20011071 Ver 1_Complete File_20010710

a u?
? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501
GOVERNOR
June 29, 2001 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (3110711,
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator

LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Merger Permit Application, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Interstate
85, North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87)
in Davidson County, Rowan-Davidson Counties, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)
80, State Project No. 8.1631403, T.I.P. Project No. 1-2304A
Dear Sir:
This document is an application for a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
for the construction of the subject project. This document is not an application for a
Section 401 permit. The Section 401 application will be'submitted when final design is
available. ,
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve I-85 from north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-
52-70/I-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County. The proposed project is located along
a section of Interstate 85 between Salisbury and Greensboro, and is 6.8 miles in length.
The proposed improvements consist of widening the subject section of I-85 to an 8-lane
facility with a 46-foot (14.0 m) median. Interchanges and service roads along the project
will be designed and revised as needed to accommodate the proposed mainline widening,
and inadequate structures will be replaced. The estimated total cost of the proposed
project is $143,728,500.
The NEPA/404 Merger Team met on July 19, 2000 to discuss the purpose and need of the
project and alternatives to be studied. The Team concurred with the purpose and need of
the project as described in Section I.A. of the approved Environmental Assessment
(November 6, 2000) as well as the alternatives to be studied as described in Section III of
the same Environmental Assessment (EA). The concurrence forms are included in
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
:1?
Appendix 5 of the EA and are attached to this application. The project is of sufficient
length to address environmental matters on a broad scope, has independent utility and
significance, and is a usable and reasonable expenditure even if no additional
transportation improvements in the area are made.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the project is to provide an acceptable level of service along the subject
section of I-85 through the design year of 2025. It is also the intent of the project to
improve traffic flow while providing adequate access and connectivity for area residents
and businesses. Improvements to this section of I-85 are needed to effectively
accommodate increased traffic demand along I-85 on a regional level as well as to
establish congruency among the regional system.
It is also the purpose of the project to address the structural deficiencies of the bridges,
pipes, and culverts along the project while maintaining traffic along I-85. Two bridges
along the project have been targeted for replacement because of structural and capacity
deficiencies. Bridge Number 137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, was built in
1955. It has 10 years of remaining life and a sufficiency rating of 64.2. Bridge Number
404, which carries SR 1147 over South Potts Creek, is a one-lane bridge built in 1921. It
has a sufficiency rating of 523 and a remaining life of 15 years. Bridge Number 404 is
scheduled to be replaced under TIP Project B-4334.
The need for the project is based on a combination of factors including reducing
congestion and improving traffic flow along this section of Interstate 85 by constructing
additional travel lanes within the subject. project area. Safety will also be improved with
the removal and reconstruction of interchanges and service roads.
ALTERNATIVES
Capacity and bridge replacement alternatives have been developed as a result of the
merger process as well as a "no-build" alternative. These alternatives are discussed
below.
Capacity Alternatives:
Six-lane Widening: The six-lane widening alternative consists of widening existing I-85
(four-lane roadway with a 30 foot (9.0 m) median) to a six-lane roadway with a 70 foot
(21.3 m) median. In addition, existing interchanges would be revised to accommodate
this proposed widening.
Eight-lane Widening: The eight-lane widening alternative consists of widening I-85 to an
8-lane facility with a 46-foot (14.0m) median. Interchange and service road.
reconfigurations are also proposed because widening eight lanes alone will not provide an
acceptable LOS through the congested merge/diverge area in the vicinity of US 29/70,
NC 150, and Clark Road. Therefore, the three partial movement interchanges of US
29/70, NC 150, and Clark Road will be replaced with one full-movement interchange in
the vicinity of NC 150. In addition, the Belmont Boulevard Interchange, a diamond type
interchange, would be reconstructed to a partial cloverleaf interchange. Service road
reconstruction will also be performed in this area.
Bridge Replacement Alternatives:
There are two alternatives proposed for the.replacement of Bridge Number 137 over the
Yadkin River.
Relocation of Yadkin River Bridge East of Existing Location: Bridge Number 137 carries
I-85 over the Yadkin River. This bridge will be replaced by dual structures that will span
the Yadkin River, its adjacent wetlands, and the Southern Railroad. The dual structures
would be approximately 3000 feet. (914.4 m) in length and would be located
approximately 500-ft. (I 52.4m) east of Bridge Number 137's existing location. By
constructing these dual structures to the east of the existing bridge, traffic can be
maintained along the existing bridge until construction is complete. The existing bridge
will be removed after the project's construction.
Reconstruction of Yadkin River Bridge near Existing Location: NCDOT investigated the
alternative of reconstructing the Yadkin River Bridge (Bridge Number 137) near its
existing location. This alternative would not allow for the maintenance of traffic during
construction of the project. An alignment located near existing I-85 in the vicinity of the
Yadkin River will require grade changes to meet minimum vertical curve criteria. Grade
changes in this area would impact existing I-85, eliminating its use for maintaining traffic
during construction.
No-Build Alternative:
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts that are anticipated as a result of
the project; however, it would result in no positive effect on the traffic capacity and safety
of the highway. This alternative is not recommended; however, it does serve as a basis
for comparison of other alternatives.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Complete surveys for all federally protected species in Davidson and Rowan Counties
were conducted along all Build Alternates for the project. Biological Conclusions of "No
Effect" were reached for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). There is potential habitat for the bog turtle within
the project study corridor in several of the wetland areas, but no individuals were seen
during either of the site visits. These species are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation (Endangered Species Act);
therefore, a survey is not required.
1.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The following impacts were calculated based on the width of the entire study corridor.
Actual impacts may decrease based on final design.
Floodplains: Both Rowan and Davidson Counties are currently participating in the
National Flood Insurance Program. Most of the floodplain areas at the major stream
crossings are wooded or cleared pasture and cultivated areas. Potential impacts to the
floodplain from erosion will be mitigated through strict adherence to the NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, March 1997".
Streams: The project is located in hydrologic unit 030401 OL Stream impacts to North
Potts Creek, South Potts Creek, the Yadkin River and 14 unnamed tributaries are
anticipated to be approximately 3,050 feet. NCDOT is committed to following the
natural channel design method of stream restoration and the principals of applied fluvial
geomorphology relative to hydraulic crossings.
Wetlands: Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands" requires new construction
in wetlands to be avoided to the fullest extent possible. If avoidance is not possible then
all feasible measures must be taken to minimize impacts to the wetland system. As part
of the early coordination with the USFWS, USACE, DENR's Division of Water Quality
and Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC); NCDOT attempted to avoid and minimize
wetland impacts. Additional measures such as steeper side slopes and retaining walls
may be incorporated during design to further minimize impacts.
Two types of wetlands are found in the project study area: palustrine emergent wetlands.
and palustrine forested wetlands. A complete description of these wetland systems can be
found in section IV.C.3.a.4 and IV.C.3.a.5 in the EA. Anticipated impacts to wetlands
are estimated to be approximately 4 acres at eight wetland sites. Most of the impacts will
be to the palustrine emergent-type wetlands. See Table 13 in the EA for a breakdown of
wetland impacts.
Mitigation: NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design
features to avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts and to provide full
compensatory mitigation of remaining wetland and stream impacts, within federally
imposed limitations. NCDOT will investigate for the presence of potential on-site
wetland and stream restoration opportunities. NCDOT has initiated a search for suitable
off-site compensatory mitigation for the wetland and stream impacts in the 03040103
cataloguing unit of the Yadkin River Basin.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Architectural and archaeological resources were identified and evaluated in accordance
with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4 for this project. A Phase I report was prepared
for archaeological sites and a Phase II report was prepared for the architectural sites in the
project area.
Historic: The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106, 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 eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106, the area of potential effect (APE) of the project was
surveyed by NCDOT and reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The site was surveyed in November and December of 1998 by NCDOT staff architectural
historians, and determined one structure eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. The eligible structure is Bridge Number 46, the "Wil Cox Bridge", located on US
29/70, which spans the Yadkin River at the Davidson/Rowan County line.
Due to the proposed improvements of TIP Project No. I-2304A, the "Wil Cox Bridge"
Bridge Number 46, which accommodates 2 lanes in the southbound direction, will remain
in place, but will be closed to vehicular traffic. The bridge will remain in place to serve
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Because this bridge will be preserved in place, it has been
determined that there will be no adverse effect.
Archaeological: The State Historic Preservation officer (SHPO) reviewed the proposed
project regarding the identification of archaeological sites. The SHPO stated in a letter
that "Fort York as determined to be potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criteria A (association with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of history) and D (likely to yield information important
in prehistory or history). Further work at Fort York, which will not be adversely
impacted by the proposed project, should consist of the production of a detailed map of
the surface features. It is recommended that as much mapping of the site as possible be
done during the survey for the final roadway design."
Section 4(f) Resources: Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
2966 specifies that publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife or
waterfowl refuge or land from historic resources of national, state, or local significance
may be used for Federal-Aid projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative
to the use of such land, or such highway program or project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
The "Wil Cox Bridge" Bridge Number 46, and the Fort York property are considered 4(f)
properties in the vicinity of the project. Because the "Wil Cox Bridge" will remain in
place to serve pedestrian and bicycle traffic, it will not be affected by the project.
Because the proposed roadway will be moved further away from the Fort York
Archaeological Site, the project will have no direct or indirect effects on the site.

No landfills or other potentially contaminated sites were found within the NCDOT's
proposed scope of work.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the NEPA/404 Merger process,
will be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance
of the permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This submittal is in accordance
with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the National
Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This letter, along
with the previously distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance
of a Public Notice for the project. Sets of functional design plans are being sent under
separate cover.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact Ms. Jackie
Obediente at [phone], Extension 228, or Mr. Ed Lewis at [phone],
Extension 281.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/el
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Mary Ellen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E.,,Highway Design Branch
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Jackie Obediente, PD&EA

?
i •
i
•' X I
.
' ?
i
\ `? i
? • I
i
i ?' `\ i
End Project .\

/ 1
\

85
? . i
? ; r i 29

•i
?
i. ; %
% i
is ....
5 2
i 70 F
?
3170 ! ?
85

Via
Y

" '
•.f a i I By3n wU
? a yy i
I j i'

150

i 1

•

y
Iya • ..
85

52
-Ap
i?
85

fill 1" fr-
J Begin Project
r
woo goo woo
m u N
MILES
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 0.5 1 1.5
KILOMETERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
.`+. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
1-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81)
in Rowan County to US 29-52-704-85 (Exit 87)
in Davidson County, Rowan-Davidson Counties
Federal Aid Project NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project 8.1631403, TIP Project 1-2304A
FIGURE 1
1q
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR 325)
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and
to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or
affecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary.
If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity
must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
North Carolina Department of Transportation
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE Nos. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business [phone]
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND
TITLE (an agent is not required)
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E.
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
10. AGENT'S PHONE Nos. W/ AREA
CODE
a. Residence
b. Business
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf. as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Proposed widening of and improvements to 1-85
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS
(if applicable)
Yadkin River, Potts Creek, Unnamed tributaries
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Davidson and Rowan North Carolina
viVul`I I 1 v .. -
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See vicinity map
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Widen an existing four-lane, median divided facility to a six-lane or eight-lane facility with one
bridge replacement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
See the Environmental Assessment
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Widening of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of
process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of
process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes - No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED
WORK See Attached cover letter
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins theWaterbody (If more than can be
entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
See listing of property owners attached
v
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work
Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVALS IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED/ DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I
certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
plic nt.
W1 AF
'4
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant)
or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a
material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing
or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Appendix 5.
OwoM TjY E Et4VIRoNMfrN7AL A55ESSmE1-IT
I-85, Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington, Rowan and Davidson
Counties, TIP Project I-2304A, AID 199821203
Purpose and Need (August 22.2000)
It is the purpose of the project to provide an acceptable level of service along the subject section
of I-85 through the design year 2025. It is also the intent of the project to improve traffic flow
while providing adequate access and connectivity for area residents and businesses.
Improvements to this section of I-85 are needed to effectively accommodate increased traffic
demand along I-85 on a regional level, as well as establishing congruency among the regional
system.
It is also the purpose of the project to address the structural deficiencies of the bridges, pipes and
culverts along the project while maintaining traffic along I-85. Two bridges along the project
have been targeted for replacement because of structural and capacity inadequacies.
Bridge # 137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, was built in 1955. It has 10 years of
remaining life and a sufficiency rating of 64.2• Bridge # 404, which carries SR 1147 over South
Potts Creek, is a lone-lane bridge built in 1921. It has a sufficiency rating of 52.3 and a
remaining life of 15 years.
Alternatives To Be Studied (August 22.2000)
A. Capacity Alternatives
1.6-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
2.8-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
B. Service Road Alternatives
1- Provide a continuous service road from the proposed new interchange to the Belmont Road
interchange along the east side of I-85:
2. Rebuild and extend service roads between the proposed new interchange and the Belmont
Road interchange along the east side of i-85but he creek, located just to the south of the Belmont
South Potts Creek and the wetlands adjacent
Road interchange.
C. Structural Alternatives
1. Replace Bridge # 137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures on new location to the east
of the existing structure.
2. Replace Bridge # 137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures at the location of the
existing structure.
3. Replace Bridge # 404,. which is a one-lane bridge over South Potts Creek, with a 2-lane
structure at its existing location.
D. No Build
A5-1

i
23 00 03:1?p
t
P-2
919-856-4353
North Carolina Division PI 50 C(D I
Meeting Agrectncnt
Merger Project Team ;
Section 404/rXpp,
and need. A study-
concurrence point No. 1. ATP°S fives to be carried forward in the NW
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alterna between Spar and Lmington,
Widening and lmp?v?'? '
"Ption: 1-85 Project 12304A, AID 199821203.
Project Name/D and the
Rowan and Davidson Count'es"TIP ose and need,
25, 2000 with the prop t 22,
ed on this date of February on the attached dated Auk
The Project Team has concurs A studyp', as stated
..alternatives to be carried forward in the NEP
2000• NCDOT
;.USACE USFWS
USED NCWKC
NCDW FIIWA ;
NCDC
K
i
I
A5-2
SURVEY/PLANNING-NCSHPO TEL:[phone] Aug 22'00 15:36 No.005 P.03
i CCU FED),
Section 404/NFPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and naed.
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study.
Project Name/Description: I-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington,
Rowan and Davidson Counties, TIP Project I-2304A, AID 199821203.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of February 25, 2000 with the purpose and need,
and the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study", as stated on the attached dated
August 22, 2000.
USACE NCllOT
USEPA USFWS
NCD WQ NCWRC
FHWA
? NCDC
wkt..HUV,FHLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Aug 24'uu a•?? •?-_ .
• PY
Section 404/NEPA Merger project Team Mcding Agent C 0
Concurrence Point No. l . Purpose and need,
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be cUined fO?'?' in the EPA study•
Prvjcct Nam sad Improvements, between Spenccr and Lexington,
e/Descrsption: T-SS Widening ..
Rowan and Davidson Counties, TIP Project 1.2304A, AID 199821203.
The Proi cet Team has concurred on this date of February 25, 2000 withthe e purpose and daced ated
attached
and the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study", as stated
!.,ugust 22, 2000.
NCD4T
USACE
USEPA USFWS -
NCWR
NCDW
NCDCR FHWA
_ s
I
r

AUG-25-2000 FR I 03:09 PM FAX NO. P. 0I /`0
con
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. L Purpose and need.
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study. ,
Project Name/Description. 1-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington,
powan and Davidson Counties, TIP Project T-2304A, AID 199821203. u
The Project Team has concurred on this date of February 25, 2000 with the purpose and need,
and the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study", as stated on the attached dated
August 22, 2000.
USACF. NCDOT
USEPA USFWS
NCDWQ NCWRC
2. 2.,5. O
NCDCR PHWA
:i
k
s
A5-5
NCDQTA>&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Aug 22 00 14:39 P.02
Dry
Section 404JNEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and need. "
Concurrence Point No. 2. A1terixtives- to.be carried fo rd is the NEPA study.
, ?j e- Nam ptioa: .85 Wiateaing?d..Improvcments, between Spencer and Lexington,
elDescri 1
*AIOD
.:wan and Davidson Counties, TIP Pro}ect` 1': 2304 P?> 199821203.
• The Project Team has concurred on this date of Pebrr3! 25, 2000 with the purpose and need,
and the "alternatives to be carried forward: in the NEVA'stu? , as stated on the attached dated
August 22, 2000.
• e aZ ? po
USACE
USEPA ' , _ Z3SFWS
NCDWC?_ NCwxC
NCDCR' F WA
i
COPY
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and need.
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study.
Project Name/Description: I-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington,
Rowan and Davidson Counties, TIP Project I-2304A, AID 199821203.
The Project Team concurs with the purpose and need, and the "alternatives to be carried forward
in the NEPA study". as stated on the attached dated August 22, 2000-
USAGE NCDOT
USEPA USFWS
NCDWQ NCWRC
NCDCR FHWA
OCT 1 ; 2?'?,1 _
CZU:
,1
%"
\
A5-7
COPY ry 9, X03
From: [e-mail] on 10/06/2000 02:56 PM
To: Eric C Alsmeyer/CESAW/sawO2@CESAW
cc: [e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange,
[e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange,
[e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange, [e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange,
[e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange
Subject: Re: 1.2304; 1.85 Improvem.; Rowan/Davidson; AID 199821203; Concur Form
Eric,
I have spoken to Eric Midkiff, NCDOT, about the 1-85 improvement project in the
vicinity of the Yadkin River. Apparently the only information about the project
is what you transmitted to the team on 8/22/00, and material presented only at a
project meeting. Given the nature of potential improvements, the stage of the
project in the Merger Process, and EPA's inability to participate, EPA is
declining Project Team membership. NCDOT is planning to complete a draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) this month and begin internal review. EPA is
requesting to be provided a review copy of the EA, when it is made available to
agencies and the public.
Ted Bisterfeld
EPA Region 4, Office of Environmental Assessment
Atlanta, Ga
tei. 4041562-9621
+ - >
1 Eric.C.Alsm'[e-mail]
I 1 e.army.mii
08/2212000 02:11 PM I
>
To: I
I [e-mail],, I
I [e-mail].1
I us,
I [e-mail]
B sterfeld/R41USEPA/US@EPA, I
i [e-mail], I
I' [e-mail]
t
i cc:
I Subject: 1-2304;1-85 I
Improvem.; Rowan/Davidson; 1
i AID 199821203; Concur. Form 1
>
A5-8

3
y
NOTICE OF AN OPEN FORUM COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF 1-85 FROM NORTH OF SR 2120
(EXIT 81) IN ROWAN COUNTY TO US 29-52-70/1-85 IN DAVIDSON COUNTY
Project 8.1631403
I-2304 Rowan and Davidson Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above open forum public
hearing on July 26, 2001 between the hours of 5:00 p.in. and 8:00 p.m. at the North Carolina
Transportation Museum located at 411 South Salisbury Avenue in Spencer, North Carolina.
Interested individuals may attend this informal drop in hearing at their convenience
between the above stated hours. Department of Transportation personnel will be available to
provide information and answer individual questions regarding this project.
The project proposes to widen I-85 from the existing four lane divided highway to an
eight lane divided highway. In addition, interchanges and service roads are proposed to be
altered to improve safety along this stretch of I-85. Anyone desiring additional information may
contact Ms. Leigh Lane at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone at 919-
250-4092, or email at Ilane((Ddot.state.nc.us.
A copy of the Environmental Assessment describing the project and a map setting forth
the location and design are available for public review at the Rowan County Manager's Office
located at 202 North Main Street in Salisbury and the Spencer Town Hall located at 600
South Salisbury Avenue in Spencer.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the hearing to comply with ADA. To receive special services, please contact Ms.
Lane at the above address or phone number or fax [phone] to provide adequate notice
prior to the date of the meeting so that arrangements can be made. rj `

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
e??
NCDENR
u l lo7i
July 17, 2001
MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Kerr T. Stevens
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Douglas V. Huggett
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199821203 dated
July 17, 2001 describing a proposed project by the NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION-DAVIDSON
CO. is+being circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10
permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by 8/8/2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at 733-2293.
When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Signed Date
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources 4 • 0
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Donna D. Moffitt, Director
July 17, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Kerr T: Stevens
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Douglas V. Huggett
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199821203 dated
July17, 2001 describing a proposed project by the NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION-DAVIDSON
CO. is being circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10
permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by 8/8/2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at 733-2293.
When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Signed
Date
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 1 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
10
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615-6814
(Web page - http://www.saw.usace.gM.mil/wetlands/regtour.htm)
Action ID No. 199821203 July 12, 2001
PUBLIC NOTICE
The North Carolina Department Of Transportation, Division Of Highways, 1548 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548, has applied for a Department of the Army
(DA) Permit pursuant to SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT to authorize the
proposed discharge of fill material impacting waters of the United States, for construction of
SECTION A OF THE INTERSTATE 85 IMPROVEMENTS (T.I.P. NO. I-2304A), crossing the
YADKIN RIVER, POTTS CREEK, and unnamed tributaries, and adjacent wetlands, from north
of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in ROWAN COUNTY, to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87), in
DAVIDSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
BACKGROUND:
The social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with reasonable and feasible
build alternatives for this project have been described in an NCDOT/Federal Highway
Administration Environmental Assessment dated November 6, 2000. According to NCDOT, the
let date for Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) I-2304A is in 2007.
The Environmental Assessment identified the purposes of the proposed improvements to
be to improve traffic flow and level of service along this section of the I-85 corridor, while
providing adequate access and connectivity for area residents and businesses, and to address
structural deficiencies of bridges, culverts and pipes along the project while maintaining traffic
along I-85. The Environmental Assessment also identified reasonable and feasible build
alternatives, including capacity alternatives (6-lane or 8-lane widening), and structural
alternatives, related to the location of the bridges crossing the Yadkin River; NCDOT also
considered two alternatives regarding the proposed service road changes between the new
interchange and the Belmont Road interchange (Seven Oaks Drive - SR 1285). The No Build
Alternative was also addressed in the Environmental Assessment. In August 2000, the
NEPA/404 Interagency Agreement project team agreed with the stated project purpose and the
alternatives to be studied in detail.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The following description of work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
observations made during an on-site inspection by a representative of the Corps of Engineers.
The project is located along a section of I-85 between Salisbury and Greensboro, and is 6.8 miles
in length. A map showing the location of the project is included with this public notice. The
proposed improvements consist of widening this section of I-85 to a 6 or 8-lane facility with a 46
foot median. Interchanges and service roads along the project will be revised as needed, and
inadequate bridges, culverts, and pipes will be replaced. Anticipated impacts to aquatic
resources are estimated to be approximately 3,050 linear feet of river and streams at 17 sites, and
4 acres of wetlands at eight sites. The wetland and stream impacts are generally the same for the
structural and capacity alternatives that were studied. Wetland and stream impacts were greater
for the Seven Oaks Drive (SR 1285) service road alternative that is no longer under
consideration.
In order to more fully integrate Section 404 permit requirements with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and to give careful consideration to our required public
interest review and 404(b)(1) compliance determination, the Corps of Engineers is soliciting
public comment on the merits of the proposal and on the alternatives evaluated in the
Environmental Assessment. At the close of this comment period, the District Engineer will
evaluate and consider the comments received as well as the expected adverse and beneficial
impacts of the proposed road construction to select the least environmentally damaging,
practicable alternative (LEDPA). The District Engineer is not authorizing construction of the I-
85 improvements at this time. A final Department of the Army permit could be issued, if at all,
only after our review process is complete, impacts to the aquatic environment have been
minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and a compensatory mitigation plan has been
approved.
NCDOT has not yet determined its proposal to mitigate for the unavoidable impacts to
wetlands and streams, associated with this project.
Design plans and the Environmental Assessment are available for review at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office at 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120;
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615-6846.
NCDOT will be holding an open forum public hearing for this project on July 26, 2001,
from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Transportation Museum in Spencer, North Carolina.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army permit will be
issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by

this agency, nor will a Department of the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in
the notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register
of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as
being eligible for inclusion therein, and the project does not impact any registered property or
property listed as being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National
Register constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer.
NCDOT, in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),
has determined that there are two resources within the project study area that are eligible for
inclusion in the Register. Bridge Number 46, the "Wil Cox Bridge", which currently carries
southbound I-85 traffic across the Yadkin River, will remain in place for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic, and NCDOT has determined that the project will have no adverse affect on this structure.
SHPO has recommended that NCDOT produce a detailed map of the Register-eligible
archaeological site at Fort York, and has concurred that the site will not be adversely affected by
the proposed project. The District Engineer is otherwise unaware of the presence of architectural
or archaeological resource properties eligible for inclusion in the Register. Presently, unknown
archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under
the requested permit.
The District Engineer is not aware, based on available information, that the activity will
affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public
interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be
balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a
proposal, and if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore
determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the
national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof.
Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands,

cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership,
and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of
dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge
that would be authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection
Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it
would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the
Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species,
historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest
factors listed above. Comments are used in preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or
Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments
are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public
interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will not be made until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The
application and this public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for
certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at
the offices of the Wetlands /401 Unit, North Carolina DENR, Division of Water Quality, 2321
Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any
person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1650, on or before August 10, 2001, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Eric Alsmeyer, until 4:15 p.m., August 10, 2001, or telephone 919-876-
8441, extension 23.
1
y'
? End Pro ect / ?
85
j •••• ; 1! ! ' ' 5 2
i e ¦ %1
1 i mU
¦
• i
Cy, -
42
!• q r l? I uf.IIr 1 ?' ? '
1 .LY r !' fAY.Q/r / !
¦ ! ':
-.._.. s-..- - _ ._«_.. ?'Y J • '/ j _If _ _.. j
...? :•.- / nt
150
AA rn
S52
85
? s
85
i
I ?
y, J Begin Project
I .r
8-
f
1
i
MILES
0 0.15 0.5 0.75 1
0 0.5 1 1.5
i
i
KILOMETERS
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
1-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81)
in Rowan County to US 29-52-701-85 Exit 87)
in Davidson County, Rowan-Davidson Counties
Federal Aid Project NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project 8.1631403, TIP Project 1-2304A
FIGURE 1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 29, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 0110711
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Merger Permit Application, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Interstate
85, North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-52-70/I-85 Business (Exit 87)
in Davidson County, Rowan-Davidson Counties, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)
80, State Project No. 8.1631403, T.I.P. Project No. I-2304A
Dear Sir:
This document is an application for a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
for the construction of the subject project. This document is not an application for a
Section 401 permit. The Section 401 application will be submitted when final design is
available.
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve I-85 from north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-
52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County. The proposed project is located along
a section of Interstate 85 between Salisbury and Greensboro, and is 6.8 miles in length.
The proposed improvements consist of widening the subject section of I-85 to an 8-lane
facility with a 46-foot (14.0 m) median. Interchanges and service roads along the project
will be designed and revised as needed to accommodate the proposed mainline widening,
and inadequate structures will be replaced. The estimated total cost of the proposed
project is $143,728,500.
The NEPA/404 Merger Team met on July 19, 2000 to discuss the purpose and need of the
project and alternatives to be studied. The Team concurred with the purpose and need of
the project as described in Section P.A. of the approved Environmental Assessment
(November 6, 2000) as well as the alternatives to be studied as described in Section III of
the same Environmental Assessment (EA). The concurrence forms are included in
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
i
Appendix 5 of the EA and are attached to this application. The project is of sufficient
length to address environmental matters on a broad scope, has independent utility and
significance, and is a usable and reasonable expenditure even if no additional
transportation improvements in the area are made.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose. of the project is to provide an acceptable level of service along the subject
section of I-85 through the design year of 2025. It is also the intent of the project to
improve traffic flow while providing adequate access and connectivity for area residents
and businesses. Improvements to this section of I-85 are needed to effectively
accommodate increased traffic demand along I-85 on a regional level as well as to
establish congruency among the regional system.
It is also the purpose of the project to address the structural deficiencies of the bridges,
pipes, and culverts along the project while maintaining traffic along I-85. Two bridges
along the project have been targeted for replacement because of structural and capacity"
deficiencies. Bridge Number 137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, was built in
1955. It has 10 years of remaining life and a sufficiency rating of 64.2. Bridge Number
404; which carries SR 1147 over South Potts Creek, is a one-lane bridge built in 1921. It
has a sufficiency rating of 52.3 and a remaining life of 15 years. Bridge Number 404 is
scheduled to be replaced under TIP Project B-4334.
The need for the project is based on a combination of factors including reducing
congestion and improving traffic flow along this section of Interstate 85 by constructing
additional travel lanes within the subject project area. Safety will also be improved with
the removal and reconstruction of interchanges and service roads.
ALTERNATIVES
Capacity and bridge replacement alternatives have been developed as a result of the
merger process as well as a "no-build" alternative. These alternatives are discussed
below.
Capacity Alternatives:
Six-lane Widening: The six-lane widening alternative consists of widening existing I-85
(four-lane roadway with a 30 foot (9.0 m) median) to a six-lane roadway with a 70 foot
(21.3 m) median. In addition, existing interchanges would be revised to accommodate
this proposed widening.
Eight-lane Widening: The eight-lane widening alternative consists of widening I-85 to an.
8-lane facility with a 46-foot (14.0m) median. Interchange and service road
reconfigurations are also proposed because widening eight lanes alone will not provide an
acceptable LOS through the congested merge/diverge area in the vicinity of US 29/70,
NC 150, and Clark Road. Therefore, the three partial movement interchanges of US
29/70, NC 150, and Clark Road will be replaced with one full-movement interchange in
the vicinity of NC 150. In addition, the Belmont Boulevard Interchange, a diamond type
interchange, would be reconstructed to a partial cloverleaf interchange. Service road
reconstruction will also be performed in this area.
Bridge Replacement Alternatives:
There are two alternatives proposed for the replacement of Bridge Number 137 over the
Yadkin River.
Relocation of Yadkin River Bridge East of Existing Location: Bridge Number 137 carries
I-85 over the Yadkin River. This bridge will be replaced by dual structures that will span
the Yadkin River, its adjacent wetlands, and the Southern Railroad. The dual structures
would be approximately 3000 feet. (914.4 m) in length and would be located
approximately 500-ft. (152.4m) east of Bridge Number 137's existing location. By
constructing these dual structures to the east of the existing bridge, traffic can be
maintained along the existing bridge until construction is complete. The existing bridge
will be removed after the project's construction.
Reconstruction of Yadkin River Bridge near Existing Location: NCDOT investigated the
alternative of reconstructing the Yadkin River Bridge (Bridge Number 137) near its
existing location. This alternative would not allow for the maintenance of traffic during
construction of the project. An alignment located near existing I-85 in the vicinity of the'
Yadkin River will require grade changes to meet minimum vertical curve criteria. Grade
changes in this area would impact existing I-85, eliminating its use for maintaining traffic
during construction.
No-Build Alternative:
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts that are anticipated as a result of
the project; however, it would result in no positive effect on the traffic capacity and safety
of the highway. This alternative is not recommended; however, it does serve as a basis
for comparison of other alternatives.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Complete surveys for all federally protected species in Davidson and Rowan Counties
were conducted along all Build Alternates for the project. Biological Conclusions of "No
Effect" were reached for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). There is potential habitat for the bog turtle within
the project study corridor in several of the wetland areas, but no individuals were seen
during either of the site visits. These species are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation (Endangered Species Act);
therefore, a survey is not required.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The following impacts were calculated based on the width of the entire study corridor.
Actual impacts may decrease based on final design.
Floodplains: Both Rowan and Davidson Counties are currently participating in the
National Flood Insurance Program. Most of the floodplain areas at the major stream
crossings are wooded or cleared pasture and cultivated areas. Potential impacts to the
floodplain from erosion will be mitigated through strict adherence to the NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, March 1997".
Streams: The project is located in hydrologic unit 03040103. Stream impacts to North
Potts Creek, South Potts Creek, the Yadkin River and 14 unnamed tributaries are
anticipated to be approximately 3,050 feet. NCDOT is committed to following the
natural channel design method of stream restoration and the principals of applied fluvial
geomorphology relative to hydraulic crossings.
Wetlands: Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands" requires new construction
in wetlands to be avoided to the fullest extent possible. If avoidance is not possible then
all feasible measures must be taken to minimize impacts to the wetland system. As part
of the early coordination with the USFWS, USACE, DENR's Division of Water Quality
and Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC); NCDOT attempted to avoid and minimize
wetland impacts. Additional measures such as steeper side slopes and retaining walls
may be incorporated during design to further minimize impacts.
Two types of wetlands are found in the project study area: palustrine emergent wetlands.
and palustrine forested wetlands. A complete description of these wetland systems can be
found in section IV.C.3.a.4 and IV.C.3.a.5 in the EA. Anticipated impacts to wetlands
are estimated to be approximately 4 acres at eight wetland sites. Most of the impacts will
be to the palustrine emergent-type wetlands. See Table 13 in the EA for a breakdown of
wetland impacts.
Mitigation: NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design
features to avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts and to provide full
compensatory mitigation of remaining wetland and stream impacts, within federally
imposed limitations. NCDOT will investigate for the presence of potential on-site
wetland and stream restoration opportunities. NCDOT has initiated a search for suitable
off-site compensatory mitigation for the wetland and stream impacts in the 03040103
cataloguing unit of the Yadkin River Basin.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Architectural and archaeological resources were identified and evaluated in accordance
with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4 for this project. A Phase I report was prepared
for archaeological sites and a Phase II report was prepared for the architectural sites in the
project area.
Historic: The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106, 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 eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106, the area of potential effect (APE) of the project was
surveyed by NCDOT and reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The site was surveyed in November and December of 1998 by NCDOT staff architectural
historians, and determined one structure eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. The eligible structure is Bridge Number 46, the "Wil Cox Bridge", located on US
29/70, which spans the Yadkin River at the Davidson/Rowan County line.
Due to the proposed improvements of TIP Project No. I-2304A, the "Wil Cox Bridge"
Bridge Number 46, which accommodates 2 lanes in the southbound direction, will remain
in place, but will be closed to vehicular traffic. The bridge will remain in place to serve
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Because this bridge will be preserved in place, it has been
determined that there will be no adverse effect.
Archaeological: The State Historic Preservation officer (SHPO) reviewed the proposed
project regarding the identification of archaeological sites. The SHPO stated in a letter
that "Fort York as determined to be potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criteria A (association with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of history) and D (likely to yield information important
in prehistory or history). Further work at Fort York, which will not be adversely
impacted by the proposed project, should consist of the production of a detailed map of
the surface features. It is recommended that as much mapping of the site as possible be
done during the survey for the final roadway design."
Section 4(f) Resources: Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
2966 specifies that publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife or
waterfowl refuge or land from historic resources of national, state, or local significance
may be used for Federal-Aid projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative
to the use of such land, or such highway program or project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
The "Wil Cox Bridge" Bridge Number 46, and the Fort York property are considered 4(f)
properties in the vicinity of the project. Because the "Wil Cox Bridge" will remain in
place to serve pedestrian and bicycle traffic, it will not be affected by the project.
Because the proposed roadway will be moved further away from the Fort York
Archaeological Site, the project will have no direct or indirect effects on the site.
a
No landfills or other potentially contaminated sites were found within the NCDOT's
proposed scope of work.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the NEPA/404 Merger process,
will be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance
of the permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This submittal is in accordance
with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the National
Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This letter, along
with the previously distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance
of a Public Notice for the project. Sets of functional design plans are being sent under
separate cover.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact Ms. Jackie
Obediente at [phone], Extension 228, or Mr. Ed Lewis at [phone],
Extension 281.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/el
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR
Ms. Marella Buncick; USFWS
Ms. Mary Ellen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E.; Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Jackie Obediente, PD&EA
N
•j.
i 3u
•ryS-0
R?

1 ]lii 'T 3 a
1 ® so
j ll!3 ??
1'1 is
1
W.
? s',31 ?' so ?i
85 / 1Fn
?Pd
52
-4 ? ie? ,,. •?a
85 / iC u
3 j
i
? i
,z,,, J Begin Project
000.
MILES
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 0.5 1 1.5
KILOMETERS
i
?D
End Project

85

5 J2
?
..*?_ mho 85 :
• i

'/
\
1151 •\ , ' - S

CsnMSGpN UMW / '1 i

•
315 1 ?..? 1 '''

'G 313 ; ? ' ?iy• ?
eptln OwU 1 ' / j / _
.............
_
Lit $

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
a OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
''? ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
1-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81)
in Rowan County to US 29-52-701-85 (Exit 87)
in Davidson County, Rowan-Davidson Counties
Federal Aid Project NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project 8.1631403, TIP Project 1-2304A
FIGURE 1
e
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
OF THE ARMY PERMIT Expires October 1996
(33 CFR 325)
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and
to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or
affecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary.
If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the. proposed activity
must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED. BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
North Carolina Department of Transportation
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
1548 Mail. Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE Nos. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business [phone]
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND
TITLE (an agent is not required)
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E.
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
10. AGENT'S PHONE Nos. W/ AREA
CODE
a. Residence
b. Business
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support.of this permit application,
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Proposed widening of and improvements to 1-85
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS
(if applicable)
Yadkin River, Potts Creek, Unnamed tributaries
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Davidson and Rowan North Carolina
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See vicinity map
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Widen an existing four-lane, median divided facility to a six-lane or eight-lane facility with one
bridge replacement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
See the Environmental Assessment
USE BLOCKS 20-221F DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Widening of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of
process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of
process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED
WORK See Attached cover letter
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins theWaterbody (if more than can be
entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
See listing of property owners attached
14
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work
Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVALS IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED/ DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I
certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that 1 possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized' agent of the
7 ?} plic nt.
Qr7.4
{A? 11.3 c
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant)
or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a
material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing
or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
v
Appendix 5
("'ROM ?"?f ? F-N VIRoNIn iFAI A L ASS ESS M EN T
I-85. Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington, Rowan and Davidson
Counties, TIP Project I-2304A, AID 199821203
Purpose and Need (August 22,200-0-1
It is the purpose of the project to provide an acceptable level of service along the subject section
of I-85 through the design year 2025. It is also the intent of the project to improve traffic flow
while providing adequate access and connectivity for area residents and businesses.
Improvements to this section of I-85 are needed to effectively accommodate increased traffic
demand along I-85 on a regional level, as well as establishing congruency among the regional
system.
It is also the purpose of the project to address the structural deficiencies of the bridges, pipes and
culverts along the project while maintaining traffic along I-85. Two bridges along the project
have been targeted for replacement because of structural and capacity inadequacies.
Bridge # 137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, was built in 1955. It has 10 years of
remaining life and a sufficiency rating of 64.2• Bridge. # 404, which carries SR 1147 over South
Potts Creek, is a lone-lane bridge built in 1921. It has a sufficiency rating of 52.3 and a
remaining life of 15 years.
Alternatives To Be Studied (August 22.20001
A. Capacity Alternatives
1.6-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
2.8-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
B. Service Road Alternatives
1. Provide a continuous service road from the proposed new interchange to the Belmont Road
interchange along the east side of I-85:
2. Rebuild and extend service roads between the proposed new interchange and the Belmont
Road interchange along the east side of I-85, but do not provide a service road. connection across
South Potts Creek and the wetlands adjacent to the creek, located just to the south of the Belmont
Road interchange.
C. Structural Alternatives
1. Replace Bridge # 137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures on new location to the east
of the existing structure.
2. Replace Bridge # 137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures at the location of the
existing structure.
3. Replace Bridge # 404, which is a one-lane bridge over South Potts Creek, with a 2-lane
structure at its existing location.
D. No Build
A5-1
r
23 pp 03:1?P
l
North Carolina Division
919-956-4353
. C (0) PI
Merger project Team Meeting Agreement
Section 4041NEPA
need. A study.
Concurrence Point No.,. . purpose
ativ and cs to be carried forward in the NEP
Alt=
Concune Point No. Spencer and I,axington'
and ?proVements, between n tion. I-85 Widening ?A? AID 199821203.
p-. 2

Project NamelDesc p TIP project 123 and the
Rowan and Davidson Counties, 2000 with the p° August 22,
ed dated
this date of Febrnaiy 25, h
The Project Team has concurred on A studs, as stated on the attar
..alternatives to be carried forward in the NF.P
2000.
USACE USFWS
.USED
t
NCDW
-NCDGR
NCWRC
FfIWA

r

A5-2
SURVEY/PLANNING-NCSHPO TEL:[phone] Aug 22'00 15:36 No.005 P.03
s LD
Section 404/NF.PA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement cor
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and need.
Concurrence Point No. 2. Aiternatives to be carried forward in the NEFA study.
Project Name/Description: I-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington,
Rowan and Davidson Counties, TIP Project 1-2304A. AID 199821203.
"Ihe Projcct Tcam has concurred on this date of February 25, 2000 with the purpose and need,
and the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study", as stated on the attached dated
August 22, 2000.
USACE NCDO•r
USEPn USFWS
NCD WQ NCWRC
•
NCDC FHWA
A5-3
WKU.HUV.FHLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Aug 24'00 8:54 no.vvi r.vt
r "
C(DPY
Section 404/N EPA Merger project Tram Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and need.
Concurrence Paint No. 2. Alternatives to be forward the' study•
Project Name/Description: 1-85 Widening and ImP='Ovement% between Spencer and Lexington,
..
Rowan and Davidson Counties, TIP PmJcct 1-2304A, AID 149821203.
The Project Tearn has concurred on this date of February 25, 2000 with the
ait d onpurpose and dad,
and the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study", as
!.,ugust 22, 2000.
NCDQT
USACE
USEPA USFWS
NCWR
NCDW
NCDCR FHWA
:t
r

r
A5-4
AUG-25-2000 FRI 03:09 PM
FAX NO.

P. 01/01
COP)Y
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and need.
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study.
Project Nwne/Description: 1-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington,
powan and Davidson Counties, TIP Project T-2304A, AID 199821203.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of February 25, 2000 with the purpose and need,
and the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study". as stated on the latached dated
August 22, 2000.
USACF. NCDOT - -
USEPA USFWS --
NCDWQ Oaft ?@L4 NCWRC
8. 2,5. CO
NCDCR FHWA
f .
,i
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone]
Aug 22 100 14:39 P.02
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and need. '
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives- to:be tarried forward in the NEPA study.
project:Nmne/Description: 1-85 Widening?d.-ImpmY mcnts, botwecn Spencer and Lexingtoa,
..wan and Davidson Counties, T1P Projeet'1-1-304A?;•A1D 199821203.
-25,
The Project Team has concurred oa this ciate.-of 1~eixarary 2000 with the purpose and need,
and the "alternatives to be carried forward in..thc NEPAltudy", m .stated on the attached dated
August 22, 2000.
. ' ?_ Q/off ?IOo
USACE NC
USEPA _ t3 ws
NCDWQ NCWRC
NCDCR?" _ ...:FWA

COPY
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No.1 Purpose and need,
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study.
Project Name/Description: I-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington,
Rowan and Davidson Counties, TIP. Project I-2304A, AID 19982124
The Project Team concurs with the purpose and need, and the "alternatives to be carried forward
in the NEPA study", as stated on the attached dated August 22, 2000.
USACE A 1( NCDOT -
USEPA USFWS -
NCDWQ NCWRC -
NCDCR FHWA
IV o.
OCT III
?U
17
-:F"
COPY /1 15?k po3
From: [e-mail] on 10/06/2000 02:56 PM
To: Eric C Alsmeyer/CESAW/saw02@CESAW
cc: [e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange,
coxdr@mai l.wildlife.state.nc.us@SMTP@Exchange,
[e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange, [e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange,
[e-mail]@SMTP@Exchange
Subject: Re: 1.2304; 1.85 Improvem.; Rowan/Davidson; AID 199821203; Concur Form
Eric,
have spoken to Eric Midkiff, NCDOT, about the 1-85 improvement project in the
vicinity of the Yadkin River. Apparently the only information about the project
is what you transmitted to the team on 8/22100, and material presented only at a
project meeting. Given the nature of potential improvements, the stage of the
project in the Merger Process, and EPA's inability to participate, EPA is
declining Project Team membership. NCDOT is planning to complete a draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) this month and begin internal review. EPA is
requesting to be provided a review copy of the EA, when it is made available to
agencies and the public.
Ted Bisterfeld
EPA Region 4, Office of Environmental Assessment
Atlanta, Ga
tei. 404!562-9621
i [e-mail]
i e.army.mil
I 08/22/2000 02:11 PM
i I ( >
> i
I
To: i
[e-mail],, 1
I [e-mail].1
I us,
I [e-mail]
I , Ted
I Bisterfeld/R4/USEPA/US@EPA, i
I [e-mail], I
[e-mail]
t
i cc:
I Subject: 1-2304;1-85 1
I Improvem.; Rowan/Davidson; l
I AID 199821203; Concur. Form i
>
A5-8

NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
TIP Project No. I-2304A
Federal Aid No. NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project No. 8.1631403
Proposed Improvements to I-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70 / I-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County
November 14, 2001 at 10:30 a.m.
Century Center
Photogrammetry Conference Room
Purpose of Meeting:
The purpose of this meeting is to submit information to the Merger Team so that we may
reach concurrence on Point 3, the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) for TIP Project I-2304A
Agenda for Meeting:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
!? a,??2?,u? fie.
Project Development Engineer:
Project Purpose and Need
Project Description
Studied Alternatives
Comparison of Alternatives
Preferred Alternative
Section 4(f) Concerns
Comments and Questions
oAd , .n e?c fv c /.46C
Jackie Obediente
919-733-7844 ext. 228
jyobediente(adot.state.nc.us
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
TIP Project No. I-2304A
Federal Aid No. NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project No. 8.1631403
Proposed Improvements to I-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70 / I-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County
1. Project Purpose and Need
It is the purpose of the project to provide an acceptable level of service along the
subject section of I-85 through the design year 2025. It is also the intent of the project to
improve traffic flow while providing adequate access and connectivity for area residents
and businesses. Improvements to this section of I-85 are needed to effectively
accommodate increased traffic demand along I-85 on a regional level as well as
establishing congruency among the regional system.
It is also the purpose of the project to address the structural deficiencies of the
bridges, pipes and culverts along the project while maintaining traffic along I-85. Two
bridges along the project have been targeted for replacement because of structural and
capacity inadequacies. Bridge #137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, was built
in 1955. It has 10 years of remaining life and a sufficiency rating of 64.2. Bridge #404,
which carries SR 1147 over South Potts Creek, is a one-lane bridge built in 1921. It has a
sufficiency rating of 52.3 and a remaining life of 15 years. Bridge #404 is scheduled to be
replaced under TIP Project B-4334.
II. Project Description
The recommended alternative, further described and analyzed in the Environmental
Assessment, would widen the subject section of I-85 to an 8-lane facility with a 46ft
(14.0m) median. This alternative would replace the three partial movement interchanges
of US 29/70, NC 150, and Clark Road with one full-movement interchange in the vicinity
of NC 150.
The Belmont Boulevard Interchange would also be reconstructed. The existing
diamond type interchange would be reconstructed into a partial cloverleaf interchange.
Service road reconstruction would also be performed in this area. Inadequate structures
along the project would be replaced to conform to current design standards.
2
III. Studied Alternatives
Structural, capacity, and no build alternatives were studied and documented in the
environmental assessment, and are listed below:
A. Capacity Alternatives
1. 8-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
2. 6-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
B. Structural Alternatives
1. Replace Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures on new
location to the east of the existing structure
2. Replace Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures at the
location of the existing structure
C. Service Road Alternatives
1. Provide a service road from the proposed new interchange to the Belmont
Road interchange
2. Do not provide a service road connection from the new interchange to the
Belmont Road interchange
D. No Build
3
IV. Comparison of Alternatives
A. Capacity Alternatives
1. 8-lane widening with interchange modification and brid
This alternative would widen the subject section of I-85 to an 8-lane facility
with a 46ft (14.0m) median. Because widening to eight lanes alone will not
provide an acceptable LOS through the congested merge/diverge area in the
vicinity of US 29/70, NC 150, and Clark Road, interchange and service road
reconfigurations are also proposed. The existing configuration of these three
interchanges and complicated merge areas throughout the project area negatively
affect traffic flow, as well as add to driver confusion. This alternative would
replace the three partial movement interchanges of US 29/70, NC 150, and Clark
Road with one full-movement interchange in the vicinity of NC 150. This would
provide a LOS D along the entire project through the design year 2025, while the
ramp connections of the new interchange would operate at LOS C.
The Belmont Boulevard Interchange would also be reconstructed. The
existing diamond type interchange will be reconstructed into a partial cloverleaf
interchange. Service road reconstruction will also be performed in this area.
2. 6-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
The 6-lane widening alternative consists of widening existing I-85 [4-lane
roadway with a 30ft (48.3m) median] to a 6-lane roadway with a 70ft (21.3m)
median along with interchange reconstruction. This alternative would improve
the LOS along I-85 for a few years. However, by design year 2025, a 6-lane
facility would be operating at LOS F and would require additional lanes.
Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
B. Structural Alternatives
1. Replace Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures on new
location to the east of the existing structure (Recommended)
Bridge # 137 carries I-85 over the Yadkin River. This bridge will be replaced
by dual structures which will span the Yadkin River, its adjacent wetlands, and
the Southern Railroad. The dual structures would be approximately 3,000ft
(914.4m) in length and would be located approximately 500ft (I 52.4m) east of
Bridge # 137's existing location. By constructing these dual structures to the east
of the existing bridge, traffic can be maintained along the existing bridge until
construction is complete. Additionally, locating the new bridges to the east of the
existing location would correct horizontal and vertical alignment deficiencies in
this area. The existing bridge, along with the existing I-85 roadway south of the
Yadkin River, will be removed after the project's construction.
4
2. Replace Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures at the
location of the existing structure
Reconstructing the Yadkin River Bridge near its existing location and
widening I-85 symmetrically about its existing centerline in the vicinity of the
Yadkin River was investigated. Existing I-85 in the vicinity of the Yadkin River
Bridge has vertical and horizontal alignment deficiencies. Correcting these
deficiencies and providing an alignment closer to the existing bridge (than is
proposed in Structural Alternative 1) could not be accomplished while
maintaining traffic along I-85 during construction of the project. The existing
vertical curvature of I-85 in the vicinity of the bridge does not meet minimum
design standards for the design speed of the project. In order to correct this
vertical curve problem and maintain traffic during construction, the new
alignment must be located far enough away from existing I-85 so that its new fill
slopes do not impact the existing travel way during construction. Any alignment:
located closer to the existing Yadkin River Bridge than Structural Alternative 1
would impact existing I-85 with the new fill slopes. Therefore, traffic could not
be maintained during the construction of the new bridges.
Additionally, while the horizontal curvature of I-85 in the vicinity of the
Yadkin River just meets the design speed standards, it is not desirable to have a
horizontal curve of this magnitude on a high-speed facility in close proximity to
structures. Rebuilding the new bridges near the existing location would not offer
the opportunity to improve the horizontal curvature of I-85 in this area.
Due to the construction problems associated with this alternative, and to
provide acceptable vertical and horizontal alignment and maintain traffic, this
alternative is not recommended.
C. Service Road Alternatives
Currently, the Clark Road interchange serves as immediate access to I-85 for
businesses and residents near the interchange, such as the US Flea Market, the
Tracksend restaurant, and residents from the Chestnut Grove Estates Trailer Park.
The service road, Seven Oaks Drive, parallels I-85 along the east side, and extends
approximately 2,200 ft north of the Clark Road interchange, providing access to the
Clark Road interchange.
Due to the closeness of the Clark Road interchange to the proposed new
interchange to the south, it is proposed that the Clark Road interchange be removed
without replacement. Initially, NCDOT had proposed to extend Seven Oaks Drive
further to the north in order to connect the Belmont Road interchange to the proposed
new interchange to the south. The reason for this extension was to improve
connectivity in this area along the east side of I-85 and to give residents and
businesses in the vicinity of Clark Road the flexibility to access interchange areas to
the north and to the south. It was felt that the closing of the Clark Road interchange
would burden residents and businesses in that area. It was also felt that extending the
service road to the north would aid in improving access, connectivity, and flexibility
for those living or working in this area, especially considering the loss of the Clark
Road interchange for access to 1-85.
k cA4r?A,'O
A 5ecr4"?
lmfAC.#5
At the Concurrence Meeting held on August 22, 2000, the team recommended
eliminating this service road extension in an effdrt to minimize impacts to wetlands
located just south of the Belmont Road interchange. As a result, NCDOT proposed
not extending the service road in the Environmental Assessment and at the public
During and after the public hearing NCDOT received comments from
citizens and Davidson County concerning the need to extend the service road to
Belmont Road interchange. Therefore, NCDOT has reviewed this issue and provides
the following information. Wetland and stream impacts caused by extending the
service road are summarized and discussed below. Human impacts that will result if
the service road connector is not built are also discussed.
1. Wetland and Stream Impacts
An additional 46,725 ft2 of wetlands will be impacted with the service road
connector, whereas if the service road connector was not extended, these impacts
would be avoided. Also, and additional 170 ft (51.8m) of streams will be
impacted with the service road connector, whereas if the service road connector
was not extended, these impacts would be avoided. These additional impacts to
streams and wetlands are summarized in Table 1:
Table 1. Summary of Additional Wetland and Stream Impacts
with Service Road Connector
Stream[Wetland Wetland Rating / Additional Impacts Total Additional Total Additional'
Name Stream Type' with Service Road Wetland Impacts Stream Impacts
Wetland K 47 3,805 ft2 (0.09 acres)
46,725 ft2
(1.07 acres)
Wetland J 47 42,920 ft2 (0.99 acres)
South Potts Perennial / good 115 ft (35.1m)
(impacts from culvert
Creek flow, some erosion extension)
8m)
170 ft (51
UT 3 Perennial /some 55 ft (16.8m) .
(impacts from culvert
erosion
extension)
• The DWQ rating scale gauges wetland quality using a numerical rating system (I-100 with 100 being
the highest value).
6
2. Human Impacts
In the Environmental Assessment, and at the Public Hearing, avoidance
measures concerning the service road had been implemented into the design as
suggested by the merger team, at the August 22, 2000 concurrence meeting. The
service road extension to the Belmont Road interchange was eliminated in order
to avoid wetlands. During and after the informal public hearing, held on July 26,
2001, a number of citizens showed concern towards the elimination of the service;
road extension. Below is.a list of their comments and concerns:
• The Davidson County Board of Commissioners showed concern with
eliminating the service road connection between Clark Road and Belmont
Road. The board is concerned that without the service road extension, tracts
of land on the east side will be isolated and thus limit or discourage economic;
development (see attached letter).
• Mr. Jack C. Little, who owns property near the Belmont Interchange,
requested that the cul-de-sac, shown on the hearing map presented at the
hearing, be moved further northward for access to his property (see attached
comment sheet).
• Mr. Leon Hargrave expressed concerns about his property, which lies
southeast of Belmont Road. He is concerned about the lack of access to the
remainder of his property, which extends past the proposed cul-de-sac (see
attached transcript).
• Mr. Eric Clark expressed concern about the lack of a service road connector
between the new interchange and the Belmont Road interchange. He claims it
will inconvenience many citizens, and will result in them having to drive
many additional miles if this service road is not implemented (see attached
transcript).
• Several citizens that spoke with NCDOT representatives at the public hearing,
showed concern regarding the lack of a connector between the proposed cul-
de-sac at the Belmont Boulevard interchange, and the Clark Road area.
Extending the service road from east of the Clark Road interchange to the
Belmont Road interchange would provide connectivity, flexibility, and access
alternatives for citizens in the area of the Clark Road interchange. NCDOT feels
that the removal of the Clark Road interchange would diminish access for those
living and working along the east side of I-85, and that extending the service road
to Belmont Road could ease the burden by providing better flexibility and
connectivity. Due to public comment, comments from local officials, and the
advantages that the service road extension would provide in terms of flexibility
for area residents and businesses, connectivity, and improved access, the NCDOT
prefers extending the service road.
7
D. No Build
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts that are anticipated as a
result of the project; however, this alternative does not meet the purpose of the project
to improve the level of traffic service and traffic flow in the project area. Therefore,
there would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity and safety of the highway.
V. Preferred Alternative
NCDOT recommends the following:
A. Capacity Alternative
Because an acceptable level of service will be maintained throughout the design
year, NCDOT recommends to implement the 8-lane widening with interchange
modification and bridge replacements alternative, as described in the I-2304A
Environmental Assessment.
B. Structural Alternative
NCDOT recommends the replacement of Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with
dual structures on new location to the east of the existing structure. This alternative
was selected because traffic can be maintained along the existing bridge until
construction is complete and, locating the new bridges to the east of the existing
location would correct horizontal and vertical alignment deficiencies in this area.
This alternative is described in the I-2304A Environmental Assessment.
C. Service Road Alternatives
Because of the citizen's and local official's concerns relating to property access,
future development, and the need for a connector between the proposed new
interchange and the Belmont Road interchange, it is recommended to provide the
service road connector.
D. Total Wetland and Stream Impacts
Total stream wetland impacts are summarized in the following tables:
a. Stream Impacts
Summary of stream impacts with and without the proposed service road
are shown in Table 2. After field verification, UT 6 and UT 9 were eliminated
from the original list of impacted streams (located in the I-2304A
Environmental Assessment), therefore they are not listed here:
9
Table 2. Comparison of Total Stream Impacts
with service road and without service road)

Stream,
Tributary to
Type Length Impacted with
proposed service
road ft m Length Impacted without
proposed service
road ft m)
UT 1 N.PottsCr. Perennial 50.0 (15.2) 50.0 (15.2)
UT 2 N.PottsCr. Perennial 200 (61.0) 200.0 (61.0)
UT 3 S.Potts Cr. Perennial 555 (169.2) 500.0 (152.4)
UT 4 S.Potts Cr. Perennial 300.0 (91.5) 300.0 (91.5)
South Potts
Creek Yadkin R. Perennial 335 (102.1) 220.0 (67.1)
UT 7 S.Potts Cr. Perennial 100.0 (30.5) 100.0 (30.5)
UT 8 S.Potts Cr. Perennial 100.0 (30.5) 100.0 (30.5)
UT 10 UT 9 Perennial 250.0 (76.2) 250.0 (76.2)
UT 11 UT 9 Perennial 500.0 (152.4) 500.0 (152.4)
UT 12 UT 9 I/P* 150.0 (45.7) 150.0 (45.7)
UT 13 Yadkin R. Intermittent 150.0 (45.7) 150.0 (45.7)
UT 14 UT 13 Intermittent 100.0 (30.5) 100.0 (30.5)
UT 16 Yadkin R. Perennial 200.0 (61.0) 200.0 (61.0)

Total Impacts 2,990 (911.4) 2,820 (859.5)
I/P* - This stream changes from intermittent to perennial approximately 2500ft (762m) from SR 1285
(Seven Oaks Drive).
10
b. Wetland Impacts
Summary of wetland impacts with and without the proposed service road
are shown in Table 3. After field verification, Wetland I was eliminated from
the original list of impacted wetlands (located in the I-2304A Environmental
Assessment) therefore they are not listed here:
Table 3. Comparison of total wetland impacts
(with service road and without service road)
L
DWQ

Rating Impact with service road
fZ (m2) Impact without
service road
W W)
Total PEM Wetlandsl 69,697 (6,475.1) 26,777 (2,487.7)
Wetland A 37 105 (9.8) 105 (9.8)
Wetland B 38 1,900 (176.5) 1,900 (176.5)
Wetland D 39 110 (10.2) 110 (10.2)
Wetland J 47 57,402 (5,332.8) 14,482 (1,345.4)
Wetland R 34 10,180 (945.8) 10,180 (945.8)
Total PFO Wetlands2 70,115 (6,513.9) 66,310 (6,160.4)
Wetland C 36 11,500 (1,068.4) 11,500 (1,068.4)
Wetland K 47 3,805 (353.5) 0
Wetland M 36 1,250 (116.1) 1,250 (116.1)
Wetland P 36 53,560 (4,975.9) 53,560 (4,975.9)
Total Wetlands 139,812ft2 = 12,989 m2
= 3.21 Acres 93,087ft2 = 8,648.1 m2
= 2.14 Acres
1PEM Wetlands= Palustrine Emergent Wetlands.
2PFO Wetlands= Palustrine Forested Wetlands.
Project construction will not require the entire study corridor; therefore, actual
surface water impacts may be considerably less.
VI. Section 4(f) Concerns
No 4(f) properties will be impacted by this project.
VII. Comments and Questions
11

i
¦
¦ ;' aFm
¦ !31Z
¦ t
?/ Lfl
1 ?
>? r
1 ? W
i i
i
¦
50
- ',' ?® .ate' 1
ii
50 r mil/
. •Ibtw. j?,?.
85 ¢%By 9ni
.?
52
i
85
1
1
?i„„ J Begin Project
y.
7T
woo 01-0 e s
i?
0
MILES
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 0.5 1 1.5
KILOMETERS
T
jl
j; `? End Protect
r
?I

85
i
1
i
i 52
70
i
\
i ' {
al>o 85

i l 1151 `'\ \ j --- S

\ I

! • ?-'
/ lilt .\ j

!
eswcl..m
! i -

f
0 :' ?(?

H it
arc a . ,- '' ;
. I
I I?IV.
' R?,C?IVED
AUG 1 5 2001

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LARRY W. POTTS. CHAIRMAN
FRED D. MCCLURE. VICE CHAIRMAN
CINDY AKINS
PRISCILLA H. HEGE
BILLY JOE KEPLEY
RICK LANIER
FRED C. SINK
August 6, 2001
Ms. Leigh B. Lane
Public Involvement and Community Studies Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Subject: I-85 Widening Project
TIP Project #I-2304A
Project #8.1631403
Dear Ms. Lane:
ROBERT C. HYATT
COUNTY MANAGER
The Davidson County Board of Commissioners wishes to express its
dissatisfaction and concerns regarding NCDOT's current roadway design for the widening
of I-85 within Davidson County. The Board has been made aware of plans to no longer
have a through service road between the new NC Highway 150 interchange and the new
Belmont Road interchange on the south side of the interstate highway. With the proposed
plans to eliminate the Clark Road interchange, the Board fears the lack of a through
service road will isolate the tracts of land on the south side of the highway and thus limit
or even discourage economic development in the area. Several of these tracts have
potential to be developed either industrially or commercially and have been shown in the
past for future development by the Davidson County Economic Development
Commission. The new Davidson County Land Development Plan currently under review
by the Board of Commissioners identifies the 1-85 corridor as an area of economic
development opportunity. The Board strongly desires to see a service road that will be
beneficial to both existing and future business concerns along the highway.

DAVIDSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GOVERNMENTAL CENTER
913 Greensboro Street
Post Office Box 1067
Lexington, North Carolina 27293
336-242-2200
TOLI,-PREP: NUMBERS I-ROM - I+XINOTON 242-2100) /TI IOMASVILLF 472-9001
1-85 Widening I'tujctt
August (,. 2001
Page 2
The distance between the Belmont Road exit
exit is approximately 2.31 miles. Travel times to hea
could be significantly lengthened if the service road i
exit. The Board of Commissioners dutifully requests
to extend the service road and look at alternative des
concerns with wetlands disturbance over South Pott:
property owners in the area have also raised these cc
and the present NC Highway 150
d back north towards Lexington
> not extended to the Belmont Road
that NCDOT revisit the decision not
igns to overcome any environmental
Creek. Please be aware that
ncerns as well.
The Board of Commissioners will gladly disc4Izss this matter further with the
NCDOT staff. Any sharing of further information can be directed to the Davidson County
Planning Director, Mr. Guy Cornman, who can be reached at 336-242-2220. We
appreciate the opportunity to comment on this vitally important highway project and look
forward to hearing any further comments.
Sincerely,
Larry W.
Davidson
cc: Davidson County Board of Commissioners
Davidson County Economic Development
County Manager
Planning Director
Margaret Klutz, North Carolina Board of T
Pat Ivey, Division 9 Engineer
Lyndo Tippett, Secretary NCDOT
Chairman
v Board of Commissioners
LWP:amb

COMMENT SHEET
1-85
From North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in
Open Forum Public Hearing
1-2304A
July 26, 2001
NAME: ?_j 4cc-_
Project 8.1631403
Rowan and Davidson
/I77Z4--_ jW0
COMMENTS ANMOR QUESTIONS: ?-
????2 ? y sc? %?! ?- wP f
O`
P Sr (C?(vL. vvtc
?C? r LY G1 ?P S f 71
F-_ /",- >2 Plt 76 ?PS X6'1 cep
CC 0 / f V l lam. aG C ?F' ?r G (/1/f G`s/L
??IL0"Ccv ?o A=rip/
Comments may be mailed to: ?c55 ;13 e
Leigh B. Lane w"<<r ?,gv is2i i>?
Public Involvement and Community Studies Unit
Project Development and Environmental "Analysis Branch
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1583 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
12-
te2 e2_
cV1Lr G i l v o
"3 6-L"1110-1
ADDRESS: V C
Transcripts from I-2304A P blic Hearing
July 26, 2001
1). Leon Hargrave: "My name is Leon Hargrave. ".'m a resident of 763 Belmont Road,
Henderson Hargrave estate. That would be southeast of Belmont Road off of the
Belmont Road exit. We were just concerned abol?Iat the area that is in the light green
that you will be purchasing. You have a cul-de-sac there at the bottom of Belmont
Road just before you get ready to pull around the curve, you're getting ready to put a
cul-de-sac there. What we're concerned about is there's a section that is in the white
that you all have left there. There will be no exit or no entrance into getting on that
particular property there. So, we're concerned about what are you going to do with
that section that you left in the white. Are you g ing to purchase that or are you
going to make access to where if we move our h mes off the hill on the side there
will we have entrances to get in and out there? I not then we need to come to some
type of agreement on that. Then there is a sectio-i behind the Henderson estate that is
left. That would be the northeast side, wouldn't it? Down there at the bottom, that
there is no access in there, there's no access out of there and it's just down there neax
the bottom. It's not useable but we want to find but exactly what all you want to do
with that."
2)
Eric Clark: "My name is Eric Clark and I live at 895 Clark Road, Linwood, NC. I
have been to the NCDOT Museum in Spencer to look at the new plans for the new S-
lane interstate to go through Davidson County. And I must say that I was shocked
when I saw that the connector between the Belmont Road and Park Road had been
discontinued. This will inconvenience thousands of people , cause us to drive an
additional thousands of miles over the years, not to mention lost time and additional
miles. I just feel that I wanted to voice my concern to the Transportation Department
to let them know that I believe if they did an economic study according to the number
of cars that accessed north bound 85 towards Lexington from the Clark Road exist
they would see that there will be millions of additional miles that people will have to
drive, millions of additional dollars in cost to the residents of this area if you do not
redesign the connector between the Clark Road ;xist and Belmont Road. Thank you
for your time."
y15 >. 6 7(v. I-- 823
I-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington, Rowan and Davidson
Counties, TIP Project I-2304A, AID 199821203
Purpose and Need (August 22, 2000)
It is the purpose of the project to provide an acceptable level of service along the subject section
of I-85 through the design year 2025. It is also the intent of the project to improve traffic flow
while providing adequate access and connectivity for area residents and businesses.
Improvements to this section of I-85 are needed to effectively accommodate increased traffic
demand along I-85 on a regional level, as well as establishing congruency among the regional
system.
It is also the purpose of the project to address the structural deficiencies of the bridges, pipes and
culverts along the project while maintaining traffic along I-85. Two bridges along the project
have been targeted for replacement because of structural and capacity inadequacies.
Bridge # 137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, was built in 1955. It has 10 years of
remaining life and a sufficiency rating of 64.2. Bridge # 404, which carries SR 1147 over South
Potts Creek, is a lone-lane bridge built in 1921. It has a sufficiency rating of 52.3 and a
remaining life of 15 years.
Alternatives To Be Studied (Auizust 22, 2000)
A. Capacity Alternatives
1. 6-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
2. 8-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
B. Service Road Alternatives
1. Provide a continuous service road from the proposed new interchange to the Belmont Road
interchange along the east side of I-85.
2. Rebuild and extend service roads between the proposed new interchange and the Belmont
Road interchange along the east side of I-85, but do not provide a service road connection across
South Potts Creek and the wetlands adjacent to the creek, located just to the south of the Belmont
Road interchange.
C. Structural Alternatives
1. Replace Bridge # 137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures on new location to the east
of the existing structure.
2. Replace Bridge # 137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures at the location of the
existing structure.
3. Replace Bridge # 404, which is a one-lane bridge over South Potts Creek, with a 2-lane
structure at its existing location.
D. No Build
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and need. I
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study.
Project Name/Description: I-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington,
Rowan and Davidson Counties, TIP Project I-2304A, Al 199821203.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of February 25, 2000 with the purpose and need,
and the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study", as stated on the attached dated
August 22, 2000.
USACE
USEPA
NCDOT
US7S_
%tr Qt GUtd-e NCWRC
NCDWCL?.ttius- 0
8- Z5-CO
NCDCR FHWA_
TIP Project I-2304A
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting
July 19, 2000
Project Description
The NCDOT's 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
proposes to construct additional travel lanes along Interstate 85 (I-85) from just
north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Rowan and
Davidson Counties. Major bridge, median, and interchange reconstruction is also
proposed to accommodate the proposed widening and to improve traffic flow.
The project is schedule for right of way acquisition in fiscal year 2002 and
construction in fiscal year 2004. See Figure 1 for the project's location.
Need for the Project
Currently I-85 within the project limits is a 4-lane facility and with the
level of traffic growth in the project area the existing I-85 facility will not be able
to adequately accommodate projected traffic volumes in the next 25 years. In
fact, some portions of this section of 1-85 are already operating at an unacceptable
level of traffic service during peak hour conditions.
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic system and how motorists and/or
passengers perceive these conditions. A level-of-service definition generally
describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom
to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels
are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available.
They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best
operation conditions and LOS F representing the worst.
Currently, the subject section of I-85 is operating at LOS D using a
mainline capacity analysis approach. By the design year 2025, the facility will be
operating at LOS F. However, the merge operations in the vicinity of US 29/70
and NC 150 control the level of service in this area. Currently, ramp analyses in
this area already indicate LOS F. The ramp analyses indicate that the interchange
configurations as well as the closeness of the interchanges through this area have
a negative effect on capacity in addition to the high traffic volumes.
In addition, I-85 north of the project limits is a 6-lane facility and south of
the project limits I-85 is currently being widened to an 8-lane facility via TIP
Project I-2511. These existing typical sections are expected to operate at an
acceptable level of traffic service through the year 2025. Therefore, the project
area is the bottle neck for traffic through this I-85 corridor and will continue to be
so through the next 25 years.
0 ??? ob ?
Purpose of the Project
It is the purpose of the project to provide an acceptable level of service
along the subject section of I-85 through the design year 2025. It is also the intent
of the project to improve traffic flow while providing adequate access and
connectivity for area residents and businesses. As mentioned above, the subject
section of I-85 is flanked by sections of I-85 offering 6 and 8 lanes and an
acceptable level of traffic service to each side of the project area. NCDOT is in
the process of upgrading the level of service provided along the I-85 corridor
between Greensboro and Charlotte. The project area is a link along this corridor
which has not been improved. Improvements to this missing link are needed to
effectively accommodate increased traffic demand along I-85 on a regional level
as well as establishing congruency among the regional system.
Alternatives
Alternative 1 (Six-lane Widening)
This alternative would improve the LOS along I-85 for a few years.
However, by the design year 2025, a six-lane facility would be operating at LOS
F and would require additional lanes.
Alternative 2 (8-lane Widening)
This alternative would provide LOS D for the majority of the project
through the design year 2025. However, widening to 8 lanes alone will not
provide an acceptable LOS through the congested merge/diverge area in the
vicinity of US 29/70, NC 150, and Clark Boulevard. Leaving this existing
interchange configuration intact will still result in LOS F through this area, even
with the proposed widening during the design year. Therefore, interchange
reconfiguration is proposed as part of this alternative through this congested area.
This alternative would replace the 3 partial movement interchanges of US
29/70, NC 150, and Clark Boulevard with one full movement interchange in the
vicinity of NC 150. Connecting service roads to the east of I-85 will provide the
same access to I-85 for local residences and businesses that is currently being
provided.
Widening I-85 to Blanes and replacing the US 29/70, NC 150, and Clark
Boulevard interchanges with one full movement interchange will provide a LOS
D along the entire project through the design year 2025, while the ramp
connections of the new interchange would operate at LOS C.
This alternative would also replace the existing bridge over the Yadkin
River. Bridge # 137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, was built in 1955.
It has 10 years of remaining life and a sufficiency rating of 64.2. Dual structures
would be constructed to the east of the existing bridge causing a section of I-85
be constructed on new location. Locating the new bridges to the east of the
existing bridge is required so that traffic can be maintained along the existing
bridge until construction is completed. The existing bridge will then be removed
after the project's construction. The proposed new structures would be nearly
3000 feet in length and would span the Yadkin River and the wetlands associated
with the river.
Do Nothing Alternative
As stated during the purpose and need discussion above, portions of the
existing facility are already operating at LOS F in the vicinity of US 29/70. By
the design year 2025, the entire project length will be operating at LOS F.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TRACKING SHEET DENR#
DWO - WATER QUALITY SECTION DWQ# 3
DATE: TYPE:
J `j1 z?4 F A????C S/ 4,11 en nTO: Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab, MSC 1621) N
O Trish MacPherson (T/E species, lotic systems) MAR
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW) 2044
VVII O Matt Matthews (toxicology) Regional Water Quality Supervisor ij '" ?' ' a ;
O Dianne Reid (intensive survey)
O
Non-Discharge Permitting Unit (Archdale 12th)
O Kim Colson (sewer collection, reuse)
Wetlands/401 Unit (Parkview Bldg, MSC 1650)
O ohn Dorney (COE, 401, construction)
John Hennessy (DOT)
Cyndi Karoly (dredging)
O
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Valery Stephens (NPDES, reverse osmosis)
O Bradley Bennett (stormwater)
O Dana Foley (pretreatment) (Archdale 7th)
Planning Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Darlene Kucken (basinwide planning)
O Tom Reeder (classifications & standards)
O Alan Clark (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (water supply)
O Michelle Woolfolk (modeling) (Archdale 7`h)
O Gloria Putnam (coastal nps)
O
O
O
A copy of the environmental document for the project described below is attached. Subject to the,requirements of the
NC Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the
environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please return the
completed form along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated. Thank you. IF AN EXTENSION
IS NEEDED, PLEASE EMAIL A REQUEST TO THE SEPA COORDINATOR PRIOR TO THE RESPONSE
DEADLINE.
Project: Response Deadline L
I-85 North of -SR 2120 to US 29-52-70 /1-85 business - road development pro
'011_/1
NO COMMENT = COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNATURE DATE
Return To:
'Ilex Marks: [phone] ext. 555; [e-mail]
ocal Government Assistance Unit/Planning Branch; Archdale 6th; MSC 1617; fax: [phone]
`E
I-85
North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County
Rowan-Davidson Counties
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project No. 8.1631403
T.I.P. Project No. I-2304A
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
APPROVED:
l 3
D Ate O regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
' Environmental Management Director
Project Developiental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
1 Z iso3 DateJohn F. u ivan,Divisio Administrator, FHWA
I-85
North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County
Rowan-Davidson Counties
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project No. 8.1631403
T.I.P. Project No. I-2304A
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
December 2003
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
12/01/03
J ckie Obediente
Project Development Engineer
' Ia ? 3
Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Project Development Unit Head
K CARQ
S
SE Al. •?
19791 '
1C3153171.%'60%
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION .................................................................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................................................2
III. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................3
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ..............................................................................................5
A. Circulation of Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................5
B. Comments Received on Environmental Assessment ................................................................. 5
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ............................................................5
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ..................................................................... ..8
3. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office......... .. 9
4. Alcoa Primary Metals ............................................................................................................... ..9
5. Scenic North Carolina .............................................................................................................. 13
6. City of Salisbury ....................................................................................................................... 14
7. Finetex, Inc ............................................................................................................................... 15
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing .................................................. 16
V. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 17
A. Results from Fort York Archaeological Study .............................................................................. 17
B. Updated Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................. 17
C. Trading Ford Monument ............................................................................................................... 17
D. Revisions to Wetland and Stream Impacts .................................................................................... 18
E. Bridge #392 Replacement ............................................................................................................. 19
F. Cul-de-sac Extension near Belmont Interchange .......................................................................... 20
G. Bald Eagle Biological Conclusion ................................................................................................ 20
VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 21
A. Williams Trailer Park Environmental Justice Information ............................................................ 21
B. Direct and Indirect Impacts on Land Use ...................................................................................... 23
1. Local/Regional Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 24
C. Design Noise Report Summary ..................................................................................................... 25
D. FERC Permit Information ............................................................................................................. 26
E. NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting ................................................................................................ 27
F. Interstate Access Revision ............................................................................................................. 28
G. Addendum to the Archaeological Study ....................................................................................... 28
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING ............................................. 31
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................................... 31
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix B Williams Trailer Park Community Meeting Notices
Appendix C Public Hearing Notice and Handout
Appendix D Additional Information Reports
- Noise Impact Analysis
- Community Impact Assessment: Williams Trailer Park
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
I-85
North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County
Rowan-Davidson Counties
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project No. 8.1631403
T.I.P. Project No. I-2304A
Commitments Developed Through' Project Development and Design
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Because the subject project lies within a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)-licensed hydroplant project boundary `(the Yadkin Project), approval for land
transfer must be obtained by NCDOT in the form of a FERC license revision.
Coordination with the proper FERC officials shall take place, and the process to obtain a
FERC permit will be followed. (See section VI. of this document for details on FERC
procedures).
Geotechnical Unit
It is anticipated that the proposed widening of I-85 and interchange reconstruction along
1-85 will encroach on one property identified as an underground storage tank (UST) site.
The project has been designed to minimize impacts to this UST site to prevent the
possibility of long-term, costly remediation. This impacted site will be further evaluated
before the project's construction.
Structure Design Unit
The Structure Design Unit will coordinate with the Norfolk Southern Corporation, Duke
Power, and the North Carolina Railroad' concerning the highway improvements affecting
the freight railroads. The Structure Design Unit will also coordinate with NCDOT Rail
Division, Norfolk Southern ' Corporation, and North Carolina Railroad for the future
,high-speed passenger rail corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Due to its historical significance, Bridge # 46, which carries US 29-70 over the Yadkin
River in the southbound direction, will remain in place but will be closed to vehicular
traffic. The bridge will remain in place to serve pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
y
Ownership, liability, and maintenance responsibilities are currently being discussed by
the Rowan and Davidson County Commissioners, the Transportation Museum, and the
-2304A FONSI i
)ecember 2003 Page 1 of 4
i
t
State Historic` Preservation Office (SHPO). It is anticipated that these issues will be
resolved before the project construction.
The issues related to ownership, liability, and maintenance responsibilities have not
been resolved by the above-mentioned parties. These issues continue to be discussed by
the local officials.
Right of Way Branch -
It is anticipated that thirteen Geodetic Survey markelrs will be impacted by this project
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction regarding
the relocation of survey markers along the project.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Structure Design Unit
Removal of Bridge #137, which spans the Yadkin River, results in potentially 1,254
cubic yards of temporary fill. NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Upon further analysis of the amount of temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition,
it was determined that only the amount of fill from the substructure would result in
temporaryfill. The likely potential amount of fill resulting from bridge demolition will
be approximately 430 cubic yards. NCDOT will implement Best Management. Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal
Project Development` and Environmental Analysis Branch
The project may have an impact on a low income community in the Williams Trailer
Park area located along I-85 south of SR 2124 (Hackett Road). During the project
development process, no concerns have been raised by the public or local government
officials',concerning environmental justice issues. NCDOT will aggressively seek
participation of this low-income community in the public involvement process.
-NCDOT'held two meetings with the citizens of the Williams Trailer Park. The first
meeting was held in the Spencer Town Hall on 611912001, and the second meeting was
held in the North Carolina Transportation Museum on 612412002. During these
meetings, the design was presented to the trailer park residents, and their input and
concerns related to the project were obtained. In addition to these meetings, a more
detailed analysis was performed to. determine the impacts to this area, and the
determination has been made that this project does riot create impacts related to
Environmental Justice for the Williams Trailer Park. (See section VI. of this document
for more information.)
1-23 )04A FONSI ii
December 2003
Page 2 of 4
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Design Services Unit
Based on preliminary studies, five areas were identified as possible noise barrier
locations. These noise barriers were determined to be unreasonable, due to the cost of
the noise reduction benefits versus the cost of the abatement measures. However, the
project will be re-evaluated for noise abatement measures once more detailed designs are
complete.
The project was re-evaluated for noise abatement measures. Noise mitigation in the
form of a wall was analyzed for several areas along the project. For the 1-2304AA
section, one location, known as Barrier Location 2 (see page D-27 in Appendix D), it
was determined that a barrier in this location is considered reasonable and feasible by
NCDOT guidelines. Hence, a noise wall is recommended in this area. Further
coordination with the affected residents andlor businesses will take place concerning
this proposed noise wall. '(See Section VI for a summary of the noise study).
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch / Design Services
Unit/Construction Unit
A roadside memorial exists within the project limits, however it is not anticipated to be
impacted by this project. This memorial, dedicated in 1929 by the North Carolina
Historic Commission, which currently owns the property, was investigated for its
historical significance. It was determined that this Trading Ford Monument is not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see page A-10 in Appendix A for
concurrence form). Based on this site visit and other information compiled by NCDOT,
no additional archaeological work was deemed necessary for this site. The Historic
Preservation Office has requested that the bronze plaque be returned to them if the
monument has to be removed during construction. Additionally, NCDOT will
coordinate with local officials and SHPO to determine if there is a more suitable location
for the marker.
Design Services Unit /.Structure Design Unit
In accordance with the-FERC requirements, a Construction Permit will be issued to
NCDOT once all requested information is reviewed and approved by FERC. The
construction permit will contain a condition, among many others, that with regard to
existing bridges, that NCDOT will be required to remove all concrete down to the .
existing muck line so that it will not be a hazard or act as a"catch" for floating debris.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The biological conclusion for the bald eagle was revised to "Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" (see section page 20, Section G of this document). This conclusion was
approved by the USFWS (see concurrence form, Appendix A, page A-30). Because
1-2304A FONSI
December 2003 iii Page 3 of 4
I-85
North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County
Rowan-Davidson Counties
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project No. 8.1631403
T.I.P. Project No. I-2304A
FINDING OF 140 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
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, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on
the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment, which
has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility
for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), proposes to improve I-
85 from north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-52-70 / I-85 Business
(Exit 87) in Davidson County. TIP Project I-2304A is divided into two sections, I-
2304AA and I-2304AB. The I-2304AA section begins just north of SR 2120 in Rowan
County and ends just north of NC 150 in Davidson County. The I-2304AB section
begins just north of NC 150 and ends just north of I-85 business. The project is-
scheduled in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to begin right of
way acquisition in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 for part AA and FFY 2004 for part
AB. Construction for parts AA and AB are scheduled to begin FFY 2006.
The NCDOT proposes to widen the subject section of I-85 to an 8-lane facility with a
46ft (14.0m) median. Interchanges and service roads along the project will be designed
and revised as needed to accommodate the proposed mainline widening, and inadequate
structures will be replaced. The project is 6.8 miles (10.9 km) in length.
This project has an estimated total cost of $149,618,500, including $144,200,000 for
construction and $5,418,500 for right of way acquisition. The 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has allocated $147,816,000 for the proposed project
including $3,300,000 for right of way acquisition, $137,300,000 for construction, and
$7,216,000 spent in prior years.
2
III. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This project is driven by the need to relieve congestion and improve traffic flow along
I-85 within the subject project area. Traffic flow will be improved while providing
adequate access and connectivity for area residents and businesses. Improvements to this
section of I-85 are needed to effectively accommodate increased traffic demand along I-
85 on a regional level as well as to establish congruency among the regional system.
Safety will also be improved with the-removal and reconstruction of interchanges and
service roads.
It is anticipated that 24 residences and 4 businesses will be relocated as a result of the
proposed project. Based on traffic noise analyses, it is predicted that approximately 146
receptors will experience traffic noise impacts (see Section VI., part C. of this document).
Since the completion of the Environmental Assessment, the project was re-evaluated for
noise abatement measures. Noise mitigation in the form of a wall was analyzed for
several areas along the project. At one location, known as Barrier Location 2 (see page D-
9 in Appendix D), it was determined that a barrier in this location is considered
reasonable and feasible by NCDOT guidelines. Hence, a noise wall is recommended in
this area. Further coordination with the affected residents and/or businesses will take
place concerning this proposed noise wall.
The total anticipated wetland impacts (Palustrine Emergent and Palustrine Forested
Wetlands) are 3.58 acres (I4,492.4M2). The anticipated total length of streams impacted
for the I-85 widening study corridor is 2,800ft (853.4m). The anticipated surface water
impact for the bridge replacement on SR 1147 over South Potts Creek is 120.Oft (36.6m).
No federally protected threatened or endangered species will be impacted. No sites listed
in the National Register of Historic Places will be involved. No prime farmland impacts
are expected. The proposed improvements will not cause significant negative impacts to
air quality: No significant impacts to plant and animal life are expected.
Because impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated, in
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States." Due to the breadth of the proposed wetland impacts, a
Section 404 Individual Permit will be necessary.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulations, and ensures that the state's water quality
standards will not be violated. Because the subject project lies within a Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC)-licensed hydroplant project boundary (the Yadkin
Project), approval for land transfer must be obtained by NCDOT in the form of a FERC
license revision.

In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge
of the location of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of CE's,
FONSI's, ROD's, or the Design Public Hearing, which ever comes later. For
development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are
responsible for insuring that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed'
facility.
4
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Division of Highways and
the FHWA on November 6, 2000. The approved Environmental Assessment was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments.
An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in the Appendix A of this document.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Asheville
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Asheville, Wilmington, Raleigh
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Atlanta
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
N.C. DENR - Division of Land Resources
N.C. DENR - Division of Forest Resources
* North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
- State Historic Preservation Office
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. DENR - Division of Water Quality
N.C. DENR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History
Public Schools of North Carolina - Department of Public Instruction
National Marine Fisheries
Geological Survey
Davidson County
Rowan County
* Alcoa Primary Metals
* FineTex, Inc.
* City of Salisbury
* Scenic North Carolina
Town of Spencer
B. Comments Received on Environmental Assessment
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
COMMENT: "In reviewing the document, EPA is concerned regarding the level of
involvement from the potential impacted residents (EJ communities). As
these residents fall in the low-income category, has an effort been made
to individually contact these residents and insure that they are completely
informed of the project's impacts on them and involve them in the
5
decision-making process. Just advertising that an informational
workshop will be held is not sufficient if the impacted residents do not .
have a voice in project alignment section/alternatives. If this has been
done, please provide EPA with a mailing list on these impacted residents
(Area #1, Area #4, Area #6 - 23 potential relocatees) and the level of
their involvement in your project decision-making process."
RESPONSE: The following specific project commitment is found in the EA and
FONSI:
"Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The project may have an impact on a low income community in the
Williams Trailer Park area located along 1-85 south of SR 2124 (Hackett
Road). During the project development process, no concerns have been
raised by the public or local government officials concerning
environmental justice issues. NCDOT will aggressively seek participation
of this low-income community in the public involvement process. "
As referred to in this commitment, NCDOT held two meetings with the
citizens of the Williams Trailer Park (see Appendix B for meeting
notices). The first meeting took place in the Spencer Town Hall on
6/19/2001, and the second meeting took place in the North Carolina
Transportation Museum on 6/24/2002. The purpose of these meetings was
to present and explain the design to the trailer park residents, and to obtain
their input and concerns related to the project. For more information on
this issue, see the "Additional Information" section of this document
(Section VI.).
COMMENT: "EPA would like to see and review the proposed wetland mitigation plan
once final project alignment has been determined. The EPA would like to
see functional value replacement of any wetland takes involving the
proposed project. One possibility would be to coordinate wetlands
mitigation requirements with similar activities associated with the Yadkin
Hydroelectric Project and the High Rock impoundment."
RESPONSE: The wetland mitigation plan will be submitted to the EPA for review, upon
completion. The activities associated with the Yadkin Hydroelectric
• Project and the High Rock impoundment will be investigated.
COMMENT: "A large portion of the project would involve roadway and bridge
removal as the interchanges are replaced and modified for the widening of
I-85. The EA does not mention how the pavement aggregate and
structures would be removed, and the ultimate disposition of this material.
EPA encourages the maximum reuse of the materials rather than landfill .
disposal."
6
RESPONSE: Because the uniqueness of each project, at this time, no specific removal
and disposal methods can be mentioned. As a general guideline, for
existing structures and pavement removal, the NCDOT Standard
Specification guidelines will be followed. The guidelines for existing
structure removal can be found in section 402, and the guidelines for
existing pavement removal can be found in section 250 in the NCDOT
Standard Specification book. Also, for existing structures removal, the
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be followed.
Recycling is a possible option on every project, and is encouraged by the
DOT whenever feasible. Contractors frequently recycle aggregate
material on their project such as incidental stone and often retain crushed
recycled asphalt pavement in stockpiles at their shops for use in future
projects. Concrete pavement recycling requires crushing and metal
separation. Extra equipment and truck loading and unloading operations
are required to recycle this material onsite, therefore adding to the overall
cost of the project.
COMMENT: "The proposed project does not utilize the flexibility provided in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA-21) for incorporating
transportation enhancements (TE's) in Federal-Aid projects. Why were no
TE's incorporated in this project? TE's which may be incorporated in this
project include wildlife/critter crossings across the Interstate, bike/hiking
trails in the surrounding area, and community
improvements/enhancements. Since new alignment/reconstruction is
being proposed for the project, it would seem appropriate to incorporate
community/environmental enhancement features into the new
construction."
RESPONSE: The TEA'S for the 21st century is classified under the Community
Enhancements Program through the NCDOT Program Development
Branch. In order to incorporate transportation enhancements through this
program, a local sponsor must submit an application to this program. The
application is reviewed by several committees, and if approved, goes to
the Board of Transportation for final approval. An application has not
been submitted by a local sponsor, therefore the transportation
enhancements are not incorporated in this project. The NCDOT Program
Development Branch can be contacted for more information on the
application dates and process.
COMMENT: "The EA does not describe the land use changes which would occur with
the project. New interchange and interchange configurations and service
7
roads will result in extensive commercial development in these areas of
the project."
RESPONSE: Following the publication of the EA, additional studies were conducted to
assess the project's direct and indirect impacts on land use. See section
VI. for the results of these additional studies.
COMMENT: "In reviewing the noise impacts analysis in the appendix, there are a large
number of receptors that would experience a substantial impact. Most are
residences, but there is a "rest home" (ID #24) listed in Table N4. In
regard to the "rest home", is the surrounding outdoor area of the home
utilized by the residents; and would the -noise impacts from the proposed
project adversely impact the residents of the "rest home"?"
RESPONSE: NCDOT Noise and Air specialists were contacted concerning this matter.
There are no outside activity areas for this "rest home" that can be affected
by this project.
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
COMMENT: "We are concerned over the impacts to high quality wetlands associated
with the Yadkin River crossing. NCDOT should explore ways to
minimize impacts to this area."
RESPONSE: In order to avoid and minimize impacts to the high quality wetlands
associated with the Yadkin River Crossing, Bridge # 137, which carries I-
85 over the Yadkin River, and Bridges # 22 and # 18, which carry I-85
over the Southern Railroad, will be replaced by dual structures which will
span the Yadkin River, its adjacent wetlands, and the Southern Railroad.
This will result in the avoidance of approximately 7.35 acres (2.97
hectares) of wetlands. This information can be found on page 12 of the
Environmental Assessment.
COMMENT: "We were unable to find detailed information on impacts to jurisdictional
streams. This information should be included in the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project."
RESPONSE: Page 44 of the Environmental Assessment, second paragraph, states the
following: "The Yadkin River, South Potts Creek, North Potts Creek, and
the 16 unnamed tributaries are jurisdictional surface waters under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the
biological, physical and water quality aspects of these streams are
presented in previous sections of this report.". This classifies all streams
discussed in the Environmental Assessment as jurisdictional, therefore, the
8
impacts to these streams can be found in Table 10, page 32 of the
Environmental Assessment.
3. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
COMMENT: "We recommend that the GPS or other detailed map work yet to be
conducted at Fort York be added as an environmental commitment."
RESPONSE: Because this project is creating no adverse affect on the Fort York site, the
request for mapping does not need to be added as an environmental
commitment. However, detailed mapping has already been performed by
NCDOT Location and Surveys and the NCDOT Archaeology unit, and has
been forwarded to SHPO. See page A-11 in Appendix A of this
document.
COMMENT: "Page 26, section 5b refers only to work to be conducted at Fort York.
Since an archaeological survey was conducted for this project by Nora
Sheehan, we recommend the results be summarized in this section."
RESPONSE: The results from the archaeological survey conducted by Nora Sheehan are
included in the FONSI. See section V., "Revisions to the Environmental
Assessment".
COMMENT: "We also recommend that our letter be included in Appendix A."
RESPONSE: The letter is included on page A-9 in Appendix A of this document.
COMMENT: "Receipt of GPS or other detailed mapping of the fort, which we will add
to our report copies and site files, will complete the archaeological Section
106 process for this project."
RESPONSE: The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic
Preservation Office has received copies of the report and site files. See
page A-11 in Appendix A of this document.
4. Alcoa Primary Metals
Letter dated December 4, 2000:
COMMENT: "Yadkin will review the NCDOT environmental assessment along with
comments from agencies in order to assure necessary information is
gathered, leading to. informed decision-making. Yadkin will then provide
you with its substantive comments. As a reminder, Yadkin will not be
able to grant permission to use the Project property for the proposed
bridge until at least 45 days after FERC notification. The notification to
9
FERC will include the results of the agency consultation process as well as
Yadkin's own comments."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
Letter dated May 17,2001:
COMMENT: "As a FERC licensee of the Project, Yadkin is the entity responsible for
obtaining any necessary FERC approval or notification. As also stated in
the December 4, 2000 letter, Yadkin will notify FERC of the proposed
improvements once all outstanding issues identified by agencies and
Yadkin are resolved, and Yadkin's review is complete."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "It is unclear from the EA exactly which activities connected with the
proposed improvements will occur within the Project boundary and/or on
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI) property outside the Project
boundary. It appears that dredge and fill, shoreline stabilization, and
certain other temporary construction activities may occur within the
Project boundary and/or on APGI property outside the Project boundary.
Additionally it appears that permanent structures, such as bridge
abutements, may also be located within the Project boundary and/or on
APGI property outside the project boundary. Please provide detailed
information with regard to which temporary and permanent activities are
proposed within the Project boundary and/or on APGI property outside the
project boundary. Please also provide a map that shows the location of
proposed temporary and permanent activities with respect to the Project
boundary and on APGI property outside the project boundary."
RESPONSE: A meeting was held on August 21, 2002 with FERC representatives and
NCDOT to discuss the requirements for the FERC permit. As a result of
this meeting, coordination between NDOT and FERC representatives is
taking place. See section VI for information on the FERC permit
requirements.
COMMENT: "In the event NCDOT is proposing temporary and/or permanent activity
within the Project boundary and/or on APGI property outside the project
boundary, please be aware that NCDOT will need permission from Yadkin
to perform temporary construction activity and locate permanent structures
preferably in the form of a temporary easement or lease for construction
activity and in the form of a permanent easement for the location of
permanent structures. Therefore, it is critical. that the information
requested in Item No. 2 above, be of sufficient detail to allow Yadkin to
determine what form of conveyance is appropriate and the conditions for
any conveyance. Until real. property issues between NCDOT and Yadkin
10
are resolved, Yadkin will not be able to issue final approval for proposed
improvements."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Please note that Yadkin will not issue its final approval for the project
until it has received from the US Army Corps of Engineer (USACE)
copies of the Section 404 permits required for the bridge replacement."
RESPONSE: NCDOT will submit the Section 404 permit to Yadkin to receive final
approval for the project:
COMMENT: "Yadkin also will not issue final approval until it has received copies of
any other required federal, state, and local permits for the bridge
replacement including specifically a section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) from the NC Department of Water Quality (DWQ)."
RESPONSE: NCDOT will submit all required permits to Yadkin for final approval for
the project.
COMMENT: "On EA page 35, NCDOT states that project construction may result in
impacts to high surface waters including increased concentration of toxic
compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic spills, and increased
traffic. In light of this potential receipt of the WQC from DWQ and the
404 permit from the USACE will be critical. Please note that any
construction permit issued by Yadkin for those portions of the project
occurring within the Project boundary and/or on APGI property outside
the project boundary will contain conditions regarding compliance with all
state and federal permits."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "On EA pages 48-49, NCDOT states that since no bald eagles or nests
were seen during its site visits, project construction would not affect the
bald eagle. Please be aware that there have been recent observations of
bald eagles and bald eagles nests downstream of the proposed bridge site
by Yadkin and NCWRC staff."
RESPONSE: An assessment of the status of the bald eagle along the Yadkin River chain
(including High Rock Lake) was conducted on April 23, 2003. Within
view of the I-85 bridge, potential habitat does exist for the bald eagle (tall
trees with a clear view to open water). There were no bald eagles or nests
observed within a mile of the I-85 bridge replacement. This study
documented two pairs of nesting eagles, the closest pair of which was 4
miles south of the project site, situated downstream on High Rock Lake.
11
In addition, there are no known nests within a mile of the bridge as .
documented by NC Natural Heritage Program database (August 7, 2003).
Currently, there are no nesting eagles within a mile of the bridge project,
and the project is not likely to impact the bald eagle; however, because
eagles may potentially nest in this area prior to bridge construction, the
Biological Conclusion for bald eagle is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect".
Concurrence has been obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) on this biological conclusion (see Appendix A, page A-30).
Prior to the project's construction, the project corridor will be re-surveyed
for all threatened and endangered species.
COMMENT: "As rioted in Yadkin's December-4, 2000 letter,-it appears that a portion of
the proposed improvements may be located in a Medium Cultural
Resources Probability Zone as designated in the SMP. On the other hand,
the Summary of Environmental Impacts in the EA states, "No sites listed
in the National Register of Historic Places will be involved." Please
provide a copy of any comments received from the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) on this EA. Yadkin is
particularly interested in comments from NCDCR with regard to impacts,
if any, to cultural resources in the Medium Cultural Resources Probability
Zone. In particular, Yadkin is interested if NCDCR has commented on a
portion of the Colonial Trading Path identified by Historical Research in
its letter dated November 24, 2000."
RESPONSE: A copy of the correspondence received from the NCDCR can be found on
pages A-9 through A-13 and A-31 in Appendix A of this document.
The area suggested as the location of the Trading Path was surveyed by
NCDOT archaeologists in January, 2000. A total of 19 shovel tests were
excavated in the area east of the highway to check for sub-surface remains
and artifacts that would indicate physical remains of an archaeological
site. Eight of the tests were positive, yielding a small number of artifacts.
At that point, a larger test unit was excavated (1 x 1 meter square) by
hand. These artifacts were found on an eroded toe slope above UT-.16 (as
referenced in the EA) and were judged to be the remains of various
prehistoric occupations of the site (documented in report as site
31RW203). The site had been. eroded and disturbed by modern activity
and lacked the integrity and research potential to provide any further
significant information. Therefore, that site is not eligible for the National
Register.
On the west side of the highway, a power transmission line, service roads,
and drainage ditches have altered the natural landform and no features of
prehistoric or early origin could be detected. It is very possible that the
Indian Trading Path did cross this area, following the small creek.
12
However, it is nearly impossible to discern any features that could be
directly related to the Historic Trading Path because the landforms in the
area have been extensively altered by natural flooding events and by
modern construction and erosion caused by farming and development.
NCDCR has reviewed the archaeological reports for the project and has
concluded the project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (See pages A-9 through A-13 and A-31 of
Appendix A).
COMMENT: "Once Yadkin.has determined that the EA is complete, Yadkin will be
able to discuss with NCDOT the issuance of a Construction Permit for
those parts of the proposed project, including removal of existing Bridge
#137, that occupy lands or waters within the FERC Project boundary or
other APGI lands. Please note that the Construction Permit will contain a
condition, among many others, that with regard to the existing bridge,
NCDOT will be required to remove all concrete down to the
reservoir/river bottom so that it will not be a hazard or act as a "catch" for
floating debris."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Finally, please provide evidence of consultation with, and if received,
comments from, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of
Engineers, and Rowan and Davidson Counties on this EA."
RESPONSE: Comments on the EA are included in this document, in Appendix A. The
US Army Corps of Engineers, Rowan County, and Davidson County were
sent copies of the EA, however, these agencies did not provide comments
on the EA. A copy of the correspondence from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service is included in Appendix A.
5. Scenic North Carolina
COMMENT: "On-grade separated interchanges that are to be a part of this project,
please investigate the use of a `modern roundabout' interchange design as
one of the alternatives considered for this project."
RESPONSE: The areas for potential roundabouts are located at the interchange ramps.
Signalized intersections, as well as roundabouts; were investigated at these
locations. It was determined that signalized intersections would
adequately handle the projected traffic.
COMMENT: "Unmanaged access to highway-oriented services causes inconvenience
and disrupts the very purpose of an interchange, which is to move traffic
13
between the freeway and arterial. Advanced planning and access
management can reduce traffic conflicts and create a balance between
access and mobility needs. As part of the planning process for this
roadway improvement, NCDOT should work with the local governments
in the area to review issues and problems in managing interchange area
development and set forth strategies to improve planning and management
of interchange areas."
RESPONSE: At the Scoping Meeting, Local Officials Meeting, and the Citizens
Informational Workshop, local officials were able to voice their concerns
and provide input on the interchange areas. The project has been planned
with consideration -of local government concerns.
6. City of Salisbury
COMMENT: 1-85 is frequently closed temporarily at the Yadkin River due to haz-mat
spills, truck accidents, or ice (maybe once a month). When this happens,
two lanes of interstate traffic are detoured to cross the Yadkin River via
US Highway 29. With the proposed realignment, US Highway 29 will be
rerouted to follow the interstate across the Yadkin River. The old
interstate bridges over the river will be demolished, and the Wil Cox
Bridge (currently two lanes of US 29) will be closed to vehicular traffic.
As a result, the interstate will be increased to four lanes of traffic in each
direction, but the alternate route across the river will be reduced to only
one lane in each direction. The Rowan County I-85 Incident Management
Task Force, chaired by Ms. Patti Newsome of NCDOT'S Division 9
office, has expressed concern that the proposed alignment will not provide
an adequate alternate route to cross the Yadkin River. The Task Force's
concern has been shared with the Highway Design Unit of NCDOT, but
the Environmental Assessment does not address this issue."
RESPONSE: With the new alignment and wider bridges, the frequency of truck or other
accidents would be significantly reduced, thus reducing the need for a
multi-lane detour route. The additional cost of constructing an
unwarranted four lane road to serve as a detour route would be prohibitive..
To help reduce the closure of the bridge due to ice, and to help reduce
accidents, an automatic bridge de-icing system is proposed for the bridges
over the Yadkin River.
Therefore, upon completion of this project, it is anticipated that the new
NC 150 interchange and US 29 will adequately accommodate any re-
routed traffic through Salisbury in the event of a hazardous spill or
accident.
14
7. Finetex, Inc.
COMMENT: "We are very concerned with the closing of Willow Creek Drive because it
denies Finetex one of our two required property accesses. The proposed
extension of Hinkle Drive (SR 2181) is an acceptable replacement to the
closure of the Willow Creek connection providing Hinkle Drive (SR 2181)
extends to the southern end of Finetex's property. The present proposal
addresses our security concerns and gives Finetex the two required means
of access to the facility."
RESPONSE: Willow Creek Drive will be closed at the railroad crossing due to safety
issues related to its at-grade intersection with the railroad. Hinkle Drive
will extend to the southern end of Finetex's property.
COMMENT: "The proposal (extending Hinkle Drive to Hackett Road) made during the
Citizens Informational Workshop creates a security problem for Finetex.
Limiting access to the property and providing security for our employees
is required by Federal Regulations. Finetex is covered by 40 CFR 264.14
security requirements for Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators, 40
CFR 112.7 security requirements for our Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan, and 29 CFR 1910 for providing a safe and secure
work environment for our employees. These requirements are the reason
for our concern with connecting Hinkle Drive to Hackett Road and
exposing a side of the facility to uncontrolled access."
RESPONSE: The NCDOT will not extend Hinkle Drive to Hackett Road.
COMMENT: "An additional concern is the new service road on the west side of I-85
and north of Long Ferry Road. It is our understanding that the new service
road will cover a small but highly significant part of our property off of
Long Ferry Road. This property is part of the Finetex wastewater disposal
system. Finetex has invested a great deal of capitol in developing the
property for that purpose and is needed to keep Finetex in operation. Our
Spray. Irrigation System Permit (WQ0001077) has several requirements
that could be impacted by construction of a road on the property:
(WQ0001077) has several requirements that could be impacted by
construction of a road on the property:
1. "Public access to the land application site shall be controlled."
2. "A buffer of 400 feet shall be maintained between the wetted area and
places of public assembly under separate ownership."
3. "Adequate measures shall be taken to prevent wastewater runoff from
the site."
15
Finetex is willing to absorb related cost necessary to comply with No. 1 to
accommodate the I-85 expansion.
No. 2 creates a serious problem for us because it reduces our utility of the
spray irrigation disposal system. This problem can be solved if the
Division of Highways is willing to move the exit/access road
approximately 20-100 feet to coincide with the existing property
boundaries. Please refer to the enclosed map.
In addressing No. 3, the total water flow to and from our spray irrigation
field is critical. Runoff from the redesigned Hinkle Road access must not
run across our property.
Nos. 2 and 3 are both critical to the successful compliance with our permit
and continued economic business operation of Finetex. Our request is for
the Division of Highways to address these last two issues."
RESPONSE: This section of the project is part of a separate TIP Project, # I-2511 BC.
The project engineer for 1-2511 BC has addressed this issue, stating that
the possibility of revising this service road was investigated. The
proposed service road was modified to the extent that it no longer
encroaches on the property of Finetex, Inc. within the limits of this project.
Recommendations from NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit have not yet been
received, therefore the construction limits are subject to change in order to
accommodate the necessary drainage.
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an informal Public
Hearing was held at the Transportation Museum in Spencer on July 26, 2001. A copy of
the public hearing notice and a copy of the handout presented at the public hearing are
included in the Appendix C of this report. Approximately 170 citizens attended the
public hearing. Overall, the comments made by the attendees indicated support for
improvements to I-85. The majority of comments received pertained to impacts to
individual properties resulting from the project.
16
V. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Results from Fort York Archaeological Study
Fort York was determined to be potentially eligible for the National Register.
However, since the proposed I-85 improvements will not affect the site, the only
additional work recommended for the site is the production of a detailed, scaled map of
the remains of the earthen fortifications that are located in proximity to the highway
improvements. This mapping was completed, and was submitted to SHPO. In SHPO's
letter dated September 4, 2001, it states that receipt of the map completes the
archaeological portion of the Section 106 process for this project (see page A-11 of
Appendix A).
An archaeological survey was conducted for Fort York. On the west side of I-85, a
high bluff is located above the Yadkin River. The remains of Civil War-era earthen
fortifications (Fort York) are present on the bluff. Below is a summary of the
archaeological findings:
No. Topography Time Period Description Recommendation
Bluff above Historic/19' Remains of earthen NR eligible; will not
31Dv654**
Yadkin River
Century Military fortifications related to be adversely
Civil War-era Fort York impacted by project
This site was used for comparison in the investigations for the Addendum to the
Archaeological Study (see Section VI of this document for a summary of the study).
Ground surface cross sections were taken across this documented earthwork to use in
comparison to the suspected berm, which is located south of the railroad tracks and across
I-85 and US 29/70 from 31Dv654**.
B. Updated Cost Estimate
This project has an estimated total cost of $149,618,500, including $144,200,000 for
construction and $5,418,500 for right of way acquisition. The 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has allocated $147,816,000 for the proposed project
including $3,300,000 for right of way acquisition, $137,300,000 for construction, and
$7,216,000 spent in prior years.
C. Trading Ford Monument
NCDOT was made aware of a roadside memorial dedicated in 1929 by the North
Carolina Historic Commission, which currently owns the property. This monument was
investigated, and the information was presented to the State Historic Preservation Office.
It was determined that this Trading Ford Monument is not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (see page A-10 in Appendix A for concurrence form). Based
on this site visit and other information compiled by NCDOT, no additional archaeological
17
work was deemed necessary for this site. However, the Historic Preservation Office has
requested that the bronze plaque be returned to them if the monument has to be removed
during construction (See the Environmental Commitments section of this document). No
further action is required by NCDOT to comply with Section 106 concerning the
monument; however, NCDOT will coordinate with local officials and SHPO to determine
if there is a more suitable location for this monument.
D. Revisions to Wetland and Stream Impacts
As a result of a verification meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland I is
not to be included as an anticipated wetland impact. Also, UT 6 and UT 9 are not to be
included as impacted streams. Below are the revised tables showing impacts to streams
and wetlands:
Ani
icipatea impacts to wettana Are as in the rroject y
DWQ Rating JtnpacR In ft? -
Total PEM Wetlands1 ,„ 85,895 (7,979.9)
Wetland A 37 105 (9.8)
Wetland B 38 1,900 (176.5)
Wetland D 39 110 (10.2)
Wetland J 47 73,600 (6,837.7)
Wetland R 34 10,180 (945.8)
1•otal:PFO Wettands2 70,100 (6,512.5)
Wetland C 36 11,500 (1,068.4)
Wetland K 47 3,790 (352.1)
Wetland M 36 1,250 (116.1)
Wetland P 36 53,560 (4,975.9)
Total Wetlands `

''I

I 155,995112 =14,492.4 m2
= 3.58 Acres
1PEM Wetlands= Palustrine hmergent Wetlands.
2PFO Wetlands= Palustrine Forested Wetlands.
w

Stud Corridor.
18
Streams Impacted in the Project Study Corridor from I-85 Widening.

Stream
Tributaryto
Type .Width ft
gym)
Depth ft (m)
, Substrate, Comments Length

Impacted
UT 1 N.PottsCr. Perennial 3.0 (0.9) 0.5 (0.1) Sand/gravel some flow,
impounded 50.0 (15.2)
UT 2 N.PottsCr. Perennial 2.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) sand/silt impounded 200.0 (61.0)
UT 3 S.Potts Cr. Perennial 3.0 (0.9) 0.5 (0.1) sand/gravel some erosion 500.0 (152.4)
UT 4 S.Potts Cr. Perennial 1.0 (0.3) 0.5 (0.1) clay/gravel some erosion 300.0 (91.5)
South
Potts Creek Yadkin R. Perennial 8.0 (2.4) 1.0 (0.3) sand erosion good flow, some
200.0 (61.0)
UT 7 S.Potts Cr. Perennial 2.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) sand some flow 100.0 (30.5)
UT 8 S.Potts Cr. Perennial 2.0(0.6) 0.'5(0.1) sand 2 chann

els, good
flow

100.0 (30.5)
UT 10 UT 9 Perennial 3.0 (0.9) 0.5 (0.1) sand good flow 250.0 (76.2)
UT 11 UT 9 Perennial 2.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) sand some flow 500.0 (152.4)
UT 12 UT 9 I/P' 2.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) sand little flow 150.0 (45.7)
UT 13 Yadkin R. Intermittent 2.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) sand little flow 150.0 (45.7)
UT 14 UT 13 Intermittent 2.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) sand only pools 100.0 (30.5)
UT 16 Yadkin R. Perennial 6.0 (1.8) 1.0 (0.3) sand/gravel good flow 200.0 (61.0)
Total Impacts - 2,800 ft (853.4 m)
I/P• - This stream changes from intermittent to perennial approximately 2500ft (762m) from SR 1285
(Seven Oaks Drive).
E. Bridge #392-Replacement
Due to safety issues related to converting this existing one-way bridge to a two-way
bridge, Bridge # 392 will be replaced under this project. This bridge was built in 1951. It
is 873ft (266.1m) long with a deck width of 31.3ft (9.5m) and a roadway width of 28ft
(8.5m). It is currently a one-way bridge that carries two lanes of US 29 northbound
traffic. The bridge will be replaced in place and will be reconstructed to carry two-way
traffic, one lane in each direction. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be implemented for this project. The superstructure for Bridge # 392 is
composed of a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams. The substructure contains end bents
that are composed of reinforced concrete caps with steel piles, and the interior bents
consist of reinforced concrete posts and beams. The concrete from the substructure could
potentially contribute to the temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition debris. The
resulting temporary fill would be approximately 390 cubic yards. NCDOT will
implement the Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
The cost of this replacement will be approximately $2,255,000. No wetlands or
streams will be impacted as a result of this replacement. Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed during the demolition of this bridge.
Because of Bridge #392's close proximity to the historic Wil Cox Bridge, the State
Historic Preservation Office was consulted to determine whether the bridge replacement
will affect the historic bridge. It was determined that the replacement will have No
19
Adverse Effect on the Wil Cox Bridge (see page A-12 and A-13 in Appendix A of this
document).
F. Cul-de-sac Extension near Belmont Interchange
SR 3159 (Belmont Road) is located in the southeast corner of the proposed Belmont
Boulevard interchange. At the public hearing, the public hearing map that was presented
to the public showed this road ending at a cul-de-sac approximately 600ft(182.9m) east of
the Belmont Boulevard interchange service road. The location of the cul-de-sac
prohibited access to the remaining portion of this property that lies to the west of this
proposed cul-de-sac, whereas the original conditions of the project that were presented at
the workshop allowed for access to the entire property. The property owner requested
that this cul-de-sac be moved further west, in order to access the entire property. The
designs were modified to reflect this request.
G. Bald Eagle Biological Conclusion
The federally-threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as occurring in Davidson and Rowan Counties.
Within view of the I-85 bridge, potential habitat does exist for the bald eagle (tall trees
with a clear view to open water). An assessment of the status of the bald eagle along the
Yadkin River chain (including High Rock Lake) was conducted by the Center for
Conservation Biology (College of William and Mary) and Alcoa Power Company. The
area was flown on April 23, 2002 in a high-wing Cessna 172 aircraft at about 328 ft (100
meters) altitude to survey for nesting eagles. The survey flight concentrated on the area
between the lake shoreline and approximately 0.6 mi. (1 km) outward.
There were no bald eagles or nests observed within a mile of the I-85 bridge
replacement. This study documented two pairs of nesting eagles, the closest pair of
which was 4 miles south of the project site, situated downstream on High Rock Lake. In
addition, there are no known nests within a mile of the bridge as documented by NC
Natural Heritage Program database (August 7, 2003).
Currently, there are no nesting eagles within a mile of the bridge project, and the
project is not likely to impact the bald eagle; however, because eagles may potentially
nest in this area prior to bridge construction, the Biological Conclusion for bald eagle is
"Not Likely to Adversely Affect". Concurrence has been obtained from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on this biological conclusion (see Appendix A, page A-
30).
H. Replacement of Bridge # 137 over Yadkin' River
For the Yadkin River crossing, dual bridges have been incorporated into the
preliminary design. However, the Department desires the flexibility to choose either dual
bridges or a single wide bridge during final design.
20
VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
R
A. Williams Trailer Park Environmental Justice Information
During the preliminary planning stages of this project, a Community Impact
Assessment was developed for the study corridor of the project (included in the
Environmental Assessment). As a result of this assessment, concerns were raised related
to the Williams Shady Trailer Park. Based on demographic information, the trailer park
was viewed as a potential Environmental Justice area. As a result, NCDOT explored
design and alignment alternatives that would avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to this
area. Also, as a result of this assessment, NCDOT committed to aggressively seek
participation of this low-income community during the public involvement process. The
Environmental Commitment can be found in the Environmental Assessment.
The demographic focus for this study is the area in Block 1006 of Block Group 1 of
Tract 50901 in the Census 2000 (see map on page D-76 in Appendix D). The statistical
characteristics of the focus block have been compared to the characteristics of the overall
tract, the Town of Spencer, the City of Salisbury, Rowan County, and the State of North
Carolina. Based on the supplemental Community Impact Assessment (See Appendix D,
page D-68), it can be concluded that Block 1006 which encompasses the Williams Trailer
Park, does contain a "meaningfully greater" minority population as compared to Rowan
County. The relocation report (I-2304A EA Appendix 1) prepared in August 2000 also
noted a higher percentage of minority population among the households to be relocated in
comparison with the county, stating there were 8 minority households out of a total of 24
(33.3%).
Economic statistics are only available from the Census at the block group level and
may not solely represent the mobile home park. The inability to focus in on a block more
closely surrounding the mobile home park makes it difficult to draw conclusions from the
data. According to the census information representing Block Group 1 this Block Group
is not a low income area. However, based on information gathered from the relocation
report and field visits, it is apparent that this the Williams Trailer Park area indeed could
be classified as a low income area. The relocation report prepared in August 2000 (I-
2304A EA Appendix 1) states that 20 of the 24 units potentially affected by the project
have a household income of less than $25,000 which is notably lower than the median
income at the block group, tract, county and state levels.
Because this area was determined to meet the requirements for environmental justice
for both race and income, impact issues were addressed using the Fundamental Principles
of Environmental Justice, as outlined below:
1) To avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on
minority and/or low-income populations.
21
The "No Build" alternative is the only alternative that would avoid substantial
impacts to the trailer park, however this alternative does not meet the purpose of
the project and is not recommended. Because of the closeness of the trailer park
to existing I-85, any improvements to the interstate would necessitate substantial
relocations.
The recommended alternative impacts 14 trailers in the trailer park. As
discussed on page 24 of the Environmental Assessment (EA), NCDOT considered
a design alternative that would minimize impacts to this area by reducing the
number of potential relocations from 14 to 9. This alternative is described in
section III.B.2. in the EA (page 17) as "Reconstruction of Yadkin River Bridge
Near Existing Location". This alternative was not feasible because it would not
allow maintenance of traffic along I-85 during construction of the project due to
grade changes required in the area. Therefore, the recommended alternative is the
only feasible alternative option for this project.
NCDOT examined the impact issues for possible mitigation. This effort was
closely tied to the enhanced outreach for the area as detailed below under section
2. In response to resident requests to keep the community together NCDOT
explored the possibility of moving the displaced units to vacant lots within the
William Shady Trailer Park. However, this process was not possible because of a
Town of Spencer zoning regulation that prohibits new units to be placed on
industrially zoned properties (as discussed in Appendix D on page D-74).
NCDOT disclosed this information to the residents in second meeting and
addressed the relocation process. After hearing what their potential benefits may
be if they were to be moved, the vast majority of the trailer park residents
indicated that they would prefer to be moved.
NCDOT also examined the potential indirect impacts of the project on the
portions of the property not purchased for right of way. The analysis (shown in
Appendix D, page D-68) concludes that the project does not significantly increase
the conversion rate of this particular parcel from residential to industrial use
because of the following:
• access will not be notably improved as the mobile home park parcel
already has easy access to I-85 in either direction.
• there is a lack of development pressure in the area.
• the Town of Spencer has planned for this parcel and surrounding
parcels to be industrial since its rezoning in 1993.
• The overall plan, zoning and regulations, specifically the aspect that no
additional mobile homes can be added to the lot, have had a negative
effect on whether the property remains residential in the future.
22
2) To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected
communities in the transportation-decision making process.
To fulfill the Environmental Commitment listed in the Environmental
Assessment, NCDOT held two meetings exclusively for the Williams Trailer
Park Residents. The purpose of these meetings was to gather input from the
residents, and to address their concerns. Several NCDOT representatives were
present at these meetings, including personnel from the Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit, Right of Way
and Relocation Unit, Citizens Participation Unit, and staff from the local
Division office.
The first meeting was held on June 19, 2001 in the Spencer Town Hall
(see meeting notice in Appendix B, page B-1), in which approximately 12
residents were in attendance. At this meeting, it was concluded that these
residents wanted to stay together as a community. ' For this reason, NCDOT
further investigated options that would avoid or minimize impacts to this
trailer park, and explored possibilities of moving existing units further back on
the Williams Trailer Park site.
After investigating these alternatives, a second meeting was scheduled
with the Williams Trailer Park Community. This meeting was held on June
24, 2002 (see meeting notice in Appendix B, page B-2) at the North Carolina
Transportation Museum. At this meeting, approximately 15 people were in
attendance. NCDOT disclosed the findings of the investigations and the Right
of Way an d Relocation Unit presented the relocation benefits and procedures.
After hearing what their options were and potential benefits may be if they
were to be moved, the vast majority of the trailer park residents indicated that
they would prefer to move.
3) To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of
benefits by minority and low-income populations.
The displaced residents will receive the same benefits as all other relocatees
that are being impacted by the I-2304A project.
As a result of these analyses, it can be concluded that the I-2304A project does not
create impacts related to Environmental Justice for the Williams Trailer Park.
B. Direct and Indirect Impacts on Land Use
Following the publication of the EA, additional studies were conducted to assess the
project's direct and indirect impacts on land use.
23
1. Local/Regional Goals and Objectives
Both Davidson and Rowan Counties are interested in encouraging a variety of
developments and expanding their respective tax bases. Both counties have staffed
economic development commissions that coordinate industrial recruitment activities.
1) Direct/Secondary Impacts:
The project will not directly stimulate any particular development, however, it
may indirectly encourage commercial and industrial development on land along
its length.
• Commercial Development
The additional lanes and expanded interchanges, provided by the project,
may enhance I-85's attractiveness as a commercial location. If so, additional
highway commercial businesses, such as motels, convenience stores, truck
stops, furniture stores, outlet shops, and fast-food restaurants might be
encouraged to locate along the highway. In Davidson Co., such development
could occur along the northern side of I-85. Appropriately zoned land served
by public utilities is available on that side of the highway. The county has
also indicated a willingness to consider rezoning requests for such use. No
environmental problems should impede development in this area. The
county's demographic and income characteristics may support such
development. One of the most attractive locations for commercial
development may be the area east of the NC 150 interchange and south of Old
Salisbury Rd. Other locations where highway commercial activity may be
most likely to develop may be the interchanges where Clark Rd. and Belmont
Rd. join I-85. Land along I-85 in Rowan County is zoned and being marketed
for industrial development. It is unlikely, therefore, that commercial
development will occur along the project in Rowan Co.
• Industrial Development
Good road networks and easy access to interstate highways are important
concerns for industries seeking new locations. The projectwill improve .
traffic flow along 1-85 and create interchanges that extend into undeveloped
land along the interstate. These improvements may enhance the industrial
development potential of land along I-85 in both Davidson and Rowan
Counties. Appropriately zoned land with water and sewer service exists along
the highway in both counties. No environmental problems exist that might
hinder such development and, both counties are actively seeking to attract new
industries. The project area has a large, growing population, most of which is
already employed in manufacturing or industrial jobs. This population should
provide a good employment base for any new, industries. In Davidson Co.,
industrial development may be most likely to occur along the southern side of
I-85. Large sections of undeveloped land are available on this side of the
24
highway. Extensions and improvements to such roads as Seven Oaks Dr., SR
1138, and Belmont Rd. will provide access into these areas from I-85. This
area currently lacks public utilities. Therefore, any stimulus for industrial
development provided by the project may not be realized until water and
sewer service is extended to this area. In Rowan Co. industrial development
might occur along both sides of I-85. Large tracts of appropriately zoned land
on both sides of the highway are already listed with the Rowan County
Economic Development Commission. Water and sewer service has already
been extended into the area on the northern side of I-85 and service should be
extended to the southern side within two years.
2) Cumulative Impacts
Over the past several years, some large industrial plants as well as some highway
commercial businesses, such as truck stops, restaurants, and furniture stores have
developed along the Davidson Co. section of the project. Large industrial plants have
also developed along the Rowan Co. section. The land along the project is zoned for
such development and local infrastructure can support it. By relieving congestion
along I-85 and creating access to adjacent undeveloped areas, the project may
enhance the development potential of land along the interstate and continue these
development trends."
C. Design Noise Report Summary
A design noise report was performed for the I-2304AA and I-2304AB sections. This
re-evaluation presents a more detailed analysis of the improvements for both sections.
a. I-2304AA [from just north of SR 2120 in Rowan County to just north of NC 150
in Davidson County] (refer to report in Appendix D, on page D-1) - A total of 101
residences and 7 businesses will be impacted by highway traffic noise with the
construction of the AA section. 95 of these residences and 2 businesses located in
three separate areas meet NCDOT feasibility and reasonableness requirements for
noise abatement measures. In the areas where noise walls were evaluated as
possible mitigation of impacted receptors, two were found to exceed the cost
criteria of $25,000 per benefited residence, and therefore noise walls are not
recommended. However one location known as Barrier location 2 (see page D-7)
met the cost criteria as outlined in the NCDOT guidelines as being reasonable and
feasible for construction, and is therefore recommended. Further coordination
with the affected residents and/or businesses will take place concerning this
proposed noise wall.
b. I-2304AB [just north of NC 150 and ends just north of I-85 business] (refer to
report in Appendix D, on page D-28) - A total of 38 sites will be impacted by
highway traffic noise with the construction of the AB section. There are 11 sites
impacted in Section 1 (see page D-336 for details), which extends from the
25
beginning of the project to the Belmont Rd. Interchange. They are either spaced
some distance apart, commercial, or have a barely perceptible change. There are
26 impacted sites in Section 2 (page D-36 for details), which extends from the
Belmont Rd. Interchange to the I-85 Business split. Sixteen of these sites are
either isolated, commercial, near local road conflicts, or are too far from the ROW
for barrier feasibility and reasonability. However, three barriers were evaluated
for the remaining 10 impacted sites in this section (see page D-38 in for details).
Barrier 1 had 4 benefited receivers, however it exceeded the cost criteria of
$25,000 per benefited residence. Due to the topography and the homes increasing
in distance from the ROW, the cost per benefited receptor also exceeded the cost
criteria for Barrier 2 and Barrier 3. Section 3 (page D-37) had one impacted site.
As a result of these barrier studies for the AB" section, no barriers are proposed.
As a result of these detailed analyses, a total of 146 receptors will experience traffic
noise impacts. As a result of barrier studies, one location in the I-2304AA section met
the cost criteria as outlined in the NCDOT guidelines as being reasonable and feasible for
construction, and is therefore recommended. Further coordination with the affected
residents and/or businesses will take place concerning the proposed noise wall.
D. FERC Permit Information
1. Background Information
Under the Federal Power Act, Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) is licensed by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to operate hydroelectric Project
No. 2197. Yadkin is the division of APGI responsible for operating the Project. High
Rock Reservoir is in one of the developments of the Project. APGI owns the land
under the normal full pool (655' contour, Yadkin datum) of High Rock Reservoir.
The area for a portion of the proposed I-85 improvements is on property owned by
APGI and within the Project. Under its license, Yadkin may only exercise certain
authority including the granting of permission to use Project lands for non-Project
purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and other
environmental values of the project. In order to ensure that these values are ..
maintained, Yadkin has adopted a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), including
Subdivision Access Approval, Multi-use Facility Permitting, and Industrial Approval
Procedures, which was approved by FERC on November 9, 2000. In accordance with
its FERC license for the Project and the.SMP, Yadkin must also receive from
NCDOT a record demonstrating consultation with federal, state, and county resource
agencies. Once all outstanding issues identified by agencies and Yadkin are resolved
and Yadkin's review is complete, Yadkin must notify FERC of the proposed I-85
improvements and wait 45 days to see if FERC responds before Yadkin can grant
permission for use of the Project property.
26
2. Information Requested by FERC
a. Detailed information regarding temporary and permanent activities - Once
y the right of way limits are finalized, and final designs are complete, NCDOT will
provide to ALCOA information on which temporary and permanent activities are
proposed within the Project Boundary and/or on APGI property outside of the
Project boundary. NCDOT will also provide a detailed map that shows the
location of the proposed temporary and permanent activities. This data must be
approved by ALCOA and FERC before the project Let date.
b. Section 404 Permits and Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) -
Once permit drawings are received, NCDOT will apply for the Section 401 water
quality certification and the Section 404 permit. Upon receipt of the 401
certification and 404 permit, NCDOT will submit them to ALCOA for their
review. These permits must be approved by ALCOA and FERC prior to the
project Let date.
c. In the event that NCDOT is proposing temporary and/or permanent activity
within the Project boundary and/or on APGI property located outside the Project
boundary, NCDOT will request permission from Yadkin to perform temporary
construction activities and locate permanent structures preferably in the form of a
temporary easement or lease for construction activity, and in the form of a
permanent easement for the location of permanent structures. Therefore, it is
critical that the information described in section "a" above, be of sufficient detail
to allow Yadkin to determine what form of conveyance is appropriate and the
conditions for any conveyance. Until real property issues between NCDOT and
Yadkin are resolved, Yadkin will not be able to issue final approval for the
proposed improvements.
Once Yadkin has determined that the Environmental Assessment is complete, and all
requested information has been reviewed and approved by FERC, Yadkin will be able to
discuss with NCDOT the issuance of a Construction Permit for those parts of the
proposed project, including removal of existing Bridge #137, that occupy lands or waters
within the FERC Project Boundary or other APGI lands. The construction permit will
contain a condition, among many others, that with regard to existing bridges, NCDOT
will be required to remove all concrete down to the existing muck line so that it will not.
be a hazard or act as a "catch" for floating debris.
E. NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
Concurrence Point 1, Purpose and Need, and Concurrence Point 2, the Alternatives to
be Studied, were reached on August 22, 2000 at a NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting.
This meeting is discussed in the Environmental Assessment (EA). A signature from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Concurrence Points 1 and 2 was not included in the
27
EA, however a copy of this signed form can be found in Appendix A on page A-25 of
this document signifying USFWS Concurrence.
A NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting to discuss concurrence Point 3, the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), was held on November 14,
2001. The following agency representatives were in attendance: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, North Carolina Department of Transportation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the Federal Highway
Administration. The purpose of this meeting was to submit information to the Merger
Team so that concurrence may be reached on Point 3, the LEDPA, for this project.
Concurrence Point 3, the LEDPA, was reached on December 13, 2001. A copy of the
concurrence form can be found in Appendix A on pages A-26 through A-28. It was
concurred that the following points represent the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative for this project:
Capacity Alternative
• 8-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
Structural Alternative
Replace Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures on new
location to the east of the existing structure
Service Road Alternative
Do not provide a service road connection from the new interchange to the
Belmont Road interchange
The signed concurrence form dated December 13, 2001 represents the Merger Team's
concurrence on the purpose and need, the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA
study", and the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative.
F. Interstate Access Revision
An Interstate Access Revision was reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) on December 14, 2000 (see page A-5 in Appendix A), in which they found the
proposed interchange revisions and access points acceptable. Approval of the Final
Environmental Document (the FONSI) constitutes the final approval of the access point
revisions, as requested.
G. Addendum to the Archaeological Study
The purpose of this additional investigation and addendum was to determine the
nature and origin of a large scale topographic :feature, which is threatened by the
28
construction of the proposed new I-85 bridge over the Yadkin River. No archaeological
sites were recorded at this location during the 1999 survey. Speculations have been made
that this berm, located south of the railroad tracks and across I-85 and US 29/70 from
31Dv654**, may represent the remains of an outlying Civil War-era military earthwork
` and warranted further investigation. Field inspections by NCDOT and other
archaeologists, and newly researched background information, suggested other, non-
military scenarios. After consultations with SHPO/OSA, FHWA, and other parties, it
was determined that further investigation, including archaeological testing and a detailed
synthesis of additional historic background research, was necessary to interpret the
feature acceptably.
Gathered from both primary and secondary sources, the historical background
information compiled during this investigation is not conclusive. The Official Records
contains various telegrams calling for the reinforcement of the river crossing, though it is
uncertain if or where supplemental defenses were constructed. The substantial historical
synopsis does, however, provide meaningful, comprehensive documentation of the Civil
War activities associated with General Stoneman's third and final raid, including the
riverside skirmish for the trestle bridge. For this purpose alone, it is a very informative
synthesis of military records and personal accounts of the final months of the War.
Additional research of available maps produced no military representations of the
.skirmish, hence, no additional information for possible outlying defenses. The
investigation did generate useful visual records of the area, documenting the extent and
magnitude of twentieth-century disturbances. Aerial photography taken during the
1950's is perhaps.the most revealing, showing the possible creation of the berm during a
period of massive earthmoving for the construction of I-85.
The results of the archaeological fieldwork provided specific data useful for the
interpretation of the earthen berm. A series of ground surface cross sections was recorded
across the suspected berm. For comparison, ground surface cross sections were also
taken across not only a similar berm feature but also a documented earthwork at
31Dv654**. Charts generated from this data show that the earthen berm in question
lacks many of the surface characteristics (shape, scale, and consistency) associated with
known Civil War entrenchments. Based on this information, the earthen berm appears to
represent either a component or result of a larger event, rather than its own discreet entity.
In order to obtain stratigraphic information, and excavation trench was placed across
the earthen feature, which yielded a small assortment of cultural materials. The profile of
the excavation unit shows a thin, disturbed A-horizon overlying natural subsoil. No
buried horizons or ground surfaces were identified. In addition, there was no evidence of
piled earth or a ditch, fundamental elements of military trenches. Finally, cultural
material collected from the upper portion of the berm was manufactured decades after the
War, providing a much. later date for its deposit and age of the berm.
29
In summary, the earthen berm did not meet the archaeological expectations of a
military earthwork. Archaeological data suggests that the topographic feature is a
remnant landform of large-scale earth removal from the mid-twentieth century. Coupled
with the aerial photography from the 1950's, this earthen berm should be described as an
embankment delineating modern earth borrowing activity.
As a result of the exhaustive background research and intensive field investigation, no
new archaeological resources were identified within the project's proposed Area of
Potential Effect (APE). The landform feature subjected to subsurface archaeological
evaluation represents natural topography that has been truncated on one side by modern
earthmoving activities. No additional investigations are recommended for the project as
currently designed. The SHPO agree&with,NCD0T's findings concerning this
archaeology addendum (see page A-31 for letter from SHPO). A complete copy of the
"Addendum to the Archaeological Study" for I-2304A can be located in the files of the
Office of State Archaeology.
30
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," established a national policy to
avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect
support of new construction wherever there is a practicable alternative.
NCDOT will not be able to totally avoid wetlands because widening of the highway
also requires service road relocation, and interchange reconstruction. However, some
avoidance measures have been undertaken so far as a result of coordination through the
NEPA/404 merger meetings. The,proposed bridges over the Yadkin River will span the
river and the wetlands associated with the river. This will result in the avoidance of
approximately 7.35 acres (2.97 hectares) of wetlands. Also, the 7 Oaks Drive (SR 1285)
service road extension was shortened per the resource agencies' comments.
Approximately 1.85 acres (0.74 hectares) of wetlands were avoided.
It was determined there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in
wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm
to wetlands which may result from such use.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project, as documented in the EA,
and upon comments received from federal, state, local agencies, and the general public, it
is the finding of the FHWA and the NCDOT that this project will not have a significant
adverse impact upon the human or natural environment. The project is not controversial
from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to natural, social, ecological,
cultural, or scenic resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local
plans and will not disrupt any communities. The project has been extensively
coordinated with federal, state, and local agencies. In view of the above evaluation, it has
been determined a FONSI is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an
Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis is required.
31
FIGURES

t

1? i ¦¦

I
- ? .' End Protect ?
1 Ir 1'Y
I: •1 i
85
•` ,l 3/?? •` ? 95

- i
!
i

!
•• i
ri• il!
• • s
i • is
( 3
a
; i
1 •
¦
ii
50 //
ii
t2

85

/
7/ i
i
G J Begin Project
WW*
MILES
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 0.5 1 1.5
KILOMETERS
•; O
it ........ i I
o m
i/

i

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
- - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
/ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH j
r/ 1-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81)
in Rowan County to US 29-52-70/145 (Exit 87)
i in Davidson County, Rowan-Davidson Counties
Federal Aid Project NHF-85-3(164)80
State Project 8.1631403, TIP Project 1-2304A
FIGURE 1
d /
? i
i /
1 \
1
L I'
/
APPENDIX A
?<EO 1T??'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
t ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
December 28, 2000
4EAD-OEA
Mr. William D. Gilmore. P.E.. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Division of Hic hwavs
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 276 i t
ATTN: Eric Midkiff. Unit Head
SUB.TECT: Comments Concerning Federal Environmental Assessment for
Improvements to I-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Bowan
County to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County,
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80, State Project No. 8.1631403,
TIP No. I-2304A
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. EPA, Region 4 has reviewed the
subject document, an environmental assessment on the impacts caused through
improvement of I-85 from north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-52-
70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County. The Federal-Aid Highway project will
involve: -
1) Widening, the subject section of I-85 to an 8-lane facility with a 46ft (14.0m) median;
and
2) Constructing interchanges and service roads along the project that will be designed and
revised as needed to accommodate the proposed mainline widening and replacement of
inadequate structures.
Having reviewed the environmental document. EPA has some environmental
concerns regarding potential Environmental Justice community displacements. wetlands.
roadway materials disposal, land-use changes. noise and lack of transportation
enhancements on a major Federal-Aid Interstate project.
Intemet Add ass (URL) - http:!;www.epa.gcv
RecyciecMecyclable • Pr!rte ! wdr, :, i; .. A-1 .., Recr:cled Paper : Mmunurn 115''. P,s;.. ,. ,umc.r:
While seeing the need for increasing capacity and improving safety to provide an
acceptable level of service along the subject section of 1-85 through the design year of
2025, care should be taken to balance these needs with those of the environment.
The following concerns are areas where EPA would like additional information or
consideration taken:
1) In reviewing the document. EPA is concerned regarding the level of involvement
from the potential impacted residents (EJ communities). As these residents fall in
the low-income category, has an effort been made to individually contact these
residents and insure they are completely informed of the projects impacts on them
and involve them in the decision-making process. Just advertising that an
informational workshop will be held is not sufficient if the impacted residents de,
not have a voice in project alignment selection/alternatives. If this has been done,
please provide EPA with a mailing list on these impacted residents (Area #1. Area
#4. & Area #6 - 23 potential relocatees) and the level of their involvement in youf
project decision-making process.
2) EPA would like to see and review the proposed wetland mitigation pian once final
project alignment has been determined. The EPA would like to see functional
value replacement of any wetland takes involving the proposed project. One
possibility would be to coordinate wetlands mitigation requirements with similar
activities associated with the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project and the High Rock
impoundment.
3) A large portion of the project would involve roadway and bridge removal as the
interchanges are replaced and modified for the widening of I-85. The EA does not
mention how the pavement aggregate and structures would be removed, and the
ultimate disposition of this material. EPA encourages the maximum reuse of the
materials rather than landfill disposal.
4) The proposed project does not utilize the flexibility provided in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21 ' Century (TEA-21) for incorporating transportation
enhancements (TE's) in Federal-Aid projects. Why were no TE's incorporated in
this project? TE's which may be incorporated in this project include wildlife/critter
crossings across the Interstate. bike / hiking trails in the surrounding area, and
community improvements / enhancements. Since new alignment /reconstruction
is being proposed for the project. it would seem appropriate to incorporate
community / environmental enhancement features into the new construction.
5) The EA does not describe the land use changes which would occur with the
project. New interchange and interchange configurations and service roads will
A-2
result in extensive commercial development in these areas of the project.
6) In reviewing the noise impacts analysis in the appendix, there are a large number
of receptors that would experience a substantial impact. Most are residences, but
there is a "rest home" (ID #24) listed in Table N4. In regard to the "rest home", is
the surrounding outdoor area of the home utilized by the residents, and would the
noise impacts from the proposed project adversely impact the residents of the "rest
home"?
In conclusion, EPA believes that the proposed Federal Aid Interstate I-85 Highway
project has merits, but care should be taken to fully address Environmental Justice (EJ)
roadway materials disposal. wetland, land-use and noise issues. In addition.
consideration should be made to incorporate transportation enhancements into tai:
proposed project to make the project more friendly to we human ana natura'
environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If we can be of further assistance in
this matter. Ted Bisterfeld (404-562-9621) or Neel Vanikar (404-56?-9703) wilt serve as
initial points of conta--..
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Office of Environmental Assessment
Environmental Accountability Division
A-3
,-? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
;:. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
•'•?n of
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive N
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
December 15, 2000 f
Mr. William D. Gilmore
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore;:

Please reference your November 17, 2000, request for comments on the Federal Environmc!::.:,;
Assessment (EA) for- improvements to 1-85 from north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan COUnt'.
US 29-52-76/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County. Federal Aid Project No. N1117-8-
3(164)80, State Project No.8.1631403, TIP No. I-2304A. Due to the location of this work. then-
will be no impact to trust resources for which the National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible:.
Therefore, we will offer no comments on this EA.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
And as Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional iiministrator
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC
NCDENR, Morehead City, NC
COE, Wilmington, NC
F/SER4
moRFAA?
n
A-4

OF TR4
C `?' $o
?T -091
o g
GZ? ???c
SAM OF
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
December 14, 2000
IN REPLY REFER TO
HO-NC
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E.
Manager of Planning and
Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina .
Subject: Draft Report titled: "Interstate access revisions to 1-85 from north of SR
2120(exit 81) to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) Rowan and Davison
Counties." Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80, TIP No. 1-2304A.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The subject report describes proposed revisions to existing 1-85 interchanges and access
points just north of the Yadkin River in Davidson County. The revisions are part of a state
project that proposes to widen 1-85 from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes in each direction.
The requested revisions involve consolidation of existing US 29/70, NC 150, and Clark
Road (SR 1295) interchanges and replacing them with one full movement interchange in
the vicinity of NC 150. In addition, the Belmont Boulevard (SR 1133) interchange will be
modified.
The proposed improvements would provide a LOS D along the entire project through the
design year 2025, while the ramp connections of the new interchange would operate at
LOS B or C. The project will provide a 46-foot median, which could be used in the future
for additional widening to increase mainline capacity.
We conducted an engineering and operational acceptability review of the proposed
interchange revisions and access points and found them acceptable. Approval of the final
environmental document for this project will constitute our final approval of these access
point revisions as requested. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Felix Davila at
[phone], extension 106.
Sincerely yours,

For Nicholas t. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
cc: Mr. John E. Alford, PE, NCDOT
A-5

North Carolina
Department of Administration
E I V E
JAN - 5 2001
iProgram Development Brar;i,rl!
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
January 4, 2001 -
Mr. Burt Tasaico
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1534 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Dear Mr. Tasaico:
Re: SCH File # 01-E-4220-0329: Environmental Assessment Proposed Improvements to I-S5, froir.
North of SR 2121 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-52-7011-85 Business (Exit 87; in
Davidson County; TIP #I-2304-
The above reterenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
a: x3sp'v?
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region F
Region G
116 West Jones Street Raleigh. North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportumt. / Affirmative Action Empioyer
A-6
71
::_ •i
+Wk
JAMES 8. HUNT JR+7
' GOVERNOR ".
MIN
?t•r?
BILL HOLMA
Y '..'? llff
.SE.?C,Rr-TAP
.... ,. w..-?; 7
:i.1ic : •'7
.i

• - u--
?. x 4

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee r
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 01E-0329 I-85 Improvements Davidson. Countv
DATE: December 28, 2000
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The applicant is encouraged
to consider the attached recommendations from the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and should also continue to work with our
agencies as this project moves forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachment
Attachments

DEC 2 '_ 2000
-F T•- e1%: t-ACIf.I.-, -.-
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
PHONE 919.733-.:984 FAX [phone] W%VW.ENR.SrATE.Nc.us/ENR:
AN EQUAL OPPCR-UN:TY AFFIRM. 4-7 1CTION E. PLOYER - 50^'e RECYCLEC: I C', PCi--CCNSUMER PAPER
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
CENTRALINA COG
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
PIEDMCNT TRI:,L COG
STATE NUMBER: 0329 P02
DATE RECEIVED: 11/30/2000
AGENCY RESPONSE: 12/25/2000
REVIEW CLOSED: 12/30/20000
?z
G
t?
.., i C;,4C Pk"£3M. ATOMME
EC1 It", :ION
??L:CANT: N.C. Department of Transoortatio:.
TYPE: National Environmental Poiicy Act
ERD: Environmental Assessment
DESC: Proposed Improvements to I-85, from North of SR 2121 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/i-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County; TIP #=-2304A
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER: 99-E-4220-0121
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghcuse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and su'.^_.mit dour response by `_ t:':e above
inc_i sated date. If additional review time _4S needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE:
orn
lzu?F_ 0
!I4220n-
A-8
STArt / ^44,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
March 27, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., iNfanager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ftz??Ozt? M04-"
Depute State Histo i Preservation Of6cci
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Pronoscd Imnrovements to 1-85, from North of SR 2121 (E%it 8l) to U.S. 29-52-70/1-85 Business
(Eeit 87), Rowan and Davidson Counties, CH 99-E- ?0-0121
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse. We offer ti:::
following comments.
We recommend that the GPS or other detailed map work yet to be conducted at Fort York be added as an
environmental commitment in the green pages of the document.
Page 26, section 5b refers only to work to be conducted at Fort York. Since an archeological survev was
conducted for this project by Nora 11. Sheehan, we recommend the results be summarized in this section.
We also recommend that our comment letter on the revised report be included in Appendix A.
Receipt of the GPS or other detailed mapping of the fort, which we will add to our report copies and site
files, will complete the archaeological Section 106 process for this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: SCH
FHwA
Brain Overton, PDEA, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Vlail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4301
Survev & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4618 (919) 7 33-4763 •715-4801
A-9
Federal Aid # NHF-85-3(164)80 TIP # 1-2304A County: Rowan/Davidson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Reconstruct I-85 from north of SR 2120 in Rowan Co. to US 29-52-70 in Davidson Co.
On 05/07/2002, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
[y Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
( F r6onume-nt is considered not eligible for the National
Register and further evaluation of it is necessary.
? There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
? All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
? There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed: ° '

A, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
5--J_-OZ.
Representative, HPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
Date

-7
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

A-10
• UL
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lis5eth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 4, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Histo6c Preservation Officer
Re: Proposed Improvements to I-85, from North of SR 2121 (Exit 81) to U.S. 29-52-70/I-85 Business
(Exit 87), Rowan and Davidson Counties, CH 99-E-4220-0121
Thank rou for conducting the field GPS mapping work at Fort York prior to any construction activities.
We will add the map of the fort to our report copies and site files.
Receipt of this map completes the archaeological portion of the Section 106 process for this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisorv Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Steve Lund, ACOE
FHwA
bc: Claggett/Novick,--'
County
RF
Location
iinistration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC
:oration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
vey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617 [phone].733-8653
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994613 [phone].715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801
A-11
Federal Aid # NHF-85-3(164)80 TIP # I-2304A C'owin•: Rowan/Davidson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
3q 2
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. A as a part of the reconstruction of 1-85 from north of
SR 2120 in Rowan Co. to US 29-52-70 in Davidson Co.
On 9/17/2002, representatives of the
Y/ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? 3 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Q North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
? There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
[There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
projects area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
Representati C OT
FHWA, for the Division A
2 of /
Representative, HPO
inistrator. or other Federal Agency
State Historic Preservation Officer
X1',1' Q
Date
1 l J0 Z..
Date
,q11?-10z
Date
/L:.' ! /
????
Date
A-12
Federal Aid # NHF-85-3(164)80 TIP # I-2304A County: Rowan/Davidson
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
'.ti' ? l - Cc? ? ?c C ?r ? c c: e 4 t0? _ tiO ck-a.v vu; e.
e ??e ct
i Gt, C()r} 1 r? l I I r1? rS .
??i i r?i^1 Er?v 1 c on
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
C4 ' - .
t?C-C'CLLl:?-?_ (J1"1Shu(hon o' )611e-
C `.
1111) --)CiCi :3
39Z
?'7(. j U? L I (- C St rl t x'?11hC by G1(:?I
?c1 I I I. CI I t U IUA k 3 i? CA-D,e-
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA )?PA HPO e5&
A-13
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE NUMBER: 01-E-4220-0329 F02
-? DATE RECEIVED: 11/30/2000
AGENCY RESPONSE: 12/25/2000
REVIEW CLOSED: 12/30/2000
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD REGION F
CENTRALINA COG
PO BOX 35008
CHARLOTTE NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
CENTRALINA COG
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
PIEDMONT TRIAL COG
PROJECT I14FORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Department c-f Transportati:.
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Environmental Assessment
DESC: Proposed Improvements to i-85, from North of SR 2121 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/i-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County; TIP #I-2304A
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER: 99-E-4220-0121
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS 'REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE:

A-14
NCWRC.HCP.FALLS LAKE
Memo
TEL:[phone]
2
Dec 22'00 13:07 No.UUl r.UA
Nc;ember 22, 2000
We were unable: to find detailed Information on impacts to jurisdictional streams. This
information should be included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project.
Any on-site stream relocations should be designed using natural stream design and construction
techniques. This may necessitate that additional right-of-way be squired in the area of the stream
relocations.
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this FA. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-15
NCWP.C,HCP,=rLLS LAK- T=1,919-528-9839 Dec 22'00 13:06 No.001 P.03
a] North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Exeaitive Director
MFMQRANT)L M
TO: Melba h-IcGee
Ufticc of Legislative and Intergover--n--mental Affairs. DE NR
FROM: David Cox, ilipuway Project C6ordinam:
Habitat Conservation Pro s. I
DATE:
2 00
SI:BJFCT: None-;'ar, Hna Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
n5 t' 1S:e^c (EA) for I-85 improvements, from north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in
Rowan 'County to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County,
Davidson and Ruwan.. counties, North Carolina. TIP No. I-2304A, SCH Project
No. 01-E-0329.
Stuff hioloaists with tl:e N. C. Wildlife Reso=. es Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provision; of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Courdination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT prormse:i to widen e.risting I-85 along the subject section from 4-lanes to an 8-1ane
section with a 46.1bot median. Interchanges and service roads will be improved as necessary to
accommodate the mainline widening, The project includes replacing the bridges over Yadkin
River. The total project length is approximately 6.8 miles. Impacts to wetlands are expected to
total approximately 3.6 acres with an undetermined length jurisdictional streams impacted.
We have reviewer,' die data contained in the EA. We arc concerned over the impacts to high
quality wetlands associated with the Yadkin River crossing. NCDOT should explore ways to
minimize impacts to this area. Construction techniques will factor into our comments can the
`404' permits for this project. NCDOT s?nould explore bridge construrtioii techniques that
minimize the need for temporary haul roads and wetland fill,
Mailing Address: Division of I.11:::;d Fai;erie5 • 1
A-16 St.-,..c Center • Ralci; h, N(': 17699-1721
419) 715-7643
Fax: 1

Scenic North Carolina
P.O. Box 628 ? Raleigh, NC 27,602 ? 919 832.3687 ? FA1K 919 9 •:• [e-mail]
.c 11 iR i9 _
December 14, 2000 4-\'- % DE *o
c
State Clearinghouse z ?2pp
N.C. Department of Administration ° 4RF?'Fi
1302 Mail.Service Center Cr) Oq o?O
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1302
ti
A Z\
RE: SCH # OIE42200329 -- Widening of Interstate 85, Rowan and Da vi son Counties; TIP ?
1-2304A
To Whom It May Concern:
Please consider the following comments as this project moves forward:
Consideration of Roundabout Interchanges. On grade-separated interchanges that are: to
be a part of this project, please investigate the use of a "modern roundabout" interchange
desi=n as one of the alternatives considered for this project. In many circumstances,
modern roundabout interchanges have been found to have cost, safety, operational, and
aesthetic advantages over other interchange designs.
Other state highway department are also considering the use of roundabouts at
interchanges. The use of roundabouts at interchanges is discussed in the Caltrans Design
Information Bulletin 80 [http://ww%.v.dot.ca.cov/hq/oppd/dib/db8O.htm] on page 3 under
"Reduction of Queue Storage Requirements," which states:
Possible applications may be found at existing diamond interchanges.
where high left turn volumes can cause signals to fail. By construct-
ing a pair of roundabouts at the ramp intersections, capacity improve-
ments to the interchange can be accomplished without the costly
requirement of widening the structure to carry additional lanes over or
under the freeway. -
When changes to an intersection or freewav interchange are proposed, all feasible and
prudent alternatives, including the roundabout, should be considered. This will allow
decision-makers to compare the overall cost and effectiveness (safety improvement, delay
reduction, community enhancement, and other factors) of the various alternatives, and
select the best one. The roundabout will not be the best alternative in every situation, but
this can only be shown through an objective study of the alternatives.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has recently published a methodology for
comparing roundabouts to other types of traffic control. The analysis includes looking at
safety benefits, operational benefits, environmental benefits, construction costs, and
operational and maintenance costs, and can 'be found beginning on page 70 of FHWA°s
Page 1
A-17
Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Please use this method of analysis to compare the
roundabout and traffic signal alternatives before making a decision about the appropriate
form of traffic control at this interchange.
2. Promote Land Development and Access Management Strategies at Interchange Areas.
Unmanaged access to highway-oriented services causes inconvenience and disrupts the
very purpose of an interchange, which is to move traffic between the freeway and arterial.
Advanced planning and access management can reduce traffic conflicts and create a
balance between access and mobility needs. As part of the planning process for this
roadway improvement, NCDOT should work with the local governments in the area to
review issues and problems in managing interchange area development and sets forth
strategies to improve planning and management bf interchange areas. An excellent
document on this topic can be downloaded at the following website:
http://www.cutr.eng. usf.edu/research/access_m/pdf/interchanae_report.pdf
3. Road Safety Audit. Please consider a "road safety audit" as part of the project design
process. In a road safety audit, a team of * experts attempts to identify potentially
dangerous features of the highway operating environment. First used in Australia and
New Zealand, the Federal Highway Administration has concluded that road safety audits
hold promise for maximizing the safety of roadway design and operations. More
information about road safety audits is available at:
http://w,,vw.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-10/p42.htm
Please provide a detailed, written response to this letter. Please include this letter and the
responses in the environmental document for this project.
Sincerely,

Dale McKeel
Page' 2
A-18
[Fwd: NC :ntcreovemmemal Review I'mecssl
Subject: (Fwd: NC Intergovernmental Review Process]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:49:42 -0800
From: Hilda Threatt <[e-mail]>
Organization: Centralina Council of Governments
To: Audrey McCaskill <[e-mail]>
Subject: NC Intergovernmental Review Process
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:40:10 -0500
From: Dan Mikkelson <[e-mail]>
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>
CC: Wendy Brindle <[e-mail]>
Please forward this e-mail to Audrey McCaskill. Comments are in reference to State Application Identifier
Number 01-0329 (1-85 from exit 81 to exit 87: TIP project 1-2304A)
Commenter's name: Dan Mikkelson, Salisbury City Engineer
PO Box 479
Salisbury, NC 281455
704-638-5200
December 19. 2000
The City of Salisbury has two comments to submit regarding the widening of 1-85 from exit 81 to exit 87:
1. The Environmental Assessment states that Bridge #46 (Wit-Cox Bridge) will remain in place and be converted
to serve bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Although the bridge is outside of our political jurisdiction, the Salisbury
City Council is on record supporting efforts to preserve the historic bridge. The City's support was presented to
the NC Board of Transportation at the TIP Public Hearing in Lexington on November 9, 2000.
2. 1-85 is frequently closed temporarily at the Yadkin River due to haz-mat spills, truck accidents, or ice (maybe
once a month). When this happens, two lanes of interstate traffic are detoured to cross the Yadkin River via US
Highway 29. With the proposed realignment, US Highway 29 will be rerouted to follow the interstate across the
Yadkin River. The old interstate bridges over the river will be demolished, and the Wil-Cox Bridge (currently 2
lanes of US 29) will be closed to vehicular traffic. As a result, the interstate will be increased to four lanes of
traffic in each direction, but the alternate route across the river will be reduced to only one lane in each direction.
The Rowan County 1-85 Incident Management Task Force, chaired by Ms. Patti Newsome of NCDOTs Division 9
office, has expressed concern that the proposed alignment will not provide an adequate alternate route to cross
the Yadkin River. The Task Force's concern has been shared with the Highway Design Unit of NCDOT, but the
Environmental Assessment does not address this issue.
t -?20.'00 1o:13 A`1
?,i t A-19

January 24, 2001
To: Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
From: Kirby Atwood, Compliance Coordinator
Finetex, Inc.
PO Box 164
Spencer. NC 28159
S:.-,
Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Environmental Assessment to our attention. It is obvw::
that you and your stale have clone an excellent job of putting together this Environmental Assessmew.
. The Finetex Spencer facility is located adjacent to the southoound lane of 1-85 in the project arc;
We are very concerned with the closing of Willow Creek Drive because it denies Finetex one of our tv:,
required property accesses. The proposed extension of Hinkle Drive (SR 2181) is an acceptable
replacement to the closure of the Willow Creek connection providing Hinkle Drive (SR 2181) extends to
the southern end of Finetex's property. The present proposal addresses our security concerns and gives
Finetex the two required means of access to the facility.
The proposal (extending Hinkle Drive to Hackett Road) made during the Citizens Informational
Workshop creates a security problem for Finetex. Limiting access to the property and providing security
for our employees is required by Federal regulations. Finetex is covered by 40 CFR 264.14 security
requirements for Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators, 40 CFR 112.7 security requirements for
our Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, and 29CRF 1910 for providing a safe and secure
work environment for our employees. These requirements are the reason for our concern with connecting
Hinkle Drive to Hackett Road and exposing a side of the facility to uncontrolled access.
An additional concern is the new service road on the west side of 1-85 and north of Long Ferry
Road. It is our understanding that the new service road will cover a small but highly significant part our
property off of Long Ferry Road. This property is part of the Finetex wastewater disposal system. Finetex
has invested a great deal of capitol in developing the property for that purpose and is needed to keep
Finetex in operation. Our Spray Irrigation System Permit (WQ0001077) has several requirements that
could be impacted by construction of a road on the property:
1. "Public Access to the land application site shall be controlled."
2. "A buffer of400 feet shall be maintained between the wetted area and places of public assembly under
separate ownership."
3. "Adequate measures shall be taken to prevent wastewater runoff from the site.".
FINETEX INC., P.O BOX 216, ELMWOOD PARK, NEW JERSEY 07407 [phone] FAX: [phone]
D n R(YY 1 Rd SpFNCER. NORTH CARj A-20 28159 [phone] FAX: [phone]
Mr. William D. Gilmore
Page Two
January 24, 2001
Finetex is willing to absorb related cost necessary to comply with No. I to accommodate the 1-85
Expansion.
No. 2 creates a serious problem for us because it reduces our utility of the spray irrigation disposal
system. This problem can be solved if the Division of Highways is willing to move the exittaccess road
approximately 20-100 feet to coincide with the existing property boundaries. Please refer to the enclosed
map.
In addressing No. 3, the total water flow to and from our spray irrigation field is critical. Runoff from
the redesigned Hinkle Road access must not run across our pronerty.
Nos. 2 and 3 are both critical to the successful compliance with our permit and continued economic
business operation of Finetex. Our request is for the Division of Highways to address these last tv,
issue:..
PLEASE NOTE: The correct spelling of our company's name is Finetex (not Fin Tex). Alsu. you
have incorrectly reported Finetex as a textile manufacturer. We are a specialty chemical manufacturer.
1Fmetex would appreciate meeting with a representative from your office to confirm the proposed
location of the new service road as it relates to our Long Ferry Rd. property. Please contact me at (704)
633-8028 extension 209.
Thank you,
Ki4 Atwood
Cc: Roger Porter, President
Bob Scala. Vice President
FINETEX INC., P.O. BOX 216, ELMWOOD PARK, NEW IERSEY 07407 [phone] FAX: [phone] _
P.O. BOX 164, SPENCER NORTH CAROLINP A-21 ;704) 633-8028 FAX: [phone]
MAI , ;:,
0 ??lV ?So
I A ! '-
?pY 1.3 oq1 a
i?
May 17, 2001° y °'•>, -`'`?'? ??
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Alcoa Primary Metals
Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Yadkin Division
PO Box 576
Badin, North Carolina 28009-0576
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Via Certified Mail
RE: Alcoa Power Generating Inc. Request For Additional Information And Comments
On The North Carolina Department Of Transportation Environmental Assessment For
Improvements To 1-85 In Rowan And Davidson Counties
Mr. Gilmore,
Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI), through its Yadkin Division (Yadkin), has initiated
its review of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and supplemental documents as
prepared and submitted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
for proposed improvements to 1-85, North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US
29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County (November 2000). The proposed
improvements include replacement of Bridge #137 with two bridges that will span the
Yadkin River and its adjacent wetlands. Existing Bridge #137, which also spans the
Yadkin River, will be removed after the proposed project's construction.
Yadkin is beginning its review of the EA from the perspective of examining potential
impacts resulting from the proposed improvements on the Yadkin River and its adjacent
wetlands and on adjoining lands owned by APGI. Yadkin is performing its review in
compliance with its Subdivision Access Approval, Multi-Use Facility Permitting, and
Industrial Procedures, July 1999 (Procedures, copy previously provided). Yadkin's initial
review indicates that Yadkin needs additional information from NCDOT. The purpose
of this letter is to identify additional information that will assist Yadkin in conducting the
review.
In its letter dated December 4, 2000 to NCDOT, Yadkin informed NCDOT that
portions of the proposed improvement would be located within the FERC-
licensed Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2197) and/or on
property owned by APGI outside the Project boundary. In the Summary of
Special Proiect Commitments of the EA, NCDOT states, "Because the subject
project lies within a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-licensed
hydroplant project boundary (the Yadkin Project), approval for land transfer must
be obtained by NCDOT in the form of a FERC license revision. Coordination
1 -?23o

A-22
with the proper FERC officials shall take place, and the process to obtain a
FERC permit will be followed." As FERC licensee of the Project, Yadkin is the
entity responsible for obtaining any necessary FERC approval or notification. As
also stated in the December 4, 2000 letter, Yadkin will notify FERC of the
proposed improvements once all outstanding issues identified by agencies and
Yadkin are resolved and Yadkin's review is complete.
2. It is unclear from the EA exactly which activities connected with -the proposed
improvements will occur within the Project boundary and/or on APGI property
outside the Project boundary. It appears that dredge and fill, shoreline
stabilization, and certain other temporary construction activities may occur within
the Project boundary and/or on APGI property outside the Project boundary.
Additionally, it appears that permanent structures, such as bridge abutments,
may also be located within the Project boundary and/or on APGI property.
outside the Project boundary. Please provide detailed information with regard to
which temporary and permanent activities are proposed within the Project
boundary and/or on APGI property outside the Project boundary. Please also
provide a map that shows the location of proposed temporary and permanent
activities with respect to the Project boundary and APGI property outside the
Project boundary.
3. In the event that NCDOT is proposing temporary and/or permanent activity
within the Project boundary and/or on APGI property located outside the Project
boundary, please be aware that NCDOT will need permission from Yadkin to
perform temporary construction activity and locate permanent structures
preferably in the form of a temporary easement or lease for construction activity
and in the form of a permanent easement for.the location of permanent
structures. Therefore, it is critical that the information requested in Item No. 2,
above, be of sufficient detail to allow Yadkin to determine what form of
conveyance is appropriate and the conditions for any conveyance. Until real
property issues between NCDOT and Yadkin are resolved, Yadkin will not be
able to issue final approval for the proposed improvements.
4. As noted in Yadkin's December 4, 2000 letter, a portion of the proposed
improvements appears to be located in a Conservation Zone as designated by
Yadkin's Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) due to the presence of forested
wetlands. In its comments dated December 22, 2000, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) expressed concern over the impacts on high
quality wetlands associated with the Yadkin River crossing and stated that
construction techniques will factor into its comments on the Section 404 permits
for the project. Please note that Yadkin will not issue its final approval for the
project until it has received from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
copies of the Section 404 permits required for the bridge replacement.
5. Yadkin also will not issue final approval until it has received copies of any other
required federal, state, and local permits for the bridge replacement including
specifically a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the NC
Department of Water Quality (DWQ).
6. On EA page 35, NCDOT states that project construction may result in impacts to
surface waters including increased concentration of toxic compounds from high
way runoff, construction, toxic spills and increased traffic. In light of this
A-23
potential, receipt of the WQC from DWQ and the 404 permit from the USACE
will be critical. Please note that any construction permit issued by Yadkin for
those portions of the project occurring within the Project boundary and/or APGI
property outside the Project boundary will contain conditions regarding
compliance with all state and federal permits.
7. On EA pages 48-49, NCDOT states that since no bald eagles or nests were
seen during its site visits, project construction would not affect the bald eagle.
Please be aware that there have been recent observations of bald eagles and
bald eagle nests downstream of the proposed bridge site by Yadkin and
NCWRC staff.
8. As noted in Yadkin's December4, 2000 letter, it appears that a portion of the
proposed improvements may be located in a Medium Cultural Resources
Probability Zone as designated in the SMP. On the other hand, the Summary of
Environmental Impacts in the EA states, "No sites listed in the National Register
of Historic Places will be involved." Please provide a copy of any comments
received from North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) on
this EA. Yadkin is particularly interested in comments from NCDCR with regard
to impacts, if any, to cultural resources in the Medium Cultural Resources
Probability Zone. In particular, Yadkin is interested if NCDCR has commented
on a portion of the Colonial Trading Path identified by Historical Research in its
letter dated November 24, 2000.
9. Once Yadkin has determined that the EA is complete, Yadkin will be able to
discuss with NCDOT the issuance of a Construction Permit for those parts of the
proposed project, including removal of existing Bridge #137, that occupy lands
or waters within the FERC Project Boundary or other APGI lands. Please note
that the Construction Permit will contain a condition, among many others, that
with regard to the existing bridge, NCDOT will be required to remove all concrete
down to the reservoir/river bottom so that it will not be a hazard or act as a
"catch" for floating debris.
10. Finally, please provide evidence of consultation with, and if received, comments
from, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps Of Engineers, and Rowan
and Davidson Counties on this EA.
As noted above, responses to this additional information request will assist Yadkin in
conducting its review of the NCDOT EA.
If you have any questions or if we may assist you further, please call me at (704) 422-
5606.
Gene Ellis
Environmental and Natural Resources Manager
e-mail: Sarah Verville - LVA Coralyn Benhart - Alcoa
Norm Pierson - APGI Bob Smet - APGI
Pat Shaver - APGI
A-24
07/ 21/01 TL T. FU $:4 =53 5930 FWS ASHEVILLE 91002
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. I. Purpose and need.
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study.
Project Name/Description: I-85 Widening and Improvements, between Spencer and Lexington.
Rowan and Davidson Counties, TIP Project I-2304A, AID 199821203.
The Project Team concurs with the purpose and need, and the "altcrnativcs to be carried forward
in the NEPA study", as stated on the attached dated August 22, 2000.
USACE
USEPA
NCDWCI
NCt?OT ,
USFWS
NC WRC
NCDC12
FHWA
A-25
Proposed improvements to I-85
from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-52-70 / I-85 Business
(Exit 87) in Davidson County, TIP Project I-2304A, Federal Aid No. NHF 85-
3(164)80, State Project No. 8.1631403, AID No. 199821203
Concurrence Point 1. Purpose and Need (August 22, 2000)
It is the purpose of the project to provide an acceptable level of service along the subject
section of I-85 through the design year 2025. It is also the intent of the project to
improve traffic flow while providing adequate access and connectivity for area residents
and businesses. Improvements to this section of I-85 are needed to effectively
accommodate increased traffic demand along I-85 on a regional level, as well as
establishing congruency among the regional system.
It is also the purpose of the project to address the structural deficiencies of the bridges,
pipes and culverts along the project while maintaining traffic along I-85. Two bridges
along the project have been targeted for replacement because of structural and capacity
inadequacies. Bridge 9137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, was built in 1955.
It has 10 years of remaining life and a sufficiency rating of 64.2. Bridge #404, which
carries SR 1147 over South Potts Creek, is a one lane bridge built in 1921. It has a
sufficiency rating of 52.3 and a remaining life of 15 years.
Concurrence Point 2. Alternatives to be Studied (August 22, 2000)
A. Capacity Alternatives
1. 8-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
2. 6-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
B. Structural Alternatives
1. Replace Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures on new location
to the east of the existing structure
2. Replace Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures at the location of
the existing structure
C. Service Road Alternatives
1. Provide a service road from the proposed new interchange to the Belmont Road
interchange
2. Do not provide a service road connection from the new interchange to the
Belmont Road interchange
D. No Build
A-26
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 1. Purpose and Need
Concurrence Point 2. Alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study
Concurrence Point 3. Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA)
Project Name / Description:
Proposed improvements to I-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan
County to US 29-52-70 / I-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson County, TIP Project
I-2304A, Federal Aid No. NHF-85-3(164)80, State Project No. 8.1631403, AID
No. 199821203
The project team has concurred on this date of December 13, 2001, with the purpose and
need, the "alternatives to be carried forward in the NEPA study", and the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, as stated on the attached dated
December 13, 2001.
USACE
Name
?? -
USLPA
Name
NCDWQ aetdV-A 044tCCA W te,
Name
NCDCR
Name
2 /,q/
Date
12-113/01
Date
/Z• /3.01
Date
Date
NCDOT
Name
USFWS
Name
NCWRC ll L /
Name
FHWA ?+--
Name
U1281 ni
Date
l'/i: k)
Date
(aZ/J?IC/
Date
0/0-4
Date
A-27
Concurrence Point 3. Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(December 13, 2001)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve I-85 from north of
SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29/70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson
County. The existing four-lane facility is to be widened to an 8-lane interstate facility
with a 46ft (14.0m) median. The interchanges and service roads along the project will be
revised to accommodate the proposed widening. Inadequate structures along the project
will be replaced to conform to current design standards.
It was concurred that the following points represent the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative for this project:
Capacity Alternative
• 8-lane widening with interchange modification and bridge replacements
Structural Alternative
• Replace Bridge #137 over the Yadkin River with dual structures on nev-
location to the east of the existing structure
Service Road Alternative
• Do not provide a service road connection from the new interchange to the
Belmont Road interchange
A-28
Alsme er, Eric C SAW COPY /Qf 5-, 1oO3
From: Renee Gledhill-Earley [renee.gledhill-earleyQa ncmail.net)
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:21 AM
To: Eric Alsmeyer
Subject: 12304-A Concurrence point 3
Eric:
I've checked all of our files and don't feel that I need to attend the
meeting on this project that is set for 11/14 at 10:30AM. DOT has
documented the archaeological site we were concerned about (a fort) and
we are working on a plan to keep the old bridge in place and cared for.
I'll be happy to go along with the group on this, if the old bridge will
stay in place.
Renee Gledhill-Earley
This message does not necessarily represent the policy of
the Department of Cultural Resources.
A-29
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Ashevillc Field Office
160'Lillicoa Street
Ashevillc. North Carolina 28801
September 12, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for Improvements to 1-85 from North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in
Rowan County to US 29-52-7011-85 Business (Exit 87), Including Replacing the Bridge over
Upper High Rock Lake in Davidson County, North Carolina, Federal Aid No.
NH!'-85-3(164)80, State Project No. 8.1631403, TIP No. I-2304A
As requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, we have reviewed the natural
resources report and biological conclusion for federally protected species for the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided, potential habitat for the federally threatened bald eagle
Waliaee[us leucocephalus) exists in the project area near the proposed bridge replacement over the
Yadkin River. Based on field surveys and the distance from known nest locations, we concur with your
conclusion of "not likely to adversely affect" for the bald eagle for the subject project. We believe the
requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act
must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log
Number 4-2-98-243.
Sinc ly,
1 rian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office. 6508 Falls of the
Neuse Road, Suite; 120, Raleigh, NC-27615
A-30
North Carolina Department' of Cultural Resou
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
Michael F. Easley. Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
October 27, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook 'JM
V
SUBJECT: Improve I-85, from north of SR 2120 to north of US 29-70, I-2304,
Davidson and Rowan Counties, ER92-8556, CH99-E-4220-0121
v ?v?L
a 3
Division of Historical Resources
Thank you for your letter of August 26, 2003, transmitting an addendum to the archaeological report for
the subject project. We apologize for the delay in our comments. This was occasioned by our requesting
review by the State Archaeologist as well as other knowledgeable division staff.
We recommend that a site plan be included (about pp. 49-50). It should illustrate the general topography
and clearly label placement of all fieldwork units.
We agree with the addendum's conclusions and look forward to receipt of the final report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: J. L. Skip Browder, North Carolina Railroad Company
H. Gene Ellis, Alcoa, Yadkin Division, Badin, NC
Diane Dillon Hooper, Historic Salisbury Foundation, Inc.
Kaye Brown Hirst, Rowan Museum, Inc.
Ann Brownlee, Salisbury, NC
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
www.hoo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/FAI
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-1617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715.4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-4801
A-31
APPENDIX B

S1':\ fl: Ol: No l-I I C Altl)LINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
\l1('I1At:1. F. I::\SLF
Uo% 199%og
May 22. '_11111
.Mr. Stephen B. Jacobs. BAS. PA
699 Joyce Circle
High Point. North Carolina 27265
Subject: I-85 Widening Project in Rowan and Davidson Counties
TIP No. I-2304
Dear Mr. Jacobs
1.1 ADO hl I'm 1"1'
The subject project impacts several mobile homes in the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park. As the
Administrator of Mr. Williams' estate and the Power of Attorney for the heirs of the property encompassed
by the Mobile Home Park. we ask that you notify the tenants of the following meeting.
Meeting Location: Spencer Town Hall
600 South Salisbury Avenue
Meeting Date and Time: June 19, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
Meeting Purpose: Discuss and receive comments concerning the impacts of the
proposed widening and reconstruction of 1-85 from north of
SR 2120 in Rowan County to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business in
Davidson County
I have enclosed enough copies of this letter for you to deliver to the tenants of Mobile Home Park. The
letter includes a location map of the project on the reverse side of this letter. Please encourage all the tenants
to come to the meetings, as we are very interested in their opinions concerning this project. We will provide
light refreshments at the meeting. Anyone requiring special services to attend and participate in the meeting
should contact me at least one week prior to the date of the meeting.
Thank you for your cooperation in arranging this meeting with the community.. If you or any of the
residents have questions before the meeting. please call me at 919-250-4092.
Sincerely].,
l.eighl,ane
Public Involvement and Community Studies Unit
(Mice of I luman 1:nvinmment. 1'1)1:n
Cc: 13uddy (jetty,. I lonorahle Mayor of Spencer
Larry Smith.'fown o1'Spcncc1-
Lisa Perdue. 1 own of Spcnccr
R_1
NOTICE OF A SMALL GROUP MEETING
FOR THE WIDENING OF 1-85 FROM NORTH OF (LONG FERRY
ROAD) TO US 29-52-70/1-85
Project 8.1631403 1-2304A Davidson/Rowan Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
2002 at 7:OOPM at the North Carolina
Small Group Meeting on Monday, June 24,
Transportation Museum, 411 South Salisbury Avenue, Spencer, NC:
Interested individuals may attend this meeting
entatveis will be present to
stated time:. Department of Transportation rep
answer questions and receive comments relative to the proposed- project.
The purpose of this meeting is to present information, answer questions,
and receive comments regarding this project. This project
29-52-70/1 85 Business in
of 1-85 from north of SR 2120 (Long Ferry Road) to
Davidson and Rowan Counties.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Jackie Obediente,
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, phone [phone] exit.
228 or e-mail her at [e-mail].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who
wish to participate in this workshop to comply with the American Disabilities Act.
To receive special services, please contact Ms. Obediente at the above address
or phone number or fax [phone] as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.
B-2
APPENDIX C
NOTICE OF AN OPEN FORUM COMBINED PUBLIC IlEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF 1-85 FROM NORTII OF SR 2120
(EXIT 81) IN ROWAN COUNTY TO LIS 29-52-70/1-85 IN DAVIDSON COUNTY
Project 8.1631403
1-2304 Roivan and Davidson Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above open forum public:
hearing on July 26. 2001 between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and S:00 p.m. at the North Carolina
Transportation Ivluseum located at 411 South Salisbury Avenue in Spencer, North Carolina.
interested individuals may attend this informal drop in hearing at their convenience
between the above stated hours. Department of Transportation personnel will be available to
provide information and answer individual questions regarding this project.
The project proposes to widen 1-85 from the existing four lane divided highway to an
eight lane divided highway. In addition, interchanges and service roads are proposed to be
altered to improve safety along this stretch of 1-85. Anyone desiring additional information may
contact Ms. Leigh Lane at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone at 919-
250-4092, or email at ilane(ii,dot.state. nc.us.
A copy of the Environmental Assessment describing the project and a map setting forth
the location and design are available for public review at the Rowan County Manager's Office
located at 202 North Main Street in Salisbury and the Spencer Town Hall located at 600
South Salisbury Avenue in Spencer.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the hearing to comply with ADA. To receive special services, please contact Ms.
Lane at the above address or phone number or fax [phone] to provide adequate notice
prior to the date of the meeting so that arrangements can be made.
C-1
I-85
From North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson
County
T.I.P. Number I-2304A
Project Number 8.1631403
Federal Aid Number NHF-85-3(164)80
OPEN FORUM PUBLIC HEARING
North Carolina Transportation Museum
Spencer, NC
July 26, 2001.
C-2
Purpose of Hearing
Today we are holding an "Open Forum" public hearing. This is a format where individuals may
drop in anytime and speak with a representative of the Division of Highways about this project.
This gives citizens the opportunity to ask questions and receive information one on one style.
We find this style works well when there is a project of this nature where many individual
property owners are expected to have questions about the effects of the project on their property.
The opportunity to offer comments about the project is still provided, either through comments
spoken to representative or through written comments submitted as a part of the hearing. The
written comments will be accepted for a period of 15 days following today's hearing. The
attached comment sheet includes an address where these comments may be sent. A tape recorder
will be available for us to record your comments as another option for you to voice your opinion.
These comments will be transcribed and included as part of the public hearing record.
Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to ask questions and submit comments
about this project. All input will be reviewed and discussed by Department staff at a post
hearing meeting. Changes requested will be considered as to how they will affect the safety,
cost, and design integrity of the project. Those changes that meet these criteria may be made to
the project.
Purpose of Project
I-85 has become very congested in Rowan and Davidson Counties. This type of congestion-not
only slows traffic and makes driving uncomfortable, but also creates a high accident potential,
especially on a high-speed highway. In addition, there is a very high percentage of truck traffic.
C-3
As shown below, traffic volumes are expected to increase dramatically over the next twenty
years.
Year Location Traffic Volume
(Vehicles per day)
1998 South of I-85 Business 57,200
1998 South of NC 150 56,000
2025 South of 1-85 Business 114,400
2025 South of NC 150 113,000
Review of accident information along this section of I-85 reveals that the accident rate is similar
to the accident rates on other rural interstates throughout North Carolina. However, the fatality
accident rate on this section is higher than the fatality accident rate for other rural interstates in
North Carolina. Further review of the accident data reveals that several of the accidents were
concentrated in and around the interchange areas along the subject project. Rear-end collisions
and vehicles running off the road constitute the largest percentage of the accidents. The
proposed project will help reduce the number of these types of accidents as well as the overall
safety of the highway.
As traffic volumes have increased over the years, the interchanges along this project including
US 29/70 Interchange, NC 150 interchange, Clark Road interchange, Belmont Boulevard
interchange, and US 29/70/I85 Business interchange no longer provide safe access to adjoining
roads. Left-hand entrance and exit ramps along with inadequate distances between interchanges
create traffic flow problems for merging and diverging vehicles. In addition, there are several
bridges along the project that are structurally deficient. The proposed interchanges and bridges
for this project are designed to meet the latest state and national standards.
C-4
Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation propose to widen I-85 from north of SR 2120
(Long Ferry Road) (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29/70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Davidson
County to an 8-lane interstate with a 46-foot median. The interchanges and service roads along
the project will be revised to accommodate the proposed widening. Inadequate bridges along the
project will be replaced to conform to current design standards. The following information
outlines proposed interchanges-and a few of the proposed service road revisions:
Willow Creek Drive (SR 2180) is a service road originating at Long Ferry Road (SR 2120) on
the east side of I-85. The road parallels 1-85 northward intersecting Hackett Road, which crosses
under I-85. The intersection is awkward, involving a railroad crossing and a very sharp turn.
The proposed-project eliminates this intersection by ending Hackett Road to the west of I-85.
Willow Creek Drive would be reconstructed to the east of its existing location throughout its
length, but will not connect to Hackett Road to provide access under I-85.
Hinkle Lane (SR 2181) is a service road beginning at SR 2120 on the west side of I-85. The
proposed project would reconstruct Hinkle Lane to the west and extend that road approximately
1500 feet to the north to improve access to Finetex.
The existing configuration and closeness of the US 29/70, NC 150, and Clark Road interchanges
negatively affect traffic flow as well as add to driver confusion. In order to provide safe traffic
flow the proposed project would replace these 3 interchanges with one full movement
interchange. The interchange would be located in the vicinity of the existing NC 150
interchange and would be a partial cloverleaf with loops and ramps in the southeast and
northwest quadrants.
Access to US 29/70 would be accommodated by a service road from the new interchange on the
west side of I-85. The new interchange would also provide direct access to Seven Oaks Drive
(SR 1285) to the east and NC 150 to the west.
C-5
Also along the east side of I-85,Ia service road would be provided parallel to I-85 and would
continue to north of the existing Clark Road Interchange. The Clark Road Interchange is
proposed to be eliminated.
The Belmont Boulevard Interchange will be reconstructed into a partial cloverleaf interchange.
The ramps and loops of the interchange will be located on the south side. The new interchange
will be constructed slightly to the south of the existing interchange.
Nine bridges along the project will be replaced or removed without replacement. Bridge #46
which carries 2 lanes of US 29/70 over the Yadkin River in the southbound direction, will
remain in place but will be closed to vehicular traffic. NCDOT, Rowan and Davidson County
Commissioners, the Transportation Museum, and the State Historic Preservation Office is
discussing opportunities to keep this bridge open to pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
Project Information
Length: 7 miles
Typical Section: Widen to 8-lane divided highway separated by a 46-foot median (see
enclosed figure)
Right of Way: Minimum of 300 feet
Relocations: Residences (33)
Businesses (4)
Estimated Costs: Right of Way ($5,419,000)
Construction ($138.240.000)
Total ($143,659,000)
C-6
0
f
i
0

W
e
b
b
? I ICTI .
kn
00
V
4-1
r
N
L
cu
? C
c? O
O ?
V
v N
C
C/
O C?
.1
r?.
V
7V{
10
O
3-.1
CL-(
a
a
a ?I
Ln C?
r
J
i
ai t
N 6
=° a q?
a c)
u LIC
b 3
b
b
7 -
C-7
Iz I
O
IL W
oZ Z
95 J
_N
1--
0O
W
W ? Q
I O
H
H
Z I
O
IL
Tentative Schedule
From Just North of SR 2120 to Just North of NC 150 (I-2304AA)
Right of Way: Fiscal Year 2003
Construction: Fiscal Year 2007
From Just North of NC 150 to I-85 Business (I-2304 AB)
Right of Way: Fiscal Year 2005
Construction: Fiscal Year 2007
State-Federal Relationship
This is a proposed Federal-Aid Highway Project and will be constructed under the Federal-Aid
Highway Program. Funding for this project will be 80% from Federal funds and 20% from State
funds. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is responsible for the
selection, scheduling, location, design, and construction of the project. NCDOT is responsible
for 100% of the maintenance of the roadway after it is built. The Federal Highway
Administration is responsible for the review and approval of the previously- mentioned activities
to ensure that the project is designed and constructed to Federal-Aid standards.
C-8
Right of Way Procedures
Upon completion of the final design, the proposed right of way limits will be staked on the
ground. A Right of Way Agent familiar with the project plans and impacts will contact
individual property owners. Professionals familiar with real estate values will evaluate or
appraise the property. After the appraisal is reviewed for completeness and accuracy, the Right
of Way Agent will make a written offer to the property owner. Compensation for the property
will be based on the current market value of the property at its highest and best use. The
Department of Transportation must:
Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. . Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
Relocation Information
If you are a Relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as a part of the
project, additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is available to you. An
agent can provide you with assistance on locations of comparable housing and/or commercial
establishments, moving procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses may be paid for you.
Additional monetary compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage
increases, increased value of comparable homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program is
available to assist business owners. Your Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail.
NOTE: Pamphlets summarizing right of way procedures and
relocatee advisory assistance are available upon request.
C-9
COMMENT SHEET
1-85
From North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to
US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in
Open Forum Public Hearing
1-2304A Project 8.1631403 Rowan and Davidson
July 26; 2001
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
Leigh B. Lane
Public Involvement and Community Studies Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail] '
c-1o
APPENDIX D
Design Noise Report
1-2304AA
D-1
DESIGN NOISE REPORT
Interstate 85, from North of SR 2120 in Rowan County
to North of of NC 150 in Davidson County
State Project.8.1631403, TIP # 1-2304AA
PROJECT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION
This project involves widening and relocation of Interstate 85 to a eight-
lane divided interstate with a partial cloverleaf interchange at US 29-52-70 / NC
150. The project includes the the reconfiguration of SR 1138 / SR 1139 and NC
150. A shifting of the horizontal alignment of SR 1285 will also occur as a part of
this project. The project begins north of SR 2120 in Rowan County and
terminates north of NC 150 in Davidson County. Figure 1 illustrates the project
study area. lAccess will be fully controlled on the majority of the project, (posted
speed limit to be 65 mph). Access will be partially controlled for SR 1139, SR 1138
(no posted speed limit). Access will be partially controlled for SR 1285 and NC
150 (north of the interchange) (posted speed limits to be 45 mph.) Access will be
partially controlled for Service Road 'B' (NC 150 south of the interchange) and
Service Road 'D' (posted speed limits to be 55 mph.)
PROCEDURE
This design noise report presents a more detailed analysis of the
improvements for this section of Interstate 85. As part of this evaluation, current
existing noise levels were measured in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Predictions were also made of the maximum design year peak hour traffic noise
levels expected by receptors in the vicinity of the project. The procedure used
to predict future noise levels in this study was the Federal Highway Administration
Traffic Noise Model, version 1.1 (FHWA TNM).
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many
sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generating 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 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).
D-2
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency
characteristics that correspond to a human's subjective response to noise.
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 1.
Review of Table 1 indicates that most individuals
i
exposed to fairly high noise levels-from many sources as they g urbanized areas are
activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound eir daily
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 intruding
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 angered if an unwanted noise
persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into a person's judgment of
sleeping whether or hours not a noise is objectionable. For example, noises occurring during
are usually considered to be more objectionable than the
noises in the daytime. same
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted sound in terms of its relationship to noise from other
sources (background noise). The blowing of a car hom 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 noise levels might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the disruption of an individual's activities due
to noise. 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..
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude
into their daily lives, particularly if the 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.
D-3
In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have
developed rapidly over the past few years.
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as Leq (h). The hourly
Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in an hour
would contain the same acoustic energy as the 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.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
To determine if highway noise levels are compatible with various land
uses, the FHWA has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise. A summary of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land
uses is presented in Table 2. One factor for considering traffic noise mitigation is
when future noise levels either approach or exceed the criteria levels for each
activity category. Title 23 CFR, Section 772.11 (a) states, "in determining and
abating traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is to be given to exterior
areas. Abatement will usually be necessary only where frequent human use
occurs and a lowered noise level would be of benefit." For this project, the
identified receptors are residential (category B) and business (category C) with
3 churches and evaluated as category E. No receptors were identified for
activities A or D.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise is that which results from natural and mechanical sources
and human activity, and that which is considered to be usually present in a
particular area. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the
existing acoustic environment and to provide o base for assessing the impact for
future noise levels from the project on the residential neighborhoods. Figure 2
displays the study area and the location of. the noise measurement sites. Field
measurements were taken at representative locations using a Nor116 Precision
Sound-Level Meter. The micfophone was located at a strategic point 50 feet
from the center line of the near lane of travel and at an elevation approximately
5 feet above the existing ground. The duration of the sampling period at these
measurement sites was 20 minutes. The ambient noise levels are listed in Table 3.
D-4
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure.
Generally, traffic is composed of a large number of variables which describe
different vehicles 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.
The TNM traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of
vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of
the road (horizontal and vertical alignment, grades, cut or fill sections, etc.),
receptor location and height; and, Wdloplicable; barrier type, barrier ground
elevation, and barrier top elevation. .
The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed. Design
hour and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared for the proposed
alternative. The volume which resulted in the noisiest conditions was used with
posted speeds to predict future noise levels. During all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
First, this computerized model was used to determine the number of land
uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour in the design
year 2025. The basic approach was to select receptor locations at 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 result of this procedure was a grid of receptor
points along the project alignment. Using.this grid, noise levels were calculated
for each identified receptor along the project. Receptors calculated to
approach or exceed the FHWA NAC or to experience a substantial increase will
be analyzed in detail in subsequent sections of this report.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in
Table 4. Information included in this table is a listing of all receptors in close
proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the
estimated noise level increases for each.
The exposure impacts of the project are listed in Table 5 and are noted in
terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in
exterior noise levels. Other information included in Table 5 is the maximum
extent of the 67 dBA and the 72 dBA noise level contours and the predicted
noise levels at 50, 100, and 200 feet for each roadway segment. The 67 dBA
and 72 dBA noise level contours are generally used to assess the exposure
impacts of land uses since receptors, particularly residential receptors which are
located within the 67 dBA noise level contour, could be expected to experience
traffic noise levels above the FHWA NAC: Furthermore, this information is
provided to assist local authorities .in exercising land use control over the
D-5
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway and to prevent further
development of incompatible activities and land uses.
Table 6 indicates the change in exterior traffic noise levels for the project's
identified receptors. Decreases or no increase in noise levels are typical on
relocation projects due to the physical shifting of the roadway further away from
these receptors.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS/ABATEMENT MEASURES
Traffic noise impacts occurwhema) the.predieted.design.year noise
levels approach or exceed those values shown for the appropriate activity
category of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (Table 2), with approach values
being 1 dBA less than shown in the table; or b) the predicted design year noise
levels substantially exceed existing noise levels, as defined in Table 7.
For proposed federal roadway projects, the FHWA requires that States
consider noise abatement measures for receptors which fall in either category.
The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the
proposed project.
Highway Alignment Selection
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 locating the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. This project calls for building the relocated freeway in a corridor of land
already reserved for its construction and use. Thus, substantially altering the
horizontal alignment of the freeway is not reasonable or feasible from a planning
and design standpoint.
Changes in the vertical alignment can be effective in limiting noise
impacts of certain highway facilities. However, no major alterations in the
vertical alignment are necessary for noise purposes in the design of this project.
The planned vertical alignment is suitable for the substantial number of heavy
trucks that will use this facility., The operation of heavy trucks can be adversely
affected if the vertical grades are excessively steep and/or long. The planned
vertical alignment also takes into account the grade-separated roadway
crossings and interchanges designed along this project.
D-g
Traffic S stem 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.
Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of
10 mph would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2 dBA.
Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA and
because reducing the. speed limit would -reduce-roadway capacity, it is not
considered a viable noise abatement measure. This and other traffic system
management measures, including the prohibition of truck operations, are not
considered to be consistent with the project's objective of providing a high-
speed, controlled access facility.
-Noise Barriers
Noise barriers reduce noise levels by blocking the sound path between a
roadway and noise sensitive areas. This measure is most often used on high-
speed, controlled access facilities where noise levels are high and there is
adequate space for continuous barriers. Noise barriers may be constructed
from a variety of materials, either individually or combined, including concrete,
wood, metal, earth and vegetation.
Due to several traffic noise impacts predicted for the 2025 design year, a
noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project. The evaluation was
accomplished in two steps. First, a qualitative barrier evaluation was performed
for each impacted receptor which considered each receptor's FHWA NAC
activity category, source-receptor relationships, impacted site densities, and
the ability to have continuous barriers. The qualitative evaluation resulted in the
selection of three potential barrier locations, to possibly reduce or eliminate
future noise impacts of residences along Interstate 85.
There were other areas predicted to be impacted, `but these sites did not
pass the qualitative evaluation. Single-family residences and businesses along
NC 150, Old US 29-70 and Salisbury Rd. (SR 1147) were impacted,however, these
receptors will continue to have direct driveway access, and a continuous barrier
that would be needed for a sufficient noise level reduction could not be built.
Receptors in the form of businesses along Service Rd. 'D' and adjacent to 1-85
were not included in the barrier evaluation since,
it generally is not considered reasonable to provide unless special abatement for bu'sines es'st,
since they usually prefer high visibility from the highway. Also these receptors
where isolated.
0-7
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the
highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to
construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings
(driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would
normally be 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).
The second step of the barrier evaluation involved the computer
modeling of noise barriers at the candidate locations, using the FHWA's TNM
(version 1.1) barrier simulation model. The analysis was accomplished by
developing barriers with TNM, which would meet minimum noise reduction goals
at the impacted sites, by estimating the cost of the barrier, and by determining
the cost per benefited receptor. The NCDOT defines benefited receptors as all
receptors, impacted and non-impacted, which, by placement of the noise
mitigation measure, receive a minimum noise level reduction of 5 dBA.
In order for a noise barrier to be considered feasible, it must meet, among
other factors, the following conditions:
l . Provide a minimum insertion loss of 5 dBA, preferable 8 dBA
or more (for receptors adjacent to the project);
2. Located in an acoustic environment where no other noise
sources are present.
3. Suitable for construction given the topography of the
location.
A primary consideration of the reasonableness of noise barrier installation
is that it costs no more than $25,000 per benefited receptor (those impacted or
non-impacted receptors receiving 5 dBA or more reduction).
D-8
BARRIER LOCATION 1 - Interstate .85 (Right Side) near the Begin of Project and
south of the interchange
impacted Residences 6 - 8, 9, 13-15,20-21,24-27, 29-30
Noise mitigation in the form of a wall was analyzed for impacted
residences and along Interstate 85 near the Begin of Project, south of the
proposed interchange (Figure 3). The barrier studied was one designed to
mitigate all receptors in this area, a total of 16 residences. The total length
of this barrier is 2697 feet and it would be located between 1-85 and
Service Rd. '2'. The exposed surface of the wall will average 19 feet in
height with a minimum height of 8 feet and a maximum height of 24 feet.
This mitigation measure would effectively benefit (provide at least a 5 dBA
reduction) 16 of the analyzed receptors at a cost of $764,800. Thus, the
cost per benefited receptor is $47,800.
Since this barrier does not meet the cost criterion of a maximum
expenditure of $25,000 per benefited residence, established in the
NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines, the walls are not considered
reasonable and feasible by NCDOT guidelines. Hence, we do not
recommend the construction of a noise wall in this area.
BARRIER LOCATION 2 - Interstate 85 (Left Side) south of the interchange
Impacted Residences 34, 36, 40-48, 51-61 & 63-98
Impacted Business 38-39
Noise mitigation in the form of a wall was analyzed for impacted
residences along Interstate 85 and Service Rd. 'B' (Figure 3). The barrier
studied was designed for mitigation of all receptors in this area, a total of
.58 residences & 2 businesses. A wall was studied to eliminate or reduce
noise impacts in this area. The total length of this barrier is 5200 feet and it
would be located between Interstate 85 and Service Rd. 'B'. The
exposed surface of the wall will average 18 feet in height, with a
minimum height of 10 feet and a maximum height of 24 feet. This
mitigation measure would effectively benefit (provide at least a 5 dBA
reduction) 53 of the analyzed residences and business at a cost of
$1,205,800. Thus, the cost per benefited receptor is $22,750.
Since this barrier does meet the cost criterion of a maximum expenditure
of $25,000 per benefited residence, established in the NCDOT Noise
Abatement Guidelines, the walls are considered reasonable and feasible
by NCDOT guidelines. Hence, we do recommend the construction of a
noise wall in this area.
D-9
BARRIER LOCATION 3 - Interstate 85 (Left Side) near the End of Project & north of
the interchange
Impacted Residences 107-108,110-119,122-124,
143-150.
Noise mitigation in the form of a wall was analyzed for impacted
residences along Interstate 85 and Salisbury Rd. (SR 1147) (Figure 3). The
barrier studied was designed for mitigation of all receptors in this area, a
total of 23 residences. A wall was studied to eliminate or reduce noise
impacts in this area. The total length of this barrier is 3800 feet and it
would be located between Interstate 85 and Salisbury Rd. (SR 1147). The
exposed surface of the wall will average 23 feet in height, with a
minimum height of 10 feet and a maximum height of 24 feet. This
mitigation measure would effectively benefit (provide at least a 5 dBA
reduction) 9 of the analyzed residences at a cost of $1,306,300. Thus, the
cost per benefited receptor is $145,145.
Since this barrier does not meet the cost criterion of a maximum
expenditure of $25,000 per benefited residence, established in the
NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines, the walls are not considered
reasonable and feasible by NCDOT guidelines. Hence, we do not
recommend the construction'of a. noise wall in this area.
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
wooded areas and other natural and man-made features are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
D-10
SUMMARY
Noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of roadway projects. A
total of 101 residences and 7 businesses will become impacted by highway
traffic noise with the construction of this project. 95 of these residences and 2
businesses located in three separate areas, meet NCDOT feasibility and
reasonableness requirements for noise abatement measures. In areas where
noise walls were evaluated as possible mitigation of impacted receptors, two
were found to exceed the cost criteria of $25,000 per benefited residence, and
are not, therefore, recommended.. ln. lieu of concrete. walls, or where walls are
not recommended, vegetative plantings could be provided for visual screening.
However one location met the cost criteria as outlined in the NCDOT guidelines
as being reasonable and feasible for construction , and is therefore
recommended.
Furthermore a total of 112 residences and 11 businessess will be impacted
by highway traffic noise as a result of not constructing this project or the "No
Build" alternative. It should also be noted that a total of 57 residences and 10
businesses are impacted at the existing level.
It is anticipated that there will be approximately 20 relocations as result of
construction of this project.
D-11

aI
. .
- - 1155 1151
END
PROJECT
1295
3123
1139 1 5 0 1147
` 1285
1140 1138 1136
1139 2 2
1313 70
_ 1138 129
1285
'so
NTY
150 r 52 - : -
y 20 \t -
13 70 (F5)
RAILWAy
UWERN
1919
2124 QtY mit
Sp + CER.- 2122
2123 2180
BEGIN
PROJECT
1 - All --- _- '
2176 2168
X21 2119
2120
2120 2173
?? \
__ I1\ ``2120
85 2220
Figure 1 - PROJECT LOCATION
1-85, from North of SR 2120 in Rowan County to North of NC 150 in Davidson County
TIP # 1-2304AA, State Project 8.1631403
D-12
TABLE 1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140
130
120
110
100
90
D
E 80
C
I
B 70
E
L
S 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff
Motor test chamber
Firecrackers
Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music
Textile loom
Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory
Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away
Quiet typewriter
Singing birds, window air-conditioner
Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office
Household refrigerator
Quiet office
Average home
Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 ft. away
Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
Whisper
PAIN
HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
LOUD
MODERATELY LOUD
QUIET
VERY QUIET
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF
JUST AUDIBLE
THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE
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.
D-13
TABLE 2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance 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.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation area, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residence, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
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, lbraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.
D-14
1155 1151
END
4 PROJECT
3123 1295
2
1139 1147
-
150
? i - 1z a5 ?J
1140
1138 1.136
... 1139. !. 52 29
1313 ?.`
70
'` , 129
1 = -- i
138 1285 ! ! -
000,
oI/N? f;.
150 - - _ `CO r1TY
r 52
70
85 -
w
• Y
sou'Was
r 1919 -
2124 C!(}, Mft
Sp cER-- _2122
-- - --- BEGIN
4
P .2.
2'23 2180 PROJECT
212 \
?Ll _
1 2119
/ J 2176 2168 -
2100
2120:
?` \ ?? 2120 2173
\
- `85 2220 2120
?f
Figure 2 - AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
1-85, from North of SR 2120 in Rowan County to North of NC 150 in Davidson County
TIP # 1-2304AA, State Project 8.1631403
D-15
TABLE 3
' AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
Interstate 85
From North of SR 2120 in Rowan County to North of NC 150 In Davidson County
State Project # 8.1631403, TIP # 1-2304AA
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1 Clark Road (SR 1136) (') South of SR 1285 Grass Area 53.5
2 Old US 29-70 (SR 1138) South of SR 1290 Gravel / Dirt Area 59.2
3 Salisbury Rd. (SR 1147) East of NC 150 Grass Area 61.0
4 NC 150 North of SR 1147 Grass Area 61.4
5 US 29-70 / NC 150 @ NC Finishing Plant Asphalt Area 62.3
6 Interstate 85 @ NC 150 Westbound Ramp Grass Area 79.4
NOTE: These sites represent a measurement of traffic noise at 50 feet
from the center of the nearest travel lane. (Unless otherwise indicated)
(') Indicates Background Ambient Reading
DA6
Q
W
J
m
F
O
W
Q
N
O
IL
x
W
W
_N
O
Z
v
a
Ir
1-
a
W
J
a
Q
O
O
W
L7
z
Q
S
U
m
all
I .-
z
W
O
F
O
N
O
F
H
V
W
O
CL
z
W
m
CO
W
F
Q
H
rA
Q
W
H
z
13 •

_
m
O
?
m d

C

MC

OV)

?

?

M

1
r

4t

00

0.)

CY

W

i

V

1-

V

V

V

1n

?A

Of

W

W

W
•
zJ ?
v r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ? ? ? r
Z

7 h m
a
a Q d N O ? O m l? ?D
' N OO CQ I? NI L9 r 4*0 0 o0 40
• C0 0o
r !D `
T N
m
.?
J m cD
CD ?t c7 ? p
a ^^
( co
? m N N Cp 1? u> CD C.- ,
m Cp
a XZ
V ^
1 M h D O D I? I? A W
> {O t0
° Il tp
Z : ,?. -
2A1 + 3 .. ; ti, y. 2 i
du T
ri
ay
fR
S ?-+ l
f A ? 1 L T W1 '?1 'S
V "'? ir k ! :x: ?• '` _ s ?
i 4

2 "a
2
2
c 10
o V
w

m

m

m
q m Q
m N Of
N c? N O r?t 7 8 ul q an 5 V f,. t ? ao (O O
O•
Z J C N 0
m
o
m U) CM N O O O N N N O O r N N O
- 8 C M

Q
Q
cr 0
cc m
cc m
cc o
Q o
Q m
Q 6
cc 75
Q
x

m m
x? w
it
'?'
y
k t1 h> Q N C? h it N Of C-4 w 61 w to o
l
:6
J Co
?
t^O
?
?
?
m ?p
CO ?
tO
.
.
. *
?
m
? p
?p
t
m
0Z
O. N 1.. kr ? O Y:
.d o 5

Q
in
m . V
m

? m

o. m
J
'o
v
C
m m

> Q O

D O cm -W 0 to v

Z W cO O CO r h cl r- r q "-t c4
C9
0
N
r'
CO
P
t?
m Q
m
?zJ CO
TS C
h tp
P C7
1? r
1, 0
1? r
00 CG
0D
? W
Ih N
h
1z
at co m
0 tD
1. N
P. CD
co t[i
d ?
P. C
P.
tD 7
CD
Q V l l l .
O Z'
O
CL
m
m U U m tD m m m m m m C? m m ?D m m m m m m tD m fd m m
o
¢ V
m
y
y m m m m m m m m O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

??

y

? C r 0

C C)

C U

C U

C V

C U

C U

C pp

C U

C V

C vv

C V

C 0

C C)

C p

C IS

C
U
C
C1
C
pp
C
V
C
U
C
U
C
CL m
c m
c m m m m m
• m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
• m m
m?
• ? v v ? o ? v ? ? v ? v v v v v ? v v v a v v
V C N CA W •N ifl (q •N N Z •N m in fq Z Z Z Z W a Z
!A
N
H
in
t/l
m O > > m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
¢J cc co m X CC cc ar CC cc cc cc cc rt cc CC ¢ cc Q cc cr X cc cc cc cc
O
M
CG r N M tf 10 CO I? 0 0f O r N C7 ? 1p CO f? 00 0> O r N C7 < <A
r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N
m

D-17
}
m
W
U
Q
a
ac
0
a
W
U
W
Q
m
c
L
O
v
.
v
W
J
m
N
W
¢
N
O
CL
x
W
W
N
O
z
U
U.
a
¢
v
W
J
Q
Q
0
M
W
C7
z
Q
S
U
W
F-
z
O
H
O
U)
O
f-
f-
U
W
O
¢
a
zW
m
0
0
W
F
Q
N
W
f
z
m
m ? > d
m
to
0
1?
0
O
f'c
fCD
N
N
r
tp
tA
N
O
Q
?
tf
lf?
N
to
l?
O
r
r
J V
p z v r r r r r N N N r r O r r r r r r r r r r r N N
Z C
f }
I -'' ? + 1 -* SJ ' .` 4
7a aq Q
L n
O
V o r 0 0
0 0
n O? N tg tp O r
Y .
CQ C? Ig Go v to tp
?C
a I
to
t0
tp O
f 0
0 C
lw
n
^
tQ Co 0
- tC n tp 0 O t7
O
Z . m 0 to CD tD to to
T
" .

Qi h
C ` ..
m
Co
r m
to
0;
Cu
O

r-
M
in
0

0

0

0

N

0

r

tT

tp

tt

CC

M

et

n m

V
zJ
v 6 C-i
.2 v tti r' r C ?- 6 ?: 0 C
, o o IN
tV
tV
Co)
of
CV
O
C ? m
ac
sf v m Q
CO
fl: in,
C N . r
v to
i st O
? N O tn O ? ?t N N th t?. fr` n .+ 0

O z J
v
m D
to 0
n 0
CD
t0 tt
CO to
CO t
m to
t0 K
Co Cf
M tQ
1 C?
t? 0
to CD
Co Cf
tD C
t? 0
f?

} m N 01
? N N ? CD to r ^ Q tO to r r O
?
°:-
? r
u?
tn v
tn 0
M 0
tO
t? of
? ad
? 0
tn tri
tp tti
? o
to ?
tn o
to r
tc
d
v m
d J ?
a`
J a
m r
? M 0 to
I tc n t? n r` 0, 0 in n m r
f
Co a
f W Tm n ro n to n m tri oi C
D to er r- N w 0 0 r- 0 w 0 w N
C
C
m C 0 m
p Q
m 1n
IM N
t7 ?
O> M
in Of
N r
th N
f n
ri O
m v O
o tt)
C Ot
C M CA r M f? M Of v n M O
00
Q Z J
v
Co
Co
0
to
t0
to e
CO t
t0
t0 ?
t0 t
t0
? t
n ai
n tt>
to tt L
0 n
tD tn
n U)
to in
to 6
tD m
Co f:
to C6
to

C p
V m M C O M M M O U m m to CO W U U m m m m m m Co m Co m
0 R
¢U
>_m
p
d!
?'
tz to
U
C m
U
C m
U
C m
U
C to
U
C
y
N
ra
N

m

0 tn
V

C m

U
C m

U
C to

V
C

=

g
N
m

y
N
tD tn

U
C m

U
C m

U
C m

V
C m

U
C mm

U U
C C m

U
C m

U
C m

U
C

tam W
x to
:2 to
:2 d
:2 O
:2 C
C
C M
r m
-0 m
-0. m
0 tD
.0
3
.v
v tD m m fD m m m
10 tD
*0 tD tD
tV {d m m m m m = I r
X N
0 y
10 y
0 V V > > N 0 N N N N ow U1 con N
¢J ac cc cc cc x to u) cc CC a: cc to i n or a: a: cc a: cc a: ac cc a:
O

«
f N
A
CL

? Co n CD rn O r N M vt o CO N CO rn O
r N M v t o
Co
n 0
w
V N N N N M M M Q M M M Co M M Co v w v etl wl w 1 w

D-18
J
W
w
J
Q
ac
L-
ac
U
Z
w
H
m
Q
W
Co
O
z
w
F--
C7
z
0
W
w
U
W
O
Q
O
ac
a
CL
a
m
O
FW-
U
Q
a
2
cc
a
w
U
W
ac

v
m
c
C
O
v
W
J
m
N
W
N
O
IL
x
au
W
T
O
Z
U
az
a
F
O
W
J
d
a
e
0
N
m
V-
U)
O
n
v?
N
U)
0
J
O
IL
iL
.J
¢
w
is
C)
ti;
W
M
w
h-
Q
m
s(
W
_a
0
Y
C)
5
ui
N
ui
Ci
0
_z
U
a:
C;
Q:
a.
CL.
a:
CD
0
W
t-
U
Q
a
O
a
W
U
W
¢
D-19
V
m
C
C
O
V
W
J
m
Q
N
W
Q
M
N
0
m
x
W
W
N
0
Z
U
LL
W
Q
1-'
W
J
Q
Q
O
N
N
m
Cl)
N_
O
CA
N
N
D
J
0
!6 m
7 YOl ? ? Q tp
N O N
N l7
V C7 ?f fh sT l9 ? ? W <D r ?7 0f lA r r p? O r h CO

j r C N N C4 r i 66 7 6 6 4 4 46 4 N r 4 4 4 4
z ...
Z
a m Q CR co ! R co C4 W 0 cR o .- a e? e7 o as o
axz? Q i m K AD
m

m
O
t ?m
O m et
4 a
4 V w (O C7 N C7 Q 0 " O f% tO C? tO O (A O C) ? O M )A
I
.
ZJ C) ?O O 46 49 0 W 6 tp 6 9 0 v 0 to LO UO In v 7 tA aD tG ?G
C cc
t µ !!c
L C=
? ,Fµ
8 :?.-I
S
+. _ _ 1
K \t y Y
M xh
' f
fv. ?? , f

V lA 0)
k
10
Q
?
)O
?
t
0
?
^k
r
?
?
m
?
1
?
4
m
?
O
A
O
?
?
Q:

Z ID

?

m

h

4.

?

O
aC
Dp
(D

t?O

(?O

C?p
a
?ap
(

O
L?
op
f?
t
a
?o

?

?
d ., O O i0t tp

? O CO r tO 0 t0 r N at N t CO N CO O r O O r R N et
co cm 0 CO (6 (6 Co P P co co 0 0 0 - aD OD CD 0) 0) M 0)
d V tO ?D (O to U) U) ) to 0 4) U0 (O (0 co t0 to 0 U) In W) U) U)
v >

m J
a Q h 1q O N O) 't I? r N h I? IO OR r Of Ch (D N I, M tq (O tA
J m m
co c6
ca

l co

r
l N

nrl
l O a)

(o co

w m

(o CD

(o co

( co W co co U p

? tti ui m t0 (G (C
v I 1 D
I W (o co (v (o (o ( (o (o co (a (o cc
C
m m Q ch r tO l-: et O (0 00 0) t0 (C OR 0! aq ? N O CO st q-t 0 00 ? N
O m
EZ J m
v w
(o w
(O N
f- w
(O f(
to w
(a v
(O m
(o m
(o m
c r-
w N N
a), N
(O s
C
co c
'
to l
t0 i
co
(o N
(o N
tO
m
tO
Co
Q
O
M O
CL
Cm
m d
m
m
U
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
co
to
d
Q U
•• 01
N 0)
C m
C co
co m
(?
C 0)
, (D
C) m
(7 O
U (D
U 0)
U m
U m
U 0)
U m
C) 0)
G 0)
U O)
U 0
C) 0)
C) 0)
U O
C) 0)
U 07
U m
U

d
(D
01
C
0) C
0) C
5 C
0 C
(D C
0) C
0) C
0 C
0 C
07 C
0 C
0 C
0 C
0 C
0 C
m C
m C
m C
0 C
N C
0)
d v v v v o o 0 o v v v v v v v v o o
O C

01 0Z
h

0)
C)

0)
W
H

0)
N

0/
to

01
H
0)

d
M

m
to

Oi
(a

01
(A

0)
co

0)
U)

O
A)

m
M

0)
to

07

O
'A

.?
0)

fA
m

N
07

fA
0)

N
0)

to
0)
?-? t ¢ ac m cc cc Q ft ¢ cc ¢ a: 2 fr a: 2 a0 0 0 a: cc cc d: a: Q
O
d0 (t9 (O P CD O) O " N C9 et U9 (O P 00 0) O r N V) V t0 (O ?? co
O J n r` r` r` ? O 0D CD CO 00 W O O 0 O Q) O) O 0 D) O O O) O)
ID
Q
D-20
co
`W
J
W
J
m
`W
U
Q
a
cc
0
IL
W
U
W
Q
L-i
to
c
O
U
a
W
J
m
Q
H
N
W
Q
.7
to
O
n
x
W
W
N
O
Z
U
LL
U.
Q
m
F
W
J
Q
Q
Q
Co
Cl)
N
N
Q
W
O
an
U
Z
!6
a?
_
7 p 0? W _
Q
r
er
6
O
1:
M
0
6
lA
6
tA
6
tD
4
O
f?
O
tA
ttl
tO
?
el
?
r
N
O
r
CD
?tD
Z J
Z tO ( ? C L M M M N N N N N N N N N eF li 4N
a

_
?
_
? r: r

?
w:.
a
' .?
r4E
r
F
h 01
? Q 1? M
M tO r ?
M ^ Q) tA O P I? CS i3 C1) it P ? W ? m ?O.
C
i
f0
(
O
?
?
i
O
?
tD
?
? ?p
tO O
tD
C
? m
?
?
m
?
COO
n
m m
m
Zj
) D
AV -

h
h
O ?
Q
m
0
)

h
w
D
w
D
w
6
v
6
r
?
^
6
co
co
M
M
M
O
Cf
tD
CD
tA
N
CD
M
'T
OO
0 b.

C
Z .j tt t t 1 ui of 4 4 4 4 m C9 N C7 N C7 of ?A tpC7

x
/ I\
Q T
OQ
O
C
t
O
t?
tD
A '
C
m ?
CD ?
tD'
?A m
to
to R
tC
h A
A ?
D ?
D
O C? C
f m w?
N 01
!

•ZJ
V
co
CD
CD
m
to
fD
CO
t0 I
co C
CD CD
w O)
CD CI
w ?
m O
t0 Of
CD
t? C
)
t0 C
?? 0
COto
IL c k 1 .? r ;F

? Q

01 _
V ?

m J ...
? J m

C
fl
m y t
0-6 m Q
co tD
m 0
t9 tD
r; M
0 to
C6 N
t0 ?-
0; to r M ^ to t0 O M W t0 (? r t` CO CO
(v
.
aZJ
to
to
to
w
w
w
w r
o O
w M
0 M
0 w
w w
to w
0 m
w w
w w
0 w
0 rl
to v
r M
to
co IV M
co to

`o Z'
« O

lm
e2
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
U
m
m
U
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
mm
on
IS Oi 0
C 07
C O
C 0)
C m
C 01
co pOp
C
y qt m
t) m
C
IA tD
U m
U v
t) tD
U m
O m
D m
U m
t) O 0 N a1 m
C
Q O
arm O/
v m
? 0/
v 0/
o m
e m
v m
? m
c ^
m m
o m
v m
? m
v m
o cy
? m
v m
v m
v m
a m
v m
v c
v c
v c m
vv
a C
01 01 W
at fA
tD W
m W
O H
O W
07 W
m N
? d1 dl
m W
0) g
7 N

m W
01 W d) W W W (A W W M
0) W M
m m
¢J cc cc tc cr. C Q m . Q f C
r cc m m
t 0)
2 m
0 O
0 m
0 m
2 O/
[C IL Q[L

Q
« m
C 0 M O r N
0 Cl)
0 V
0 U)
0 D
0 (A P?
O 0
O 0
O 0 r N M ?
- tC1 tO 1?
r UD N
N M
N ?M
Nef
Oi
? 0 0
r 0
r r r r r r a r r r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r r
r r r r r
?

D-21
J
w
W
J
W
cc
U
Z
w
2
w
¢
m
w
S2
O
Z
w
H
Z_
0
w
w
X
w
m
O
0
Z
S
O
a
a
m
O
w
U
IL
2
Q
0O
IL
w
U
W
D
m
C
C
O
U
7
W
J
m
Q
F-
N
W
¢
N
O
a
x
w
W
N
O
Z
U
LL
LL
Q
t-
W
J
Q
Q
lie
O
O
N
Q
r
tn,
0
Q
O
¢
}
¢
m
m
N
J
Q
to
la m
/n
? ? ? R
.O
m O ^
Q
m
N
6
N
6
r-
6
I?
6
t?
6
te
6
l.
4
.-
6
Of
N
?
4
?
4
m
6
O)
6
7
4
Of
?O
?
?
O
N
?
N
?
N
m
,-
N
N
.
m
O Z J C
v N ?
z
s
13
a m
a Q c; u? p?, us ? co *? co co 1 R R 'q: q It ul t? i4
I ; on o
m
o m
b K z J m Ie
to ld
m N
m ao
0 ao
m i:
m m m
m ao
to o
t? o
i. ei
cc oi
c? ?
r? ux
U, o?
t+ v
n
9 r?
t. e+?
P a
A ui
N v
v

- - n

m h
O
m m i.
Q
m
ID
O
O
0
M
IW
f.
rn
m
It
?.
N
IO
iq r r r
C
IO
-T
N r
?
N
O
Z J c d 4 ui arn (d v I6 N ?- 1i C? ? .= C R O O o v m v v O N

¢ ¢ ¢ Q

.x v Q o lo ?• r? o cti o a, m a? 0i ao ? m m o Ln ,- lo c
?v o m ^
IO t??D ? CI

o

?'a

?o'

o
t

g ti

°I? oi

m (

a

rt`o r;

co r •
fA V
to
CD
U)
? ? ? t. i. t. t. t• v
CL s

? Q

m.

o
V
O
?
m J
CL
J co
M?
W

O
¢
., a
C
A m
Q
h
C9
OD
N
O
O
N
O)
10
to
r
O)
o
0
7
In
O
??
•-
O
CO
CO
m N M n 0 N et N te ln co C DW Ll n z 17 ^^ O) N O - r N IV N
QZJ v to m to co m m lO m co m co m m m 1 f 11 t- h f-_ h P t? d
o
i?
W

z
O
O
o m m co m co m co m m m m m co m U Q m m m U U U U U U W
¢ V W
H
z_
LL
O
m
ow m
U m
U m m m
e m
U m m m m m
U m
U v
V
H =
H m
0 m
0 m
0
H
y
u)
y
y
y
.+ '
a C C
° c
C
m c
C
m C
m C
m c
C
°I c
C
m c
C
m C
c
°' C
m C
m C
m m ¢ C C C
m 0 m m m O m V
`

m m '
v
o
v
v c O m m c c c c c c -
D
V C ?
y ?
N v
h
N
W _
H ?
N

0 2

M :2

0 :

W 2
N
N
N
Z
3

to
32

'A

N

y

N

N

N

H

H

L
¢ J D1
cc m
(C m
Q m
Q m
Q 0
Q N
Q N
Q m
Q m
Q m
¢ m
Q 0
? c
m ? ID
cc 40
cc m
ir m
m
m
m m
Co 7
CO m
CO

W
H

O
r N

p,
?
N
m
n
10
O)
O
?
N
1?
?
W
m
?
¢
O>
O
?
?
m
f`
m
tA
O _
O
N
et
V
tf
v
v
v
tn
ln
te
le
a
tn
te
ln
W
?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
19
1h
(? ? r ? r r r ?•- ? r r r ? ? ? ?- } ? ? ? r r r r ?- ? r
m
¢ Z
0000000
D-22
40
J
m
H
w
W
Q
U)
O
IL
x
W
W
_N
O
Z
U
W
W
Q
Q
W
J
Q
Q
O
M
.S
W)
V-
0
Z
O
d
.7
m
m I! > m m O W -t r N O M Q r- v M
O m `
Z J c m
r 4 4 N t'M St in r ? N N N
Z
s
s
' m
d Q GD O r t- V N N V M M m
an
O m
fiZJ m
v I?
M tt
I? Of
t0 6
Un .:
to 7
tD 6
to N
to N
w N
to t'7
0
Z
O
m h
a m a
> m
O m
a.
m
r

v

?
?

Q

7

7

6
to

N
ev

Ch
O

N
s?

N

7
ZJ= $
'o
m
fi V h Q g
: I*t q O O r- O N t0 "T 1-1

J m r
M to
t0 0
tD G
w -
w -
to C
to N
w N
w N
t e?
t
OZ 0 0
IL
Q
> m

tl m
m
?

d
J m
'C .
v

m h m Q O Ul pl: tO N to 't O m O t0
p m
E Z J m cm
M Oi
w co
w tC
to t`
an D
tp O
to M
to M
to O
to G
t0
Q
O
.. O
10m W U U m m m U m m m m
m t0
¢U
a_ m
O q
Z m
y y
y m
V m
V m
U
? m
U m
U m
V m
V
CL 2 m Cc
O
?
0 m

2

2

32
V? ? H N a :
m
¢J o
r U
- >
ao >
ao o
cL m
w o
cc m
cc o
cc ym
cc m
cc
U
Z
p r in
Q
O p N M
M Q N 0 W r W 0 0: ; N
m h M
r
r M
r m
r m
r m
r m
r o
r
r
r v
r
m N

D-23
}
m
O
W
U
Q
a
a
W
U
W
cc
TABLES
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Interstate 85
From North of SR 2120 in Rowan County to North of NC 150 in Davidson County
State Project # 8.1631403, TIP # 1-2304AA

ESCRIPTION MAXIMUM PREDICTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS
(dSA)•
50' 100' 200' . CONTOUR
DISTANCES
(MAXIMUM)"
72.dBA 67 dBA. APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPACTED
RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
A B C D E
Interstate 85 82 79 76 466' 969' 0 16 1 0 0
Begin Project to South of Interchange
Old US 29-70 (SR 1138) 60 56 51 <25' <25' 0 57 2 0 0
NC 150 East 67 63 57 25' 53' 0 5 0 0 0
Salisbury Road (SR 1147) 64 60 54 <25' 34' 0 22 0 0 0
Interstate 85 82 79 76 466' 969' 0 1 4 0 0
North of Interchange to End of Project
US 70-29 / NC 150 68 64 60 26' 57 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1285 59 56 50 <25' <25' 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 101 7 0 0
' 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 nearest travel lane.
D-24
TABLE G
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
inaaeet• es
From North of SR 2120 In Rowan County to North of NC 150 In DmAdson County
Stab Project 0 6.1631103. TIP 01.2304AA
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES '
SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE
SEGMENT 50 1.2 3.4 546 74 9.10 1142 13.11 15-16 17-18 16.20 21.22 23.21 L25 INCREASES
Interstate 85 1 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Begin Project I* South of Interchange
Old US 2970 (SR 1138) 7 8 17 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC 150 East 0 0 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salsbury Road (SR 1147) 0 1 12 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interstate 85 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North of interchange to End of Project
US 70-29 /NO 150 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1285 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 10 18 50 42 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NO BUILD 1 80 50 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' See Table 7 Definition of Substantial Increase
D-25
TABLE 7
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
Source: North Carolina DOT Noise Abatement Guidelines
TABLE 8
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DECIBEL, ENERGY AND LOUDNESS
TABLE 9
BARRIER ATTENUATION
Reduction in
Sound Level Reduction in
Acoustic Energy Degree of
Difficulty
5 dBA 70% Simple
10 dBA 90% Attainable
15 dBA 97% Very Difficult
20 dBA 99% Nearly Impossible
D-26
h
C.
O?
q,1
Sry
J
Figure 3 - NOISE WALL LOCATIONS
1-85, from North of SR 2120 in Rowan County to North of NC 150 in Davidson County
TIP # 1-2304AA, State Project 8.1631403
D-27
Design Noise Report
1-2304AB
D-28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
Introduction......... ................................................................ .....................................................1
Procedure ................................................................ ... .........................................
Characteristics of Noise....................
................................. ,,,,,2-3.
.............................................
Noise Abatement Criteria
. .................................................. 3
.....................................................
Ambient Noise Levels
........................................................ 3 -5
..................................................
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levers
.. .......................................................... 4 - 5
........
Abatement Measures
.................................................................................................... -
........
Construction Noise
......................................................................................... 8
...........
Summary .............................................
.......................................................................... 8-9
........
Figure 1 .....................................................
Study Area
Table 1
............ ..... .........................................
Hearing: Sounds That Bombard Us Daily
Table 2
........................................................................................................................... 12
.........
Noise Abatement Criteria
Table 3

........................ .. ...........................................................
............... ................ ......
1
........
Summary of Ambient Noise Readings
Table 4
. .......................................................................................................................... 14
.........
Adjusted Ambient Referenced Noise Levels (dBA)
Table 5
..................................... ......... ............. 15
1-2304AB Noise Reference Values (dBA)
Table 6
................................................ ....................
NCDOT - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
Table 7
.............................. ....... ..... .... ....
.
Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary
Table 8
..............................................................................................................
. ........18
..... .......
.
Expected Noise Barrier Effectiveness (Studied Barriers 1, 2, & 3)
Table 9 ........................................................................................................................... .........19
Noise Barrier Summary
Appendix A
Appendix B
Exhibits 1 - 4
D-29
DESIGN NOISE REPORT
I-85 WIDENING
DAVIDSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT 8.1631403 (I-2304AB)
F.A. PROJECT NHF-85-3 (164) 80
Introduction
This proposed project consists of widening I-.85 to an 8-lane facility with a variable 46-
foot to 70-foot median. Due to the I-85 Business Interchange, 10 lanes will be needed
between the Belmont Rd. interchange and the I-85 business interchange. Interchanges
will be revised to eliminate the existing Clark Blvd. (SR 1265) access point and totally
rebuild the Belmont Rd. (SR 1133) interchange. The proposed project covers a distance
of approximately 3.6 miles and is shown in Figure 1. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) estimate of average daily traffic shows a significant increase
in projected traffic volumes. The construction of the I-85 widening is expected to relieve
anticipated congestion problems.
Procedure
A preliminary analysis of the probable traffic noise impacts of this project is contained in
the project's November 6, 2000 Environmental Assessment (EA). This Design Noise
Report presents a more detailed analysis of the proposed widening of I-85.
The EA used the Leq descriptor. The equivalent sound pressure level, Leq (A-weighted),
is formulated in terms of the equivalent steady state noise level, which in a defined period
of time contains the same noise (acoustic) energy as a time-varying noise during the same
period of time. The Leq is an energy summation integration, and as such does not rely on
statistical parameters like the L10 scheme. Leq has a significant advantage over the Lio
scheme since the Lio scheme cannot adequately consider single event noises. This report
utilizes the Leq noise. descriptor.
As part of this evaluation, current and future noise levels were determined along and in
the vicinity of I-85. The project limits and the ambient (current) noise measurement sites
are shown in Exhibit 1 and listed in Table 3. The maximum Design Year 2025 peak hour
traffic levels were predicted for the study area and are shown in Exhibit 2. The proposed
I-85 widening typical section is shown in Exhibit 3. Future noise levels were predicted
with the use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 1.1.
D-30
Characteristics of 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
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 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 approximates the frequency response of the human ear by placing
the most emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000 Hertz. Because the A-
weighting scale closely describes the response of the human ear to sound, it is used
almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements. Sound levels measured using A-
weighted 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 are listed in Table 1.
Review of Table 1 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 roused to anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time
patterns of noise also enter into and individual's 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 regards 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 the background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interface of noise with the 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.
D-31
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 noise, railroad noise,
factory noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to traffic noise, methods of analysis
and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
Noise Abatement Criteria
A noise analysis was conducted in accordance with Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 772 (23 CFR, Part 772). In order to determine if highway noise levels
are compatible with various land uses, the FHWA has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. A summary of
the NAC for various land uses is presented in Table 2. Most-of the identified receptors
within the vicinity of the I-85 widening were classified as B (residential).
Noise abatement must be considered if the NAC Leq values are approached or exceeded,
or if there are substantial increases over the ambient noise levels. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has adopted Noise Abatement Guidelines to
define terns used in noise abatement. The NCDOT definition of "approach" is 1 dBA
less than shown in Table 2. "Substantial" increase is defined as either a 15-dBA or
greater increase above existing noise levels less than or equal to 50 dBA, or a 10-dBA
increase above existing noise levels greater than 50 dBA.
Abatement is only necessary where frequent human use occurs and in which a lowered
noise level would be of benefit. Exceptions to this rule include areas where serenity and
quiet are considered essential even though the areas may not be subject to frequent
human use.
Ambient Noise Levels
The ambient noise is that which results from natural and mechanical sources as well as
human activity, which is considered to usually be present in a particular area. A noise
monitoring program was conducted in the study area along the I-85 widening project
utilizing a Bruel & Kjaer 2238 integrating sound level meter in order to measure ambient
noise levels. The instrument was calibrated at 94 dB. Noise measurements were
conducted at 5 sites within the study area to represent a mixture of all of the receptors.
The measurements of noise levels were conducted using the standard data collection
techniques as outlined in the 1996 FHWA report, Measurement of Highway-Related
Noise. These 5 sites are listed in Table 3. 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 levels for residences, businesses, and other noise sensitive receptors.
The field measured and extrapolated ambient noise levels are shown in Table 4. The
ambient noise levels range from 47 dBA near local roads to 81 dBA adjacent to I-85.
The measured sites were modeled based on the traffic counts taken during the field
measurements. The objective was to establish a model that calibrated with the TNM
projections within 3 dBA. This was accomplished. Differences in measured and
D-32
modeled result from queuing or bunching of vehicles and in particular, trucks. The TNM
model values are corrected to match measured values.
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either a) approach (1
dBA less than shown in Table 3) or exceed values shown for the appropriate activity
category of the FHWA NAC table, Table 2, in Title' 23 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, FWHA, or b) substantially exceed
existing noise levels. Substantial increase exists for increases of 15 or more dBA for
existing noise levels less than or equal -to 50 dBA and also for increases of 10 or more
dBA for existing levels greater than 50 dBA. Consideration for noise abatement can be
applied to. receptors, which fall into. either- category:
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure. In general, highway
traffic noise is composed of a large number of variables, which describe different
vehicles driving at different speeds through continually changing highway configurations
with the applicable surrounding terrain. In order to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
The TNM traffic noise prediction model requires and uses the following information:
number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, travel speeds, physical
characteristics of the road (i.e., curvature or change in elevation), as well as the location
and elevation of the receptors. If applicable, the TNM model also takes into account
existing topographical characteristics, barrier type, barrier ground elevations, and barrier
top elevation.
The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the
traffic conditions during Design Year 2025. Design hour traffic volumes were compared
to the level of service C volumes. The smaller value of actual versus Level of Service
(L O S) of C is used. Free flow in traffic produces higher noise levels. During all other
time periods, the noise levels are not expected to be !greater than those indicated in this
report.
The computerized model was utilized to determine the number of land uses (by type)
which would be impacted during the peak hour in Design Year 2025. Predicted noise
levels vary from receptor to receptor, depending on a receptor's distance from the noise
source and ground attenuation. The location of the receptors is shown in Exhibit 4.
The TNM reference values at the different traffic sections on the I-85 widening are
shown in Table 5. All specific site noise projections and pertinent data are shown in
Appendix A.
Table 6 lists the maximum extent of the 67 dBA and 72 dBA noise level contours and the
predicted noise level at 100, 200, and 400 feet for the I-85 widening. The extent of the
67 dBA and 72 dBA noise level contours are generally used to assess the exposure
impacts of land uses since receptors, particularly residential receptors, which are located
D-33
within the 67 dBA noise level contour, and commercial receptors which are located
within the 72 dBA contour, could be expected to experience traffic noise levels above the
FHWA NAC. Furthermore, this information can 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.
Noise abatement is not considered for sites constructed after the design hearing of July
26, 2001.
Table 7 lists the estimated exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors. This table identifies 38 impacted receivers (32 residential and 6 commercial
sites) which are expected to approach the NAC criteria of 66 and 71 dBA, respectively.
Abatement Measures
The NCDOT has adopted noise abatement guidelines to determine the need, feasibility,
and reasonableness of noise abatement measures on all major highway projects.
The three main traffic noise abatement measures reviewed for this report consist of the
following: highway alignment selection, traffic system management measures, and noise
barriers.
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal and vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize overall 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 locating the
roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. During the planning process,
noise impacts were considered in the ultimate selection of the preferred alternative. The
current alignment location and elevation were used as a basis to provide the best possible
balance between transportation needs and environmental parameters, including noise
effects. Because of the many factors involved in the alignment selection and roadway
design process, altering either the proposed horizontal or vertical alignment would not
prove to be a viable solution.
Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume, and time
of operations, are often effective abatement measures. For this proposed project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
negative impact to the capacity and level of service of the proposed facility.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels by blocking the sound path
between a roadway and noise sensitive areas can often be applied with a measurable
degree of success along highway sections, which restrict access to abutting properties.
Facilities such as the I-85 widening, with full control of access, permit the application of
noise barriers, which effectively absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Noise barrier measures may include earth berms as well as artificial noise abatement
walls that may be constructed from a variety of materials including concrete, wood, brick,
metal, or some combination of these materials. However, these mitigating measures may
D-34
not be feasible or reasonable in all cases, particularly for receptors with frontage along
primary, secondary or service roads in the study area.
Reduction of traffic noise from the proposed roadway may not necessarily lower levels at
these receptors to within the recommended NAC. Likewise, for isolated receptors, or
where the application of physical abatement measures may not achieve at least a 5-dBA
reduction in the predicted traffic noise levels, the application of abatement measures may
not be practical on the basis of the probable noise reduction in relation to the benefits
provided as compared to the cost. The cost per receptor includes the cost of physical
noise abatement (walls, berms, etc.) and any additional earthwork, guardrail, and/or right-
of-way, if applicable. In addition, barrier heights in excess of 25 feet for abatement may
not be practical from an economic and/or structural standpoint.
The feasibility of barrier installation as outlined by the NCDOT deals primarily with the
engineering considerations. The following items should be considered in order to
determine feasibility:
• Can a barrier be built given the topography of the location?
• Can a minimum of 5 dBA noise reduction be achieved given certain access, drainage,
safety, or maintenance requirements?
• Are other noise sources present in the area?
• The insertion loss (IL) provided by the wall will be a minimum of 5 dBA, but
preferably 8 dBA or more. (IL is the difference in predicted noise levels before and
after insertion of some type of shielding.)
The reasonableness of barrier installation as defined by NCDOT should show that
common sense and good judgement were used in arriving at a decision. A determination
of reasonableness should include such items as:
• The abatement measure must be cost-effective. Cost effectiveness is defined as
$25,000.00 per effectively protected (5 dBA or more reduction) residence.
• The exposed height of the wall does not exceed a maximum of 25 feet.
• The receptor is located a distance from the proposed wall of four or more times the
height of the wall.
• The change in noise levels between design year traffic levels and existing noise levels
must exceed 3 dBA, a barely perceptible change.
• There is a documented support of the benefited residents 5 dBA or more reduction)
for placement of the abatement measures.
D-35
• Unless special conditions exist, it is not considered reasonable to provide noise
abatement for impacted businesses or isolated receptors. Businesses generally prefer
visibility. Based on NCDOT's past project experience, it is considered unreasonable
to provide abatement for isolated residences, due to cost of abatement versus the
benefits provided.
• Unless special conditions exist and effective abatement can be provided, it is not
considered reasonable to provide noise abatement on non-controlled or partial access
controlled facilities.
• The noise barrier will be located beyond the clear recovery zone or be incorporated
into safety devices.
• Unless special conditions exist, it is not considered reasonable to construct walls on
the shoulder because of safety, drainage problems, trash accumulation, etc.
• In areas of impacted receptors where abatement measures have been considered, a
vegetative barrier may be considered for aesthetic screening even though an
acoustical barrier is not justified.
For a barrier to provide significant 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 and connecting streets) due to restricted sight
distances is also a concern. To provide a substantial reduction, a barrier's length would
normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a .
receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would require a barrier approximately 400 feet
long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA. (Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic
Noise, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-
27).
For the purpose of this analysis, a cost of $15 per square foot was applied to all proposed
noise barriers.
In Section 1 from the beginning of the project to Belmont Rd., approximately 1.4 miles
north, there are 11 impacted sites. Receivers numbered 1,2,6,7 and 9 are considered
isolated locations. For six receivers, there is a barely perceptible change (3 dBA or less).
There are also two commercial sites with a 4 dBA increase. The two churches will have
interior levels of 46 and 48 dBA which are below the threshold of 52 dBA for interior
conditions. Therefore for Section 1, no barriers are feasible or reasonable.
Section 2 covers 1.5 miles from Belmont Rd. to the I-85 business interchange. Sites 15
and 16 are 5 dBA over the criterion but are commercial in nature. Sites 17,26, 32, 35 -
37 are sites separated some distance. The church , site 33, is below the interior threshold
D-36
of 52 dBA. Receptors 18 - 21 are located on Kines Rd. Receivers 18 and 19 are on
opposite sides of Kines Rd. separated by 210 feet. Receivers 20 and 21 are 215 and 315-
feet away from the right-of-way, respectively. A barrier would not be reasonable for sites
18 - 21. Also receiver 21 has a 3 dBA change which denotes it as unreasonable.
Receivers 23 - 25 are approximately 300 feet from the ROW behind a commercial site.
A service road also separates receiver 23 - 25 from the proposed widening. A barrier is
not feasible.
Three barriers were evaluated for three clusters of residences, i.e. barrier 1 for receivers
27 - 31, barrier 2 for receivers 34 - 35-and barrier 3 for receivers 36 - 38. The barrier
locations are shown in Exhibit 4. Barrier perspectives and data are in Appendix B. Table
8 depicts the data for the studied walls. Cost and benefited receivers are shown in Table
9 for the three barriers.. Barrier 1 benefits four receivers but cost of $48,000 per receiver
is over the $25,000 limit. Barrier 2 has two benefited receivers for a cost of $29,200 per
receiver. Barrier 3 has a $54,000 value per receiver. As all the walls are over the $25,000
limit, no walls are proposed.
Section 3 extends approximately 0.6 mile north of the I-85 interchange to the end of the
project. One commercial business is impacted. No abatement measures are proposed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading, and paving of Y-lines only. General construction noise impacts, such as
temporary speech interface for passers-by and those individuals living or working near
the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from earth moving
equipment during grading operations.
Mitigation of construction noise and vibration could be accomplished through the
development of a construction noise plan. Such a plan could include such measures as
the limitation of certain construction vehicles or activities during the evening, weekends,
or holidays. Some construction noise impacts may, at certain times, be intrusive to
residents living near areas of heavy construction, however, considering the relatively
short-term nature of construction noise, these impacts are not expected to be substantial.
Summary
Noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of highway projects. Due to relatively
low development densities along the corridor, impacted receivers were minimized.
All three churches adjacent to the route are located sufficient distance from the ROW
such that the interior values are below the threshold of 52 dBA.
Sites impacted (11) in Section 1 from the beginning of the project to the Belmont Rd.
Interchange are either spaced some distance apart, commercial, or have a barely
perceptible change.
D-37
Section 2 from the Belmont Rd. Interchange to the I-85 business spilt included 26
impacted sites. Sixteen of these sites are either isolated, commercial, near local road
conflicts, or are too far from the ROW for barrier feasibility and reasonability. Three
barriers were evaluated for the remaining ten impacted sites as follows:
Barrier 1 includes five mobile homes on the right of station 111+50 to 1118L. A
service road is between the depressed freeway and the homes. While Barrier 1
had 4 benefited receivers, the cost of $48,000 per receiver is over the threshold of
$25,000. Therefore, Barrier 1 is not reasonable.
Barrier 2 is located left of station 1101L Two mobile home receptors are located
on a road almost perpendicular to the proposed widening. Due to the topography
and the homes increasing in distance from the ROW, the cost of per benefited
receiver was $29,100. Therefore, barrier 2 is also not reasonable.
Barrier 3 includes 3 impacted mobile homes located left of station 1113L on a
street that is on an approximate 35-degree skew away from the direction of the
ROW. Again because of the topography and the skew away from the ROW, only
one receiver was benefited. As the cost is over the threshold, barrier 3 is not
proposed.
Section 3 had one impacted commercial site.
No barriers are proposed on the project. Contingent on funding, vegetative plantings
could be provided for visual screenings in areas of extreme concerned areas adjacent to
sensitive locations. These would be considered aesthetic measures during the
landscaping of the project.
This report completes the noise analysis for I-2304AB in accord with Title 23 CFR772
and State requirements.
D-38
I-85 FROM NORTH OF NC 150 TO
NORTH OF 1-85 B USI11 LESS (I-2304AB)
STUDY AREA
O?
r r r
rr
r r
rr
r r
,r
85
Davidson
County
FIGURE 1
D-39
Table 1
HEARING: SOUNDS THAT BOMBARD US DAILY
Decibels
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft. away at takeoff Pain
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
' Diesel truck 40 mph 50 feet away
80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Passenger car 50 mph 50 feet away Moderately Loud
70
Quiet typewriter
60 Singing birds, window air conditioner
Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office Quiet
50
Household refrigerator
40 Quiet office Very Quiet
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
SOURCE:
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.)
D-40
Table 2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Activity Category Leq (hr) Description of Activity Category
A 57 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need where the
preservation of those qualities is essential
if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose
B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas,
playgrounds, active sports areas, parks,
residences, motels, hotels, schools,
churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities
not included in Categories A or .B
D Undeveloped Lands.
E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public
meeting rooms, schools, churches,
libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source:
Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, US Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
D-41
Table 3 - Summary of Ambient Noise Readings
July 18, 2002
Measured Site Posted Start Stop Cars Medium Heavy Feet Ambient
No. & Description Speed Time Time Trucks Trucks From Noise Level
(mph) ( h) ( h) ( h) Road (Leg)
1. NB I-85 at 0.5 65 9:27 9:47 760 64 251 50 79.9
Mile North of SR
1295
2. NB I-85 at 65 10:10 10:30 911 52 280 25 81.4
Sta 1083+00 L
3. NB I-85 at 65 10:45 11:05 597 40 160 25 78.9
Sta 1165+00 L
4. NB Old 45 11:20 11:40 22 2 1 25 58.9
Salisbury Road
Adjacent Greer's
Chapel United
Methodist Church
5. SB I-85 65 12:45 1:05 425 32 86 25 80.0
Business at 0.5
mile north of
Linwood Street
Interchange
D-42
Table 4 - Adjusted Ambient Reference Noise Levels (dBA)
Reference Point Interval - (feet)
Corrected Levels
Site No. Measured Modeled Correction 25 (50) 1 100 200 400 800
1 - NB 1-85 at 0.5 79.9 Not Used as Site 2
Mile North of SR Increased Traff ic
1295.
2 - NB 1-85 at 81.4 84.1 -2.7 82.7 77.7 73.4 68.8 64.1 59.2
Sta 1083+00 L
3 - NB 1-85 at 78.9 81.9 -3.0 80.2 75.2 70.8 66.2 61.5 56.6
Sta 1165+00 L
4 - NB Old 58.9 60.5 -1.6 58.9 54.3 51.3 44.5 .
Salisbury Road
Adjacent Greers
Chapel United
Methodist Church
5 - SB 1-85 80.0 79.4 +0.6 81.3 76.4 71.9 67.2 62.6 57.9
Business at 0.5
Mile North of
Linwood Street
Interchange

D-43
Table 5
I-2304AB Noise Reference Values (dBA)
Desi Year 2025
Reference Distances (feet)
File NoA Description 50 100 200 400 800
ADT
112400 Sta 980+00 L(Begin of 84.2 78.0 72.6 66.7 61.7
8-Lane Project) to Sta 1057+00 L
Divided (Belmont Rd.)
107800 Sta 1057+00 L (Belmont 85.6 79.3 715 67.6 62.9
10-Lane Rd) to Sta 1136+80 L
Divided (I-85 Business)
74400 Sta 1136+80 L (1-85 82 76.5 71.6 65.8 60.7
7-Lane Business) to Sta 1170+00 L
Divided (End of Project)
33400 1-85 Business 77.2 71.7 65.9 61.0 56.6
4-Lane
Divided
D-44
Table 6 - NCDOT - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
I-2304AB
Description Maximum Predicted Maximum Approximate No. of Impacted
Le Noise Levels (dBA) Contour Receivers
100 ft. 200 ft. 400 Distances
ft. (Feet) at A B C D E
67/72 dBA (1)
Section 1
Sta 980+00 L
(Begin of Project) 78 73 67 361/190 9 2
to Sta 1057+00 L
(Belmont Rd)
Section 2
Sta 1057+00 L
(Belmont Rd) to 79 74 68 406/208 23 3
Sta 1136+80 L
(I-85 Business)
Section 3
Sta 1136+80 L
(1-85 Business) 77 72 66 328/171 1
to Sta 1170+00 L
(End of Project)
TO TALS 0 32 6 0 0
(1) Distances are from the edge of the through lanes.
D-45
Table 7 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary
I-2304AB
Description Receptor Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Increases Substantial Due to
Noise Level Exceeds Both
< 10- 15- 20- Increase Approaching' Criteria
0 1-4 5-9 14 19 24 >25 Criteria (1) Criteria (2) (3)
Section 1
Sta 980+00 L (Begin
of Project) to Sta 13 1 0 11 0
1057+00 L
(Belmont Rd)
Section 2
Sta 1-057+00 L
(Belmont Rd.) to 10 17 0 26 0
Sta 1136+80 L
(1-85 Business)
Section 3
Sta 1136+80 L
(1-85 Business) 2 0 1 0
to Sta 1170+00 L
(End of Project)
Totals 0 23 20 d O 0 0 0 0 38 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase
(2) As defined by NCDOT approach NAC criteria
(3) As defined by both criteria
D-46
Table S - Expected Noise Barrier Effectiveness
Studied Barriers L 2, & 3
Receptor Without Barrier With Barrier
Number
Barrier
Study
I D No.
In ( )
** (1)
Existing
Noise
Level
dBA (2)
Predicted
Noise
Level
dBA (2)-(1)
Noise
Level
Increase
(dBA) (3)
Predicted
Noise
Level
(dBA (2)-(3)
Noise
Level
Decrease
(dBA) (3)-(1)
Net
Noise
Impact
(dBA)
Barrier 1 Rig h t Station 110 9+50 to 1118+50
27 (27) 69 76 7 71 5 * 2
28 28 69 77 8 69 8 * - 0
29 (29 70 77 7 67 10* -3
30 (30 67 73 6 68 5 * 1
31 (31 65 70 5 69 1 4
Barrier 2 Left Station 1101 +00
34
(1101+OOA) . 71 80 9 70 10* -1
35
(1101+OOB) 68 75 7 70 5 * 2
Barrier 3 Left Station 1113+ 00
36
(1113+00) 69 76 7 70 6 * 1
37
(1114+00) 66 70 4 69 1 3
38
(1113+50) 67 69 2 68 1 1
* Site used to determine feasibility and reasonability if decrease 5 or greater
** See Appendix B
D-47
Table 9 - Noise Barrier Su mar
Barrier Barrier Estimated Cost per
Barrier Benefited Length Height Barrier Cost Benefited
Location Rece tors (ft) (ft) $15/s .ft Receptor
Barrier 1 4 900 12 - 20 $192,000 $48,000
Right
Station
1109+50 L
to
1118+50 L
Barrier 2 2 350 8-12 $58,200 $29,100
Left Station
1101+00 L
Barrier 3 1 450 8 $54,000 $54,000
Left Station
1113+00 L

D-48
V
m
C?
a
h

•
?
Z
>
? •
•
C v
:r
?
?
<
?
V
ip
i9
N
'C
M
?"f
N
t?f
!•1

Z >
? 00, 110, 10 d W ?O M •O

m
p? O
>
?
m
r O
aC
N
O N
P
h O
CG
O
N N
P
? '- e0
ao
•O N
P
Uf N
P
N ?- yy
?O ? N
P
off N
P
t
(
f '-

O
?
?+• C
N
aD C
N p
aO p
Q
N
?
O
Q p
Q p
Q
?0 p
p
CO pp
Q
Q
m
? Q tt ??p{ W Q O O O .p O

p
m
W
O 8
Q pp
V S
N
O S
Q S
N 8
N
CN pp
Q 8
Q S
N
}
F m E
?.
`
L6 °
Z
V O &0
O to
O
VV7 C-4
P C4
Q 0
N p V V Np
Mf to ?Ifyf
?l O
M?
0
0

o 0
z° r, 10 -0
m c
N

W

? Z
C v
> wi
A 1n
.O wf
A N
•O O^
A !•f
A .gi.pp
•O ??Npp
?O ^
•O ^
•O FA?Qp
?O ?M?ppf
•O ?N?pp
?O P
00
0

'b

•

j

m
?p
n
A
?O

INS'
A
•O
A?pp
?O
?O
A
?O
A
•O
?A?pp
?O
?A?pp
?O
?A?pp
•O
A
?O
A
?O
.A.pp
•O
Z
3 a ° L& 8 N 400 g $ S a?

m

CD
0
>
CD
Q

J
O

A
A?pp

?p
O

A
A

?O
•O

A
O

A
??App

?p
?A?pp

?p
10
,j
A
10
C4
A
%O
Cq
A
A.pp

?O
?A?pp

?O
-O
C4
A
0

4!
m M
? W O V iY V C84 C84
0
z

Q
w m
°
F

J
co
1f1
P
g
^
R
R
1?f
17
Q
N
17
U
m
m
U
W
(,?
m
m
m
m
W
m
- is
m
m
= U
W ?
Z

O r

O
O
?
J
J _
a.
CC
J
J
?
J
J
J
?
.?
J
J
V .
_

OTC
°

Q

?

O
N` p
N

P
fn

P O
of

P
?

P pg
S 8 #a8
O ?p8O
O M
O N
O P
O P
O P

O
O

09 d

Q

m
?.

m
?. E
E
E
U u

, t
V E
EE
O

m
Ix

m
I

d1

m w v

C
M
of
M

0•.
M

?.
h
?
w
V E
7 N ?T tp ?o A co P ?_ N st a
C Z
D-50
1A {f1 IA {fl ?O ? M1 H V ? < R n eD n ?O N H ?
m
Q
d
M
<p
O
9
U

n ?p ?o % % n P. S 0 0

?O
?p
_
{p
?_p N

N aD

0 N

N "'
{?
CD q

?O

N Q 4 tV CD Q Q ? `_ N Q Q ? Q
R N N Q
e?p V V ?D ? ?Op ?•p• V ?i?p0p ?Op ? 'C ? ?Op O?pp - ?O?pp .O.pp

R S "' ? O N Q ? Q V N N N ' S O N N N N
O P ^ O m O

m N

< O

O O 8

Q N

M

N C

N
$
h
Uf
N
Mf ?'7
1?
N

n Q
n O
n V
n ap
n O

n n

.o ?O n

n %0 m
o
P

O
?•

n

n

n

m
?o
,O tf
O a
?O ?[f
.p n
O
N
H M1
n A
S S
2
UI U
W
N
U
?I
d P Ul m t7

n
? n
n n ?O
tff N IA ?O P
n d
n n C4
0 0
g o O
Q
N N O
?y !7 M N ?O
n n ?
n n
°
S 8 8 8 g

P O O Uf
?

m m m m m
&i J
8. g..
O O
oil bi
OTC C
I
J
N
pV
S
r
J
p<
O
m
OC

8
O
OTC
N
P
n
N
f?l
n
S
?+f
n
S
N
U
a
D IO N n i V N
.
.pp n n n
?O ?p - n
P P ?O 1C ?O N N
n ^ h

O S' O V N CV
O R Q
.p .p N
?fI off b N!
n n n
p n ^
S S
q N 8 8
R ?Q
?
O
F O
N
m m m m m m m
? & o`c
O O
` s
O
' O Cat
U
N N N
o`c & c`e ac
O O O

N + ? f
O .
.
O ?

C T
? ? O
C

N N N N
D-51
V
n
?O
Q
N
n
O
N
n
m
a O`t
C, S
f
OTC OTC
N O of
0 n 40
Q f V
? N N
n n n
O 8 g
N ?'1
m1 m1 W

m
OC
M

Ny
N
•i
OTC
N
o`a
a
M
t
V
L
V
OEM
G
Y,
M
O
N
G
Q
N
?G
?O
g
N
O
n
?O
N
?O
?oO
N
C
n
°o
O
N
CO N
N ?O
m
?O n
m
?pO
O
pn ^n
N CV
g N
U U
J J
°o
n
?o
U
v
1
S
+
.°o
E
0
U

-52
m
3
a
z
0
x
m
m
N
0
2
m
2
B
z°
m
m
0
z
v
5
r
U
RT STA. 1113 1 Sheet 1 of 1 1 13 Aug 2002
Barrier View-CASE 2 Project/Contract No.12304AB .
Run name: B85r1 ITNM Version 1.1, Sep. 2000
Scale: <DNA- due to perspective> Analysis By: Gary Holy
Roadway: Ground Zone: polygon
Receiver. o Tree Zone: dashed polygon
Barrier: ?--? Contour Zone: polygon
Building Row. - - Parallel Barrier:
Terrain Line: skew Section:
D-54
28„
29"
30"
31"
27
2 70.9 4.7
4 69.3 8
5 67.3 9.5
6 67.7 5.4
8 69 1.2
5 -0.3 Barrierl 4 12
Barrierl 5 12
' Barrierl 2 12
Barrierl 6 12
Barrierl 3 12
Barrierl 7 12
Banierl 1 12
Barrierl 8 12
Berried 9 12
Barrierl 10 12
5 3 Berried 9 12
Barrierl 10 12
Barrierl 8 12
Barrierl 11 12
Barrierl 7 12
Banierl 6 12
Banierl 5 12
Barrierl 4 12
Barrierl 3 12
Barrierl 12 12
5 4.5 Barrierl 13 12
Barrierl 12 12
Banierl 11 12
Barrierl 14 12
Barrierl 15 12
Barrierl 10 12
Banierl 16 12
Berried 17 12
Barrierl 21 12
Barrierl 18 12
5 0.4 Barrierl 21 12
Barrierl 22 12
Barrier1 23 12
Barrierl 24 12
Barrierl 25 12
Barrierl 19 12
Banierl 17 12
Barrierl 16 12
Banierl 15 12
Barrierl .18 12
5 -3.8 Barrierl 21 12
Barrierl 22 12
Banierl 24 12
Barrierl 23 12
Banierl 25 12
Barrier) 19 12
Banierl 20 - 12
Barrierl 18 12
Barrierl 17 12
Barrierl 16 12
D-55
00
0o
T 101 _B
1101-A
qlhol--
Z? 00 2.Op .

Potential Walls Rt 1101 & 1113+50 Sheet 1 of 1 23 Jul 2002

Barrier View-BARRIER 2 LT CASE 1 Project/Contract No.12304AB
Run name: Wit TNM Version 1.1 Sep. 2000
Scale: <DNA - due to rs ective> Analysis By, . Gary Holly
Roadway. Ground Zone: polygon
Receiver. o Tree Zone: dashed polygon
Barrier. ?----? Contour Zone: polygon
Building Row: - - Parallel Barrier.
Terrain Line:. Skew Section: - --?
D-56
1101-A 2 69.7 10.2 8 2.2 Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
1101-B" 3 69.7 5 8 -3 Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2
Left 2" $58,200
D-57
5 12 .62
4 12 61.2
19 12 59
3 12 58.3 .
6 12 58
7 12 57.7
20 12 67.2 -
8 12 56.8
2 12 56.3
1 .12 54.4
19 12 57.4
5 12 57.3
20 12 57.2
4 12 56.1
6 12 55.8
3 12 55.6
7 12 55.5
8 12 55.2
2 12 54.7
1 12 53.3
T t'1J3,?s0
I
Potential Walls Rt 1101 & 1113+50 Sheet 1 of 1 23 Jul 2002

Barrier View-BARRIER 3 LT CASE 1 Project/Contract No. 12304AB
Run name: 085K TNM Version 1.1 Sep. 2000
Scale: <DNA - due to perspective> Analysis By Gary Holly
Roadway. Ground Zone: polygon
Receiver. o Tree Zone: dashed polygon
Barrier. Contour Zone: polygon
Building Row: -
Terrain Una: Parallel Barrier.
Skew Section:
- -?
D-58
1113 4 70.2 6 8 -2 Left 3 12 12 60.2
Left 3 13 12 59.5
Left 3 11 12 .159.5
Left 3 10 12 1157.5
Left 3 14 12 57.2
Left 3 9 12 55
Left 3 16 12 53:7
Left 3 16 12 .51
Left 3 17 12 49.5
Left 2 20 12 48.2
1113+50" 5 68.8 0.9 8 -7.1 left 3 13 12 53.6
Left 3 12 12 53.3
Loft 3 14 12 53.2
Left 3 11 12 52.4
Left 3 15 12 52.2
Left 3 10 12 51.3
Left 3 16 12 5D.6
Left 3 9 12 50
Left 3 17 12 49.5
Left 2 20 12 48
1114' 6 68.2 0.9 8 -7.1 Left 3 13 12 54.2
Left 3 14 12 54.1
Left 3 15 12 53.6
Left 3 12 :12 53.3
Left 3 16 12 52.2
Left 3 11 12 52
Left 3 17 12 50.9
Left 3 10 12 50.6
Left 2 20 12 49.7
Left 2 19 12 48.9
Left 3" $54,000
D-59
0
j
n
y
N
yy?
~O
y
yj
/
RFC R /293 ? i
NF R? /? ?
°411
e

III I"
I II
Uj
I, g
/? ?rn o
CID
.o
co-.r
SR 1265
h , Clark Blvd.
u
II ?
, f
?7 M r` y
? M 11
? 11
/M h
iu 4
4 ,;• y
T
1 C I-o
n '0 IP^
s ..1
JI NW
u ` 1 g
11?
r /
%I ?n

I 1133
f
I ?I
!Belmoni'i 1
11
Blvd. 1\

ksD y
-
D
1 ;u
1
Iz

1 I
X289
\ \I
??>F I C6
I ?
N I ?
n ,
r
L4 I /
O1 i I ?
Cm o'?7 I
W
v .0 Ill 1\
y ? 11 t,
1\
c C -0I 11
T ?+ 11
p 7 fi?
u r
ri
fit
4
n
LYI
?.
u u ' u
// , ? \1 11 1?j
rr // C '1111 G7 Cl,
r/r
,r/rr
f f
- -------------------
36
SR-11
. 1124
I-85
10 _ _1 60
(6,18)
70 Old Salisbury Rd.
10 - , 60
(5,2)
70 31
I-8 u
.ont Rd. (SR-1133)
1078 744
10 10 55
(6,18)
D-63

? 5ts?
a

/ 0 0
'
o = s, y
u
Cp
y O
w-
U
4

' =

?

M
ale

N
.
a
-
V G
s /
` Yd
0

As

a?
o aE?

J
.q
It 4
16 a

m?
rn. nee _. _ '
D-65
EXHIBIT. 4
Barrier 1 Rt. Station 1109+50 to 1118+50 at ROW Adjacent to'Service Rd.
Barrier 2 Lt. Station 1100+00 to 1103+50 at ROW
Barrier 3 Lt. Station 1111+50 to 1116+00 at ROW
D-66

1
f t
0
t?
I w
t7 A ¦
-c n
C O m
y m
n

mm T
wl
v m
? ? o -

D D
r
A

m
m m
A n n
m
O
9 m
(
;u
1
A
y Z
L
0, 11 m C
?
3
C
y

m

m
aA
??1 C1
r
y
N
ti «? O
A
y?Q7
h
0
a
z
`JillI I
?III?
?Iliff
41 1
II A A
II ?
d
S N
c O -? /
?- ? // ? SR 1265.
/? ? Clark Bivd.
II ?
/ II
! it
Iq
II
I
4
s 6 ?? nyl :.i
SR !
RF??fNF 93 v
R?
i
C O
?D
A
\'QFv It
t O u,;
It N
1
n °-
n
? p c
1 - -?g{t 113311q
f Belmont.
? i Blvd. ? ip
? D
\\ N l
U a o
?l), A
O4 m
A
A -, ?A w
X
A
N

cO
?D
A
;v
m
A
N
V 70 _? to m
c z
co OD ----m W
n A s aD
r o?? ro?wA 1m A
f7'1 - A wow ) c A
A zZ O ' m
m ?? I i•• w ?? N
m i 1
10 M
A m
w 70
C', m
N? ??^^W
C O - (All, \\ A D
v ? II n A
A
?I t\ ;M.
II
TO
O Z° ill
CA)
A
wow 11 7TH'
O /? l H
n II
u 11
II 1 N.
\\ S
ii /41/T
it I
Alfl y o
// I I o
.", / ? flfl z
4. _ j4
A

t?? ??oo C
11 A ?
.
11 ? ?
0
r ,1
1
! S ?
1111 p
?
_„
_
11
?
I c 2
A
'
b '
n
/ ? s
Al?o
i

A?\!!

1\
II
V
A
?R X289

Community Impact
Assessment:
Williams Trailer Park
D-68
Attachment, Page 1, TIP # I2304A
April 1, 2003
Introduction
This CIA provides supplemental information for TIP No. I-2304, Project No. 81631491, FA Project
No. IR-85-3(127) 80. Described as I-85 From North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County to US 29-
52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) South of Lexington. The additional information is provided to target the
demographic features of the area and impacts in and around the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park.
Several homes in the mobile home park would be relocated due to the widening of I-85 and the
associated service road through this area. Past field visits and coordination meetings with residents of
the mobile home park, as well as more detailed relocation information, indicate that this mobile home
park houses a low-income population with relatively high proportion of minorities. (I-2304A
Environmental Assessment, November, 2000, Page 24 and Appendix 1) The supplemental data seems
consistent with these findings when that data was narrowed down to a small geographic area most
closely encompassing the mobile home park.
Community Profile
The demographic focus for this study is the area around Block 109 of Block Group 1 of Tract 50901 in
the 1990 census and Block 1006 of the same block group in Census 2000. (see map) Block 109 was
consolidated with Block 1006 (which is larger) in Census 2000. Block 1006 represents a fairly large
area, some of it well removed from the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park. Economic statistics are
only available at the block group level and may not represent the mobile home park as well. The
statistical characteristics of the focus block or block group have been compared to the characteristics of
the overall tract, the Town of Spencer, the City of Salisbury, Rowan County, and the State of North
Carolina.
Population
Table 1 demonstrates the total population and population trends for Block Groups 109 (1990) and 1006
(2000), Tract 50901 Block Group 1, Tract 50901, the Town of Spencer, the City of Salisbury, Rowan
County, and North Carolina. Growth in Tract 50901 (26.9%) was quite rapid from 1990-2000,
exceeding the State growth rate of 21.4%. Growth in the Block Group 1 was 17.4%, which closely
mirrored the County's growth rate of 17.8% and was slightly higher than the Salisbury's growth rate of
14.6% and Spencer's growth rate of 12.6%.
Table 1_ Population Growth. 1990-2000
Population Change, 1 990.2400
Area -1990 2000 # •/
Tract 50901 Block Group 1-
Block 109 (1990)Block 1006
Census 2000
103
170
N/A
N/A
Tract 50901 Block Group 1 1551 1821 270 17.4%
Tract 50901 3025 3840 815 26.9%
Town of Spencer 3219 3430 405 12.6%
City of Salisbury 23,087 26,462 3375 14.6%
Rowan County 110,605 130,340 19735 17.8%
North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4%
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 and NCDOT GIS (Census Data 1990)
w
D-69
Attachment, Page 2, TIP # I2304A
April 1, 2003
Population by Race/Ethnicity (1990 and 2000)
Tables 2 and 3 display the population by race/ethnicity for 1990 and 2000. In 1990, the percentage of
black and Hispanic populations in Tract 50901 Block Group 1-Block 109, which contains Williams
Shady Mobile Home Park (40.8% black, 5.8% Hispanic), were notably higher than the surrounding
Tract 50901 Block Group 1 (8.8% black, 1.0% Hispanic) and Tract 50901 (4.5% black, 0.9%
Hispanic). The percentage of black and Hispanic populations were also higher in Block 109 than the
Town of Spencer (22.3% black, 0.9% Hispanic), the City of Salisbury (35.0% black, 0.4% Hispanic),
Rowan County (16.0% black, 0.6% Hispanic), and North Carolina (22.0% black, 1.0% Hispanic),
respectfully. For Census 2000, Tract 50901 Block Group 1, Block 1006 was the smallest level
available for obtaining data on the area. Tract 50901 Block Group 1, Block 1006 does indicate a
notable difference in the percentage of black (34.1%) or Hispanic (1.8%) when compared to the larger
Tract 50901 (4.2% black, 1.0% Hispanic) or Rowan County (16.0% black, 3.8% Hispanic) although to
a lesser extent than did Block Group 1, Block 109 in 1990. The differences between the 1990 data for
Tract 50901, Block Group 1, Block 109 in Table 2 and 1990 data for Tract 50901, Block Group 1,
Block 1006 in Table 3 suggests that the larger block (Block 1006 in 2000) may not be as representative
of the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park. The relocation report (I-2304A EA Appendix 1) prepared
in August 2000 also noted a higher percentage of minority population among the households to be
relocated in comparison with the county, stating there were 8 minority households out of a total of 24
(33.3%).
Table 2. Population b Race, 1990
Tractsmi
Blpck"Group 1- Tract 5W1
Block Group I

0901
Tract-5 Town of City of

Rowan County

north Carolina
, Spencer Salisbury
169•
Bl &
-
Rate' •/. Pop. s/a Pop. °/u Pop. % Pop. % Pop. " "le' Pop..` %
White 58 56.3% 1415 91.2%0 2,880 95.2% 2460 76.4% 14,769 64.0% 91,960 83.1% 5,011,248 75.6%
Black or African 42 40.8% 136 8.8% 136 4.5% 718 22.3% 8087 35.00/. 17,681 16.0% 1,455,340 22.0%
American

Amed mIndian 0 0 9 0.3% 11 .. 0.3% 75 .0.3% 485 0.4% 82,606 1.2%
of Alaska Native

Asian & Native
Hawaiian and 0 - 0 - 0 0.0% 15 0.5% 135 0.6% 340 , 0.3% 50,395 0.81
Pacific Islander
Other Race 3 2.9% 0 --- N/A N/A 15 0.5% 21 0.09% 139 0.2% 29,048 0.4%
Two or More
Races N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 103 100%Q 1551 100% 3025 100.1° 3219 100% 23,087 100% 110,605 ,100% `6,628,637 100%
Hispanic or
Latino`:,. 6 5.8% 15 1.0% 27 0.9% 28 0.9% 93 0.4% 579 0.6% 69,020 1.0%
An Race *•
Source: Missouri Census Data Center and US Census Bureau, 1990, SF3
*Note: In Census 2000, Tract 50901 Block Group 1-Block 109 was consolidated into the larger Tract 50901 Block Group
1. Williams Shady Mobile Home Park is contained within Block 109.
**Note: Hispanic or Latino is classified by the U.S. Census as being of any race.
D-70
Attachment, Page 3, TIP # I2304A
April 1, 2003
Table 3. Population by Race, 2000
ract 50901 Tract 50901
Block'Group Block > Tract 50901 Town of City of Rowan County
North Caroling
1=Block Group 1 Spencer Salisbury
2006"'
Racc> Pop.: : o/,. Pqp, , ?% Pop:: % Pop. ; "% . ?Pop. % "Pop. %
White 109 64.1% 1623 89.1% 3591 93.5% 2,338 68.2% 15,391 57.7% 103,340 79.3% 5,802,165 72.1%
Black or African 58 34.1% 134 7.4% 162 4.2% 883 25.7016 10,081 37.8% 20,876 16.0% 1,734,154 21.5%
American Indian o
? 0 0 _-- 16 0.45% 26 0.8% 108 0.40% 667 0.5% 100,956 1.3%
AlaskaNahve
Asian 0 - 59 3.2% 59 1.5% 0 - 371 1.4% 808 0.6% 111,292 1.4%

ativc Hawaiian
d.Padfie'
0
-
0
-
0
0
-
26
0.10%
60
0.05%
3,699
0.05%
Islander
Other Race 3 1.8% 5 0.3% 5 0.13% 183 5.3% 347 1.3% 2514 1.9% 185,138 2.3%
TwoorMQI - 0 w 0 M 7 0.18% 0 -- 352 1.3% 1583 1.2% 111,909 1.4%
Races
Total 176 1W1. 1821 100% 3840 1Q0-/q 3430 100% 26,676 100% 130,340 100% _8,04%3 13 160%
.
Hispanic or 3 1.8% 38 2.1% 38 1.0% 220 6.4% 1001 3.8% 4892 3.8% 372,964 4.6%
Latin Race f ,
Source: Mlssoun census vata tenter ana uJ %,ensus nuroau, cvvv, uav
'Note: In Census 2000, Tract 50901 Block Group I-Block 109 was consolidated into the larger Tract 50901 Block Group
1. Williams Shady Mobile Home Park is contained within Block 109
"Note: Hispanic or Latino is classified by the U.S. Census as being of any race.
Income
Unlike racial data, income date was unavailable at the block level of Census 1990 or 2000. Tables 4a
and 4b do not represent a notable difference in per capita income or median household income for
Tract 50901 Block Group 1 and larger surrounding areas. The inability to focus in on a block more
closely surrounding the mobile home park, makes it difficult to draw conclusions from the 1990 or
2000 data. However, the relocation report prepared in August 2000 (I-2304A EA Appendix 1).states
that 20 of the 24 units potentially affected by the project have a household income of less than $25,000
which is notably lower than the median income at the block group, tract, county and state levels.
Table 4a. Median Household Income, 19904000
Median Householdt income , . Change, 2 990-ZODE
Area 1990 1000, S % change
Tract 50901 Block Group 1 $27,295 $38,320 $11,025 40.4%
Tract 50901 $27,327 $41,425 $14,098 51.6%
Town of Spencer $23,160 $36,687 $13,527 58.4%
City of Salisbury $24,081 $32,923 $8,842 36.7%
Rowan County $26,354 $37,494 $11,140 42.7%
North Carolina $26,647 $39,184 $8,673 32.5%
Source: Missouri census vata tenter ana u3 Census nu,cau, 1
Notes: The 1990 Census provides M.H.I. for the year 1989. The 2000 Census provides M.H.I. for the year 1999.

f
D-71
Attachment, Page 4, TIP # I2304A
April 1, 2003
Table 4a. Per Canita Income. 1990-2000
Per Capit a` Income Change, 1 990-2000
Area, . ;, 1990' 2000 S /. change
Tract 50901 Block Group 1 $13,190 $18,894 $5,704 43.2%
Tract 50901 $13,113 $20,414 $7,281 55.5%
Town of Spencer $10,750 $16,354 $5,604 52.1%
City of Salisbury $12,953 $18,864 $5,911 45.6%
Rowan County $127018 $18,071 $6,053 50.4%
North Carolina $12,885 $20,307 $7,422 57.6%
Source: Missouri Census Data Center and US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000
Notes: The 1990 Census provides P.C.I. for the year 1989. The 2000 Census provides P.C.1. for the year 1999.
Housing Values
The I-2304A EA report states many of the dwellings in the project area are dilapidated and do not meet
decent, safe and sanitary housing requirements. Site visits to the area confirm that the mobile home
park houses many low income residents in dilapidated mobile homes.
Mobile home values from the Census were evaluated alongside overall housing values to target the
characteristics of mobile homes within Block Group 1. Again, this is not as targeted as Block 109
information from the 1990 Census, but it still allows a narrowing of information to more closely
represent the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park. Table 5 indicates median mobile home values in
Tract 50901 Block Group 1 ($32,500) are lower than overall median mobile home values for Tract
50901 ($43,000) and Rowan County ($41,900). While the value is higher than the median mobile
home value of the City of Salisbury ($21,400), the data is consistent with observed descriptions of the
Williams Shady Mobile Home Park as housing of a somewhat lower income population. The Town of
Spencer had a mobile home value of $13,250 in 1990 and $10,000 in 2000. Census data indicates that
there are few owner-occupied mobile homes in Spencer, so these numbers are not representative of a
large number of mobile homes. Block Group 1 median mobile home values ($32,500) are quite a bit
lower than median housing values ($112,500) for the overall housing stock in Block Group 1.
Table 5:' Median Value Owner-
Occupied Housing Units,1990-
2000, Median Value All Owner-
Occupied Housing Units Median Value All Owner-Occupied
Mobile Home Units
Area 1990 2000
chau a 1990 2000
cbae e
Tract 50901 Block Group 1 $58,600 $112,500 92.0% N/A $32,500 N/A
Tract 50901 $61,600 $136,800 122.1% N/A $43,000 N/A
Town of Spencer $42,400 $80,700 90.3% $13,250 $10,000 -24.5%
City of Salisbury $54,500 $93,800 72.1% $18,219 $21,400 14.9%
Rowan County $53,900 $95,200 76.6% $23,684 $41,900 76.9%
North Carolina $65,300 $108,300 65.8% $23,418 $34,400 46.9%
Source: Missouri Census Data Center and US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000
D-72
Attachment, Page 5, TIP # I2304A
April 1, 2003
Poverty Level
Table 6 indicates the percentage of persons living below the poverty level are lower in Tract 50901
Block Group 1 than the surrounding area. As indicated previously, the large nature of Block Group 1
makes it difficult to make conclusions about the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park. As noted
previously, the relocation report (I-2304A EA Appendix 1) prepared in August 2000 states 20 of the 24
units potentially affected by the project have a household income of less than $25,000.
Ta1.1e 6. Darcnnc Living Re1nw Pnverty Level. 990-2000
1 RV
F V V
,Versons,Uving?Below Poverty
Uvel -' --
Persons Living Below Poverty Level

Area 1990 'lo gt Populatioa.
Below P ` Level

__

2000 '- % of PPQpulatico'Ba w;.
ove Le,el

.
Tract 50901 Block Group 1 65 4.6% 126 6.6%
Tract 50901 197 6.5% 303 7.9%
Town of Spencer 358 11.8% 315 9.5%
City of Salisbury 3277 14.2% 3892 16.0%
Rowan County 10,087 9.1% 13,372 10.6%
North Carolina 723,614 10.9% 958,667 12.3%
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12989, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations" issued by President Clinton in 1994 provides that "each Federal agency
shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental affects of its
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." Guidance
from the Council on Environmental Quality defines a low-income population as those "identified with
the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of Census' Current Population Reports. It
further defines that a minority population should be defined when a) "the minority population if the
affected area exceeds 50 percent" or b) "minority population percentage of the affected area is
meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other
appropriate unit of geographic analysis."
Census 2000, Tract 50901 Block Group 1, Block 1006, the lowest geographic area capturing the
Williams Shady Mobile Park in the 2000 has a black population of 34.1 %, which is meaningfully
greater than the general population in Rowan County which has a 16.0% black population. Based on
this description, environmental justice must be examined based on the impact to this area. The area
does not meet environmental justice criteria based on a low income population. The only adverse
effect to a minority population under consideration for the Williams Shady Mobile Home parcel is
whether or not this project increases the conversion rate of this parcel from residential use to industrial
use.
D-73
Attachment, Page 6, TIP # I2304A
April 1, 2003
Site Visit
A site visit to the project area supported previous observations that the Williams Shady Mobile Home
Park is a low-income community with many of the mobile homes appearing to be substandard. No
interviews were conducted with residents of the park, so it was impossible to verify the presence of a
large percentage of minority residents in the park demonstrated in Census data. The site visit also
revealed large parcels of undeveloped industrial zoned land in the both the immediate vicinity of the
mobile home park and larger surrounding area.
Land Use, Zoning, and Infrastructure
The Williams Shady Mobile Home is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Spencer
and it is a nonconforming use in an area that is zoned industrial. The mobile home park is located in a
area where the Town desires an industrial corridor. According to the planner for the Town of Spencer,
the area was rezoned to an industrial use in 1993 and the mobile home park was grandfathered in as a
nonconforming use. The classification of this parcel as a nonconforming use prevents any additional
mobile homes (even those being relocated by the road improvement) from being placed on the
property. Several mobile homes, which appear to have been lost due to people moving, have not been
allowed to be replaced and the lots are still vacant. NCDOT made a request to the Town of Spencer
that they consider allowing mobile homes removed as a result of the road project to be relocated to the
vacant lots in the rear of the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park. The Town refused to grant this
request because of the regulation of the zoning on this property. The regulation on this parcel also
discourages the property owner from making improvements to the property and limits the economic
viability of this land for its current use.
Currently the industrial zoned land surrounding the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park is vacant and
no known industrial projects are planned at this time. The Town Planner has noted an increase in
informal inquiries since the announcement of future improvements and widening of the I-85 corridor,
but he has not received specific information about future industrial development in the corridor near
Williams Shady Mobile Home Park. FineTex, a chemical plant, is located to the west of the Williams
Shady Mobile Home Park across I-85. No other industries exist in the immediate project area. Despite
the Town's plans for this area to become an industrial corridor, it is doubtful that the I-85
improvements would bring specific notable development pressure to the mobile home park parcel to
increase the conversion rate of this land to industrial use.
D-74
Attachment, Page 7, TIP # I2304A
April 1, 2003
This pressure is low for a number of reasons. First, with no specific industrial development plans in
this area and an abundance of industrially zoned land, potential users may give preference to the larger
parcels in the area. Second, the Town places a higher value on the vacant industrial sites on the West
side of I-85 as the land is closer to existing services. The Mobile Home Park is located on the East
side of I-85 and will probably not be in an area where the Town strongly encourages initial industrial
development in the corridor. Third, this area is currently not serviced by water and sewer. The City of
Salisbury provides water and sewer service in Spencer and its ETJ. Because of supply and cost issues,
the Spencer Town Planner is doubtful that the City of Salisbury would extend water and sewer service
at all for residential development in the. area South of the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park.
Although, the planner does believe the City of Salisbury would be more likely to consider water and
sewer extensions for a job generating industrial facility, questions remain about the feasibility of an
extension to this area given the other vacant parcels closer to existing facilities.
Impacts of the Road Project on Future Land Use
The widening of I-85 and its accompanying service road will relocate eleven (possibly twelve) of the
mobile homes in the Williams Shady Mobile Home Park. This leaves fifteen or sixteen mobile homes
in the park. While the I-85 widening will have an impact on the land use throughout the length of the
project, it is doubtful that the project will significantly increase the conversion rate of the Williams
Shady Mobile Home Park to an alternative industrial use. This is based on the facts that access will
not be notably improved as the mobile home park parcel already has easy access to I-85 in either
direction. Second that there is a lack of development pressure in the area. Third, the Town of Spencer
has planned for this parcel and surrounding parcels to be industrial since its rezoning in 1993. The
overall plan, zoning and regulations, specifically the aspect that no additional mobile homes can be
added to the lot, have had a negative effect on whether the property remains residential in the future.
As rents are lost as mobile homes are moved and not replaced the property owner will have a growing
economic incentive to seek a conforming use. This trend will continue with or without the roadway
project. As each unit is lost the property owner will have to determine if the upkeep required is worth
the income generated by the mobile homes remaining. The property owner will be fairly compensated
for the property (in the proposed right-of-way) acquired through the right-of-way acquisition process.
There will be little effect on the economic viability of the remaining property not purchased.
Other Issues
Another issue that might appear on this parcel is the legal requirement for an "uneconomic remnant".
This paragraph is for discussion purposes only and right of way agents will make final decisions on the
issue. These requirements basically state that if the remaining portion of the parcel not within the right
of way is decreased in value or developable value by a significant amount (typically 70 to 80 percent)
NCDOT can offer to purchase the property. Because the property is zoned industrial this value should
be determined by property acreage rather then the number of residential units. This parcel is currently
8.395 acres and will be reduced 2.373 acres or only 28.3% to 6.022 acres as a result of the service road
and accompanying right-of-way. Given the current industrial land requirements and preferences in this
area it is likely (especially considering the limited street frontage of the parcel) that the property may
require combination with adjacent parcels, with or without the portion purchased by NCDOT, to have
a property of suitable size for industrial development. With these characteristics it is unlikely that the
remaining parcel will qualify as an uneconomic remnant for industrial use. Again keep in mind the
appropriate right-of-way agents, who may wish to further examine this possibility, will make the actual
interpretation and decision on these requirements.
D-75
C
508
Williams Shady Mobile Home Park
a
_ tY
_ d
ban
09.01,
ii Carolina./
W
L.i
0
h?
rt
f.
pr-ax. 4 miles across.
!pared witl?AMeF[=- I F

High R;,:k Lk
Rd
I
2000 Census Block and Block Group Information
D-76
1990 Census Block and Block Group Information

_ CY)

CL s-

00
_TU-
-L i 00
r>
day -
_ . 811
D-77
W ,
STA7po
,yxmn3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 31, 1997
GARLAND B. GAR.RETr JR.
SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for I-85 from SR 2120 (Exit 81) in
Rowan County to US 29-52-70/I-85 Business (Exit 87) near
Lexington, Davidson and Rowan Counties, State Project
No. 8.1631403, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80,
TIP Project No I-2304A
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project
(See attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for January 28, 1998 at 10:00 am in the Planning and Environmental Branch
Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail
them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Eric Midkiff, P.E., Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 242.
EM/plr
Attachment
1
.e
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # 1-2304 A
PROJECT # 8.1631403
F.A. PROJECT # NHF-85-3(164)80
DIVISION: 9 COUNTY: Rowan/Davidson
ROUTE: Interstate 85
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Interstate
LENGTH: 10.9 kilometers (6.8 miles)
Date:
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
Programming
® Planning
Design
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Improve the traffic carrying capacity of I-85 from north of
SR 2120 (Exit 81) to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87) in Rowan and Davidson
Counties
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: Construct additional lanes and reconstruct bridges and
interchanges along I-85 from north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business in
Rowan and Davidson Counties.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environm
PROJECT SCHEDULE: EA:
FONSI:
RIGHT OF WAY:
CONSTRUCTION:
ental Assessment
December, 1998
September, 1999
October, 2001
October, 2003
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes EJ No
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($)_____, or ----- (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full ® Partial F1 None R
NUMBER OF: Interchanges 5 Grade Separations 2 Stream Crossings 1
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: 4-lane, 30' median divided section
Proposed: 6-lane, 46' median divided section
(This typical section will not provide an adequate level of service through the design year
2025).
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (1997): 50,100
Design Year (2025): 99,400
18 % TTST 6 % DUAL 12 % DHV
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ® 3R R
DESIGN SPEED: 113 kph (70 mph)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ....................... * $ 70,900,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation,
utilities and acquisition) ...... ............ $ 5,000,000
Force Account Items ........................... $
Preliminary Engineering ......................... $
Total Cost ................................... $ 75,900,000
*Construction cost is based on a 6-lane, divided typical section.
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction .................................. $ 49,500,000
Right of Way .................................. $ 5,000,000
TOTAL TIR COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 54,500,0000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
? Pavement:
®Asphalt (-Y-) ...................................... $ 2,634,000
®Concrete (-L-) ...................................... $ 8,026,460
®Econocrete (-L- PS) ...................................... $ 3,208,330
?Asphalt Cement .......................................... $
? .......................................................... $
®Pavement Removal ............................... $ 958,850
?Turnouts ....................................... $
? Shoulders:
? Paved .......................................... $
? Earthen ........................................ $
® Earthwork ............................................ $ 6,195,230
® Fine Grading .................................................... $ 880,000
? Subsurface Items ....................................... $
® Subgrade and Stabilization ................................ $ 2,118,690
® Drainage (List any special items) ........................... $ 2,725,000
? Sub-Drainage .................................. $
® Structures Width x Length
? Bridge Rehabilitation ----- x ----- ....... "... $
® New Bridge ----- x ----- .......... $ 16,213,600
? Widen Bridge ----- x ----- .......... $
® Remove Bridge ----- x . $ 1,079,360
® New Culvert: Size ----- Length ----- .......... $ 175,000
? Culvert Extension ................................. $
? Retaining Walls $
? Noise Walls ..................................... $
? Other Misc. Structures $
? Concrete Curb & Gutter ................................. $
? Concrete Driveways ............................................... $
® Concrete Surface Testing .................................. $ 30,000
? Guardrail ............................................ $
? Guardrail Anchors ............................................... $
? Fencing: W.W. ? and/or C.L.? .......................... $
® Erosion Control ....................................... $ 360,000
? Landscaping .......................................... $
? Lighting ............................................. $
® Traffic Control ........................................ $ 1,130,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
® Signing:
M New .......................................... ... 180,000
? Upgraded ....................................... $
Traffic Signals:
New .......................................... $
Fj Revised ........................................ $
RR Signals:
n New ........................................... $
F-1 Revised ......................................... $
n With or Without Arms .............................. $
If 3R:
E] Drainage Safety Enhancement ........................ $
F-1 Roadside Safety Enhancement ........................ $
n Realignment for Safety Upgrade ....................... $
® Pavement Markings:
Paint............ ............................ $
® Thermo. & Markers .................................. $
F-1 Markers ......................................... $
F] Delineators ........................................... $
MOther clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc .............. $
Contract Cost Subtotal ............................ $
Engineering & Contingencies .................................. $
Construction Costs ........................................ $
Force Account ............................................ $
165,000
15,566,472
61,646,000
70,900,000
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: ..................... $ 70,900,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH:
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
Yes [j No M
New Right of Way Needed: Width .......... $
Easements: Type Width .......... $
Utilities: .............................................. $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: ................................ $ 5,000,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 75,900,000
Prepared By: Jacqueline D. Graham Date: January 5, 1998
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Envir.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Board of Tran. Member
Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Others
INIT. DATE
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
1 0 'Idway y
9 elcome t 68
rs km a Thomasville
qe Bus 1
3 q d5 ` 211
7
364 y
ee j .1. + Stoll 1 ?.
t Cooleem e.. Tyro 29 1 5? 09
h chland
52 0
rIIIe-YVOOdleaf 'I'•?g• .,D A--? to s _
' YCle elahdrbe 5 1(i01St
B nwo9o ... -'a
26' N 29 4,7 la 1
S7G 9 t Mumma 7U ?i 8
IBS
am a lis6ury t ° Den .' t 1/ r 'd I
ear Pop O
Bl {
? enc hmont r r
ids unt UI a to So ?\ R k s I
g g illbrldQe Qr? iite ?. Dent
t R _ O W 9 6, h11 raven 'ahn¢ Sp
t 152 hlnaSGrov Faith Srescenl I tRack 6
de 29A lsi `Rockwell lacM n HIII 19
ne andi j 9 5 $2 Tucke !Lake 5 1
tchvdle -'\ 10 _ 1` Hs Gold Ndl r
I B f I
i
1 f:
l
1
1 I
,.ro
X11/, BEGIN
/ PROJECT
I
44
\ _ END -
C? PROJECT
- i
12m. t
It ?t 1.8 ? J Iw
«?m?,.u??•K
I? \
3
i
G f I
1 _
f I
1
I ? 1
f 1
AOKIN ? ' 4.?.
L"m
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
\ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
pNrosrnM?' f BRANCH
1-85, North of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in Rowan County
to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87),
Rowan-Davidson Counties
F.A. Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80,
State Project No. 8.1631403,
T.I.P. Project No. 1-2304a
FIGURE 1

March 5,1998
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
File
I'1Yq
S. Eric Midkiff, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
MAR 1 0 1a '13' I, a
4
SUBJECT: Interstate 85, from north of SR 2120 (Exit 81) in
Rowan County to US 29-52-70/1-85 Business (Exit 87)
in Davidson County, Rowan and Davidson Counties,
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-85-3(164)80, State
Project No. 8.1631403, TIP Project No. I-2304 A
A scoping meeting was held for the subject project on January 28, 1998 in
the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room. The following
people attended:
Eric Midkiff Planning and Environmental Branch
Wilson Stroud Planning and Environmental Branch
Danny Wiegand Planning and Environmental Branch
Lubin Prevatt Planning and Environmental Branch
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Roger Thomas Roadway Design Unit
Brian Robinson Roadway Design Unit
Don Sellars Right of Way Branch
Sid Autry Location and Surveys
Stephen Lowry Traffic Engineering
Rob Allen Photogrammetry Unit
John Davenport Division 9 - Traffic Engineer
David Moore Division 9 - Operations Engineer
Walker Armistead Structure Design
Lanette Cook Program Development
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Marc Cheek Structure Design
The meeting opened with a general description of the project. The
proposed improvements consist of adding lanes to the subject section of
Interstate 85 and reconstructing the bridges and interchanges along the project.
The project length is 10.9 kilometers (6.8 miles). The project is shown in Figure 1.
The purpose of the project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity, safety, and
pavement and bridge condition along I-85 and its interchanges.
Schedule
Complete Environmental Assessment - December, 1998
Complete FONSI - September, 1999
Right of Way Acquisition - October, 2001
Construction - October, 2003
Structures
There are ten bridges located along the project. All bridges will be
replaced by new structures which will allow adequate horizontal and vertical
clearances to accommodate the proposed widening. Roadway Design expressed
interest in providing adequate horizontal clearance to accommodate 10 lanes.
Preliminary capacity analysis indicates that at least 8 lanes will necessary to
provide an acceptable level of traffic service in the design year 2025. More
detailed capacity studies will be completed before recommending the number of
lanes to be accommodated on new bridges.
Scoping participants discussed the possibility of realigning a portion of I-
85 so that bridge 137, which carries I-85 over the Yadkin River, can be replaced
with a new structure located to the east of the existing structure. Relocating the
bridge will allow traffic service to continue across the Yadkin River along the old
bridge during the construction of the new bridge. The Planning and
Environmental Branch will investigate any potential wetland permitting
problems which may be involved with relocating the bridge. Scoping
participants also mentioned that the new bridge should span not only the Yadkin
River but also the Southern Railroad just north of the river. Currently, separate
bridges carry I-85 traffic over the railroad and the river. The railroad is located
approximately 350 feet north of the river in the vicinity of the bridges. We also
discussed the possibility of building the Yadkin River bridges to ultimately
accommodate 10 lanes.
It was noted that bridge # 22, which carries southbound I-85 over the
Southern Railroad, is scheduled to be replaced under TIP Project B-3833 (R/ W -
FY 2003, Let - FY 2004). That bridge replacement will now be addressed under
TIP Project I-2304 A.
Typical Section
The following typical sections will be studied:
1) 6 lanes with a 70 foot median
2) 6 lanes with a 46 foot median
3) 8 lanes with a 46 foot median
4) 8 lanes with a 22 foot median
Based on preliminary capacity analysis, at least 8 lanes will be necessary to
provide an adequate level of service (LOS D) in the design year 2025. However,
the Traffic Engineering Branch will provide a more detailed analysis. Two of the
above typical sections (1 and 3) will allow further widening to 10 lanes in the
future, if necessary. Typical Sections 2 and 4 will only allow the ultimate
construction of 8 lanes. South of the project, TIP project I-2511 CB will widen I-
85 to 8 lanes with a 46-foot median along the majority of the project, therefore
allowing the ultimate construction of 10 lanes. However, along a 3.4 mile section
of I-85, from just north of Julian Road to just north of Bringle Ferry Road, project
I-2511 CA will provide only 8 lanes and a 22-foot median (due to right of way
restrictions) and therefore, will not accommodate the construction of additional
lanes in the mediiqn.
Interchange Revisions
US 29-70
This very awkward interchange is located just north of the Yadkin
River and very close to the NC 150 interchange. In order to "clean up"
this complicated interchange area, scoping participants suggested
removing the interchange and absorbing the traffic at neighboring
interchanges along I-85. Removing the interchange would allow existing
US 29-70 to be extended northward along the west side of I-85 to NC 150,
allowing access to I-85 at the NC 150 interchange. Currently, 4200
vehicles per day use the US 29-70 interchange. In the year 2025, 7,600 vpd
are projected to use the interchange. The Planning and Environmental
Branch will request an update of traffic projections without the US 29-70
interchange in place.
The Division suggested that improvements to SR 2120, just south of
project I-2304 A, may be necessary if the US 29-70 interchange was
removed, in order to accommodate the possible increase in traffic along
that facility. It was noted that any improvements to SR 2120 would
probably be a separate project. Updated traffic projections assuming the
removal of the US 29-70 interchange will indicate any traffic increases on
SR 2120.
NC 150
Scoping participants considered reconstructing the NC 150
interchange to a diamond interchange to allow for full traffic movements.
Currently, the NC 150 interchange is a flyover, carrying northbound I-85
traffic onto NC 150 and NC 150 traffic onto southbound I-85. The
conversion of this flyover interchange to a diamond interchange would be
beneficial if the US 29-70 interchange were removed, since it would
provide full movement access to I-85 for those currently using the US 29-
70 interchange. The updated traffic projections mentioned above will
assume a new diamond interchange at NC 150.
SR 1295 (Clark Boulevard
Scoping participants discussed the possibility of removing this
interchange if a full movement interchange is built at NC 150. Currently,
3000 vpd use this interchange, with 5600 vpd projected for the year 2025.
Reconstructing the interchange to accommodate the proposed widening
will probably require realigning SR 1147 (Old Salisbury Road), impacting
residences and businesses along that road. SR 1147 is located to the west
of and runs more or less parallel to I-85 in the vicinity of the interchange.
The updated traffic projections will assume the removal of this
interchange.
The Location and Surveys Unit has surveyed on the east side of this
interchange for the Department of Commerce. The Planning and
Environmental Branch will investigate the land use plan for this area.
Reconstructing the interchange would require realigning SR 1285
(Seven Oaks Drive), located along the east side of I-85, further to the east.
The interchange ramps would also be designed to intersect SR 1295
instead of SR 1285.
The Planning and Environmental Branch will request the Right of
Way Branch to research any agreements which may disallow removing
this interchange. The Right of Way Branch commented that such
agreements are sometimes documented, especially with older interstate
routes.
SR 1133 (Belmont Road)
This interchange will be reconstructed to accommodate the
proposed widening. The ramps. will be realigned to intersect SR 1133
instead of SR 3159, SR 1286 (Belmont Boulevard), SR 1153 (Belmont Road
Extension), and SR 1289 (Snider Kines Road). Those four service roads
will also be realigned to accommodate the new interchange and mainline
widening.
US 29-52-70
This flyover interchange is adequate and will not be reconstructed.
Updated Cost Estimates
The current cost estimate of $ 75,900,000 is based on constructing a 6 lane
facility. The cost estimate does not represent the cost for extensive interchange
reconstruction which may be necessary. The TIP right of way cost of
$ 5,000,000 is outdated and it is not clear how much right of way acquisition that
cost is based on. Therefore, new construction and right of way cost estimates
will be obtained. The project will be divided into two sections for obtaining cost
estimates (AA and AB). Section AA will begin just north of SR 2120 and end just
north of NC 150. Section AB will begin just north of NC 150 and end at the US
29-52-70 interchange.
Hydraulics
There are 8 river and tributary crossings throughout the project. A bridge
(# 137) carries I-85 over the Yadkin River. The other tributary crossings are
provided by culverts, including one quadruple barrel culvert.
SHPO
SHPO commented that the latest surveys for Rowan and Davidson
Counties were done in the 1980's. SHPO requested that we perform architectural
surveys for the entire project. A potential historic property is located near SR
1134 (Sam Shaperd Road). Potential historic sites are also located around the
Yadkin River, including earthen fortifications from the Civil War (Fort York) and
possibly prehistoric camp sites. An archaeological survey also will be necessary.
Division of Water Qualitv
The Division of Water Quality commented that High Rock Lake (Yadkin
River) is a drinking water source. The lake is located approximately 1200 feet
east of I-85. The Division commented that hazardous spill catch basins will
probably not be required but that high quality erosion control measures will be
requested.
Mapping
Photogrammetry commented that mapping is available for preliminary
designs. However, if the NC 150 interchange is to be converted to a full diamond
interchange, more coverage may be necessary in this area.
SEM
cc: Scoping Participants
H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
David Robinson, Ph.D., P. E.
Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
David Foster, P. E.
?.? R
Ix CO
°•.? v cif _ y
r?° r ? c r ? o° ° g ly
? o o H+ n T m
- d 3
\ s < o N
o ? g
CC n
pEO? O ?o 0 o
`s
/ ?c II I / f m d`m r ? oe rC.. fa ^? 0,118
Iii ` nn
°•nl
o
,/ 1 1 AN
\ ^I
1 1(? N IN 1- hr1 / I G C gu O Wss
ti.
I ^'v IN /
' )fell
1
8 \ 1
4) ? l I N 1 1 ?
`J !
H Z • a, IW ? • ! ? I,y 11 ! ? i ?•
•?? IW ? 1 % 1
IV'
-`•' ?\ /' as I? '?
I? / I
r ' ?^ 1
m
/ s ??: IU IA ? / ?' 1
1
?g .tea - ___ ••, --•-••- - .\h?,I 1 - _
• li ? ? Ie ;`? 1
- 1
Io I - 1
41
- rQ 1
W \
I? I 1 m
J \1
CA p °a q>? ?noa i \ i I
+v N zy? I E o
CD 0) CL =!Z 7 2 n
o M X C'Oroa _w e H
Z N 0? Iu a Woo
CO CL :3 a3 = a41
p j C7 C: 00 CA
z?.yy??Or r W I??? \\
_.1 V F.I IOi O J I
C= tm M?a z IN N n N
CDs z a d o
`` N p z ; 5,ti,1 JO ?' I g C? l?
D y' X °z a _ ?- _ N a
c 000 n
=g z - \
11 5u n` 'N
?n
'• 4\ _W
f. ? 1' IW