
� �'
J ii }± s a
i- � : r '
�e(
_ < � 1
-, .. �xo�z s�xu;i ztc�A.n fsrt is�i> To �a�s�ra� x,oan �s� i o4i�. �.:.
; ° ; xzc�Qrra cac��
� ,� FBDE1�1t�-ATDPR<3JfiGTN4.�-IF'-1(1�:?
, .STA�'L PROJE�3' NO.. &,TS8U5� 1 ; , `
i ; � ,, �`'. T �.R.1�T0. K-2S01
,.
r r�� a. w � -
w � . , , < ,
. ,
, � ,
-�; �;. � - ,
- -";
� ��ic g .,r - �� ,
`j 1 F
,
�'j� _ � �` Y . - Y -.
.y d. �f<. µ.,
4- � � µ
..{ { .' E � .i� �f
4
d. Y 5 1 s'' ':rt t, t- �
� u e :..f N b .J
] � �'�� � � � { 0
t .4> .k� 4 � :k i�
� �
M + ��� G �
t R n
�.3 n 5
� � _ 1
; t 1
_ .� �,\ �� � e
\ S t�'
�v� h
��.. 4�... �
' ''..� ..y 1
1 � '
y
I
t ' 1-
i i_
` ! Y
i5 }
� � 1 t4 f
� +t .
Fr F 'S
r -
.tu � t'�� - -
J: R '�[� t
� S �� � � ��i �+ \ ��� � y `�.
#a 1
y' C � � e.
, i � t �� �b J) +
a.
� >
,P . i . _, � o . ,y . •
i- ���f �-5 T ��� � �
� g� _ $�y �. � �
':� :r�� . �'.aA n..!,iE e :i
> r : � �. ; '..
.. � .. ; �-. : � ..
x
s a 4 ;
�p ��r T � [ .� ?.
4 � � , �, � � j
( fnt h ,�4 ` ♦:5� Y :.
a n. rv. . ..e... • v. . � . us x _\ . . . . a.. . ..�. . . . . \ .r�. e . . r 3.�t' . . 'f _r . . F' ?.:.`..

USDA
��
January 2, 2001
United States
Department of
Agricuiture
Mr. Ronald C. Smith, PE
Presnell Associates Inc.
7508 East Independence Boulevard
Suite 102
Charlotte, N.C. 28227
Natural Resources
Conservation
Service
600 West Innes Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
Telephon e: 704-637-2400
Fax: [phone]
Re: US 1, R-2501
State Proj. # 8.T580501
Richmond County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Smith:
Attached is the completed AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form for the above Project that
you requested in your letter of December 11, 2000.
If you have any questions you can call me at 704-637-2400.
�C�
William E. Woody
Resource Soii Scientist
Cc: Mike Sugg w/o attachments
Vilma Mendez Colombani w/ attachments
Milton Cortes w/ attachments
, ..:..
.;,=,�� c < w�:::,

U.S. Oepartmenc of ,lgriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PAHT I/To Ae ca�noiete7 bY .=e�er�/ Agenc%i Dan 4� una Evaiwnan rt,�uyi /Z �%��� 00
Name Jt �rol�ct ' I s �' S� _l y�w p. �0 • Qi r�QD�O, I F�oval AgmCY Involvq
V{ A!-Q Y p � p FH tNA
Prooef+a U�a Ust ���ry A� 5tat,
�/' trA J�IC�7M70N� /✓ON��
PART 11 (To be camp/efed by SCSJ �?�� RW�a� R�e�nb BV SCS
ia We site conpin prime, uniQUS, ttata
no, the FPPA doa nor app/r — do not
K, a�nw� e.a c� �. E
PART I II (To be comp/ered by Fedenf AgexyJ
or laal imporant fan
o/ne additiom/ para �
F.�+.a. una �� ca
�,: zsq •
�+snr Of �ao� Si p
/Vo �l/E
'ART 1 V(To be eompined by SCSI Land Eralwdon Intormation
A. Total Aera Prime And Unique Fartniand
8. Tocai Aeres Statewide And Laal Impartsnt FartNand
C. Percenpge pt Farmland In CounN Or Lawl Govt Unit To Be Comerted
O. Psre�maq� Of Farm4ry In GwL Juribieeion WM Srn� Of Mighw RNath� Vdu�
PART V!To b� complsred by SCS) Land Evaluauon GitHip�
� RelaeveValueOfFarmlandToBaCanverted(So/sofOrof00PointsJ
�T V I (To ba completed by Federa! Agency/
So Ao�srm�ne Crinria /Thaeeri[rria �n Maaimwn
_ �+A4ie+Mfn7CFABSBSlb/ Peirrts
��
Ara
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
4RT VII (To be eompleted by Fsdsn/AgexyJ
RNsriv� Value af Farmland (From Par[ VJ
_anl Siu Auessment (From Part V! aboro o�a
TDTAL POINTS (%ta/ of abavs 2lines)
u Selxted:
�--en For s.i�caan:
Datr Of $aieetion
— Z � UO� iAS��
' Ya No Aas �rriq�ce
farm/. J� Q /�( o Nt
�aleuon � an+owtt oe F
> x S� b An«: 13�
ML SYS[�111 Oi[� W
�� �
�
�[rb �Nf
zo9
�nA /U O�finb in PPA
9�`I x4S.�
�an R�turnb 8Y SCS
w�'�
160 ,3 7 I
10° 24. 8 -
�sa 37
zea 6 . �
w.. n Lou� Sic. Aswun«n u+.ar
Yea Q No 1�