19940670 Ver 1_Complete File_19940721

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

^
-111 C,
TO;- REF. NO OR ROOM, BLDG.

cOM: REP. NO. OR ROOM, BL
u U l l iMrv? t.- SI pif,
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR-YOUR-:APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME. ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE .. ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

Q `
19??
'!?
JUL 21
WEl Y SeGt'too
WPTER
4
r
?d ,pavq
s•?o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 8, 1994
qq (R. SAMUEL HUNT 111
SECRETARY
District Engineer 401 IS+
Army Corps of Engineers ?U?D
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina -28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Duplin County, NC 24 from I-40 to Western City
Limits of Warsaw, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-24(1), State Project No. 8.1241002, TIP
No. R-2524.
Attached for your information are three copies of
the project planning report for the subject project.
The project is being proce by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Cat oric 1 Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 71.115 b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting n indiv dual permit but propose
to proceed under a Na ionwide ermit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix (B-23) 'ssued November 22, 1991,
by the Corps of Engi eers. a provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A C) of hese regulations will be
followed in the const 'on of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No.
2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project,
and are providing one copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management,
for their review.
i,
i?!

a?
If you have any questions or
information, please call Mr. Doug
Environmental Unit at 733-3141.
need additional
Huggett of NCDOT's
Sincerely,
B. _ nn, PE
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernie Jahnke COE-Wilmington
Mr. John`Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
- w/out attachment
Branch
Mr. Kelly Barger. PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D.J. Bowers, PE, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Marc Hamel, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
kr

Duplin County, NC 24
I-40 to Western City Limits of Warsaw
Project Number 8.1241002
Federal Aid Project Number STP-24(1)
T.I.P. Number R-2524
i
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
\ f 6'-'r
Wae H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
2
J `
D e Ni chol as Graf
Divisio Administrator, FHWA
Duplin County, NC 24
I-40 to Western City Limits of Warsaw
Project Number 8.1241002
Federal Aid Project Number STP-24(1)
T.I.P. Number R-2524
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
717//41? -?7f2
Marc L. Hamel
Transportation Engineer
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
CqF 0
0C
ichar B. Davis, P. t
•, Assistant Man ge _ SEAL _
Planning and Environmental Branch
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative
Action, Categorical Exclusion.
2. Summary of Special Project Committments
Strict adherence to Best Management Practices will be maintained
during the construction phase of the project.
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction regarding the location of survey markers along the project.
3. Actions Required by Other Agencies
It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be constructed under
a U. S. Department of the Army Nationwide Permit for Construction above
Headwaters in accordance with 33 CFR 330.5(a), numbers (14) and (26).
4. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
NC 24 to a four-lane facility with shoulders from the I-40 interchange to
the western city limits of Warsaw in Duplin County (1.0 mile). The
improvements will consist of four, 12-foot lanes with 2-foot paved and
8-foot unpaved shoulders. All intersections will be retained at-grade,
and no improvements to the I-40/NC 24 interchange are proposed. The
estimated total cost of the project is $1,760,000, including $1,050,000
for construction, $710,000 for right-of-way.
5. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed multi-lane improvements will enhance traffic flow and
safety for motorists from Warsaw to I-40. It is anticipated that rear-end
collisions will be reduced, and that access to the interstae will be
o improved.
An additional 20 feet of right-of-way on each side of NC 24 will be
required to complete the project. No farmland, as defined by the Farmland
Protection Policy Act, will be affected by the project. Approximately
0.21 acres of wetlands will be impacted.
6. Alternatives Considered
Alt. 1 - Recommended Alternative - Symmetrical widening to 4-lanes
with shoulders.
Alt. 2 - Offset Widening (North) - All widening to four lanes with
shoulders offset to the north.
Alt. 3 - Offset Widening (South) - All widening to four lanes with
shoulders offset to the south.
Alt. 4 - Widening to 5 lanes with curb and gutter.
i
Alt. 5 - New Location multi-lane.
Alt. 6 - Do Nothing.
7. Federal, State, and Local A encies Contacted at the Beginning
of this Study -
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of'Cultural Resources - Division of Archives
and History
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Administration
N. C. Department of Public Instruction - Division of
School Planning
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Neuse River Council of Governments
Chairman, Duplin County Commissioners
Mayor of Wallace
8. Basis for Categorical Exclusion
On the basis of planning and enviroinmental studies, it is
anticipated this project will not have a significant effect on the quality
of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant
changes in route classification and land use, and is not controversial in
nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state, and local
agencies, and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the
project from the public have been received. For these reasons, it is
concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable to the project.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
I. TYPE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. PROJECT STATUS AND HISTORICAL RESUME . . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Proposed Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. General Location . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Length of Proposed Project . . . . 2
3. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
.
6. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . 2
7.. Intersection Treatment . . . . . . . . 2
8. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
a. Roadway Structure . . . . . . . . 3
b. Drainage Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
9. Interchange Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
10. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
11. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
12. Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 4
13. Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
14. Special Permits Required . . . . . 4
15. Project Terminals . . . . . . . . . 4
16. Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Studied Alternatives to Proposed Improvements . . . . 4
IV. NEED FOR PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Characteristics of Existing Facility . . . . . . . . 5
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied. . . . . . . . 5
2. Pavement Width and Shoulders . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Roadside Interference . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Type of Roadside Development . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature . . . . . . . 6
8. Restricted Sight Distance . . . . . . . . 6
9. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control . . . . . 6
11. Speed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Traffic Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
T
V.
VI.
- TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
D. Projected Traffic Volumes .
E. Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . .
F. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . .
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . .
A. Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Status and Scope of Local Planning Activities. .
2. Existing Land Use . . . . .
3. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . .
4. Future Land Use . . . . . .
5. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
6. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Study Area . . . . . . . . .
b. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Biotic Resources . .
b. Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Jurisdictional Wetlands .
b. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Archaeological and Historic Resources . . . . . . . .
1. Archaeological Resources . . . . .
2. Historic Architectural Resources . . . . . . . .
D. Noise and Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Analysis . .
2. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Agency Coordination . . . . . . .
B. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures
Appendix
PAGE
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
15
17
17
19
20
20
21
21
21
27
30
30
30
- Federal Categorical Exclusion
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Admistrative action
Categorical Exclusion.
The NCDOT takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and
content of this document.
II. PROJECT STATUS AND HISTORICAL RESUME
NC 24 was initially improved from an unpaved road by Federal Aid
projects 103 and 223 in the early 1920's. Initially, the route was
constructed as a 16-foot, sand clay, two-lane facility. These original
two lanes were upgraded--by paving to 18 feet with a sand asphalt in 1925.
The road has since been progressively resurfaced and widened to its
current 24-foot width.
The 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for widening the existing two-lane roadway to a multi-lane, curb and
gutter facility. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 1993, and construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1994.
The TIP includes a cost estimate of $1,925,000 for the project, including
$750,000 for right-of-way, $1,150,000 for construction, and $25,000
expended in prior, year costs. The current estimated cost of the
recommended improvements is $ 1,760,000, including $ 710,000 for right-of-
way and $1,050,000 for construction.
An informational workshop on the project was held in Warsaw in
January of 1992. There was no public opposition to this project.
III. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
A. General Description
• The project is to include widening of NC 24 to a four-lane facility
from I-40 to the existing four lanes at the western city limits of Warsaw.
The project also includes the Traffic Engineering Branch's analysis of the
I-40/NC 24 interchange to suggest potential improvements to traffic
operation. This project is approximately 1.0 mile in length. These
improvements will provide a continuous four-lane link from the existing
four-lane section in Warsaw to I-40.
2
B. Proposed Improvements
1. General Location
TIP project R-2524..is located in western Duplin County, and will
provide a continuous multi-lane link from I-40 into Warsaw. The
construction of I-40, which was completed in 1990, has made this
section of NC 24 an attractive link for traffic traveling north or
south on the interstate.
2. Length of Proposed Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 1.0 mile,
not including the traffic analysis of the interchange.
3. Desi n Speed
The project will be designed for a minimum design speed of
60 MPH. This corresponds to the existing posted speed of 55 MPH. It
is anticipated that the posted speed limit will remain 55 MPH for
this section of NC 24. However, the project is being designed to
allow the opportunity to upgrade to a five-lane, curb and gutter
section as needed. In this event, it is anticipated that the posted
speed limit would be lowered to 45 MPH in accordance with Federal
Highway Administration guidelines.
4. Cross Section
The proposed project consists of widening NC 24 to a four-lane,
52-foot facility with shoulders. This widening is to be performed
symmetrically. The cross section is to be four, 12-foot lanes, with
2-foot paved, and 8-foot unpaved shoulders.
5. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along NC is a claimed 60 feet.
(symmetrical), with no control of access on the project length. The
right-of-way at the interchange is variable to accommodate the ramps,
with full control of access.
It is estimated that an additional 40 feet of right-of-way width
will be required for the project, and drainage and construction
easements will be acquired as needed. This proposed right-of-way
width will be symmetrical, and will accommodate a future upgrade to
five lanes with curb and gutter.
6. Access Control
No control of access is planned for this facility.
7. Intersection Treatment
All existing intersections on the project are to be retained as
at-grade crossings. There are no existing signals on the route. No
new signals are proposed for the project.
3
8. Structures-
There are 2 structures related to the project, and they are
listed below:
a. Roadway Structures
Two existing structures were built during the construction
of the interstate to carry I-40 over NC 24. They were
• constructed under project number 8.1223313, and were completed
in 1988. The specifics are as follows:
Bridge Number 30449 West 30450 East
Lanes Carried 2 2
Horz. Width 40.0 40.0
Length 142.0 140.0
Vert. Height
Under 16.1 16.1
Horz. Width
Under 63.7 64.3
Sufficiency
Rating 97.2 97.2
No revisions to these structures are anticipated in
connection with this project.
b. Drainage Structures
There are no existing drainage structures on the project
over creeks or small tributaries. No new drainage structures
are planned in the project.
9. Interchange Revisions
The Traffic Engineering Branch was asked to analyze the existing
interchange with present and future traffic volumes, and make
recommendations for proposed upgrades if needed. It was determined
that no further upgrades to the interchange are needed for the life
of the project. Also, the installation of traffic signals is not
t warranted at this time. Therefore, no upgrades to the interchange
are proposed in this project.
= 10. Parking
There is no existing parking on the project that would be
affected by planned upgrades. Parking will not be provided for or
permitted in conjunction with the project.
11. Sidewalks
There are no sidewalks existing or planned along the project.
4
C.
12. Bicycle Facilities
It was determined by the NCDOT Bicycle Coordinator that no
special accommodations for bicycles are indicated for this project.
13. Landscaping
No special landscaping plans are proposed for this project.
14. Special Permits Required
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a), numbers (14) and (26) are
applicable.
15. Project Terminals
The western terminal of the project is the I-40/NC 24
interchange. The cross section through the interchange is
predominantly a three-lane, 42-foot pavement with variable shoulders.
The center lane provides for left-turn movements to the rest area and
ramps. This section tapers to the existing two-lane section to the
east and west of the interchange.
To the east, NC 24 has a four-lane, 48-foot curb and gutter
cross section at the Warsaw western city limits.
The western terminal of the project will provide transitioning
from the 4-lane with to the existing 3-lane width by utilizing the
interchange ramps and a center turn lane. The eastern terminal will
correspond with the existing four lane configuration, however the
proposed project will have shoulders as opposed to existing curb and
gutter.
16. Cost Estimates
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3
(symmetrical) (offset N.) (offset S.)
(Recommended)
Right-of-Way $ 710,000 $ 698,000 $ 710,000
Construction $ 12050,000 $ 12050,000 $ 1,050,000
Total $ 1,760,000 $ 1,748,000 $ 1,760,000
Relocations 0 1 0
Studied Alternatives to Proposed Imp rovements
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - A symmetrical widening to a four-lane,
48-foot facility with 2-foot paved and 8-foot unpaved shoulders.

3
1
Alternative 2 - Offset widening (North) This alternative would
consist of widening to four, 12-foot lanes with 2-foot paved and
8-foot unpaved shoulders. All widening would be accomplished on
5
the north side of NC 24. This alternative was not recommended
due to disruption of existing development along the north side
of NC 24 with residential relocation involved.
Alternative 3 - Offset Widening (South) This alternative is as
described in Alternative 2,-except offset widening is to be to
the south. This alternative is likewise not recommended due to
disruption to development on the south side of NC 24.
• Alternative 4 - Five Lane Widening with curb and gutter
(Symmetrical). This alternative was not recommended due to lack
of turning movements projected, and increased construction
costs. Additionally, the above alternatives would allow for
future upgrading to five lanes as required in the future. This
alternative also is not desirable from an environmental
standpoint due to lack of shoulders for stormwater filtration.
Alternative 5 - New Location Alternative. This alternative is not
feasible due to the short overall length, straight alignment,
and existing development along the project.
Alternative 6 - Do Nothing Alternative. Although this alternative
would avoid the limited environmental impacts that are
anticipated to result from the project, there would be no
positive effect on congestion or traffic safety. For this
reason, the Do Nothing alternative is not recommended.
IV. NEED FOR THE PROJECT
A. Characteristics of Existing Facility
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The total length of the project is approximately 1.0 mile,
excluding the recommendations for traffic control upgrades at the
I-40/NC 24 interchange.
2. Pavement Width and Shoulders
• The basic existing pavement width along the project is generally
22 feet. The shoulders are generally 6 feet, unpaved.
3. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along NC 24 is a claimed 60 feet
by maintenance. This section has no control of access. The
right-of-way at the interchange varies to accommodate varying lane,
median, and ramp configurations.
4. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks on the project.
6
5. Roadside Interference
Signs and roadside obstructions (such as power poles and
mailboxes) are not numerous or close enough to the pavement to be
detrimental to traffic capacity.
6. Type of Roadside Development
Development along the project is predominantly residential and
agricultural, with small commercial properties intermingled on the
western end.
7. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
There are no horizontal curves on the project, and it is
constructed on level terrain.
8. Restricted Sight Distance
There are no areas where sight distance is limited by terrain.
9. Structures
Existing structures are described above under "III. Description
of Action, B. Proposed Improvements, 8. Structures."
10. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
. Listing from west to east, roads intersecting the project
at-grade are as follows:
Route/Name Type of Control
I-40 Southbound Ramps Stop Sign
I-40 Northbound Ramps Stop Sign
SR 1111 Stop Sign
11. Speed Zones
The speed limit on the project is 55 mph.
12. School Bus Data
Eight busses use this route twice daily.
B. Transportation Plan
NC 24 appears on the adopted Warsaw Thoroughfare Plan (adopted 1984)
as a major existing thoroughfare. It also appears as a Rural Major
Collector on the County Functional Classification Plan.

V
7
C. Traffic Accident Analysis
Table 1 presents a comparison
project and the statewide rates for
rates for NC 24 were obtained for
conducted between 1988 and 1991.
obtained from studies conducted from
between accident rates along the
all 2-lane, rural "NC" routes. The
a three year period from studies
The average statewide rates were
1988 through 1990.
Accident Rates
(per 100 million vehicle miles)
Accident Type Rates along NC 24
Ave. Statewide
Rate, rural NC routes
(1988-1990)
Total rate 85.62 207.20
Fatal 0.00 3.10
Non-fatal 85.62 99.90
Nighttime 0.00 60.20
Wet conditions 17.12 44.70
These figures show the rates for all types of accidents along the project
are lower than the corresponding statewide rates.
Forty percent of the recorded accidents involved vehicles running off
the road to the left; and sixty percent involved rear-end collisions. It
is anticipated that the proposed improvements, which include providing an
additional travel lane in each direction and improved shoulders, will
enhance safety along the project.
D. Projected Traffic Volumes
It is anticipated that traffic volumes will be 12,600 vehicles-per-
day (vpd) in the year 2014. The current volume on NC 24 is approximately
5400 vpd. Projected traffic volumes along the project, design hour data,
and truck percentages are shown in Figure F-3.
E. Capacity Analysis
The concept of levels of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their
perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition
generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and
travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and
convenience, and safety.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which
analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations,
from A to F, with level-of-service A representing the best operating
conditions and level-of-service F the worst. In general, the various
levels-of-service are defined as follows for uninterrupted flow
facilities:
8
Level-of-service A represents free flow. Individual users are
virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream
is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided
to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent.
Level-of-service B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence
of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to
select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight
decline in freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The
level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A,
because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect
individual behavior.
Level-of-service C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the
beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users
become significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic
stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of others,
and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance
on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience
declines noticeably at this level.
Level-of-service D represents high-density, but stable, flow. Speed
and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver and
pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
Small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems at
this level.
Level -of-service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform
value. Freedom to maneuver in the traffic stream is extremely difficult,
and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to
"give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels
are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally
high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small
increases in flow of minor perturbances within the traffic stream will
cause breakdowns.
Level-of-service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This
condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point
exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such
locations. Operations within the queue are characterized by stop and go
waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at
reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to
stop in cyclic fashion. Level -of-service F is used to describe the
operating conditions within the queue, as well as the point of the
breakdown. It should be noted, however, that in many cases operating
conditions of vehicles or pedestrians discharged from the queue may be
quite good. Nevertheless, it is the point at which arrival flow exceeds
discharge flow which causes the queue to form, and level-of-service F is
an appropriate designation for such points.
9
A capacity analysis was performed for both the existing two-lane
highway and the proposed four-lane facility based upon projected traffic
volumes for the years 1994 and 2014. These analyses indicate that if no
improvements are made to NC 24, the existing two-lane facility will
operate primarily at LOS C in the year 1994, and LOS D or worse in the
year 2014 during peak hours.- With the-proposed four-lane widening, NC 24
is expected to operate at LOS A, throughout the planning period. Based on
this capacity analysis, the proposed four-laning of NC 24 will allow that
facility to operate at an excellent level-of-service through the design
year.
F. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The improvement of NC 24 will provide better access to I-40 from
Warsaw, and then to points north and south.
With the current and anticipated truck volumes, NC 24 is in need of
upgrading to prevent levels-of-service from falling to unacceptable
levels.
The improved access to the area, savings in operating costs, reduced
accidents, reduced travel times, and the general improvement in the ease
and convenience of travel will benefit the state and region as well as the
local community.
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Status and Scope of Local Planninq Activities
The proposed improvement occurs in the extraterritorial
jurisdiction (ETJ) of the Town of Warsaw, which extends one mile from
its municipal boundary. The Town has planning and zoning authority
within that area. The Town adopted a Land Development Plan in 1970,
but it has not been updated since that time. A zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations are enforced. Planning assistance is
provided to the Town by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resoures. No relocatees are anticipated.
2. Existinq Land Use
The proposed project is located due west of the center of
Warsaw. Land on each side of NC 24 contains low density, rural
residential development interspersed with agricultural fields. Two
small businesses are located within the project area. Three
highway-oriented businesses are located on the west side of I-40.
10
B.
3. Existinq Zonin
The land on each side of
a depth of 400 feet from the
commercial uses such as fast
stations. The land north of
Industrial.
NC 24 is zoned for Highway Business to
roadway. This zoning district permits
food restaurants, hotels, and service
the Highway Business district is zoned
4. Future Land Use
The 1970 Land Development Plan does not anticipate the
construction of I-40, and is therefore out-of-date. It is expected
that the recent completion of I-40 to Wilmington will spur
development on the west side of Warsaw. The three businesses located
on NC 24 just west of I-40 were constructed after the interstate was
completed.
5. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
The proposed improvement is likely to facilitate the development
of commercial land uses along NC 24. This development would be
compatible with the current zoning.
6. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils.
Such soils are defined by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. Land
that has been previously converted to non-agricultural uses, or is
planned by the local government for urban uses is exempt from
consideration under the Act. As the land on each side of NC 24 has
been zoned for commercial development it is committed to urban
development. Therefore, further consideration under the Act is not
required.
Environmental Effects
1. Introduction
a. Study Area
The project is located west of Warsaw in Duplin County in
the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province: The study area is
located in a rural setting. Residential sites, commercial
sites, agricultural land and forested tracts are located in the
study area.
Topography in the area ranges from level to gently sloping.
Slopes may range from 0 to 5 percent, with the majority of the
study area ranging between 0 and 2 percent. Elevation ranges
from 150' to 155' (above mean sea level) in the study area. Two
unnamed streams cross the project.
11
b. Methodology
Aerial photographs, USGS quadrant maps (Warsaw South and
Turkey), Duplin County Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service,
1959) and Duplin County hydric soils list were obtained for the
study area. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified
from the soil survey and hydric soils list. A site visit was
made on October 18 and 29, 1991 by staff biologists to inventory
natural resources and determine wetland locations and
boundaries.
Information on the occurrence of federal and state
protected species was obtained from the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
2. Natural Resources
The natural resource section is divided into two parts: biotic
resources and physical resources. Descriptions of the plant and
wildlife communities are included under biotic resources. Soil and
water resource information is discussed in the physical resources
section.
a. Biotic Resources
A description of the plant and animal communities in the
study area is provided below. Common and scientific names are
stated for each species listed; in subsequent references to the
same organism, only the common name is given.
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Impacts to upland and wetland communities are anticipated
from proposed construction. Plant communities within the study
area are both forested, agricultural and disturbed. A
description of the plant communities in the study area follows.
A summary of anticipated impacts lists total project impacts by
community type.
UPLANDS
Four upland communities were identified in the study area:
the man-dominated community, pine dominated forest, mixed
hardwood-pine forest and agricultural land.
Man-Dominated Community
The majority of the study area is composed of the man-
dominated community. This community is disturbed and maintained
in low growing condition by mowing activities. This community is
located along roadside shoulders and adjacent to residential and
commercial structures. Various herbs and grasses dominate this
12
community and include: dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
Diodia (Diodia teres), sericea (Lespedeza cuneata) and goldenrod
(Solidago sp.). Trees such as sycamore (Platanus occidental-is),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum),
water oak (uercus ni ra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and china-berry (Melia
azedarach) were also observed in residential areas. Blackberry
Rubus sp.), wax myrtle (M rica cerifera) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are common throughout. In the
I-40 interchange area canna lilies (Canna sp.) are planted on
the road shoulder.
Pine Dominated Forests
Small pockets of this community are located in the study
area. One large tract, adjacent to the east end of the project,
has been recently cut. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple,
sweetgum, water oak and black cherry (Prunus serotina) are
common canopy species in this community. Wax myrtle, titi
(C rilla racemiflora), cane (Arundinaria i antea) and white bay
(Ma nolia virginiana) are common understory constituents.
Catbrier (Smilax sp.) is also prevalent and reaches high
densities in certain locations.
Mixed Hardwood Pine Forest
Canopy dominants include southern red oak ( uercus
falcata), water oak, sweetgum, red maple and a few loblolly
pine. Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), sweetleaf (Symplocos
tinctoria), dogwood (Cornus florida), red bay (Persia borbonia)
and American holly (Ilex o aca) are typical understory species.
Netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea) and heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.) are common ground
cover species. Cow itch (Cam psis radicans) and Japanese
honeysuckle vines were also observed.
Agricultural Land
Several small agricultural fields that were recently under
cultivation, are located in the study area. Corn and soybean
crops were grown this past season. Invasions of Japanese
honeysuckle and morning glory (I omoea sp.) are extensive in
some fields.
WETLANDS
Palustrine Wetlands
A palustrine wetland is associated with an unnamed stream
along the project. Canopy species include: black willow (Salix
ni ra), tulip poplar, sweetgum, and red maple. Wax myrtle and
privet (Ligustrum sinense) are common understory species.
13
Fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida), white and red bays and cane are
typical shrub species. Royal Fern (Osmunda re alis var.
spectabilis), and netted chain fern are common ground cover
species. Japanese honeysuckle was also prevalent.
Disturbed, Mixed Herbaceous Wetlands
Disturbed wetlands are associated with depressions and
roadside ditches and are primarily composed of herbaceous
vegetation with scattered trees. One site had standing water.
Black willow, rush (Juncus effusus), woolgrass bulrush (Scir us
cyperinus) and common cattail (Typha
these wetlands latifolia) were observed in
.
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction will impact six communities including the
Man-dominated Community, Pine Dominated Forest, Mixed
Hardwood-Pine Forest, Agricultural Land, Palustrine Wetland and
Disturbed, Mixed Herbaceous Wetland. Plant community impacts
are stated in Table 1. These estimates are preliminary and may
change with final design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community Area of Impact
Man-dominated 9.5
Pine 0.2
Mixed Hardwood-Pine 0.7
Agricultural 3.9
Palustrine Wetland 0.1
Disturbed Mixed Herbaceous Wetlands 0.2
TOTAL 14.6
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on right-of-way width of 130'.
Values shown are in acres.
Man-dominated communities comprise the majority of the
study area. Small sections of the project impact forested
tracts.
Efforts will be made to minimize erosion especially where
new fill is placed. Disturbed sites will be revegetated as
quickly as possible to minimize erosion.
14
WILDLIFE
Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted by
proposed construction. Limited descriptions of fauna which are
likely to occur in each ecosystem are presented. Complete
listings of terrestrial and aquatic organisms can be found in
specific references presented in section 4.0. The palustrine
forest community is characterized in both the aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems.
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
The following mammals are anticipated in the study area:
short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), least shrew
(Cryptotis arva), eastern cottontail (Slvilagus floridanus),
eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), hispid cotton
rat (eat
modon hispidus), pine vole (Microtus pinetorium), Norway
rat tu
s norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus) and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Various avian fauna may be anticipated in the study area
including: cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), black vulture (Coragyps
atratus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes
erythrocephalus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna),
red-winged blackbird (A elaius phoeniceus), common grackle
( uiscalus uiscula), northern cardinal (Cardinalus cardinalus)
and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis).
One might encounter the following amphibians and reptiles
in the study area: mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), red
salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), American toad (Bufo
americanus), gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis and H.
versicolor), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer); eastern box turtle
Terrapene carolina), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis),
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), mole kingsnake
(Lampropeltis calligaster), eastern mole kingsnake (Lampropeltis
etulus), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), smooth earth
snake (Virginia valeriae) and copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix).
AUQATIC COMMUNITIES
The following amphibians and reptiles may be found in or
near streams or ditches in the study area: three-lined skink
(Eurycea guttolineata), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans),
southern cricket frog (Acris r llus), green frog (Rana
clamitans), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) and
spotted turtle (Clemmys uttata).
15
The stream and ditch that cross the project are both
disturbed and very small. The stream is wooded on one side of
the road and the banks appear to have been graded with added
rip-rap on the other side of the road. It is doubtful whether
any fish species are located in these waters (Fisheries
Biologist, Pers. Comm). The ditch has been channelized.
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Habitat fragmentation is anticipated to be minimal since
the proposed project is widening along an existing alignment.
The majority of the study area consists of disturbed habitat.
Small acreages of pine forest and mixed hardwood-pine forest
will be impacted upon proposed construction. Project
construction will lessen available wildlife habitat. In wooded
areas, tree removal will be limited to the area needed to
construct the roadway in order to minimize impacts to woodlands.
Strict erosion and sediment controls will be adhered to during
construction to minimize impacts to woodlands. Upon project
completion, all cleared and grubbed areas along the temporary
detour and existing roadway will be revegetated as quickly as
possible to reduce loss of wildlife habitat.
b. Phvsical Resources
Soil and water resource information in the study area is
described below.
SOILS
Soils information was obtained from the Duplin County Soil
Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1959). Nine soil types are
mapped in the study area. All soils are classified as
non-hydric without hydric inclusions.
Table 2 Soil Type Summary
Phase Drainage 1iy ric of s
Goldsboro fine loamy sand moderately well Non -hydric
Klej loamy fin e sand somewhat poorly Non -hydric
Lynchburg fine sandy loam somewhat poorly Non -hydric
Mixed alluvial land poorly Non -hydric
Norfolk loamy fine sand well Non -hydric
Plummer fine s and somewhat poorly Non- hydric
Plummer loamy fine sand somewhat poorly Non- hydric
Woodstown fine sandy loam moderately well Non- hydric
Woodston loamy fine sand moderately well Non- hydric
16
Goldsboro series soils developed from sands and sandy clays
of the coastal plain formations. They occupy uplands of the
Wicomico and Sunderland terraces. Klej series soils are
developed from sandy beds of the coastal plain formations. Klej
soils occur on marine-terraced uplands and on stream terraces
along larger streams. Lynchburg series soil is an upland soil
that is somewhat poorly drained with most under cultivation.
Mixed alluvial land is located on stream alluvium on floodplains
along major streams. It is flooded during periods of high
water. The water table is at or near the surface. Norfolk
series soil developed from sand and sandy clay members of
coastal plain formations. It is well drained. Soils of the
Plummer series developed from sand beds of the coastal plain
formations. Woodston series developed from interbedded sands
and sandy clays of coastal plain formations. It is important to
agriculture. All soil phases occur on 0 to 2 percent slopes
excluding Norfolk series, which is located on 2 to 5 percent
slopes..
WATER RESOURCES
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Two
unnamed waters, one a small stream, the other a ditch, cross the
study area. Both are less than 6 feet wide and tributaries of
Buckhall Creek. The water quality of these unnamed waterbodies
is unclassified according to Division of Environmental
Management (DEM, 1991). Unclassified waters, such as the ones
crossed by the project, are given the same water quality
classifications of the waterbody to which they are tributaries.
The waterbodies crossed by the project are all tributaries of
Buckhall Creek. Buckhall Creek has a water quality
classification of C Sw (DEM, 1991).
Best usage recommendations for Class C waters include
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. Swamp waters, designated
Sw, are classified as waters which have low velocities and other
natural characteristics which are different from adjacent
streams.
No Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters or
Water Supply segments classified as WS-I or WS-II occur in the
study area. The creeks are not classified as Wild and Scenic
Rivers by the federal government, nor as state designated
Natural, Scenic or Recreational Rivers. Benthic
macroinvertebrate information is not available for Buckhall
Creek.
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Project construction may have a number of impacts to water
resources such as:
17
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
Alteration of water level and flow due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow.
Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
Toxic runoff from spills, construction runoff and highway
spills
These potential impacts may reduce the number of sensitive
species. Extension of existing pipes or culverts will be
installed in a manner that maintains water level similar to
adjacent water depths. Efforts will be made to identify
non-point sediment sources and efforts will be made to control
sediment runoff. Strict adherence to BMP's will be maintained
during the construction phase of the project.
3. Special Topics
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions.
Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the "Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of
Engineers under the Provisions of the Clean Water Act.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations of
vegetation, soils and hydrology. The vegetation is considered
hydrophytic due to the dominance of plants classified as being
hydrophytic. Soil color was hydric due to the low chroma values
within 10" of the surface. Wetland hydrological characteristics
observed include standing water in some sites, fluted tree
trunks and.water channels. Table 3 summarizes wetland impacts.
These estimates are preliminary and subject to change with
project design.
18
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Acreage by Site
Site # Wetland Type Acreage
1 Disturbed, Mixed Herbaceous 0
03
2 Palustrine .
0.03
2 Disturbed, Mixed Herbaceous 0
01
3 Disturbed, Mixed Herbaceous .
0
04
4 Disturbed, Mixed Herbaceous .
0
09
5 Disturbed, Mixed Herbaceous .
0.01 '
TOTAL 0.21
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on right-of-way width of 130'.
PERMITS
Anticipated wetland impacts are small. Nationwide Permit
33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) and (26) are applicable. Nationwide
Permit #14, entitled the minor road crossing fill permit, allows
1) the discharge of less than 200 cubic yards of fill material
below the ordinary high water mark, 2) discharges that do not
extend more than 100' on either side of the ordinary high water
mark and 3) construction that is designed to prevent the
restriction of and to withstand, expected high flows. This
permit is anticipated at site 2.
Nationwide Permit #26, titled the above headwaters permit,
authorizes the discharge of fill material of one acre or less in
nontidal waters and wetlands that are above headwaters of
streams. Above headwaters is described as nontidal rivers,
streams, and their impoundments in which the average annual flow
rate is less than 5 cfs. This permit is applicable at all other
sites.
State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). One state
permit that is likely to be required is the 401 Water Quality
Certification. This certificate is issued for any activity
which may result in a discharge into wetlands and for which a }
federal permit is required.
Duplin county is not within the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) jurisdiction.
MITIGATION
Mitigation is not required for impacts authorized under
Nationwide or General permits.
19
b. Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
confirm the potential for any occurrences of protected species
in the study area.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
s Two federally protected species are listed by the USFWS for
Duplin County. These species are listed in Table 4. A
discussion of each species follows.
Table 4 Federally protected species listed for Duplin County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E1
American Alligator- Alligator mississippiensis T S/A2
EI - endangered
T S/A - Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Red-cockaded woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nests in living pine
trees that are greater than 60 years of age. The RCW forages in
pine or pine-dominated stands (greater than 50 percent pine) at
least 30 years of age. Contiguous foraging habitat is utilized
by the RCW within 0.5 mile of the colony site. The study area
supports two small pine-dominated stands, both less than 10
acres in size, north of NC 24. These areas were surveyed by
walking parallel north-to-south transects approximately 50' to
75' apart. Unsuitable foraging habitat, consisting of pine
trees less than 30 years of age, are located to the north of
both stands. These pine stands isolated the suitable habitat in
the study area from any other suitable habitat. No evidence of
the woodpecker was seen during field surveys. No impacts to the
RCW will occur from project construction.
American Alligator
The all'igatbr is a large reptile with a broad snout and the
fourth tooth not visible when the jaws are closed. In contrast,
the crocodile's fourth tooth is exposed when the jaws are
closed. The alligator occurs in varying wetland habitats
throughout the southeast and is a very mobile organism. The
NCNHP files do not report alligators in the study area and none
20
were observed during the field visit. The T(S/A) status is due
to the similarity of appearance of the alligator to the American
Crocodile, a species imperiled by unlawful poaching in south
Florida. Since the American Crocodile is not found in North
Carolina, the T(S/A) is not enforced by the USFWS in the state.
Other candidate species listed by the USFWS in Duplin
County include: Savanna cowbane (Oxypolis ternata) and wireleaf
dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius). The savannah cowbane is not
protected by the USFWS or the state at this time. Savannah
cowbane was reported 2.2 miles east of Sampson County on NC 241
100 yards from road according to the NCNHP files. This location
is outside the study area. No surveys were conducted for the
plant at the time of the field visit.
The wireleaf dropseed has a state status of Threatened and
is afforded state protection. See discussion below under "State
Protected Species". The federal status of both these plants may
be upgraded in the future.
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
Two state protected species is located in the project area
according to the NCNHP files. The versus flytrap (Dionea
muscipula) was reported in 1949 to occur south of NC 24 just
west of Warsaw. A survey of the area in 1988 by the NCNHP staff
indicated that the site is apparently no longer suitable for the
plant. During the site visit, the area described above does not
support suitable habitat for the plant. No plants were observed
during the field visit.
The wireleaf dropseed is protected by the state. This
plant occurs in wet savannahs in the eastern portion of the
state. Since the study does not support a wet savannah, the
plant is not likely to occur in the study area.
C. Archaeological and Historic Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
In reviewing the project proposal, the Department of Cultural
Resources, State Historic Preservation Office has noted that there is
little likelihood of any significant archaeological resources on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places being on the
project. NCDOT concurs with this assessment.
If any cemeteries are affected by the widening of NC 24, the
provisions of GS 65, which deals with removal of cemeteries, must be
followed.
21
2. Historic Architectural Resources
This section was prepared by NCDOT Staff Architectural
Historians in order to identify historic properties located in the
Area of Potential Effect (APE). It is submitted pursuant to Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations codified at 36
CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on
or potentially eligible for the Natoinal Register of Historic Places,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity
to comment.
This survey was conducted and report compiled by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation in accordance with the
provisions of FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Sectoin 4(f) Documents);
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archaeological and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716); 36 CFR Part
800; and the ACHP and NPS publication "Identificatoin of Historic
Properties: A Decision Making Guide for Managers".
The project area is characterized by two groups of architecture:
modern brick ranch houses and earlier twentieth-century frame houses.
The frame dwellings are common types, and the examples in the APE
either have been altered or have deteriorated so as to compromise
their architectural and/or structural integrity. No property has the
special architectural or historical importance to merit listing in
the National Register.
The survey located no buidlings listed in or potentially
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the APE.
No further compliance with Section 106 is required.
Noise and Air Quality Analysis
1. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Analvsis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed project on noise levels in the immediate project area. This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land
uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic
noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing
as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If
traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the
noise impacts must be considered.
22
CHARACTERISTICS flF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a r
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in '
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA.
Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which means
an A-weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: 1)
the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship
between the background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type
of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
aroused to anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individuals judgement of whether or not a
noise is objectionable. For example, noises occurring during
sleeping hours are usually considered to be much more objectionable
than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the ~
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise
from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at
night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would
generally be much more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn
in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted to the same degree.
23
Over a period of time,, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives. Particularly if noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noises,
factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In
relation to highway traffic noise; methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
reference (Title 23 CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement
criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with
the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
An ambient noise measurement was taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise level. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The field data was also used to establish
an ambient noise level for residences, businesses, and other noise
sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the project.
Existing roadway and traffic conditions along NC 24 were
incorporated in the most current traffic noise prediction model to
compute an existing Leq noise level. This computed value was
compared with the existing Leq noise level which was measured along
the proposed project. The computed existing Leq noise level was
within 4.7 dBA of the measured noise level. Differences in dBA
levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic
volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's
"evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed. The existing
Leq noise level along NC 24 as measured 50 feet from the roadway was
66.7 and the approximate location was 1400 feet east of Interstate
40.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continually changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
24
. The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses
the number and type of vehicles on-the planned roadway, their speeds,
the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed
roadway cross section consists of four 12-foot travel lanes. The "
proposed project was modeled assuming no special noise abatement
measures would be incorporated. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers which could be modeled were included. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at
grade. Thus, this analysis represents "worst-case" topographic
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during
the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in
this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the
design year 2014, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses
predicted to expect a substantial noise increase. The basic approach
was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800,
and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to
both sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were
determined by the change in projected traffic volumes along the
proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid of
receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The Leq traffic noise exposures are listed in Table N3.
Information in this table consists of listings of all receptors in
close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise
levels and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The total number of impacted receptors, whether by approaching
or exceeding the noise abatement criteria or by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels are given in Table N4. Other
information included in Table N4 is the maximum extent of the 72 and
25
57 dBA noise level contours. This information should assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway in local jurisdiction and
to prevent further development of incompatible activities and land
uses.
The traffic noise impacts in terms of increased exterior noise
levels are predicted to range from +5 to +6 dBA, these are indicated
in Table N5. Increases in exterior noise levels of this magnitude
are common on widening projects since the majority of these areas
already have highway traffic noise in their acoustic environment.
When real-life noises are heard, level changes of 2-3 dBA are barely
perceptible. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the
loudness of the sound.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS/ABATEMENT MEASURES
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is also shown in Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earthen berms or artificial
abatement walls. However, these mitigating measures may not be
feasible or reasonable in all cases, particularly for receptors with
frontage along primary or secondary roads which cross the proposed
project. Reduction of traffic noise from the proposed roadway may not
necessarily lower the noise levels at these receptors to within the
recommended noise abatement criteria and/or below a substantial noise
level increase.
The project will maintain uncontrolled access with driveway
connections permitted for each abutting property. All intersecting
roadways will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small
noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
26
Furthermore, to-provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
would normally be eight (8) times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access
opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located
along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise
abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities and, thus, would
not be acceptable abatement measures in their case.
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors generally
require noise barriers which are too costly because of the length and
height required for a reasonable noise level reduction. For this
reason, no isolated receptors were analyzed in detail for this
report.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures are
feasible and none are recommended for this project.
Highway Alignment
An abatement measure such as alteration of the proposed
alignment is normally a reasonable abatement measure along areas of
relocation. Alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts
and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise
abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of
siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. In regard to this project, the horizontal alignment has been
adjusted to minimize environmental impacts and construction costs.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures
are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their '
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "Do Nothing", or "No Build",
alternative were also considered. The total number of impacted
receptors whether by approaching or exceeding FHWA Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) are nineteen residences. No receptors will be impacted
by substantial increases in exterior noise levels, since these
increases ranged from +5 to +6 dBA.
27
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. Overall, construction
noise impacts are expected to be minimal, since the construction
• noise is relatively short in duration and is generally restricted to
daytime hours. Furthermore, the transmission loss characteristics of
surrounding manmade structures and natural features are believed to
be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
SUMMARY
The projected increase in noise levels and associated noise
impacts for a proposed widening project of this nature are expected.
The horizontal alignment has been located to minimize impacts and
costs. However, based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise
abatement is reasonable or feasible along this project, due to the
uncontrolled access feature of the facility and/or the isolated
condition of the receptor, and none is proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements, and unless a major
project change develops, no additional reports are required for this
project.
2. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other sources of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal, forest fires and burning in general. The impact
resulting from the construction of a new highway or the improvement
of an existing highway can range from aggravating existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. Motor
vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead
(Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon
monoxide. Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in
the project area. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented
are concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor
near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background component is
due to CO emissions from cars operating on streets further from the
receptor location.
28
In this study, the local component was determined using line
source computer modeling and the background component was determined
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were
determined separately, then added together to determine the ambient
CO concentration for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from
cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight
to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions
of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices
on new cars, and thus help lower ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide
levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars
are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the
project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane
rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the
reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall
average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By
1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more
cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced. "The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 makes the sale,
supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful
29
after December -31, 1995." Because of these reasons, it is not
expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors and "worst
case" meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on
the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the design year 2014 and
for ten years prior (2004) using the EPA publication "Mobile Source
Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer
model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for
most rural areas.
The "worst case" air quality receptor resulting from the
relocation project was determined to be a residence (receptor #28).
The receptor is located 65 feet north of NC 24 and near the eastern
end of the project. The "build" and "no build" one hour CO
concentrations for years 2004 and 2014 for this receptor are as
follows:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
"Build" "No Build"
Receptor 2004 2014 2004 2014
R-28 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
Since the results of the "worst case" 1-hour CO analysis is less than
9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. The results also show that the building of the project
will not adversely effect air quality conditions in the area. See
Tables Al, A2, A3 and A4 for input data.
30
The project is located in the Southern Coastal Plain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Duplin County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. The project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the
greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state,
and federal agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental
input were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from
those marked with an asterisk (*):
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health,
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Dept. of Administration
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
Neuse River Council of Governments
*Chairman, Duplin County Commissioner
*Mayor of Wallace
B. Public Involvement
and Natural Resources
Citizens Informational Workshops were held on November 19, 1991, and
January 23, 1992 in Wallace. These were attended by local officials and
the public from the surrounding area. The majority of those attending
were in favor of the project as proposed. Those with concerns about the
project were those who actually lived in the proposed impacted area.
MH/wp

L

It

LIN `
INTY
1.4
I
1
1
i
I
I
l
1
v
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTIbIENT OP
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OR HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND VNIVIRONMENTAI,
BRANCH
NC 24
1-40 TO WESTERN CITY LIMITS OF
WARSAW, DUPLIN COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. R-2524
FIG 1
? Yom...
r Si
w
A

?.,.' ~ •is: ' ice,::
fT ? ty? ? 'r4a"w ?<
• 41
i?
40,r
T'V+ 1 ? „? 3p _ 4ii
"?s Ts
_?x 3y
:?x :tt y
ej-
d' N
?-- N 0)
? N 0)
0=:I
Z
t
Cl)
F-
co
J r
rr
U°
z
co z
Q V' C?
W LO (D
7 C)) LM
/ TI
C T
o O • ?/
?o SIC
-)O T T
rr Q ?
ioI Co
CO
U
z
r-I O
t`I O
N CT)
VI T? T
NI N T? ,-
T' T
~I O NI N T{ T
N CY)
ti O
_ O .? N CT)
NIN
C*?I C'7
T Co
T T
N O
O co
XIN
SIT
ryCDI LO
co V
ml U-)
m co
NI co cI co
cn
?J• I N I ?
C3? ? T-
T- ? T
N co
A`
co N
`T' v U
v CoI?
T
-NINT
T
T
m
NI N
CO f- col
LO
M LO
\ l'JI 114
CC') O
?Ic
S'
'd' N
t- N CY)
Lo 0)
? N T
0 M:
U U
Q
ci :2

0
co
0
T
T
T
T
r
c n
V
S
L!
J c l)
Q
_ W
U?
?z
d?
?_
Qz
Two
y
O r
? N
W
?O?
C f)
LL
N
U
z

Y
T
0
CC)
T
_ N
T
N N
°' U
D UPLIN CO.
R-2'24
ESTIMATED 1994/2016 A D T IN HUNDREDS
AD T IN HUNDREDS
ROUTE 1994 2016 T TS T DUAL DHV DiR
1-40 126 266 14 6 10 55
NC 24 90 189 6 3 10 55
SR 1111 4 8 1 3 10 55

d 5rATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

1
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary S. Price, Jr., Director
October 23, 1991
MEMORANDUM '
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., manager -} J 199,
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways ' vi
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State /
Historic Preservation Officer L
SUBJECT: NC 24,'1-40 Interchange to western city
limits of Warsaw, Duplin County, R-2524,
CH 92-E-4220-0183
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures
of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area. However, since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory
of Duplin County has never been conducted, there may be structures of
which we are unaware located within the planning area.
F)
r
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for
federal permits may require further consultation and compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them,'please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB : s lw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
May 26, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Hammel
Project Planning Engineer
FROM:
SUB.TECT
Tom Padgett, Archaeolo-ist
Environmental Unit
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
17??
Archaeological Study, NC 34. lr.om 1-40
Interchange to Warsaw City 1,i.III its, Duptin
County, TIP R-2425
The project involves widening NC 24 to a four lane roadway
with unpaved shoulders. The project is approximately 4000
feet in length and is entirely state funded.
In reviewing the project proposal, the Department of Cultural
Resources, State Historic Preservation office has noted that
there is little likelihood of any significant archaeol.onical
resources being affected by the project. 1 concur with this
assessment. However, there is a possibility that a cemetery
is located in the project vicinity. I have marked this on
the aerial photograph for your consideration.
No further work is necessary to comply with GS 121.12 since
no sites or properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places are recorded in the area. Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4 (f) of the
Department of Transportation Act will not be applicable to
this project since no federal involvement is anticipated.
If any cemeteries are affected by the widening, of N(. 24, the
provisions of GS 65, which deals with removal of cemeteries.
must be followed.
Please see me if you need additional informa.ti.on on the
project.
t
f?

cc: V.C. Bruton
TABLE Ni
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose. i+^
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
r
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
f-
J
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC-NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24, from I-40 Interchange to Western City Limits of Warsaw,
Duplin county, TIP t R-2524, State Project k 8.1241001.
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROAD WAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID n LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE( ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE( ft)
I-40 to the western ci ty limits of Warsaw.
1 Residence B NC 24 100 R 62 NC 24 100 R
2 Residence B 185 L 57 " 185 L
3 Residence B 105 R 62 " 105 R
4 Business C " 90 R 63 90 R
5 Residence B 110 L 62 110 L
6 Residence B 110 L 62 110 L
7 Residence B 100 R 62 100 R
8 Residence B 80 L 64 80 L
9 Residence B 250 L 54 250 L
10 Residence B 290 R 52 290 R
11 Residence B 210 R 56 210 R
12 Residence B " 140 L 59 " 140 L
13 Residence B 110 L 62 " 110 L
14 Residence B• " 95 R 63 95 R
15 Residence B " 95 R 63 " 95 R
16 Residence B 130 L 60 130 L
17 Residence B 120 L 61 120 L
18 Residence B 100 L 62 100 L
19 Residence B 130 L 60 130 L
20 Residence B 155 R 59 155 R
21 Residence B 100 R 62 100 R
22 Residence B 115 R 61 " 115 R
23 Residence B 190 L 57 190 L
24 Residence B " 160 L 58 " 160 L
25 Residence B 110 R 62 110 R
26 Residence B 145 R 59 145 R
27 Residence B 145 R 59 145 R
28 Residence B. 65 L 65 65 L
29 Residence B 75 L 64 75 L
30 Residence B 110 L 62 110 L
31 Residence B 80 R 64 80 R
32 Residence B 230 L 55 " 230 L
33 Residence B 80 R 64 " 80 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
1/1
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - * 68 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - * 68 + 6
- - 69 + 6
- - * 67 + 5
- - * 67 + 5
- - * 68 + 6
- - * 70 + 6
- - 60 + 6
- - 58 + 6
- - 62 + 6
- - 65 + 6
- - * 67 + 5
- - * 68 + 5
- - * 68? + 5
- - * 66 + 6
- - * 67 6
- - * 68 + 6
- - * 66 + 6
- - 64 + 5
- - * 68 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - 64 + 6
- - * 67 + 5
- - 65 + 6
- - 65 + 6
- - * 71 + 6
- - * 70 + 6
- - * 67 + 5
- - * 70 + 6
- - 61 + 6
- - * 70 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CPR Part 772).
TABLE N4
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 24, from I-40 interchange to Western City Limits of Warsaw,
Duplin County, TIP # R-2524, State Project 4 8.1241001.
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONTOUR APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS DISTANCES RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO w
(dBA)1 (MAXIMUM) TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
DESCRIPTION 50' 100' .200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. NC 24, from I-40 to the western city 72 67 62 63' 123' 0 21 0 0 0
limits of Warsaw.
TOTAL 0 21 0 0 0
r-
I-
'50', 100', and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
'72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N5
TAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 24, from I-40 Interchange to Western City Limits of Warsaw,
Duplin County, TIP # R-2524, State Project # 8.1241001.

v
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL
SECTION <=0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 .9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >= 25 INCREASES'
NC 24, from 1-40 to the 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
western city limits of
Warsaw.
TOTAL 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
As defined in Table N2.
, 1r
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCF., 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2524 / NC 24 DUPLIN COUNTY RUN: NC 24 (YEAR 2004 BUILD)
DATE: 09/01/1992 TIME: 13:12:23.61
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
------------------
-------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO
= 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MI.XH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
---
---
-
-------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VP6 EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2
------------------------ ----------------------------------------- * (M)
---------- (DEG)
----------- (G/MI)
--------------- (M)
---- (M) (VEH)
------------------
EB LINK * -304.8 -3.7 304.8 -3.7 * 610. 90. AG 630. 6.6 .0 13.4
2. WB LINK * 304.8 3.7 -304.8 3.7 * 610. 270. AG 630. 6.6 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
REC 28 (NORTH SIDE) * .0 19.8 1.8

i?
TABLE A2
a
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2524 / NC 24 DUPLIN COUNTY RUN: NC 24 (YEAR 2014 BUILD)
DATE: 09/01/1992 TIME: 13:14:42.57
ZO = 10. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES -
--------------
-------------------
1. EB LINK
2. WB LINK
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* X1
------------ Y1 X2 Y2 *
----------------------------- *-- (M)
-------- (DEG)
----------- (G/MI)
--------------- (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------
* -304.8 --3.7 304.8 -3.7 " 610. 90. AG 630. 6.5 .0 13.4
* 304.8 3.7 -304.8 3.7 610. 270. AG 630. 6.5 .0 13.4
" COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR " X Y Z
------------------------- "-------------------------------------"
1. REC 28 (NORTH SIDE) " .0 19.8 1.8
ti

TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2524 / NC 24 DUPLIN COUNTY RUN: NC 24 (YEFR 2004 NO BUILD)
DATE: 09/01/1992 TIME: 13:32:55.21
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 " (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *-- ----------------- --------------------- "-- -------------------------- -------- ----- -----------------
1. EB LINK " -304.8 -1.8 304.8 -1.8 * 610. 90. AG 630. 7.2 .0 9.8
2. WB LINK " 304.8 1.8 -304.8 1.8 * 613. 270. AG 630. 7.2 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
"
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR
" X Y Z
------------------------*
---
-
-------------------------
--
REC 28 (NORTH SIDE) " -----
-
-
.0 19.8 1.8 "
r`
x
L

TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2524 / NC 24 DUPLIN COUNTY RUN: NC 24 ('YEAR 2014 NO BUILD)
DATE: 09/01/1992 TIME: 13:41:52.27

SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--------------------------- ----
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINAT ES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
*
------------------------ --- X1
------ Y1
-------------- X2
------ Y2
----------- * (M.) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
EB LINK * -304.8 -1.8 304.8 -1.8 * 610. 90. AG 630. 7.1 .0 9.8
2. WB LINK 304.8 1.8 -304.8 1.8 610. 270. AG 630. 7.1 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR *
------------------------- *--- X
---- Y Z
*
1. REC 28 (NORTH SIDE) * -- --------------
.0 19.8 ------- -------
1.8
_IV