20141132 All Versions_Report_20140806

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT MCCRORY ANTHONY J. TATA
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM
To: Deanna Riffey, NCODT-PDEA-NES
From: Tristram Ford, NCDOT-PDEA-HES-Community Studies
Date: August 6, 2014
Re: STIP R-2501, Proposed Rockingham Bypass—Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening
Report Update
CC: David Wainwright, NC-DWR; Derrick Weaver, P.E., NCDOT-PDEA
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Update
This memorandum analyzes the potential for indirect and cumulative effects, in the form of
change in land use, in an area which surrounds all sections of proposed State Transportation
Improvement Plan (STIP) Project R-2501. This project is located primarily in unincorporated
Richmond County in the vicinity of the City of Rockingham, but also includes a small portion of
northwestern Hamlet.
This analysis serves to update the previously completed Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Screening Report that was prepared in October of 2005 to address the concern expressed by NC
Division of Water Resources staff in April 2013 that the report is out of date and its conclusions
may no longer be valid.
Current ICE report methodology was employed in this analysis including the ICE screening matrix,
which uses data inputs to provide a numerical and therefore quantifiable output. In addition,
this memorandum provides current study area population and employment trends, inventories
notable natural features, outlines existing development regulations and other public policy,
discusses current land use and future land use vision, and outlines existing and planned
infrastructure. This memorandum also includes a cumulative effects discussion to aid in project
permitting.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER,BUILDING A
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WEBSITE: 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER HTTPS.//CONNECT.NCDOT.GOV/RESOURCES/ENVIRON RALEIGH NC 27610
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 MENTAL/PAGES/DEFAULT.ASPX

2
The time horizon used for this update memorandum is 2035, which corresponds to the time
horizon of traffic projections completed for the project. This date is also in line with population
projections from the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. The time horizons
for the relevant land use plans such as the Richmond County Strategic Land Use Plan (2000) and
Shaping Our Future:2023 (2013) are 2010 and 2023, respectively.
Based upon the output of the R-2501 ICE Screening Matrix, this predominantly full control of
access project has a low to moderate likelihood to increase the development potential of and
intensity in the areas adjacent to the STIP R-2501 corridor. Local officials have stated that they
view planned transportation facilities in the area as potential catalysts for development and have
expressed a willingness to extend infrastructure to facilitate any growth, but at this time there
are no planned expansions. This potential for change in land use will be tempered by the low
market for development, in part because of negative projected population growth. Although
some development is expected to continue to occur in the FLUSA in the No-Build scenario, it will
occur at an even lesser degree.
STIP R-2501 Project Overview
STIP Project R-2501 proposes to improve US 1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) south of Rockingham
to Marston Road (SR 1001) in Marston, a distance of about 19 miles. Approximately 14 miles will
be on new location, and about five miles of existing US 1 will be widened. From Sandhill Road
(SR 1971)to about one and a half miles north of Fox Road (SR 1606), US 1 is proposed to be a
four-lane, median-divided roadway with full control of access along the new location part and no
control of access on the widening part. A five-lane section with no control of access is proposed
along existing US 1 from about one and a half miles north of Fox Road (SR 1606)to Marston Road
(SR 1001). Interchanges are planned at the US 74 Bypass, Airport Road (SR 1966), US 74
Business, and Wiregrass Road (SR 1640)/County Home Road (SR 1624).
Project R-2501 is split into five parts—Sections A, BA, BB, BC, and C.
• Section A will improve existing US 1 from the South Carolina state line to south of
Osborne Road (SR 1104) (approximately five miles).This section will be a future
project and has not been studied as a part of this Environmental Impact Statement.
• Section BA will be on new location from south of Osborne Road (SR 1104)to US 74
Bypass (approximately five miles).
• Section BB will be on new location from US 74 Bypass to US 74 Business
(approximately four miles).
• Section BC will be on new location from US 74 Business to just north of Fox Road
(SR 1606) and follow existing US 1 from just north of Fox Road (SR 1606)to
approximately one and a half miles north of Fox Road (SR 1606) (approximately
six miles).
• Section C will improve existing US 1 from approximately one and a half miles north of
Fox Road (SR 1606)to Marston Road (SR 1001) (approximately four miles).
Section C of this project is the only section currently being pursued. Right-of-way acquisition for
this section has been completed,with the construction phase scheduled to begin in early 2015.

3
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was signed in December 2011, with the Final
Record of Decision (ROD) published in 2013. In addition to various small group meetings,
stakeholder meetings and local officials meetings held from 1996 to 2007, Citizens Informational
Workshops were conducted in October of 1997,June of 1998 and July of 2007. An informal
Corridor Public Hearing was held in July of 2002 to present the two widening alternatives and the
'preferred' corridor to the public. In October of 2010, a Corridor Official Map Act Public Hearing
was held to show updated designs and the revised protected corridor.
Adjacent Projects—ICE Document Conclusions Overview
Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) reports have been completed for adjacent STIP Projects.
R-2231 (Ellerbe Bypass) in 2003
STIP R-2231, also known as the Ellerbe Bypass, will begin south of the Town of Ellerbe near SR
1448, and proceed northward on a new alignment east of Ellerbe and the Town of Norman, and
connect back to existing US 220 in the Town of Emery. The proposed four-lane road on a new
location will have controlled access, and will be approximately 16.2 miles in length. The project
is a part of the future Interstate 73 and Interstate 74 corridors through Virginia, North Carolina
and South Carolina. STIP R-2231 will increase the safety of US 220 in preparation for increased
traffic volumes, and provide more efficient travel for through traffic (especially trucks)that
currently must drive through the center of town in Ellerbe and Norman.
Findings indicate that both Richmond and Montgomery Counties have grown much more slowly
than the rest of North Carolina during the past few decades, and there is no discernable
underlying market to support any appreciable induced development due to the construction of
R-2231. The hydrological analysis indicated that even the unlikely"Extreme-Case" Build Scenario
would result in minimal effects due to R-2231, increasing runoff volumes in each of the four
basins evaluated by 2.33%, 0.24%, 0.25%and 1.95%respectively. This result is due to the lack of
forecasted development in addition to existing water supply watershed regulations that limit the
amount and density of any new residential or commercial development.
R-2502(US 1 Widening) in 2005
STIP Project R-2502 involves widening 8.3 miles of US 1 from SR 1001 (Marston Road)to the
existing 4-lane divided section of US 1 just north of the Moore/Richmond County line. The
project is primarily located in unincorporated Richmond County with small portions of the
project also located in the Town of Hoffman and neighboring Moore County. The widening of US
1 from a two and three-lane roadway to a four-lane facility should increase capacity and improve
safety along the project corridor.
Findings indicate that STIP R-2502 has a low potential to indirectly cause land use changes or
accelerate growth and development throughout the area. The large amount of protected or
undevelopable land within the Growth Impact Study Area, as well as the lack of other major
infrastructure improvement projects, should limit the amount of cumulative effects associated
with STIP Project R-2502. Coupled with existing land planning and development policies, these

4
conditions should also protect the water resources of the area from future degradation resulting
from indirect effects associated with STIP Project R-2502 or cumulative effects from neighboring
areas.
R-3421 (Proposed Rockingham Bypass 1-73174) in 2009
STIP R-3421, also known as the Rockingham Bypass, is the segment of the I-73/1-74 route that
extends from the US 74 Bypass southwest of Rockingham to the US 220 Bypass south of Ellerbe
in Richmond County. The project is of regional importance as a link in the federal Interstate
System and will serve as a through route for passenger vehicles and trucks. STIP R-3421 will
provide the necessary interstate link between the proposed US 220 freeway near Ellerbe and the
proposed US 74 bypass southwest of Rockingham.
Findings indicate that construction of the interstate largely on new location is not likely to
encourage more rapid or more intense development of property in the area. Based on the very
low or negative growth rates within the area, no notable shift in population is expected to occur.
The project would not accelerate overall growth within the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA),
though there may be slight increases in development at proposed interchanges. The new
roadway and proposed interchanges are expected to have only a slight influence on regional
location decisions. As such, the future population in the area is expected to be the same with
and without the project. Implementation of the project would not result in direct impacts to the
human and natural environments and would not contribute, in conjunction with past, present, or
future projects,to cumulative effects on resources in the FLUSA.
Future Land Use Study Area
The Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) (see Figure 1) is the area surrounding a construction
project that could possibly be indirectly affected by the actions of others as a result of the
completion of the project and combined projects. This study area encompasses all of the areas
examined for potential increases in development pressure as a result of project construction. For
the purposes of this update, the general extent of the FLUSA mirrors the two-mile buffer based
study area used in the 2005 ICE analysis. However, in order to adhere to currently accepted
guidance for the delineation of the FLUSA, parcel lines were utilized and the FLUSA was
expanded near the southern terminus. In general terms, the FLUSA boundary can be defined as:
• southern boundary is defined by parcel lines/Marks Creek
• eastern boundary is defined by parcel lines/Gum Swamp Creek/Scotland County line
• northern boundary is defined exclusively by parcel lines
• western boundary is defined by parcel lines/Pee Dee River/Anson County.
Current Land Use
Existing land use varies within the FLUSA and includes agricultural, single-family residential,
institutional, industrial, commercial and recreational.

5
Land use in the vicinity of the southern terminus, Sandhill Road, is exclusively agricultural (hog
operations, some cultivated fields, some pastureland, and timber) and single-family rural
residential.
Further to the northeast, land use south and west of Airport Road is primarily agricultural and
single-family rural residential. Along Airport Road Between Airport Road (SR 1966) and south of
existing US 74 Business, land uses within the study area consist primarily of single-family
residential, the Richmond County Airport and a mixture of commercial and industrial uses.
In the area between Airport Road and existing US 74 Business, land use is mainly single-family
residential with scattered commercial and industrial uses.
Along US 74 Business, commercial land use predominates due to the advantageous location
between Hamlet and Rockingham. In addition, an institutional land use, Richmond County
Community College, is located just north of US 74 Business.
Further to the north of US 74 Business, land use is similar to the southern portion of the project
study area with predominately agricultural and rural residential uses.
The Rockingham Speedway and Rockingham Dragway, both recreational uses, are located in the
vicinity of the northern terminus as is the Sandhills Gameland Management Area,which is
located to the north of US 1.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Water Service
Richmond County provides water service along major roads throughout the FLUSA, except to
areas in the far western and eastern portions of the FLUSA. The first area is bordered to the
northeast by Hamer Mill Road, to the east by Battley Dairy Road and to the northwest by US-1.
The second area is bordered to the north by US-1,to the west by Fox Road, and to the east by
the Richmond/Scotland County border. Each area is characterized by low density single family
residential, and forested and agricultural land. The City of Rockingham provides water service
within the city, its ETJ, and some portions of surrounding Richmond County. The City of Hamlet
provides water service within the city, its ETJ, the Town of Dobbin Heights, and small portions of
Richmond County.
Richmond County's source for surface water is the Pee Dee River, which provides 10,427 million
gallons for the county's on-stream raw water storage supply. The City of Rockingham has two
surface water supply sources: City Lake and Roberdel Lake. City Lake produces an on-stream
raw water storage supply of 5 million gallons, and Roberdel Lake produces a raw water storage
supply of 25 million gallons. The City of Hamlet's water is supplied by Hamlet City Lake, which
produces an on-stream raw water storage supply of 192 million gallons.
Richmond County's water system has 475 miles of water lines with 7500 connections. Its water
treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 6.7 million gallons per day (MGD),with an average
daily use of 5 MGD. The County is undergoing two expansion projects: a five mile system

6
extension in the Old Cheraw/Osborne Road area, and a plant upgrade to increase its capacity to
9 MGD. The City of Rockingham's water system consists of 83 miles of water lines, one water
treatment plant facility, and five above ground storage tanks with a total maximum capacity of
975,000 gallons. The water treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 3 MGD. An additional
0.3-0.5 MGD is purchased from the City of Hamlet, and 0.85 MGD from Richmond County to
accommodate the city's 3.2 MGD total average daily use. According to the City of Rockingham
Planning Department, no expansion plans are expected.The City of Hamlet's water system
consists of 86 miles of water lines. Its water treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 3 MGD,
with an average daily use of 1.2 MGD. An additional 1.10 MGD is purchased from Richmond
County. No expansion plans are expected.
Sewer Service
Sewer service provision by Richmond County is virtually non-existent,with the exception of some
sewer service provided to the area east of Rockingham in the Town of Cordova. Its sewage
collection system has 177 connections. In 2013, the County's wastewater treatment facility had
a maximum capacity of 0.5 MGD, and treated an average of 0.35 MGD daily. According to the NC
DENR Local Water Supply Plan for Richmond County, no expansion plans are expected within the
next ten years.The City of Rockingham provides sewer service within the city and a few areas
throughout its ETJ and East Rockingham. According to The City of Rockingham's Shaping Our
Future:2023 Land Use Plan for 2013, "the City of Rockingham's wastewater collection system
includes 25 pump stations strategically placed in and around the city as well as approximately 68
miles of gravity sewer lines and approximately four miles of force mains.il Its wastewater
treatment plant has a maximum treatment capacity of 9 MGD, with an average daily use of 3.5
MGD. In a joint effort with the County of Richmond and Town of Ellerbe, the City plans to extend
its sewer service to provide gravity sewer along the entire US Highway 220 corridor between
Rockingham and Ellerbe. The City of Hamlet provides water and sewer service within the city, its
ETJ,the Town of Dobbins Heights, and small portions of Richmond County. Its sewage collection
system has 2,685 connections. The City's wastewater treatment plant has a maximum treatment
capacity of 800,000 MGD,with an average daily use of 600,000 MGD. Currently, no expansion
plans are expected.
Forecasted Population Growth
In order to analyze population characteristics within the FLUSA, data from the US Census Bureau
and the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management(NCOSBM)were used.
According to data from the 2000-2010 Decennial US Census, the Demographic Study Area grew
by 0.3%over the ten-year period, which is an annualized growth rate of 0.0%. Richmond County
experienced a similarly negligible growth rate at 0.2%over the ten-year period, or 0.0%annually.
According to population estimates and projections from the State Demographer provided by the
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, Richmond County's total population was
1"City of Rockingham Land Use Plan.webpage,
http://www.gorockingham.com/forms/Shaping%200ur%2OFuture%202023%20(Final%2ODraft%2OCombin
ed%20Files).Pdf

7
estimated to be 46,635 in July 2010, and is expected to be 45,483 in July of 2034. This represents
a projected -0.10%annualized growth rate during that time period. 2
Forecasted Employment Growth
According to employment projections provided by the North Carolina Department of
Commerce—Labor& Economic Analysis Division, the Lumber River Workforce Development
Board (WDB), which includes Bladen, Hoke, Richmond, Robeson, and Scotland counties, will
experience a 1.2%annualized employment growth rate between 2010 and 2020.3
Available Land
The FLUSA as a whole contains approximately 56,222 acres. The total area of the parcels within
the FLUSA is approximately 53,259 acres; the remaining acreage of the FLUSA is in roadway
rights-of-way. There are 37,101 acres of undeveloped parcels, where a parcel is defined as being
undeveloped if the total value of any buildings on it is less than $20,000. The Buffer and Clip
tools were used in ArcGIS to calculate the acreage within each of the following:
• 30-foot stream and lake buffers (1,145 acres)
• An assumed 300-foot project right-of-way(i.e., 150-foot buffer to either side of the
project centerline) (471 acres)4
• Other protected land, as shown in the following GIS shapefiles:
CleanWaterMgmtTrustFund Properties, State_Gamelands, and
LandsManagedConservationOpenSpace (5,484 acres)
To avoid double-or triple-counting the acreage that is in the stream/lake buffer,the right-of-way
and other protected land, the Union tool was used in ArcGIS to calculate the "unique" acreage,
resulting in 6,815 acres. This acreage was subtracted out, leaving 46,444 acres of undeveloped
parcels in the FLUSA which are considered to be available for development. Available land is
shown in Figure 2.
Market for Development
In terms of demographic trends and projections, the population in the Demographic Study Area
grew by 0.1% between 2000 and 2010, which is an annualized growth rate of 0.0%. Richmond
County experienced a similarly negligible growth rate at 0.2%, or 0.0%annually. Population
Z North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, Projected Annual County Population Totals,
2030-2034
http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts and figures/socioeconomic data/population estimates/cou
nty proiections.shtm
3 North Carolina Department of Commerce-Labor&Economic Analysis Division webpage,
http://www.nccommerce.com/lead/data-tools/projections/occupational-projections
4 The acreage required for interchanges will depend on the final design of the ramps,and is not included in
the right-of-way acreage.

8
projections predict that Richmond County will experience a -0.10%annualized growth rate
through 2034.
In addition, employment is projected to experience a 1.2%annualized employment growth rate
between 2010 and 2020.
According to the Planning Director in the City of Rockingham, the majority of commercial growth
is occurring along US 74 Business in the vicinity of where the proposed interchange will be
located. Pineridge Shopping Center, located a half mile from the proposed location of the US 74
Business/US 1 Bypass interchange, was recently renovated and filled with new commercial
tenants after sitting vacant for about eight years. There are no large developments planned at
this time, but there are a number of smaller commercial and residential projects either in the
planning stages or under construction. The Planner in the City of Hamlet noted that the Marks
Creek Industrial Park redevelopment has recently been completed on NC 177 S just north of the
I-74 interchange, but there are no new major developments under construction or planned at
this time.There are no major development or redevelopment projects taking place within
Richmond County. All three Planners noted that in general, the residential market is picking up,
but the commercial and industrial markets can be described as slow to stagnant.
Local planners and officials have stressed their belief in the importance of this project and other
transportation facilities in attracting economic development to Richmond County. This
importance is outlined in the Strategic Plan for Richmond County—Vision 2020 which states that
"Transportation infrastructure is vital in attracting economic development to an area. Attracting
both businesses and consumers to its municipalities, Richmond County has made improvements
and lobbied the NC Department of Transportation for advantageous routes near its cities. [...]
With construction still on-going, continued local support [for I-73/74 and US-1 Bypass] is a strong
goal. Some other smaller road improvements have been completed while others have not."
Richmond County, the City of Rockingham and the City of Hamlet all have sufficient remaining
water and sewer capacity, but no current plans to extend services. However,there is an
expressed willingness of these local governments to expand infrastructure, if needed, to
accommodate proposed development.
Based upon the historical data and projections, future land use plans, available land and available
water and sewer service and local planner input it can be assumed that the market for
development in the FLUSA will remain low.
Public Policy
Recently updated strategic plans are the Strategic Plan for Richmond County—Vision 2020(an
update of earlier plans in 1991 and 2004) and Rockingham's Shaping our Future:2023 (a 10-year
plan updating the previous one Shaping Our Future:2012). The County expects weak-to-no
population growth, and possibly decline.

9
Richmond County
The Strategic Plan for Richmond County—Vision 2020 describes a plan "that contains a vision and
goals that were developed to guide decision makers in Richmond County through 2020(including
municipalities in the county, educational entities, and the nonprofit and profit sectors). In an
environment characterized by dwindling resources, the vision and goals provide focus for
allocating those resources in the most efficient and effective way". Key land use policies include:
• Future development will balance the development of land with the preservation of open
space by following smart growth principles, including the creation of walkable urban
centers and high density compact housing developments that reduce sprawl and
preserve natural resources.
• Economic development efforts will include recruiting business and industry. Richmond
County is situated in an ideal location at the crossroads of the I-73/74 east-west corridor
and the US 1 north-south corridor, and is within close proximity to I-95. The county's
existing industrial parks are served by water/sewer and communications infrastructure.
These factors support the goal of continued industrial development.
City of Rockingham
Rockingham's Land Use Plan, Shaping Our Future:2023 is a 10-year plan that sets forth a
community vision and series of goals and objectives based on factual data analysis and citizen
input. Key land use trends and policies include:
• The US-74 Bypass decreased trips on US-74 Business, but seems not to have negatively
affected commercial uses along that corridor.The US-74/US-1 interchange created an
area of potential growth and development, and the City extended its ETJ limits and sewer
service to this area by 2002. Despite this, as of 2012 new development at this
interchange has been relatively slow. The US-1 Bypass remains in the planning stage; US-
74 Business frontage is developed near interchange;the rest—scattered small tracts (p.
32)
• Existing land use in the City of Rockingham and ETJ is predominantly residential (35.1%)
or undeveloped (49.5%), with just 6.7%of land devoted to commercial uses, and 3.3%to
industrial uses. Most commercial land uses are concentrated in the US-74 Business (E.
Broad Ave.) corridor between US-220 and the city limits.
• US-1 South from US-74 Business to Mizpah Rd is mixed commercial and residential. Up to
US-220 is older commercial with some declining or abandoned properties; from US-220
to Mizpah is mixed but primarily single-family detached. Future commerce in the corridor
is limited by lots too shallow for big box outlets (p. 36)
• Areas along US-1 South from US-220 to Mizpah Road have new and or improved
transportation facilities, nonconforming commercial establishments, home occupations,
improvements in water and sewer infrastructure, and rezoning requests for commercial
zoning classifications, all of which indicate that it is transitioning from predominantly
residential land use to commercial land uses.
• After two decades of stagnation tied to the loss of textile industry and a declining work-
force,the City anticipates the US-74/US-1 interchange, near most recent commercial
development, will offer new opportunities for commerce, particularly for travelers.

10
City of Hamlet
Hamlet has not had an active comprehensive plan since 1967. However, the Strategic Plan for
Richmond County: Vision 2020 does highlight recent revitalization successes within Hamlet.
These include successfully improving connectivity and walkability downtown, linking the Hamlet
Depot and Museum Complex into the Main Street Corridor, and championing a cohesive
downtown streetscape with storefront improvements.The city, in collaboration with the N.C.
Department of Commerce-Main Street Program, completed a Business and Development Plan
for Downtown Hamlet, NC(2009) which made recommendations for downtown revitalization
based on the Main Street Four-Point Approach.
Zoning&Land Use
Zoning regulations within the FLUSA are implemented by Richmond County, the City of
Rockingham, and the City of Hamlet. Zoning maps are included in the Appendix. The proposed
project falls entirely within Richmond County, running generally southwest to northeast,
between the cities of Hamlet and Rockingham. Most of the project is within unincorporated
county land, zoned rural residential. The project does not enter the City of Rockingham or its
ETJ, but crosses through Hamlet's ETJ and is barely within its municipal boundary.The FLUSA
encompasses approximately half of Rockingham's planning jurisdiction, and three-quarters of
Hamlet's planning jurisdiction
• On the western end of the project, starting at US-1 at Osborne Road and running north
of and parallel to Loch Haven and Battley Dairy Roads, the proposed corridor intersects
US-74 Bypass,where the Richmond County Highway Commercial Overlay is in effect. It
moves into Hamlet's ETJ, crossing land zoned industrial, then rural residential.
• Then, in its mid-section, the project is located in the far northwest corner of the City of
Hamlet, where it is zoned low-density residential; it then passes between the cities of
Hamlet and Rockingham, crossing I-74 and its commercial corridor.
• Still within Hamlet's ETJ, the project traverses more rural residential County lands.
• At the northeast end of the proposed project, at Fox Road, the project rejoins the current
US-1 corridor, in the Richmond County Highway Commercial Overlay, to the Beaverdam
Church Road intersection,where there is a large parcel zoned commercial.
• Then the proposed route continues along US-1 and its Highway Commercial Overlay to
Marston Road.
Richmond County
In the FLUSA, existing zoning is described in the Richmond County Zoning Ordinance of 2003.
The southwestern section of the FLUSA, south of the Airport Road planned interchange, is zoned
Agricultural Residential (A-R) and Rural Residential (R-R).
• A-R—Agricultural Residential: established for primarily rural, agricultural and sparse
residential uses. Characterized as being removed from main transportation arteries and
intended to preserve rural character of county

11
• R-R—Rural Residential: established to protect residential areas from incompatible land
uses. Located close to transport corridors and some farming activity is allowed.
The central section of the FLUSA, between the Airport Road and Wiregrass Road planned
interchanges, is zoned Village Residential (V-R) and Highway Commercial (H-C).
• V-R—Village Residential: established to conserve areas in the County where historical
growth patterns of have created mixed-use village neighborhoods with employment,
commercial goods, and professional/personal services within walking distance of
residential dwellings.
• H-C—Highway commercial: established primarily for businesses catering to auto traffic,
requiring large lots, access, and parking and loading space.This district is generally
located along established or proposed highway corridors, mainly at intersections and
interchanges.
The northeastern section of the FLUSA, north of the Wiregrass Road planned interchange, is
zoned primarily Rural Residential (R-R)with some County Residential (C-R), Highway Commercial
(H-C), Heavy Industrial (H-1) and Light Industrial (L-1). The Water Supply Watershed Overlay
District (WSWO) also encompasses most of this northeastern section.
• R-R—Rural Residential: (see above)
• C-R—County Residential: established for low-density, single-family housing within
County's growth areas. Commercial activity within this district is restricted to home
occupations.
• H-C—Highway Commercial: (see above)
• H-1—Heavy Industrial: established for heavy industries that create some levels of
nuisance.This district is generally separated from residential and public gathering
locations. This district is located where these uses have access to resources and
transportation.
• L-I—Light Industrial: established for wholesale,warehousing, light manufacturing, and
industrial research, as well as some institutional land uses. This district is intended to
promote sound, permanent, light, industrial development and protect surrounding areas
from any undesirable aspects of such uses.This district is located in areas that have good
access to transportation facilities.
• WSWO—Water Supply Watershed Overlay: established to protect the drinking water
supply of the County and its cities from contaminated runoff from development.
In addition, the Highway Commercial Overlay District (HCO) is located above and along all US and
NC highways for 1,000 feet on each side of the right of way.
• HCO—Highway Commercial Overlay: intended to coordinate development of lands along
major highways while protecting the residential and agricultural environment that is
prevalent in the County.
City of Rockingham
The City of Rockingham's Unified Development Ordinance establishes 13 zoning districts
regulating permitted land uses (see Figure 4). Within the FLUSA, land along US 1 and US 74
Business is generally zoned Commercial Business or Highway Business, with a mix of residential,

12
industrial, and office institutional zones on either side beyond the business zones. Land along
Falling Creek and Hitchcock Creek is zoned Open Space. The districts are listed below with 2012
acreage and%share of total land in parentheses:
• (B-1) Neighborhood Business (75, 0.6): intended to accommodate small, neighborhood-
oriented commercial activities that offer goods and services to surrounding residential
areas.
• (B-2) Central Business (74, 0.6): intended to provide for a mix of commercial, service,
residential, and governmental uses in intensely developed pedestrian-friendly
environment.
• (B-3) Highway Business (1,324, 10.6): intended to provide for extensive commercial
development with easy accessibility and adequate parking and
• (0-1) Office Institutional (141, 1.1): intended to provide for the development of
professional, medical and institutional uses in an office park or campus like environment
and provide areas for high density residential developments.
• (1-1) Light Industrial (617, 5.0): intended to accommodate wholesale activities, industrial
research,warehousing, and light manufacturing and protect surrounding areas from any
undesirable impacts of such development.
• (1-2) Heavy Industrial (576,4.6): intended to accommodate intensive industrial activities
that create some level of nuisance and protect the community from any undesirable
impacts.
• (R-20) Rural Residential (3,605, 29.0): intended to provide for sparsely developed rural
areas outside the city, and provide areas for agriculture and related uses.
• (R-12) Low Density Residential (2,404, 19.3intended to provide for the orderly growth of
single-family detached development with a relatively spacious character in order to
create quiet, livable neighborhoods.
• (R-9) Moderate Density Residential (515, 4.1): intended to provide for the orderly growth
of single-family detached development with a moderately spacious character in order to
create quiet, livable neighborhoods.
• (R-8) Residential Duplex (845, 6.8): intended to provide for the orderly growth of single-
family detached, semi-detached, and two-family development with a moderately dense
character in order to create quiet, livable neighborhoods.
• (R-7) High Density Residential (845, 6.8): intended to provide for the orderly growth of
single-family detached, single-family attached, single-family semi-detached, two-family
and multi-family development with a dense character in order to create quiet, livable
neighborhoods.
• (R-7A) Residential Mill Village (1,065, 8.6): intended to accommodate the historic
development patterns created in the mill village areas and thereby minimize the creation
of nonconforming situations while still maintaining quiet, livable neighborhoods.
• (OS) Open Space (1,037, 8.3): intended to preserve undeveloped land that is ecologically,
economically, culturally or historically significant in an undeveloped state. May include
wildlife refuges, scenic or passive recreation areas, and other sensitive areas.

13
City of Hamlet
The City of Hamlet's Zoning Ordinance provides for 12 zoning districts, shown in Figure 5 and
band listed below. Within the FLUSA, much of the land along US 74 Business is zoned Central
Business or General Business, interspersed with the higher density R-6 Residential District.
Industrial, Office Institutional, and lower density residential districts exist outside of this corridor.
The Town of Dobbins Heights has three of these districts applied within their boundaries, as
noted below.
• RA-20 Residential Agricultural: allows light intensive to intensive agricultural operations,
low-medium density residential, and single-family, multi-family and manufactured
homes.
• R-20 Residential District: similar to RA-20, but only less intensive agriculture allowed.
Manufactured home parks are not allowed.
• R-10 Residential District: established for low-density single-family residential
development. No multi-family or manufactured homes allowed.
• R-8 Residential District: established for low-density single-family residential
development. No multi-family or manufactured homes allowed.
• R-6 Residential District: allows higher-density residential, excluding manufactured homes
and manufactured home parks
• R-6M Residential Mobile Home (Hamlet and Dobbins Heights):very much like R-6
residential district, but allows manufactured homes and manufactured home parks.
• B-1 Central Business District: established as the main commercial district, with highest
density of multi-family residential uses.
• B-2 General Business District (Hamlet and Dobbins Heights): established as a general
business area served primarily by the traveling public, generally located along high traffic
corridors. High-density multi-family residential allowed.
• B-3 Neighborhood Business (Hamlet and Dobbins Heights): established for small
neighborhood business and high-density multi-family residential uses.
• 0-1 Office Institutional: established for lower-density offices and institutional uses as well
as high-density single-and multi-family residential.
• 1-1 Light Industrial: established for light industrial uses which are more compatible with
surrounding neighborhood and commercial patterns.
• 1-2 Heavy Industrial: established for heavy industrial uses which generally are
incompatible with residential or similar uses.
Notable Natural Features
Notable natural features are depicted in Figure 3.
Water Supply Watershed
The FLUSA contains portions of the Hitchcock Creek WS-111 Protected Water Supply Watershed
(WSWS), the Falling Creek WS-111 Protected WSWS and the Falling Creek WS-111 Critical WSWS.
Furthermore,the entire Hitchcock Creek WS-111 Critical WSWS is located to the north of the City
of Rockingham approximately 1 mile north and west of the FLUSA while the Marks Creek WS-11

14
Protected and Critical WSWS's are located to the east of the City of Hamlet just south of and in
close proximity to the FLUSA boundary.
Within a WS-II Protected WSWS area, development is restricted to one dwelling unit per acre or
12%built-upon area for the low density option and one dwelling unit per acre or 12-30% built-
upon area for the high density option. Development within the WS-II Critical area is restricted to
one dwelling unit per two acres or 6% built-upon area for the low density option and one
dwelling unit per two acres or 6-24%built-upon area for the high density option.
Within a WS-III Protected WSWS area, development is restricted to two dwelling units per acre
or 24%built-upon area for the low density option and two dwelling units per acre or 24-50%
built-upon area for the high density option. Development within the WS-III Critical area is
restricted to one dwelling unit per acre or 12%built-upon area for the low density option or one
dwelling unit per acre or 12-30% built-upon area for the high density option.
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
There are eight Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) located wholly or partially within the
FLUSA. Designated SNHA's across the state are either privately or publically held; this
designation does not afford any special protections or conservation status, but signify that these
areas are unique from an ecological standpoint. These include:
• Pee Dee River Marsh Ponds-(located along the banks of the Pee Dee River which forms
the western boundary of the FLUSA
• Marks Creek and Floodplain- (Marks Creek forms the southern border of the FLUSA)
• Marks Creek Powerline-( a portion of which is located in the southern FLUSA)
• Mount Calvert Church Powerline Seeps-(located immediately north of the planned US 74
Business interchange)
• Wiregrass Road Powerline-(located in around the planned Wiregrass Road interchange)
• Falling Creek Headwaters-(located east of the City of Rockingham and Wiregrass Road
and west of the planned alignment)
• Hinson Creek Wildlife Conservation Area- (located in the northern portion of the FLUSA,
east of the City of Rockingham)
• Gibson Pond-( located south of existing US 1 in the northern portion of the FLUSA)
303(d)Listed Impaired Waters
Marks Creek(Boyds Lake, City Lake, Everetts Lake) is listed on NC DWR's Draft 2014 303(d) list of
impaired waters from NC 177 to the NC/SC state line. This waterway is listed as impaired for
aquatic life (ecological/biological integrity benthos) and has fair bio-classification. Marks Creek
forms the southern portion of the FLUSA boundary.
Lands Managed for Conservation, Open Space, Clean Water Management Trust Properties
There are parcels within the FLUSA that are managed for conservation. These include:
• Sandhills Gameland Management Area-consists of multiple parcels owned by the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission and located in the northeastern portion of the FLUSA

15
• Pee Dee River Gameland Management Area-consists of parcels owned by Duke Power
along the Pee Dee River in the southwestern portion of the FLUSA
Indirect Screening Matrix Methodology
An Indirect and Cumulative Land Use Effects Screening Matrix was developed for STIP R-2501.
This matrix assesses factors that influence land development decisions and presents an
assessment in a quantitative matrix based upon existing conditions and trends. It rates the
impact of each category from higher potential for indirect effects to lower potential for indirect
effects. The measures used are supported by documentation. Each category is assessed
individually and the results of the table are looked at comprehensively to determine the indirect
and cumulative effects potential of the proposed project. The Scope of Project, Change in
Accessibility, Public Policy, and Notable Environmental Features categories are given extra weight
to determine whether future growth in the area is related to project modifications. ICE Screening
Matrix
Forecasted Forecasted Notable
Scope of Change in Available Water/§ewer Market for Fop{�lation Empioy/ment Public Policy Environmental Result
Project Accessibility Land Availability Development
Rating Growth iGrowth Features
a
Malor N 10 minute >3%annual Substantial#of 5000+Acres of All services Development Less stringent; Targeted or,
- -
trauel2ime population New Jobs existing/ no growth '. Threatened
More Location ew activit
savings growth Expected Land available y abundant r_management Resource
Concern
1 X X
a
X X X X Possible Indirect
Scenario Assessment
X X:
j X
Less
No service More stringent; Features
Concern 'Very Limned Na Travel time' No population No new Jobs or Limited Land Development
available now or growth in In
Scope savings growth or decline Job Losses Avaialble activity lacking
in future management'. local protection 8
ICE Screening Matrix Summary
Based upon the information analyzed and the corresponding values assigned for each category
within the ICE screening matrix, the output recommendation is a 'Possible Land Use Scenario
Assessment' (LUSA). A LUSA will not be prepared for this project.
Scope of Project
The project entails improving US 1 from a point south of Rockingham to the community of
Marston, a distance of about 19 miles. Approximately 14 miles will be on new location, and
about five miles of existing US 1, in the vicinity of both termini, will be widened. US 1 is proposed
to be a four-lane, median divided roadway with full control of access along the new location part
and no control of access on the widening part. A five-lane section with no control of access is
proposed along existing US 1 from about one and a half miles north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to
Marston Road (SR 1001). Interchanges are planned at the US 74 Bypass, Airport Road (SR 1966),
US 74 Business, and Wiregrass Road (SR 1640)/County Home Road (SR 1624). As a result, this
category was rated as 'high' signifying a major new location project.

16
Change in Travel Time
Potential travel time savings as a result of the project was estimated by utilizing the Google Maps
trip estimating application. As this is primarily a new location project, the project's termini were
inputted and the trip was estimated using the shortest available route on existing roadways. It
was estimated that the trip currently takes 22 minutes, whereas traveling the approximately 19
mile long project( 14 miles of new location ) at the posted speed limit of 65 mph would take
approximately 20 minutes taking into account the 5 miles of existing location widening. The
elimination of signals and turning movements and full control of access was also factored in.
Therefore,this category was rated as 'moderate' with travel time savings between 3-6 minutes.
Forecasted Population Growth
According to population estimates and projections from the State Demographer provided by the
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, Richmond County's total population was
estimated to be 46,635 in July 2010, and is expected to be 45,483 in July of 2034. This represents
a projected -0.10%annualized growth rate during that time period. As a result, this category was
rated as 'low' representing no population growth or decline.
Forecasted Employment Growth
According to employment projections provided by the North Carolina Department of
Commerce—Labor& Economic Analysis Division, the Lumber River Workforce Development
Board (WDB), which includes Bladen, Hoke, Richmond, Robeson, and Scotland counties, will
experience a 1.2%annualized employment growth rate between 2010 and 2020. Consequently,
this category was rated as 'moderate' or between 1-2%.
Available Land
The FLUSA as a whole contains approximately 56,222 acres. The total area of the parcels within
the FLUSA is approximately 53,259 acres; the remaining acreage of the FLUSA is in roadway
rights-of-way. There are 37,101 acres of undeveloped parcels,where a parcel is defined as being
undeveloped if the total value of any buildings on it is less than $20,000. The Buffer and Clip
tools were used in ArcGIS to calculate the acreage contained within the 30-foot riparian buffers
specified in the Richmond County UDO (1,145 acres), acreage contained within the assumed 300-
foot project right-of-way(i.e., 150-foot buffer to either side of the project centerline) (471 acres)
and other acreage contained within parcels managed for conservation and open space (5,484
acres)was subtracted.To avoid double-or triple-counting the acreage that is in the stream/lake
buffer, the right-of-way and other protected land, the Union tool was used in ArcGIS to calculate
the "unique" acreage, resulting in 6,815 acres. This acreage was subtracted out, leaving 46,444
acres of undeveloped parcels in the FLUSA which are considered to be available for development.
As a result, this category was rated as 'high', or over 5,000 acres.
Water and Sewer Availability
Water and sewer service is provided within the City of Rockingham's ETJ, within the City of
Hamlet's ETJ,within the Town of Dobbins Heights, and in portions of Richmond County outside of
the ETJ boundaries. In Richmond County, water service is provided along major roads

17
throughout the FLUSA, except to areas in the far western and eastern portions of the FLUSA.
Sewer service is very limited outside of the municipal boundaries. The water and sewer systems
have adequate capacity, and no expansions are currently planned. This category was rated
'moderate'.
Market for Development
Development within the FLUSA currently is slow and has been characterized by local planners as
'lethargic',with more redevelopment and small new development projects occurring than major
new development. The residential market is improving, but the commercial and industrial
markets remain slow. Despite the available land and water and sewer service, historical data and
projections and future land use plans indicate that the market for development within the FLUSA
will remain slow. This category was rated 'moderately-low'.
Public Policy
Public policy is in place for Richmond County, Rockingham and Hamlet in the form of zoning
ordinances, a unified development ordinance, a flood management ordinance, a Watershed
Water Supply ordinance and comprehensive land use plans. As a result, this category was rated
as'moderate', signifying an average presence of growth management policies.
Notable Environmental Features
Targeted or threatened resources within the FLUSA include: Marks Creek, a portion of which
forms the southwestern FLUSA boundary,which is included on the draft 2014 303(d) list,
portions of both Protected and Critical WSWS areas (as well as ones located just outside of the
FLUSA boundary), various Significant Natural Heritage Areas located within the FLUSA(including
one in close proximity to the planned Wiregrass Road interchange) and state-owned, managed
game lands.Therefore, this category was rated as 'moderately-low'.
Indirect Effects Summary
Based upon the analysis and the output of the ICE Screening Matrix,this predominantly full
control of access project has a low to moderate likelihood to increase the development potential
of and intensity in the areas adjacent to the STIP R-2501 corridor. Therefore, this project will
likely not result in a significant change in impervious surface and subsequently will not notably
affect water quality within the FLUSA. In addition, any development, with or without the project
that potentially impacts jurisdictional resources will be subject to regulatory permitting
requirements.
The proposed Rockingham Bypass will result in transportation impact causing activities (TICA)
which have some potential to influence land development decisions in the FLUSA. TICA's that
will result from this project include: an increase in exposure, change in access, creation of
transportation/land use nodes at the planned interchanges, moderate travel time savings and a
change of travel patterns. According to local planners the greatest potential for induced
development (likely highway commercial in nature) will occur at the planned interchanges as a
result of the increase in access and exposure and the creation of transportation/land use nodes.

18
Local officials have stated that they view planned transportation facilities in the area as potential
catalysts for development and have expressed a willingness to extend infrastructure to facilitate
any growth, but at this time there are no planned expansions. The potential for change in land
use will be tempered by the low market for development, as evidence by the general lack of
large-scale pending and approved development and demographic projections,which show a
decline in population in the DSA. Moreover, any development will be subject to the density
restrictions and riparian buffers in place as part of the existing Watershed Water Supply
ordinance,which applies to a sizeable portion of the FLUSA.
Cumulative Effects Summary
The construction of STIP Project R-2501, in conjunction with other planned transportation
projects in the region, will improve mobility and have the potential to change travel patterns.
Any resultant induced development and complementary land development, coupled with the
completion of recent transportation and development projects (STIP R-2231 and STIP R-2502;
Non-transportation: the Pineridge Shopping Center in Rockingham and Marks Creek Industrial
Park in Hamlet) along with the construction of planned transportation projects and private
development projects ( STIP R-2501A and STIP R-3421; Non-transportation: No major
development or redevelopment projects, but a number of smaller commercial and residential
projects either in the planning stages or under construction), could constitute a cumulative effect
on the study area.
Conclusion
Minimal potential exists for water resources within the FLUSA to be impacted given the level of
past, present, and planned projects. The FLUSA contains a portion of a designated 303(d) listed
stream and both Protected and Critical WSWS areas. However, comprehensive planning and
water supply watershed protection zones and rules and the implementation of Best
Management Practices during construction, including sediment and erosion control measures,
will minimize these effects.
Direct natural environmental impacts by NCDOT projects will be addressed by programmatic
agreements with resource agencies, and will be further evaluated by the NCDOT Natural
Environment Unit during project permitting. Natural environmental impacts that may result
from any induced development may be avoided or minimized through the implementation of
local, state and federal regulations.
Because minimal indirect impacts are anticipated, the cumulative effect of this project when
considered in the context of other past present and future actions, and the resulting impact on
the notable human and natural features, should be minimal. Therefore, potential indirect and
cumulative effects to downstream water quality should be minimal.

A-1
APPENDIX
Sources
Armstrong,James E., Richmond County Department of Planning&Geographic Information
System Services, personal email,July 28, 2014
Billingsley, Benny, City of Hamlet Department of Public Works, personal interview,July, 21, 2014
Hamlet Business and Development Plan:Downtown Hamlet NC:
http://www.hamletnc.us/Incoming/Business%20and%20Development%20PIan%20HAMLET.pdf,
2009.
Land, Brian, Richmond County Department of Public Works, personal email,July 17, 2014
Massey,John, City of Rockingham Department of Planning, personal interview,July 17, 2014
Massey,John, City of Rockingham Department of Planning, personal email,July 24, 2014
Richmond 2010:A Civic Index for Richmond County, North Carolina:
http://www.hamletnc.us/Richmond20lOCiviclndex.pdf, October 2004.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension,Trees and Local Regulations in North Carolina
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/forest/ordinance/ordinances.php?hiddenl=municipalities&sele
ctl=hamlet.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water
Resources, Local Water Supply Plans—Hamlet Water System, 2013;
http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/search.php,
accessed July, 2014
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water
Resources, Local Water Supply Plans—Richmond County, 2011; Available from
http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/search.php,
accessed July, 2014
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water
Resources, Local Water Supply Plans—Rockingham, 2013; Available from
http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/search.php,
accessed July, 2014
2013 Strategic Plan for Richmond County: Vision 2020, Urban Institute, UNC Charlotte:
http://www.richmondnc.com/files/articles/Vision 2020 Richmond County Strategic Plan FINA
L.pdf, 2013.
Richmond County Zoning Ordinance:
http://www.ri ch mo nd nc.co m/files/zo n i ng%20o rd i na nce/Zo n i ng%200 rd i na nce%20-
%20certified.pdf, July 2003.

A-2
Richmond County, North Carolina Code of Ordinances:
http://www.richmondnc.com/ordinance.aspx, 2002.
Richmond County Working Lands Protection Plan:
http://www.umoag.com/outreach/docs/Richmond%20County%20Worki ng%20Lands%20Protecti
on%20PIan.pdf, 2010.
Rockingham Unified Development Ordinances: http://mpweb.org/cityofrockingham/online-
documents/unified-development-ordinances/, 2004.
Shaping Our Future:2012:City of Rockingham Land Use Plan:
http://www.gorockingham.com/forms/Shaping%20Our%20Futu re%202012,%20Rocki ngham%20
Land%20Use%20PIan.pdf, 2002.
Shaping Our Future:2023:City of Rockingham Land Use Plan:
http://www.gorockingham.com/forms/Shaping%20Our%20Futu re%202023%20(Final%20Draft%
20Combined%20Files).pdf, 2013.
Strickland, Gail, City of Hamlet Department of Administration, personal email,July 24, 2014
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment—US1
Rockingham Bypass, Federal Aid Project No. 8.T580501,T.I.P. No. R-2501, 2005
Wainwright, David, Response to the Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report for the
Proposed Rockingham Bypass, memorandum, April 29, 2013

A-3
Local Input Forms
A. Hamlet
B. Rockingham
C. Richmond County
A.
Local Official Input—City of Hamlet
Indirect&Cumulative Effects Screening Memo
R-25011 US 1 Improvements
Local Official:Gail Strickland, Hamlet Zoning Coordinator
Date:July 24,2014
Via Email
1. We have collected the following community plans and ordinances available online:
• Hamlet Zoning Districts
• Hamlet Zoning Map
Are there any relevant plans or ordinances we are missing, or are any of the plans/ordinances
listed above currently being updated?
The City has Zoning Ordinance but they are not available in digital format at this time.
2. What is the local and regional vision for the US 1 corridor?
Potential economic growth.
3. Where is growth occurring in your jurisdiction as well as regionally?Are there any major
developments under construction or are any planned?
A recent new spur was constructed by CSX Railroad. No new major developments under
construction or planned at this time.
4. Is there any redevelopment taking place? If so, where?
Hylan Avenue—Ferrofab and Hwy 177 South -Therafirm.The Marks Creek Industrial Park
located at Hwy 177 south is ready to be marketed.
5. How would you characterize the residential market? Commercial market? Industrial
market?
Residential—Slow growth
Commercial—Stagnant
Industrial—Periodical
6. Where are the major employment centers?Are there any planned employer relocations?
Hwy 74 Business, Hwy 177 South and Hwy 177 North—no planned relocations at this time
7. Are there any proposed local transportation projects in the study area?
From the City of Hamlet—No

A-4
8. What are the major constraints to development in the area?
Lack of capital and lack of amenities.
9. Are there any riparian buffer regulations?
No.
10. Are there any local runoff management programs?
No.
11. Is there any land protected from development?
No.
12. Are there any development moratoria?What about development incentives?
No.
13. Are there any voluntary agricultural districts?
Much of the land in the Extraterritorial jurisdiction along the proposed corridor is zoned
residential agriculture but no major agriculture uses.
14. Are there any notable features (historic structures or districts, solid waste facilities,
threatened or endangered species, etc.) in the area?
None that I am aware of.
15. Do you anticipate this project (R-2501) to affect land use in the area? If yes, what kinds
of effects are expected?
It appears the residential uses will be affected for the property owners that relocated due to
the new corridor.
16. Are there any additional comments you would like to make?
I expect the planned US1 improvement will manage traffic more effectively,improve road
safety, provide travelers an opportunity to visit our city and possibly regenerate industry and
business in the area.
B.
Local Official Input—City of Rockingham
Indirect&Cumulative Effects Screening Memo
R-25011 US 1 Improvements
Local Official:John R. Massey,Jr., Rockingham Planning Director
Date:July 24,2014
Via Email
17. We have collected the following community plans and ordinances available online:
o Rockingham Land Use Plan (July 2002)
o Rockingham Zoning Map (September 2009)
o Rockingham Zoning Districts (no date)

A-5
Are there any relevant plans or ordinances we are missing, or are any of the plans/ordinances
listed above currently being updated?
Attached is an updated City land use plan—Shaping Our Future 2023,which was adopted in
July of 2013. 1 don't think there are any other relevant documents you've missed.
18. What is the local and regional vision for the US 1 corridor?
There is no formally adopted local or regional"vision"for the US 1 corridor. I do believe most
leaders and citizens believe the proposed interchange at US Hwy 74 Business will help facilitate
some economic development opportunities in that immediate area. The proposed bypass is
also viewed as a means to removed large truck traffic from downtown Rockingham.
19. Where is growth occurring in your jurisdiction as well as regionally?Are there any major
developments under construction or are any planned?
The majority of the commercial growth in Rockingham is occurring along Hwy 74 Business in
the vicinity of where the proposed interchange will be located (which also happens to be in
close proximity to Walmart which I believe is somewhat influencing the commercial
desirability of the area). Most residential development in Rockingham is occurring on the
northeast side of Rockingham. Most industrial development is occurring in the City's industrial
parks which are on the west side of the City. There are no large developments planned at this
time, but we do have a number of smaller commercial and residential projects either in the
planning stages or currently under construction.
20. Is there any redevelopment taking place? If so, where?
In terms of redevelopment, Pineridge Shopping Center(which is located approximately a half
mile from the proposed location of the US Hwy 74 Business/US Hwy 1 Bypass interchange)was
recently renovated and filled with new commercial tenants after sitting vacated for about 8
years. Also,in the same area, Bojangles recently purchased and demolished an abandoned car
dealership; and built a new restaurant.
21. How would you characterize the residential market? Commercial market? Industrial
market?
The residential market is actually picking up relative to what it has been over the last five-year
period. I wouldn't characterize it as booming, but it has definitely improved. The same can be
said for the commercial market. The industrial market is still relatively slow.
22. Where are the major employment centers?Are there any planned employer relocations?
The major employment centers are the US Hwy 74 Business corridor and the Long Drive
corridor. Perdue Poultry(county's largest employer)and Richmond Memorial Hospital
(county's 3rd largest employer)are both located on Long Drive. I'm not aware of any planned
employer relocations.
23. Are there any proposed local transportation projects in the study area?
TIP#3818 is in very close proximity to the project area. It is intended to alleviate some of the
congestion on Long Drive by providing an alternate connection between the significant
residential areas to the northeast of the City and the goods and services located along the US
Hwy 74 Business corridor. This is not a project the City is planning to construct, but rather a
project of local impact that we've requested NCDOT to pursue for almost 20 years.
24. What are the major constraints to development in the area?
I'm not aware of any constraints on development.

A-6
25. Are there any riparian buffer regulations?
Other than the Open Space(O-S)zoning district that the City has applied along the north and
south prongs of Falling Creek and Hitchcock Creek,which serve as a type of riparian buffer for
development,there are no formal riparian buffers.
26. Are there any local runoff management programs?
There are no local runoff management programs.
27. Is there any land protected from development?
As noted in#9 above,other than the Open Space (O-S)zoning district along the north and
south prongs of Falling Creek and Hitchcock Creek,there is no land protected from
development.
28. Are there any development moratoria?What about development incentives?
The City has no development moratoria or incentives.
29. Are there any voluntary agricultural districts?
The City has no voluntary agricultural districts.
30. Are there any notable features (historic structures or districts, solid waste facilities,
threatened or endangered species, etc.) in the area?
I'm not aware of any notable features in the study area.
31. Do you anticipate this project (R-2501) to affect land use in the area? If yes, what kinds
of effects are expected?
I think the project will facilitate new commercial development along US Hwy 74 Business
around the proposed interchange.
32. Are there any additional comments you would like to make?
I don't have any additional comments. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call or email me.
C.
Local Official Input—Richmond County
Indirect&Cumulative Effects Screening Memo
R-25011 US 1 Improvements
Local Official:James Armstrong, County Planner
Date:July XX,2014
Via Email
33. We have collected the following community plans and ordinances available online:
• Richmond County Zoning Districts
• Richmond County Zoning Ordinance (July 2003)
Are there any relevant plans or ordinances we are missing, or are any of the plans/ordinances
listed above currently being updated?

A-7
There are several other ordinances for land development in Richmond County,though most of
them have been Codified into the Richmond County Code of Ordinances. These include:
Floodplain Management Ordinance
Subdivision Regulations
Manufacture Home and Park Regulations
Watershed Regulations
Airport Hazard Zones Code(standalone)
These regulations can be found in the County Code at the following link.
htti)://www.richmondnc.com/ordinance.ast)x
34. What is the local and regional vision for the US 1 corridor?
The US 1 corridor is a main thruway and local artery. The local vision is for US 1 to continue to
play this role as a major connection not only to neighboring markets, but to neighboring States
and beyond. The US 1 bypass can be seen as a way to continue this role as a vital
transportation link.
35. Where is growth occurring in your jurisdiction as well as regionally?Are there any major
developments under construction or are any planned?
Richmond County has not experience any sustained growth in over 2 decades. Most of the
growth that does occur is within the Rockingham/Hamlet Urban area. Other than a few new
commercial building and residential structures being built,there is no evidence of a major land
development activities.
36. Is there any redevelopment taking place? If so, where?
There is not a large scale(or medium scale) redevelopment taking place. A few projects can be
found in and around the Rockingham/Hamlet urban area.
37. How would you characterize the residential market? Commercial market? Industrial
market?
All three markets in this question are not experience any sustained or noticeable growth
patterns.While there have been some positive bumps in one or more of these markets over
the years,the best characterization for all three could be lethargic.
38. Where are the major employment centers?Are there any planned employer relocations?
The Purdue Chicken process plant on Long Drive in Rockingham is the largest employer in
Richmond County. The Plant is situated across the street from the primary medical center for
Richmond COUnty—Richmond County First Health—another large employer. The Richmond
County scholl system is another large employer and the largest concentration of personnel
could be at the single Richmond County High school. County the students at the high school
along with employment could proved that this would be the single largest daily attraction for
vehicle trips.
39. Are there any proposed local transportation projects in the study area?
Obviously there is the US 1 Bypass. Also on the TIP(thought not yet funded) is what is termed
locally as the Long Drive Alternate. This project is to connect the East Rockingham Area with
US 1 north of town (including the High School) as well as help elevate local traffic from homes
in the north side of the urban area to the commercial destination along US 74 business. The

A-8
location of this"Long Drive Alternate is between the cities of Rockingham and Hamlet from
Hylan Road to US 74 Bus/Clemmer Road, north on Clemmer to County Home Road,then on
new location from the previous point to the intersection of East Washington Street and Mt.
Olive Church Road,the north along Mt. Olive Church Road to US 1,then north on new location,
intersection with Old Aberdeen Road in north Rockingham
40. What are the major constraints to development in the area?
Most of the constraints to development in Richmond County have been address and acted
upon over the last several years. Education, land and building availability,work force have all
been positively impacted through strengthening partnerships between the political,
educational,and industrial sectors. The only real constraint is the distance to major cities and
ports. This distance can only be overcome by good transportation links,such as the US 1
Corridor.
41. Are there any riparian buffer regulations?
Other than those found in the standard Water Supply Watershed Management model
ordinance(on which Richmond County's is based),there are no riparian buffer regulations.
42. Are there any local runoff management programs?
There are no local runoff management programs for Richmond County.
43. Is there any land protected from development?
Within the study area, protected lands include the Sandhills Game lands as well as some
known wetlands. Also there are a number of land owners who have sold there development
rights to area land conservancies.
44. Are there any development moratoria?What about development incentives?
Richmond County has enacted no development moratorias.
45. Are there any voluntary agricultural districts?
Richmond County does participate in the NC State sponsored VAD program with several farms
participating. It does not appear that any of these participating farms are within the study
district. Please see the following link for a map and location of participating farms.
htti)://eis2.richmondnc.com/flex/richmondvad/
46. Are there any notable features (historic structures or districts, solid waste facilities,
threatened or endangered species, etc.) in the area?
Other than what might be located in the Rockingham or Hamlet jurisdictional areas,there does
not appear to be many significant or notable features. However,it may be good to note the
CSX rail yard along the east side of the study area along NC 177 as well as the Pine Hills
Industrial Park near the intersection of NC 177 N and County Home Road. Also the Richmond
County Airport near the center of the study area just south of the City of Rockingham.
47. Do you anticipate this project (R-2501) to affect land use in the area? If yes, what kinds
of effects are expected?
It is understood that this bypass will primarily be a limited highway facility. Therefore the
impact to land development will be centered at and around the interchanges. Utilities(Waters
Sewer,etc) have been are can be provided to many of the planned interchanges. Additional

A-9
commercial(and perhaps industrial development) should be expected along possible frontage
roads leading down and along side the main facility.
48. Are there any additional comments you would like to make?
No additional comments at this time

A-10
Figure 1 —Demographic Study Area
Figure 2—Available Land
Figure 3—Notable Natural Features
Figure 4—Rockingham Zoning MaR
Figure 5—Hamlet Zoning Map 1
Figure 6—Hamlet Zoning Map 2

A-11
Moore courty
erbe Richmond County
so 3,.OT 970'1 �wwmmmW ,.
IO-Wofo Hoffman
220 0 10001, C
Lilesville
kingham "'04
P
OT 97 1„ar 9-ria
f� muuurvIn,m�
97 0 3m 97416 .,
OT Be'l,CST 9706
®A 4.T Heights
"03 1a 2,OT 97 GO GO^n,CT 9711
T 9
00 T 0702 B" ���
%'�mw
r Hamlet 0
97 4'MS �
3M CT 97 40 971
04G 97 i Cpl` �"✓
3A,CT w — 74 Q 2325
� 'V� "�,-' 3p 9711
r
54M S.,,CT 9708
B,la 3,4r•"f 9711
& riu
SOUth �uCu���� o������ww�wwuu wou ww.w�wuw wuwu�wro wuouwwwnww.wuwmi�mmiw. mmmi uww ,wwwwwwwwwww ��� u�m��������w '.�1
Legend
Vicinity
, -2501 e
mo ra c Study re - F
igur I
-2501 F-AA DS w Demographic hic t�d v Area Created by: NCDOT Community Studies - July 2014
-2501 Proposed Alignment
d4 w l i
Municipal BOUrrdacaes ` � '��ut1,��
Miles
0 1 2 4 6 8

A-12
I� l
0,
A
Part" yPi�
4,
/ o
V p
r � s dL
a�
AA
PCannad interchange h� f �� r�JJr r�
9 �Y � '
Ad .......tP� ......Road) r .. Y °
Xryryrnu41 Vr
�PA 0 � ���
t7 �5601 �IC�',�� � $ u u� r�
i. -e fll a V,,�a wY a J 1W z
m �
Ida '.,
UT
w f'i•'a do r w" �r Y r, F 1 0
W
� rv�
6Gq � wv � `
Planned�nCarchaiN ez
OJS 74 Bypass) jyuYk
Fl Planned Cniterchana
c
OJ `74 BUSUnfsa-,
d annVet C
� i� p�� I,•r�� P �aiw ,� � W 1 Crcm�Cl r,��V ��a % ��a�'^ h d w„ „�r"" ��' w l��
Op
'b Iwi Y wr
w
a
N. ^.. V , � w, "➢7�.,�Imp� f " P 4 .�ww.ir
v n
1p
Fa ,; Planned interchan+ga
(A kport Road)
7+Ih
d
G3 y
Legend viciinit Mo R-2501 Available Land- Figure
R-25,01 FLU SA Undeveloped_ Pthin_prntected Created by: NCDOT Community 5tuudies July 2014
-2 t �� undeveloped parceis
dndeveioped_ ithin_bu ffer Richmond Ccu_parcels
Miles
Hydro_30ft buffer Municipal Boundaries ,,,WII 0 075 1.5 3 4.5 6

A-13
xr
x/x/° . xf x T '` ,. ,✓ .x! r``~�N,' , x,x ,xf, 1",^" ,.,? a. ".�." '
,?� r �,'''x ,. a F/' SS;s'.�, ,'' x,fix ''�" �/',/F ;, � �,. ... ''''''� x./A'` r° xr''xx!' �.,x^'x✓' xr ,!'!xr'' '/ �°' x/' � '"Ji`','Y/`t'x /Xx. ,/' "";w. mI�-
i/""x',x x �':v��',� , ,r°a',,F` xxf,'�` x�'xx''" .. .^� .,. f ,�^' .. �',;�"`,✓ ,.,r.✓,^�"'" `"x�,r,"'x �,' "'%" �,'r �„ F`�... / p �' � x�",! !c� ;,;,
/,+'',s" ,r:£," , /" ,� ` x><•"" " ./ ,�", „ � 1:,, .'1ux 'm re.'w
/ >�x�� x`x d�+"�' i„F(/: ,x�x� ,/ F� x''`' l� _ i' fi` x�"�'�" r"�x�°� ,/"�r` ��x dx^''x ,xx! ,mw✓°" �,�u�',?"���w �,/ ✓"', �,, � g
x x x
,r'x/''� x�' /f J)..,.x',, '"�°� CY' �Y, ..,,.., i ,. i'� x}'' �✓,�✓J."ff ,�;x/'�,^' ,i`xr�",r_ '`� '""'� �,r�'/°"' ,/..,/ ,r`'"!` F' 'x''x'�'.�'' x�, ��' 9Ntr,`.,*`"� ,. ry��'�p�
r✓! fi,"' Y'' �, Aw. ,J,✓ ✓y m't "i „ r% / x ?F '�.'� x'�r`{pir' xx"'' ;;.Y,,,' / , ,,,+'f/,r' f / % ,�y
?to,✓',, fi! r,tr,N`�, r S" r.„r Q"/. 'kby ,,>�i xl�/��^”' f✓'f xx^`r'�=� s'x^" %+"f"" r� ,"�o � �.
/'� fi/firfi� / �,a�rt t;Y�,,�''„r,�"�". ,,. �;>„,T 7` >;. '''%'/ / �”' "'�x"" x''',`xn"'''� x"� '�°" �x'"'' ✓' _'"'` ',,,� � � �',,.µ�" .,.� ,
fxfix/ 7 ,"" ^`�' � �xr J� ✓' a✓ ..;' �,.r f `,......J � �/✓'�" /`� "✓.,k" ,�.''�+" ..., rxx/ �" �/�,s° / !� '`F ",�+k �
n...,
/ //;....,, '� .�.�.�,�Y ,,i.'��'x�'��•�,","� wh ,d �:- 29-: ' ,�
al @a a���asrww��zt��e�e�t
o Ntlaa�'hd y�L�a eerA�"m�r�saa�l C$�R�wraf
s"xx ;i
/ aneette¢m6un -U6 4ar
d`/` " , � � �,. ''^' ,,"'xAr fir'` ',✓ ��, 6, r Lauur;�piptlGprcxcvtte4�ktrom r
4 e
Dee 8 Stu,p
Planned IM BPPCVBn ✓ ° 'r ug ' / i,
" t
f r'"
�wwtlG�gGaSSR 4ad) Fdt r
x 4"C
.a
��r'x
a �teG �I Fle ,
g /
k�a�kt n ��n� OU u_eu >ol
Frog,Hollow Ares
` m
� f
�,gip',/�+
ItBta a ci Oeqsk/pt
Dee River a
... .... „Y WW x
'`"",,,...,. '' ,.," ilg tlaAMsramkent8 'daaerGisveeepasx " n r,
95 C1CYEd WOO
it POW Iime
(US 74 Bypass)
�.
"
r'
wares
is ,,. h„ -.., A
U nd De kes t>6s"nd
P'6aC"Vf"U�°ft�BY'Gtetl'ChaC'kge. � / �� .Urarederc Cvee� F fc�c�pk�k
'`�4U',`1�7'tS.) rf
�. '
' Hamlet
[at Rock Chur&,Out
orop
"F
z,
IL,
N r
";,
et 2Yee B
bier t utrc N� 4ad ra" `' �' n orate Are�tcmazN Lake Yb Ala
I �
Xvere'"IreM es: Pmnsts a %j
6� eu
,4 � � Highland ii�°
�I h�
f
�d l
�w
-�
r
f t � I
L Icmwa,�plaGr " .... '''�„ .....
r v.. F"1s�rtBdYCtt6h �r
Marks Creek Pmv T�
.t J
Taster H�& h ree Creeka 1 lu rg:s Cse Fl u&pG,a:im " Rich m.
r ML6f Natural Area
Tafler Fc k , ree d"reeky
Whites es re: Headwatefs " N
Ugend
'K �.�
'" _ p p ..,.... Lana'Tru t Coro rata n Peerpe�rtie�s —Gam,5^1 "fir/to l e Features� u 1 �'i✓
�. " LandsVara nserr2J enS are
R-2501 F'LUSA Sigfmf,arat Natur.ai Nerrtage Areas Uurcip31 B Ourd,fpss VhC',tCGity Map
Created bar. NCDOT Cctrnmwanit}a 5tudies -July 2014
30a(d)Skrean"ts State_ arreXan is
. .r5 '......�glean"ver UgmtTruret Fund F°ropert.'res
.,
Named'-streams d P...
�,prc p- y OV6rtes
=OiverS4kpp4VWW,vsheda - rr 0,75 t 3 4,5 6

A-14
zi
c.
,
,
1 {
r
,
, , f
y
.Ts
r
r
1111}�
_y
_
r
�h
� fir✓ � \� `�
r
Figure 4- Rockingham Zoning Map

A05
I cgii,2.nchmondnc,com'fl l I n du I I d I t i n a I I I I n I,'" A
JD Ri,:h,,.nd C.,,ntJ -sidi t
..................................................................................I
MO
R-111 11 IN R moll
1101
V,
w-
IRA,
..........
. .........
IWO,
R�,20
iiiiiiiiiir
B
WIT
is tjtpdm qnK
31 to ce:.jo,. 5
!
Figure 5- Hamlet Zoning ME 1

A-16
P ILA C
RichmondCountyJursidicti
, IIlIan
/iii
rti
R
MMM
RA-20
MR,
ti
La t, �?ide 348781 N,
L e�- ...........7778
orjgituid7 0
.................. ........................... ............................................. .............. .........................................................................
Q
.......... ............
Figure 6- Hamlet Zoning ME 2