20080471 Ver 1_Application_20080314

~~~~.
~' ..a~.
~ .,,s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
(~ ~~ ~~ /
~~,~~
~3i: ,/~J~N ~ ~ 2
~r~n4~r- "•~r X08
V ~ ^T~~~~<<ry
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 12, 2008
NCDENR DWQ
Brian Wrenn
Parkview Building p g ®4 71
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Resubmittal of Duke Energy Conveyance Application for the widening of SR
1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21 in
Iredell County; TIP R-3833, Federal Project No. STP-150(11); State Project No.
8.1823301; WBS 34554.1.1.
Dear Brian,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1100
(Brawley School Road) to a multi-lane facility from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21 in
Iredell County with a proposed interchange at I-77. The intersection of SR 1196 (Gibbs Road)
and SR 1100 will be relocated due to the construction of the I-77 interchange. Gibbs Road will
be realigned with Rolling Hills Road to the west of its current location. The proposed project is
5.9 miles long.
Much of Brawley School Road within the project limits is located on a peninsula of Lake
Norman. This lake is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed lake. NCDOT
must submit a Conveyance Application to Duke Energy and receive approval before construction
within the FERC boundary can begin. NCDOT is in the process of gaining this approval. Duke
energy requires NCDOT to provide proof of coordination with your agency prior to approval of
the FERC permit.
Enclosed is a draft copy of the conveyance application is included for your review. This project
has gone through agency review at various project milestones including the Environmental
Assessment (December 2003), Finding of No Significant Impact /FONSI (Apri12005), and
NEPA agency merger meetings 4A, 4B, and 4C (avoidance/minimization of impacts and
hydraulic design). Currently, the 404/401 permit application is being prepared and the permit will
be included in the final application to FERC.
Please provide any written comments you may have regarding the project within 30 days to:
MAILNG ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27611
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Ms. Kristina L. Solberg, P.E.
NCDOT PDEA Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact Ms. Solberg at [phone], extension 259.
Sincerely,
~~~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ ~<J cs`'~~~~`-~'J~-
~~ o J. Tho e Ph.D.
g rY IP ,
Environmental Management Director
NCDOT PDEA Branch
GJT/kls

•
APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE
REQUEST FOR A CONVEYANCE
WITHIN A LICENSED PROJECT
TO SERVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN
IREDELL COUNTY
Submitted by:
GREGORY J. THORPE, PH.D.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 29699-1548
Submitted to:
DUKE ENERGY
LAKE MANAGEMENT-EC12Q
P.O. BOX 1006
CHARLOTEE, NC 28201-1006
DATE SUBMITTED: February , 2008
•
February 2008

• Table of Contents
DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ITEMS A - P
Table of Appendices
Appendix Contents
A ROADWAY DESIGN PLANS
B REGISTERED SURVEY MAP
C LOCATION MAP AND REGISTERED SURVEY MAP
D ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, FONSI
• E COORDINATION LETTERS AND RESPONSES
F PHOTOGRAPHS OF CONVEYANCE PROJECT AREA
G PROFILE OF NEW BRIDGE
H CONVEYANCE USER AGREEMENT LETTER
•

•
Application Documentation
•

DIII~ ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERNIIT APPLICATION FORM
•
Duke File No.
Application Fee S Security Deposit $ Check # Date Recv'd
Initials
Desiignated Contractor Fee S (ijappficabls) Check # Date Recv'd Initials
Date Final Protectiam/Avoidance Area Markings Field -Verified ~~
Designated Contractor Selected (name orN/,~
Approved to start Work By •
c~~~
•
I Date Complction Required / /
Date
(sisn)
Date Passed Closeout Inspections ~ / Initials
Any Stop Work Orders or SMG Violations•7 (check one)C7Yes ONo (If Yes, expbin in PART Vn
Date Deposit Refunded Initials Date Permit Database Updated Initials
`Forward wpy of approved applicatbn (all pages, plus any attachmeats that Duke Energy changed) baclr to applicant
with Approval Letter and highlight any changes. File rnpies otApproval and Cbse~out Checklists and any Stop Work
Orders with application Duke Energy approval is signitkd by the f filly signed easement or permit document far
conveyance,
.TED CONTRACTOR IISE ONLY
Duke F>7e No.
Total Application Review and EA Preparation Fee S
Contractor Repnesetitative Date / /

(Pr-MI
Reviews Complete(check and initial): O LUPS D SMP O SMG
^ CRD ^ LATS .
Applicant Released by Duke Energy to Contact Agencies: Initials Date / /
• ~ Duke Energy p~ I .
Com'eYance I4vgram
GpsllLakeMgartlPackage Infom~ationlConveyenx Application~Conveyance Appliation.doc
1/18/07

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
PART I -APPLICANT IN~FIORMATION (Please Print)
Name ~ C ~ ~-
Lake Address N /~
~ Co-~-E-u.c¢~ = ~ri~l,'~ Sol ber.~
Telephone (! ~'7) 433 - ~-84y' ~. a ~i
Mailing Address(Ifdifferent) ~~T ~~ ~lo~~
59-8 Ma,~ 1 S~,rvice Gel~ter-
~ l~iq 1~l C ~~1vQ a- i 548
Application Prepatsrion Contractor Company ~' ~
Ca~ntrador Contact Persa~n
Telephone
ConstructionCompany 1 ~rb~t?G+ ~~ ;n ~~ibn.+a..r~ ZOOq : T8D
Construction Work To Be Done (check all that apply): Public Bridge Construction ^ Utility Line Crossing
^ water Intake ^ sewer outfall ^ stormwater Py a~ ^ ~ nstrl tG~--h ~ Yl
Conshuction Company 1 Coated Person (print)
Telephone (~
Construction Company 2
Construction Work To Be Done: (check all that apply): ^ Public Bridge Constrndion ^ Utdity Line crossing
^ Water Intake '^ 3evuer OutfaIl ^ 3totmwatcr Outfell ^ Staging Area ^ Other (specify):
Consh~uction company 2 coated Person (print)
Telephone (~
LAKE INF TIN ~ 1 ^' j'-
Lake ~~n County'12'~~ City ~~~ V ~ 1 l'e Stste 1 `r l~ Grid Section
Tax Map No.
Section or Phase No.
Subdivision
Total Acreage inside the FERC Project Bo~daty ~• Z Z Acres
•
•
Doke Energy Page Z •
Conveymce Program 1/18/07
(3pa1~L,akeMgmt~Package Informstion~Coaveymce Appliption~Conveyance Appliatioadoc

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMTr APPLICATION FORM
• PART II -DES
CRIP'ITON OF PROJECT
A. BASIC INFO
I . Type of facility(s): (check all that apply) ^ Opem Boatslips ^ Boatramp ^ Settling Basin/Stormwater putfalls
^ Utility Line Crossings ^ Wastewater Discharge ^ Water Withdrawal ~trblic Bridge Construction
~C~ c~~~):Pvb IiL road Cor~-TUC~' oIn/ c~ ea it v~-
2. Number and Size (acres) of Individual Proposed Lakebexl Use pres(s) (list all areas in table):
n

Proposed
Lakebed Use
Area No.
Area (acres)
wltbin FERC
proje~
Bounds
Baitsllps/Boat
Ramp rro vaev Aa3oCl
IntalreJOuq'all
Structure(s) aTCtt raesrrges
Public Bridge
Other (specify)

New ~ 111' 0.2 2.
E i~'i .
~i D•2~,

3. Proposed Lakebed Use Area(s) (TOTAL for the project): ~ • 2 Z pa+e(s)
Indicate if this is a ^ Lease ~ Ea.9ement ^ Permit
4. S~rpportiag activities: (check all d-at apply)~tcavation ^ ShoTeliae StabiliTatian O Other (specify):
5. Type of proposed work: (aiieck one) New Construction D Expansion ^ Rebuild
6. Intended users: (check one) ~CieneYal Public ^ Condominium/Subdivision Lot Owners
O Long-term Campground Users ^ Transient Campground Users (<14 days) ^ YachtBoat Club Members
•
^ Other (specify):
Lake user category: (check one) ^ Residential Marina ^ Commercial Marina ~ubic Infrashvcture
^ Other (sped)
8. Tote] area outside the projext boundary served by the proposal (erg. marina site for Commercial Marira, entire
development forResidential Marina facilities) ~ J~,_ p~ (s)
-~KTtnis is c. Public rixccP t~'~ec.~ awct ~e O~tl tm~lzcf ih 7'h~ pl'n
bouvlc~arY ~u.td IAe ~C~sevne~ fi d..~rec~lyYasstx~~ted v~`Mn
culvev~~ b vid9e~ aM.~ read cu.~ axd ~ 11-ir~cl~tt rl~ ~(b~ a~rtc~ sloes.
Duke Energy Page 3
Conveyance Program 1/18HY7
(3pa11LaiceMgmtlPadcage InformationlComeyaace AppliationlCceveyance AppGcxtian.doc

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
PART II (Coatirtuean
9. What Eatity Will Claim Title to the Tract(s) Adjoining the Proposed Lakebed Use Area(s)?
NC~oT
10. Excluding private piers are there any other water-based tecrea ' facilities (e.g. public access areas, marinas, etc.)
within a %: mile radios of the proposal? (check arse) OYes (,(jYes, specify)
11. Total plamied duration of the work (Include first equimnent mobilization thru fine/ ndlipa~%nn measures complete
and demobilizatianl: START ` _ / _ FIIdISH ~,~ /~~ - ' L c~_~
(.tisnify iYs~ (Month) rYaar~ ~ to M~-fil-~5 'T~D~
12. Total planfled duration of in-lake work including aU in-lalu ground disb~rbance):
START / FINISH / 155 ~~ ~ ~
G-~o--~1 (furl ~~~ rr~l ~ ~ ERC ~-M i ~
13. List all work needed to sf~upport the proposal (e.g. e_xc~a~vati~on for pipe lilies, atormwater outlets, shoreline
stabilization, etc.): ~o(,c-1r- i a.1r1't? fr 1LGt~l,G~,V~ d 1y-0~6~ ~ ~,lbl iCi
~+ghwau . -fiwo-lance roac4 r~e,IOCQ~'on• ~s~oc
b -~ age- a,~a c.~ v~-v}
a~
•
Duke Energy Page 4 •
Conveyance Program I /18!07
OpalU.akeMgmtlPackage InformationlConveyanee ApplicationlConveyaace Applicxtion.doc

• • •
DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
PART II (Continued
B. PROTECTION /AVOIDANCE AREA DESCRIPTION
Complete the following table considering all land areas within and immediately adjoining the FERC Project Boundary or Duke-owned Peripheral Strip
I~ientiflcation ~1!Iethod (•)
Protectlon/Avoidance Areas
(check all shot apply) A o .
Acreage
i
D
ID
W
k A
Avoid (A) or Mitieats (Ml
F
eld ID or
rea
wa, ..
s. Marshland, swamp, ponds, beneficial
aquatic vegetation or other potential wetlands (circle)
b. Buffer Zanes (specfy width & sow•ce of
requirement) 6~•C{'~1.5 d-'e 511i0Wh On
V
~ ~evrni~ drA.w~~S•
wba u 0~0~ Galen Ca~~ t~D~ ~nll ~
~ 50~~ atreAVm ~c~ftx PreQow.e. -4.1•e d~a~ ir~s
~ ~ `~~4~01 p~i'wlit.
G Environmental Areas as identified by Duke
Energy
d Natural Areas as identified by Duke Energy
e. historic properties (specify)

L Rare or threatened species (specify)
Duke Energy Page S
Conveyance Program Rev: 0
Qpal~I.akeMgmt~Package Information~Conveyance ApplicationVConvgaace Application.doc

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
• Identification MetLod ("1
1'rotectiodAvoidance Arena
(check al! that apply) ADDroI•
cr
d ID
Work Area Dw¢
ID
Avoid (Al or iHitieate (1M
, ."

ar Gas, water, sewer, communications or
electric lines (circle)
h.lmpact Minimization Zones as identified by
Duke Energy
i Other areas requiring specific avoidance,
protection or mitigation (sped including lrottonr land
hardwoods, natural areas)

" For "Field Id" column, specify entity or person that performed the identification and how it was physically marked (e.g. Duke Energy (John Doe)/Pink and purple-dotted
tape). For "Work Area Dwg ID" column, show the symbol that is used on the drawings to identify the protection/avoidance area.
•" Iast and attach mitigation plans for areas marked as "M"
Drake Energy Page 6
Conveyance Program
(ipalll.akeMgmt~Package laformation~Canveyance Applicadon~Conveyance Applicetion.doc
•
Rev: 0
• •

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMTT APPLICATION FORM
• C. APPLICANT SIGNATURE
Comments:
•
Applicant Name (print) ~ r~ air`( ~• ~'1 o r pe , ~h D
Applicant Signature*
*Per my signature, the information provided in this applic~ttion is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Date
BEFORE YOII MAIL T~ APPLICATION TO DUI ENERGY LAKE SERVICES ENSURE YOU RAVE:
• CHECKED THE INFO THOROUGHLY
• MET ALL REQLJIIZEMENTS FOR A COMPLE IE APPLICATION (see cover letter of apptiartion package)
• LCLUDED A SINGLE CHECK TO DUKE ENERGY FOR THE APPLICATION FILING FEE AND SECURITY
DEPUSTT
• INCLUDED ALL AGENCY PF.RNIlTS OR COM1viENT LETTERS AND INFORMATION ON ISSUES
ADDRESSED
• INCLUDID ALL REQUIRED DRAWINiGS, SURVEYS AND PLANS
• INCLUDED COPIES OF DEEDS AND AUTHORIZATION LETTERS
•
Duke Energy Page 7
(;onvayance Program
(3palV,ekeMgmt~Padcage Infbcmation~ConveyancelConveyance Appliwtion.doc
1/18/07

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMTT APPLICATION FORM
PART III - INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR Idle APPLICANTS (NC 8c SC)
In addition to the complded application foam PARTS I ~ II, the following items must be provided to Duke Energy Lake
Services for all armlicants in North and South Carolina Each item A P should be included on separate sheds of paper with
the question copied in its entirety at the top of the page with respo®ses and supporting information included:
A. A statement describing the proposed use of FERC Project property, along with the amount of Project property involved,
the name and address of the party or parties to whasm the rights are to be conveyed (fie. the organization err person
owning, leasing or that has substantial equity interest in the property adjacent to the Project boundary). and the name and
address of the person Duke Energy should contact regarding the application.
B. A copy of the deed and registered survey plat or other instrument under which the appficant claims title to the affected
ProP~' (e.g., the shoreline adjoining the ~nveyance area, the lakebed ifthe applic;ant owns the property within the
lake, etc.).
C. A detailed written description and map showing the location and type of proposed facilities). Also include a copy of a
survey prepared by a licensed Professional Lard Surveyor of the entire shoreline area within the boundaries of the
development This survey must clearly indicate the FERC Project boundary (e.g., contour elevation), the points of
intersection of side lot lines with the project boundary, the designated lot number for each lot having project frvntagc
,
abe the location, labels and necessary descriptive information for all existing or
~
penetrate the FERC project boundary including, but not limited to, shoreline stabiization f~th
e amenities areas
,
baatslips, stormwater outfalls, including any associated rip rap, utility line crossings, excavation areas, water intakes
,
wastewater discharges, dc., but not inchding izrdividual private pies and shoreline stabilization associated therewith.
The survey should also include the shoreline classificatia~ns axotdnrg to Doke Energy's Shoreline Management Phm
(SMP), especially any areas classified as Eavironrrteatal, Natural Areas, Impact Minimization Zones or Bottomland
Hardwoods, the aquatic habitat including depths and bottom types and areas of emergent vegetation or woody debris end
the condition of the existing shoreline including areas of erosion, stabilization sad vegetative cover. The sm~vey should
also indicate that the.applicant is the aur+ent owner err lease holder of'the property adjoining the p~rojed boundary from
which the facility(s) will be located
D
An accurate technical dra
i
1 i
= 100 ft
•
.
w
ng (
n
) of the proposed facr7ity(s) inchrding anchoring systems and a registered
survey(s) of the areefsl to be leased or permitted rmder s user's age inchding all the information r+earrir~ed under
Application Process - TiENI S of the Application Package cover letter (Attachment 1).
~ A B~ vicinity ~ (1 in =1000 ft) with the location(s) of facilities shown a~ Duke Energy Directions by Road
form providing du+actions to the development or project area location. This map should be suffidetttly labeled with road
names, landararks, carroty ]fines, towns, etc., so that the proposed project site is easy to locate. The general 'vicinity map
should correspond to the larger scale map required is Item C.
F. A list of names and addresses of ptvpaty owners adjoining the development or project area location.
G. A copy of all correspondence to erect from any local, regional, state and federal agencies, including any. required permits
or other approvals or comments which have been obtained from these ageeacies regarding this activity. Include a copy of
any local, regional, state or federal regulations or gundeliaes that wr71 be followed (Note: All permitting issues irrrrst be
r~esotved and clearly documented.)
I-L Twelve color copies each of photographs of the oonveyeace project area location(s), the shoreline along the area(s) and
the uiplrmd area adjoining the area(s). These photographs should show aquatic habitat, vegetative cover, land cover
sad
,
shoreline buffer conditions present at the project site and within 100 feet la~ward of the shoreline. These photographs
must also show the date that each was taken. For projects with multiple lease or permitted user agreement areas, a map
must be submitted that indicates the location/orieatation of each sd of photographs.
I. Describe how the proposed construction will be designed to avoid err minimize conflict with the natural, historic, scerric
and public recreational values and resources of the project.
J. Describe what measures will be used to ensure boating safety in the vicinity of the proposal during and after construction
activity. (Include arty requinzd Navigational Safety Plans with a plan and schedule for installation, maimerranee and
inspediavr of the warningisafety devices, with responsibilities listed and verified by cor~rn-ation letters from the
respovrsible entity(s).)
•
na><e Energy Page S lnttro~
Conveyance Program
(3pallLatceMgmt~Package Iaformation~ConveyancelComeyance Application.doc

DUI ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERNIIT APPLICATION FORM
•
K Describe tbe magnitude and pattern of existing boat traffic in the erica, including any existing recreational uses (public or
private) at and near the proposal, including areas of attraction such as marine gas facilities, mstatcants, sad mooring
areas. Desetrbe the effect associated with the proposed fatalities, on the existing boat traffic in the sees.
L. Describe the procedures proposed to construct the facilities and stabilize the shoreline.
M. Far projects that include water withdrawals, a txnrrplete destxiption of the design and construction of the water pipeline
and intake strutxtae (inchrdmg elevation data), intake stxeert size, intake vdocities, proposed average amtual ctrl average
monthly water withdrawal rates, maximum instantaneous pumping capacity and the txiticai lake deviation for the intake
(ie, the lake deviation below which the intake will no longer pump at its maximum instantaneous pumping capacity for
a strstaiaed period of time) must be included slang with a description of meastues proposed to mitigate the potential
entrainment of fish or aquatic organisms. Note: This item is arty incluuded for projeety that wiU larva ~aorer widrdmw~al
facilities as part ojthe proposal
N. Describe any shoreline distra~bance that may occur as a r+eartt of the proposal (eg. ramps, pipeline tteaches, etc.)
especially land disturbances within 100 feet of the project boundmy.
O. A statement indicating that there will be no proposed or requested changes (e.g., modified rrsetvoir levd operating
ranges, modified flow releases from hydro project dams, dc.) in hydro project operation as a result of cortstnrction and
ntrlization of the proposed facilities.
P. A check far the application filing fee tmd security deposit and the signed Conveyance User's Agreement letter and
Habitat F~hanceareat fee if required.
THE FOLLOWING IS FOR WATER WITHDRAWAL FACIIr][TES ONLY
Q. All applicants for new, expanding or rebuilding water withdrawal facilities that have or will have a
maximum instantaneous water withdrawal race greater than or equal to 1 miIIion gallons per day (MGD)
•
must provide the following:
(1) 'Ihe proposed estimated average amrual fac>7ity withdrawal schedule in MGD for the next thirty years or the
executed term of the permit, whichever is greats.
(2 ). Estimates (ia per+ceat of total .withdrawals) for consumptive use and inter basin trensfss for the next thirty years or
the executed tam of the permit whichever is gnats. Separate out the perromtage estimate for txarsumptive use
from the percentage estimate for inter-basin transfers.
(3) Detailed information on water conssvation plans. If these piaffi are required to be filed with Local, State, a
Federal Government entities, provide the plan that is t~rrrerttly filed. Provide detar7s on the enquired Local, State, or
Federal Governmen reporting requirements, if any.
(4) Detailed information on drought ordinsaoes cad water shortage response plans, including a description of the
associated trigger points at which the wets use r~est<ictiiens would be implemented. Provide the estimated reduction
in water withdrawals (in MGD) that would result firnn implementation of the referenced water shortage response
plan.
(5) For the water proposed to be withdrawn, a detailed estimate of the amounts and location of the discharge points
back into the rive system. Include estimates and locations for crurrat discharge locations as well as a tieccriptian of
how those estimates and discharge locations are expected to change ovs the next thirty years or tbe executed term
of tbe permit, whichevs is greats.
(6) For the normal use intake, provide the withdrawal capacity (in MGD) of the pump(s) serving the normal use intake
with all applicable intake pumps operating at their maximum capacity (i.e., this is the maximum instantaneous
withdrawal capacity)- Also, provide the first critical lake level deviation at which the maximum instantaneous
withdrawal t~rpacity of the normal use intake pumps becomes limited. Provide the second taitical lake teed
deviation at wfiich the normal use intake pump(s) can no longs withdraw wets from tbe lake and must be
shutdown.
•
('n ,For the low level or emergency use intake, provide the withdrawal capacity (in MGD) of the prmrp(s) serving the
low level or emergency use intake with all applicable intake.pnrrrps operating at their maximrau capacity. Also,
Duke Energy Page 9
Conveyance Program
GpatlL,akeMgmt~Padcage InfoimationlComeyaace~Coaveyaace Application.doc
1/18/07

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
provide tbe fast critical lake keel elevation at which the malrimum instantaneous withdrawal capacity of the low
level or emergency use intake pumps becomes limited Provide the second critical lake level elevation at which the
low level ar emergency use intake pump(s) can no longer withdraw water from the lake and must be shutdown.
R (For water intakes wtlh ultiarwte capacity >_ 1 MGD only) Attach a report, pt+epared and scam
Professional Engineer, to this Conv ~S . ~ 1~ by a licen9ed
eyance application that caatains the foIlo mformatio as a minimum:
(1) A detailed estimation of current end future raw water demands and pumping requirements, including:
a) Graphs and supporting documentation showing aamral average and annual peak raw water demand rnoiections
(in MGDI for each year in at least a 30-year forecast (or the expected tens of the permit, whichever is la~nger)
that will be saved by flee proposed law water intake facility. (Note: ll' the proposal is for expansion of an
existing facility, also specify the same information for flee existing raw water intake facility).
b) Graphs end supporting docmnemtation showing the amnrral average and ma~titnum ins peek
(in MGD) of the nrreposed raw water inhaler fnrititX to meet the demand forecast of Item (1) a) above. (Note: if
the proposal is for expansion of an existing facility, also specify the same information for the existing raw
water intake facrlfty).
c) Graphs and strpparting docrane~tation characterizing how the average monthly capacity and peak monthly
capacity (in MGD) of the proposed raw water intake facility are expected to vary in s given calendar year for
the forecasted period (Note: If the proposal is for expansion of ea enlacing facility, also specify t>x same
information for the existing raw water intake facility). .
(2) A description of the applicant's ongoing programs to sapport the consavatian and efficient use of the vaster
withdrawn and any information quantifying the effectiveness of those programs.
(3) A summary desesibiag the appficant's construction plan sad schedule thaougleom the forocasted period to modify
equipment to achieve the capacity as noted is Item (1) b), and including identification of the ultimate capacity.
(4) A desorption of the applicant's drought management progrmn, including voluntary and. mandatory water use
restriction measu[es and any information quantifying the effectiveness of the program.
(S) An engineering feasibility e:valnation that evah~tes the available alternatives that the applicant considered to mcet
the raw water demand as facecastod in Ilan (1) a) above before choosing the proposed alternative. At least one of
the alternatives evalrmted must use an intake that is fully operational with the lalae keel at art above the critical
intake ele:vatiari required far frill hydroelxtric statieen operation enr the applicable lake (err far lakes ICeowee and
Jocassee, five feet below maadmmn drawdown). In performing firs alternatives evaluation, the applicant must use
its best effauts to identify and evaluate deep water intakes that would maximize the amount of usable lake stcaage,
i~luding but not limited to the potential use of intamaneaa with other water supply systems or locating the intake
at alternate locations. Note: Duke Energy reserves the right to rejext eaginoer~ing evaluations that do not adexltratdy
consider the available alternatives that would best protect sad enhance usable reeservoir storage. .
(6) A flowchart and supporting documentation showing how the raw water wr11 be used a~nce it is withdrawn from the
Duke reservoir, including percentages of the intake volume that wr71 be:
a) Lost due to consumptive uses
b) Lost from the subject river system due reinter-basin transfers at specified wastewater discharge stations (•).
c) Reteaned to the subject river system via specified wastewater discharge stations (•}
(• Note: Include a USGS quad street or other suitable map showing stream sad reservoir names; county/city names and
boundaries; major roadway names, locations, names and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
identification numbers of the subject waste:wate= discharge stationv and bormde<ies drawn to show flee geographic area that
will be sewed with water that comes fiom the subject raw water intake facilities.
(~ (For d-e portions of the withdrawn water that will altmaately return to a Duke reservoir only) A summary of the
wastewater stream cleemicah limits as specified in the NPDES peradt far the subject wastewater treahnent station(s)
and a quantificatia~n of any discharge s(ream chemical improvements achieved by treatment processes that exceed
the minimal wastewater treatment standards.
•
Duke ~'gY Paige 10 1/18N7
Conveyance Program
CipalliakeMgmr~Packege lnfoamttion~Conveyance~Coaveymce Appliatioadoc

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMTf APPLICATION FORM
• (8) A reservoir system water quantity model that evahrates the impact of the proposed water withdrawal on the
applicable Duke reservoir system. Note: 1)ulce litergy has existing reservoir system water gtra~ity models for some
of its re.9avoirs and in those cases, We applicant may choose to coordinate with Duke or a mutually agreeable
consulting firm to utitire the Duke model at the applicant's expense,
THE FOLLOWING IS FOR WASTEWATER EFFLIIENT DICHARGE FACILTfES ONLY
S. (For xwstewater e,,~'lrrent discharges only) Attach a report, prepared and stamped by a licensed Professional fingineer, to
this Conveyance applicatiar! that contains flu following information, as a minimum:
(1) A detailed estimation of current and fixture discharge demands and flowrates, including:
a) Graphs and supporting documentation showing annual average a>Yi annual peak wastewater dischagee demand
yroiedions fin MGllI far each year in at least a 3U-year for+eca:-t (or the executed team of the permit,
whichever is longs) that will be served by the proposed vastewater discharge facility. (Note: If the proposal is
for expansion of an existing facility, also specify the same information for the existing wastewater discharge
facility).
b) Graphs and supporting documentation showing annual average capacity and maximum instantaneous peak
capacity fin MGDI of the mrniosed wastevvata discharne facility tp meet the demand forecast of Item 1) a)
above. (Note: If the proposal is far expansion of an existing facility, also specify the same information far tbe
existing wastewater discharge facility).
c) Graphs and supporting doarmentation charactaizmg how the average monthly capacity and peak monthly
capacity (in MGD) of the proposed wastewater discharge fa~-ility are expected to vary in a given calendar year
for the foerocavted period. (Note: If the proposal is for expansion of an existing fac~r7ity, also specify the same
information for the existing wastewater discharge facility)
. (2) A summary of the wastewater stream chemical limitrs as specified in the NPDES permit for the subject wastewater
• .treatment station and a quantification of any discharge shun chemical improvements aclrieved by treatment
processes that exceed the minimal vvactewater treatment standards.
(3) A detailed description of the expelled chemical composition of the e8luent stream, i~luditig eery expected
significant short-term variations on a monthly basis or long~am variations ova the forecasted period
(4) An enginemng f~srbility evaluation that evaluates the available alternatives that the applicant camsiderod to meet
the wastewater discharge demands as forecasted m Item (1) a) above before choosing the proposed alternative. In
performing this alternatives evaluation, the applicant mast use its best efforts to identify and evahrate alternatives
that would minimize the impacts to the Duke reservoir system, including b>rt not limited to the potential use of
interconnects with other wastewater treatment systems and locating the discharge facility at atterrirte locations.
Note: Doke F,nergy reserves the right to reject engineetarg evaluations that do not adequately consider the available
alternatives that would best protect and enhance the water quality and/or wets quantity within the Duke reservoir
system. .
(5) A summary describing the applicant's caostructian plan and schedule throughout the forxasted period to modify
equipment to achieve the capacity as noted in Itenn (1) b~ and including identification of the ultimate capacity.
(6) Include a USGS quad sheet or other suitable map showing stream and lake names; county/city names and
boundaries; major roadway names; and boundaries drawn to show the geographic area that wrll be served by the
subject wastewater disschatge facilities.
(7) Reservoir system wets quantity and wets quality models that evaInate the impacts of the proposed wastewater
discharge on the applicable Duke reservoir system. Kota Duke Energy has existing reservoir system water quantity
and water quality models for some of its reservoirs and in those cases, the applicant may choose to coordinate with
Duke or a muLrally agreeable consiiltirig 5rm to utilize the Duke models at the applicant's expense.
•
I)nfce E~8Y Page 11
Conveyance Program
Gpa1ll.akeMgmtlPadcage Information~Comeyance~Comeyana Appliatioa.doc
I/18/07

PUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
PART IV - AGEN •
CY REVIEWS/APPROVAILS REQIIIRED
A NORTH Cr9ROLlNA ApPL-ICANT3 ONLY
1. The following two agencies require at least 30 days prior notification far all conveyance, commen-ial and resider>tial .
facility applications in North Carolina lakes. Notify them by forvvardirrg a lamed
including the information requited under PART III A-P to: ~ COPY of this application,
I.1S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COMMISSION
c% Mr. William Thomas Walker, II
Regulatory Field Otl;ice
151 Pattort Avenue, Room 208
Ashevr7le, North Carolina 28801-5006
[phone] ext. 3
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOTJRC&4
Division of hilaad Fisheries
1701 Marl Service Cents
Raleigh, NC 27699-1701
ATTN: Habitat Conservation Section
[phone]
Duke Energy reserves the right to require consultation with additional organizations beyond those listed bete.
What to Expect:
a) If the proposal can be done undo the requirements of the General Permit (GP) or a Nationwide Permit (NWP),
You will typically receive a letter from the Corps documenting attthotizatiop and providing any additional
404mstt~rtea4s~ proposal isn't covered under the GP or a NWP, yaar'll be required to obtain an individual
b) You must receive writt ~d entation front the Corps that yaarr application either meets the regrrirernents of
the GP or a NWP QF that the proper 404 permit has been received before Duke Energy can process your
application.
c) You will typically receive a letter from the NCWRC documenting their conctrtr+ence with your apphcatioa,
requiring additional information or r+eoa~mmending modifications You must address each ceoomeut is your
final application. •
d) If yon do not receive any documentation from the NCWRC within 30 days of their reoeipt of your applicatioq
you must provide the NCWRC with a follow up letter requesting the agency comment on yoor proposal ~~
15 days from the date of the letter. If you do not reoaive any response as a result of the second letter, you must
type, "NO RESPONSE" at the top of the follow-up 1dLer a~ provide to Duke Energy. Ya~u may proceed with
the application process, recognizing however that if comments from the NCWRC come in later is the
application Process, You will also be regmred to address them
1n addition to the two agencies of PART IVA 1, the applicant must also provide at least ~Q days prior notificatia~n to the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality by forwarding a copy of the
completed Duke Energy Conveyance Permit Application Form (including the information requited under PART III A P)
to:
NC DEPT. OF ENVIItONMENT dt NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of water Quality
cIo Cyndi Karoly
Patlcview Building
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
What to Expect:
a) You will typically receive a letter providing Water Queliry Section concurteoce, which may require additional
information ar recommend modifications. You must address each comment in your fusel application to Duke
. Energy.
b) You will typically receive written documentation from the NCDENR that 401 Water Quality certification is
either not requred err the requirements are met
c) tf you do not receive any docimnerrtationtrom the NCDENR within 30 days of their receipt of your
application, you must notify the Division of Water Quality with a follow up letter requesting the agency
•
I)ulce Energy Page 12 1118/07
Conveyance Program
Gpa1~LalceMgmtlPsckaga Informstion~ConveyaacelCoaveysnce Applicatioadoc

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
• comment on your proposal within 15 days from the date of the letter. If you do not receive any response as a
resuh of the second letter, you must type, "NO RESPONSE" at the top of the follow-np letter and provide to
Duke Energy. You may proceed with the application process, recognizing however that if comments from the
NCDENR come in later in the application process, you will also be required to address them.
3. In addition to the above requirements, a copy of the completed Conveyance Permit Application Form (including the
information required under PART III A P) must be submitted to both the Planning/Z.oning Office and the Health
Depatirner-t in the applicable county.
What to Ex,_pect:
a) You will typically receive a letter from the county doctrmeating their cor-aursnce with your application,
requiring additional information or recommending modifications. You must address each comment in your
final application.
b) If you do not receive any documentation fiom the applicable wunty offices within 30 days of their receipt of
your application, you must provide the county offices with a follow ~ letter reque.~firtg the agency comment
on your proposal within 15 days from the date of the letter. If you do not receive any response as a result of the
second letter, you must type, "NO RESPONSE" at the top of the follow up letter and provide to Duke Energy.
You may proceed with the application process, recogniTrng however that if their comments come in later in the
application process, You will also be required to address them.
4. In addition to the above requireonents, the applicant must provide at least ~ days p~dor written notification to the
following agencies by forwarding the completed Conveyance Permit Application Form, including the information
req<red under PART III A P:
NCSHPO
NC Dept. Of CulLiual Resources
Division of Archives & History
• c% Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
[phone]
NCDENR
Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mao Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1615
[phone]
USFWS
US Fish Bc Wildlife Service
cfo Mark Cantrell
l60 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone], Ext 227
NCDENR
Division of Environmental Health
Public Water Supply Section
dp Britt Setzer
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresvilk, NC 28115
What to Ex_„pect:
a) You wr71 typically receive a letter fiom each agency documcuting the ager-cy's conciuretroe with your
application, requiting additional iafomratian or recommending modifications. You must address each agency
comment in your final application.
b) If you do not receive any documentatia~n from an agency within 30 days of their receipt of your application, .
you must provide that agency with a follow up letter requesting the agency comment on your proposal within
15 days firm the date of the letter. ff you do not receive any respan,4e as a testilt of the second letter, you must
type, °NV RESPONSE" at the top of the follow-up liter and provide to Dnke Etyergy. You may proceed with
the application process, recognizing however that if their comments from the agency come in late in the
application process, you will also be required to address them
cj If this application is used for Nantahala or Keowee area projects it will also require consultation with the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. If the application involves the Catawba Wateree Project fivm Lake Wylie
through bake Wateree the Catawba Indian Nation will need to be corfsnlted.
Tyler Howe Dr. Wenonah Haire
Tn'bnl Historic Preservation Office Tn'bal Historic Preservation Office
Eastern Band of Cherokee hidians Catawba huiian Nation
PO Box 455 1536. Tarn Steven Rd.
• Cherokee, NC 28719 Rock Hill, SC 29731
Duke Energy Page 13 1/18/07
Conveyance Program
GpalU.akeMgmt~Package Information~Com~eyancelCom~eyance Application.doc

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
(828) ssa-~8s2
[phone]
5. In addition to the above roq~ritements, the applicant must provide at least 30 days prior written notification to the
marine ~ hY forvvr>ncling the completed Conveyarxx Permit Application Form, including the
information required under PART III A-P:
Lake WY.L~
Lake Wylie Marine Commission
do Annette Cawing
P.O. Box 35008
Charlotte, NC 28235-5008
704-348-2705
Lake Norman:
Lake Norman Marine Commission
c!o Paul MtzLrk
P.O. Box 2454
Cornelius, NC 28031
704-933-5990
Mtn. Lsland Lake:
Mtn Island Marine Commission
c/o Annette Cawing
P.O. Box 35008
Charlotte, NC 28235-5008
704-348-2705
Note: Marine commissions nornna!!y review applications during their marrdily public meetings. Each commission has
r+tgularly scheduled muting. held on specific dayv (e.g. dii~alMonday ojeaeh month) and at varying locations
Appliemits must cailact the eovnmissiarl s representatives a minimum ojane morilh in advance o, jthe following marith's
muting to be inehided on die agenda. A follmy up letter rrU be required from the Mariiu Commission.
what to Expect
a) Yw will typically rooeive a letter andJor a copy of the meeting minutes documenting the commission's
camcaareace with your application, inquiring additional information or tecommendmg madificaticros. You
must address each comnussi~ comment in your final application.
6. FOR ALL WATER WTIHDRAWAL REQUESTS ON TAE CATAWBA-WATEREE PROJECT, WRITTEN
CONSULTATION WILL BE REQUIRED WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT GROUP. THE WATER
MANAGEMENT GROUP INFORMATION FOR CONSULTATION IS ATTACHED
•
•
~~ Energy Page 14 1/18/07
Conveyance Program
Cipa11[.akeMgnrtlPackage informationlConveyancelComeyance Application.doc
•

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
•
•
PART rv B
B. SOUTHCAROLiNA APPLICANTS ONLY
1. The following agencies must be provided with a copy and allowed a 30 day review of the completed Conveyance Permit
Application Farm, inchuding the information required render PART III A P:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
do Ms. Tina Redden
69A Hagood Avenue
Charleston, SC 29403-5107
843-329-8044
1-866-329-8187
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
cJo Ms. Amanda Hill
] 76 Croghan Spar Road, Suite 200
Charleston, SC 29407
[phone] ext 12
SC SHPO
Deportment of Archives noel History
c% Ms. Rebekah Dobrasko .
8301 Park Lane Road
Columbia, SC 29223-4905
[phone]
t to Expect:
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF HEALTH ~
ENVIItONN112TTAL CONTROL '
cJo Ms. Heather Preston
2600 Bull 3trnet
Cohrmbia, SC 29201
803-898-3105
SC Dept. of Natural Resources
c% Mr. Dick Christie
Reinhart C. Demos Building
1771C HWY 521 Bypass South
Lancaster, SC 29720
803 289-7022
SC DPR&T
Edgar A Brvwn Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Suite 110
Columbia, SC 29201
[phone]
a) You will typically receive a letter or permit from each agency documenting the agency's concurrence with your
application, requiring additional information or recormnending modifications. You must address each agency
comment in your final applicatiati.
b) If you do not receive any docutaentatian 6rom an agency within 30 days of their receipt of your application,
you must provide that agency with a follow ~ letter requesting dre agency comment on~your proposal within
L S days from the date of the letter. If you do not receive any response as a result of this second letter, you may
proceed with the application process, recognizing however that if their comments come in late in the
application process, you will also be required to address them. You will not be allowed to continue the
application process without concuurence &asn the US Army COE and the SCDHEC. Note: This second 1S~
day letter r+equit~ement also applies to the agency : in Part ]N.Al-0 when the appHation is for a
Commercial Fscflity, Conveyance or other application requiring FFItC review.

2. In addition to the above requirements, a Dopy of the completed Conveyance Permit Application Form (including the
information required under PART III A-P) must be submitted to both the PtA*„+,,,gf7.,~±ng Og'ice and the Health
Department in the applicable county.
What to E
b) You wr71 typically receive a letter from the county documenting their concurrence with your applicatiam,
requiring additional information or reca~mmending modifications. You must address each comment in your
final application.
c) If you do not receive any documentation fivat the applicable county offices within 30 days of their receipt of
your application, you must provide the county offices with afollow-up letter requesting the agency comment
on your proposal within 15 days from the date of the letter. If you do not receive any response as a t exult of the
second letter, you must type, ` ld0 RESPONSE" at the top of the follow up letter aad provide to Duke Energy.
You may proceed with the application process, rewgnizing however that if that comments come in Later in the
application process. You will also be required to address them.
Duke Energy 1'ago 15
Conveyance Program
Gpal~I.~dceMg~lPadage Iaformation~ConveYanee~ConveYanee Appliation.doc
1/18/07

DUI ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
•
3. 1n addition to the above requirements, applicants on Lake Wylie must provide at least 30 days prior written notificatiaa-
to the Lake Wylie Marine Commission by forwarding the completed Conveyance Permit Application Form, including
the information required under PART III A-P:
Lake Wylie
Lake Wylie Marine Commission
cJo Annette Cawing
P.O. Box 35008
Charlollr, NC 28235-5008
704-348-2705
Note: Marine eovmnissians normally review appliartions during their monthly public meetings. Each commission has
regulm~iy scheduled meetings held on specifrc dayes (e.g, third Moviday of arch moves) and at varying loaatians.
Applicants must oonioet the commission's representatives a minimum of one month in advance of the following month's
meeting w be included an the agenda
What to Expect;
c) You w~71 typically receive aletterand/or a copy of the meeting minutes documenting the commigsiea~'s
concurrence with your application, requiring additional information or receanmending modifications. You
must address each canmlission comment in your final application Duke Energy will require a follow up letter
firm the Caunmissian.
4. FOR ALL WATER WIT~RAWAL REQUESTS ON THB CATAWBA WATEREE PROJECT, WRITPEN
CONSULTATION WILL BE REQUIRED WITH TAE WATER MANAGEEMENT GROUP. THE WATER
MANAGEMENT GROUP INFORMATION FOR CONSULTATION IS ATTACHED.
•
Duke Energy
•
Esge 16 1/18/07
Corrveyance Program
Gpal~i,alceMgmt~Padcage Information~CoweyancelCom+eyance Appticxtion.doc

• ~ •
DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
PART V -SUMMARY TABLES - ~~
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CONSULTA?ION/ PERMITTING RESULTS
-LETTER DATRC-
Agency Name Applicant
to A n Agency to
A licant Agency Issaes Applikant Resolattoa
(r~A ~j /~ ,r~ r
vl ~ ~V W.lii
N C ~VI/ ~ `tom ~ I-4~'-~ rv~ i-f-s oir ctctr r~„-~-1 bpi
re ct,r~ b NG tJa-~t~,l ~~nvi ~ Vvt~e ~~
Uhi~-. Lam}-4ers avid rni-ti-S wi1~
i nclud~ ~ h -~ -nct,~ ~ ~ m ~-~- a I i ~t - a n

Duke Energy Page 17 Rev; p
Conveyance Program
Cipal`LakeMgmt~Package Information~Conveysoce AppticstioalConveyance Application.doc

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
PART V - S[1141MARY TABLES (Continued)
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS AFTER START OF CONSULTATION
Modifications made after Duke Energ~v approval to start contacting the required agencies
Date of Reason Modification Description Issue
Modification Resolved
Yes/No
Duke Energy Page 13
Conveyance Program
C3palV.akeMgmt~I'ackage InfaumatioalConveyance Application~Conveyance Application.doc
Rev: 0
• • •

• •
DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
PART V -SUMMARY TABLES (Cantinue~
AB E3
. UMMARY OF NON-DUKE ENERGY PERMITS/CERTIFICATIONS"
PermiUCertif~cation Name Igguing Agency Date of
Igguance Date of
Ez iration
40~- Qfi'a~ wide f~r~it S ~~0~
4.0 l C~ene~ I ~e-~f-c~-h'ov~ C ~1~U Q

« Copies of all petmits/certiflcations must be tnctuaea wttn agency corresponaence to rnxi iu, item ~.
Duke Energy Pege l 9 Rev: 0
Coavsymca Program
(3pa1`1.akeMgmt\Packege Cnformation\Conveyence Applicstion\Conveymce Applicatian.doc
•

DUKE ENERGY CONVEYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
i
PART VI - ADDITIONAL IlVFORMATION
(Rejerenee previous parts as applicable. If more pages are needed, add a suffer to last page (t.g. 19q 19b, 19c, efa)
Duke Energy Page 20 Rev: 0
Com~eyance Program
Gpal~LekeMgmt~I.MPPM\Conveyance~ConAppFmdoc

DLL ENERGY CUN~EYANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORIVI

INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL APPLICANTS (NC & SC)
ITEMS A - P
A. A statement descn'bing the proposed age of FERC Project ptnpetty, along with the amount of Projax property inwlved,
the mm~e aad address of the party or parties to whom the rights art to be conveyed (ie. the organi~tiout or person
owning, leasing or that has substantial etluity iaterest is the property adjacent to the Prt>ject boundary), aad the name and
address of the person Duke Energy should contact regarding the application.
The proposed use of property is for construction related to NCDOT TIP project R-3833 which
includes the widening of the existing two-lane Brawley School Road (AREA #1) to a four-lane
median divided facility and the construction of two-lane Gibbs Road (AREA #2). Due to the
construction of a new interchange with I-77 and Brawley School Road, the existing Gibbs Road
access to Brawley School Road will be closed due to its close proximity to the proposed
interchange ramps.
AREA #1
The existing Brawley School Road (L-line) bridge over the unnamed tributary (UT) will be
replaced with a triple barrel box culvert. The elevation of the bottom of the box culvert will be
759.6 feet (inlet) and 757.1 feet (outlet). The elevation of the widened Brawley School Road will
be 774.0 feet @ station 265+08 (center-line of culvert). The new box culvert will be constructed
in the azea of the existing bridge and extended south for a distance of 84 feet (from south side of
existing structure).
The Gibbs Road relocation (y4-line) will include a new bridge over the FERC boundary. The
elevation of the new bridge will be 766.1 feet (lowest top of deck elevation). The new bridge
structure will be 209.0 feet long and 36.0 feet wide. The elevations of the footings aze:
AREA #2
Bent 1
Top of Drilled Pier Elev. 758.6
Point of Fixity 732
Bent 2 Bent 3 Bent 4
758.8 759.6 758.4
729 728 727(left)/712(right)
The attached plans (See Appendix A) include the amount of project property involved.
This includes approximately 0.01 acres of permanent right of way and 0.0 acres of temporary
construction easement for AREA #1 (L-line new culvert) and 0.21 acres of permanent right of
way and ~0.0 acres of temporary construction easement or AREA #2 (bridge). For a total of 0.22
acres of R/W and 0.0 acres of TCE.
There aze no wetlands within the FERC boundary. There aze 0.071 acres of stream buffers being
impacted within the FERC boundary (0.010 acres in AREA #1, 0.061 acres in AREA #2).
AREA #1
Brawl School Road cu3vert AREA #2
Gibbs Road tnid e TOTAL
':RIGHT OF WAY acres ' ' 0.01 0.21 0.22
TCE acres 0.0 0.0 0.0
WETLANDS ` acres 0.0 0.0 0.0
STREAM! BI7FFERS acres 0.01 0.06 0.07
STREAMS 'ear feet 172.4 134.5 306.9
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP project R-3833
Application for Conveyance
Lake Norman FERC property

The rights of the property will be conveyed to:
North Cazolina Depaztment of Transportation •
One South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27611
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact:
Ms. Kristine L. Solberg, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27699-1548
[phone] extension 259
klsolberg@dot. state.nc.us
B. A copy of the deed and registered survey plat or other insln>ansat tinder which the app&caat claims title to the affected
uroraiv (e g., the shoreline adjoining the coaveyarrue area, the lake~exi if the applicant owns tix: property within the
lake, etc.}
See Appendix B for registered survey map. The Lake Norman PBL FERC boundary was
provided by Duke Energy and approved by a licensed professional surveyor. The Surveyor for the
boundary is Walter K. Dixon (with Duke Energy).
C. A dotrtilod written deac~an and map showing the loartion and type orprapoeoa facility(s). ,also incltde a Dopy of a
sttsvey prcpa:nd by a licc~od Professional Land 3trrtyar of the eavdre sltocdine stns within the boiwdaries of the
developtttent. This ~" ttwsR tlmtiy indicarte the FERC Project bonadery (e.g., comtour ekwatioat~ the points of
intersectim of side let lines with the projetxbotmdary, the lot t~bes• fflr each bt having P~.1~ ASS
and the location, labels and aeoemsruy deac~iptive information for aIl eodstiag or gleaned faalities that tio~a- ar w>71
peetettate the emu: project bowtdary inchtdittg. but trot tiatited to. shoreline atabiiirntion for the an>es~ areas,
1~, ~~ mss, including ~ associatred riP ~R line cro~tigs, excavatieat arts, vYamejr intakes,
~ diacbaargea, etc., but not inchadiag individual private poets sad ahrtreliae stabilization sseociatod tha~cwith.
-rt-c strvey shaula also include tlte.t-oreline classificaticass a~aoor+ding to Date 8nagy's Shoreline Mimagement Plan
{SIVIP~ espcaallY any areas classified ns Pattrirootttental, Natural Ateas, Minmri7atiart 7..oaes or Bottomlaod
Hardwoods, the agtmtic habitat including depths and bottom types Bata ara~ of emer~t vegda#io®or woody ddxis ancf
the eonditiact of the eau~ng ahar~oline including cress of erasioay s~bitizetion and vegetative cove. The aarvry ~arld
a?sa iMicxte that the applicant is the ctureul owner ac lease hoidpr of the gingerly adjoi~g the project botmdary iirorn
which the facility(s) will be located
The proposed use of the project property is for afour-lane median divided public road
widening/triple barrel box culvert (Brawley School Road SR 1100) and a public bridge carrying a
new two-lane road Gibbs Road (SR 1196).
The current Brawley School Road will be widened to the south and bridge no. 480046 will be
replaced with a triple barrel box culvert.
D. Art aaarrate teclmicai drxw~ (1 in = l00 ft) of the propoeed factiiiv{s}including mc6oraag systems and a regitaarxi
survey(s) of the g~(,~l,Q ~c leased ar >oamittod under a Wear's 4e,@~ irichiding allthc information repaired tinder
Applica#icat Pmoess - TIT:Ad 5 of the Appli+:atiom Package covcx lettaes (Attitudfinerot I).
Design plans for the Brawley School Road widening and triple barrel box culvert and for the .
Gibbs Road relocation and bridge construction aze included in Appendix A. A copy of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP project R-3833
Application for Conveyance
Lake Norman FERC property

registered survey is provided on the following page. A copy of the Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact are included in Appendix D.
F.. A general vrctnity map (1 m =1000 ft) with the lacatio¢i(s) of facilities shawa aid Dube Energy Direcdoas by Road
form providing directions to the devclopm,art ar project ar+aa location. Thu map slrolxW be sutticientty labeled with road
names, landmarks, county tinca, towns„ etc., eo that the proposed pnyjRxK silt is caay to iocats. The general vicinity waP
shook] correspond to the larger scale Wrap regt>ired in Item C.
See Appendix D for vicinity map.
Directions
From I-77 in Iredell County:
Take the NC-150 exit- EXIT 36- toward MOORESVILLE / LINCOLNTON. 0.1 miles
Head WEST onto NC-150 / W PLAZA DR. Continue to follow NC-150. 0.2 miles
Turn LEFT onto ROLLING HILL RD. 1.0 miles
End at Brawley School Rd & Rolling Hill Road, Mooresville, NC 28117
F. A list of rramcs and addttss~s of property ovrners adjoining ttre ekveiopmrnt or project anew location.
Pazcel 143, Cashion Farms, LLC, Claud Cashion, 431 Brawley School
Road, Mooresville, NC 28117
Pazcel 153, Town of Mooresville, 353 Brawley School Road,
Mailing: P.O. Box 878, Mooresville, NG 28115
Pazcel 155 & 155B, Sunridge Place, LLC, 355 Brawley School Road,
• Mooresville, NC 28117, Mailing: 1700 Abbey Place, Suite 111,
Chazlotte, NC 28090
Parcel 155A, Sunridge Townhomes, LLC, 355 Brawley School Road,
Mooresville, NC 28117, Mailing: 175 Davidson Highway, P.O. Box
1604, Concord, NC 28026
G. A copy of all ~ to and ftnm am local: regional, slate sad federal agtncia, i~ludiog aaY m4~ P~$
or aches aQ¢ovals ar oornwapts which have bem obtaiacd >tir~ IIs~oC a~cies regattliog this activity.lnciude a Dopy of
asry local, rtgians], state ar fedesal r+egtrlatio~ ex guidclimes ~ wr71 be follaweci. (Norr:lttl pernrftMg taaa~ca ~ ba
resalveod mxl de~ar~y docyrMren~ .
All federal, state, regional and local agency correspondence is presented below in chronological
order. This includes all permits or other approvals that have been obtained.
1. A scoping letter was sent on (date) to applicable federal and state agencies requesting input
for the planning study for the bridge replacement project. The scoping letter along with responses
is included in Appendix E.
2. The Environmental Assessment (EA) (Appendix D) document was distributed to several state
and federal agencies for review and comment. The distribution letter along with responses is
included in Appendix E.
. 3. Other agency contacts are included in Appendix E.
4. Permits/certifications required for this project are included in Appendix E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP project R-3833
Application for Conveyance
lake Norman FERC property

H. Twelve color copies each of p~-owgrap~ha of the oaaveyance project atrs locatian(s~ ~e shoreline mpg the atra(s) and
the uptt~d area adjasrUag the arza(a). Theac photogaphs shaubd sbcrw agtxttic habitat, vcactative covet, lend cover, and
slwmelitic buffeer conditions pr+esertt at the ptojeet site and within 100 feet IatdvwE<td of the ahorclmc. 'These photograptut
must also show the date that each was taken. For projtets with multiple lease or pernutmd user agtecmeut , a ~P
awst be sabtnittai that indicates the locatiaoJorieatalian of each act of pitioto~hs.
See Appendix F.
i. I;k~cribe how the pcoposad aaonRrnctian will be deigned to avoid or mmiarize conflict with the mwrai. historic, scenic
and public tecaealiattal values and tcaotaers of the project.
The transportation improvement project has been designed to minimize conflicts with natural,
historic, scenic and public recreational values and resources. The measures were addressed in the
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (Appendix D). This
documentation was developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) which requires that all state, federal and local laws and regulations aze adhered to.
Additional measures to avoid and minimize conflict with natural resources aze included in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Number 14 general conditions for the
Division of Water Quality 401 Certification. These aze included in Appendix E.
J. Describe what measures will be need to ensra+e boatma safety in the vicinity of the proposal during and after canstructian
activity. (Jnct~ede mry rrguind Navigatiav~af Safety Plmrs wltk a pray, art~d rduralate~fi'ar lrutar-atior~, ~terxrncr acrd
inspecaar gfylie ~-~ay ~~. with rrJporrsiblttttes ltrted and verified try c~ar~rnaaniaw tears, f~rr the
raporsibte ortity(a).)
There is no boat traffic in the FERC boundary azea that crosses the proposed NCDOT project. •
The area includes unnamed tributaries that feed Lake Norman. There aze no existing recreational
uses at or neaz the proposed bridge and culvert.
K. Desa~'be the magait»de and pnttetn of existing bast ttaff c in the amp, including siy e~dstiag ioa~ricaml yes (public or
private) ai atd near the proposal, including areas o#'atitacticst such as marine Bas ~- ~ acct mooing
cress. Descstbe the effect associated with rite proposod fatalities, oa the existing boat trafl7ic in the etrea.
There is no boat traffic in the FERC boundary area that crosses the proposed NCDOT project.
This area includes unnamed tributaries that feed Lake Norman. There aze no existing recreational
uses at or neaz the proposed bridge and culvert.
L_ Dc~xibe the procedures pt<rtptteed ro coastrnct the f:ecilitiGS and stabilise the sharoline_
The Lake Norman FERC project boundary will be bridged and culverted. The Brawley School
Road triple box barrel culvert (AREA #1) and the Gibbs Road bridge (AREA #2) will be
constructed to NCDOT structural and hydraulic standards and specifications by private
contractors. NCDOT's Best Management Practices will be implemented for stabilization of the
construction site. NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be
implemented where practicable to control highway runoff. •
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP project R-3833
Application for Conveyance
Lake Norman FERC property

M. :Fes projects that include water withdrawals, a oompiete deaQiptian aE the dcaugn and oonsirustian of tlto water pipdirn
and iNaace stttx.•Gu~e {inchulittg devatiaa data), intake scxeest ~, iNake veladiies, pctrpo~tl average amnual atxl average
monthly water withdrav-~l totes, ma,dmam ~ ptnnping capacity and the critical lake elevatiaat far th8 imaice
{ia, the L-ke devatian below which the intake will rw longer pwnp at its maximwn inataataneous pampuzg ~Wah' ~
a sustained period of time) most be i>aclndad along with a description of manatees propo~.xi to mitigate the potential
~aimm~d of fish as tequatic organisms. llkaoe: TJru itran is arely irrlEwdad, fvr,pnojeetr dwt wrll Jha~e meter ~ritlx~rm~t
jaa(itiea as part of dre pnvp~wai.
. Item M is not applicable to this transportation improvement project.
N. Ue9crrbe nay sha~ino trrbaoce that tray occur as a t+eatlt of the pro~sal (e. B• GPs. l~ ~. ~•)
espociailly lead disr»rbanca vviihir-1 t)D feat of the prajed bouadasy.
AREA #1 Brawley School Road (L-line) culvert: Roadway fill, roadway pavement, installation
of guardrail and control of access fencing, excavation for drainage items (culvert w/headwalls,
drop inlets, pipes, ditches, etc.) rip rap at culvert outlet and various pipe outfalls.
AREA #2 Gibbs Road relocation bridge (y-41ine): Roadway cut and fill, roadway pavement,
installation of guardrail, excavation for drainage items (drop inlets, pipes, ditches, etc.) rip rap at
bridge end slopes and pipe outfalls.
O. A statement uidicating that. there vtsll bt no propaaed or regttes~ed changes {e.g.. modi5od:+ctesvairlevel opecr+tic>g
ranges. modiC>~ed flaw rdeaaes Cxom hydro FrQ1~ ~, ~.? ~ hydro Proj~ as a result aE~ and
nti}ization of the tYbooeed facilities.
The proposed transportation improvement project will not require any changes in the hydro
project operations..
P. A check fas the appticatiom fiiiag flee and socraity deposit a»d the sgned Ca~n~rq~ace Uue~s Apeemeat lather and
Habig Eahaavaur~t fcc if raquir~ed.
The signed Conveyance User's Agreement letter and checks for the application filing fee and
security deposit are included in Appendix H.
t
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP project R-3833
Application for Conveyance
Lake Norman FERC property

•
APPENDIX A
•
•
ROADWAY DESIGN PLANS
Contact Person: K. Zak Hamidi
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
[phone]
February 2008

r
_~
i
r
r
I~
cs
z
~U
~C
~~~
~~~
~,~~
w`""'
~~~
~~Q
~~z
>~~
~n~w
w~~
wc„~
www
Yr VIM
afr e+bl
H NiH
mll
~1
V
W
O
STA.229+50.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT R 3833A
3
0
r,~
\~
;L ells ~il' 1'ti ~Lsrl~~lll ~~llp®~~1~' 1~
IREDELL COUNTY
Han rtan Harr wwNa w. r"a"r rora~
rxrm
N•~• R-38336 1
Iran w.xn r.a.ntatxa annivnon
34554.1.1 STP-1501 P.E.
34554.2.3 STP-11001201 RM~, UTL
LOCATION: SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) FROM EAST OF
SR 1109 (WILLIAMSON ROAD) TO EAST OF WINGHAVEN COURT
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE,PAVING,SIGNING,SIGNALS,
AND STRUCTURES
-YIO-
PRNATE ROAD
-Y9-
WlNGHAVEN COURT
STA. 301+01.08 -L- END
~^
`,~' ~~
~,~s
R 3833E
~'(~~ \ \ 11 I ~' ~ ~~ al\-\ i f' ~p \ SR 29W (SUNfISN DRNEJ
~ ~ ~. i
~~ ~i -Y12- 15 ~ \ °= ~ \ i ~ ~ r4 5R N96 G1BBS ROAD
/ x` „ SERVICE ROAD
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT ~~ \0q ~~ DRNE \\ r~ f \~\ ',~~ `\\
SHALL BE PREFORMED TO THE ~ ~ ~~~, ~ _yg_
LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III ~ ~ ' // l ~{ ' ~ ~~ ~,'~ ,
,~ r-n
~ ' ~e
~d'~
~,~~~ -yq- ~'~ ~ `, , ~, ° THIS IS A PARTIAL CONTROLLED-ACCESS
~- GIBES ROAD ~ ~~,~~ PROJECT WITH THE ACCESS BEING LIMITED
RECONNECT' BEGIN BRIDGE 57A 23+36.~ O E~`1`, TO POINTS SHOWN ON PLANS
,\
ENO BRIDGE STA 25+g5,OO PRELIMINARY PLANS
NCDOT CONTACT.• B. DOUG TAYLOR, P.E. -Y5- -YJ3- ~~"
~ ~ NTGHRILGE APPCE BLOSSOM ~ no* ~` ~ CON810.VRION
ROAD ORNE
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Prep°r~ far NCLt7T JD rJe Off(ce °Yr HYDRAULICS ENGINEER ",„,.„,,,, DII7SION OF HIGHWAYS
"'Ee r"~0r ', STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
50 25 0 50 lpp ADT 2008 = 24,430 - ~/~~MOFFA1T & NICHO~ $DG ?~oss;~~,••,,
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT R-3833B ],3P MI • •~ e'er ~E ""n ~..' ~'+ ~.. Sunq°te Deslgn Group. P.A. = ~` 5EU ' : 99~r
ADT 2028 = 33,340 "*~^ "°° ^""°~•• A^'-^ t • 93J4 j ~ M
1905 STANDARD SPECfffCAiIONS •e"a .r mac 'i~'E'•kAt INEt~'~`' a ,1 f o
PLANS DHV = 9 % ysF .... ~
PS ~rrr, m4ivf~`
50 25 50 100 D = 60 % LENGTH STRUCTURES TIP PROJECT R-38338 = 0.03 MI RIGHT OF WAY DATE. TIM R. REID. P.E, src.
PRD/ECr ENfiDff.FX ROADWAY DESIGN
T = 9 % MAY 19.2006 ~'"c~i°w ~
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL ENGINEER =~of`EEU,.,~ti~.1= l r ~~
V = 50 MPH TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT R-38336 = 1,35 MI `° ~` '
10 5 0 10 20 .aw.,u. Iw ~~d9''. .
LETTING DATE: TRENT E. HUFFMAN, P.E. 11~MOFFATT ~ NICHOL ~• '`
v . PeolECr nESlcN ENCE~E7¢ ~:in,e ~.wn .«c y F E4,' pc
(TTST 3% + DUAL b%( fE6RUARY 19, 2008 ~ciet„r
L ~^•... 7
PROFILE (VERTICAL PAt '•r4j! uiio~ Pa
S7u~U'ITURBr SlAIS HIGHWAY DESIGN ENGINEER
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Shsets
~. •
/
_`
,
-~
"
i
l.,
~ ~ I
/
I
/ '
1 ) p i I
BEGIN ,I,~ ~~~
PROJECT ,.f I i~
.
~~ ~
~ ` ,
~~ w~
r~~ i k ~ / r
~~ E ~ no
_~ ~ .,•
~;~ ~;
,~ ~ I;,

s ~~ ~
R LL
:5~1\1 ! °p 20096 I
~
~
!~ , I
/~
~^~ \ ~
\
~,
~ ~
D v
'
- ~ I
1~ Nam9°
~• .1
Ir, ~ ~
y
` ~ `

~
• ~6d • '/I
VICINITY hL9P

r r t
DATEr Ol/26/2D07 -REVISED R/W fOR PARCELS 153 & !55
i .°« ~ ~
r
8 ° A n
o
~ yNy
4~. Y Q
N ~ ~; _?
0
~~ ~' ~
0 1~~
T 8
Y~ ~
O
y~ --1
O ~ O
fi ~ ~
o
G

~ ~G
~
e >
,
~ f rt ~ '"

u
'~
=+

o
@ y
6
~ 'V
-Ip
6~ ~ W r
mD
~' ~ ~
~ n
E
-_ } 1'

L
$¢ ~
f~ ~t ~
~~
~ \\ c!
R r~ ~~
m~ ~~9 Z'
r.CL6~.1ru
e~
+ '
~ m ~ 4
V
t
O

!
~
7 y y ~
f ~
f
O C~ "'
~t~
1
7
j
~
~
v w , '~'
i

~ '•
,

~ ro
*
~ ~
° '„
~~
~ ~ .._I ! l~w
•-1 r
~ A\!
o ~ o
~, >n a mZ ~ ~ ~ ,;
~ r r
4 Y ' 7 Y ~~
g o a
r ~ ~ .
~~~ ~ ~O-i ~~~~
OTZ tel. ~i`~~`••.
p .I
~~~ v~$
T T
yw
t,~ ~ S
~ ~I~~ ~~~`~~~
f ~ 7 ~~ `
+
S ~n ~ .Y _.._ _
.
- -~
~ n
°n~ d~~
rF ,
.
a
~ ~
F~ ~ ~ L
g ~rt~ ~#,J ~ G^r
^ j
~ ~ .J _
\
d
~~
5 ~
~ll

`.
~
~~
~y
O
r
r n
~
1
l _' -- < _
'~
~ ~--
~
rr ,
r
,~

fya ~
~ ~k
~.-
Y
~,l ~ ~ L/1
S.rh: ~ \ ~ 1
~,~
I
~~ U
$g~
II p
REVISIONS
q II II II II
y~~~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~~~~~~ N
r2s8x ~, ~
~0,
~~~ ~ 1, J, C. Sam
;r
r
r /
' rl
r! I
! ~ I
Jr
r ~ t
1 ,
J ~
o- ~~~
~.~ r
T ~
i
f ~r' 1
O •E ,'
P /`
~.%
••~~ / /t
rrT~ . ,` ri !
~j:l'~y i
~~I r
r•
A
~ yn ti is :.• . Z •'o ~ $ ~
Jl Q ' / ~'~ .'~~n9i~p ~~' r~
fl
r. •r
r ~+
I
:~~.
.~ :r, ,r,11~, ;,,, ,r ~~:
• -. - ,;
,~~: 'n 4:its/ ~y ti~
a'~ .
:~ ~ ~ 1 tel. ~°~_~e 4`.~
C•
O
~3
7
__
~L
~~~
~m
H o~r
N ~ ~ T ...
.~~
"' ~ II II II II II p
~~~ I
'~~
~y ~ }~
Nm Oyyu p~p b CA
ONm~~
c~c~~ruo
~u
n
R+
~~
~
j
l,
I/I~. ~~
O
~u~I o
~ ti
O ~
~~~ II
pR
m
m
O
~
A
~n
.~ m
o
'p N
I IC
C: L
+r t1, )esr
f o m
~~ ~ ~ o
a
S 1 ;j ~ \.. ~~i~ m I
^'

I~ Spa ^"r_
~

I ~
~ .,
~= ~
`" I
~ ~
r
~ ~ ~
I
~ b`~:. ~
I r7R ~ . -.
~
1 ~ f
"~~
r~ r
••..
~
~ O
~'^~t
~
J
1r ,~
.
-~.`
„y
~~ ~`

1~1 se s F7 r' ~ "-iU '-cy `I r~ It ± .~ .\ 1--.4^--~. N]0)9' )r
1 ~ ~ ~ J:l rca c o.e] C ~1_ ~\ L. 4-r~ ~- r w.ao
~t I 11 ~ ~ ~ it cpp I + .r'., ~r, ~>~S \ ~ "'~%; 1\
~~., ~ 1 ~ +Il ~, `nr is ~~ ~ ..`V ~ ;rtr C', ~.~•~?~ Z~~e \, \\\ ~ o _` ~ `:q..- -yr~~tpj~
~1~, - lI` 1 f. ~' ,i \ue Goo ~~ ~'• ~ frsl A `t~'r` ```~' ~"
1\~'~ ~ 1 ti? ~, ~•,; .:~`,:f'i`,,_ .,} `~ ~ ~~~ ~~\ ~ ~ 111 ,~'~'` ,
r.
~~y ly Y 1 - t~l yin ~~' ~+'~, \•. f'~^ (1 ~~ r D`b
`JI'{. 1 I ~ ~ J~~ _ " ~'ia' I `~ r'=,..J g '~.~ ri;;,>~ ?x ~,y ~ 1 i ~ ~ V G1~o~~ o
r
~m ,f ~ ~ b ~
x
O ~;° 91r. /V `..
rj i'
~:- -~~ ~~
~~,,••.~,.~,~. CsJ
r'
)~ ^ y ~• ~r
.a `a`•`!r`~r 1
~.
.. ' rtryI
'ice :'•i
TTT'rf T
~ ~
3a~-kr~
~'~~~i
~~~~~
m~im~~
;~~~
~~
~~d~~
o -~.

, a ~~
,
~Yi.1
~t
9 .. .v Jl~l ~ y 7
• ~
tl X'S7'S11'E t~~+
per. ~a

'~ ~ y ~ ip { Q~ O
.~ ~ ~ ~ ;;
~'1/~• ~~ 1\~-~ ~~ ~ ' ~ r ~ ~ ~ it ~ Q~J
:~>. ,. ~ a 1 ,,~ , ~ ~ 1, _ :.~.--- d Spa
_ ffy:i ,~7\~ ~ ~~ '1'~; P .! to .i;~, ~~M~w,,",11~~-
~~ NS 3
~ ~
~' g-lZ
t.,, ~.pt
~R - ~ n
~~ .ti ~~
ZI •[----y ~ ~i Q ZL L ~ %i~ O
-y °o
Tr ~ T~r
.[I ~ ~ r ,zl gp W
m
~ ~~ ~
~I
~~~~OQ
~~m~
. a
u ~~4 $ ~
M~ N
~'~
~_
~~~
~.
->.,- ~ J ~~ p~
~~ ~~tt ~~ -rl-
~Id `~
[~1
I~
!~(~
~~~~
¢~ ~~
Z K ~+)
~~ f w
~t~m~
0
~~
0

DATE, dl/26/ZOQ/ -REVISED R/W fOR PARCELS !53 & !43
~>
~+~~
zg~y
V
o~~
~p0
'uS~
`f
"z-tl-ap~
~~u n u II n uc~
o c
_
V
O
~ 'p
I
~
~
w
~
v
m ~~t~IraD~
p RuRnuc~
b
~~~w ~~w
~
~
~

w ~
"• ! i
9 1
m
n
~l
r ~,
~~
~~~ +
~ j~ eo
~,
+~ ~~ o
8
`f ~,-` ~
ro.
fqs J•
M,gTCyC/~/~, ~~
m SFE SyF~ 13y,~0 ,
_I I t r1 ~~
~~ r<
1 f
1 ~ /
~ ~~
I
I
I
m
I
!~ I ~ c~

m
S~
~: a
~~ O
~a
z
REVISIONS
2
~~
a
T
Ro u
~~
\ ~ G
~~ i
i
\\ ' ~
~ ~~
~~. y
N
~ . ~` ~
?. F ~ ~ °,40
4~ n .~`
t.. 8
{:i ; F
r',
~ ~ ~
t;.
`'~ 1
• ..:f L:~
i~ i;~
nJ `"s
1
CZ ~~ 1 ~~'
~~
C) {;~~~~
~~~
[-J
G~ 4?
e7 (j ..
1
-
j totzv
-- ----^'~
~~
o
{~ m ;
N 1
O
~
a1)
~
•9
57
~1
r ~
~.

~m G
W~
yx

~~
t
~' ~~
---~ /
'
~l
.r ~
t
f ~ s, ~,~; , ~.,

l~ nsr

`~ ~ _
j /
r-~t•-• -
i
:?
~.1
l5,bp
°m
~~
~xo
z
~~
a
~~
>yr~'''
,, qqMy
~\ AN~
I
m~ t !z'
/ ~r N ~$~
l]

~ ~~~
a>~`J n~~
~ t\j
,
y
i~ L~a ,~y'•

~S¢; p
?~
m
r
r ny
~ 'z ~
~
r
~n
41~~1~, 2

•~l 'llil,

'pr. .. ,. ~ ~
1
f f T
I?~J ~'-1
;'I
J S
.~ ~II~ ~~;~~~ /
:~~I
~4ltr..
~rn
Qn
,~
g~~
9

it ~-
0
~m~
a~~ ~
~~~0
e~
8i m ~
F
Z
nd
~~
b~
~x
~1 a
L''' ~A ~ l4
3~ ~~
~7 p
tt~~ d
~
a o: ~
*
ti
~
~ £ ~ +
~
I~~~ `•••.. p ~ N A ¢
ril
~
i f
l
a o
~
pnn ~~
~~

J~ . '+.?
• ,• `~"• s r ~ 3
a
"~
i ~':~
:~z ~ q
`~
~~ ~ •.. ~,
'
~ o
j`} °~u~aw~~~`"

r r ~
!/08/2008 - REVfSEO PARCEL'S 155A & 1558
o~\r3B33b_rdy_pehl6.dgn
~~
ox
~~~r
~~~
O
m
!w ~[(~
!`11.1 A
3 ~fiZ~~~S
~~ytidy~~~~~
MM 00"4' ~
,V~
REVISIONS
~, -'r^,'i... ~
i ~~~ '^
~ :~ ,~, ;~
_..
.. • ..-
sou.. ,CT _--:.-~- . ~' ~~`~'~~~ '
R CO~~r~~CrT~f ' .~/r.~' ' - 1r '
fff m
`:L
l/ /~~1 ~~...
~. .
. to : ~ ~. rt.' ~:
s. , •,3`!
~~~
~S,~til
/~
.~
.,f .. ! ~....
~ '~• •irt':
:
:~ ~
t4~ ~ ..• , fs

~f
i f _J..r ~
~
~,
, ~
~
\~' i~~

\'\ ~ t'
_ .^1 .~

t
Sri t: s ~:
i;; .'r; t.57 r ~ ,
e < J~
.,;•: 4
H' ~.. t
Jfi
F.
i=i 1-
r v v fi(.1.,p
~r' .-i. r. ~ C
F .. {
~~
ii
W h
_~r~r
m
mm
~~
~d
~.
~'
~~
~> W ~
°~ f ('+
~ ~
Z
Z 0
~~
~a ~~
0
~$~
g~g~(U
GC
O~
~m
x
I°

•
APPENDIX B
REGISTERED SURVEY MAP
Contact Person: Walter K. Dixon, PLS
Duke Energy Corp
PO Box 1007
Charlotte, NC 28201-1007
•
February 2008

F
~~v~ ~~uuu~uu

•
APPENDIX C
LOCATION MAP
AND
•

REGISTERED SURVEY MAP
February 2008

----'-
SEE iWSET
t
ao
ea.oM- SITE ~1
,_
'~-
''-
-__
''~ ~
IREDELL COUNTY ~ ~~
BEGl11l
PROJE
AREA FOR DUKE ENERGY
^CONVEYANCE APPLICATION FORM
N.C. DBPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIOHWAYB
IRBDBLL COUNTY
PROD BG"1': 3~86~.1.1 lR-aSS3B)
SR 1100 IBRA W LBY SCHOOL RD) FROM
BAST OF 8R 1109 1WILLIAMSON RDi Tt
BAST OF WINOHAVBN CT
SHBBT OP
9/ 1Z/ 07

t~w'" . ~ ~ 9' ~ ~ +~ m =* ~~u~' ~ ~r
y ~1 I
~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ j ~ t ~
~ ~ ~ q ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~° ~ srv ~ ~`s'I~~ ~~~w ~~~ mot. ~ ~ ; ,... ~~ ~~ ~_ ~T. ~~
O ~ ~ Iir ale ~, ~ w ,"r+~ + .a
3rk'+. 4 i , ~ F to
1 • O ~ V ~ 4'. k r~""Y.Y ^....~ ~ ~'fT d ~ M ~ k~' i ~ f+ 4J y 9~ ~ Yt( ~ :..
T ~d
V ~~ R ~ di i 3 `4 4 4
~ any t ~~ ~"z'~ '~ . r~
~, ..
i~
~~ egg~~{3
~, t+ F m ,, a~? n
uw ~ ~ a
'~ '6>i'.~ ~ ~ A .} ~~n, ,~ B +. '~ s~ ~ ~ ..~ ~' .d ~ k ~ ~,.P ~xe}.r~~ Y' ~y~~# r -E ~ .,aa+».
N~ f r ~ i ~~i~'
t ;~ iwly; It
r ~'~ ' ~~ ~"~*' i P' , ~ i ~ '~Y ~ ~,~,aq
3n ~ ~ ~ 1 ~' 9~ v ^+ Y ~ ~ m,
~A ~~ T~~yy ~r~ .~ ~r th r< Xy
u i,
~l ~.. ;., ~ ~'-. ,n, ~;~ , R ,a _ ?~ i~Y '. r ~+{, a,r~~cvP ~ a dr w,`~ nd tt .:. iT3 r~'~ ~ ~ _ ~~ °~ .,~:'~
~ ~t+rt~ ~. v _. ~~ '~`Yf, ~.~ cF,u 4 Si ~h, "' ~~~ t1 z~` ~ 4.
*~ ' C%S~~'~ '~'~ ~bt ~ qtr ~ ,S "~~~~ M~ ~r ~ ,5~ rigid ~ r,~
~ ?4 Y '~'~,, ~ 'i~ ~ ~" ~ i~ a
~~~ ~ ~ ~
,r "~, em, ~ ~ "~ ~ it +~ T~; . "~~~~.°®~rr
s '~ ;~ mid ~~,'p~'i ~ ~J D
~ ,: ~ ~ m
~~ ~d~ . _ ~ , Fr d~$~ ry~ ~
r
w
~~~ ~ ,~ o~ r~~
, ~, _ ~
2 0 ~
r ~~ .~_ ~~ ~ ~K ` ~ v ~ art ~ ~ t ~,,.
,~g~ ~
r '
~ ` as ~ ^>k ^~
a -J
~' ~ ~ ~
," ~ n tit a 'Z"+ "" `~, ~" ~,Pa~ na ~« : f'~ko~ ~, `~ x ~„a ,~4 ~ 't .
~ ~° ~ ~ u
~ ~ ,,
~ ~ 9 ~` ` O
3~ O~ ~m
~ 'Q' ~ ~
'Q _..,
a
.. ,~ ~. ~ ~
~ ~ z ,~ _.
o Z. ~ ~
a' ~ ~ ~ _;, . ~~ ~~ ..~ ~ ~D
,+
_ CD ~ '~, r
r
~ TT _ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~~ ~ a
\V ~ ~i V try^~q ~ ~ W ~ xy~
~ " 'Ai '" N '~ 2 kt 'Y ~Lr ~ h
O
d 1 ~Gn ` ~
~~ ~ ~ C] .. y ~ 1t... ~ a ~~ ~° ~ ~~ if` .N+~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ / ~ ~W ~M ~1 ,~; M ~`~~..r~~~ \V r ... r,~.
~ O ,:~. ^ M,~ . \ ,~ !)tom ,,.,$ ~,~
~ 'v e
V ~ O ~ ~ r W. ~. ~F V J ~ ~ i~' '" ~`t 4~ a~ 'tJ, In
_.
n ~ ~
~ _; ' ~ ~~~ ~ (Q ~ s
r..} F
-'< • t ~ ~ t -'~
~, ~
o ~ ~ ~o ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ peon sa u ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~r ~ o
~ ~ yaw ~~~~ , ~ ~ „
~.
sv O
r x ~ sZ o
~~~~ ~~,9 `gin ~~`' ~ !z ~ .~
~~ u~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ b ~~
L,1 ~,
Al ~ ~, ~ ,~~~a~ i"
1 n
e
~/ ~ " a W v ~qt ~ ~~ u
~0v '~^ u ~ ~~~ ~ 7A s,L 4~
iY , i~ - + ~ M ~, : MIS
e , f~ rv"P 'h~ y ~ k e. ~ r ~.
~ ~ }{~,~+r~' °~' " ~' ~ '~ ~ ~~ i~ 4 V I ~ i ' ~?~ ~~ ~. n ~_ kid
r
^3 >n " irC " ~. < ~,y k t'~,ISy ^ ~ wr ~ ~ ye." ~'+~ "'q;k , ''~
yy ~ a
W ~~`1 ~ "~ +"3
4 Rc
p ~ y! '
u~~ ~ ~ ~ ,.~ e .~"
,~ ~"
~, + t r '~
~ ,,
n'~ ~~ s~~ A " ^I~' ~ '~ fah ~ ~ni *~ s~ q., err ~,:.y * ~" ~: ~ ~'~~ u
~~~~
'~~ ' ~,. ;. ~r ~ ~ ~r ~~ ru
~.. ~ ~ ~
r 'v d~~~ ~. ~ p~ +~ 5 0 6, c~ n ~
e.
;~, ~ +«~ ~
e+~ ~ ~ z A . ~ x!3~ `" ~~ „~ ~. v '~F> ~y~ ,, nx+y ~. ~` . a ;'~ ~ '~ ~ o s.." ~ y'> ~ ~"ti' ,
~ .} ~ ~ ~ t
e ~ ,~
~q .gyp
.a g ~~ q~
~~ ~ l 'h^' S ...
rt~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y
.. .
m e dY n
n
„ , . ~ ~ AT' ~ ~ .a ~ t: f ~ ~ 4F ,.:
;~ , a
,.5 ahc ,~ gel' 4 n,.. s:::
m a0 ~ ~ ~ o `_ SR 1100 Brawle School Road NOHTM ~
a C7 ~ ~ m W .... '` From SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ~p~ F 490
,~ ~ ~ N OF TRANSPORTATION
o r« ~ - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ~ a
~ c~ o ~ ~ ~ ~+ m Z Section A: SR 1177 to SR 1109 (Williamson Road) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
Q Q 3 ro ~ ~ ~ ~ Section B: SR 1109 to new I-77 interchange ''~ ,o~`P
`° ~ o ~"' - Section C: New I-77 interchan a to US 21 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH NT OF TRpNg
W 9

•
APPENDIX D

•
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
FONSI
Contact Person: Kristina L. Solberg, P.E.
NCDOT PDEA Branch
[phone] extension 259

February 2008

SI2 1100 (~raw~ey School Road) IlO~PR®VEI~IEI~T'S
• FROM SR 1177 (CHUCKWOOD ROAD) TO IJS 21
WITI3 A PROPOSED SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AT I-77
1Vlooresvillc, Iredell County
WBS Element 34554.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-150(11)
State Project No. 8.1823301
~'IP ~R®JEC'I' ~-3~~3
•
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIIt®N1VIE1eTTAL ASSESS1VIEl®1T
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.SC. 4332(2) (c)
APPROVED:
i A3
at Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental 1Vlanagement Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
I Z o3
hn F. u van III Division Administrator
Date .~y.do ,
Federal Ighway Administration

• Mooresville
Widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21
with a proposed interchange at I-77
Iredell County
Federal Aid Project Number STP-150(11)
State Project Number 8.1823301
TIP Project R-3833
Environmental Assessment
December 2003
Project Development Unit Head
•
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
3i ~D
Project Development Engineer
r 2 2 303
Cy 'a S azer, P
•

• PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Mooresville
Widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21
with a proposed interchange at I-77
Iredell County
Federal Aid Project Number STP-150(11)
State Project Number 8.1823301
WBS Element 34554.1.1
TIP Project R-3833
Environmental commitments for the proposed action include the following:
Roadway Desis~n Unit
The final design will avoid impacts to the Brawley Middle School recreation field
located on the north side of SR 1100, just west of the SR 1100/ SR 1109 intersection.
Geotechnical Unit
Any underground storage tanks discovered during construction will be reported to
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. `"
Hydraulics Unit
The final designs will be coordinated with appropriate state and local officials and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assure compliance with FEMA,
state, and local floodway regulations. Stream channel modifications will be coordinated
with appropriate review agencies.
Naturalized stream channels will be constructed where practicable.
Hydraulics Unit
A portion of this project is within Lake Norman's critical drinking watershed.
Hazardous spill catch basins are required by the NC Division of Water Quality, and will be
installed where required.
~draulics Unit
The project will be developed in conformance with federal and state floodplain
regulations.
Program Development
Brawley School Road SR 1100 will be classified. Currently SR-1100 does not
have a functional classification.
iii

Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 12 Construction Engineer
The NCDOT "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will be
implemented where practicable to control highway runoff and minimize wetland impacts.
Vocation 8~ Survey Unit
Geodetic survey control monuments will be located during design, and the U. S.
Coastal and Geodetic Survey and North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be notified of their
location.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, Roadway Design
The Mayhew House is eligible for the Historic Register. The H.T. Mayhew House
is located on the west side of SR 1100 0.2 mile north of the junction with SR 1115. The
Roadway Design Engineer shifted the preliminary design away from the Mayhew property
in order to reduce impacts to this historic resource.
NOTE: This was an agreement between NCDOT and the State Historic Preservation
Othce (SHPO).
Roadside Environmental Unit
During design, consideration will be given to planting trees as landscaping within
the right-of-way, particularly at interchanges.
As part of the agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office, appropriate
vegetation will be planted in the median in front of the Mayhew house to mitigate for the
visual impacts of the road widening project. The Mayhew house is located on the west
side of SR 1100 0.2 mile north of the junction with SR 1115.
NOTE: The landscaping plan will be developed during or following construction.
Division 12 Construction Engineer
The proposed 16-foot outside lanes will be striped according to the
recommendations of the NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division. See Appendix A, page
A5.
Funds Administration Section
A cost-sharing agreement for the construction of sidewalks along Brawley School
Road will be finalized prior to construction. This agreement will involve NCDOT, the Town
of Mooresville, and/or Iredell County.
Roadway Design Right of Way Branch and Proiect Development 8 Environmental
Analysis Branch
The Right of Way Cost Estimate and Relocation Report will be updated and
iricluded in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document.
iv

Roadwav Design Unit and Hydraulics Unit
The Hydraulic recommendation report will be updated to include the Gibbs Road
relocation and recommendations will be included in the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) document.
Roadwav Desian Unit, Conaestion Management, and Signals 8~ Geometrics Unit
NCDOT has-not finalized the design but will continue to do so. The
recommendations made in the December 2003 Capacity Analysis Report (Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc., Appendix E) will continue to be analyzed and improvements will
be made prior to and included in the final design.
•
r

SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
Federal Highway Administration
Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information:
Mr. John F. Sullivan III, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, N. C. 27601-1442
Telephone [phone]
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699
Telephone [phone]
•
vi

3. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR
1100 (Brawley School Road) to a multi-lane facility from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to
US 21 with a proposed interchange at I-77 in Iredell County (see Figure 1). Additionally,
the intersection of SR 1196 (Gibbs Road) and SR 1100 will be relocated to the west of its
current location and tie in to SR 1100 directly across from Rolling Hills Road (Figure 3,
Sheet 3). The total project length is 5.9 miles.
This project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2004-
2010 Transportation Improvement _ Program (TIP), and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition to begin in federal fiscal year 2005 and construction to begin in federal fiscal
year 2007.
The total cost of the improvements recommended for this project is $55,150,000,
which includes $36,050,000 for construction and $19,100,000 for right of way acquisition.
However, due to a shift in alignment to the south between the entrance to Mooresville
Plantation and SR 1109, 4 additional businesses may be relocated. The Right of Way Cost
Estimate and Relocation Report included in Appendix B does not reflect the additional
relocatees. The updated Right of Way cost estimate and relocation report will be included
in the final environmental document. The 2004-2010 TIP includes a total funding for this
project of $45,860,000 which includes $22,000,000 for construction and $17,600,000 for
right . of way acquisition with an additional $4,500,000 for post year (after 2010)
construction and $1,760,000 for post year right of way.
4. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The needs for the proposed project are multiple. These needs are due to safety,
route connectivity, and system performance. The primary purpose of the proposed project
is to improve access, reduce congestion from current and anticipated growth, and increase
safety for travelers along this section of Brawley School Road. The proposed widening of
SR 1100 with the addition of an interchange at I-77 will address the needs stated above.
The improvement of access will be established with an interchange at I-77. The proposed
interchange will decrease travel times and intersection congestion. Currently a bottleneck
exists at the intersection of SR 1100 and SR 1109 (Williamson Road) because SR 1100
provides the only access to Brawley School Peninsula west of SR 1109. Widening of SR
1100 will increase the roadway capacity needed to serve current and future demand. The
widening project will also address the poor horizontal alignment, which also contributes to
capacity reduction. Travel safety will be increased by upgrading lane widths to proper
standards and by increasing the sight distance along the route. This widening project is
listed in the 1993 Iredell County Thoroughfare Plan as a first priority for the years 2000-
2010.
vii
•

. Improvements based on safety:
SR 1100 has a crash rate of 280.03 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles. This is
lower than the statewide average of 340.46 for 21ane undivided rural secondary route. The
project is 5.9 miles long and has several unsafe azeas that need to be improved, a fact that
is not accurately reflected in the crash rate for the overall project azea.
Three intersections along SR 1100 are sited as high accident intersections in Iredell
County. These intersections include SR 1109 (Williamson Road), SR 1112 (Stuffs Road),
and SR 1179 (Oak Tree Road). The criterion used to rate an intersection as a high accident
intersection is an intersection that has had five or more accidents within athree-year
period. The above-mentioned intersections have had twenty-eight, ten, and seven
accidents respectively within the three-year period of evaluation (November 1999 to
October 2002). Another issue contributing to a lack of safety is that Brawley School Road
(SR 1100) does not meet the secondary road standazd for two-lane roads, which require
having 12-foot lades in both directions with 3-foot shoulders.
SR 1100 also has a poor horizontal alignment and contains a functionally obsolete
bridge 0.4 miles west of the intersection of SR 1116 (Talbert Road). The horizontal
alignment of a roadway refers to the "curviness" of a road. Too many curves limit sight
distance and make navigation for an unfamiliar driver difficult. Paired with sub-standard
lane widths, this makes for an unsafe combination for drivers.
Improvements based on route connectivity:
SR 1100 serves a large residential population located west of I-77. As a
consequence, the amount of commercial development along SR 1100 has increased
significantly. Traffic destined for Statesville and Chazlotte does not have access to I-77
from SR 1100. Instead, traffic must divert from SR 1100 onto other roadways to access I-
77. This diversion places an increased demand on the surrounding routes and the related
intersections such as the intersections of SR 1109 and NC 150, and SR 1109 and I-77 (Exit
33). ~ '
Improvements based on system performance:
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) is experiencing current traffic volumes of over
24,000 vehicles per day (VPD) along the section of Brawley School Road just west of
Morrison Plantation. More development is currently underway and future development is
planned, both residential and commercial. Traffic volumes have been forecast to reach
over 40,000 vehicles per day in this area by 2030. The increase in traffic volumes will
inevitably lower the level of service for SR 1100 and NC 150 as primary access routes to I-
77 from SR 1100. The 1993 Iredell County Thoroughfare Plan and the 1997 Mooresville
Thoroughfare Plan show SR 1100 over capacity by 2015.
A four-lane, median divided cross section along Brawley School Road. will provide
for a safer environment, for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as well as less congested
roadway, since turning movements will be limited to median cuts and major intersections.
However; access to existing and future. businesses will be slightly negatively impacted by
this cross section, as opposed to a five-lane cross section.
viii

The proposed project is one element.of a system-wide thoroughfare plan. SR 1100 •
provides east-west travel between Mooresville and the Brawley School Road peninsula and
the proposed improvements are consistent with local land use plans.
Alternatives Considered
Alternate Modes of Transportation
The primary mode of transportation in and around Mooresville is the automobile.
Light rail is being considered for the future from Mooresville to Charlotte, which would
make southern Iredell County even more attractive to Charlotte commuters when
completed. A feeder bus service will serve the Brawley School Peninsula if a Commuter
Rail system is built.
The Town of Mooresville does not provide bus, vanpooling, or carpooling services
in the vicinity of the project. These types of services would not substantially or
economically serve to alleviate congestion and improve safety along SR 1100 (Brawley
School Road). Therefore, providing an alternate mode of transportation other than the
automobile would not serve to meet the purpose and need of the project.
No-Build Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid any adverse environmental impacts that
would result from the project, it does not satisfy the purpose and need of the project. There
would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity of roadways in the area or improvements
in traffic safety. For these reasons, this alternative is not recommended.
Alternative 1 (Recommended)
The typical section for this alternative is a four-lane divided section with a raised
grassed-median. Brawley School Road will be widened utilizing a "best-fit" method that
includes symmetrical, north side, and south side widening, thereby minimizing impacts to
existing properties located along the project. Under this alternative, existing Brawley
School Road from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21 will be widened to a 4-lane,
divided section with a grass median.
Bicycles will be accommodated by 16-foot outside lanes in each direction, and
sidewalks will be constructed. Four I-77 interchange alternatives were analyzed: no-
build, adiamond interchange with signalized intersections, a diamond interchange with
roundabout intersections, and a single point urban interchange (SPUD. The diamond
interchange with roundabout intersections was eliminated because in the design year at
least one leg of the eastern roundabout operated at a LOS F, consequently breaking down
the function of this design alternative. The diamond interchange was eliminated because
of the longer ramp lengths on I-77 that may adversely affect the weave movements and
diminish the function of the I-77~ interstate. This is a concern because... of. the close
•
ix

. proximity of the interchange to the north (Exit 36, NC 150). The distance between NC
150 and SR 1100 is one mile.
The proposed interchange with SR 1100 and' I-77 is a single point urban
interchange (SPUD. As a result of the proposed interchange at I-77, the current
intersection immediately to the west of I-77 at SR 1100 and SR 1196 (Gibbs Road)
would be relocated. This change in access would be required because of the close
proximity of Gibbs Road to the I-77. -southbound ramps. Residential traffic would be
permanently re-routed on approximately a 3000-foot section of new location road. The
proposed cross section is a 24-foot two-lane road with paved shoulders and grass berms,
requiring a right of way width of 60-feet. This road would tie in to~ SR 1100 west of the
current intersection, directly across from Rolling Hills Road (see Figure 3, Sheet 3).
The location of the intersection of Beech Tree Road (SR 1234) and Blume Road
(SR 1178) is relatively close to the intersection of SR 1100/SR 1178. At this location the
curve on SR 1100 would be flattened to improve safety on SR 1100. The flattening of
this curve would also allow approximately 290 feet of storage between the SR 1100/SR
1234 and SR 1234/SR 1178 intersections (See Figure 5, Sheet 3). This is a necessary
safety improvement due to the current close proximity of the intersections.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 proposes to widen Brawley School Road to a five-lane undivided
• section. A combination of symmetrical and asymmetrical widening would be used to
minimize impacts to existing properties along Brawley School Road. Under this
alternative, existing Brawley School Road from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21
would be widened to afive-lane undivided section.
Bicycle accommodations would be provided by 16-foot outside lanes in each
direction, and sidewalks would be constructed. The proposed interchange with SR 1100
and I-77 would be a single point urban interchange (SPUD.
As a result of the proposed interchange at I-77, the current intersection
immediately to the west. of I-77 at SR 1100 and SR 1196 (Gibbs TZoad) would be
relocated. This change in access would be required because of the close proximity of
Gibbs Road to the I-77 southbound ramps. Residential traffic would be permanently re-
routed on approximately a 3000-foot section of new location road. The proposed cross
section is a two-lane road with four foot paved shoulders and grass berms, requiring 60-
feet of right of way. This road would tie in to SR 1100 west of the current intersection,
directly across from Rolling Hills Road.
The location of the intersection of Beech Tree (SR 1234) and Blume Road (SR
1178) is relatively close to the intersection of SR 1100/SR 1178. At this location the curve
on SR 1100 would be flattened to improve safety on SR 1100. The flattening of this curve
would also allow approximately 290 feet of storage_between the SR 1100/SR 1234 and SR
•
x

1234/SR 1178 intersections. This is a necessary safety improvement due to the current
close proximity of the intersections. .
Typical Section Alternatives
Two typical cross sections were evaluated for this project: afour-lane median
divided curb and gutter section and afive-lane curb and gutter undivided section.
The four-lane, divided, curb and gutter section would measure 83 feet, face-to-face
of curb. In each direction there would be two 12-foot inside lanes, and 16-foot wide
outside lanes to accommodate bicycle travel, 2.5 foot outside curb and gutter, and a 1.5-
foot inside curb and gutter along the median. The raised grass median would be 23 feet
wide from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. This typical section would require a
proposed right of way width of 120 feet. A "best fit" widening scheme, consisting of a
combination of north side, south side, and symmetrical widening, would be implemented
in an attempt to reduce the overall impacts to existing properties along the project (Figure
6).
The five-lane, undivided, curb and gutter section would measure 72 feet between
the face of curbs. This cross section consists of a 12-foot continuous center turn lane, 12-
foot inside lanes and 16-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycle travel, and a 2.5-foot
curb and gutter (See Figure 6). Aright of way width of 100 feet is proposed.
A four lane divided typical section with a `best fit' widening scheme is proposed •
for this project in order to reduce overall residential and commercial property impacts and
environmental impacts, while at the same time increasing the safety and traffic carrying
capacity of .the facility. A four-lane divided facility is recommended because of the
divided facility's increased volume carrying capabilities, control of indiscriminate left-
turns, and improved safety over that of a five-lane undivided section (`Median Treatment
Selection for Existing Arterial Streets', ITE JournaUMarch 1998, p. 26-34). Medians also
minimize headlight glare, improve conditions for pedestrians, and assist in access
management (`The Median is the Message: Medians Can Enhance Roadway Appearance
and Safety', Scenic North Carolina News/Fall-2003, p.7).
Permits
Due to the project's location on a ridge there are no wetland areas, therefore
impacts to wetlands are not anticipated from project construction. However, three stream
crossings exist within the project limits. Additionally, part of the project is within a critical
drinking watershed, and as a result hazardous spill catch basins will be installed where
required. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit
will be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the
United States." Due to surface water impacts less than 300 linear feet per stream, a
Nationwide Section 404 Permit will likely be necessary for this project.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) prior to the issuance of the Individual Permit. Section 401 of the
xi

. Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the
United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of
a Section 404 permit.
8. Coordination
The following .federal, state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U.S. Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Iredell County Planning Department
Town of Mooresville
•
•
xu

TABLE. OF CONTENTS PAGE
•
SUMMARY
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ~ 1
A. General Description of Project ...................................................................................1
B. Purpose of the Project ................................................................................................. l
C. Characteristics of Existing Conditions ....................................................................... 3
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied ...................................................................... 3
2. Route Classification ...............................................................................................3
3. Existing Cross-Section ...........................................................................................3
4. Existing Right of Way
........................................................................................... 3
5. Access Control ....................................................................................................... 3
6. Speed Limits .......................................................................................................... 3
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures ........................................................................... 3
8. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature .........................................................................4
9. Intersecting Roads ..................................................................................................4
10. Project Terminals ........................:..........................................................................4
11. Degree of Roadside Interference ........................................................................... 5
12. School Bus Data ..................................................................................................... 5
13. ~ Parking ................................................................................................................... 5 •
14. Utilities.......... .........................................................................................................5
15. Airports .......................:.......................................................................................... 6
16. Geodetic Markers ...................................................................................................6
17. Railroads ................................................................................................................ 6
18. Bicycle Accommodations ..............................:....................................................... 6
19. Sidewalks ...............................................................................................................6
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ..................................................................... 6
1. Mainline Analysis ...........................................................................................:...... 6
2. Intersection Analysis ....................................................................................:......... 8
E. Thoroughfare Plan ...................................................................................................... 9
F. Accident Data and Analysis .....................................................................................10
G. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area ..................................11
H. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community ........................................................12
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 12
A. Typical Section Description .....................................................................................12
B. Length of Project ......................................................................................................12
xiii

. C. Right of Way ...............................................................................:.............................13
D.
...................................................................
Design Speed .......................................
13
E. Intersection Treatment and Types of Control ........................................................... 13
F. Bridges and Drainage Structures .............................................................................. 13
G. Sidewalks .................................................................................................................. 14
H. Bicycle Accommodations ......................................................................................... 15
I. Greenways ................................................................................................................ 15
J. Special Permits Required ......................................................................................... I S
K. Noise Barriers ........................................................................................................... 15
L.
_ ................................................................................
Anticipated Design Exceptions
1
M. Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................... 16
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 16

• A. Alternate Modes of Transportation .......................................................................... 16

B.
No Build Alternative ................................................................................................ 16
C. Recommended Alternative ....................................................................................... 17
D. Build Alternatives .....................................................................................................18
1. Typical Section Alternatives ................................................................................ 18
2. Alignment Alternatives ........................................................................................ 19
E. Conclusions ...............................................................................::....:........................ 21
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 22
A. Social Effects ...................:...................................................................................... .22
1. Land Use .............................................................................................................. 22
2. Neighborhood Characteristics .............................................................................. 25
3. Relocations ........................................................................................................... 28
4. Social Impacts ...................................................................................................... 29
5. Environmental Justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ................... 30
6. Historic and Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 31
7. Section 4(f)Resources ......................................................................................... 31
B. Economic Effects :........................................................................... ~ ..
~_
1. Business Activity/Employment Centers .............................................................. 32
xiv

2. Determination of Potential for Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ............... 33
C. Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................42
1. Methodology .:...................................................................................................... 42
2. Physical Characteristics ....................................................................................... 44
3. Water Resources .................................................................................................. 45
4. Biotic Resources ..................................................................................................49
5. Terrestrial Communities ...................................................................................... 49
6. Aquatic Communities .......................................................................................... 52
7. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ............................................................. 53
8. Jurisdictional Issues ............................................................................................. 54
9. Waters of the United States .................................................................................. 54
10. Protected and Rare Species ..................................................................................56
11. Flood Hazard Evaluation ............................................................ ... 58
12. Water Quality .......................................................................................................58
13. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ......................................... 58
14. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................................ 59
15. Hazardous Materials and UST Involvement ........................................................60
16. Construction Impacts ........................................................................................... 60
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 62
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies ....:.......................... 62
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ............................................................................ 62
C. Public Hearing ...............................................:..........................................................63

•
•
xv

TABLES Page
Table 1 -Traffic Volumes..
........ , ... .................................... ..7
...
Table 2 -Levels of Service for Mainline Segments ............................7
Table 3 -LOS for Unsignalized Intersection Analysis ....................... .........8
Table 4 -LOS for Signalized Intersection Analysis ........................... .........9
Table 5 -Accident Rates ....................................................................... .......10
Table 6 -Alternative 1 Construction Costs, Relocatees, Stream Impacts .......21
Table 7 - Population Growth,1990-2000 ............................................ .......26
Table 8 -Population by Race, 2000 ..................................................... .......26
Table 9 -Population by Age, 2000 ....................................................... .......27
Table 10 -Employment by Sector Iredell County, 1990-2000 ........... .......32
Table 11 -Travel Time to Work ........................................................... .......33
Table 12 -Potential For Land Use Changes ....................................... .......34
Table 13 -Magnitude of Land Use Change 2000-2020 ...................... .......37
Table 14 -No Build Scenario, Households and Jobs .......................... .......39
Table 15 -Build Scenario, Households and Jobs ................................ .......40
Table 16-Induced Households and Jobs ............................................ .......40
Table 17 -Soils in project area, Iredell County .................................. .......44
Table 18 -Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ...... .......54
Table 19 -Federal Species of Concern for Iredell County ................. .......58
•
•
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 -Project Location Map
Figure 2 -Quad sheet
Figure 3 -Aerial of Project Area with Preliminary Design
Figure 4 -Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5 -Preliminary Design
Figure 6 - 4-Lane Typical Section and 5-Lane Typical Section
Figures 7A to 7L -Current and Projected Traffic Volumes
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Comments Received from Federal, State and Local Agencies
Relocation Report and Relocation Assistance Programs
Air Quality Analysis
Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
Capacity Analysis Report based on 2030 traffic
Citizens Informational Workshop Notice and Handout
X~~

Mooresville
Widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21
with a proposed interchange at I-77
Iredell County
Federal Aid Project Number STP-150(11)
State Project Number 8.1823301
TIP Project R-3833
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
A. General Description of Project
The North Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21 with a
proposed interchange at I-77. As a result of the proposed interchange at I-77, the current
intersection immediately to the west of I-77 at SR 1100 and SR 1196 (Gibbs Road) would
be relocated. Relocated Gibbs Road would tie in to SR 1100 west of the current
intersection, directly across from Rolling Hills Road (see Figure 4). The project length is
5.9 miles (See Figure 1). NCDOT includes this project in the 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), and' is scheduled for right of way acquisition in federal fiscal
year 2005 and construction to begin in federal fiscal year 2007.
B. Purpose of the Project
The needs for TIP Project R-3833 aze multiple and include safety, route
connectivity, and system performance. Brawley School Road (SR 1100) is the only road
accessing the Brawley School peninsula from the point of Williamson Road (SR 1109)
westwazd. The recently developed Morrison Plantation residential subdivision has
residential roads that connect SR 1100 to NC 150, but this is considered a cut through
route from travelers to get from SR 1100 to NC 150 and the I-77 interchange. The
Brawley School peninsula has become a Chazlotte bedroom community as well as a resort
azea due to its proximity to Lake Norman and is experiencing rapid residential growth. In
addition, there are several schools in the area and Brawley School Road is used by a high
number of school buses. The resulting congestion has impaired the safety and
performance of this route.
Three intersections along SR 1100 are sited as high accident intersections in Iredell
County. These intersections include SR 1109 (Williamson Road), SR 1112 (Stuffs Road),
and SR 1179 (Oak Tree Road). The criterion used to rate an intersection as a high accident
intersection is an intersection that has had five or more accidents within a recent three-
year period. The above-mentioned intersections, have .all had at least seven accidents
within the three-year period of evaluation.
1 •

•
Additionally, Brawley School Road (SR 1100) does not meet the secondary road
standazds for two-lane roads, which require having 12-foot lanes in both directions with
3- foot wide shoulders. SR 1100 also has poor horizontal alignment. The existing number
of curves limit sight distance and make navigation for an unfamiliar driver difficult. Paired
with sub-standazd lane widths, this makes for an unsafe combination for drivers. There is
also a functionally .obsolete bridge 0.4 miles west of SR 1116 (Talbert Road).
SR 1100 serves a lazge residential population west of I-77. As a consequence, the
amount of commercial development along SR 1100 has increased substantially. The
Average daily traffic (ADT) ranges from 7,800 vehicles per day (VPD) at the western
project terminus, SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road), to over 24,000 VPD just west of Morrison
Plantation. The eastern project terminus is currently experiencing volumes of 9200 VPD
(Please see Figur~7A). Traffic destined for Statesville and Chazlotte cannot access I-77
from SR 1100. Rather, the traffic on SR 1100 must divert to other routes in order to access
I-77. This diversion places an increased demand on the surrounding routes, such as SR
1109 (Williamson Road) and'NC 150.
The 1993 Iredell County Thoroughfaze Plan and the 1997 Mooresville
Thoroughfare Plan (Figure 3) shows SR 1100 over capacity by the yeaz 2015. The
capacity for atwo-lane road such as SR 1100 ranges from 8000 to 9000 VPD. However,
as stated previously, some areas along SR 1100 are experiencing traffic volumes of over
• 24,000 VPD. More development is can ently underway and future development is
planned, both residential and commercial. Traffic volumes aze forecast to reach over
40,000 VPD along the section of SR 1100 just west of Morrison Plantation by 2025. The
increase in traffic will lower the level of service (LOS) for SR 1100 as well as contribute to
congestion along SR 1109 and NC 150, the primary access routes to I-77 from SR 1100.
The primary purpose of TIP project R-3833 is to improve access, reduce
congestion, and increase safety for travelers. The proposed widening of SR 1100 with the
addition of an interchange at I-77 will address the needs stated above. Access
improvement will be established with the proposed interchange at I-77. The proposed
interchange will decrease travel times and intersection congestion. Widening SR 1100 will
increase the roadway capacity needed to serve current and future demand. This widening
project will also address the poor horizontal alignment, which also contributes to capacity
reduction. Travel safety will be increased by upgrading lane widths to proper standazds
and by increasing the sight distance along the route. This widening project is listed in the
1993 Iredell County Thoroughfare Plan and the 1997 Thoroughfaze Plan for the Town of
Mooresville as a first priority for the years 2000-2010.
•
2

C. Chazacteristics of Existing Conditions
1. Leneth of Roadway Section Studied
The total length of the proposed project, from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road)
to US 21 is 5.9 miles.
2. Route Classification
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) is considered a local road under the 1993
Rural System of Thoroughfazes, which consists of those facilities outside the Urban
Thoroughfaze Planning Boundaries. SR 1100 is classified as a Rural Local Road in
the North Cazolina Functional Classification System and is in the Rural State
Secondary Road System. Brawley School Road is a major thoroughfaze on the
1998 Mooresville thoroughfare plan.
Existing Cross-Section
From SR 1177 to SR 1109 the road is a 20-foot, two-lane, grass shoulder
section. From SR 1109 to US 21 the road is an 18-foot, two-lane grass shoulder
section that transitions into a 36-foot, three-lane section at US 21.
4. Existing Ri hg t of Way
The existing Right of Way is 60 feet.
5. Access Control
There is no control of access along SR 1100 (Brawley School Road).
Currently there is no access from SR 1100 to I-77 from the bridge crossing I-77.'
6. Speed Limits
From SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to SR 1109 (Williamson Road) the
posted speed limit varies between 45 mph and 55 mph. Near the intersection of SR
1100 and SR 1109 the posted speed limit is 35 mph. From SR 1109 to US 21 the
posted speed limit is 45 mph.
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures
There are two bridges and one culvert on SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
within the project limits.
Bridge Number.,480046 (County # 48 - Iredell, Bridge # 46) is located 0.4
miles west of the SR 1100 junction with SR 1116 (Talbert Road) and carries SR
3

1100 over an unnamed tributary (UT). This is a 21ane, narrow bridge with a deck
width of 20 feet. This bridge spans 40.5 feet and has a superstructure composed of
a timber deck on I-beams. The substructure endbents are timber caps and pikes
with timber bulkheads. The sufficiency rating for this bridge is 78.9.
Bridge Number 480070 carries traffic over I-77 (0.2 miles west of Talbert
Road, SR 1116). The superstructure is a reinforced concrete deck on precast
prestressed concrete girders. The substructure has end bents of reinforced cap on
precast prestressed concrete piles and interior bents of reinforced concrete post and
beam on pile footings. This bridge has four spans: one span is 47.0 feet, 2 spans are
65.0 feet, and one span of 52 feet. The sufficiency rating for this bridge is 94.2.
Culvert Number 480045 carves SR 1100 over an unnamed tributary (UT)
0.3 mile east of SR 1116 (Talbert Road). The superstructure is composed of 2 lines
of 137x87 corrugated metal pipe arch, with a length of 67.5 feet. This culvert has
a high sufficiency rating of 99.2.
8. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The horizontal curvature of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) consists
mainly of long tangent sections that traverse level and rolling terrain. Some curves
will be improved with the proposed design. For example, the S-curve between SR
. 1234 (Beech Tree) and SR 2930 (Mallard Way) will be changed slightly to meet
• design standards. Because of the project's geographical location, the vertical
curvature varies little throughout the project, with the exception of a slight vertical
curve in the vicinity of the crossing of the unnamed tributary, located west of I-77
(0.4 miles west of junction SR 1116, Talbert Road).
9. Intersecting Roads
All intersections along SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) are at grade with
the exception of I-77 which is currently a controlled access bridge carrying SR
1100 over I-77. A Single Point Urban Interchange is proposed at I-77. There are 5
signalized intersections along the project (See Table 4), located at SR 1100/SR
1179 (Oak Tree Road); SR 1100 and Morrison Plantation; SR 1100 and the
shopping center near Brawley Middle School; SR 1100/SR 1109 (Williamson
Road); and SR 1100/LJS 21.
10. Project Terminals
The western project terminus is the intersection of SR 1177 and SR 1109.
At this point SR 1100 is a 20-foot, two-lane, grass shoulder section. However, just
to the west of the project terminus SR 1100 has been improved to a 36-foot three
lane curb and gutter typical section. The eastern project terminus is the intersection
of SR 1109 and US 21. Inside the project limits to the west of this intersection, SR
1100 is an 18-foot, two-lane, grass shoulder section. This 18-foot, two lane, grass
shoulder section transitions into a 36 foot, three-iane section at the•intersection of
• 4

US 21. Immediately to the east of US 21, SR 1100 is a 20-foot, two-lane section
and transitions to a 36-foot three-lane section.
11. Decree of Roadside Interference
The degree of roadside interference is high and expected to increase along
Brawley School Road due to businesses and homes along both sides. The section
from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to SR 1179 (Oak Tree Road) is predominantly
residential with several side streets and many driveways intersecting Brawley
School Road. The section between SR 1179 (Oak Tree Road) and SR 1109
(Williamson Road) is predominantly commercial with a high degree of conflict
points. The section from SR 1109 to US 21 is predominantly residential with
several subdivision entrances and driveways intersecting Brawley School Road.
There are a couple of businesses located neaz the SR 1100/ US 21 intersection.
12. School Bus Data
The Iredell County School Bus Transportation Director reported there aze
approximately 50 school buses making two trips per day that use Brawley School
Road. There aze several schools located in the project area, accounting for the high
number of buses traveling along Brawley School Road. Brawley Middle School is
located near the Williamson Road (SR 1109) and Brawley School Road
intersection, and Lake Norman Elementary School is located along Oaktree Road
(SR 1179) just north of the project area. The new Lake Norman High School is •
located off River Highway (NC 150) along Doolie Road to the north of the
Brawley School Road TIP Project R-3833 study azea.
13. P king
On street parking is not permitted within the project limits.
14. Utilities
The project contains both above ground and sub-surface utilities over the
entire length of the project. Power, telephone, and cable television aze all carried
on utility poles, which shift from one side of the existing road to the other
throughout the length of the project. A substation neaz Brawley Middle School is
located outside of the existing and proposed right of way on the south side of SR
1100, and should not be impacted by this project. Sub-surface utilities along the
project consist of water and sewer service. The quantity of utility conflicts will be
dictated by the best-fit widening of SR 1100 Brawley School Road. A sewer
pumping station for the Town of Mooresville was recently constructed near Bridge
Number 46, west of I-77.
15. Airports
Lake Norman Airpark Airport is located 5 miles northwest of the Town of
Mooresville, north of Brawley School Road, off of NC 150. This is a private
5

airport open to the public and can accommodate airplanes up to 8000 pounds. In
May of 1994, the Lake Norman Airpark Owners Association was incorporated as a
non-profit corporation.
16. Geodetic Markers
Several geodetic survey markers exist along the project. Impact of the
proposed design on any markers will be determined prior to construction and
appropriate actions will be taken (Please see Project Commitment Greensheets).
17. Railroads
There are no railroads or rail corridors along this project.
18. Bicycle Accommodations
Brawley School Road is not a signed bicycle route. However there are a
high number of residential neighborhoods along the route as well as a number of
schools in the surrounding area. The NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division has
recommended 16=foot outside lanes along the entire project to accommodate
bicycle travel (See Appendix A, page AS).
. 19. Sidewalks
The Mooresville Thoroughfare Plan states that sidewalks along Brawley
School Road should be considered. The close proximity of schools, housing, and
shopping make this a good area for sidewalks. Currently there are no sidewalks
located on Brawley School Road within the project limits. The proposed
improvements to SR 1100 include sidewalks. Currently it is NCDOT policy to
assist with the cost of sidewalk construction inside municipal boundaries, with the
amount of financial assistance dependant on population. Cost sharing between
NCDOT and the Town of Mooresville for sidewalk within the Mooresville .
municipal boundaries will be 70/30 percent respectively, since the population of
Mooresville is less than 50,000. However, NCDOT policy does not allow for cost
sharing outside of the Town of Mooresville's municipal boundary. Any sidewalks
that are constructed as a part of this project outside of the Town of Mooreville
limits must be 100 percent funded by the Town of Mooresville and/or Iredell
County through a cost sharing agreement.
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
1. Mainline Analysis
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for SR 1100 and were based on
2030 traffic volumes that were extrapolated from the 202`5 traffic volumes.
• 6

Although Figures 7A - 7L show traffic forecasts for 2025, the capacity analysis
was based on 2030 traffic that was extrapolated from the 2025 traffic forecast. As
shown in Figures 7A - 7D, the 2003 No Build Scenario Average Annual Daily
Traffic (AADT), ranges from 7,800 (Figure 7A) vehicles per day (VPD) at the
western project terminus (SR 1177, Chuckwood Road) to over 24,000 VPD (Figure
7B) just west of SR 1109. The eastern project terminus US 21 is currently
experiencing volumes of 9,200 VPD (Figure 7C).
Figures 7E - 7H show the 2025 Traffic Forecast for the No Build scenario
while Figures7I - 7L show the 2025 Traffic Forecast for the Build Scenario. Just
west of SR 1109, the 2025 traffic is expected to increase to 35,000 (Figure 7F) in
2025 and over 44,000 VPD in the design year 2030. The level of service (LOS) on
all segments of SR 1100 in the current year ranges from an unacceptable E to LOS
F (See Table 2 below). If improvements are not made to the existing road, the LOS
in the year 2030 will be F along all segments of Brawley School Road. The LOS
for SR 1100 in the yeaz 2030 will range from A to F if the recommended
improvements are made (see Table 1 below).
Table 1: 2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (extrapolated from 2025 traffic volumes)
Base Year (2003} 2030 Traffic 2030 Traffic Volumes
Facility Traffic Volumes Volumes in Vehicles in Vehicles per Day
in Vehicles per per Day (vpd) (vpd)
Day (vpd) Build w/o Interchange Build w. Interchange
Western Terminus
SR 1177 Chuckwood Rd 7,800 9,200 9,200
Just west of Morrison
Plantation 24,800 44,700 44,700
SR 1100 just west of
I-77 11,200 17,100 34,200
Eastern Terminus
(SR 1100 west of US 21) 9,200 15,800 21,000
TABLE 2. LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) FOR MAINLINE SEGMENT
Segment 2003 2030 2030 Build 2030 Build
Current No Build 4/5 lane without 4/5 lane with
Interchange Interchange
SR 1177 to SR 1133 E F B B
SR 1113 to SR 1179 F F C C
SR 1179 to Morrison F F E E
Plantation
Morrison Plantation to F F E E
SR 1109
SR 1109 to I-77 E F B D
I-77 to US 21
~. - ~---- E F B C

. ~vu~ atauc~ ~,aNauty r~uaty~i~ icepUrl prepareo lOr NI.LV 1 LCCember LVUS.
2030 traffic volumes extrapolated from 2025 traffic volumes for LOS calculations.
7

2. Intersectlon Analysls
Capacity analyses were also performed for the major intersections along the
project using 2030 traffic. The results of these analyses are summarized below in
Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 is LOS for intersections that are presently unsignalized. A
new signal is proposed at SR 1112 and at the proposed single point urban
interchange ramps.
•
TABLE 3. LOS for Unsignalized Intersection Analysis

SECTION OF SR 1100
(BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) WITHOUT PROPOSED --
IMPROVEMENTS
{NoBuild) ' WITH PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
4/5 Iane WITHOUT
Interchange WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4/5 lane WrrH loterc6ange AND
Recommended Improvements in Capacity
Analysis Report
2003 LOS 2030 LOS 2030 LOS 2030 LOS

SR 1177&SRI100 AM/ PM ~
C/ C
D/ C
C/B __
C/B
SR 1222&SR1100 AM/PM B/ B C/C B/B B/B
SR 1115&SR1100AM/PM C/C F/F C/C C/C
SR 2959&SR1100 AM/PM C/C F/F. C/C. C/C
SR 2997&SR1100A111/PM C/C F/F C/C C/C
ISLAND FOREST & SR 1100 AM / PM C/ C F / F C/ B C/ B
SR 1113&SRI100 AM/PM C/B F/F D/C D/C
SR 1178&SR1100 AM/PM F/E F/F F/F F/F
SR 1112&SR1100 AM/PM F/D F/F F/F F/F
DRAKE&SR1100 AM/PM E/E F/F D/C D/C
SHADOWBROOKE & SR1100 AM/PM F/ F F/ F E/ F E/ F
SR 2930&SR1100.41.1/PM E/D F/F E/D E/D
**SR2943&SR1100AM/PM F/F F/F F/F F/F
**SR2995&SR1100AM/PM F/F F/F F/F F/F
**DRYE&SR1100 AM/PM F/F F/F F/F F/F
**PLAZA&SR1100AM/PM F/F F/F F/F F/F
LOWE'S CENTRAL & SR1100 AM/PM F/ F F/ F F/ F F/ F
LOWE'SEAST&SR1100AM/PM F/F F/F F/F F/F
OAKFORK&SR1100AM/PM C/C F/F C/C D/E
ROLLING HILLS RD & SR1100 AM/PM F / F F / F F / F F / F
SR 1116&SR1100 AM/Ph1 F/F F/F F/F F/F
WINGHAVEN&SR1100AM/PM C/C F/E C/C D/C
SECRETARIAT & SR 1100 A111 / PM C/ C F / F C / C E / D
From Stantec Capacih~ Analysis Report prepared for NCDOT. December 2003.
** =Further analysis needed to determine if signalization is appropriate.
•

TABLE 4. LOS for Signalized Intersection Analysis
SECTION OF SR 1100 WITHOUT.... WITH PROPOSED WITH PROPOSED
.PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS
{BRAWLEY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS 4/5 lane WITHOUT 4/5 lane WITH
ROAD) (No Build) Interchange SPUI Interchange &
Recommended
. ,, .,. _ „n _:.. Im rovements
2003 2030 2030 LOS 2030 LOS
LOS LOS
SR 1179&SR1100 AM F F D D
PM F F C C
MORRISON PLANTA.
& SR 1100 AM F F D D
PM F F D D
LOWES WEST
& SR 1100 AM F F D D
PM F F E E
SR 1109 & SR 1100 AM F F D D
PM F F D D
Future I-77 RAMPS (west)
& SR 1100 AM N/A N/A N/A C/D
PM
Future I-77 RAMPS (east) __
& SR 1100 AM N/A N/A N/A N/A*
PM
US 21 & SR 1100 AM B F D D
PM B F D D
From Stantec Capacity Analysis Report prepazed for NCDOT, December 2003.
*SPUI interchange replaces ramps on east and west side with a central intersection.
(Diamond Interchange calculations shown in table on page 29 of capacity analysis report in Appendix E.)
E. Thoroughfare Plan
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) is shown as a major thoroughfare on the
Mooresville Urban Area Thoroughfaze Plan (Figure 4). The plan was adopted by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation on November 6, 1997. The widening of SR
1100 (Brawley School Road) from Chuckwood Rd (SR 1177 -western terminus) to
Williamson Road (SR 1109) is listed as the first construction priority in the 1997
Mooresville Thoroughfare Plan. The widening of SR 1100 from SR 1109 to US 21 with
an interchange at I-77 is listed as the second priority on the list of recommendations for the
Mooresville planning area. Mooresville is in the Lake Norman Rural Planning
Organization (RPO), and is not required to adopt a Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP).
•
•
•

F. Accident Data and Analysis
•
•
An accident study for SR 1100 was conducted for the time period from November
1, 1999 to October 31, 2002. A summary of the accident rates (in accidents per 100
million vehicle miles) along with the statewide rates for rural two-lane secondary roads is
shown in Table 5.
Two hundred one crashes occurred along SR 1100 between SR 1177 and US 21
during the study period. The overall. accident rate for the study area during this period was
280.03 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM). The overall accident rate
along Brawley School Road is.lower than the statewide average of 340.46 acc/100MVM
for rural two-lane secondary routes during the period from 1999-2001.One fatal accident
occurred during the studied years. Ninety-five (95) of the total accidents (47.26%) were
rear-end, slow or stop collisions, this is indicative of a two-lane facility operating at or
above its traffic carrying capacity.
TABLE 5. Accident Rates for SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
lPFR 1(1(1 MTT .T .T[1N VF.HTC .F. MTi.F.S TRAVELEDI

ACCIDENT TYPE Nov 1,1999 - Oct 31, 2002
Rates Along SR 1100
(Brawley School Road)
from SR 1177 to US 21 1999-2001 Three Year
Statewide Average Crash
Rates for Rural Two-lane
Secondary Routes
All Accidents 280.03 340.46
Fatal 1.39 3.55
Non-Fatal 133.75 137.63
Night time 34.83 133.02
Wet Conditions 26.47 56.43
All types of accident rates were below the state average for this type of facility
during the study period, however these numbers are somewhat deceiving. There is a need
for safety improvements along the project. The project length is 5.9 miles, with a high
number of crashes concentrated at certain locations along the project. The overall crash
rate during this period was 280 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM)
compared to the statewide average of 340.46 acc/100MVM for rural two-lane secondary
routes during this period.
Out of the 201 accidents occurring in the studied years, there was one -fatal crash
and 96 non-fatal injury crashes along SR 1100 within the project limits. Of the 201
accidents along the studied facility, the majority (47.26 percent) were rear-end collisions
and 15.42 percent resulted from left-turning traffic collisions. This is indicative of a two-
lane facility operating above its operational design limits. The addition of left turn pocket
lanes (4-lane divided section) or a continuous middle turn lane (5-lane section) would
serve to remove left-turning traffic from the mainstream flow, thereby reducing conflicting
movements, and ultimately improving safety along Brawley School Road.
io

The proposed multi-lane cross section and intersection improvements will reduce
the potential for the majority of accidents that aze occumng. The additional through lanes
will allow drivers traveling in the outside lanes to reduce speed in preparation for right-
turns without slowing the entire through movement, as they presently do. In addition,
existing Brawley School Road contains sub-standazd horizontal curvature, sub-standazd
shoulder widths, and numerous driveway and secondary road intersections. By upgrading
the design standards of the existing road, as proposed by the subject project, the •horizontal
curvature will be improved. By adding additional travel lanes and turn lanes in each
direction, thereby removing most turning traffic from the through movement, it can be
assumed that there will be a reduction in the "reaz-end/stop" type accidents, which is
currently the most predominate accident type on the existing facility. Additionally, there
will likely be a reduction in accidents caused during a left turn movement that accounted
for 15.4 percent of the accidents during the study •period. By adding curb and gutter to the
outside travel lanes, vehicles would be less likely to "run off the road" or "hit a fixed
object", which accounted for 3.49 percent and 6.47 percent of the accidents on the existing
facility respectively.
G. Other Proposed Hi hway Improvements in the Project Area
Several roadway improvement projects, included in the 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program, aze located in the vicinity of the proposed project. A brief
description of these projects, along with their current schedule, is listed below:
TIP Protect I-4410 (US 21/I-771nterchange)
This project proposes to upgrade the I-77/LJS 21 interchange and realign
Center Church Road in Iredell County. This project is currently under
construction.
TIP Project I-4411(Langtree Road)
This project proposes to convert a grade separation of SR 1102 (Langtree
Road) to an interchange with I-77 in Iredell County. Right of way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Yeaz 2004 and construction is scheduled to begin
sometime after Fiscal Year 2006.
TIP Project R-2555 (Sam Furr Road)
TIP Project R-2555 proposed to widen NC 73 (Sam Furr Road) from east of
SR 2195 (Torrence Chapel Road) to multi-lanes in Mecklenburg County.
Currently, right of way acquisition is part in acquisition, with construction to
follow in Fiscal Yeaz 2005.
TIP Project 1-3311
TIP Project I-3311 proposes to add additional lanes to I-77 from 5~' Street in
Chazlotte to NC 73 (Sam Furr Road in Mecklenburg County. Part of this project is
under construction as a design build while part of this p"roect is unfunded.
11

• H. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The Town of Mooresville is the sixth-fastest growing municipality in North
Carolina, according to the Office of State Planning. The proposed improvements to SR
1100 (Brawley School Road) will benefit the region and local communities by providing
safer and more efficient travel through the area. This project would also reduce the
accident potential along Brawley School Road. Geometric and alignment improvements to
address sight distance problems would improve safety for drivers along the corridor. The
use of a four-lane median divided typical section offers the advantage of separating
opposing traffic flows and channelizing left-turning movements into an exclusive lane at
high volume intersections.
Additionally, the project will have a positive safety impact on non-motorized
transportation. Roadway improvements to provide extra pavement width will aid in
providing usable space for bicyclists. Improvements in road geometry, acceleration and
deceleration lanes, and added capacity to reduce overall congestion will promote a safer
environment for bicyclists. Currently, the existing study area does not have dedicated
pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks and features narrow road widths that are
unsafe for vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The proposed project contains provisions to add
sidewalks to the widened Brawley School Road, an improvement that has been cited in
local planning documents. Crosswalks at major intersections and the provision of
dedicated pedestrian signals at the existing signalized intersections will be necessary to
• provide cohesion for pedestrian movement along the corridor. A median refuge combined
with improved width and geometries, will promote an environment more conducive to
pedestrian activity, and provide for a safer road environment for school children.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Typical Section Description
From SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21, existing Brawley School Road will be
widened to a four-lane, 83 foot, face to face, curb and gutter divided section with a 23 foot
raised grassed median. The berm to berm width will be 103 feet. The proposed typical
section will include 16 foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycle travel and ten-foot
berms. Sidewalks will be constructed as specified by a cost sharing agreement. (See
Figure 6).
B. Length of Project
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) will be widened from SR 1177 (Chuckwood
Road) to US 21, a distance of approximately 5.9 miles.
• 12

C. Right of Way •
The proposed improvements will require approximately 120 feet of right of way.
Temporary construction easements will also be required throughout most of the project.
Permanent drainage easements will also be required in certain locations.
D. Design Sneed
The proposed design speed of the project is 50 mph. The design speed of relocated
SR 1196 (Gibbs Road) will be 35 mph.
E. Intersection Treatments and Types of Control
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the project area. Additional turn
lane storage is recommended for many of the intersections along the study corridor. The
capacity analysis report recommends that several intersections are analyzed to determine if
signalization is appropriate (Appendix E -- Capacity Analysis Report).
The segment of SR 1100 between SR 1179 and SR 1109 experiences and will
continue to experience high traffic volumes and subsequently poor levels of service even
with the proposed four lane divided facility improvements. This situation can be improved
by adding exclusive turn-lanes at major intersections, utilizing access management
techniques such as shared access, and by signal coordination. Access management would •
be particularly beneficial at the Lowe's intersections just west of the SR 1109 (Williamson
Road) intersection, across from Brawley Middle School.
The location of the intersection of SR 1234 and SR 1178 is relatively close to the
intersection of SR 1100 and SR 1178. At this location the curve on SR 1100 will be
flattened to improve safety on SR 1100. The flattening of this curve will also allow
approximately 290 feet of storage between the SR 1100/SR 1234 and SR 1234/SR 1178
intersections. This is a necessary safety improvement due to the current close proximity of
the intersections.
Further details on intersection improvements are provided in the capacity analysis
report (see Appendix E).
F. Brides and Drainage Structures
Alternative 1 (recommended four-lane median divided alternative) includes
replacing Bridge Number 480046 to the west of I-77 over an unnamed tributary (UT) with
a double barrel box culvert. The relocated Gibbs Road will cross this UT and will be
bridged, piped, or culverted to the south of SR 1100 at this new road crossing. Bridge
Number 480070 over I-77 will be replaced with a new Single Point Urban Interchange
structure. To the east of I-~7 Culvert Number 480045 carries a UT and will be extended.
13 •

• Alternative 2 (five-lane alternative) would include replacing the existing bridge
over I-77 with a new bridge to accommodate a Single Point Urban Interchange with all
other recommendations the same as for Alternative I .
G. Sidewalks
The Town of Mooresville has requested that sidewalks be included as part of this
project. Under the current NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines, sidewalk projects that
fall outside of the corporate limits of a municipality do not qualify for NCDOT cost
sharing for the construction cost of sidewalks. Portions of this project fall outside the
Town of Mooresville municipal limits and are within Iredell County. Acost-sharing
agreement for the construction of sidewalks along Brawley School Road within
Mooresville's municipal limits will be finalized prior to construction. This agreement will
be between NCDOT and the Town of Mooresville.
According to the NCDOT Pedestrian policy Guidelines, the population size of
Mooresville (less than 50,000) would allow NCDOT to participate in a 70 percent cost-
sharing of the construction cost of sidewalks that fall within the .corporate limits of
Mooresville (up to 2 percent of the total construction cost of the project). The City of
Mooresville will submit a formal request addressing the seven criteria outlined in the
NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines for the inclusion of pedestrian accommodations
under the subject project. NCDOT will review this formal request and determine if
• sidewalks are warranted and will participate in sharing the cost of constructing sidewalks,
up to 2 percent of the total construction cost of the project for areas that are within the
town limits of the Town of Mooresville.
In order for sidewalk to be constructed along sections of Brawley School Road that
fall outside of the Town of Mooresville's corporate limits, 100 percent of the cost of these
sections of sidewalk will have to be paid for by either the Town of Mooresville, Iredell
County or both. NCDOT has estimated that the total cost of constructing sidewalks along
both sides of Brawley School Road for the entire length of the project would be
approximately $887,500. For these sidewalk sections to be constructed as a part of TIP
Project R-3833, a cost sharing agreement would have to be submitted to the State before
the project is let for construction. This agreement would also identify a responsible party
(either the Town of Mooresville or Iredell County) that will be liable for future sidewalk
maintenance and repairs.
There are no existing dedicated pedestrian facilities along the Brawley School Road
corridor along the immediate project area. New pedestrian facilities along portions of SR
1100 have been included as part of the TIP proposal, due to the local desire for improved
pedestrian connectivity between the many residential areas off Brawley School Road and
the neighborhood/commercial development nodes planned for the future. In addition, the
presence of elementary and middle schools further justifies the need for pedestrian
facilities. It is also anticipated that feeder bus service will be provided to a planned
commuter rail station in downtown Mooresville, using Brawley School Road/Wilson
• 14

Avenue as the major feeder route. This fact further increases the importance of sidewalks .
for pedestrian access to bus service. Since bus service would be in both directions,
sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the roadway.
H. Bicycle Accommodations
The recommended alternative provides 16 foot wide outside lanes along the entire
length of the project to accommodate bicycle traffic. The NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian
Division has recommended 16 foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycle travel along
Brawley School Road (see Appendix A, page AS). Striping to separate the outside 4 feet
of pavement on each side of the roadway is recommended.
I. Greenwavs
According to Iredell County Planning staff, no greenways exist or are planned
within the demographic project area, therefore the project would not impact any designated
greenways.
Special Permits Required
Impacts to streams are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be required from the COE
for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Due to surface
water impacts less than 3001inear feet per stream, a Nationwide Section 404 Permit will •
likely be necessary for this project. .
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to Waters of the United States.
K. Noise Barriers
The project, as proposed, would require no control of access. Access openings in a
noise barrier severely reduces the noise reduction provided by the barrier. In addition,
businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particular highway
normally require accessibility and high visibility. Based on these factors, noise barriers are
not recommended for this project.
L. Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no anticipated design exceptions needed for the recommended
improvements.
15

M. Cost Estimates
The total cost of the improvements recommended for this project is $55,150,000,
which includes $36,050,000 for construction and $19,100,000 for right of way acquisition.
The 2004-2010 TIP includes a total funding for this project of $45,860,000 which includes
$22,000,000 for construction and $17,600,000 for right of way acquisition with an
additional $4,500,000 for post year (after 2010) construction and $1,760,000 for post year
right of way. The right of way cost estimate will be updated to reflect 4 additional
business relocatees as a result of a shift in alignment of SR 1100 near SR 1109.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The primary mode of transportation in and around Mooresville is the automobile.
The North Corridor Commuter Rail System is planned for the future, including Charlotte
Area Transit Service (CATS) feeder buses with service in both directions on SR 1100.
Brawley School Road/ Wilson Avenue is designated as the major feeder route.
Additionally, an express bus (BRT -bus route by transit) would travel in designated lanes
on I-77. Once the commuter rail system is in place, the current plans shows 3 stations: Mt.
Mourne, Exit 33 Lowe's campus, and downtown Mooresville. This system is proposed to
• be constructed in 2007-2010.
Currently there is "express bus service" to Charlotte that the Town of Mooresville
and CATS provide on a 50/50 basis. There is no local bus service or Iredell County
assistance provided. Although bus stop locations are subject to change, there are bus stops
at Exit 33, Brawley Commons Shopping Center across from Brawley Middle School, and
at exit 36 at the Golden Coral. The express bus runs in the morning and afternoon: There
are active CAT vanpools and car pools for southern Iredell County to Charlotte.
The Town of Mooresville does not provide bus, vanpooling, or carpooling services
in the vicinity of the project. Trip origins and destinations are widespread in this area and
public transportation alternatives would not provide the desired improvements.
Alternatives to the automobile would not substantially or economically serve to alleviate
congestion and improve safety along SR 1100 (Brawley School Road). Therefore,
providing an alternate mode of transportation other than the automobile would not serve to
meet the purpose and need of the project.
B. No Build Alternative
This alternative is used as a basis for the comparison of alternatives, as well as
being an alternative under consideration. It would avoid limited adverse environmental
impacts that are anticipated to result from the project. Currently, the project area is heavily
congested. With the projected traffic demand increase, motorist safety and convenience
• 16

would be sacrificed, leading to greater likelihood of accidents at intersections and
dnveways. For these reasons, this alternative is not recommended.
C. Recommended Alternative
NCDOT proposes to widen SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from an existing two-
lane grass shoulder facility to a four lane divided curb. and gutter facility with a raised grass
median between SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) and US 21. Anew single point urban
interchange is proposed at I-77. Bicycles would be accommodated by the use of 16-foot
wide outside lanes in each direction along the entire length of the project. Sidewalks aze
being recommended to accommodate pedestrians.
A single point urban interchange (SPUI) is being recommended for this project. A
diamond interchange was eliminated because of the longer ramp lengths on I-77 which is a
factor because of the close proximity of Exit 36 (NC 150) one mile to the north on I-77. A
diamond interchange with roundabouts was studied and eliminated due to poor operation
in the design year (2030). The `no-build' option for the interchange was also studied. The
four-lane divided section with a SPUI interchange will be presented to the public at the
public hearing, after completion of the environmental document. Comments from the
public hearing will be incorporated into an interchange justification study. and submitted to
FHWA for approval of a preferred treatment. The decision about a preferred treatment
will be based on capacity analysis, impacts, costs, and public comments. The proposed
improvements aze shown in Figure 5.
The completed project will provide a design speed of 50 mph. It will require
approximately 120 feet of right of way width. Temporary construction easements and
drainage easements will also be required throughout most of the project. There will be 3
residential relocations and 7 business relocations along Section A (the right of way cost
estimate in Appendix B currently reflects 3 business relocatees in Section A of the project.
The right of way cost estimate will be updated after the public hearing). The project limits
of Section A aze from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to SR 1109 (Williamson Road). If the
proposed single point urban interchange (SPUI) is constructed, there will be 3 residential
and 1 business relocation along Section B. There will be 5 residential and no business
relocations along Section C (I-77 to US 21). The recommended improvement will impact
two unnamed tributaries located along the project and will not impact wetlands.
With a new interchange at SR 1100 and I-77, additional commercial development
is likely to take place as a result of the mobility and access advantages that would become
available. As for the type and location of potential induced economic development, the
combination of the tremendous population growth occurring in this area and the improved
regional access by way of a new I-77 interchange should generate additional interstate-
related office and light industrial facilities as well as population-serving retail facilities.
Because of existing development, there is a limited amount of land available for
development in the.. four quadrants of the proposed interchange. Much of the available land
17

. near the proposed interchange is located between Williamson Road (SR 1109) and Talbert
Road (SR 1116).
In addition, in-fill commercial development, such as restaurants, convenience
stores, professional services facilities (dentist, real estate, and law offices, etc.) should be
accelerated along Brawley School Road between Oaktree Road (SR 1179) and Williamson
Road (SR 1109), supported by the increased drive-by traffic volume capacities and
improved mobility and access.
Not only could new commercial growth occur as a result of the new access
provided by the proposed interchange, but it is likely that business relocations within the
same community may take place. According to the NCHRP Report 456, "it is not unusual
for a transportation project to improve the accessibility of certain sites relative to other
locations within the same community. When this occurs, businesses seeking a competitive
advantage may relocate to sites whose accessibility is better than their current location"
(Transportation Research Board, p. 109).
D. Build Alternatives
Typical Section Alternatives
Two typical cross sections were evaluated for this project: afour-lane median
• divided section and afive-lane undivided section. The four-lane divided section will
consist of two pavements with curb and gutter (each measuring 28 feet between the curb
faces) divided by a 23-foot raised grass median (See Figure 6). The total face-to-face of
curb distance will be 83 feet. The berm to berm dimensions will be 103 feet with 120 feet
of right of way required. The five-lane, undivided, curb and gutter section will measure 72
feet between the curb faces with a 12-foot continuous middle turn lane and 16-foot outside
lanes (See Figure 6). Berm to berm will measure 92 feet with 100 feet required for right of
way. A four-lane median divided section with a `best fit' widening scenario is being
recommended in order to reduce impacts to residential and commercial properties, and
reduce environmental impacts, while at the same time increasing the safety and traffic
carrying capacity of the facility.
Preliminary design plans for a widened four-lane median divided section prohibit
many left-turn operations into and out of existing business and residential driveways.
Estimates of disruptions to existing access indicate that approximately 40 residential and
35 commercial driveways may be affected. These disruptions are mitigated by the use of
permitted U-turns at left-turn bays at the larger intersections coupled with pavement bulb-
outs for U-turning trucks and school buses at these intersections. Limitations on full-
movement direct driveway access may be viewed as a negative impact for access,
particularly for commercial vehicles. However, the benefits of improved traffic flow and
operation along the corridor can be viewed as a positive offset for any limitations on left-
*urn movPrnents at individual driveways. Access to .larger neighborhood developments
S 18

along Brawley School Road will improve with upgrades to existing roadway geometric
design and alignment.
A five-lane section design near commercial areas i~s typically perceived as
beneficial for any existing commercial developments requiring additional access points
along Brawley School Road. This type of cross-section, though promoting easier
accessibility than afour-lane median section along the entire length of the corridor, has
many drawbacks in terms of overall vehicular and pedestrian safety, aesthetics, and
operations that would offset any additional community benefits related to improved access.
A five-lane section running through lesser-developed frontage along SR 1100 (Brawley
School Road) may lead to a proliferation of driveways if access control policies are not
maintained.
The proposed typical section for relocated SR 1196 (Gibbs Road) will be a 24-foot
wide, two-lane road on 60 feet of right of way with paved shoulders and grass berms.
2. Alignment Alternatives
Two alignment alternatives were considered for widening SR 1100, each included
the consideration of symmetrical widening; asymmetrical widening, or a combination of
both.
a. Alternative 1 (recommended alternative, ~ •
SR 1100, Brawley School Road, will be widened to a four-lane, 83- foot, face to
face of curb, with a 23-foot raised grassed median and 12 foot inside lanes and 16-
foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycle travel. Widening would be a `best fit' _
scenario. Near the intersection of Blume Road (SR 1178) and SR 1234 (Beech
Tree Road) the Brawley School Road curve will be flattened thereby increasing the
distance between the intersection of SR 1178/SR 1234 from the intersection of SR
1234/ SR 1100. The purpose of flattening this curve is to improve safety. The SR
1178/ SR 1234 and SR 1234/ SR 1100 intersections will be stop sign controlled.
From SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21, existing SR 1100 (Brawley School
Road) will be widened `best fit' to the four-lane raised median divided section
described above. This typical section includes 16-foot wide outside lanes to
accommodate bicycle travel and sidewalks are proposed. A proposed single point
urban interchange will be included in TIP R-3833. The proximity of Gibbs Road
(SR 1196) to the proposed interchange and ramps would require that this
intersection with SR 1100 be relocated. The intersection of SR 1196 (Gibbs Road)
and SR 1100 will be relocated to the west of its current location to intersect with
SR 1100 across from Rolling Hills Road (See Figure 5, Sheet 4). Approximately
3000 feet of new location two-lane road on 60 feet of right of way will be
constructed.
19

b. Alternative 2
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) would be widened to a five-lane, 72-foot
face to face, curb and gutter facility with two inside 12-foot lanes, a 12-foot center
turn lane, and 16-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycle travel. Alternative 2
would measure 92 feet berm to berm with a required right of way width of 100 feet.
Widening would.be a `best fit' scenario. The curve in Brawley School Road at
Beech Tree Road (SR 1234) would be flattened away from SR 1234 to allow
approximately 290 feet of storage between the SR 1100/ SR 1234 and SR 1234 SR
1178 intersections. The reason for increasing vehicle storage capacity is to
improve safety. Both of these intersections would be stop sign controlled.
This typical section includes 16-foot wide outside lanes to accommodate
bicycle travel and sidewalks are proposed. A single point urban interchange
interchange is proposed at I-77. The intersection of Gibbs Road (SR 1196) and SR
1100 would be removed and approximately 3000 feet of new location road will be
constructed to tie Gibbs Road in to SR 1100 and form an intersection with Rolling
Hills Road.
Five-lane roadways are not as safe as four-lane median divided roads, nor
do they have as high a carrying capacity. With a high number of school buses
traveling along Brawley School Road (approximately 50 school buses making two
• trips per day), as well as overwhelming local support for a median divided
roadway, the five-lane roadway will not best fit the needs of the project. There was
support from a couple of members of the business community for afive-lane
typical section near SR 1109. However for reasons previously mentioned afive-
lane typical section was not chosen as the preferred alternative. For this reason
Alternative 2 was dropped from further study. Design work was prepared for this
alternative, however right of way cost estimates were not requested for this
alternative.
•
zo

Table 6 -Alternative 1 Construction Costs, Relocatees. Stream Impacts
ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION RIGHT OF WAY RELOCATEES STREAMS
COST _ COST {entire project) IMPACTED
Linear Ft
Alternate 1 4 lane w.
median w. SPUI
Interchange 11 residential 270 feet (Two
Section A* $14 M~ $5.48 M 8 business crossings of UT
Section B* * $18.5 M $7.16 M + $2.56K- (RW cost reflects west of I-77)
Section C*** $3.45 M $1.76 M 11 residential
and 4 business < 150 feet (LJT east
TOTAL $35.95 M $14.82 M relocatees) of I-77)
$50.77 M
Alternative 1 41ane
w. median w.
Diamond
Interchange ~ 17 residential 270 feet (Two
Section A* $14 M $5.65 M 9 business crossings of UT
Section B** $13 M $11.67 M + $256K (RW cost reflects west of I-77)
Section C*** $3.45 M $1.76 M 17 residential
and 4 business < 150 feet (UT east
TOTAL $30.45 M $19.33 M relocatees) of I-77)
$49.78 M
•
~lvi =minion ; lt~ = triousand
*Section A: SR 1177 to SR 1109; **Section B: SR 1109 to I-77 w. proposed interchange;
* * *Section C: I-77 to US 21.
E. Conclusions
NCDOT studied two typical section alternatives for the widening of the SR 1100
(Brawley School Road). NCDOT's recommended typical section, Alternative 1 (4-lane
median divided roadway), was chosen based on comments received from local citizens and
officials, various resource agencies, and input from internal design sources. A four-lane,
median divided cross section along Brawley School Road will provide for a more safe
environment, for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as well as a less congested roadway,
since turning movements will be limited to median cuts and major intersections.
NCDOT believes that Alternative 1 provides the best balance between project costs
and overall impacts, both environmental and social, while still satisfying the purpose and
need of the project. The estimated project cost for Alternative 1 is $55,150,000.
Alternative 2 will not provide the same safety benefits as Alternative 1, thereby not
fulfilling the purpose and need of this project. The majority of local officials, and citizens
living along existing Brawley School Road, favored Alternative 1 over Alternative 2
because it is safer and more aesthetically pleasing than Alternative 2, and would increase
the traffic carrying capacity of Brawley School Road. Abetter level of service (LOS) and
safer travel would result throughout the area. For all the reasons listed above, NCDOT
recommends Alternative 1 for the widening of Brawley School Road. .
21

S IV. SOCIAL. ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
Land Use
The zoning and use of land along the project corridor is predominantly
residential. However, pockets of commercial activity are located along Brawley
School Road.
a. Status of Planning
The Iredell County and Brawley School Peninsula Small Area Land
Use Plan guides development within the county and project study
azea. The Mooresville Thoroughfare Plan governs issues related to
transportation planning, traffic, and street design.
b. Existing Land Use and Zoning
.The area around Brawley School Road is considered a lakeside
living environment, with a combination ofhigher-income
households deeper in the peninsula areas and middle-income
households and a mix of commercial uses further north and east
along Brawley School Road east and west of I-77. Lake Norman
and its amenities is more responsible for the residential
attractiveness whereas the residential growth and I-77 aze more
responsible for commercial attractiveness.
The southern half of Iredell County has been one of the fastest
growing areas in the entire Charlotte metropolitan area, with new
subdivisions, shopping centers, population-serving professional
office buildings, and light industrial facilities along I-77 being
developed. Most of the transportation improvements in this area are
in response to this growth and congestion.
Future Land Use
The Town of Mooresville has planning and zoning jurisdiction along
Oaktree Road (SR 1179) north of Brawley School Road and along
the Brawley School Road corridor from just west of Williamson
Road (SR 1109) to US 21. Low-density single family residential (1
dwelling/15,000 sgft) is proposed for the Oaktree Road corridor. A
mix of commercial uses, light industrial (within Lakeside Park
Industrial Park), and lower density residential (1 dwelling/20,000
sgft) is proposed for the SR i 100 {Brawley School Road) corridor
22

between SR 1109 (Williamson Road) and I-77. Finally, a mix of
low-density residential (1 dwelling/20,000 sgft) and medium-density
residential (1 dwelling/8,000 sgft) is proposed for the portion of
Brawley School Road between I-77 and US 21.
In terms of land use, the main goal of the Brawley School Peninsula
Small Area Plan, adopted in Apri12002, is to maintain the
residential character and to accommodate neighborhood-oriented
businesses at strategic and well-planned- locations along the corridor.
The plan specifically proposed low-density residential uses (1
dwelling/30,000 sgft) along the Brawley School Road corridor and
its intersecting roadways from SR 1177 to Blume Road (SR 1178).
AT the Brawley School Road/Blume Road intersection, the plan
calls for commercial and mixed-use commercial land use. Included
in this category are the traditional retail land uses within the
Shopping Center, Neighborhood, Highway, Community and General
Business designations. Closer to Oaktree Road, a combination of
mixed-use transitional and transitional uses are proposed, which are
considered buffers between residential and commercial uses. Office,
institutional, services, and higher-intensity residential uses are
included in these categories.
The Iredell~County Land Use Plan, adopted in 1997, recommends •
much of the same types of land use as the Brawley School Peninsula
Small Area Plan, with predominantly low-density residential within
the finger peninsulas along Brawley School Road south of Blume
Road (SR 1178) and a mix of commercial and residential uses
between Blume Road and I-77. The Plan also recommends
widening Brawley School Road to a multi-lane facility and suggests
nodes of commercial development at major intersections.
d. Project Consistency with Local Plans
TIP project R-3833 is partially consistent with what is recommended
in the Brawley School Peninsula Small Area Plan, completed in
Apri12002. This plan includes the following recommendations:
• Utilize the five-lane, undivided alternative for portions of the
Brawley School Road corridor designated as non-residential.
• Utilize the four-lane, landscaped median alternative for the
remaining sections of Brawley School Road.
• 14-foot outside lanes should be built in order to accommodate
bicyclists
• Crosswalks should be~ located in appropriate places (e.g. schools), as
well as sidewalks
23

Although all of these options are currently being considered by the
NCDOT, the roadway design engineer, plan review engineer, county
planners, demographic area residents, and project engineers tend to
prefer the four-lane, median-divided facility. They feel it meets the
purpose and need of the project more so than the five-lane
alternative. The four-lane alternative would allow traffic to move
through the area more efficiently, improving the already congested
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) corridor. It would also provide for
a more safe facility, eliminating unlimited turning movements
provided by a center turn lane, which tends to result in more
frequent accidents.
In addition, the four-lane alternative would allow for safer
pedestrian crossings when compared to the five-lane alternative
because it would provide pedestrian refuge. However, because of
the loss of full turning movements, this alternative may be perceived
to have a negative impact on existing businesses and future
businesses along Brawley School Road that are/will not (be) located
at a major intersections or turnarounds, where median cuts would be
provided.
• The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Division of NCDOT has
also recommended that 16-foot outside lanes be included in this
project to accommodate bicyclists (Appendix A, page AS).
e. Farmland Impacts
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to .
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS). These soils are determined by the .
SCS-based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of
economic resources. The Iredell County Soil Survey used for this
analysis was completed in 1964.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is designed to minimize
the degree to which federally sponsored programs contribute to the
"unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses," and ensure that these programs are consistent
with state, local and private programs to protect farmland.
Based on a soil map provided by National Resource Conservation
Service District Office, a small portion ~f the Land surrounding the
• ?4

Brawley School Road corridor and potential interchange with I-77 is
designated as prime, high crop-yield farmland. This land is located
in the immediate vicinity of the intersection of Brawley School
Road and Talbert Road (SR 1116) and represents about SOO linear
feet of impact along the centerline of Brawley School Road.
Existing land use in this vicinity (all of which is located inside the
Mooresville town limits) is primarily moderate to high-density
residential. Therefore, no irrevocable impacts to existing farming
operations are expected to occur. The degree and extent that the
prime farmland soils would be impacted will depend on the final R-
3833 design, but existing and future land use plans suggest that
reverting this area back to agricultural operation is not likely to
occur. •
A portion of the widening associated with the R-3833 project along
SR 1100 will occur within existing right-of--way. Therefore, impacts
to any soil types actually used for agriculture should be minimal in
areas along the project study corridor and field observations note
that little if any land along the existing roadway is used for
agriculture.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
a. •Geographic and Political Description (Demographics)
Adjoining Mecklenburg County to the north, Iredell County is
basically bisected by the north-south I-77 corridor and the east-west
I-40 corridor. Much of the eastern shoreline of Lake Norman, the
largest manmade lake in the state, is within southern Iredell County
near the project location. Although it borders Mecklenburg County,
Iredell County is not included within the seven-county Charlotte
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Statesville, situated at, the I-77
and I-40 crossroads in central Iredell County, is the county seat.
Other than I-77 and I-40, major highways within Iredell County
include US-21, NC-115, US-70, and US-64.
Similar to most counties adjacent to Mecklenburg County, Iredell
County's population grew at a rapid pace between 1990 and 2000,
adding 29,057 people, or a growth rate of 31.0%. In comparison,
the State of North Carolina's population grew by 21.4% during the
same timeframe. Indicative of its residential attractiveness, the
demographic area, which is located in southern Iredell County, grew
by an overwhelming 146.3% from 4,510 persons in 1990 to 11,017
persons in 2000.
25

•
Table 7. Population Growth, 1990-2000
Po u lation ; Growth
Area :1990 , ......2000 < #
Demographic Area 4,510 11,107 6,597 146.3%
Iredell County 93,603 122,660 29,057 31.0%
North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4%
Source: US, Census Bureau 1990, 2000
Note: Demographic Area includes CT 614BG1-5, CT 62.O1BG 1 in
1990 and CT 614BG 1-5 in 2000.
b. Race, Ethnici ,,t~Ag_e,
A total of 10,983 non-Hispanics and 124 Hispanics resided within
the demographic area in 2000. Over 95% of the non-Hispanics
within the demographic area were White, compared to only 80.7%
_ .in Iredell County and 70.2% in North Carolina. Most of the
remaining 5% of the non-Hispanic population were African-
American (1.2%) or Asian (1.0%). Of the 124 Hispanics within the
demographic area in 2000, the majority were White-Hispanic (83).
•
•
Table 8. Population by Race, 2000
°Dem ra hic Area Iredell Coun North Carolina
Race ` Po ulation % Po utation %° Po utation
Non-His anic or Latino. 10,983 98.9°/ 118,478 96.6°/ 7,670,35 95.3°/
White 10,636 95.8°/ 99,027 80.7°/ 5,647,155 70.2°/
Black/African American 130 1.2% 16,620 13.5°/ 1,723,301 21.4°/
American Indian/Alaska Native 36 0.3% 296 0.2°/ 95,333 1.2%
Asian 114 1.0% 1,535 1.3% 112,416 1.4°/
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 0.0% 22 0.0% 3,165 0.0%
Other Races 4 0.0% 86 0.1 °/ 9,015 0. I
Two or More Races 62 0.6% 892 0.7% 79,965 1.0%
Hispanic or Latino: 124 1.1% 4,182 3.4% 378,963 4.7°/
White ~ 83 0.7% 1,758 1.4% 157,501 2.0%
Black 0 0.0% 142 0.1% 14,244 0.2%
AmericanIndian/AlaskaNative 0 0.0% 32 0.0% 4,218 0.1%
Asian 0 0.0% 18 0.0% 1,273 0.0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 3 0.0% 818 0.0%
Other Races 33 0.3% 1,972 1.6°/ 177,614 2.2%
Two or More Races 8 0.1% 257 0.2% 23,295 0.3%
Total 11,107 `100.0°/ 122,66 -100.0°/ 8,049,31 100.0°/
Source: US Census Bureau 2000
Note: Demographic Area includes CT 614BG 1-5
26

In terms of age distribution, the demographic area had a much lower
percent (9.1 %) of elderly population (65 or older) in 2000 than did
Iredell County (12.4%) or North Carolina (12.0%). In addition, the
demographic area has a higher percentage of older working age
population (45-64 yeazs) than does Iredell County and the State,
indicating that the demographic area's lakeside living environment
caters mostly to senior-level executives within companies located in
Charlotte. The population below 44 years of age is fairly similar
among all three geographies.
Table 9. Pnnulatinn by Aop ~nnn

Demo " ra ' -
hirArea -,
Iredell Coun
> North Carolina
~e Population % Popnlation % Population
19 years and under 3,109 28.0% 33,961 27.7% 2,193,360 27.2%
20-44 years 4,160 37.5% 44,967 36.7% 3,078,043 38.2%
45-64 years 2,826 25.4% 28,582 23.3% 1,808,862 22.5%
65 or more years 1,012 9.1 % l 5,150 12.4% 969,048 12.0%
Total 11,107 .:.100.0% '.122,660 100.0% $,049,313 100.0%
wurce: u~ census bureau ZUUU
Note: Demographic Area includes CT 614BG 1-5.
c. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions
There aze a few public facilities, predominantly schools and
churches, along Brawley School Road that aze noteworthy. Four
churches front the roadway:
• Morrow's Chapel United Methodist Church, located just north of
Chuckwood Road along the west side of Brawley School Road
• Peninsula Baptist Church, located across from Brawley Middle
School neaz Williamson Road
• William's Chapel United Methodist Church, located in the southeast
quadrant of the Brawley School and Williamson roads intersection
• St. Therese Catholic Church, located just east of Talbert Road along
the south side of Brawley School Road between I-77 and US 21.
In addition to these churches, Brawley Middle School is located near
the Williamson and Brawley School roads intersection, and Lake
Norman Elementary School is located along Oaktree Road just north
of the project area. The new Lake Norman High School is located
off River Highway (NC 150) along Doolie Road in the northern
portion of the demographic azea.
Other than churches and schools, there is a new YMCA planned in
the Morrison Plantation mixed-use development in the northwest
quadrant of the Williamson (SR 1109) and Brawley School. Road
intersection. Also, a Tutor Time day care center is under
27
1
•
•

construction in the southwest quadrant of the Brawley School Road
and US 21 intersection and Mallard Head Country Club, a semi-
private golf course, is located along Mallazd Way (SR 2930) south
of Brawley School Road.
d. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services
Lake Norman Regional Medical Center, the main hospital for the
entire Lake Norman azea, is located south and east of the
demographic area at Fairview and Center Church roads. The hospital
has plans for expansion along the south side of Fairview Road, and
many medical-related offices aze planned for the immediate azea as
well. The Lake Norman volunteer fire station is located about 200
yards south of Blume Road along the west side of Brawley School
Road. The nearest police station is located in downtown
Mooresville.
Water service is provided along both sides of Brawley School Road
between US 21 and Williamson Road, and on the north side of
Brawley School Road within the urban growth boundary of
Mooresville (includes neighborhoods along Oaktree Road). In
addition, Heater Utilities provides water service to a few pockets of
households along some of the peninsulas in this azea. Outside of
• these areas, there is no public water service available. The portion of
the demographic azea outside of Mooresville's urban growth
boundary is without public sewer service.
3. Relocations
Additional right of way will be needed to construct the project. Temporary
construction easements will also be required. A relocation report for Alternative 1
(recommended alternative) was prepazecl. Alternative 1 includes the widening of
Brawley School Road to a four-lane median divided roadway from SR 1177
(Chuckwood Road) to US 21 with a proposed interchange at I-77: Two
interchange configurations were considered as part of Alternate 1, the four lane
median divided roadway: a diamond interchange and a single point urban
interchange (SPUD.
Under Alternative 1, a total of 17 residential relocations and 9 business
relocations along the entire project length aze necessary for the diamond
interchange alternative, and 11 residential relocations and 8 business relocations are
necessary for the single point urban interchange alternative. Total relocation cost
for the project, including land and damages, utilities, and acquisition, is
approximately $19 million for the diamond interchange alternative and $14.5
million for the single point urban interchange (SPUD alternative. Due to an
alignment shift in the design since the relocation report was prepared, updated costs
• 28

will be provided in the final document to reflect costs associated with the additional
4 business relocations in Section A. Throughout the document this updated number
has been reflected. Relocation reports for Alternative 1 with the two interchange
configurations are included in Appendix B of this report but do not reflect the
additional 4 business relocatees in Section A of this project.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to provide assistance and counseling to those
affected by transportation improvements as required under the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act. Furthermore,
the North Carolina Board of Transportation offers programs that address relocation
assistance, moving payments and replacement housing payments or rent subsidies
for residents and businesses that are impacted by transportation improvements.
For all relocations, it is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of State and Federally
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the
following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
*Relocation Assistance
*Relocation Moving Payments, and
*Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement.
Appendix B contains information on the Division of Highways
Relocation Programs. •
4. SocialImpacts
a. Community stabili and neighborhood cohesion
Interstate I-77 runs north-south, and divides downtown Mooresville
from Brawley School Peninsula. This project should have a positive
impact on the general livability and economic stability of Iredell
County, as well as the community of Mooresville by improving east-
west and area traffic flow, and easing congestion in southeast Iredell
County. The project will provide additional pavement for safer
bicycle travel, sidewalks, and pedestrian crossings in strategic
locations. Overall pedestrian and bicycle travel will be enhanced by
this project. Brawley School Road already separates residential
areas on both sides along the entire length of the project. These
areas may be considered distinct, separate neighborhoods.
However, residents of these areas may be crossing Brawley School
Road on foot, by bicycle, and by car to visit friends and neighbors,
or to shop at the shopping center across from Brawley Middle
School near SR 1109 (Williamson Road) or east of I-77 in
downtown Mooresville. Sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals,
medians, and wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycles will
29 •

improve non-motorized travel and will not harm community
stability or neighborhood cohesion.
b. Tax base changes, changes in employ
As noted just above, Alternative 1 (recommended alternative) might
cause the relocation of as many as 17 homes and 9 small businesses.
These potential relocations should not have a serious impact on the
county's tax base or upon business and employment patterns in the
area.
5. Environmental Justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there
be no discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to
Address Environmenta] Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations," provides that "each federal agency make achieving environmental
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effectsl of its
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations." The Executive Order makes cleaz that its provisions apply fully to
American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental justice refers to the
equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the
development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations
and policies.
The demographic azea is predominantly white and middle- to upper-income.
The purpose and need of R-3833 is to reduce congestion and improve safety for
area residents travelling along Brawley School Road on a daily basis. Although no
detailed race and income data was available regarding the relocatees as a result of
the project, it could be assumed, based on the demographic and employment
analysis within this report, that most of the residences and businesses are not
minority or lower-income in nature. Therefore, given the scope and location of R-
~ Adverse effects means significant cumulative human health or environmental effects, including social and economic
effects, which may include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water
pollution and soil contamination; vibration; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of
man-made or natural resources, of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality, or of the availability of
public and private facilities and services: adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or
nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion:. isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income
individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant
dela}~ in the receipt of, benefits of DOT programs, policies, or activities.
Disproportionately high adverse effect on minority and low-income populations means an adverse effect that: (1) is
predominately borne by a minority population and/or aloes-income population, or (2) will be suffered b}' the minority
population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect
that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population [adaptedJrom the Finul•DOT
• Order on environmental justice]. ,
30

3833, the project should have no impact on residential areas that are characterized
by high concentrations of minority or low-income residents.
6. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Historic Architectural Resources
The Historic Preservation Office commented on the NCDOT Phase II
Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report. The State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that the H.T. Mayhew House is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as an intact example of
a Gothic Revival cottage. The SHPO also concurred with the report's
findings that the Morrow's Chapel United Methodist Church is not eligible
for the National Register. At an Effects meeting with SHPO a project
commitment was made to shift the alignment of the road away from the
property and to plant low shrubs in the median in front of the H.T. Mayhew
property during or after construction of the project. An impact of "No
Adverse Effect" was determined by SHPO for this property. See Appendix
A, pages A34-35 for a copy of correspondence from the SHPO.
b. Archaeological Resources
According to SHPO, there aze no known acchaeological sites within the
project azea, and it is unlikely any archaeological resources eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project. SHPO recommended no survey for archaeological resources.
Based on this recommendation, no surveys were conducted.
7. Section 4(fl Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies
that publicly owned land from a pazk, recreation azea, 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:
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such
land.
(2) Such highway program or project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such
use.
The project will not use property from any resource protected by Section 4(f).
31 •

•
B. Economic Effects
1. Business Activity/Employment Centers
Table 10 below shows employment growth figures for Iredell County
between 1990 and 2000. It is apparent that the retail trade and services
industries added the most jobs in Iredell County between 1990 and 2000.
Much of this growth was driven by the substantial increase in population
and households, particularly in southern Iredell County near the project
location. The only industry sector in Iredell County that lost employment
was manufacturing, which also employed the most people in 2000 with a
total of 16,230 workers.
Fueled by recent transportation infrastructure investments and increased
residential development, the I-77 corridor in both Mecklenburg County and
Iredell County has been a magnet for commercial development over the past
decade. According to the local Chamber of Commerce, a total of
approximately 5 million square feet of commercial inventory (office,
industrial, and retail) employing 6,300 people was added to southern Iredell
•
Employment '~ Change
Sector 1990 2000 # %°
Construction 2,399 3,772 1,373 57.2%
Agriculture 352 664 312 88.6%
Mining 35 42 7 20.0%
Manufacturing 16,600 16,230 -370 -2.2%
Transportation/
Public Utilities
1,260
1,704
444
35.2%
Wholesale Trade 1,830 2,504 674 36.8%
Retail Trade 7,341 11,288 3,947 53:8%
FIRE 745 .1,056 311 41.7%
Services 6,156 12,096 5,940 96.5%
Government 4,223 7,002 2,779 65.8%
Total:' 40,941 56,35$ .15,417 37.7%
Table 10. Employment By Sector
Iredell County, 1990-2000
Source: North Carolina Employment Security
Commission
County alone, between Trautman and the Mecklenburg County border,
between 1990 and 2000. Much of that growth occurred in Lakeside
32

Business Park, an industrial complex located within the demographic area .
east of Williamson Road (SR 1109) between Brawley School Road and
River Highway (NC 150). Between 1990 and 2000, Lakeside Business
Park added an estimated 1.25 million square feet of office and industrial
space.
Results of travel time to work data (see Table 11 below) indicate that most
(41.7%) of the employed residents within the demographic area drive
between 15 and 30 minutes to work. However, another 1,977 workers, or
37.7%, drive over 30 minutes to work, indicating the likelihood of many
residents working in the downtown Charlotte area.
Table 11. Travel Time To Work
Demographic Area, 2000
T[me Persons
Less than 15
minutes 1,071
Between 15 and
30 minutes 2,186
Greater than 30
minutes 1,977
Source: US Census Bureau
2. Determination of Potential for Indirect and Cumulative Impacts •
Indirect impacts are those impacts that, as a result of an event such as this
proposed transportation project, occur over a longer period of time and can
take place away from the immediate project area. A short-term example
would be the development of a small subdivision along a new or widened
roadway that would otherwise not have occurred. Closely related is~the
concept of cumulative impacts, which are the collective effects of multiple
events and actions, which may be dependent or independent.
These unintended consequences of roadway improvements can depend
upon local land development regulations, development demand,
water/sewer availability, and other factors such as encouragement of
additional development and sprawl. Improvements to levels of service,
better accommodation of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in
travel times can have land development impacts outside of the project area.
Induced Growth and Development:
Unless there are potential extenuating environmental concerns with respect
to transportation projects, such as air and water quality degradation, wildlife
habitat disruption, etc., the major component of an indirect and cumulative
impact analysis is induced growth and development. The Louis Berger
33 •

• Group Inc., in their April 2001 handbook titled "Guidance for Assessing
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North
Cazolina", identify four factors that should be evaluated to determine the
potential for land use change surrounding a new rural interchange. Table 12
below indicates the results of this qualitative analysis.
Table 12. Potential For Land Use Chances Surroundinc Rural
Positive Indication of Growth Negative Indication of
Factor - Potential ~ Growt6 Potential
Distance to Major N/A
Urban Center 25 miles from downtown Charlotte
High traffic volumes along Brawle N/A
Traffic Volumes on School Rd., I-77, Williamson Rd.,
Intersecting Roadways and US 21
Presence of N/A Frontage roads are not planne
Frontage Roads as part of this project
Availability of Entire interchange area is or will be N/A
Water & Sewer served by Town of Mooresville
Source: The Louis Berger Group, lnc., HNTB
The proposed interchange at I-77 and Brawley School Road is located
• approximately 25 miles from downtown Charlotte, probably the most
intense• employment center along the East Coast between Atlanta and
Washington D.C. Charlotte is currently the nation's second largest banking
center behind New York City, and is headquarters to the second and fourth
lazgest banks in the country. Many residents within the demographic azea
work in downtown Charlotte, and thus would benefit from the new
interchange. Another positive indication of the potential for land use
change surrounding the proposed I-77Brawley School Rd. interchange is
the high volume of traffic along intersection roadways. Brawley School
Road, is forecasted to nearly double its 2003 average daily trips (ADT) of
approximately 24,000 to over 40,000 in 2025.
Only one of the four factors being evaluated results in a negative indication
of growth potential: the presence of frontage roads. As part of R-3833, no
frontage roads aze planned in any quadrant of the proposed interchange,
forcing any induced development to occur strictly along Brawley School
Road. Lastly, the area surrounding the proposed interchange is partially
within the Town of Mooresville town limits and completely within the
Mooresville urban growth boundary. Thus, it currently has or soon will
have water and sewer services available.
Because of the intense scope of R-3833, which includes not only a new
rural interchange but also an estimated six-mile 'widening, it is also
34

necessary to evaluate the likelihood of land use change along the project .
area based on a set of factors that evaluate the project location, purpose and
need, surrounding development conditions, and adopted land use policies of
the local jurisdictions. The presence of and the extent to which these
factors exist helps to determine whether or not a detailed indirect and
cumulative impact analysis (ICI) is required for specific projects. The
following is an assessment of those factors for R-3833:
Compliance with local plan:
It has already been determined from a previous section that the project is
not in conflict with the Iredell County future land use plan nor the Brawley
School Peninsula Small Area Plan. However, the land development effects
that would be created in response to a new interchange with I-77 at Brawley
School Road would be inconsistent with Mooresville's existing zoning and
future land use for the immediate area surrounding the proposed
interchange (low-density residential and light industrial), which is currently
being re-evaluated.
Exylicit economic development purpose:
The purpose and need of R-3833 is to improve safety, increase vehicle
capacity along Brawley School Road, and provide better access to I-77. It
will not directly serve as an economic development tool, although it should •
generate indirect land use development because of the location
attractiveness and improved access and mobility in the area.
Planned to serve specific development:
The Brawley School Road widening and proposed I-77 interchange
construction will serve existing and future residents of southern Iredell
County, in particular those living along the Brawley School Peninsula. The
project is not intended to cater to a specific development in the area.
Likely to stimulate land development havin complementary functions:
The answer to this question involves an evaluation of a set of factors
commonly used to determine induced growth surrounding rural
interchanges including:
• Distance to a major urban center
• Traffic volumes on intersecting roadways
• Presence of frontage roads
• Availability of water/sewer
Brawley School Road is within 25 miles of one of the fastest growing urban
centers in the United States and traffic volumes along I-77, Williamson
35 •

• Road (SR 1109), and US-21 are nearing capacity. Therefore, the first two
factors rank highly with respect to the potential to stimulate land
development. However, frontage roads are not planned as part of the
proposed interchange design, and water and sewer is only partially available
surrounding the proposed interchange and along Brawley School Road
between Williamson Road and US 21. Based on this evaluation, TIP
Project R-3833 would likely stimulate land development.
Likely to influence infra-regional land development location decisions:
Typically, if the conditions are favorable for development and/or a region is
currently undergoing urbanization, an improvement in the transportation
infrastructure is likely to influence where development will occur. In this
circumstance, conditions within the demographic area are extremely
favorable for .development, and it is undergoing a rapid urbanization
process. Therefore, it is likely that the proposed improvements will
influence infra-regional land development location decisions.
Notable feature present in impact area:
Notable features relate to the natural environment, historic and cultural
properties, wildlife habitat, etc. Lake Norman should be considered a
• notable feature within the demographic area, since it has served as the
catalyst for much of the residential and commercial growth both in southern
Iredell County and in northern Mecklenburg County. Other than Lake
Norman, based on a site visit and discussions with local planning staff,
there are no notable features present along the project corridor.
Notable feature significantly impacted:
Despite the tremendous growth occurring within the demographic area, the
water supply watershed regulations that exist (.see Water Supply Watershed
section of this report) should prohibit any potentially substantial water
quality impacts upon Lake Norman as a result of TIP Project R-3833.
Since it has been determined that indirect and cumulative impacts are likely
as a result of R-3833, an analysis of a set of quantitative factors included in
the Oregon Department of Transportation's "A Guidebook for Evaluating
The Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements"
(March 2001) was completed. This analysis helps to determine the
potential magnitude of the indirect and cumulative impacts over a 20-year
period. Table 13 below indicates the results of this rating analysis:
•
36

Tahla 1 ~ M~nnifniln .,f i a..a iT~e rti......e ~nnn ~n~n
Change Land
Change .: ' in Supply vs. ' "' =Market
_ ~ in ~, ~ Property~;
~ F'orecasted .Land Water~lSewet,~'or>
_ E - .. Public
bog ..
Accessibility Values Growth Demand Availability Development Policy
> 50% Less
> 10 min. increase in < 10-year Existing Development stringent; n
travel time property > 3% annual supply of service activity growth
Strong savings values pop. growth land available abundant managemen
~ X X
~~ X X
" X X

/1 X
No More
< 2 min. property > 20-yeaz No service Development stringent;
travel time value 0-1% annual supply of available now activity growth
Weak savings increase pop. Growth land or in future lacking managemen
vvui~.c. vicyvn vcNaiuncni ui ~ iansNunauvn

An indicator that contributes to the likelihood of a low magnitude of growth
as a result of R-3833 is the fact that much of the demographic area is not
currently served by either public water or sewer, nor are there any plans to •
service the unincorporated portion of the demographic area. Iredell County
does not provide water or sewer service.
Another indicator of growth magnitude is the change in property values as a
result of the project being built. Property values are likely to exceed a 50%
increase surrounding the proposed interchange at I-77 and Brawley School
Road, but since the remaining portion of TIP R-3833 involves the widening
of an existing roadway, and not a new roadway, it is unlikely that property
values will increase above 50% along the entire project area. Therefore,
this factor is given an intermediate rating with respect to its impact on
induced growth magnitude.
Also, with the rapid growth that is taking place, land availability is
becoming an issue, particularly along the finger peninsulas further south
along Brawley School Road, which are the most attractive areas for
residential development. There is probably less than a 20-year supply of
land available along the Brawley School Road corridor but more than a 10-
year supply. Therefore, the "land supply vs. land demand" factor was rated
to be intermediate in terms of its ability to affect the magnitude of potential
land use change.
37
t

• In terms of indicators contributing to the likelihood of a high magnitude of
growth as a result of R-3833, the rate of annual population growth (14.6%)
and the mazket for development rate very strongly. Location attractiveness
is at a peak in this portion of Iredell County, and more importantly, the
Chazlotte area, particularly regarding residential development. Residential
growth is driving the economy in this area, creating more employment,
commercial services, and public facilities. Improvements to the
transportation infrastructure, much like TIP R-3833, are in response to this
growth.
Also rating highly with respect to the magnitude of land use change are
travel time savings and public policy. Based on travel time to work data
from the 2000 US Census Bureau, approximately 20% of the demographic
azea working population travel 45 minutes or more to work. With the
completion of R-3833, commuters will no longer need to travel north on SR
1109 taking NC 150 east to Exit 36, or SR 1109 south towazd Exit 33 to
access I-77 on their way to Chazlotte and Statesville. It will also not take
them as long to get to I-77 because of the relief in congestion that the
widened roadway would cause. Therefore, travel time savings could reach
the 10-minute level, if not exceed it. In addition, public policy in southern
Iredell County is pro growth, with local government providing incentives
for businesses to locate in the area. Although the density of both residential
and commercial development is limited by water supply watershed
regulations, the location attractiveness continues to lure growth to the azea.
Forecasted Development Capacity:
In order to determine the estimated amount of induced development impacts
of R-3833, two different land use scenarios, a no build and a build, were
analyzed:
No-Build Scenario:
This scenazio forecasts household and employment growth within the
demographic area between 2000 and 2010 and 2010 and 2020 without the
completion of R-3833. Table 14 below indicates the results of this forecast.
•
38

Table 14. No Build Scenario
DPmnnranhir Oros Rnror~cferi 41nu~nhnl~l~ R InL.c
-- -°Hou~set~oids_ -~ ,Jbbs
~= Demographic._ ° Iredell °. ~ - Qemographic - = ~ Iredell
Year ` pr~• ~: Coun Area*'' - Coun
1990 1,811 30,944 2,661 40,941
2000 4,255 47,914 3,663 56,358
2010 6,008 60,091 4,594 70,681
2020 7,868 73,004 5,582 85,870
source: ivy, vulce or gate rlannmg, nN t is
Note: Demographic Area includes CT 614BG 1-5
* Demographic Area household forecasts are based on its 1990-2000
share of Iredell County household growth.
** Demographic Area employment forecasts are based on an estimated
capture rate of Iredell County employment growth.

Based on forecasts retrieved from the Office of State Planning, future
household growth in Iredell County is expected to slow from its 54.8%
growth. rate between 1990 and 2000. Although the absolute numbers are
still forecasted to increase between 2000 (4,255) and 2020 (7,868), they are
expected to increase at a decreasing rate. In 2010, a total of 60,091
households are forecasted, only 25.4% more than the 47,914 households in
2000. Because of this forecast, the household growth rate within the
demographic area between 2000 and 2010 (41.2%) is also expected to
decline from its rapid pace (134.9%) between 1990 and 2000. The same •
trend holds true for 2020, when a total of 7,868 households in the
demographic area and 73,004 households in Iredell County are forecasted.
By applying the Iredell County jobs per household ratio of 1.17 in 2000 to
the forecasted households in 2010, a total of 70,681 jobs are forecasted to
exist within Iredell County in 2010. This same ratio was applied to the
forecasted 2020 households to derive the forecasted 2020 jobs within Iredell
County. In order to forecast the amount of jobs in the demographic area in
1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020, a capture rate of 6.5% of Iredell County jobs
was estimated based on recent growth trends. This estimate was based not
only on the geographic size of the demographic area, but also on the field
visit, and the fact that most of the demographic area is residential in nature,
within unincorporated Iredell County, and not scheduled to receive
water/sewer service.
Build Scenario:
This scenario forecasts household and job growth within the demographic
area between 2000 and 2010 and 2010 and 2020 with the completion of R-
3833. Table 15 below indicates the results of this forecast.
39 •

• Table 15. Build Scenario
Demoaraohic Area Forecasted Households 8~ Jobs
--
Househo
lds ,
Jobs
- Demographic Iredell e Demogtaphic Iredell
Year ' Area* Coun ; Area** ' Goun
1990 1,811 30,944 2,661 40,941
2000 4,255 47,914 3,663 56,358
2010 6,355 60,437 4,778 70,864
2020 8 214 73 350 5,765 86 053
Source: NC Office of State Planning, HNTB
Note: Demographic Area includes CT 614BG 1-5
* Demographic Area household forecasts are based on its 1990-2000
share of Iredell County household growth.
** Demographic Area employment forecasts are based on an estimated
capture rate of Iredell Courny employment growth.
The same methodology used in the "No-Build" scenario was applied in the
"Build" scenario in order to. forecast future households and jobs within both
Iredell County and the demographic area. The only difference was the
induced growth within both geographies due to the completion of R-3833.
Therefore, the Iredell County and demographic values for 2010 and 2020 in
this scenario are slightly higher than those in the "No-Build" scenario. The
results of the methodology used to determine this induced growth is shown
in Table 16 and discussed below.
Table 16. Induced Households and Jobs
Demoaraohic Area. 2000-2020
Methodol Ste s Results ,
2000-2020 Change In ADT 13,250
Change In ADT Due To Induced Growth 12.50%
Trips Due To Induced Growth 1,656
Average Persons Per Vehicle 1.1
Person Trips Due To Induced Growth 1,822
Average Daily Trips Per Household 3
Induced Households 2000-2020 607
Jobs To Household Ratio 2000-2020 0.53
Induced Jobs 2000-2020 322
Source: Cervero, R., UC-Berkeley, I-INTB
• 40

Using the methodology adopted by Professor Robert Cervero2 of the
University of California-Berkeley, whereby the change in average daily
trips (ADT) along the newly improved roadway is converted into induced
households, the completion of R-3833 is forecasted to add an estimated 607
households and 322 jobs within the demographic azea between 2000 and
2020. The assumptions that were made with respect to this methodology
are highlighted in Table 16. Noteworthy is the fact that the demographic
azea for R-3833 is lazger than what the typical potential growth impact azea
for this type of project would be, so the induced household growth may be
slightly underestimated. However, this model is typically applied to new
roadways on new alignment, so applying it to a predominantly widening
project basically negates the lazge size of the demographic area.
Water Ouality Related Impacts:
The indirect and cumulative impacts associated with TIP R-3833 have been
described in a broad or regional sense. However; they have not been
calculated in a detailed manner, on a pazcel by parcel basis that would give
an indication of the future number of homes, businesses and population
added to the vicinity as a result of the proposed project. Accordingly, the
potential water quality impacts have also been described in a general sense,
based on the study area's development potential associated with the
proposed project. .
Since the entire project lies within the boundaries of the Lake Norman
Water Supply Watershed critical area and protected, azea, the impact to
surrounding waters should be adequately mitigated by the development
regulations, stream buffers and Best Management Practices (BMPs)
associated with the Watershed rules.
The United States Government regulates certain selected rivers and their
immediate environments because they possess "outstandingly remarkable
scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic; cultural, or other
similaz values". Legislation dictates that these rivers "shall be preserved in
free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments
shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future
generations". R-3833 will not encroach on any wild and scenic rivers as
designated by the United States government.
North Carolina's 303(d) list (2000), a product of the Clean Water Act which
requires States to identify those waters that do not meet water quality
standards or which have impaired uses, was reviewed to determine if any
z Cervero, R. 2002 (forthcoming). Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis.
Journal of the American Planning Association. •
41

• water bodies within the demographic area of TIP Project R-3833 are listed.
Excluded from this list are water bodies that include control strategies for
point and non-point source pollution. Using these parameters, it was
determined that the demographic area does not contain any impaired waters.
Should a more detailed assessment of the impacts to water quality be
desired, the extent of future land use changes and the volume of urban
development would also require more detailed research, analysis and
estimation to more accurately fix the location, density and form of future
residential and commercial activity. This higher level of analysis may be
done at the permitting stage of this project, should it be deemed that greater
detail is necessary.
Other Cumulative Impacts:
Cumulative impacts also relate to surrounding transportation projects. With
a newly widened roadway and a new I-77 interchange, access and mobility
is improved for existing and future residents of the surrounding area. This
improvement (and its potentially pedestrian-friendly design) should
positively impact the operation of the commuter rail and bus rapid transit
services proposed in the area by making it easier for people to access bus
feeder systems along Brawley School Road that can now more efficiently
• transport them to the various transit stations in southern Iredell County.
Another related project cumulative impact is the construction of a new
interchange at Langtree Road and I-77. With the potential Brawley School
Road and Langtree Road interchanges in place, access to I-77, the major
commuting thoroughfare in southern Iredell County, will be more
disbursed, reducing congestion along Williamson Road, US 21, and River
Highway (NC 150), which are currently the only feeder roadways to I-77 in
southern Iredell County.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Methodoloay
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed.
Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project area
include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Lake Norman North,
1970):
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200).
• 42

r
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental .
Sensitivity Base Maps of Iredell County (1995).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural
Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Iredell County,
North Carolina (1964).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, 1993).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species
in the study area was obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) list of protected and candidate species (Mazch 22, 2001) and from
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of raze species and
unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences
of state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural azeas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT Natural Resources Specialists, Clay Willis and Jeff Burleson, on
October 11, 2000. Water resources were identified and their physical
chazacteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community
classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal
taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al.
(1980), and Webster, et al. (1985).
Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the
project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition
involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative
communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation
techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities,
active seazching, identifying chazacteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on
criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environment Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the
Values of Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental
Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the classification
scheme of Cowazdin, et al. (1979).
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning
the limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the
azea bounded by the proposed right-of--way limits along the full length of
the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an azea extending
1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region"
43

denotes an azea equivalent in size to the azea represented by a 7.5 minute
USGS quadrangle map, i.e. [163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)].
2. Physical Chazacteristics
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below
with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site
topography significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and
compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area present
important management limitations due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation.
Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting
downstream uses. In addition, soil chazacteristics and the availability of
water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna
in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
The project is located in the southern portion of Iredell County where the
topography is gently sloping. The project study azea is comprised of
residential development, businesses, schools, and undeveloped agricultural
land. The project runs along a ridge where the elevation fluctuates between,
approximately 800 and 850 feet (244 and 259 meters) above sea level.
• Portions of Lake Norman are located within 3 miles on either side of the
project. Due to the projects location on a ridge there aze no wetland areas
and only two stream crossings on the entire project. Land use in the project
area is dominated by agricultural, residential, and urban uses.
a. Soils
Generally, soils aze chazacterized into Soil Associations or "General Soil
Mapping Units" with consistent patterns of soil, relief, and drainage. The
project study area in Iredell County lies in the Cecil "General Soil Mapping
Unit". The Cecil grouping is deep, gently sloping to steep, well drained
soils with a subsoil of reddish clay, on granite, gneiss, and schist. There are
seven soil types within the Cecil mapping unit, located in the project area. A
brief description of these soil types is provided following Table 17.
Table 17. Soils occuring in the project area, Iredell County
Map Symbol Specific Mapping Unit % Slope Hydric Capability
Classification Unit
CmB2 Cecil sandy loam 2-6 Non-hydric Ile-1
AsC2 Appling sandy loam 6-10 Non-hydric IIIe-1
Cw Chewacla 0-1 Hydric IIIw-1
CcE3 Cecil clay loam 15-20 Non-hydric VIIe-2
CmC2 Cecil sandy loam 2-6 Non-hydric IIIe-1
AsB2 Appling sandy 1Qam 2-6 Non-hydric IIe-1
Cf B2 Cecil fine sandy loam 2-6 Non-hydric IIe-1
• 44

• Cecil sandy loam,(CmB2) The surface layer is light-brown sandy loam that is 3 to 7
inches thick. Many small areas of this soil aze severely eroded, and in these areas the
surface layer is red clay loam or sandy clay loam.
• Annling sandy loam,(AsC21 This soil is on ridges and side slopes in azeas that are
gently rolling or rolling. The surface layer in most places is light yellowish brown and
is 3 to 6 inches thick. This soil has the potential for erosion problems if proper
groundcover is not established.
• Chewacla (Cwl The soils aze nearly level and somewhat poorly drained. They aze
located in areas on first bottoms of streams. The A horizon is generally light brown to
dark reddish-brown.
• Cecil clay loam (CcE3~ This soil is shallower over bedrock than Cecil clay loam, 6 to
10 percent slopes, severely eroded. In most places depth to bedrock is less than 24
inches.
• Cecil sandy loam (CmC2) This soil is coazser textured than Cecil fine sandy loam. The
surface layer in most places is light-brown sandy loam and is 3 to 6 inches thick. This
soil can have severe erosion if proper ground cover is not maintained.
• Cecil fine sandy loam (CfB2) This soil in most places has a surface layer that is
reddish-brown fine sandy loam and is 3 to 7 inches thick. In many small azeas this soil •
is severely eroded.
3. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely
to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments
include the physical Chazacteristics, best usage standazds, and water quality
aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major
regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water bodies are
also discussed, as aze means to minimize impacts.
a. Subbasin Characteristics
Water resources within the study area ire located in the Catawba Drainage
Basin; Division of Water Quality sub-basin number 03-08-32; United States
Department of Interior Hydrologic Unit is 03050101. There are two water
resources in the project study area crossed by SR 1100. These resources are
two unnamed tributaries (UTs) that flow into Lake Norman.
45

b. Stream Characteristics
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Source
(WS I or WS II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. These unnamed tributaries
are not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor
are they designated as a National Wild and Scenic River.
3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The unnamed tributary west of I-77 at the study area is approximately 10-20
ft. (3.48-6.09 m) wide at the top of the bank and ranges in depth at normal
stage from 0.2-1 ft. (6.1-30 cm) with a southerly, moderate flow. The
substrate in the study area is composed of a sandy loam with pebble and
some cobble present in the streambed. This creek, with moderate flow has
relatively steep banks [ 6.0 ft. (1.6m) deep at bank full ]. The banks are well
vegetated and appear to be stable. The stream is a second order stream with
a relatively small watershed. Portions of I-77 and highway 150/I-77
interchange are within the stream's watershed. The stream geomorphology
exhibited some sinuosity with an entrenched channel. On the day of the site
visit, turbidity in the water column appeared to be high. The elevated levels
of turbidity occurring in the tributary where likely due to surrounding
• development and upstream land use that contribute to erosion and
sedimentation in the watershed of the stream.
The unnamed tributary located to the east of I-77 at the study area is
approximately 8.0-10.0 ft (2.4-3.0 m) wide at the top of the bank and ranges
in depth at normal stage from 0.6-2.0 ft (0.2-0.6 m) with a southerly
moderate flow. The substrate of the tributary is composed of a sandy loam.
The banks of the creek are steep with some signs of bank erosion due to
lack of vegetation and disturbance from surrounding land use. This stream
appears to have been channeled some in the past. Turbidity in the stream
appeared to be at high levels the day of the field visit. These tributaries did
not appear to have habitat that could sustain a healthy population of aquatic
species. The upstream land use and stream disturbance in the watershed
seemed to be the main cause of the stream degradation.
c. Best Usaae Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management
(DEM), which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource
usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the streams to
which they flow. The classification for both of the unnamed tributaries is
glass WS-IV & B CA( .8L3/92 )..,Class WS-IV waters are protected as water
supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
46

Point source dischazges of treated wastewater aze permitted pursuant to
regulations. Local programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater
dischazges of pollution shall be required; suitable for (Class C) secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and
wildlife. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a
minimum. Class B waters aze protected for primary recreation, which
includes swimming on a frequent or organized basis. The classification CA
refers to land adjacent to a water supply intake where risk associated with
pollution is greater than from remaining land in the watershed. Critical azea
is defined as land within one-half mile upstream and draining to a surface
water intake or within one-half mile and draining to a normal pool elevation
of water supply reservoirs.
d. Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project
azea. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters
from both point sources and nonpoint sources aze evaluated. Water quality
assessments are made based on published resource information and existing
general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the value
of water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to
provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by •
the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program
which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water, quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected Benthic
macroinvertebrates organisms, which are sensitive to water quality
conditions. Samples aze evaluated on tlYe number of taxa present of
intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a
taxa richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also
calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in
each collection. The two rankings aze given equal weight in final site
classification. The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the
effects of chemical pollution and aze a poor measure of the effects of such
physical pollutants as sediment. There are no BMAN monitoring stations
within the project vicinity.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Cazolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES)
Program. Any dischazger is required to register for a permit. There are
five permitted dischargers located within the project vicinity. These
dischargers are located on Lake Norman, below the project area.
47
t

• Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through stormwater or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a
source for various forms of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and
plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to erosion,
which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most
widespread cause of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina.
Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be
transported via runoff to receiving streams and potentially elevate
concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be
a source of bacterial contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils enhances the
transportation of stormwater into surface waters (DEM, 1993). The primary
nonpoint pollution source in the project vicinity is associated with
agricultural land use and impervious surfaces from urban development.
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from
activities associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in
impacts are clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian canopy
removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
• revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to surface
water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction
activities:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and
increased erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation
removal.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and
oil from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in
surface and groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project.
Limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately
follovuing.the completic~~ of grading can further reduce impacts.
48

Locally, the construction of this project will increase the amount of ~ .
impervious azea in the project study azea and vehicular use m the vicinity of
the project study azea. This will directly lead to an increase in
concentrations of toxic compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) which may
be carried into nearby water resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and -
subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic materials can adversely
alter the water quality- of any water resource, thus impacting its biological
and chemical functions.
4.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact azea,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters must be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The
NCDOT, in cooperation with DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control
program for highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection
of surface waters.
Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as
the relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The
composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
azea are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present •
land uses. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible. Representative animal species that are likely to occur in these
habitats (based on published range distributions) aze also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) aze provided
for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the
same organism refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the
site visit is denoted in the text with an asterisk (*).
5. Terrestrial communities
Descriptions of the four terrestrial systems aze presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Terrestrial wildlife relationships aze
discussed after the four terrestrial community descriptions.
a. Disturbed/maintained roadside community
This community is located on both sides of SR 1100 and will be impacted
by alternative 1. Because of mowing, farming practices and the use of
herbicides this community is kept in a constant state of eazly succession.
The ground cover of this community is composed of several species of
herbaceous grasses and weeds, these include: common chickweed (Stellaria
49 •

• media), wild ginger (Asarum canadense), staz toadflax (Comandra
umbellata), field sorrel (Rumex acetosella), corn salad (Valerianella
olitoria), viola (Viola sp.), wild geranium {Geranium maculatum), purple
dead nettle (Lamium purpureum), panic grass (Panicum sp.), milkweed
(Asclepias sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.),
red clover (Trifolium pratense), thistle (Carduus sp.), beggaz's tick (Bidens
sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), vaseygrass (Paspalum sp.), wingstem
(Actinomeris alternifolia), and bluegrass (Poa sp.). Vines that occupy these
azeas include, Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trumpet vine
(Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and
blackberry (Rubus sp.). Often, the duration between maintenance sessions
of highway right-of--ways is quite long, allowing time for lazger herbaceous
shrubs and woody vegetation to inhabit this disturbed area. Some of these
herbaceous shrubs and woody vegetation that may inhabit this disturbed
community include: sweet gum (Liquidambar sryraciflua), red maple (Ater
rubrum), tulip poplar (Lirodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), black walnut (Juglans nigra),
evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra).
b. Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
This community is located on the north and south side of SR 1100 and is the
• dominant community on the project. It is adjacent to the
maintained/disturbed roadside community., white pine plantation and an
agricultural/meadow field. This community has a mature stand of forest
area and a section that is in early succession due to logging done 5 to 10
years eazlier. The canopy layer in the mature community is composed of
primarily loblolly pine, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), tulip poplar, sweet
gum, and red maple. The canopy layer is fairly dense, creating a shady
environment for the sub-canopy. and understory species of plants. The sub-
canopy is comprised of dogwood (Corpus floridia), American holly (Ilex
opaca), black cherry, box elder (Ater negundo), and iron wood (Carpinus
caroliniana). Vines found in this community are Japanese honeysuckle,
Virginia creeper, poison ivy (Toxidendron radicans) and around the forest
edges blackberry briaz. The grass and weed groundcover is spazse due to the
amount of shading from the dense canopy. Some plants observed during the
site visit are five fingers (Potentilla canadensis), violet (Oxalis violacea),
Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), grass (Fescue sp.) and wild
ginger (Hexastylis sp.).
c. Riparian Community
This community is located on both sides of the unnamed tributaries on
either sides of SR 11,00. It is adjacent to the maintained/disturbed roadside
community and the mixed pine/hazdwood forest. This community has been
50

disturbed and appeared to be maintained in some of the areas. In azeas
where a canopy was present sweet gum, red maple, river birch (Betula
nigra), and tulip poplaz comprised the species of trees. The sub-canopy is
comprised of ironwood, and saplings of the canopy species. The
groundcover in this community is comprised of vazious herbs including
Japanese grass, wingstem, solidago, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
Christmas fern (Polystichium acrosticoides) and various fescue grasses
(Festuca spp. ). The riparian community has had various levels of
disturbance at different time periods. The vegetation and surrounding
topography of the riparian azea reflect these disturbances.
d. White Pine Plantation
This community is located on both sides of SR 1100 along the project azea
and has been cultivated and planted for forestry practices. The age of this
community varied from 10 to 20 years old. The canopy of this community
is dominated by white pine (Pinus strobus) with some Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana). There is no understory and sparse ground cover in this
community. This is due to the density of the cultivated trees, limited amount
of sunlight that is able to penetrate the canopy and the management of the
understory with herbicides and controlled burning.
5.1 Terrestrial Wildlife •
The disturbed/maintained roadside and agricultural fields adjacent to
forested tracts provide rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide
forage azeas and cover. The mixed pine/hazdwood forest can provide cover
azeas for wildlife, however it is unlikely that the white pine plantation
would provide suitable habitat for many animals. This is due the density of
the trees in the pine plantation. Birds that aze often associated with ecotones
between these communities are ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula),
Cazolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis)*, bluebird (Sialia sialis), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica
dominica), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea)*, white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), northern cazdinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*,
ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata)*, tuffed titmouse (Parus bicolor)*, acadian flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)*. The red-
tailed hawk (Bueto jamaicensis)* is a major predator in this habitat, feeding
on small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
Small mammals may inhabit these early successional habitats along forested
areas, roadsides, and streams.for nesting and feeding. Some of these small
mammals include, woodchuck (Marmota monax), white-footed mouse
51 •

• (Peromyscus leucopus), least shrew (Crypototis parva), southern short-
tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), hispid cottonaat (Sigmodon hispidus),
and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Larger mammals that may be present in these habitat areas for foraging,
feeding, watering, bedding, and mating include: raccoon (Procyon lotor),
white-tailed deer (Odocoilus virginiana), opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)*, and red fox (Vulpes vulpes).
Reptiles and amphibians that may inhabit these community types include,
queen snake (Regina septenvittata), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta),
copperhead (Aghistrodon contortrix), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis),
American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii), fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), and five-lined skink (Eumeces laticeps).
6. Aquatic Communities
This community consists of two unnamed tributaries. Research has shown
that a large amount of food chain energy of stream communities is derived
from allochthonous (produced outside the river ecosystem) sources, in the
form of terrestrial detritus. Rocks, fallen debris (logs, sticks, etc.), and low
velocity azeas in the river trap detritus within the river. The detritus is then
. decomposed by heterotrophic microorganisms, such as bacteria and
consumed by macroinvertebrates, such as aquatic insects. In turn, the
aquatic insects are then consumed by lazger organisms. The amount of
allochthonous energy input within a river varies seasonally. Autochthonous
(produced within the river ecosystem) energy sources include planktonic
and benthic micro and macro algae as well as aquatic vascular vegetation:
Fallen logs in the water and rock surfaces offer an attachment substrate for
algae.
Aquatic insects that may be found in this community include the water
strider (Gerris spp.), water beetle (Dytiscidae), stonefly (Plecoptera),
dragonfly (Odonata), cranefly (Tipula spp.), caddisfly (Trichoptera), stream
mayfly (Ephemeroptera) and black-winged damselfly (Calopteryx
maculata). Limited seazches where done for these species, none where
found.
Fishes that might occur in tributaries in this region of the state are shiners
(Notropis spp.), golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas), eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia a~nis), darters (Etheostoma spp.), chubs
(Semotilus spp.), and daces (Clinostomus spp.). Due to the amount of
disturbance and pollution in these streams it is unlikely that many species of
fish would be found. None where observed on the day of the site visit.
•
52

Several other animals representing all vertebrate classes are integral parts of .
the aquatic system. Some species that are often associated with healthy
stream systems are the northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus)
and the two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) which may occur under
rocks and logs within the creek bed. Frogs, such as piclceral frog (Rana
palustris), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), southern leopard frog
(Rana sphenocephala); and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), may occur in this
habitat along stream banks feeding on aquatic invertebrates. Other reptiles
and amphibians occurring in this habitat feeding on small fish and mussels,
may include, northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina). None of these species where observed on the day of
the site visit in the tributaries associated with this project.
7. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within
the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts:
a. TerrestrialImpacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due
to the clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss
of community area. Table 18 summarizes potential losses to these
communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to
terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project
lengths described in section 1.1, and the entire proposed right-of--way width
of 27.4 m - 33.5 m (90.0 - 110.0 ft). However, project construction often
does not require the entire right-of--way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
53
•

Table 18. Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Commun' Impacted Area ha (ac)
Alt 1* On-Site Detour**
Maintained /Disturbed 24.14 ha (59.6 ac) 0
Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.59 ha (3.94 ac) 0
White Pine Plantation 0.05 ha (0.13 ac) 0
Riparian Forest 0.09 ha (0.23 ac) 0.03 ha (0.08 ac)
Total Impacts 25.87 ha (63.9 ac) 0.03 ha (0.08 ac)
`Permanent impacts
**Temporary Impacts
b. Aauatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic communities of the unnamed tributaries will result
from the replacement of Bridge 46 and the extension of an existing culvert.
Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitats
(i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a
detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species
diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to
aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algae blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from
an increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence
to Best Management Practices (BMP's).
8. Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides inventories and impact analyses. pertinent to two
significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and
protected species. These issues retain particular significance because of
federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. This section deals
specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority
prior to project construction.
9. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register
(CRF) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material
into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
• 54

U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which
have commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are
identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
9.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. There are no jurisdictional
wetlands located in the project area, therefore no wetland impacts will
result from the construction of this project. Impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that is
located within the proposed right-of--way. Impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters within in the project right-of--way could possibly impact,
but not to exceed, 300 linear feet per stream.
9.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the
water quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide 404 Permit is likel to be a licable for all im acts to •
Y PP P
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project.
9.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Miti a
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net
loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore
and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of
the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has
been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the. COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
55 •

appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps
to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.
Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to
median widths, right-of--way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of
wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every
permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions
often include restoration, creation and .enhancement of Waters of the United
States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
. Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Individual Permits that result in the fill or .alteration o£
• More than 0.04 ha (0.10 ac) of wetlands will require compensatory
mitigation;
• And/or more than 4S.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams will require
compensatory mitigation.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation
decisions rest with the COE; although, compensatory mitigation will not
be required due to wetland impacts. Compensatory stream mitigation
is not expected due to expected impacts (i.e. < 300 feet of linear streams,
per stream system or stream crossing).
10. Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
development. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect
a species classified as .fedexally.-protected, be subject to review by the
• 56

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under sepazate state laws.
10.1.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT)
aze protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the
FWS lists one species as federally-protected for Iredell County. This species
is the Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). It is listed as threatened due to
similarity of appearance to a northern population of Bog turtle. The
northern population ranges from New York state to Maryland where it is
listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. Habitat
does not exist within the project area for this species and it will not be
effected by the construction of this project. This species is not biologically
endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
10.1.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal species of concern aze not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7; until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened .
or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change,
and so should be included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern
(FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration for listing for
which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition,
organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the North Cazolina Natural Heritage Program list ~of Raze
Plant and Animal Species aze afforded state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979. There are three federal species of concern listed by the FWS
for Iredell County (Table 19).
57
•

•
Table 19. Federal Species of Concern for Iredell County.
Scientific Name Common-:Name NC Status Habitat
Neotoma ma ig'ster Alleghany woodrat SC Present
Delphinium exaltatum Virginia quillwort C* Absent

Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil C* Present
• ~~ -rrny species or wua ammai native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildl'rfe
Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions
of this article. (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987).
• "C"-A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its
range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
• Historic record -the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
shows no occurrences of rare species within the project vicinity.
11. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The terrain in the project vicinity is along a ridgeline and is not subject to
flooding. There are two lower lying areas in the project limits where SR
1100 crosses two creeks. The proposed roadway widening and associated
drainage accommodations will not have a significant adverse effect on the
existing floodplain areas or on the associated flood hazards in the project
• vicinity. Lake Norman is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) facility due to a Duke Power dam, however early coordination with
FERC showed that the project elevations do not require further coordination
with FERC.
12. Water Ouality
The project is in a water supply watershed; therefore, erosion and
sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification,
installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control
measures. Additionally, as recommended by the NC Division of Water
Quality, permanent hazardous spill catch basins will be constructed as a part
of TIP R-3833. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained and improved
to the extent practicable. Groundwater resources will be assessed in final
hydraulic designs to ensure that measures are taken, if necessary, to prevent
contamination.
13. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
Traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for
reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
58

In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria -
and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title
23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table N2 (Appendix D). The Leq, or equivalent
sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and
time period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other
words, the fluctuating sout.d levels of traffic noise are represented in terms
of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
14. Air Ouality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact
resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or
the improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC),
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of
decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major
source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis
presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels
in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located along the
limits of the right-of--way at 15.25 meters from the centerline of the
roadway. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the
evaluation build years of 2000 and 2020 are 2.4 and 2.6 ppm, respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since
the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be
concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See
Tables Al and A2 (Appendix C) for input data and output.
59 •

15. Hazardous Materials and UST Involvement
A field reconnaissance survey was done by the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit.
for this project and found five Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities
within the project area and one surface release of petroleum product. This
evaluation mainly covers regulated (commercial) USTs and there is still the
possibility of unregulated USTs (farm tanks or home heating oil tanks)
being impacted by the project. These unregulated USTs should be
identified by Right-of--Way agents during initial contacts and the
Geotechnical Unit should be notified of their presence prior to acquisition
so that it can be determined if the tanks have leaked.
The Geographical Information System (GIS) was consulted for this project.
The research shows no regulated or unregulated landfills within the project
limits.
16. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the following
measures, along with those already mentioned, will be implemented during
the construction phase:
a. Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of the right-of-
way and provided by the Contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans
or special provision by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active
public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by
the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of
the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution. In addition,
disposal will not be done in wetland areas.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofaz as possible to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitoes..
c. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
d. An extensive rodent control program will be established if structures aze to be
removed or demolished
e. Telephone, water, sewer, and electric utilities exist along the project. The
Department of Transportation will hold a preconstruction conference between
the Department, the Contractor, representatives of the involved utility
companies, and pertinent local officials. Methods to coordinate utility
adjustments will be discussed at this conference. The contractor will prepaze
a work schedule that minimizes possible damage to these utilities and
interruption of service.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from
the project and burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
• 60

burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Cazolina State Implementation Plan
for air quality. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the
greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
performed under constant surveillance.
g. An erosion control schedule will be~developed by the contractor before
starting work. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases
of the work that must be coordinated to reduce erosion and describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control measures that will be
used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with this schedule, the contractor
will be required to follow those provisions of the plans and specifications
pertaining to erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures
such as berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, and others will be used as needed.
h. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for the use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State Historic
Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural Resources certifying
that the removal of the material from the borrow source will have no effect
on any known district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
i. Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when
the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or
azea residents.
Traffic service in the immediate project azea may be briefly disrupted
during construction. Efforts will be made to ensure the transportation needs
of the public will be met during and after construction.
k. Measures will be taken to ensure that sediment and erosion control devices
will not be placed in wetland areas, except for devices such as silt fences
and rock check dams in drainage azeas which limit sediment getting into the
wetland.
61
•

. V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Comments were received from the following Federal, State and local agencies.
These comments have been taken into consideration_in the planning of this project and the
preparation of this document.
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Transportation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Centralina Council of Governments
Town of Mooresville
Iredell County
Scenic North Carolina
*Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A.
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
The NCDOT Division of Highways held an informal Citizens Informational
Workshop for the project on November 15, 2000. A newsletter was mailed to citizens and
businesses located along the project. Appendix F contains a copy of the newsletter. This
workshop was held at the Brawley Middle School in Mooresville from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m. Representatives of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, the
Roadway Design Unit, Division 12, and Right of Way Branch of the NCDOT as well as
representatives from the Town of Mooresville were available to explain the project, answer
questions, and receive comments. Approximately 150 citizens attended the meeting.
Appendix F contains a copy of the news release advertising the workshop.
During the workshop, the Division of Highways displayed an aerial photograph of
the project area and vicinity maps showing the proposed project. A representative from
NCDOT Congestion Management was available to discuss possible interchange
configurations at SR1100 and I-77. In addition, the Division of Highways supplied each
participant with an information packet containing general project information, a vicinity
map, and a comment sheet. Each participant had the opportunity to review the aerial
photograph and maps and ask questions or give comments.

62

Two typical sections were presented to the public at the workshop; afive-lane curb
and gutter roadway and afour-lane divided roadway with raised grassed median.
Comments received from those in attendance at the TIP Project R-3833 Citizens
Informational Workshop mostly pertained to the need for capacity improvements to this
very congested roadway, potential impacts to individual properties and businesses, and
safety improvements. Afour-lane divided roadway was _overwhelmingly favored more
than afive-lane curb and gutter roadway by the citizens in attendance at the workshop,
along with the local officials present. It was felt that the boulevard effect of a four-lane
grass median divided roadway fits the character of the community much better than afive-
lane divided roadway. Several citizens expressed concern that the R-3833 widening project
may encourage increased zoning for business. Many citizens requested sidewalk and
bicycle accommodations along the entire length of the project. One comment was received
to add a center turn lane the existing two-lane road. A few citizens who live between I-77
and US 21 requested that this section of road be widened to a three-lane roadway with an
additional signal at SR 1116 (Talbert Road). One citizen suggested not constructing the
project unless there is an interchange at I-77 and the widening goes all the way to US 21.
Most comments were in support of the proposed interchange, with a couple of citizens
opposed to the interchange. Overall the project was seen as an urgently needed
improvement for the Brawley School Road peninsula.
C. Public Hearine
A public hearing will be held following circulation of this report to provide more
detailed information on the project to local citizens and to receive additional comments on
the project.
KLS\
63
•

w
c~

5,~ '1 t ~'1~19' 'A ,y,.~ ~'f 1 . i'. `'•rye r--~,,,~,' ~,1~ ~ `Mooresville ~~
I "r 1 ~,f Y~[• F~GAa P~ w ro ~„fv ~~' ~ ~ Ji __~~ ~- - ,r ~' j!I
t ~' ~ ~.. >
.: _F ~I - 0 ..~ i 1.
~~ 5 f~ 5 ~ ~ ~, , 5~
'i ~ t.~ A `1. ~ ( ~ ..
4 + ~ `'
aT ~~ ~ Tn I ~ 4!f I ~i 19 •. ~
r
rr
.1 ~.d
f ti y.
l C •.
[ I ~~-~.~
.~~1
R-3833
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
SR 1177 to US 21
Project Location Map
~ FIGURE 1
ti+ ~ I
~ y. ryr. ~, 1•~f ~, i.,nkU '.i ~ -:psi ~;` '.. ~~
1 1. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
( .i
i4 ) 3 h.~ I ~~~ ~ J f
/•lr { .t '" •L ~ I i ~ i 4R it ~~ LY ~'r ~ } ~ ': ~ ~ '+ * r .k;-~ s
r•~' ~..: ~ ~ ~ ~~ fir, - •. i. -- ^rKl ~. ~}`I ~. 9 ~.9~ ~. ~, T~ *+'.
i ~
,a I ~~ - Ep
y,1{ '•d~ t ~X•S ~ i ~~'t Y ~%r-.'fjn~'.'tl`.^- ~ ~ ~,''• ,,A~ .
~:r ~. ~ itn'f ~l ~.~ ,l t yr .two . •r~ F .'•
~:~ 1 `-~ ~w~X~ t -- - ~L `t ~- t ~ I 1L i7
-`~ F'~i' 1..'4'7 K' v~ -~• 77 ~ 4 r ';r _'ia ,1
North Carolina
• ' ~~` Department of Transportation
;t

~:• ,ri
f~,.~'•

'O
.U
L
m
n
N
C
S
O

~ wG', y:
k °.: ~ '

„- r
ti , ~.
cn ~~' ~`~ ' r', ,
Il dry ~,•:

Yd pb 1M^ LA
4 C,i ~ .MF'
r'
'
~qfW Y t
S r t - dr,wt~ ~
' 4
.
a'~-i M
Y ~' ~ d
f ;z
~Ji ~y ~` ~iFJ~~~ rte:

~.
~~
@...•.
~,

G ~

i k
4 -:i y

~ di
~~ ,d~
~

r~ ~ ,
4f} K ~

~ ~;
k *d J~ ~~y7 ~~{ { r~' ~ any p, ,^ ~)

a
~,,.M
~
~y.~
~
y
ti~ .~
k
~
if "Sk

,yx
t ,
y
;_~ ~

~~'
,.,y,~„ r
r
q
~ y
`
~
,
,
~
q3
~ ~' ~~
~~
r ~
„ ' r
~
-~ l~n~~ ~.~
'1. `"~ 7 M,~~~Rt
S ~ ~~`'yu1
t 13 Ai ~ ~. ~ X

^ ^

~yh 4 ~ ,

r'
7
j
~r + ! ~
V
~
f
~
6 JI" r 1

.
~" j ~
~„ ~ ; ' ''y {~II
~ ~ ~ r ~ A~ h~ ~ i
Y N F'
~.
' f
~' ~rj~ ~ ~
~
5
~+ +

P
~;

f

.r
.,. ,~ y
ti5M~51.. ~Y.. ~~ ~
~
MN
~ i
~~
y~Y~:
n 3+
'
2 ti

...
b f
i` J ~
Y
~ ~~

;. _ x

~

..
~ ~
~

~ R ~.
s 1
~~ ~ W
~
~
U ~r
~+Ii
\

~, "lA.~'a~'
,
r -i+"
< ~ ~ "'""4.. ~ .f ~ p ti~ ~,1 ~~itA'~~t `~* jP V ~., ' u
~ r~.

~~ rf ~ n ~
~~ ~ -_ )t
r ~
1A::
' '
~ ?
~ ^ ~
Y~~ ~ ~+ix 1 ,

,~.
1

..
y
.fi
~ ` „~,' t ~ i ~
,, ~ y~ k r
,''ap
""~1~' ~`r, ~
~r ~ ~
+ w tR w, ,.~ F
I x
~

~
F,
rce7{~~ }° ~ t
v~.,
t
f
r• ~
...

y
, , 1. ~ ~, r

'

, ,. ~ t a ~

LL

`N~ ~ _

~

...
\

~~.

-.
'l'
!
h~ aat w. N d` K 4

'
33~~ l
,
e
"1
~ .,;1~~ 1F ~~ ~y $?'{!'.~A~'~} Tl ~ te
~~
>

t
r ~

,.
w "
M'

> A
J 1 L
~
~
~ t
,/ `! ~
~

`~i~ "
/~y.
~ '~ aP b

;.. i
":

~
, ~
~

y
'i r
I ~ ` fy; ~,~ I 1
i"`
a,j'
r'
y b~p~ ~ 4~~iyp;~
~' f ~"~a
~
~~ ~~ ~

~t~ r: '~7

~ ~
~ .1`,r ,
/ ~
y/\
/
F°
i
'~
~ ( L
N ~
~
~ .. ~i
I + 1 %~~Y .,. f . y
b 4Y ~y ' d) 1
!~ )
1~ '(Y '.
l~a, 4 ~ (v
V "~'~
17 h7
•
~ a: ~ I
: r.:~~ ,;
~~• ~ k t ~- ~~ l 41 ~ I u Mi ~t ~
t
h. 5 ~ ~ '~ fi'~ ,~I r
~ t F~. ~ ~~ ~~,
.
~ ~'T1
~'L
,/
• 0. 5
I~ ~
, ~
' a ~ ) Jr~
yy~ x V ~
::1 r ~~ (~ ~ 7
~ 1
/
~
7 S
~ ~1 ~b.4}~
~
Y ~ I .
'~
JJJ///
~
~rc ~ "~ ~ 1 ~
~
S~` ryas ,,,,,,
t
r ~
~
° ~ ( '~' +c ~ ~. ~, ~ ~' '1 c1 yryy, ra 'r ur " f ~
,
~ ''~Nk. ""r..
~ `~
~ p• .
,
~,
~' n
~~
~
,., r ~ ~
~
A ` `fi't ~
'
_!~~ r
~.
.~ .~'
~ .
""~Yr ~ 7
~
~
~ ~ ,4R
~ ~ ~
~ '~ w' ~ k
`~ M S ~ ~ ~~~ {
(. w
~' ~
~~ ~ "41 7
: i ~
..
'
~ J
y
~~ ~w .;~T ~~~ *,
'7~U ~ ~ i~d ..+' ~:V.. T
ALL -~
J ~. .,.. ~ "V Y

r
r' ~
~~~~ , }
,, ;. ~, `~~ ~
J' !fir ~ ~-` ,u~ t~ , '
.y~
~fj,(
,9 _'~ 3r e~!!

"
.
rr ~~I F ;~T~ v.N, ~ 4G
f ,~4~ 1T
'~ - .+
~.t

' , arr

q
Jr +
~' ~
s 4 ' ..
~~l`i .~. ~ ~ YY''N
t
Fn ~ /

q ~
~ry
rl• ~"~ ".I ~

s~i ~
.,
~

~ ,
d~P ~~ 1 s~~, aN,, a .'".*'r~

_ ~ ~,: ~,q CIF 49 ~ ;~ V, ! .~.

'iy5
~+~ ~ ~ ~d.IyK.'~w,y ~r k ~ M M 4 ~~~~'
'~,
h r. ~'~
rT ~
~ .3 ~:lYr
~' '' ~ ~ ~ i, q
°
~
~
~
`~~
~ tF"t
~%'
`
~ ~ r
r,d. day
;r
~i4 ~,h
~
` .c
c
~~ ' v
`~ t
~ 1
4`` '\ ! ~ ,,'II~~~'.,
° R-
~
'
• ~
,6R' ~ '~ 'e. R,~" 'M'c •~
.w ~'~-,
j~4 ~~ "r
.I.,-.e
. ~
,~ ..~My~
f ~t ~
` E, ,f~'~:.
'

L a~ rte- _ y

~~I~~ i, tl 1~
~.
~~

o~~ ~mcns
«~ ~

~ ~,~, rn-~ m v
,~~~ ~~DO
~
ri1l ,.,
..~~~,,,~~~~ ~rOD
e ~r~~~~r SroZo
~~ ~'nN<~m~ ~
~
1
~©Nmcn~, v -+
b~"~'; '' --1 r
- O - umi m ~
,.~ I
~ ~
-C z
O
~
O
~~ ~?~
~~
~~~ J~ ~
O
;-'~ .'I -'~
~
h
r Y~' ~
" Z
I 1

.~ v
,. ~~~ r
~ ~ ,
'TA'I ~ ~,~'-1 `~'^'~,r}~~""x
r . ,.. ~~, ~,~~~
:~ ,~ ~ R
b ~ ~
n
{ ~~ ~ 4
IR 5 : '1 1
~ yv~~ i~/
~ Hu
5 ~~
C6 ~'~~ .l~ r.
,~
F 3 a
`r ~,; ,, ;;. f ~ ~M
'~ Mnk~ :~
Y ~
~
~ ..
a
o
,
'7
Y
7 + ?
• '

'~;~
~ k
,,
~ t
r ~ ~i~I ~ ~ ~ t ~ Y t" ~ ~ W ynt
.
6 tsti F
(~

a 3,.
~~ c ~,~S;w ~
,,
~~ ~,
~ ~~~~ f
~.
r
~
'
`

r
~ I M1 '
~ " ~q
'
~
°
,~ r
~~ ~
' ' '1~ fin. ~ , ti+~ !41 ~,
+ -p %
.P""yk;
1`

" ~ .
C
s
,~~, `thµ x ~
~' ~ ~~ +' ~~ '~i^
~~ ' {.1
S ~~
`r ~'~" ~
~ +_
~ ~ ~ 1 , ,,~,
i
'
C P
n

1 y~_,.,~~~
~
.,
~ ~ :e~ art i ~l
~ off ..r + ° ` ~•
~
~;~ ' ,
~
~
~,~ a i, ~ ~;
~ ~
~
~ J

~ lY`V'1^
Y ~
~ 7
".
H vc

k
`t ~i
'

rT ~~ ~ ~5~~ lye
1~
'
I ", a ~ID } 1~.

t~
'
%
4
r`
r
k
'C' Y ~ .n,I
y~
,
~ ,.

° rt; rF i

t
' ~
'
'
'
~
i= rk
+
y!lli .,.r.i
~
,
~ l ~ ~ ~'.. 0' :6'.

4
b'T~
~ ~
~~w
~
~ ~
1 y
f Y µ Y
~
1; ~•
A y'Tl
, ~ 1
~, +
~ ~
l
,
t y'~
r
I.
~„„
~4
1

Pi ~~ F''1.w'4F
4h

~4° ~Mt ~F4 ~~~ '~7

~$f
N
~ ~ '~'.~~ ~~

h
ti
a
SG ~ e5 ,, ,
al
~l ~ ~S
~ g R s
~ 1 t.: 1 p, rA
~ ~7~.ti~~~ ~
~
a IY w
"'
` y r
rt
~ ~ ~.~y~ r~4Y ~ r
1~ ~R 1 F ~ ~'~
~
~
~
PC
M~
i
~
1
t x ~ ~t • ~
~ t J U ~
•.I' ~~ , I
n V Y tN ~} i, !IK"t ~ •4{~$`kR~ ~ ~ ~ ~;
.~a„5i ^' ~~ a
~ ,
y
p I .~7~~ a ~~" t~tiu,~~„~
~~~i ~trJR^
~ ~ C ;,!'
~
I
II ~
II
r
r .t~
S t.I 0
i
~
a r 4
~
I
i
~
I~1 i:~~
J

Q.
~r
~ 1" ~' ~ry '~Vr'~' ~
F r4'
`\v' '1+ err ~a

y

~ .
1 , . fa. 1.
y
~' I:,RIs
..1 '
..55 ~~,,~ CC
W
iF

1 1
y~
~ .
7F
.,ShMr"P'~t.. 1
g
~i
.
- p
Z
"'r~
y '.
x~ t ~'
} _,
'~y '~ (
5~~
Ar' r~ ~-,
a ,.
~i~ l ~~
'
t
f
"
+ M
f ~ Y~~P ,+
y,
~
E ~ 1

.
\
~
A n,0.,
w4 T
.~

k

I !
~1~y ~ ~~ir^,~i ~jn~/'
fy- •
~ ~ k. ~1~'..
~,: ',

+~: !~; '
i d '"
~'
~

i •~4
Vpr ~
~k';4
~ .~1,
~'
.. , ~~

~. .

-> ..
'L
r,
//

p • ~ ~ ~ ~^~ N
~
a
~~ ~VIF x ~..;~

x ` ~

~.. ~~ ~: ~ ~~',
~ ~ ; ': m

hh
t~
~~ ~ f
i
°~ ~* ~ 'w~„,~
~ ~,:.~
i t.~ ," r ,4 O
cr
.
~, N
~ n+
I r
r ~ y
".,
~9
I
~
~
e
~
'n cn A --
'^ ~
'° `~,~,~,
d ~
U
`~
:
:
c 7
71 C ~ "j ~ p ~~ ~,.
,
~
~~,. J B ~ Y.
}~
'
d 5
: q
1'
~ ~~o
t~zc ~ m ~. ~<,

~ mO~~~,a~ ~ m
'y n^~s r:
A
I ~ ~ r Iz0 2 s !
CA ~
~ ~~'
V~'
c' z 7 yy
~~
j ~ -i ?, ' ~ AC '~a

~
~~? r
~ y

e }
:i ~ $
d° ~ ~'rL
~~.: ~
L
P~ 7
L tf '~k ~^t... .. .
r
-~,
_.m
'"° A i t',p p h~ ry',~'rttyt~,„~ y , ', r„
v"
~~~'~ t j~
~~ "~Iµ~~',
1
f
S
~ ,
j~
.

'~ i~
~ w~
~ ~~L
t
.p -
3 ~
~ ~ ,.~, ~
~ ). yy
r
9 Fr. ,:f NF 4..
~
t
+~ =
A
'1Nh ~ T ~.~, y~ )
' n~ ~.
~
~
Y ~l
~
.P
,y~
~i.
q,
T ,( '~ :
,` ~~ ~ ~ y

4
4
~
~
l ~
'
~
~
1 ~ ~~

~ `{
~ S~'
~ :~~~ ~

ya~~

_ ~a.r J^'~ I'=i~
~ti
\ KY '~
'
y,~ ~
~~f ~~ 'tom ~
~ ~

^a
~ ~" ,~ ,,
-• ~ ~ . LEGEND
. '~
'~-- t ,~ / , `~. ,- ~ 1 EX{STING PROPOSEp
/' I ~ i
S~ ~ ' ~ • ` '` ~ i a r • - 1 INTERSTATE ~ ~ ~ R
ly)1 , ~ , MAIOR ~~~ ~ s ~ ~
' - .. ~ ~ ' I l hVNdt sue.. . ~ ~ .
~ - ' • ~ a-
p ~ ~ ' ONE WAY PAIR -~€

~ j~
d
~.
•\ O ~
.q
~''~
~ ~ ~-
~, / /
' ,
/ /"J i • 1~ ~ 1~ 1 ~ .r 0

S +~
~ N LAKE - _
~ ~ ~_ ~~,
- ~, ; ,- -~ ADOPTED BY:
,~~ v
-•~ -•`
aa. a
~ ' ~ t~ _ _ ~~ ~ ~ • ~; - / . ~~ T01VN oP MooRESVIUE 10-b-97
,' ~ ~ • I ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ '/ ~' PUBIlC nEARNrGS 9 22-97
~ a
~~
~. i ~ /,e. ~ \ , "'• ,~~`` 11 ~ BY SiATEYlDE PUWNING~ 10-15-97
,r' ~
1 ,
\ ~ ~ -~~ -' -' ~ I - ~ ~ MBdTOF TRANSP01tTAT10N 11-b-97
..- ~ ~ i ,
- - I I ~ \ r 1
- , ~ I / ~
~ ~~~ 1f ~ ~ ~ 1 I
rl ~ ~
J rl ~ R ~ 1 `r ~
,~' 1 V f 1~
` ~ ~ ~ t FIGURE 4
` f b•' v `r ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 f 1
_, ~ i ,i
~ _
' ~,
' ~ ~ r ` 1 • SEPTEMBER 22,1997.
~ '1
r ~~` }~ ~ '
'~
~l ~ 1~ ~' ~ ~ THOROUGHFARE PLAN
,... ~~
_ ~
'~ u ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ FOR
~ ~• ~`~ v ,~ ~ ~. ~ u ',~ ~ ~ ~ IREDEII COUNTY
f
~ NORTH CAROLINA
1 ~ ;~-
' 1 ~ ~ NOR1H GROIINA t~E-~RTMe~rt oP TRANSIORTATION
~~ ~ 1'' / Odd A M\~ i!
~,~,,,,~
~ ~ w~a
~ ~' o tooo ,oao eaoo ~ooo ,oaoo uooorwe
~• ~ ~ `°~°~ ;~~ - • - 1', _ ' -1 / - V I \ -' ,- ! o soo ,oao nao ~oeo ,ooo.~••

i

•

}

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ',
~UIITRANSPORTATION ',
~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
i ANALYSIS BRANCH
WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES WITH
INTERCHANGE AT I - 77
SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL RD.)
FROM SR 1177 (RIVER LOOP RD.)
'~ TO US 21
IREDELL COUNTY
TIP R-3833
SHEET 4 OF i o po T a yW FIGURE S
M ETCH LINE ~
~P5
p~51G~~0~\ 5~ P
~~~ ~,~ ~~~ P~ ~Pe
OF ~~~ ~5~5~~~t~0
~p~ S pF ~ P g~
5~ ~~5 q~ ~ ~~ 10
P~'10P~ EP~0~0~00~~~~1`2
~O~P ~, P¢~~~ E~OR ~ PJ~'
P e~~~t~~~~~'~~,~~P~~~p ~
001 SOP ~~0 OPJ~~OP
P~~~~~ ~~
0p
/sesT
J ar
~k' S
. ~
o'' ,~
\ { /o
v~ ~,~
~ ~ ~ s;/°1
Gq~e
9
esl
• So
~Q ~L~'
"{ /a
/ e V~
~!
~ ~~o
> ~'
a '~ ~ o ~
.~
~ 5 SQ
\ $ 5
5
650
•~ 0
CIE
Os y\
0
1~
"~
x
t~
z
t~
SR 1100
xte ~ ~~,~~ao, sa~
o n~° V
O U F Bt1`+
~~"
O h 5° ~-, eC, .
"O U ~ ;
i
N1O ~ ~f0
9
C y~~
I 5
O
7 fl A~i~ ~FO
l ~~ N)R
QS
a5
0
K ~ 4 0 5
- e Is
~~
O
r
~~ iyld! `s
DENSE ia`~~
S,p'
yE
epil
J.
0
s
y~
Q~
\yFf
H
mil,

z
J ~ ~fo
f
s~ 0
~ e O
,~fo a~"
O
~y
~O ~) ~,`~
Fem. ~R VVV P'
\ OS
1 p5
S
1
f~E
y~l
r
~ fry'"
/~
\ t°
c~ ~
05
V~, os ~~~
,J N
CCC Os 4~~
y H
ypP
~s 5
O et ~ ° ~&
N ~
~. ~ ~O4yT m
< r ~ r1~ o~
t>~' e v"
S Jt~~4
s~ /~ J ^~
,\ ~0 ~,~
wo
5Q k
5
MATCH LINE C
0
5 Q ~~
hf0
s°
O Q~S Rf0 ~~ Y
b Q~
~d Rfo 0
n ~ ~" pfd
6F
r'/ / M
/V~
vKo
Od~
• da
~ ® b
~ ~,NSf f ra>u
! ~ \
a~~ o 0
os
~` M
4 4
~~ ~.
~~ ~,
~~~~
SR 1100
cBRAwLEY SCHOOL RD.)
~~ ~
Q"
O,
s~
S
~~

~C`°'~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
a~~~~; TRANSPORTATION
~,@/~N PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS BRANCH
~-~' ~~ WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES WITH
~/ ~~~1 INTERCHANGE AT I - 77
~~~ --- SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL RD.)
FROM SR 1177 (.RIVER LOOP RD.)
TO S 21
IREDELL COUNTY
TIP R-3833
SHEET b OF i o im ~ m mo FIGURE 5

x
r
z
~'
~ ~
° fU\~
w ~ n 'Q rsfo
4
YSGA
uti r^ ~
O CAIN)P \\ -// \
4 V
Ir 4A Or' S, ~
t
~o
E~
/, hBN o ~ 15 50
~Y @ 1
bf~ B(,( ,,,,, `~ ~F
~ L
°~~ ~°~ ~"` ~ ~~ ~ ~ O
5~
s ~. ~L~
s ga o s
~ ~ ~~ ~Z
~~ 5°
M.~TCH LINE C G p~ ~' Qi
y~ o
~ ~ e
\~Y i. ~ 5
v ~~~ ~ ~~~
~ PU
PP~N ~ o
«.
~~° ~
~°
s 0
0
5 ~ ~f0
sfo a \
~0
~o
n o
~fc "d ~ i
f GP V
+se" ~'S o
~ c~
N
~ ~
Off,
\ ~ 1
1 \
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~~!~ TRANSPORTATION
J~1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL '
ANALYSIS BRANCH
WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES WITH
INTERCHANGE AT I - 77
SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL RD.)
FROM SR 1177 (RIVER LOOP RD.) ~.
TO US 21
IREDELL COUNTY
TIP R-3833
SHEET 1 OF 7 0 +m ~ xu .m FIGURE a

I
A {
9~
~°
d'
1
SR 1109 (WILLL9M50N RD1
(~ tM
'~ LL]]..JJT----~ql S
~4 ~
A µ~^ Yip ~ (~'~ UR
r1~+/ V ~~ ,11J47
r+" ~ (,5e+, r~°F , ~ rs<<~ o~ y e~ +
µ1M1 i ~ ~f
e ~ hey ~,~
rri a ~ ~ ~ '
~'
z
~ ~ ~,'~~ o 0 o rF
~.a
5
x~c 6F ~^ O O O
9 p ^ fiF O G 1F O
~ ~ nro p P h~'~
D ~ \ ~; ~ O B~ r~ t~
a~' e~`
\~ ~\ O 6
n a+ ~ ~~
\ ~V ~
1^f ~ 1\ F~v. C
\ µ
V \` q52+~
C,.,+~" \
A ~ `` °e~"
X41 ~
~~
o~
ss
~ ~
- ~ \
~.-~
4
PS S 1
=U ~ ~
i
S
~p "• p aeKO ~
`i_~ 5E M
~ v
CI
UIC elll 5~G _ ~ i. ~.
~~tCPr ~ OdL
p ~ v
~0
C~ 1
y~ ~
C
~~
a o ~E
W ~~ \ _
0 7ff\
~ i~'
0
~/~/
w,E
F~
( I
\.. 1 \_~ B+~ 1 III
`J
"~
r
m
III P~''
,~°"~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of
TRANSPORTATION
4~ PROJECT.DEVELOPMENTANDENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS BRANCH
WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES WITH
INTERCHANGE AT I-77
SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL RD.)
f ROM SR 1177 (RIVER LOOP RD.)
TO US 21
IREDELL COUNTY
TIP R-3833
SHEET 5 OF i e +m ~ m a FIGURE S
~ '
:,TED
RD.

~ ~ ~~
ME
tEa~
4~E 6~
t .E
7E~ \
/ ROLL ILLS RD.
~' Y}~
\\
~-
\n/ ~ t ~s` or er
s
r '~ ~5
' -'~ ~~ ~~ aO O ar \
(~ nem
x
.ry ~,
~+ e s oic •
~1 v` +
t 0
~ ~` ~ `,
lp' .~'~
. REL ATED
GIB RD. u
• /

a
0
ttit [ice
r/ \
a
a
Grp
~ °&
~+~• ~~ ..
~ ~ "°"` ~.
U
~D
N
5
9a
1'sS~
~~
C _
MATCH LINE F

1 , ~
n
4 ~`O
p
o
I
~
¢

Y ti
~
m
=gyp
a
'}
etJ
p N

o
q /
l,l Q p~
~
Q o~

o ~O cs"~~ ~
P, , .~I~
'
CV
£
~./ ~
0 ~
1 5
~
~
~~~
0
~
~ ~
y o~
~ SR 1100 ~ _
wE ^ ~,o
~P
h~

~~°°~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
w TRANSPORTATION
d PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENNRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS BRANCH
WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES WITH
INTERCHANGE AT I-77
SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL RD.)
FROM SR 1177 (RIVER LOOP RD.)
TO S 21
IREDELL COUNTY
TIP R-3833
£HEET 6 OF i o m~ mo goo FIGURE 5

~N~ lPR®J]EC~° '
1
a5
dig
ti /
b` ~ / /
0
~a
M1
~~
nr +
o ~ /;~
o~ ~a ~ ~ ,~, ~D u
0 ~ ~/,
i / /~
//iq~
~~ /J/~
~/j ~~/ p
I /il ~ l/ US'2I
_. ~ - ,
;-
O p m
~~ ,, ~ %~
~~
;'
J

' I NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
(TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS BRANCH
WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES WITH
! INTERCHANGE AT i-77
SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL RD.)
FROM SR 1177 (RIVER LOOP RD.)
TO US 21
IREDELI COUNTY
TIP R-3833
SHEET 7 OF i n +a~m so FIGURE 5
M ETCH LINE F

•
Figure 6: TYPICAL SECTIONS
Four-Lane Median Divided Section with Curb and Gutter
l20' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
•
•
10' 16' 12' 23' MEDIAN 12' 16' 10'
MAX I w I Iv I LJ~ I ~ I I 2:1
~ ~ ~
Sidewalk 2'6" C8G 2'6" C8G Sidewalk
Five-Lane Section with Curb and Gutter
10 ft. 16 ft.
~~
~~ i' \~
2'6" C&G
Sidewalk
100' Right of W ay
12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 16 ft. i ] 0 ft.
2'6" C~&G
Side~~alk

i
> ~
o~ ,~~
`~~ \
`'
`d ~yl~v e zW mss 12
t~ - _
fj ~ ~ Shadow Brooke
~~ ~' N a
nnauard way g ~'~ ~
551 PN 8 1 ~
ww
~,
~o
~~~
46 N=°
N ~ A
es~ •P~. _. ~, ~ y o 44
12~\~ ~ 17 ,,~
. 20 ~..~_~ e ` M»~
• ~ ~ ------ 'P so
N(b v
~N V
1
J ~ J ~ ~ '~.
.II. 4-- , 12
2943 $ ~1' El~ () ~5t(2 ~~ e
1 -0! N ~ ?
2 ~. ~
r
N_
y ~- 2 2995
J~~ 80~1,2M;1o6
-. r ~ N
W r 1/ j~j
y 'C 1
.t'1
___ so ® PA7~"- prye
N ~ ~ ~ ~ r2,,, ~~ 4
~ ~ 0 2s,o 4 -- ~'~~~
z W W 10~2M~-~o ~~ ;fir
_ c
0 0 ~ wti~ V
°- ~ -~ y T ~
~ •
~-,
IT,~ , B°'~ p"'
w '•..
P
'~ i

1,~2 ~
,~-PM r
9 ~2~~1
~-~.. tt7
r•~Q
m'A
'~~ ~.
oti~ 4 ~ aZa
~ ~y T,
0
N ~ ~~ ?6
,~. ~!
~ ~~~
r N
o r
,~ ~ -e0 •''• •R
es~~ E~~ y ~ 14 p/a~rel~o
v ~ : cn o
'~ ~~; vjyo / ~ 52~~~~~ Sch /
~: ~~~ ` ~s
~,~ ~.
~ ,` `~ ~ ~,
~ 0 9~ t~ ~~ ~ ~~ i? y
~+ ~
d ~ ~~" 1° ~ o ..
~a ~
~~a `~ 1
-mil
1~
.g.. ,1 ~ .
0
•',,~
LEGEND ~'~.r~"~'
### VPd - # OF VEHICLES PER DAY
###- MUCH LESS THAN ### VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
. 01P1, Avu~ /- A
DHV OESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (~) = K 30
K 30 = 30 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
D ~ DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (~)
PM- PM PEAK PERIOD
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (~)
NOTE: DHV D
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
n
7
v
i. > 'n ~•.. 't.
•.
. ,
c.:'.
LOCATION:
SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) FROM
SR 1177 (RIVER LOOP ROAD) TO US 21
PROJECT:
TIP # R-3833
COUNTY: IREDELL
DIV.: 12 DATE: JUNE 2003

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r
w
0
Q~ .
4
•~\.. \~.
i
V~ ~: '~
~4 ~~ ~ t4
;,~- ~
,. ~
~,
;vyti r~~;'~~8
%~,\~ ~~~
w~ ~~ ,~a ~
,~ys'~ ~:
d ~
S8 Rolp
`- 4.2
7S ~(.'PM . 10 1 ~ ~•
1 ~~ ~~
cri ___
._ ~
1~~18,81®6
6
-~- pM g
Irv eo-~(ti,i1
c0
O
rn
_ -
__
N..9
m
~ V~ ~18
~~y
~- '
~• ~ ``1~ "- ~~
~ ~ ~ ~~
v
~4~
'~~ Z?
~-
.,,~`
~.~ -~ 4
SP~retarlatdr j~ '~~^' j?f?,~~-gs •"
sso ,p~, ~. 6 ~
ft, rj 12 ~ ~ 'C 1 a
\~~~y E-,
.C'1 f2 pM ~
,g ~,~~
,, ,•
.`, ys ~~~~~~~
.,,\`\ ,~ ~` 4s
y
~0
I
_~ ~ /3A/. •~s J NJ X12
la O N F- 34
14~ \ ~~~
34-~
18 ~. ~~ w o N
m:~
Ni=
m
-_...._• .54 I~
60~'Pp -..` rn
(? t~ 11 ~'~~,
~Aay~'n Cf
_---1' 172 -~•
117 ~
I
P~ .x,65 116
~a ~3,~~ ,~ ------
.~ ' ~ '`~.
..~...
1
i
rn~
E~ ~, ~ 43
• X31
~~•.
~N
t~O lAa
~y
56.,T'
61~,/~w
! ~ ..A
N
I O
1
r'
'C 74
E'-172
.~
J
I ~ ~ O
r
I O .... .
W ...:....... - _
Z C D
~ ~ O
~_
LEGEND ~ LOCATION:
.._ ,.:
-n NHN VPD - N OF VEHICLES PER DAY ;,•~;~ -.•~.. '_. _ ~ ~,.~..:,;~`:~~~.-•'.`~r~~,~1~ i SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) FROM
I MMN- MUCH LESS THAN NMM VPD .~•,'-,;`~~.-- e __ _ ~., - ~ .R~,
__
h ~ ., ~ •,~r ;~ .-•• =~ '~~' j; •~ ti SR 1177 (RIVER 100P ROAD) TO US 21
+n X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED _~-
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME .(°si K 30 ~ .I~?, ~°,<Y~','..~'~ , . !_ ~,..•-~ 'k-•..(,.~. ~•`~. ,},' , ~, 1
rn ~ ,..l' ~ ~ ~ ~-_..ti~~~~~ PROJECT.:
K 30 = 30 HIGHESt HOURLY VOLUME i ~-- ,, .... ' ~ 'V~ i
'y D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (~) , - ~ ~1 } ~~:~'" I TIP # R-3833
PM PM PEAK PERIOD :.
' (d,t) DUALS, TT-ST's (~)
NOTE: DHV D ~ •r__ •~' COUNTY: IREDELL
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D ' •, y:; ..___......._.._.._.._._^__.-.__.~-_..-_....---....... -~----- ~_ .
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK ~ ~~•'" ;DIV.: 12 DATE: JUNE 200
f

Z ~
~ Q (~
Z ~
C_
r ~
O ~ "~
N
' ~ W ,.
/ f~
77
LEGEND ~ .,, LOCATION:
NNN VPD - N OF VEHICLES PER DAY r `~,'~"•" .. •- ~-,ri~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ t;~~`~~~a; SR 1100 BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) FROM
qNN- MUCH LESS THAN IYNN VPD •},w:" y-•`• x; - !19•,~~. r'~-.. r4, .•~~Ra, ~ (
r ,,~.~ ~ ..~ ~- -, '^n• fZ~' ~ SR 1 77 (RIVER LOOP ROAD) TO 21
~ -
,. ,
. .. ~ .....1 _....•........ ..__._.. ..
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED .. •. •:1, -.' t __ _ . ` •; '~ '~;.;~~ti~ ~
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME 1~) = K 30 '~ ~• - •~ - t~ ~~ ~ ~`~ ••'~ ~ PROJECT
~ K 30 = 30 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME - ~ ' ~ • j ~~ •-•~-\ ~~-°••'uQ'~-
1, TIP # R-3833
~ 0 DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (~) ~, J" ;y•~•`~
u ,.. _ ....._.. -.... .. ..
~ PM PM PEAK PERIOD f''
)' (d,t} DUALS, TT-ST'S (~) '~!.. ~''A
NOTE: D{iV D '•'~
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D `.,ry ,:~
~iEVERSE FLOW FOA AM PEAK '
• COUNTY: IREDELL
. .... /
DIV.: 12 DATE: JUNE 2003

7
n
n

i/ `~./ ~ ~
~ w\
d ~y~~5 a!
rr~
NNv 1~ N ~
Manard way 12 F'~ ~
sso vM s ?~~K
(2,1) 4 ~,~ !~
A•wV'
'V~
Z O
~ ~ <NJt
C
~ ~
-~ r p
~ ~ ~
0
rn
try
.~
. ~o '•. (fl
~~ ,cam
.~,~t,
~'~ ~O ~.
~`.%
16 M~.~
9 X2,11
QD
I ..
,~ I
.. 92
~N
~ U
s5~...pM _...,_ ~, ~ 72
40 ~, I ~ ~ ~ ~ i Mil eo
orn o
J I
PM X70 ~~Iy~ X51 __•---14
~o (2,~1 ~ 1 _._~.
._--1 ~ E~ ~ ~ 75 ~ ~ 2 M1) e
£~sz 10 1
w,~
3 ~ ~
~U
y~ ~- 5 2995
~'-- PM
:r~ 80,.1(2,,)1020
r ~ Cn
y v
N °
y '~~o
'~ ~ ~_' ~o
N ~ ~ 60.r .PN fODIYe
o ~ ~ (2, ~~ 40
2910~j ~~ i°O
~o(2M)-7o z
~o ~ ~
~~
~y~ Ts
,,•. `G`1
i~~ 8~ ~ pM
~~
~ •' A
,~ 24 ~ ~s=a
(o I~ ~ Z 40
s o ~ ` 3S
~~~ ~ T~
J,~, 7~ a ~^ r2 "~ - , X40
~o\~ Sr so Q.j'..
. ` .~ w ~~S
.. lode ,\` ~~ y I ~ ?s o~ pra~r~ron
s
.\ O '? y te ~ SchOOI
~~~ ?2 ~~. ~ ~S
•t4 ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~1~~ ~p v~
N ~'""
6 S6"•,
-off ~~~ ~ ~ 5
~~y1 ~~
N
.P
,N
~ .....-r----- - :_ ~.
LEGEND
- ifp9 VPD b OF VEHICLES PER OAY
0 gllN- MUCH LESS THAN.AHN VPD
n X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
J pev vu -o
Id;ci
fl DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME f°s) K 30
K 30 30 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
D DIRECTIGPIAL SPLIT (~)
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (~)
NOTE: DHV D
IPIDICATES THE DIRECTION D
REVERSE FLOW FOR P.N PEAK
• ,; ~ i t,. .T, f.,
_ ~ r. $~r r
~:. ~,
- 55 16
Shadow Brooke
r ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LOCATION:
SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) FROM
SR 1.177 (RIVER LOOP ROAD) TO US 21
PROJECT:
TIP # R-3833
COUNTY: IREDELL
..
DIV.: 12 DATE: JUNE 2003
~ M ~ ~~
r

n
n

n
0
n

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~

I
Q
lO ` '
S~\ t
' ~ - .`4~
/~~ /•
I',~
~:~4
~' 9
'~~'~ • 76
;o
,..,
~~~ / '~°~

I r2,,
~~ ~s
~~ 1 y PM •~. ~ 811ayp/1 Cf
etar(at qr / (?,11 deg
--~.•\ / r
i~ 1?M~ 12 ~ \ ~ o ,C ~ S
E-.~
\ ~ X31 t2.~'PMI X85 d~~~
IIy <j ~~ '~ ~ /~
2 ~, c~ %~ y
.~ ~,
~ ,,
,o '', K,~c/, / ~~
A
. i
\ ies~o sq ~ ~~•~~~
.\
..,\` N ~ a; X28
N ~ y F- 34 -'8~
34--~ ` T ~ '
1 B ~, r olcai ono
T1
7
v
N - 1

~ O
~ CJi
Z ~"
O
b "'~
vi
LEGEND
NNN VPD - N OF VEHICLES PER DAY ,
NNN- MUCH LESS THAN NNN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
oirl ~a~~ -o
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME ('k) = K 30
K 30 ~ 30 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (~)
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
Rd,t) DUALS, TT-ST's (~)
NOTE: DHV U
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
(°o
. ~
~ N
LOCATION:
~''> `'~~~'
~- • ~ ' •~• ,. ~'~ ~~ c'''t~~~~
.,~1't,
,
-~
.
~ f•
1
.1 SFl 1100 BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) FROhI
1177 (RIVER LOOP ROAD) 1
,,
,,`~:~ ~ ri ~~
.. •... ~ ~`
;_~
~r
~ - __
- - ,
,. ~ ~ ~,•

r -``, ;4 • .. •.~ :...; M'I ~ 7~ ~ ~~:= ~ ~~~: ~ :t~,..
1'" ~~
~~~' `~~ ~ PROJECT :.
., ,
,,
TIP # R - 3833
• ~~
5 / 1_
/ •~ ..... .... .. ......._. ~.. .. ....... ... ...... ... .. ... ..
.

~.
w ~•
,,,.-•. ~.
t
.. .
.
COUNTY: IREDELL
'~ DIV.: 12 DATE: JUNE 2003

Appendix A
Comments Received from Federal, State and
Local Agencies

•
•
.~v,~
,~°
'~, ~,
•,,,;'•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~AMES B. HUNT ~R DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR September 12, 2000 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: oy D. R. Henderson, P.E. ~~~;~ ~!~
State H draulics Engineer
Y
SUBJECT: Hydraulics Aspects of the Environmental Impact of the Proposed
widening of SR 1100, Iredell County,
State Project No. 8.1823301, TIP Project No. R-3833
This project proposes to widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177 to US 21
for a total project length of 5.9 miles. To improve capacity and safety, SR 1100 is proposed to
be widened from atwo-lane to a multi-lane roadway. The Hydraulics Unit staff recently
conducted a field investigation and preliminary study for the subject project. In consideration of
all aspects noted below the hydraulic recommendations are summarized as follows: -
There are two major stream crossings involved within the project limits: Tributary of Lake
Norman (Site 1) located 0.2 miles west of I-77; Tributary of Lake Norman (Site 2) located 0.4
miles east of I-77. Recommendations for the above stream crossings are as follows:
~ SITE No. &
CROSSING EXISTING
STURCTURE STR # DRAINAGE
AREA
s .mi) RECOMMENDED
STRUCTURE RECOMMENDED
DETOUR STRUC.
New 2@ 8'X 8'
RCBC (base x Maintain Traffic on-
1 Tributary of
41' Bridge
46
1.4 height)
placed at same site with haled
P
i Lake Norman
location; widen on construction
the northern side.
t
2@ 137"x
Retain & Extend
Maintain Traffic on-
~ ? Tributary of gT'CSPA 45 1.0 existing on the site with phased
Lake Nornzan (span x rise) northern end construction
RCBC: Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
CSPA: Corrugated Steel Pipe Arch
•
SITE 1:
The existing 41 foot single span bridge is over a tributary of Lake Norman. Constructed
in 1954, it consists of a timber deck with a bituminous surface on steel I-beams
supported by timber pile and cap end bents. The existing deck has a total thickness of
~.5 feet and is 12 feet above the creek bed. The normal water depth of the creek is one

Al

i
~ i
~. I ~~~
• z: ~ '1,~ III %
.,.'~~' ~ ZONE X
.~~ ~1
,, , - _ , ,.
'~.
., ,
:; ,=-,
1106
fu dcu•,min~~ d Neud ins.~•z~~~.r ~s aeaJable in ~hn cummuolt}~, ccrnacl your
inwran:e a6ent or tali the xa;innal Flood Inwrancc Pro6ram a~ (300j 6J8-6620.
I~~j1
APPROXIMATE SCALE
2000 0 2000 FEET
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PR06RA
R-3$33
~~~u.cr~re ~ y, e X410 « ,r
Q IDO'y~as rw~erc)t,,.c.)
(~ ~A~ r w,'S`~. ~'+o cieTe~~~Pd ~ fury .
- -~~ '1
N
W
z
Q
a
z
0
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
IREDELL COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREA
PANEL 200 OF 220
ISEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTEDI
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBE
370313 0200
MAP REVISE!
JUNE 22, 19~
•
I A3
Federal Emergcllc}' Alanagcment ARe'

~~-~ t cuNt AE
~ r DEL 761)
~ r~ I
s ~ ch : y~l 1 .
r•'
Sgt
f~
~.
6f

761
!, IEL 7611•- LV ; ~..~; .-vtvC n-~
''~ ~'/ q ~ ~ ,, ZONE AE.
~ ~; IEL`:7611;5
.~
1
1
ZONE X
761
76
i / v /
(/
~,
••~ ` I
'\ ~
~~
` 1
\..,
.•1 ~.
761' \
l•
~\ .
~.
t• r ill I ~. ~_ ~,
'I Sr
~ -~
0
to ' ' at ` ~~
\• 1109
11]9 \~\ 11 i
~/\ ,
~~ ZONE X nra 16'
~~ 1 ''
"l,1` l ~'
-~\ ~, i !;
` /
~ \J~ !
`~
~ ~ ~ , ZONE X
\ ~ i1 ~~1 l
1
\ 1. I ~; ~,
\ \ \ rl~
.• `~~ ~ ~.
I
`:
\\ !
_~ ,\ +1
' A4 l
~.

' III ...I\J
~~~11~~~~
~, I
/ Ii
ZONE X ''
~' •/ i
I
i
\.` ~
i
~.
I
LtI,tNU
SPECIAL ELOOD HAZARD AREAS INUtiD.4TED
BY 100-YEA.R F1O0D
ZONE A No base Good elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to ]feet (usually areas of
ponding); box flood elevations determined,
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow
on sloping terrain); average depths deter•
mined. For areas. of alluvial Fan Ilooding;
velocities also determined.
ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by
Federal flood protettion system under corn
struttion; no base flood elevations deter-
mined.
ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
•~ ~ "•~ /. • ~~ attion}; no base flood elevations determined.
.,\~••
`•,~ /I
~•..~ I.
rl
ZONE VE Coastal flood wtth velocrty hazard (wave
J attionl; base flood elevations determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
i
j - '' OTHER FLOOD AREAS
I ~I
ZONE X Areas of SOp-year flood; areas of 100-year
Flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or
with drainage areas less than 1 square mile;
and areas proteced 6y levees from 100•year
Bood.
'• ~ ~ OTHER AREAS
ZONE X AreasdeterminedtobeoutsideS00-yearflood•
l '' plain.
I- ZONED Areas in which flood hazards are undeter-
~ mined.
~'~ UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERSt
~~I
t ~ \~\ \ ~.
Identified Illentiiied UIM:neise
1983 t'rutecled Areas
~ 1990 or later IAtroiitd
~ 1991 ur Lata
tCoastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacem to special floor
~, ~ hazard areas.
I L~
N ftoodplain Boundary
i
W - - FloodsvayBoundaly
Z
la - Zone D Boundary
!N
ZONE_jo Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard
X i~ Zones, and Boundary pis'iding Areas of Dii•
lerent Coastal Base Flood Elevations IYithin
Special Flood Hazard Zones.
""'^'" 513 9ase Flood Elevation. Line; Elevation in Feel'
i
;f ~ D .Cross Section line

100
! ~ 1'
1196 'I
~~ ~ ZONE Af
Ui1
n:u ~l ~I~
f1 ~~~ I~ II II ,j .i
((

~ t i
~ ~ I! {.
II
\
~ ~1
Il '~.
I
~ , 9
-e 4
K
~
1 + ~ ..,ter :.
~
t
~, t .ZONE qE;
' ~ ` .. DEL 7611
• ~/~\
~
\
~~
~1 I j ~~
,, (,
1'~~;~
'y I
~' i IEL 9S1} Base Flood Elevation in FcerN'here Uniionn

~ 1vl;hirt Zone•
/
~ ~ ~ RM ~k Hevation Reference Mark:
^~~''~
~ ~M 1.5 River Mile
~^
:.
~ . ~ •Reierenced to the kational Geodetic Vertical Datum of 79?9
NOTES
,~i This map is for use in admi
i
~
//` ~
I n
stering fhe National Flood Insurance Program, It
duns nrn necessarily Identif
all a
J
1
Rrrdv \
a~I1
~
\I y
rras subject to (loosing, parncula; y fran Io~JI
dreirage sources of small size, or all planimetric fearures ows'de SpeciJl Huai
Haza
1A
ra,rk
11(
1, «
reas. Thecommunity map rrpo;i;un•should becon:;dt;,; for po;>ib
u(h~I11Cd IhiUd hJ.'J•;II;tlUrr
i
__,
CCC nat
nn prpr lO UiC Of lhiS nlJ (r I• •..•' ,
UI C(ll 5! Ul;lUn p V {'Op.ln r)U'tr l<C
pJ po».
11 C(I.IS II U.i'. IIUO(I el v1,:Un I •
S~{1l,y U7 nn M1•arts t.rOA \GI D, ar+l ir,C~u'1 t +
e(ie

~
' : or u t e aiti,n shi.r ch, ilia . l l a1 o d rer slgl ;fian;ll i•nm t 1, s:
dv„I•I
\ t.tl Ell lnt.'~.. I.,Ilal llt'I,I1r 4(.lit'Itu h."ll. ant'l'.aIU,I;Il~ll f+,ln.^..:1>;
~1'"'.t ilt•riJlf.,,,tinny,trillSi+?ye.alto,~tl'ntLlirLlrp,{.i;.Att.;lf).4'`~.
1 tr. 11
1t ,.11 1(I I Srt:1.11 lilt it Fl...J t~:1 :'.1. mJt ht• !-. I',I :ICI. 't

r ~~. ~r < ~ i ~~ ~r

`~'
u j ~ ~
•~
. ~. ZONE X '
+
• ,:,,
0 ~l , ~ ~r

' State otNortb GroWra /
Department otEnvlronment and Natural Resources ReviewingOlfiee: /~, r"\
NTERGOVERNMENTALREMEW -PROJECT COMMENTS Project Numbs: /7 /,~ CAD // Due Dare: ~/ -U ~
vtew of thu project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
th North Carolina Lw. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Offitx indicated on the reverse of the form.
'en:_ infotmatien and auiddines relative to these mans and hermits arc available from the same Retional Office.
. ~
Normal Process Time
(statuto
time limit
ry
)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES a REQIJIItEbtENTS
Permit to oottstntet Jc operate wastevvata treaurtent Application 90 days bdorc begin eorwruetior- a award of coeutruaion 30 days
facaitia. heaver system etdertsiom k aawer trysteau contr.... Ottsite inapeaiaa, Pastapplieatioo teshninl eoofermee usual.
sot discharging into state surface water: (90 ~Ys)
O NPDES - permit to discharge itgo surface water and/or Application 1 EO day: before begin activity. on-site itstpeaioa Praapplication 90-12o day:
permit to operate and coeanrua wastewaur facilities eortfereetee usual. Additionally, obtain permit w eamrua wastewater
' discharsing into state surface waters. treatrtaettat facility-granted arts NPDES. Reply time, 30 days alter rerdpt of (NM)
plans or isote of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Watsr Use Permit Pre-application teehninl oonferestce usually tteecaary 30 days
MBA)
WeU Coeuuttction Permit Complete application must be tmeived and permit isnred prior to the 7 days
installation of a vaeU. (13 days)
' Dredge and F"dl Permit Applintien copy must be.erved on each adjacent riparian property owner. 3s days
On-site inspection. Prcapplieation conference usual. Filling may require
Easrnaent to Fill from N.C. Department of Adnainisuation and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Pemtit '
Permit to corutruct tic operate Air Pollution Abatentrnt N/A
facilities and/or Emission Bourses as per Is A NCAC 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300. 2H.0600)
My oprn burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 1 s A NCAC 2D.1900
olition or rrnovations of struewrcs containing 60 days
os material must be N a+mpliance with 1s A
CAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
ova! prior w demolition Contact Asbestos Control NIA
Group 919-733-0820. (90 ~Ys)
Complex Bourse Permit required under 13 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimrnution Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addrested for arty land disturbing activity. M erosion &
sedimrntation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regitmal Olfiee (land Quality 20 days
Sect) Act least 30'days before beginning activity. A fee of 230 for the first sae and 52000 for cash additional sae or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
The Sedimrnution Pollution control Aa of 1973 must be addressed with tapes to the rcferenad Local Ordinance. ~0 ~Ys)
O Mining Permit On-site iratpection usual. Surety bond f led with ENR Bond amount varies
d
30 days
grasser
with type mine and Dumber of saes of aSeaed land. My are mine
tliara one sae must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
' before the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resouras if permit exceeds 4 days 1 ~Y
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Rcsouroes rcqu'tred "if more flan
ld b 1 ~Y
~~A)
counties in coastal N.C. with organic roils e
five acm of ground clearing aelivities arc involved.lnspectioras shou
"
rcquated at least trn days before actual bum is planned
N/A 90-120 days
Oil Refining Facilities (N/A)
Safety Permit ~
Dam if permit required appliotion 60 days before begin eotattruaioa Applitartt
t
_ ton,
must hire N.C. quaiified~engirtea to: prspare 9latts. rasped construe
• certify conttruction is ucotding to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito wntrol progTa~ And a 404 permit from Corps oC
Engineers. M inspection of site is necessary to verify Harsrd Classifiealion. A (60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the appliation. M additional
processing fee based on a percrnuge or the total project cost will be required
upon trompletion. '
' A29

~ State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources +~
Division of Water Quality ~ ~~~
' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Bill Holman, Secretary
' Kerr T. Stevens, Director
August 8, 2000
' MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Envirottmental Coordinator
' Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quali
' From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele
Subject: Scoping commenu for SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) widening, from SR 1177 to US
' 21 to multi-lanes with an interchange at I-77, Iredell Co., Federal Aid Project No. STP-
150(11), State Project No. 8.1823301, TIP Project No. R-3833.
' This letter is in reference to your correspondence dated30 June 2000 (received 7 July 2000), in which you
requested Scoping comments for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the
proposed project will traverse Reeds Creek in the Catawba River Basin. The DWQ index number for the
stream is 11-104-(2) and the stream is classified as Water Supply IV&B Critical Area waters. The Division
of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed
project:.
' A. Iv'CDOT should be awaze that the Catawba River Basin could have buffer rules in the neaz future and
consider the incorporation of buffers in the project design.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should. be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacu. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
' of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that impacu to waters classified as Water Supply IV&B CA will occur.
The DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Cazolina regulations entitled "Design
' Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any azea that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout
Water) classifications.
E. The DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing
.«,.
directly into the stream.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employe A3,~ 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

' AIRMAN: SUECASPER CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF G E N
E CHAIRMAN: CARROLL HEAVNER POST OFFICE BOX 35008 ~= MI PL
CRETARY: DELORIS CHAMBERS CHARLOTTE. N.C. 28235 0
REASURER: C.V. THORNBURG 704/372-2416 FAX:[phone] E-MAI ~ m ins;
Iredell County Manager _ ~Z[( ~
Statesville City Manager
' Mooresville Town•Manager
• NC Intergovernmental Review Process
~Revitw and Comment Fornt
'This office bas received the attached information about a proposal which could affect
your jurisdiction.
' If you need more`information, contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension of
Buie for review, contact Audrey McCaslv7l immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and
return to this office by 8 /~31 /00
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments •
regarding this proposal. ~ •
Statc Application Identifier Number 4220-0011 -
Commenter's Name ~~~ /1Ji.~~fS~Jv Title ni,GU~v
t Representing_:,.~~~'~/ ~ i/ ,~ i
f .r~crl:r4innl
Address ~O ~ /? ~~'

1
1

~i~~i~~
,.
~~ ~~ ~~ ~a ~~~~ G~~
~ C~.~~s~~~~
.. CAB/1RRUS COUNT? oancard h•rriaburp ka-v-at~ mom pleasant t3ASTON COUNTY bairr-ont besaa,n•relty eMnyv-la eemeRon da0aa
pastanto high ehoals• lowap nseadanvAle mount holly ranlo spencer mounbin stanleY IREDE].L COUNTY hamanr m~resvllle sbtnndAe t~oWnan..
W COUNT( Wneolnton MECKLENBU~n~ Ox~~ alkbury ~spee carte STAN Y COUNTY a amarle b•dm beast tt•n,londOWtANryC~ N ~m~~
nd eaet spann- bRh ersnh• 4uarry
field UNION COUNTY. Mmby bridp• Indian treU tar. park meretrv~l• martin monr•e atalUnps unbnvWo warlnw wedd'mpton waley chapel wingeb
Phone 7v y~ gG ~ ~~~~ •
' A33 TOTAL P. 01

Ltl.-~7-c:F'J47,•5 le ~ 35 NC UOT ONE-OHE 919 715 1501 P . 03
Fcdc'ral ~tict = STP-10(11 j TIP ~ R-38;3 Cutrnly°: iredell
Properties «~ithin the area of potential cfCcct tier ~~~hich there is no effect. indicate if propcm~ is
'`ational Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
' Properties within the area of otentinl effect for ~~hich there is an cf~tect. indicate ro eat states
p P P )
(\R or DE) and describe th; a#'tect.
' . T. ti!~'`!~-i`~ Rio v S r~ ~ D ~
~ti ~ v~Sc ~f=~~~'
1
1
heasoni.s) ~~hy the effect is not aii~~cr_e (if applicable).
initialrci:
o~ >~o vs ~ C Gc~/ SH1u~~
\~t'L~U~I - ~~~ FI 1~1.~~
.., ~,^~ t~
SI-IPU ~~.•~L_.
' A35

Page 2 of 2
William Gilmore
August 23, 2000
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
' above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review
Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' DB:kgc
cc: Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, FHwA
Mary Pope Farr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT

•

1
A37

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
_ INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: 31 August, 2000
TO: Krishna Solberg
Project Development Engineer
FROM: Tom Padgett
Archaeology Unit, PDEA
SUBJECT: Brawley Road (SR 1100) Widening project, Iredell County, R-3833
' I have reviewed the mapping on this project. The project encounters lands with little
potential for significant archaeological resources, and should have no effect on any
' archaeological sites that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Office has also reviewed the project in the Scoping
' Meeting held on May 24, 2000. In a letter dated August 23, 2000, the State Historic
Preservation Office recommended no archaeological survey for the project. We have not
identified any other entities that should be included as consulting parties under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. However, for consideration of historic
architectural sites check with Mary Pope Furr. Also be aware that, historic properties
(archaeological aswell ashistoric architectural) should be considered in the public
involvement plan for this project.
cc: Carl Goode, PE
1
i «
1
1
1

A39

~~
1
' JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
,~' ~.
•^~•~
'~ _ ~ ~ .
. ~;~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIv~N'f OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 15, 2000

' STATE PROJECT:
F. A. NUMBER:
I. D. NUMBER:
COUNTY:
' DESCRIPTION:
DAVID McCOY
SECRETARY
8.1823301
STP-150(11)
R-3833
Iredell
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) Widening from
SR 1177 to US 2l with an Interchange at I-77
' MEMORANDUM TO: W. D. Gilmore, P. E.
Project Development & Environmental
FROM: B. C. Yancey
FOR: J. A. West
State Right of Way Negotiator
SUBJECT: Comments Regarding Proposed Project
As a result of your recent memorandum, we contacted Mr. John Shoemaker, Area
Negotiator in Albemazle, and asked that he provide us with comments regarding the
above mentioned project. Mr. Shoemaker has completed his report and we are submitting
a copy of the report for your infonmation.
' Please advise if we may be of further assistance regarding this matter.
BCY/hw
Attachment
1
1
A41
PHOtiE(919~-.;.~:,0 FAX(alQi':_-oi~i~

1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1

.•°^"-
at'
-.",,•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTT~~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
June 16, 2000
Mr. John B. Williamson, Jr.
Right of Way Branch Manager
DAVID MCCOY
$ECRET.~RY
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) widening from SR 1177 to US 21
- - to multi-lanes with an interchange at I-77, Iredell County, Federal-
Aid Project No. STP-10(11), Stace Project iv'o. 8.1823301,
TIP R-3833
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has began studying the proposed improvements to SR 1100 (Brawley School Road).
The project is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Impro~~ement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2003 and construction in fiscal year 200.
The 2000-2006 TIP calls for widening SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) to a multi-lane
facility from SR 1177 to US 21 with an interchange at I-77, a distance of approximately
~.9 miles (9.493 km). The proposed typical section is either a ~-lane curb and gutter facility,
41ane divided facility, or a combination of the i<~~o typical sections.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacu of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which maybe required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Categorical Exclusion. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by September 4, 2000 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Kristina Solberg, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 24~.
W'DG/plr
Attachment.
MAILING ADORE55:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
15x8 MA0. SERVICE CCNTcR
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELE?NONE: 919-T33-3ts1
F.vc.9t9-733-9T9a A43
WE35rTe: NhwV.00H. DO7.5'~'=. n~C. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUIIWNG
t $OUTM WILMIN.-sTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
' GOVERNOR
•-~•~
•~.....-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTZVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT -
SECRETAJtY
•
STATE PROJECT:
' F. A. PROJECT:
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION:

' MEMORANDUM TO:
September 5, 2003
8.1823301 (R-3833)
STP-150(11)
Iredell
SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) widening from SR 1177
to US 21 to Multi-lanes with an interchange at I-77
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
' ATTENTION: Kristina Solberg, Project Development Engineer
FROM: Richard S. Jo so , L.G.
GeoEnvironm Project Manager
t Geotechnical Engineering Unit
SUBJECT:
GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation
t Purpose
This report presents the results of a "GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation" conducted
along the above referenced project. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify
t properties within the project study area that may contain hazardous materials and result in
future environmental liability if acquired. These hazards may include, but are not limited
to USTs, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites.
' Methodolos?y
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project. In addition to
the field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to
identify any known problem sites along the proposed project alignment. The identified
sites'are'"discussed below. '
MAILING ADDRE55: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENiURV CENTER COMPLEX
GEOTECHNIG~L UMT BUILDING B
GEOENVIRONMENTALSECTIDN WEBSlTE: WWW.DOFLDOT.STATF.NC. US 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
1589 Mal SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27610
' RALEIGH Nc ,z7s6s-158s A45

' TIP: R-3833. Mr. Cmgory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
September 5, 2003
Page 3 of 4
This gas station/convenience store is located on the north side of SR 1101 (Brawley School
' Road) at the northeast comer of Promenade Lane (SR 2995). A review of the petroleum
underground storage tank database for Iredell County indicates that four (4) USTs are
located on the property. The tanks are in a common basin in front of the canopy and
'~ approximately 25 feet from the edge of pavement of SR 1101. According to Mr. Tusing,
the tanks are fiberglass and less than 10 years old. No monitoring wells were noted at the
site and the site does not appear to have any UST leaks.
4) All-Mart (Shell) Property Owner: Nocor LLC
' 336 Williamson Road UST Owner: Same
Mooresville, NC 28117 P. O. Box 3516
Mooresville, NC
' Facility I.D. #: 0-035951
This gas station/convenience store is located on the south side of SR 1101 (Brawley School
' Road) at the Brawley School Road and Williamson Road interchange. A review of the
petroleum underground storage tank database for Iredell County indicates that three (3)
USTs are located on the property. The tank basin is located on the south side of the
' property approximately 200 feet from SR 1101 and contains a 20,000-gallon gas, a 15,000-
gallon gas and a 10,000-gallon diesel. The Shell station is equipped with the '1:LL,S 350
Leak Detection unit. No monitoring wells were noted at the site and the site does not
appear to be under type of remediation.
5) Brawley School Road Property Owner: Town of Mooresville
Pump Station
' Brawley School Road UST Owner: Same
Mooresville, NC 28117 413 N. Main Street
Mooresville, NC
Facility I.D. #: 0-030324
A 550-gallon gas emergency generator tank was removed on December 14`x', 2000 where a
gasoline release was recorded in the DENR Groundwater Indent database. GWI #22660
' was record and the site appears to have been remediated at the old pump station.
6) Alltell Carolina, Inc. Property Owner:
Brawley School Road UST Owner: Same
Mooresville, NC 28117
Facility I.D. #:

' A47

t
A
1
1
1

R-3833 GeoEnvironmental Site Map
WILKES YADiUN FORS T
t
ALDWELL
ALEXANDER ~ DAME
f ~
1 IREDELL• ~.
DA
CATAWBA /
~ ( ROWAN
~ `t
r ~
LINCOLN ` ~
CKLENB

NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit
GeoEnvironmental Section
R=3833
SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) widening from SR 1177
to Multi-lanes with an Interchange at I-77
,o~„
:`
eq Af

A49

1

When changes to an intersection or freeway 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 round-
about 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 at intersections. 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 Round-
abouts: An Informational Guide. Please use this method of analvsis to compare the roundabout
and traffic signal alternatives before making a decision about the appropriate form of traffic
control at this intersection.
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
cc: Kristen Solbert, N.C. Department of Transportation
A51

•

gg .~
3 '~
'~.~~~.~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 18; 2003
TIP Project: R-3833
County: Iredell
Description: SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) .
MEMORANDUM -~~ '
~~-,r= .
To: Kristina L. Solberg, P.E. G ~ ~, , ..
C Y
Project Development Engineer .
From: James H. Dunlop, P.E.
Con estion Mana em~ineer /~~`ZAe-3
g g g ..
Subject: Proposed Roundabouts at interchange of I-77 and SR 1100
LYNDO TrPPETT
SECRETARY
As requested in your memorandum of September 12, 2000, the Congestion Management Section
completed a preliminary study to determine the feasibility of constructing roundabouts at the
intersections of I-77 NB ramps and SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) and I-77 SB ramps at SR
1100. While we provided you a verbal indication at that time that we did not. recommend
continued study of roundabouts in this location, we neglected to provide you with written
correspondence to that effect. We apologize for this omission. This memorandum documents
the analysis steps and information provided to you verbally in response to your memorandum in
2000.
We completed an analysis of the proposed roundabout intersections utilizing the traffic analysis
program SIDRA, version 5.19b. Our analysis indicated that single lane roundabouts, with or
without additional bypass lanes, would fail in the design year 2025. Multi-lane roundabouts
' would provide a better level of service, however certain movements would approach or exceed
the theoretical capacity. Capacity is defined as one or more movements in the roundabout at a
volume to capacity ratio (v/c) of .85 or greater.
While multi-lane roundabouts have provided adequate level of service in other countries, and
some other states, there remains a concern about their applicability in the United States,
' particularly at or near capacity. At that time, the Department was just starting to construct
roundabouts,, with only two single lane roundabout on the State Highway System. No multi-lane
roundabouts had been proposed at the time in North Carolina. Since our analysis of this project,
one such roundabout has been approved, as part of TIP project U-2926, Old Salem Road in
Winston-Salem.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS BRANCH I'AX: 919-250.4195 CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX Bl'ILDIKG B
1592 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 10:0 BIRCH RIDGE llRIVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2 7699-1 592 N'EBSITE: µwli:ppf/.DOT.ST.~TE.NC.C'S RALEIGH. NORTHCARULIVg27610
' A52

Appendix B
Relocation Report and Relocation Assistance
Programs .

' MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR

November 5, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Gregory J. Thorp, PhD, Director
Pr~t Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Thomas P. Norman, Director
' SUBJECT:

•

SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177 to US 21,
Iredell County, TIP Project R-3833
This memo is to respond to your request for comments on the subject project.
We concur with the proposed four lane median divided typical section with 16-foot wide
outside lanes. The 16-foot wide outside lane should be striped fora 12-foot wide travel
lane and a 4-foot wide bike lane with bike lane symbol pavement marking and signing
according to MUTCD guidelines. If left unstriped for bike lanes, the 16-foot outside lane
width may encourage two motor vehicles to operate side by side in the same lane. '
Directing bicyclists through a Single Point Urban Interchange is problematic. This type of
interchange design maximizes motor vehicle traffic flow but creates crossing hazards for
pedestrians and bicyclists at free flowing access ramps. If a design has been prepared for
the SPUI at this location, we are willingly to meet to provide recommendations to
improve pedestrian and bicycle safety through the interchange area.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Kumar Trivedi,
PE at 715-2345.
' TPN/l:at
1

cc: Kristina Solberg, PE, project engineer
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF BICYCLE ~ PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
1552 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1552
'~ _
•~....~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMII~IT OF TRANSPORTATION
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOT.STATE.NC.US/TRANSIT/BICYCLE/
A5 EMAIL: TNORMAN®DOT.STATE.NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
ROOM 304
RALEIGH NC

r
Phvsical Resources
' Soils
Soils located within the project area include Chewcla and Cecil soils
' The Chewacla soils are neazly level and somewhat oorl drained. The occu laz e
P Y Y PY g
azeas on large streams and aze on most of the flood plains of small streams. The soils in
' this unit aze generally subject to frequent flooding. Their available water capacity is
high, and permeability is moderate.
' The Cecil series consists of deep, neazly level to steep, well-drained soils on the uplands.
The bedrock is chiefly granite and gneiss, but it includes some mica schist. They have
moderate availability water capacity and permeability.
Water Resources
' The following sections provide inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two
significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and federally protected species.
These issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates that
regulate their protection. This section deals .specifically with the impact analyses _
required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" (Waters of the U.S.), as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register
' (CRF) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface
waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters
include all standing or flowing waters which have. commercial or recreational value to the
. public. Wetlands aze identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
' .During the site visit, no wetlands where identified within the project study azea.
One stream, an unnamed tributary to Lake Norman (the Catawba Raver) is located in the
project area. The unnamed tributary is approximately 10-20 feet wide at the top of the
bank and ranges in depth at normal stage from 0.2-1 foot with a southerly moderately
' ~ flow'. The substrate in the study area is composed of a sandy loam with pebble and some
cobble present in the streambed. The banks are well vegetated and appear to be stable.
The stream geomorphology exhibited some sinuosity with an entrenched channel. The
' classification for this stream is WS-IV & B CA (8/3/92). Class-IV waters are protected
as water supplies, which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
Class B waters are protected for primary recreation, which includes swimming on a
frequent or organized basis: 'The classification CA refers to iand~adjacent to a water-
supply intake wither risk associate with pollution is greater than from remaining land in
the watershed. Critical area is defined as land within one half mile upstream and draining
' A7

black walnut (Juglans nigra), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis) ,and smooth sumac
(Rhus glabra).
Mixed Pine/Hazdwood Forest
' This community is also located sporadically adjacent to the maintained/ disturbed
community and is the dominant community on the project. This community has a mature
stand of forest azea and a section that is in eazly succession due to logging done 5 to 10
' yeazs eazlier. The canopy layer in the mature community is composed of primarily
loblolly pine, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) ,tulip poplaz, sweet gum, and red maple.
The canopy layer is fairly dense, creating a shady environment for the sub-canopy and
' understory species of plants. The sub-canopy is comprised of dogwood (Corpus floridia),
American holly (Ilex opaca), black cherry, box elder (Ater negundo), and iron wood
(Carpinus caroliniana). Vines found in this community aze Japanese honeysuckle,
Virginia creeper, poison ivy (Toxidendron radicans) and azound the forest edges,
blackberry. The grass and weed groundcover is sparse due to the amount of shading from
the dense canopy. Some plants observed during the site visit aze five fingers (Potentilla
' canadensis), violet{Oxalis violacea), Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), grass
(Fescue sp.) and heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.).
' Riparian Community
This community is located on both sides of the unnamed tributary. It is adjacent to the
maintained/disturbed roadside community and the mixed pine/hazdwood forest. This
community has been disturbed and appeazed to be maintained in some of the azeas. In
azeas where a canopy was present sweet gum, red maple, river birch (Betula nigra), and
tulip poplaz comprised the species of trees. The sub-canopy is comprised of ironwood,
and saplings of the canopy species. The groundcover in this community is comprised of
various herbs including Japanese grass, wingstem, solidago, giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea) ,Christmas fern (Polystichium acrosticoides) and various fescue grasses
(Festuca spp.). The riparian community has had various levels of disturbance at different
time periods. The vegetation and surrounding topography of the riparian area reflect these
' disturbances.
Terrestrial Wildlife
' The disturbed/maintained roadside and mixed ine/hardwood forested tracts rovide rich
P P
' ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage areas and cover. Birds that are
often associated with ecotones between these communities aze ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula), Carolina chickadee (Parus carohnensis), bluebird (Sraha sialis) ,
' downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) ,yellow-throated wazbler (Oendroica
dominica) ,blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta
carolinensis) ,northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), ruby-throated hummingbird
(Archilochus colubris), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), tuffed titmouse (Parus bicolor);
acadian flycatcher (Empidonax traillil) ,and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). The
red-tailed hawk (Bueto jamaicensis) is a major predator in this habitat, feeding on small
mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
' A9

Illegal collection, primarily for the national and international pet trade, as well as loss and
modification of the bog turtle's wetland habitat, have resulted in a reduction of the
' species' range and a decline in the size of the remaining population.
Bog turtles are easily distinguished from other turtles by the large, conspicuous bright
.orange, yellow or red blotch found on each side of the head. Adult bog turtle shells are 3
to 4-1/2 inches in length and range in color from light brown to ebony.
' Biological Conclusion Not Applicable
The Bog Turtle is threatened due to similarity of appeazance -a species that is threatened
due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species aze not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section
7 consultation.

•

1

' A11

~P ~ ~.' 3 g 3~ Federal Aid I# ~/' - t 5 UG t ~ Count
~ ~ Y ~~/~+L(/
CONCURRENCE FORiVI
FOR
PRflPERT1ES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE i\IATiONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description , _ , _ ~ _ _ , J ~ _ _ _ _ _ . t-~ _ _ _ r . ~ ~ r .,. ~
'n ~~ DG~ ~l) ,representatives of the
_~ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
~iewed the subject pmiect at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review sesstoniconsuitatiot~
Other
parties present agree:'
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion.
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 2 -t-{' (~ ~ 23 are
considered not elt;tble for the ~ ational egister and no rther evaluation of them is necessar~~.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
~~ed:

:~Eesentative, NCDOT ~ llate
,~
1 ~• T
HwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
' , ~rf~0
esentative, SHPO Dace
h ~ ~~ A ~ ~
_ Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
' A12

•f A~'~
1
~~W`
' STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
' JAMES B. HUNT Jlt. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
' November 29, 2000
Mr. David L. S. Brook
' Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer `
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Dear Mr. Brook:
' RE: R-3833, Widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1777 to US 21, with a new Interchan eat
I-7.7, lredell County; State Project # 8.1823301, Federal Aid # STP-150(11). g
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is conducting planning studies for the above-
referenced project. Please fmd attached three copies of the Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, which
meeu the guidelines for survey procedures for NCDOT and the National Park Service. This report concludes that
' there is one property within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) that is eligible for the National Register.
Property #5 - H.T. Mayhew House
Please review the survey report and provide us with your comments. If you have any questions concerning the
accompanying information, please contact Richard Silverman, Historic Architecture Section, [phone],
' ext.292.
Sincerely,
~ ~ P~'~:.
M Po a Furr Su ervisor
ary P ~ P
' Historic Architecture Section
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
' MPF/rls
Attachment
cc Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Branch Manager, PDEA
cc (w/attachment): Nicholas Graf, P.E., Federal Highway Administration
t A14

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 29, 2001 '
TO: Krishna Solberg, Project Engineer
' FROM: Richard Silverman, Historic Architecture
RE: R-3833, Widening of SR 1100 from SR 1177 to US 21,
Iredell County
' CC: - Projects File
' The Historic Preservation C-ffice has commented on the NCDOT Phase II Historic
Architectural Resources Survey Report. The HPO concurred that the following property is
'. eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (See attached letter of 8 January 2001).
•H.T. Mayhew House is eligible for the National Register
The HPO also concurred with the re ort's findin that the Morrow's Cha el United
P g P
Methodist Church is not eligible for the National Register.
The next step in the compliance process is to schedule an Effects meeting with the HPO.
Please notify me when you wish to do that.
We will not be conductin an further investi 'ons of R-3833 unless there is a than a in
g Y ~ g
scope of the project. Please notify the Historic Architecture Section in writing if the scope
of the project changes. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me.

1

A16

1

1

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicba Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 27, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Cazolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
~~G E I CFO
OCT ~' 290
,'~
Subject: Widening of SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177 to US 21, Including an
Interchange at I-77, to a Multi-lane Facility, Iredell County, State Project
No. 8.1823301, Federal-Aid Project No. STP-150(11), TIP No. R-3833
In your letter of June 16, 2000, you requested our review and comments (by September) on the
' subject project. The following comments are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e),.and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided with your letter, the North Cazolina Department of
Transportation is proposing to widen SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177 to US 21,
including an interchange at I-77, to a multi-lane facility, in iredell County, North Carolina.
' Enclosed is a list of species from Iredell County that aze on the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants and species of Federal concern that may occur in the project
impact area. Although our records indicate no lrnown locations of these species m the project
' area, we recommend surveying the project area for them prior to any further planning or
on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur to these species. Species of
Federal concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We aze including these species in our response to give you advance notification. The
presence or absence of these species in the project impact area should be addressed in any
' A18

comments, please contact Ms: Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any
future correspondence concerning this pmject, please reference our Log Number 42-00-346.
' Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
' State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
' Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
' 27699-1621
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
' Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
1

1

A20

'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
Georgia)was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A)
' designation has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the spaies. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.

f

June 16, 2000 Page ~ of 2
' A22

__ ~~'
:,
=.~'~ab-

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
!- - ~.~ it
-:JAMEf .B. HUNT JR:
VERNOR
~' ..
-J
a `r-4r -n~
±!~"~~
•.~~
- - ~'~a.
' = ~~~
_ ~. r .Y
Wr
~.~ ~
~~~_~~
-t~ -+
_ _ _::
~-
'-~~=
-- -. - ~l,,...Aa:.:
=~
'.. ~ ~.~ w•E=
.-;:
.. _ ~,
-., ~=~:
_. -.a-. -~- -~
. : r ...
l~'I'IORANDUli
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba KcGee ~`
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 01-0011 Widening RS 1101 SR 1177 to US 21 with an
Interchange at I-77, Iredell County
DATE: August 23, 2000
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's infonaation and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
,..., s.,. ._. ~ ~ r ... 3
i ~ ~ ~.' M 9 ~~ =.
nur 2 3 toot
v. ~ ~ ~ ., ;.._ .
cT ~ 4 .,Jl~h^L'
. ~
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIG N, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
A24 919-733-49Ed FAX [phone] www.ENa.57ATE.NC.us/ENR/
AN EOUAL' OPPORTUNITY / AFFI ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/1090 POST-CONSUMER PAPER

~ .::
• --''~s-• - -
~°
r
. - NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RED~ SOURCES
~~ DIVISION O~~IZ'E~T"R'ES'O~RCES
• NBC Clayton, NC 27520
August 7, 2000
...~ _
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
OVERNOR ~. „I
. MEMORANDUM
ILL NCILMAN
~ECREi-ARY TO: Melba McGee, Office of Le islative
g Affatrs
' .:: FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources ~ ~~
STANFORD M. AcAMS $jJ$JEC'I': DOT Scoping for Widening SR 1101 from SR 1177 to US 21 with an
~1RECTOR _ Interchange at I-77, Iredell Co.
PROJECT #: 01-0011 and TIP U-3833
The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping
t document and offers the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning
impacts to woodlands.
1. The widening of an existing roadway usually has fewer impacts to forest resources than
a ne~v location project. Nonetheless, the total forest land acreage by type that would be
removed or taken out of forest production as a result of the project should be listed.
Efforts should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the
' following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
' Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, ct:tover woodlands
_ . • Urban woodlands
2. The productivity of the forest soils for timber production affected by the proposed project
- as indicated by the soil series.
' 3. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during
construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood
products cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into
- mulch with a tub grinder. This practice will minimize the.need for debris burning, and
• ~ ~ the risk of escaped fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways,
schools, and towns.
,~
. - ~v
1616 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1616
' A25 www.dfr.state.nc.us
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ~ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50°o REC YC LED~1 O°ro POST-LONSU MER -APER

.wK~ ~ hl.r , F HLLS LRKE

r
1
TEL~919-528-9839
Aua ?~~nn
751 No .001 P.03
I ~ Narth Carolina Wildlife Res '
ources Com~nusslox~ -~
I Chuks R FWlwood, Fsecutive Director . -
I MLMORgNpi7M
1'O: Melba McGee
I Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affair, >3IrNR
1'RUM: David Cox, Highway Project oordi for
I Habitat Conservation Pro
DA'1'L•': August 21, 2000
I SUI3JLCT: Request for informaLioA from the N. C. Department of Transp~rtntion
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the SR 1101 {Brawley
School Road) widening, from SR 11?7 to US 21 including an interchange
at i-77, Indell County, North Carolina. 'Hp No. R-3833, SCH Project No.
O1-E-0011.
' This mcmor'undum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCUd'l' fin our concerns regarding impacts oafish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposod improvements. tJttr comments ate provided in
I . aecord:tnce with certain provisions ofthe National Environmantal Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. GG1-6b7d).
At this time, the NCWRC has no ific recommendations o
the subject project. However, to hel facilt~tate documtnt t r concerns regarding
process, our general inti~rmational needs are outlined below pamtion and the review
I 1. Description cif fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of foderally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for projeel
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
I plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C, Division of Parks and Recreation .
1613 Mail Service Confer
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
MailinK Address: Divisinn of Inlgnd Fishtrie~ • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh. NC. 27b99-1721
I ~ Trlcphone: [phone] ext. 281 ~ Fax: {919; 715-75.}3 /427

' State otNortb GroWta ~~ ,~
Department otEnvironme:nt and Natural Raoul-ces ReviewingOlF,«: ~'\
NrERGOVERNMENTALREVlEW - PROJEC3' COMMENTS Project Number: /7 /,E-DD // Dos Date: ~/ -U l1
view of this project it has been determined that the ENIt permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtaint~ in order for this projat to
th North Carolina Lw. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
ons. information and guiddina relative b these plans and oermtits arc available from the same Regional OfPix.
_
Normal Process Tttae

(staomory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQ(JIREI~tEM 8
Permit to oomuvct is operate wastewater trratrrsent Application 90 days before begin eatstnraion er award of eonstruetion 30 days
faeUities. Bearer system ataatsiom fc Bawer ttystams caravan:. Oosae iropesioa Past.appiiwtioorechnical ooofa~mee usual
cot dueltarging into care surface waters. (90 ~Ys)
O NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 1 EO day: before been activity. oo-sits isupatioa Pro-applieatim 90-120 days
permit to operate and ewrtswa wastewater facilities oonfarnee usual. Additionally. obtain patmit to construct wastewater
' disc6arpn j iAto state surface watea. trcaunent faeiliry-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after rsoript of (N/A)
plans or iewe of NPDES permit-whichever o later.
O Water Lbe Parrot Pre-appliation teelutial oonferee~ce ter+aUy necessary 30 days
(N/A)
Well Coruxtuction Permit Complete appliatian must be reseived and permit issued prior to the ?days
installation ofa well. (1S days)
Dredge and Fd1 Permit Application copy roust be served on neh adjacent riparian property owner. SS days
' tan-site inspection. Prcappliation eortferenee usual. Filling may require
Easanrnt to 1=tll from N.C. Department of Adminisvation and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct ltc operate Air Pollutiot Abatrntmt N!A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 13 A NCAC 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
My open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 13 A NCAC 2D.1900
olition or renovation of struetura containing 60 days
os material must be in ex+mpliana with 13 A
CAC 2D.11 l0 (a) (1) which requires noufiwtion and
oval prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Convol NIA
Group 919-733-0820. (90 days)
Complex Bourse Permit required under 13 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. M erosion &
sedimrntation control plan will be required if one or more sera to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional O~iee (land Quality 20 days
Sect.) At least 30'days before beginning activity. A fa of 230 for the first sae and 22000 for cseh additional sae or part must (30 drys)
accompany the plan.
The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with tapat to the rcfaaucd Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining permit On-site inspection usual. Surt:ty bond 61cd with ENR Bond amount varier
with type mine and number of sera of $ected land. My are mined greater 3 0 days
' than one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
bcforc the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit Ck~-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Raourca if permit exceeds 4 days 1 ~Y
(N!A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 Onaite inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day
counties N coastal N.C. with organic soils five arm of ground clearing activities are involved lttspectiorts should be (N/A)
rcqumed at least ten days before actual bum u planned"
Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
M/A)
Dam_Safety Pt:rrttit if permit required, application 60 days before begin cottttruaion. Applicant
must hire N.C. quaii8ed~rngineer to: prcptve plans, +nspa- constrttetiort, ., ,
• certify mnswction is according to ENR approved plans. Msy also require 30 days
permit undo mosquito control prograriL And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. M inspection of site is necessary to verify Haurd Clastifieatiott A (60 days)
. minimum fec of S200.00 must accompany the application. M additional
processing fee based on a pererntage or the tool project cost will be required
upon completion.
' A29

' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources ~ •
Division of Water Quality ~~~~~
' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Bill Holman, Secretary
' Kerr T. Stevens, Director
August 8, 2000
' MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
' Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quali
' From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele
Subject: Scoping comments for SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) widening, from SR 1177 to US
21 to multi-lanes with an interchange at I-77, Iredell Co., Federal Aid Project No. STP-
150(11), State Project No. 8.1823301, TIP Project No. R-3833.
This letter is in reference to your correspondence dated30 June 2000 (received 7 July 2000), in which you
requested scoping commenu for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the
proposed project will vaverse Reeds Creek in the Catawba River Basin. The DWQ index number for the
stream is 11-104-(2) and the stream is classified as Water Supply IV&B Critical Area waters. The Division
of Water Quality requcsts that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed
project:.
' A. NCDOT should be aware that the Catawba River Basin could have buffer rules in the near future and
consider the incorporation of buffers in the project design.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should. be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical. it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
' of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that impacu to waters classified as Water Supply N&B CA will occur.
The DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
' Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout
' Water) classifications.
E. The DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The numbcr of catch basins installed should be
"~
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing
directly into the stream.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
' An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employe A3,~ 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

' AIRMAN: SUE GASPER CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF G E
F CHA/RNL4N: CARROLL HEAVNER POST OFFICE BOX 35008 ~' M'.
CRETARY: DELORIS CHAMBERS CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 0~
REASURER:• C. V. THORN6URG 704/372-2416 FAX:[phone] E-MAI r-- m
Iredell Couaty Manager '
Statesville City Manager
Mooresville Towa Manager
NC Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
' ~ This office has received the attached information about a proposal which could affect
your jurisdiction.
' If you need more information, contact the applicant directly. If~you need an extension of
time for review, contact Audrey McCaslv7l immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and
return to this office by ~ 8 /31 /00
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 4220-0o I 1 `
Commenter's Name ~~~ /lli.~~t~~v Title ~~~~~
t Representin
( nsd><ct~on)
Address ~D ~ /? ~ j'

Phone 7v"y~ ~G?l ~f~J~ ~ .
1
1

Date ~ ~ ~
/• ~
~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~1 ~~~
' .. CABARRUS COUNTY concord lrrrleburp bnmpgle tiTa~ pleasant t3ASTON COUNTY bolmont bessemereky ehertyvYle a~msrton dell°
pastonlo high shoals lowed rr~denvAle mount holly mdo spennr n-ountaln ktanl~y iRECiE11 COUNTY hetmMr mooresvllle atatea~lAe t/axnrn.,
W COUNTY Yneelnten MECKLENBUAO COUNTY ehadotta eomsAus devldsen hurdsrsville moehews mint hIY plnavlUe ROWAN COUNTY ehlm 9rvw
nd east spenwr bRh grsnlt• quarry lendis roekwe~ °ikDUry spencer bTANLY COUNTY albamaAe Dedm locust newlondon ne-wood eektroto tiohMld
field UNION COUNTY. Mmby bridge Indlon traA FsY. Park marahvdle marvln monros stalYnps unbnvWo wa~aw wedd"mpton Wesley ~P~ wi~gate
' A33 TOTAL P.61

Ltl.-G7-c.bb„} 1e~35 NC UOT UNE-OHE 919 715 1501 P.03
Federal Aic! = STP-1 X0(11 j TIP T R-38;3 Currnlj°: iredeil
Properties ~~~ithin the area of potential ctf'cct tier ~~~hich there is no effect. indicate if pmpcrty~ is
' '`ational Register-listed (?~R) or determined eligible (DE).
1
Properties within the area of otential effect for ~~hich there is an of"rect. indicate •
P piope~t~ states
(\ R or DE) and c?acribe th; eftect.
/~ -9~ v~sc ~f=~~ rte'
heas~mi.s) ~~hy the effect is not ail~•cr~e (if applicable).
lnitixleci:
o~ ~dvs~ ~~ s~~~~

"" r~., t
SI-IPU ~~. ~~_.
' A35

Page 2 of 2
William Gilmore
August 23, 2000
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
f above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review
Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' DB:kgc
cc: Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, FHwA
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
1

•

1
1

A37

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
_ INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: 31 August, 2000
TO: Kristina Solberg
Project Development Engineer
FROM: Tom Padgett
Archaeology Unit, PDEA
SUBJECT: Brawley Road (SR 1100) Widening project, Iredell County, R-3833
' I have reviewed the mapping on this project. The project encounters lands with little
potential for significant archaeological resources, and should have no effect on any
' azchaeological sites that aze eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Office has also reviewed the project in the Scoping
' Meeting held on May 24, 2000. In a letter dated August 23, 2000, the State Historic
Preservation Office recommended no acchaeological survey for the project. We have not
identified any other entities that should be included as consulting parties under Section
' 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. However, for consideration of historic
azchitectural sites check with Mary Pope Furr. Also be aware that. historic properties
(acchaeological as well as historic architectural) should be considered in the public
involvement plan for this project.
cc: Cazl Goode, PE
1
1
1

' A39

~~
' JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
•~~•~.
~. ;..
. `~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMIIV'I' OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 21201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
August 15, 2000

' STATE PROJECT:
F. A. NUMBER:
I. D. NUMBER:
COUNTY:
' DESCRIPTION:
DAVID McCOY
SECRETARY
8.1823301
STP-150(1 l )
R-3833
Iredell
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) Widening from
SR 1177 to US 21 with an Interchange at I-77
' MEMORANDUM TO: W. D. Gilmore, P. E.
Project Development & Environmental
' FROM: B. C. Yancey
FOR: J. A. West
State Right of Way Negotiator
SUBJECT: Comments Regarding Proposed Project
As a result of our recent memorandum, we contacted Mr. John Shoemaker Area
Y ,
Negotiator in Albemarle, and asked that he provide us with comments regarding the
above mentioned project. Mr. Shoemaker has completed his report and we are submitting
a copy of the report for your information.
Please advise if we may be of further assistance regarding this matter.
BCY/hw
Attachment

A41
' PHO`E 1919?. ~-_'>?0 FAX (QIQ~'_.-al ~p

i~
._~.
~~
-.~~.
' STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
' JAMES B. Ht.ltv'I' JR. DAVID McCoY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM T0: Mr. John B. Williamson, Jr.
Right of Way Branch Manager
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
' - Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) widening from SR 1177 to US 21
' - - to multi-lanes with an interchange at I-77, Iredell County, Federal-
Aid Project No. STP-10(11), State Project No. 8.1823301,
TIP R-3833
' The Project Develo ment and Environmental Anal '
J p ysts Branch of the Dtvtston of
Highways has began studying the proposed improvements to SR 1100 (Brawley School Road).
The project is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2003 and construction in fiscal year 200.
i The 2000-2006 TIP calls for widenins SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) to a multi-lane
facility from SR 1177 to US 21 with an interchange at I-77, a distance of approximately
~.9 miles (9.493 km). The proposed typical section is either a ~-lane curb and gutter facility,
41ane divided facility, or a combination of the t<ti~o typical sections.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacu of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which maybe required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the -
' preparation of a federally funded Catesorical Exclusion. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by September 4, 2000 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concernins the project, please contact Kristine Solberg, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 24~.
W'DG/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TE:E?rgNE: 919-733-31:1 LOCATION:
PROJECT OEVEIOPMENT •NO ENVIRONMENTAL AwLLYSiS fAJC. 919-733-9~9a A43 TRANSPORTATION BUILWNG
1518 MAIL SERVICE CBNTeR 7 SOVTN WiIMIN sTON STREET
Ru.EIGr+NC 27699-15x8 WE35rTE: www.DOH.DOr.sra~c'.n:C.us RA~EIGrLNC

r
1
'b
••..,,s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'TIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
' GOVERNOR

STATE PROJECT:
' F. A. PROJECT:
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION:

1
1
MEMORANDUM TO:
LYNDO TIpPETT
SECIt>r7ARY
September 5, 2003
8.1823301 (R-3833)
STP-150(11)
Iredell
SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) widening from SR 1177
to US 21 to Multi-lanes with an interchange at I-77
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ATTENTION: Kristina Solberg, Project Development Engineer
FROM: Richard S. Jo so , L.G.
GeoEnvironm Project Manager
Geotechnical Engineering Unit
SUBJECT:
GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation
' Purpose
This report presents the results of a "GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation" conducted
along the above referenced project. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify
' properties within the project study area that may contain hazardous materials and result in
future environmental liability if acquired. These hazards may include, but are not limited
to USTs, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites.
Methodolo~y
' A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project. In addition to
the field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to
identify any known problem sites along the proposed project alignment. The identified
sites `are°discussed beI'ow.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPNONE: 819.250.4088 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
GEOTECNNICAL UMT
GEOENVIRONMENiAISECTION WEBSlTE: NM1NN!DOFI.DOT.STATE.NC.US BUILDING B
1020BIRCMRIDGEDRIVE
1589 Mal SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27610
' RALEIGH Nc .27gss-,sas A45

' TIP: R-3833
r

f
1

Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
September 5, 2003
Page 3 of 4
This gas station/convenience store is located on the north side of SR 1101 (Brawley School
Road) at the northeast comer of Promenade Lane (SR 2995). A review of the petroleum
underground storage tank database for Iredell County indicates that four (4) USTs aze
located on the property. The tanks are in a common basin in front of the canopy and
approximately 25 feet from the edge of pavement of SR 1101. According to Mr. Tusing,
the tanks aze fiberglass and less than 10 years old. No monitoring wells were noted at the
site and the site does not appeaz to have any UST leaks.
4) All-Mart (Shell) Property Owner: Nocor LLC
336 Williamson Road UST Owner: Same
Mooresville, NC 28117 P. O. Box 3516
Mooresville, NC
Facility I.D. #: 0-035951
This gas station/convenience store is located on the south side of SR 1101 (Brawley School
Road) at the Brawley School Road and Williamson Road interchange. A review of the
petroleum underground storage tank database for Iredell County indicates that three (3)
USTs aze located on the property. The tank basin is located on the south side of the
property approximately 200 feet from SR 1101 and contains a 20,000-gallon gas, a 15,000-
gallon gas and a 10,000-gallon diesel. The Shell station is equipped with the TLS 350
Leak Detection unit. No monitoring wells were noted ~at the site and the site does not
appear to be under type of remediation.
5) Brawley School Road Property Owner: Town of Mooresville
Pump Station
Brawley School Road UST Owner: Same
Mooresville, NC 28117 413 N. Main Street
Mooresville, NC
Facility I.D. #: 0-030324
A 550-gallon gas emergency generator tank was removed on December 14`x, 2000 where a
gasoline release was recorded in the DENR Groundwater Indent database. GWI #22660
was record and the site appears to have been remediated at the old pump station.
' 6) Alltell Carolina, Inc. Property Owner:
Brawley School Road UST Owner: Same
Mooresville, NC 28117
' Facility I.D. #:

' A47

i
•

R-3833 GeoEnvironmental Site Map
• V1ALI~S YADKIN FORS
1
ALDWELL
ALEXANDER ~ DAME
t
IREDELL• I
/ DA
CATAWBA /
\ ~ ROWAN
r ~
LINCOLN `' ~
CKLENB
NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit , ~~~
GeoEnvironmental Section
R=3833 ~ "
SR 1101 (Brawley School Road) widening from SR 1177 ~ ~~
to Multi-lanes with an Interchange at I-77 ~~FN,~~,~~
' A49

r
1
1
When changes to an intersection or freeway 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 round-
about 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 at intersections. 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 Round-
abouts: An Informational Guide: Please use this method of analysis to compare the roundabout
and traffic signal alternatives before making a decision about the appropriate fon~n of traffic
control at this intersection.
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
cc
T
Kristen Solbert, N.C. Department of Transportation
' ~ A51

,. ~_ .
aT'
w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 1 S; 2003
TIP Project: R-3833
County: Iredell
Description: SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) .
MEMORANDUM ~ . _ -
,` ' ~.
' To: Kristina L. Solberg, P.E. ,_ ~nw' , .. _
Project Development Engineer _
' From: James H. Dunlop, P.E. ~ .
Con estion Mana em~ineer /~~cZA43 _
g g g ~ ....~
' Subject: Proposed Roundabouts at interchange of I-77 and SR 11.00
As requested in your memorandum of September 12, 2000, the Congestion Management Section
completed a preliminary study to determine the feasibility of constructing roundabouts at the
intersections of I-77 NB ramps and SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) and I-77 SB ramps at SR
1100. While we provided you a verbal indication at that time that we did not recommend
' continued study of roundabouts in this location, we neglected to provide you with written
correspondence to that effect. We apologize for this omission. This memorandum documents
the analysis steps and information provided to you verbally in response to your memorandum in
2000.
We completed an analysis of the proposed roundabout intersections utilizing the traffic analysis
program SIDRA, version 5.19b. Our analysis indicated that single lane roundabouts, with or
without additional bypass lanes, would fail in the design year 2025. Multi-lane roundabouts
would provide a better level of service, however certain movements would approach or exceed
the theoretical capacity. Capacity is defined as one or more movements in the roundabout,at a
volume to capacity ratio (v/c) of .85 or greater.
' While multi-lane roundabouts have provided adequate level of service in other countries, and
some other states, there remains a concern about their applicability in the United States,
t particularly at or near capacity. At that time, the Department was just starting to construct
roundabouts,, with only two single lane roundabout on the State Highway System. No multi-lane
roundabouts had been proposed at the time in North Carolina. Since our analysis of this project,
one such roundabout has been approved, as part of TIP project U-2926, Old Salem Road in
` Winston-Salem.
111AILINC ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
TRAFFIC IrNGINEERING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS BRANCH PAX: 919-250-4195 CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX f1I!ILDIKG B
1 S92 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1020 BIRCII RIU(i!_ llRIVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2 7699-1 5 92 N£BS/Tf: 1f'WIi:DpN.DOT.ST.~TE.h'C.CS RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27610
A52

Appendix B
Relocation Report and Relocation Assistance
Programs

~C~UEST FO£. FtlW [OST ESTI~yL0.TE
~'T
--- 08-12-02 ~.TEF~t~TE 0'D StCTION
I YED
~~
R-3833 ~ I 1
YTY
IREDELL _.
.OJE CT `{O.~ _ 1823301 A
.B B
~L`,'x'y..R: .TTMNry GOODNIGHT/P *•n- DiaM+Ond SPl~t.i
tiL~TED iti'O. OF P:~RtELS:
~'~.SS F , L O C.~TI Oi~F:
1=~,~.
.O:`; .
_ ES r yr ~ T~.D R,'w COST
68
70
3 ~ 36, 000 I9 ~ 108, OCO I3 . X36, 000 I5 ~ 6^, OOC
3 ~ 45, 000 I2 ~ 30, OOG 1 X15, 000 ~G ~ 0
4,326,500 110,884,,700 16,495,600 (1,362,000
600,000
280, 000
50,OOD
125,000
1640,000 1367,500 1360,000 212,500
5,647,500 111,670,200 17,'156,600 I1, 759, 500
~~' L'.~ S CR' °TIO:ti' .y.tl'D SpEC!_~,L I_tiSTFUCTtOi`fS:
7~0.':~w':11'i.eJIISL IJN~"'
,_.r
---_
~~ING OF SR 1100 FROM SR 1177 TO US 21 WITH A PROPOSED
. r,..?iANG~ AT I - 7 7
-°=-: 1S ~'L:R:`fISr'ti'D FOR EST1!`+L~TES: ~ .
PRELIM ** DUE 11-01-02 +**~
~:T!_~ ~_~_1 ~.S O. L:~`(D _-`,.!`.'D D ' ~1~L:GE.S ti ~ _- _• ' - -- R _'
-S.~S G DL' C ~ _~S ~S :=;:'.:= 5lG~Yi~'iC ~`iT, z'LE.~,S c c'LDL-~?.ti . .. __. .. ~ ----- . -. .
---T ~:.ti~ ~-.-.:~I r.~~:.~ T U L:~:~1~. :~.:YD ~:~~~1.=~~i~ 1 ~i ~~~/'-. ~(~l~(D:.'~'~l~(:~T_0.1• tilri -~~1~/:~.~1..`.~.~:1~ •~ _ r..~=...
. B.F. MORTON 09-18=02
~~.-.'~;
--Tit`,Is.TE ti'/~.$ YOT3.-._`'i'~ UPUtY F?•`i.:~ R!C~~ O~ ~~':~~' ?:..=.:Y~ ~(0 ci`r~? D'_'SlG~`( D.~?---
= !=~.`-. 1.CC(.'~-.C I ~~ S?-~J~ CT ICr ti'~~~.1~L1~c.R °_.~t`i:.:'~y / t3~ L'c~:Ct`( ~:~._~..? 0' ii~~!~ ° _
_'~ ., ~, CT~G ,
B1

ITM .
1 YED
~~
08-12-02
R-3833
`fTY:
IREDELL
:OJECT i`f0.E -1823301
~L`iE.~..R: ~T?I"'^~' GOODNIGHT/'
1L~TED i`+ O. OF P ~R~ELS:
~.~~=-SS F. L G C ~Tl Oil:
~_~5.
_ O :`~ .
^'rVr ~'T'~ n COS
- -~. ~ _ _~ F.,~Y T
R/QclEST FOR R/W COST ESThYLaTE
~L,TEF ~,L TL
A ~ 'g
D iaM+d+d
T.nI
125 68 Ob St CTION
B
S(~u,~

70
C

.
40
3 ~ 36, 000 I 9 ! 108, OCO I 3 . X36, 000 I S ~ 6^, OOC
3 ~ 45, 000 I 2 ~ 30, OOG 1 X15, 000 I G ~ 0
14,326,500 1 10,884,700 1 6,495,600 1 1,362,000
600,000 1 280,00.0 I 250,OOD 1 125,000
640;000 1367,500 1 360,000 1 212,500
5,647,500 111,670,200 17,156,600 I1, 759, 500 ,
~=' L'ESCR:!'TIO:ti'.~,t1'D SPEC.:_~L ItiSTFUCTlOi`fS: TcO:~_?'?~':ati•T -
. .~.eii~jti V!`%!'i
?rrc:-~-~~l xM
. L.z
--~_
ING OF SR 1100 FROM SR 1177 TO US 21~WITH A PROPOSED _
L..HANGE AT I - 7 7
°~.. `~S F'LR`iI5i1~'D FOR ESTl!`~L~TES. ~ :'~ ~ _ _,
1 - ~ PRELIM ** DUE 11-01-02 <r.**~~ ---' - ~ -~
_.5= :~ __Tz,S L.~.t`iL .-`~!~;L L.~tiL:G~:.S (I~YITE D?~T~S): . -~. :- •,-
_ _r~'
-S !~ ~ .~ ~ .-'._~ S~C~Yl:E'iC:~`+T, t'LE.~.S c E~~LrL?_1
~= =T .:.tiS _'.~.::1 : ~'.`..T. TU L.~a:.`iD =,:Y~ D:~e,1.=.G ~ iG CO`!~ ~ COc`fD:::ti1t`r:~.?':01 rti:ID : mil'/.:.~i:.`--::.::T: •, _ _-.: -..
_ -~ ~~ B.F. MORTON 09-18-02
_„Til`,IAT~ tiy~S :YO':'3.=.`=~ (.tPV:Y FL'`i?~L R!C~' Or ~v:~~' ?!..:=.:`(~ ~(0= ti`s?' D_'~'Ci`( D.~'...
!~•S ..CCL~-.CY:~ SL-y J ~ CT TU ti'r=~.T.:1'c.~ P_.~[`i ~_`f::~ / (i:-'. L'~S;C~i D:~~~..? 0'•'.iJ~, ~.
B1

~` C~~ST Fv~ R!W COST ESThyL~TE
TE: 1
=E!-yED
D.. ~ ~ i
~ Ut`~TY:
:O.~E CT ~ 0.:. I1- 383?j
~ GI`fEEF.: -
~1~',L~TED t (O. OF P.~F.EELS:
R-..L 0 C. _Tt OtY
;l=y°ESS .R-~LOCATIOt~i: '
=~ +~:YD D ~ ~Yl~ GF ;
:.....
=^~' S: '
. ~`=~=''~O~y'.
-. ~STiti'Lz?~ED FJI~ti" COST
.CT DESC~TIO!Y.~>fD SPECl~L Z`(STF.UCTlO~tiS: '
- '-
~ r PL. ~1S z'LR,!`iiSla..F.D FOR EST!!ti.L~,TES:
L5TliY! ~T~:S OF 1. ~ fD ~ ~ ~ ~ •~
:?~` _iYD L, tiL~G1:S (titi'ITL D:~T.ES):
~..-'~`.ES vR L.CF~.-`~S~.S :=.:: F S1GlY.(~'IC:~!YT ~LE.~`.Sc E~:.oL:L!1:
r- '
1 . _ 1 tr.J Li :,..C ~l~ !J:. + V ~ ti-f u r..'(~ ri ~ •- - - _ - - _ '
~.~ri.~l.r~ v~.V.r_.._,CIJ.+~.,,w1.1.~~_...tn..cr._.....a._....._. _
=DEz:
(D.=.TE)
:..:S r~"I~,r~..:` ~Yti` ;YOTB.~S=D L~PC)tV r=Y.~ Pt!C= i' OF ~ti':=,~' PL.~,:ti~ t`i0~ Fi~f~? L:c'C~`f C:~T-
(='= •~CCI.~~L': is SUP.!CC:'' Z'U ti`s=.T_ ~'~ °L:=.t`t:, ~`i.^, ~ 0~ L`.:~!C~`I D.~..'~ P G~'I11~!~ E...
B2

~ Appendix: C
i
Air Quality Analysis

1

1

2 .

In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air
Quality Staff using line source c
omputer•modeling and the background component was obtained
from the North Carolina Department of Environment and N
t
l
a
ura
Resources (NCDENR),
Division of Air Quality, Once the two concentration com '
ponents were ascertained, they were
added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
area in question and to
compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
,
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (?VO,).
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides e
itt
d fr
m
e
om cars are carried into the atmosphere where they
react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive emissions of HC
are ex
d NO
d
an
pecte
Z
to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of
pollution control devices on ne
w cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these
technological improvements maybe offset by the incre
i ,
as
ng number of cars on the transportation
facilities of the area.
t
The photochemical reaction
s that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours
to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozo
ne generally take place 10 to 20 kilometers
downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a wh
l
'
o
e, not individual streets
and highways, are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and are analyzed using an area-wide
analvsis. The emissions of all source
i
s
n an urban area mix tolet}ier in rile atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form oz
i
'
one, n
trogen dioxide, and other photochemical
oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that farms in Las Angeles
California
,
.
Particulate matter (PM) is the general term used fora mixture of solid particles and liquid
droplets found in air. Some particles are larse or dark
enough to be seen as soot ar smoke, while
others are so small that they can be detected only with an electron microscope
Fine arti
l
.
cu
ate
matter (PM-2.5 define particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) result from fi,el
combustion from motor vehicles
, power generation, and industrial facilities, as well as frorti
residential fireplaces and wood stoves. Coarse particulate matter f 1'M-) 0 define particles that
l '
are
ess than 10 micrometers in diameter) based on estimates of anthropogenic eiiiissians includes fuel
combustion
industrial
rocesse
d
,
p
s, an
transportation sources. Transportation sources account for
only 6 percent of the total PIv1-! 0 emissions nationwide. The PM standard is under review a
d '
n
may be changed in the future to account for fine particular matter and rile eE}ects ors human healt}i.
The NCDOT Standard Specificatio
f
R
n
or
oads and Structures requires contractor: to control dust
and other particulate matter at all areas utilized Burin; construction
includin
un
aved
d
,
g
p
roa
s,
haul roads, and borrow and disposal sites. ~
,
Lead (Pbj and sulfur dioxide (SOZ) emissions are predomin:intl}~ the result o(~nun-I~i~_li~a~av
sources (e.;;., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of ;eac! matter nd
sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is nu reason tc.~ suspect that traffic on the
project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed tl~e
NAAQS.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine tirture~CO concentrations
resultin`* from the proposed highway improvements. CAL ~QHC - .-1 ,1•f~,delim_ ~~lethc,d~,lo~,}•
For Predictin~* Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersecriune" ~~~,~ u~d tr, predict rile C'C)
concentration near sensitive receptor;

Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted
of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission
factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic proje~etions. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for
the years 2005, 2010 and 2025, using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors",
' and the MOBILESB mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per
' million (ppm).. Consultation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Air Quality indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is
suitable for the rural and suburban area.
The worst-case air uali scenario w
q ry as determined to be to the v~ctnity of tl~e
intersection of SR1100 and SR 1109. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations
' for the evaluation build years of ?005, 2010 and 2025 are 11.6, 119 and 15.6 ppm,
respectively. Using the regional persistence factor of 0.57, the predicted S-hour av~ra~e
CO concentrations for the evaluation years of 2005, 2010 and 202 are 6.6, 6.S and 8.9
ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations ~vitl~ the NA,~QS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 3 ~ ppm; S-hour averagin~j period = 9
' ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. See Tables Al through .q ~ for input data
and output.
Tl~e project is located in Tredell County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR "arts ~ 1 and 93 is
not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project
is not anticipated to create anv adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
Durin`r construction of the proposed project, all materials resultitt`; from cleariii: and
,rubbing, demolition or oti~er operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the Contractor. Anv burning done will be done in accordance with :applicable local
laws and ordinances and re,ulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning ~~ill be done at the ~_reatest distance
practical from dwellin;s and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to
the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also Burin<, construction,
measures will be. taken to reduce the dust `,enerated by conaniction when the contr~~l of dust is
necessary for tfre protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This ~~•aluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality ot•the 1990 Clean .fir .pct :\mendment~ and
' the NEPA process. and no additional reports are necessi~n~

1

TABLE Al
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-3833: Brawley Sehool Road, Iredell Co.
RUN: erawley School Road, Year 2005, Build
SITE 3 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
vS -0 CM/S VC = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60- MINUTES MIXN = 1000. M AMB
1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK
PAGE 1 ,
DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDIN ATES (M)
'

'
X1
y1
x2
Y2
' LENGTH BRG TYPE VPN
EF
N
u
V/C
QUEUE

`
1
EB
---------

.....................

------- -• (M)

--- (DEG)
(VEH)

.
App
2. EB Lt 0

'

-304.8

-5.5 -7.3

•
------

305

0

A

--------

----

-----

-

3. EB Thru 0 -14.6
•0
-42-2
-.5 ' .
28 .
269 G 1280. 16.7 .0 13.4

G. EB Rt 0
*
-i4.6
-7.3
-41.4
-7.1 * .
27 .
270 AG 1360. 100.0 .0 7.3 .56 4.6

5. EB Dep
-14-6

-14.6

-33.4

-14.0 • .

19 .

272 AG 1241. 100.0 .0 7.3 .45 4.5

6. uB App
•0
'7.3
304.8
-5.5 .
305 .
90 AG 621. 100.0 .0 7.3 .27 3.1

7
304.8
5.5

'0

7
3 . . AG 608. 16.7 .0 13.4
. u6 Lt 0 14.6
1.8
29
5 .
• 305. 270. AG 608. 16.7 .0 13.4
8. u6 Thru o
14.6
7.3 .
43
6 2.0 15. 89. aG 732. 100.0 .0 3.7 40 2
5
0
. ue Rt 0
1

14.6

12.8 .

31
9 7.1 '

12
4 *
29.
90.
aG
1345.
100.0
.0
7.3 .
.57 .
4.8
0. u6 Dep
11 ~
•0
7.3 .
-304.8 .
5
5 ' 17. 91. AG 569. 100.0
~ .0 3.7 .26 2.9

. NB App
*
5.5
-304.8
7
3 .

' 305. 270. AG 1280. 16.7 .0 13.4
12. N6 It 0
.0
-14.6 .
7 •0 305. 0. AG 947. 16.7 .0 13.:

13. NB Thru 0
7.3
-14.6 .
7
2 -49.5 '
' 35. 179, AG 1153. 100.0 .0 T.3 .53 5
8
14. NB Rt 0 .
14.6
-14
6 .
14
3 -35.6 21. 180. AG 1360. 100.0 .0 7.3 .43 .
3
5

15. NB Dep
*
7.3 .

•0 .

5
5 -24.9 * 10. 182. aG 1360. 100.0 .0 7.3 .21 .
1
7
16. SB App
'
-5.5
304.8 .
-7
3 304.8 ' 305. 360. AG 726. 16.7 .0 13.4 .

17. SB Lt 0

-1.8

14
6 .

-2
0 .0 305. 180. AG 947. 16.7 .0 13.4

18. SB Thru 0
-7.3 .
14.6 .
-7
2 31.8 17. 359. AG 783. 100.0 .0 3.7 .68 9
2

19. SB Rt 0

'14.6

14
6 .

-13
9 37.2
23•
C.
AG
1463.
100:0
.0
7.3
.61 .
;,g

20. SB Dep
•
-7.3 .

0 .

'S
5 38.0 • 23. 2. aG 1153. 100.0 .0 7.3 .36 3
9
• • -304.8 305. 180. AG 947. 16.7 .0 1 3.4 .
J06: R-3833: Brauley School Road
Iredell
Co
,

ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMET'cRS
------------------- .
.
RUN:
Brawler School
Road, Ye
ar 2pp5,
guild
-
LINK DESCRIPTION ------------
CYCLE
'
RED
CLEARANCE
APPROACH SATURATION
IDLE
SIGNAL
A
t'

LENGTH
TIME
LOST TIME
VOL'
FLOU RATE
EM FAC
TYPE ~R
dAl

= (SEC)
(SEC)
(SEC)
(VPN)
(VPN)
(gm!hr) RATE
2.

~. Ea Lt a

EB Thru 0
' 120
92
2.0
361
1600 -
330.b0 ---------
1 --•-3-----

4.
c6 Rt 0 ~cp 84 c'.0 382 1606 3~0.6t,

7.
u6 Lt o 120
' 42 2.0 537 1600 330.60 1
3

8
u6 Thru o 120
• 99 2.0 90 1600 330.60 1
J
.
9 u8 Rt 0 120 91 2.0 383 1600 330.60 1 3
,
12
NB Lt o 120
' 77 2.0 135 1606 330.60 1 3
.
13.
NB Thru 0 120 78 2.0 537 1600 330.60 1
3

14.
NB
Rt 0 120
' q2 2.0 275 1600 330.60 1 3

t7 ,
56 It 0 120
' 92• 2.0 135 1600 330. L•0 t
3
.
18 SB Thru 0 120
• 106 2.0 90 1600 • 330.60 1 J
.
19 SB Rt 0 120
• 99 2.0 275 1600 330.x0 ; ~
. 120 78 2.0 361 1600 336.60 1 ~
t

1
1

•

- TABLE Al (Cont'd)
RECEPTOR-LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M) *
RECEPTOR * X Y Z •
' 1. NNE-2----------------•--------17.1.--•---51.2 --•---•-.5---+
2.-NNE-1 * 17.1 36.0 -5 •
' 3. NE * 17.1 20.7 -5 *
4. ENE-1 • 32.3 20.7 ,5 •
5. ENE-2 47.5 20.7 -5 •
b. ESE-2 • 54.9 -1.7.1 .5 •
7. ESE-1 • 39.6 -17.1 .5
8. SE 24.4 -17.1 .5
9. SSE-1 * 24.4 -32.3 .5
10. SSE-2 • 24.4 -47.5 .5 •
11. Ssu-2 * -17.1 -54.9 .5
12. Ssu-1 • -17.1 -39.6 .5 •
13. su -17.1 -24.4 ,5
14, usu-1 -32.3 -24.4 ,5
15, usu-2 * -47.5 -24.4 ,5 •
16. uNU-2 -54.9 17.1 .5
17, uNU-1 -39.6 17.1 .5 •
18. Nu • -24.L 17.1 .5 *
19. NNU-1 -24.4 32.3 .5
20. NNU-2 * -24:4 47.5 ,5 *
OB• R-383'•
~. Brawley School Road, Iredelt Co. RUN: Brawley School Road, Year 2005, Build
MODE; RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle correspondin to
9
the maximun concentration, only the first
PAGE 2
angle, of the angles with same maximun
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
u1ND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
i'IND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE ' (PPM)
DEGR>• REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS RECb REC7 RECS REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14-REC15-REC16 REC17 REC1E REC19-REC20
Ax 8.6 9.1 9.8 11.2 9.2 7.1 8.2 11.5 10.8 9.2 8.7 9.1 10.3 11.6 9.9 S.8 10.0 9.9 11.5 1L'.0
DEGR. 221 239 186 209 227 307 275 271 297 312 37 53 ~ 21 37 125 1~: 91 113 144
~E HIGHEST CONCENTRATION 15 11.60 PPM AT 21 DEGREES FROM REC14.
1
T
1

TABLE A2
CAL30NC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
PAGE 3 '
JOB:.R•3833: Brawley Sehool Road
' lredell Co. RUN: Brawley School Road, Tear 2005, Build
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------
VS = .0 CN/S VD = .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S 20 = 108• CM
CLAS = 5 (E) AT1M 60. MINUTES MIXN = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM ,
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK C
OORDINATES (N)
* X1 LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF
Y1 X2 Y2 • H W V/C QUEUE
..---•---•----------•---•----••--- (N) (DEG)
1. EB App ------•-----'-•----•--
-304.8 - ------------------
5.5 ----------------- ,
2. E6 Lt 0 -14.6 •0 -7.3 • 305. 90. AG 1677. 16.1 --------------
3. EB Thru 0 •0 -43.0 -.5 ' 28. 269. AG 1343. 100.0 .0 17,3 64 4 7
4. E6 Rt 0 ~ -14.6 -7.3 -49.2 -7.1
-14.6 -14.6 35• 270. AG 1188. 100.0 .0 7.3 .58 5.8
S. EB Dep -36.4 -13.9 22. 272. AG 594. 100.0 .0 7,3 .32 3.6
6. u6 App •0 -7.3 304.8 -5.5 * '
' 304.$ 5.5 305. 90. AG 755. lb.i .0 13.:.
7. u8 Lt o •0 7.3 ' 305. 270. aG 755. 16.1 .0 1~.»
14.6 1.8 41.2 2.2 `
8. 618 Thru 0 14.6 7 3 27. 89. AG 700, t00.C .0 3.7 .69 4.4
9. WB Rt 0 _ 51'0 7.1 36. 90. AG 1244. 100.0 .0 7.3 .66 6.+
10. ue Oep ~ 14.6 12.8 27.3 12.5 * ,
• -p 7.3 13• 91. AG 523. 100.0 .0 3.7 .18 ~.±
11. N6 App 5.5 -304.8 -30.3 5.5 * 305. 270. AG 1477.. 16.1 .0 13.4
12. NB Lt o •0 305. 0. AG 1091. 16.1 .0 13.»
13. N6 Thru 0 ~ '0 -14.6 .8• _55.1 `
7.3 -14.6 40. 179. AG 1103. 100.0 .0 7.3 .61 6.7
14. NB Rt 0 14.6 7'2 -38.5 ' 24. 180. aG i301. 160.0 .0 7.3 .49 4.G
15. NB Dep ~ -14.6 14.3 -26.4 • 12. 182. AG 1301. 100.0 .0 7.3 .24 2,0
16. SB app 7'3 •0 5.5 304.8 `
-5.5 304.8 -7.3 305. 360. AG 776. 16.1 .0 13.»
17. SB It 0 •0 ' 305. 180. AG 776. 16.1 .0 13,4 '
-1.8 14.6 -2.1 32.5 '
18. S6 Thru 0 _7.3 14.6 18• 359. AG 728. 100.0 .0 3.7 .60 3.U
19. SB Rt 0 '7.1 41.6 • 27. 0. AG 1400. 100.0 .0 7.3.
-14.6 14.6 -13.9 37.9 .69 4.5
20. SB Dep _7.3 23. 2. AG 1103. 100.0 .0 7.3 .35 3.9 '
•0 'S•5 -304.8 • 305. 180. AG 1091. 16.1 .0 13.4
JOB: R-3833: Brawley School Road, Iredell Co

ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS .
RUN:
Brawley Schoo
l Road, Ye
ar 2005,
Build
LINK DESCRIPTION e CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROA CH SATURATION

LENGTH
TIME
LOST TIMF
VOL
FLOU RATE IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
.
(SEC)
(SEC)
(SEC)
(VPN) EM FA[ TYPE R~:TE .

..
__.-.----
---
-- -
--- (VPN) (gm/hr)

2.

3.
EB Lt 0

EB Thru 0

120 ---

95 ----------

.0 ------
-

359
-------------

1600

-
---------
316
30

---------

1

---------

.

B Rt 0 120

-

8"

2.0

495

1600
.
316.30

1
3

7.
u6 Lt 0 120 42
2.0
623
1660
3ib.3U
1 ~

8.
u6 Thru 0 120 99 2.0 155
1600
316.36
1
3
9. UB Rt 0 ~ 120 88 2.0 497 1600 316.30 1

12.
NB Lt 0 120
` 74 2.0 103 1600 316.30 1 ~
3
13. NB Thru 0 120 78 2.0 623 1600 316.30 1 3
14. NB Rt 0 120 q2 2.0 313 1600 316.3c! ? 3

17.
S6
Lt o 120 92 2.0 155 1600 316.30 1

18. .
SB Thru 0 120 103
2.0
103
160.0
316.30
1 ~
3

19.
56 Rt o 120 90 2.0 314 1600 316.3L' 1
3
120 78 2.0 359 1600 316.3u t ;
T

r

RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
' • COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR ` X Y

-
-• •--
•
^ --•--f
•-------
•••--••.--•-•- 2
--••-••- •
--*
1. NNE-2 17.1 51.2 5 +
2. NNE-1 + 17.1 36.0 ,
5
3. NE * 17.1 20.7 ,
,5
4. ENE-1 32.3 20.7 5 e
5. ENE-2 * 47.5 20.7 ,
5
6. ESE-2 • 54,9 -17,1 ,
5
7. ESE-1 * 39.6 -17.1 ,
,5
8. SE 24.4 -17.1 5
9. SSE-t 24,4 -32.3 ,
5
10. SSE-2 24.4 -4T.5 ,
,5
11. Ssu-2 * -17.1 -54.9 5 •
72. Ssu-1 -17.1 -39.6 ,
5 •
13. Su • -17.1 -24.4 ,
5
14, usu-1 -32.3 -24.4 ,
5
15. usu-.2 -47.5 -24.4 ,
5
16. uNU-2 -54.9 17.1 ,
g
17. uNU-1 ' -39.6 17.1 ,
.5
18. Nu -24.4 17
1 .
,5
19. NNU-1 ' -24.4 32.3 .5 •
20. NNU-2 -24.4 47,5 ,5 +
JOB: R-3833: Brawley School Road, Iredell Co.
RUN: Brawley School Rosd, Year 2005, Build
MODEL RESULTS
REMAR
KS In search of the angle corres ondin
P g to
the maximum concentration, only the first
PAGE 4
1 angle, of the angles with same maximun
concentrations, is indicated as•maximum.
u1N0 ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
~lING 'CONCENTRATION
ANGLc- ' (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 RELB REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 R'eC1o RECi7 REC18 REC19 REC20
------------------------------------
AX 8.9 9.1 9.9 10.5 9.6 7.7 8.6 11.9 11.5 9.6 9.4 C.2 10. '. 11.7 10.4 tU.1 10.2 9.8 11.4 9.9
DEGR. ' 222 234 185 210 227 308 276 274 295 311 40 St 2 23 37 132 140vc 116 144
' Hc' HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 11.90 PPM AT 274 DEGREES FROM REC8 .

T
TABLE A2 (Cont'd)

TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-3833: Brawley School Rosd, Iredell Co.
RUN: Brawley School Road, Year 2005, Build
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
vs = .o cM/s w = .o cM/s zo = 1os. cM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
PAGE 5
LINK DESCRIPTION • LINK COORDINATES (M)
'

• x1
Y1
XZ LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF N u V/ C QUEUE
T2 ' (M) (OEG)
1. EB App .
-304.8
-5.5

0

-7
3 • ---- ----- ------ -------- ---- •--
--
------
--------
2. EB It 0
-14
6
0 • . 30~..•. 90. AG 2068. 15.8 .0 13.4

3.
EB
Thru 0 .
-14
6 .

-7
3 -116.9 -1.9 • 102. 269. AG 1438. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.11 17.0
». EB Rt 0 .
-14.6 .
-14
6 -82.1
-43
9 -6.9
• 67. 270. AG 1120. 100.0 .0 7.3 .90 11.2

5.
EB
Dep
.0 .
-7
3 .
304
8 -13.7
* 29. 272. aG 553. 100.0 .0 7.3 .43 4.y

5.
uB
app
304
8 .
5
5 . -5.5 305. 90. AG 1194. 15.5 .0 13.4

%.
u6
Lt o .
' 14
6 .
1
8 .0 7.3 • 305. 27C. AG 1194. 15.3 .0 13.4

8.
Wfi
Thru 0 .

14
6 .

7
3 78.3 •
2.6
64.
89.
AG
691.
100.0
.0
3.?
1.01
10.0

9.
ue
Rt 0 .
' 14.6 .
12
8 82.1
30
8 6.9
• 67. 90. aG 1120. 100.0 .0 7.3 .90 11.2
10. uB Dep
0 .
7
3 . 12.4 16. 91. AG 470. 100.0 .0 3..7 .22 2.7

'.1.
Ng
App •
5
5 . '304.8 5.5 305. 270. AG' 2068. 15.8 .0 13.4

.2.
NB
It o .
' -304.8 7.3
•0
305.
0.
AG
1524.
15.8
0
13
:

'.~.

N6

Thru 0
.0
•
-14.6
1.3
-83.0 •
68.
179.
AG
1092.
100.0 .
0 .
.
7
3
89
4
11

14.
NB
Rt 0 7.3 -14.6 7.1 -47.5 '
33.
180.
aG
1272.
100.0 .
.0 .
7
3 .
67 .
5
5

15.
N6
Dep 14.6

' -1G .6 14.1 -31.0 * 16. 182. AG 1272. 10C.0 .0 .
7
3 .
34 .
~
7

?6.
58
ApD 7.3
-5
5 .0 5.5
= 304.8 ' 305. 360. AG 934. 15.8 .0 .
13.E . _

17
56
It 0 . 304.8 7.3 ,0
305.
180.
AG
924.
15.8
0
13
:
.
18.
56
Thru 0 -1.8
-7
3 14.6 -3.3 131.6 ' 117. 359. AG 740. 100.0 .
.0 .
3.7 1.20 19.5

16.
S6
Rt 0 , 14.6 -6.9 75.1 •
60.
0.
AG
1382.
100.0
.0
7
3
1
00
1G
.

20.
58
Dep -14.6 14.6 -13.5 49.1 '35. 2. AG 1332. 100.0 .0 .
7.3 .
83 .
5
~
-7.3 .0 -5.5 -304.8 305. 180. AG 1524. 15.8 .0 13.4 . .
J06: R-3833: Brawley School Road, Iredell Co. RUN: Brawley School Road
Year 2005 build
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK
------------------- PARAMETERS , ,
---
LINK DESCRIPTION ----------
CYCLE
RED
CLEARANCE
APPROACH SATURATION
IDLE
SIGNAL
ARRIVAL
' IENGTN TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOU RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
' ----(SEC)- (SEC) (SEC) (VPN) (VPN) (gm/hr)

2.
E6 Lt 0
120
104
2.0
352
160C -------
309.20 ---------
1 ----j-----
3. EB Thru 0 120 81 2.0 836 1600 309
20 1 3
:. E6 Rt 0 i20 4G 2.0 880 1600 .
305
~;;
7, u6 Lt 0 120 100 2.0 215 1600 -
309
29 1 3
8. WB Thru 0 120 81 2.0 836 1600 .
309.2~i 1 3
9. UB Rt 0 120 68 2.0 143 1600 3o9.2n 1 3
12. NB Lt 0 • 120 79 2.0 880 1600 309
20 1 3
13. NB Thru 0 120 92 2.0 429 1600 .
309.20 1 3
14. NB Rt 0 120 92 2.0 215 1600 309.20 1 3
17. SB It b 120 107 2'.0 143 1600 309.20 1 3
18. SB ihru 0' 120 100 2.0 429 1600 300.20 1 3
19. SB Rt o 120 100 .2.0 352 1600 309.20 t 3

t

1
•

. TABLE A2 (Cont'd)
' PAGE 6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M) •
' RECEPTOR x r
z
•
1. NNE-2 * 17.1 51.2 .5
2. NNE-1
3. NE 17.1
17.1 36.0
20.7 .5
.5 •
•
4. ENE-1 32.3 20.7 .5 •
5. ENE-2 • 47.5 20.7 .5 `'
6. ESE-2 * 54.9 -17.1 .5 '
7, SSE-1 • 39.6 -17.1 .5
8. SE * 24.4 -17.1 .5 •
9. SSE-1 24.4 -32.3 .S •
10. SSE-2 * 24.4 -47.5 .5 •
'
11. SSU-2 * -17.1 -54.9 .5 •
12. ssu-1 • -17.1 -39.6 .5 '
13. su
14. usu-1 • -17.1
-32.3 -24.4
-24.4 .5
,5 •
•
15. usu-2 -47.5 -24.4 ,5
16. HNU-2 * -54.9 17.1 .5 •
17. uNU-1
18. Nu * -39.6
-24.4 17.1
17.1 .5
,5 •
•
19. NNW-1 • -24.4 32.3 .5 •
20. NNU-2
JOB: R-3833: •
Brawley School -24.4
Road, lredell 47.5
Co. .5
.RUN:
Brawley School Road, Year 2005, Build
MODEL-RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only .the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
~1ND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND "CONCENTRATION
NGLE (PPM)
,DEGR)• REC1 REC2 RECS REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REG10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC1.5 REC7o REC17 RECiB REC19 REL20
MAX • 11.5 11.9 11.5 12.0 10.2 9.5 11.3 15.0 15.6 11.8 10.8 1G.9 13.1 14.2 13.1 11.8 11.6 11.9 13.2 1~.6
~EGR. 232 243 186 203 250 276 274 275 291 302 45 57 2 19 32 133 t:3 Sr4 113 t3~
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 15.60 PPM AT 291 DEGREES FROM RECS .

t

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix D
Highway Traffic Noise Analysis

f gam'
~~ \~
' STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNIEN'f OF TRANSPORTATION
' MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TYPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
' December 22, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: Kristina Solberg
' Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Will Dazk
t Traffic Noise/Air Quality Section
' SUBJECT: Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis for
Widening SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) From SR 1177
' to US 21, Iredell County, State Project # 8.1823301,
F.A. Project # STP-150 (11), TIP # R-3833
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
' This analysis was performed to determine the effect on traffic noise levels in the
immediate project azea as the result of widening SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from
SR 1177 to US 21 in Iredell County (Figure N1). This investigation includes an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing)
noise levels in the study area. It also includes a compazison of the predicted noise levels
and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected
resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the
' current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise,
appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise
impacts aze predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
' measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
1
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise,., or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust,
drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICEOF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGFI, NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
fAX: [phone]
WEBS/7>=: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.I/S
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOW BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH, NC

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 decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which
the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are ,
listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N 1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized azeas 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:
• The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
• The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
• The type of activity occurring when the noise is heazd.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that individuals
have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than others and some
individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also
enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example,
noises that occur during sleeping hours aze usually considered to be more offensive than
the same noises in the daytime. ~
With regazd 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 more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the
afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals.
Ina 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 time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected
individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives. Attempts have been
made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.

3
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to
determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses.
These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
' reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of
constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does
' time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise aze
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
' Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
deternune ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this
' noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide
a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in
the project azea as measured at 50 foot from edge of pavement ranged from 62.0 to 65.7
dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was determined for the project to be used in
azeas where traffic noise was not the predominant source. The ambient measurement
locations aze presented in Figure N1 and Table N3.
' The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current
traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for comparison
with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged less
than 1 dBA from the measured noise levels for the location where noise measurements
were obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise
' levels. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic
volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
' single vehicular speed.
' PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that
' describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise. The
. procedure used to predict future noise. levels. in this study was the TNM 2.1. The TNM
traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned
roadway, their speeds, the physical chazacteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground
elevation, and barrier top elevation.

In this regazd, it is noted that only preliminary design was available for use in this
noise analysis. The project proposes the widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) to '
a multi-lane facility from SR 1177 to US 21 with a proposed interchange at I-77. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The ~ ,
roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus,
this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions
made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during t
the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compazed, and the ,
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report. The TNM computer model was utilized in order to determine the ,
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the
design yeaz 2025. Aland use is considered impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain ,
a substantial noise increase.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with each alternative for this project
aze listed in Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of listings of all
receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and
the estimated noise level increase for each.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND NOISE C '
ONTOURS
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a] '
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2. '
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either
category. '
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the FederaUState
governments aze not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits aze issued within the noise impact azea of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge
of the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs,
RODs, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring
after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies aze responsible to insure that
noise compatible designs aze utilized along the proposed facility.

' S
' The number of receptors in each activi cate o for each section redicted
n' $ ry p to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5. These ire noted in terms
' of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or
exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under
Title 23 CFR Part 772, 33 residences, 4 business and 1 school are predicted to be
' impacted due to highway traffic noise. The maxirnum extent of the 72-dBA noise level
contour is 85.8 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of the
67-dBA noise level contour is 147.2 feet from the center of the proposed roadway.
t Contour information in Table NS shows this contour information by alternative and
section. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control
' over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction.
For example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent
further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise
' levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors by roadway section. There are 8 substantial noise level impacts anticipated by
this project. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +13 dBA.
When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2-3
dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily noticeable.
TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
' If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors. There are 38 impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project
area. The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the
' proposed project.
Highway Alignment Selection
' Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
' noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
alternative for noise abatement,...
Traffic System Management Measures
1

6

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 of the proposed facility.
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 ahigh-speed, limited-access facility.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with
a measurable degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the
receptors to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of
access, meaning most commercial establishments and residents will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway and all intersection will adjoin the project at grade
except for I-77. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway.
Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small
noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to
restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction,
a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor.
For example, a receptor located 50' from the barrier would normally require a barrier
400' long. An access opening of 40' (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). Hence, this type of control of access effective
eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located
along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid
mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these
two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
i

•
•

I ,
r
The only azea that has controlled access is in the azea of the proposed interchange
of Brawley School Road and I-77. A qualitative barrier evaluation was performed in this
' area for each impacted receptor that considered each receptor's FHWA NAC activity
category, source-receptor relationships, impacted site densities, and the ability to have
continuous barriers. The southwest quadrant of the interchange was determined to be the
' only potential barrier location. The second step of the barrier evaluation involved the
computer modeling of noise barriers at the potential location, using the TNM traffic noise
prediction model. The analysis was accomplished by developing barriers with TNM that
' would meet minunum noise reduction goals at the impacted site, by estimating the cost of
the barrier, and by determining the cost per benefited receptor. The optimized design of a
concrete noise wall that would provide the necessary reduction was 1326 feet long and
exposed height of 11 feet high. The barrier would benefit 7 receptors at a total cost of
$218,759 ($31,251 per benefited receptor). Based on NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy,
' the noise wall is not cost-effective, and therefore, not recommended for construction.
Other Mitigation Measures Considered
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise
impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The
' cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold
of $25,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future
sensitive azeas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use
control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this
.project, due to the amount of substantial amount ofright-of--way necessary to make
vegetative barriers effective. FHWA reseazch has shown that a vegetative barrier should
be approximately 100' wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to
' provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of--way would be
required. The cost of the additional right-of--way and plant sufficient vegetation is
' estimated to exceed the abatement threshold of $25;000 per benefited receptor. Noise
insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit institutions were
identified that would be impacted by this project.
' "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
Thewtraffic noise impacts-for the "do .nothing." or "no-build," alternative was also,
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 1 receptor would experience a traffic
noise impact by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of 0 to +6 dBA.
1

a ~
As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-
dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ,
The major construction elements of this project aze expected to be earth removal
,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
'
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working neaz the
project, can be expected particulazly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of ,
neazby natural elements and man-made structures aze believed to be sufficient to
moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
SUMMAR
Y
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects
especially in azeas where there are not traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts
were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise
abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures aze proposed. This '
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772,
and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted
for this project. '

TAB E N4
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1100, Widening, Iredell County, TIP # R-3833
~~ ~
Page 1
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID# LAND USE ATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMi1M INCREASE
rom 7 to R
l C urc E SR 1100 50 <40 -L- 340.0 L - - ~ 59 <40 + 9
2 Resi ence B 58 145.0 L - - 63 + 5
3 Busmess C 61 110.0 L - - 65 +
4 Resi ence B 60 120.0 L - - 6 + 4
5 Resi ence B 59 " 125.0 L - - 64 + 5
6 = Resi ence B 61 105.0 R - - 65 +
7 es~ ence B 61' 105.0 R - - 65 +
8 Resi ence B 60 11 S.0 R - - 64 + 4
SR 1100 From SR 1115 to S R 1113 ~~
Resi ence B SR 11 6 -L- 115.0 R - - 6 + S
10 Resi ence 56 185. L - - 62 + 6
l 1 Resi ence B 60 11 SA L - 65 + 5
12 Resi ence B 58 14 .0 R - - 64 + 6
13 Resi ence B 58 145.0 R - - 63 + 5
14 Resi ence B 56 175.0 L - - 62 + 6
15 Residence B 60 120.0 L - - 65 + 5
16 Busmess 55 210.0 L - - 61 + 6
17 Resi ence 57 165.0 L - - 63 + 6
SR 1100 From SR 1113 to SR 1112
18 ` Resi ence B SRI 100 59 -L- 130.0 R - - 65 + 6
19 Resi ence B 58 135.0 R - - 65 + 7
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).

TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1100, Widening, Iredell County, TIP # R-3833
Page 2
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
[D# LAND USE ATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1 00 From SR to SR 1 l 2 -continue
20 Res ence B SR 1100 56 -L- 165.0 R - - 6 + '
21 es~ ence B 58 135.0 L - - 65 + 7
22 Business C 60 105.0 L - - 67 + 7
23 Business C 59 130.0 L - - 65 + 6
24 Res ence B 61 ". 100.0 R - - 68 + 7
25 Business C 61 100.0 R - - 68 + 7
26 Business C 61 100.0 L - - 8 + 7
SR 1100 From SR 1112 to SR 1179
27 Resi ence B SR 100 SS -L- 195.0 L - - 3 + ~.8
28 Res ence B 56 165.0 L - - 64 + 8
29 Resi ence B 55 180.0 R - - + 9
30 Res ence B 56 175.0. L - - +
31 Res ence B 55 185.0 L - - + 9
32 Resi ence S9 11 S.0 R - - 67 ~ +
33 Resi ence 6 90.0 R - - 70 +
34 Resi ence B 61 85.0 L - - 70 +
35 Res ence B S9 115.0 L - - 67 +
36 Resi ence
- B 55 185.0 R - - 6 + . 9
37 BusinT C 57 150.0 R - - 65 +
38 Resi ence 56 165.0 R - - 6 +
39 Resi end B 57 142.0 L - - 65 + 8
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).

- TABLE N4 Page 3
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1100, Widening, Iredell County, TIP # R-3833
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID# LAND USE ATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 00 rom SR 2 to S R 1 79 -Continue
4 Resi ence B SR 1100 58 -L- 125.0 L - - 6 +
41 Resi ence B 57 145.0 L - ~ - 6 +
42 Resi ence B 57 145.0 L - - + 8
SR 1100 rom SR 1179 to S R 1 09 -
3A Resi ence SR 00 100.0 - - 7 +
3 Business S7 10.0 R - - 7 * + 0
3 Resi ence B 3 .0 R - - 7 +
3 Resi ence 15.0 R - - 69 * + 0
3 Business .0 - - 69 + - 7
4 Business C 1 0.0 - - 67 +
4A Business C 60 130.0 - - 67 + 7
4 Resi ence B 6 8 .0 - - 72 +
5 Resi ence B 85. L - - + 9
- 5 Resi ence B .0 L - - +
5 - Business C 60 120. R - - 8 + 8
45D usiness C S.0 R - - 7 * +
SE usiness C 6 7 .0 R - - * + 0
45F Resi ence 59 160. L - - 66 + 7
SG Resi ence B 6 0. - - 7 +
H Resi ence B 62 2 . - - + 6
5 Business C 68 75.0 L - - 7 +
55 Sc oo E 64 0 120.0 - - 8 +
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).

TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SRI 100, Widening, Iredell County, TIP # R-3833
Page 4
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID# LAND USE ATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
1 00 From SR 1179 to SR i 109 -Continue
~
SSA Business C SR 1100 61 -L- 80.0 R - - -
56 Business C 61 60.0 R - - -
56A Business C 62 120.0 R - - 8 + 6
56B Business C 60 110.0 R - - ~ -
57 Business C 61 100.0 R - - -
SR 1100 From SR 1109 to I-77
58 Business C SR 1100 61 -L- 90.0 L - - 68 + 7
59 Resi ence B 61 100.0 L - - 67 + 6
60 Resi ence B 58 120.0 L - - 65 + "~7
61 Resi ence B 59 50.0 R - - R/W -
61 A Resi ence B 55 120.0 R - - 65 * + 10
62 Resi ence B 59 115.0 L - - 65 + 6
63 Resi ence B 59 105.0 L - - 66 + 7
64 Resi ence B 59 60.0 R - - 72 * + 13
65 Resi ence B ~ 59 110.0 R - - 66 + 7
66 Residence B 53 135.0 L - - 64 * + 11
67 Resi ence B 63 ", 70.0 L - - 70 + 7
68 Resi ence B 57 130.0 L - - 64 + 7
69 Resi ence B 59 115.0 L - - 65 + 6
70 Resi ence B 59 115.0 L - - 65 + 6
71 Resi ence B 59 105.0 L - - 66 + 7
71 A esi ence B 59 65.0 R - - 71 * + 12
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).

TAB N4
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1100, Widening, Iredell County, TIP # R-3833
~ ~~
age 5
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID# LAND USE ATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 100 From 1-77 to SR l 1 16
72 Resi ence B SR 1100 57 -L- 130.0 L - - 65 + 8
73 . Resi ence B 54 175.0 L - - 62 + 8
SR 1100 From SR 1116 to En o Project at US 21
74 C urc E SR 1100 47 <40 -L- 420.0 R - - 59 0 + 12 0
75 Resi ence B 59 110.0 L - - 65 + 6
76 Resi ence B 57 140.0 L - - 63 + 6
77' Resi ence B 57 130.0 L - - 6 + 7
78 Resi ence B 55 165.0 L - - 62 + 7
79 Resi ence B 55 165.0 L - - 62 + ~.7
8 ' Resi ence B 53 205.0 L - - 61 + 8
81 Resi ence 59 110. L - - 65 + 6
82 Resi ence B 59 110.0 L - - 65 + 6
83' Resi ence B 59 110. L - - 65 + 6
84 Resi ence B 59 110. L - - 65 + 6
85 Resi ence B 58 115.0 L - - 65 + 7
86_ Resi ence B 57 130.0 L - - 6 + 7
87 Resi ence B 56 155.0 L - - 62 + 6
V~cm~ty of I-7 7/SR 1100 Interc ange
R71> Resi ence B Interc ange 69 -L- - - 72 + 3
R71 F Residence B 69 - - 72 + 3
R7l G Resi ence B 69 - - 72 + 3
R71 N Resi ence B 68 - - - 70 + 2
71 M Resi ence B 63 - - 67 +
R72A Residence B 65 - - 68 + 3
R71I Resi ence B 67 - - 70 +
R71J Resi ence 66 - - 68 + 2
-1.- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).

TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1100, Widening, Iredell County, TIP # R-3833
Page 6
RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE FROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID# LAND USE ATEGORY ROADWAY . LEVEL NAME CL DIST(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
R71 K Res ence 6 - - +
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).

1
1
•
1
1

Figure N1.
Project Loeatlon ~ Ambient Measurement Sftss
SR 1100 Widening; Irsdsll County, TIP•# R-3833
. .'.
North c.rou,. o.v.ranam or Tnnsparution
t)wuton a Hiphwrays
Proirra Drawbprrwnt d Aryysis Brr~
Irndell County
SR 1100 Widening From SR 1177 to US 21
.TIP # R-3833

TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140

130 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplfied rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110

Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press

90 Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I
B
70 Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD

E . Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50

Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves '
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10

0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Hayford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
1
1

1
1

•
t

r
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL -DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary signficance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 6t Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL -DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.

TABLE NS
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SL-MMARY
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) Widening, Iredell County, TIP # R-3833

DESCRIPTION
Leq NOISE LEVELS
(dBA) MAXIMUM
CONTOUR
DISTANCES APPROXIMATE fr OF IMPACTED
RECEPTORS ACCORDMG TO
TITLE 23 CFR PART 772

I- SR 1100 From SR 1177 to SR I I 1 S SOft
68.4 100ft
63.7 200ft
59.8 72 dBA
56.0 67 dBA
89.4 A B C D
0 0 0 0 E
0
2 -SRI 100 From SRI 1 I S to SR 1113 69.4 64.6 60.8 60.9 96.8 0 0 0 0 0
3 - SR 1100 From SR 1113 to SR 1112 70.4 65.6 61.8 66.3 109.6 0 1 0 0 0
4 -SRI 100 From SRI 112 to SRI 179 71.3 66.5 62.7 72.6 120.8 0 S 0 0 0
5 - SR 1100 From SRI 179 to SR 1109 72.5 67.8 63.9 85.8 147.2 0 9 4 0 1
6 -SRI 100 From SRI 109 to I-77 69.3 ' 64.5 60.7 64.0 101.6 0 9 0 0 0
7 - SR 1100 From I-77 to SR 1 116 68.1 ~ 63.3 59.5 58.3 90.6 0 0 0 0 0
8 - SR 1100 From SR 1116 to End of Project at
_ US 21 66.8 62.1 58.2 <57.0 80.3 0 0 0 0 0
9-Vicinity of I-77/SR 1 I00 Interchange 0 9 0 0 0
TOTALS -•-> 0 33 4 0 1
1. SOft, I OOR, and 20011 distances are measured from the center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of proposed roadway.
---.. ~.... ~..~. ~^.ti ~ tittle li• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ti^^~ ~
TA N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) Widening, Iredell County, TIP # R-3833

RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL IMPACTS DUE
TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION
<=0
1-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
>=25 INCREASE
"1" CRITERIA
"2"
1- SR 1100 From SR 1177 to SR 1115 0 5 3 0 0 0: 0 0 0
2-SR 1100 From SR 1115 to SR 1113 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
3-SR 1100FxomSR1113toSR1112 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
4- SR 1100 From SR 1112 to SR 1179 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0
5- SR 1100 From SR 1179 to SR 1109 0 1 14 4 0 0 0 4 3
6- SR 1100 From SR 1109 to I-77 0 0 11 4 0 0 0 4 2
7- SR 1100 From I-77 to SR 1116 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 - SR 1100 from SR 1116 to End of Project at
US 21 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0
9- Vicinity of I-77/SR 1100 Interchange 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS ---> 0 15 77 9 0 0 0 8 5
"I" As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of TABLE N2).
"2" As defined by both criteria in TABLE N2.

r

~ Appendix E
Capacity Analysis Report based on
2030 traffic

1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
~ R-3833 Capacity Analysis
,~ Report:
~/ SR 1100 (Brawley School
Road) from SR 1177 to US 21
$~ClI1tEC Mooresville NC
FOR:
NCDOT
BY:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Stantec Project No. 71000194
December 2003
.~
_.n..
Q„~
= 8EAL
Z,~,9
~~-- T
~~'y~ ~.NG~WE~cQ~~Q~'~:
~.
•,~~,~ A ~FRE~ ~~,
'~~ql~ ~ ~~~` b3
,z ~~9 ~

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................1
3.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 3 '
3.1 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ........................................3
3.1.1 BUILD WITHOUT I-77 INTERCHANGE .......................................3
3.1.2 BUILD WITH I-77 INTERCH~.NGE ............................................16
3.2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ...........................................28 '
3.2.1 BUILD WITH I-77 INTERCHANGE ............................................ 29
3.2.2 INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATION ALTERNATIVES - ,
BUILD ........................................................................................ 32
3.2.3 BUILD WITHOUT INTERCHANGE ............................................ 32 '
3.3 MAINLINE ANALYSIS ...........................................................................35
3.3.1 MULTILANE SEGMENT ANALYSIS 35 '
.........................................
3.3.2 SYNCHRO ARTERIAL ANALYSIS ................................:.:........ 36
4.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 37
EXHIBITS '
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP ........................................................................2
EXHIBIT 2: RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION ............................................. 39
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: 2030 MULTILANE AND ARTERIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B: 2003 NO-BUILD UNSIGNALIZED AM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C: 2003 NO-BUILD UNSIGNALIZED PM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D: 2030 NO-BUILD UNSIGNALIZED AM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E: 2030 NO-BUILD UNSIGNALIZED PM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F: 2030 BUILD (WITHOUT INTERCHANGE) UNSIGNALIZED AM
ANALYSIS
APPENDIX G: 2030 BUILD (WITHOUT INTERCHANGE) UNSIGNALIZED PM
ANALYSIS

APPENDIX H: 2030 BUILD (WITHOUT INTERCHANGE) UNSIGNALIZED AM
RECOMMENDATIONS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX I: 2030 BUILD (WITHOUT INTERCHANGE) UNSIGNALIZED PM
RECOMMENDATIONS ANALYSIS
- APPENDIX J: 2030 BUILD (WITH INTERCHANGE) UNSIGNALIZED AM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX K: 2030 BUILD (WITH INTERCHANGE) UNSIGNALIZED PM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX L: 2030 BUILD (WITH INTERCHANGE) UNSIGNALIZED AM
RECOMMENDATIONS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX M: 2030 BUILD (WITH INTERCHANGE) UNSIGNALIZED PM
RECOMMENDATIONS ANALYSIS
' APPENDIX N: 2003 NO-BUILD SIGNALIZED AM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX O: 2003 NO-BUILD SIGNALIZED PM ANALYSIS
' APPENDIX P: 2030 NO-BUILD SIGNALIZED AM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX Q: 2030 NO-BUILD SIGNALIZED PM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX R: 2030 BUILD (WITHOUT INTERCHANGE) SIGNALIZED AM
ANALYSIS
APPENDIX S: 2030 BUILD (WITHOUT INTERCHANGE) SIGNALIZED PM
ANALYSIS
APPENDIX T: 2030 BUILD (WITH INTERCHANGE) SIGNALIZED AM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX U: 2030 BUILD (WITH INTERCHANGE) SIGNALIZED PM ANALYSIS
APPENDIX V: VOLUMES
' APPENDIX W: QUEUE ANALYSIS AT SR 1100 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
e
I

1

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document provides the capacity and level of service (LOS) analysis for R- '
3833; the widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177 (Chuckwood
Road) to US 21 near Mooresville, North Carolina (see Exhibit 1 for project
location). The proposed alternatives for this project include No-Build, Build -
widening SR 1100 throughout the project area, Build -widening SR 1100 and
constructing a diamond interchange at SR 1100 and I-77, and Build -widening SR
1100 and constructing a single point urban interchange (SPUI) at SR 1100 and I-
77. -'
The 1996 Mooresville Travel Demand Model was updated based on the
construction of a new hospital and plans to locate a large office complex adjacent
to the existing US 21/SR 1109 and I-77 interchange. Traffic forecasts were
developed based on the model and the forecast previously prepared for the US 21
Interchange Modification (I-4410). The "Build" scenario for I-4410 is essentially the
"No-Build" scenario for R-3833.
2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY '
Traffic forecasts were created for this project for the 2003 No-Build, 2003 Build,
2025 No-Build, and 2025 Build scenarios. Year 2030 volumes were extrapolated
-- from the forecast using astraight-line growth computation. Individual movements
were then multiplied by the directional distribution and design hour factors to obtain
AM and PM peak directional volumes. ~
Since the forecast is based on the demand on the facility, it is assumed that there
would be no significant difference in demand, between atwo-, four-, or five-lane
facility. Therefore, analyses for the No-Build and Build -without I-77 Interchange
were based on the No-Build traffic forecast. The addition of an interchange with I-
77 significantly changes the demand as well as the travel patterns in the area. For
this reasgn, a forecast scenario developed specifically for the' construction of a full-
movement interchange was used to analyze the Build -with I-77 interchange (for
both diamond and SPUI configurations).
No differentiation was made between four-lane and five-lane alternatives in the
individual intersection analyses. The assumption was made that either option
would provide designated left-turn lanes where applicable, and therefore function
identically.
Hourly volumes were input into Synchro traffic analysis software to analyze
signalized intersections, and HCS to analyze unsignalized intersections.
Recommendations were. made to improve any intersection that operates below a
LOS D in the design year.

--_~
L.. _ _ _
r
. ~ ~.
~ v ,~
t F .
~' _ ~ ., ~.
1 .. ~'Y' i
~'~. __
} # :n i ~~r Y ~ ,T"+~._ tom. ~ ~~~_,
'``~ MooresviHe ~',
i ." - _ l
:' - '
~ 4 ~~ ~ ' ; .100- .r „ .~ [ - { y.'
'~ ~ } ~ ~ Wit,. ,< ~ c `rte' ~ _ ~.' i t
'4 c. _ ..
I
f
;~
c `~
fi4
~~
_ ~} t = ~ ~
4 1'~, I I ~ ~ ~ ~~ i yt ~l
y
" North Carolina
.~ ~" Department of Transportation
Environmental Impact Statement
R-3833 Capacity Analysis
SR 1100 (Brawfey Schooi Road)
SR 1177 to US 21
Project Location Map
Exhibit 1
i

1
1

1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1

1
Additionally, t#~e traffic forecast for the Build with diamond interchange and Build
with Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) are the same outside of the
interchange. Therefore the unsignalized intersection analysis is identical. The
signalized intersection analysis is almost identical for the study alternatives, except
for the effects of up- and down-stream signals. Furthermore, the traffic volumes
and corresponding intersection analysis for the section west of the SR 1100 and
SR 1109 intersection is identical between the Build and No-Build scenarios.
3.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Mainline and intersection capacity analyses were performed to determine the LOS
for the area for the No-Build, Build without I-77 interchange, Build with diamond I-
77 interchange, and Build with SPUI I-77 interchange. For this report, SR 1100 is
referred to as an east-west facility
3.1 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
All unsignalized intersections along the project having a total daily intersection
volume of 1000 or more in the design year were analyzed using HCS. The
results of the intersection analyses are shown in the following tables. Tables are
arranged beginning with SR 1177 and moving eastward across the project: As
stated earlier, no differentiation is made between four-lane and five-lane
sections. It is assumed that if a four-lane section is chosen, it will provide median
cuts and left-tum lanes as applicable. Y-lines are analyzed based on their
current lane configuration. It is assumed for this analysis that all intersections will
operate as full movement intersections in the design year. For any unsignalized
intersection not having a LOS D or better, geometric improvements were tested
to improve LOS. HCS output for the unsignalized analysis can be found in
Appendix B -Appendix M. A second table providing delay and LOS for each
individual movement.
3.1.1 Build without I-77 Interchange
SR 1177&SR1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1177 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C D C C
PM C C B B
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design .year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
3

1
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAYS LOS
AM 16.7 C
PM 14.5 B
SR12228~SR1100
SR 1222 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM B C 6 B
PM B C B B
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 14.3 B
PM 14.3 B
SR11158~SR1100
SR 1115 ~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C F C C
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
I

i
f

4

1
r
1
1
1
1
1
i
•
i
1

The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 21.9 C
PM 21.9 C
SR 2959 & SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 2959 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C E C' C
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in ,both the
current and design year Build scenario. Therefore, no additional
recommendations are made to accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 18.6 C
PM 17.5 C
SR 2997 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 2997 8~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C F C C
. .~ _
Analysis of this unsignalizea intersection snows accep[aUie w~ n i vuu ~ u ~~
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
5

The resulting ~ LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 21.5 C
PM 18.9 C
ISLAND FOREST ~ SR 1100
ISLAND 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
FOREST 8~ BUILD BUILD WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C F C B
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 23.3 C
PM 20.1 C
SR11138<SR1100
SR 1113 ~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F D D
PM B F C C
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made-to
accommodate traffic at this location.
i

t
•
6

r

1

1

1

1
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 31.8 D
PM 20.7 C
SR11788~SR1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1178 8~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F' F F F
PM E F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for the future scenarios due
to southbound left-turns. Creating separate left and right turn lanes, even with
over 500' of storage, will not bring this intersection to an acceptable LOS.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 118 F 12.7 B
pIV1 F 16.7 C
"Delay exceeds 11u seconas
SR 1178 8~ SR 1234
This intersection operates at an acceptable LOS in all scenarios. The location of
the intersection of SR 1234 and SR 1178, however, is relatively close to the
intersection of SR 1100 and SR 1178. The realignment of SR 1234 to intersect
with SR 1178 north of its current location is recommended due to safety
concerns.

1

SR11128~SR1100
SR 1112 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD ~ WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM D F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for the future scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 80.2 F
PM F 17.1 C
* Delay exceeds 120 seconds
DRAKE 8 SR 1100
DRAKE 8~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD
WITHOUT I-77 WITH
RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM E F ~ E D
PM E F C C
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions in the AM peak. An
acceptable LOS can be obtained for all scenarios by providing separate
northbound left and right tum lanes with at least 50' of storage
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 61.1 F 20.9 C
PM 36.3 E 14.1 ~ B
i
1

•
s

1

SHADOW BROOKE & SR 1100
SHADOW 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
BROOKE 8~ BUILD BUILD ~ WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F E E
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND _
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 48.7 E 14.4 6
PM 90.9 F 20.7 C
MALLARD & SR 1100

1

MALLARD 8~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD
WITHOUT I-77 WITH
RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM E F E E
PM D F D D
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all future scenarios. An
improved LOS (to LOS E) can be obtained for all scenarios by providing separate
northbound left and right tum lanes with at least 100' of storage.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 64.8 F 20.4 C
PM ~ 36.0 E ~' ~ 14.0 ° ° B..
9

1
SR 2943 ~ SR 1100
SR 2943 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD " WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
LEFT THR U. RIGH T LEFT THR U RIG HT
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F F 38.9 E F F 19.3 C
PM F F 21.7 C F F 38.3 E
"Delay exceeds 120 seconds
SR 2995 & SR 1100
SR 2995 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1.100 BUILD BUILD WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
I
1
1

1
1

Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate. '
Since SR 2995 is located relatively close to the SR 2943 and SR 1100
intersection, signalization of both should be avoided. The nature of the current
land development would allow a connection between SR 2943 and SR 2995 '
allowing vehicles from each to utilize the same intersection, should one be
signalized. _

10

i
1

•

1

1
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM '` F 23.2 C
PM '` F 92.0 F
"' Delay exceed~s`120 seconds
DRYE 8 SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
DRYE & SR 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM ~ ~ F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements 'are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 29.9 D
PM F F
* Delay exceeds 120 seconds
PLAZA 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
PLAZA & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
~~

Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate. ,
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows: '
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
"S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 23.6 C
PM ' F 98.3 F
" Delay exceeds 11U seconas
LOWES CENTRAL & SR 1100
LOWES
CENTRAL 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD
WITHOUT I-77 WITH
RECOMMENDED
8~ SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
Since the operation of this intersection is dependant on the other shopping center
entrances, additional analysis is recommended to determine the most efficient
method of providing traffic service along this section. Access management
techniques are recommended to mitigate the poor LQS conditions.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
LEFT THR U RIGH T LEFT THR U RIGHT
DES Y LOS DES Y LOS DES Y LOS DES Y LOS DES Y LOS DES Y LOS
AM F ' F ' F ' F F 18.6 C
PM F F 61.2 F F F 92.2 F
'Delay exceeds 11U seconas

f
•
12

LOWES EAST & SR 1100
LOWES 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
EAST 8~ SR BUILD BUILD ~ WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
1100 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
' Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for the future scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
Since the operation of this intersection is dependant on the other shopping center
entrances, additional analysis is recommended to determine the most efficient
method of providing traffic service along this section. Access management
' techniques are recommended to mitigate the poor LOS conditions.
' The resulting LOS fo.r each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:

NORTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 47.3 E
PM F 24.0 C
' "Delay exceeds 120 seconds
' OAK FORK ~ SR 1100

OAK FORK 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
& SR 1100 BUILD BUILD WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C F C C
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in the design
' year Build scenario. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
1

' 13

The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED
DELAYS LOS
AM 17.1 C
PM 19.0 C
ROLLING HILLS ~ SR 1100
ROLLING 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
HILLS & SR BUILD BUILD WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
1100 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S~ LOS
AM F 13.2 B
PM '' F 24.2 C
" Delay exceeds 120 seconds
SR1116~SR1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1116 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D:
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.

1
1

f
•
14

r
1
1

•

1

The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
LEFT THR U RIGH T LEFT THR U RIGHT
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 92.4 F 10.3 B F 50.0 E 14.7 B
PM F 58.7 F 9.5 A * F 31.9 D 53.7 F
* Delav exceeds 120 seconds
WINGHAVEN & SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
WINGHAVEN 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
& SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C E C C
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in the design
year Build scenario. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED
DELAYS LOS
AM 16.4 C
PM 17.5 C
SECRETARIAT 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SECRETARIAT 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
& SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C F C C
Analysis of this- unsignalized intersection .shows acceptable LOS... in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
15

The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
SHA RED SHA RED
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 17.8 C 21.7 C
PM 17.5 C 24.1 C
3.1.2 Build with I-77 Interchange
SR1177~SR1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1177 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C D C C
PM C C B B
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY S LOS
AM 16.7 C
PM 14.5 B
SR12228~SR1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1222 ~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM B C B B
PM B C B 6

1

•
16

r
1
1
1
1
1
•

Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore; no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 14.3 B
PM 14.3 B
SR 1115&SR1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1115 8~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C F C C
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 21.9 C
PM 21.9 C
SR 2959 & SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 2959 8~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
.. AM C F ., C C..
PM C E C C

17

Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year Build scenario. Therefore, no additional
recommendations are made to accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY'
SECONDS LOS
AM 18.6 C
PM 17.5 C
SR 2997 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 2997 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD. BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C F C C
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
.SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 21.5 C
PM 18.9 C
ISLAND FOREST & SR 1100
ISLAND 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD
WITHOUT I-77 WITH
RECOMMENDED
FOREST 8~
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F C C
PM C F C B
•
1

f
1
18

r

1

1

1

1
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore; no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY.
SECONDS LOS
AM 23.3 C
PM 20.1 C
SR11138~SR1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1113 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F D D
PM B F C C-
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND
SHARED LANE
DELAY
SECONDS LOS
AM 31.8 D
PM 20.7 C
SR 1178&SR1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1178 ~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT 1-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM E F F F
19

Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for the future scenarios due
to southbound left-turns. Creating separate left and right turn lanes, even with
over 500' of storage, will not bring this intersection to an acceptable LOS.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND-
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 118 F 12.7 B
PM F 16.7 C
"Delay exceeds 120 seconds
SR 1178&SR1234
This intersection operates at an acceptable LOS in all scenarios. The location of
the intersection of. SR 1234 and SR 1178, however, is relatively close to the
intersection of SR 1100 and SR 1178. The realignment of SR 1234 to intersect
with SR 1178 north of its current location is recommended due to safety
concerns.
SR 1112&SR1100
SR 1112 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD WITHOUT 1-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM D F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for the future scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:

1
1
1

i
f
1
20

1
1

NORTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 80.2 F
PM F 17.1 C
* Delay exceeds 120 seconds
DRAKE 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
DRAKE ~ 2003 N0- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM E F E D
PM E F C C
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions in the AM peak. An
acceptable LOS can be obtained for all scenarios by providing separate
northbound left and right turn lanes with at least 50' of storage
•
1
1

The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 61.1 F 20.9 .C
PM 36.3 E 14.1 B
SHADOW BROOKE ~ SR 1100
SHADOW
BROOKE ~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD
WITHOUT I-77 WITH
RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F E E
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
' combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based ~on -the recommended
improvements are as follows:
' 21

SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T '
DELAY
S LOS -DELAY
S LOS
AM 48.7 E 14.4 B
PM 90.9 F 20.7 C
MALLARD 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
MALLARD & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM E F E E
PM D F D D
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all future scenarios. An
improved t_OS (to LOS E) can be obtained for all scenarios by providing. separate
northbound left and right turn. lanes with at least 100' of storage.'
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S .LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 64.8 F 20.4 C
PM 36.0 E 14.0 B
SR 2943 & SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 2943 ~ 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis. is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
•

1

1
•
22

r
1
t

1

t
•

1

1
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
LEFT THR U RIGH T LEFT THR U RIGHT
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
(S) LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM * F F 38.9 E F * F 19.3 C
PM * F * F 21.7 C * F * F 38.3 E
* Delay exceeds 120 seconds
SR 2995 & SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
SR 2995 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
Since SR 2995 is located relatively close to the SR 2943 and SR 1100
intersection, signalization of both should be avoided. The nature of the current
land development would allow a connection between SR 2943 and SR 2995
allowing vehicles from each to utilize the same intersection, should one be
signalized.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 23.2 C
PM F 92.0 F
* Delay exceeds 1 ZO seconds
DRYE 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
DRYE 8~ SR 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
23

Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 29.9 D
PM F F
* Delay exceeds 120 seconds
PLAZA 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
PLAZA & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 23.6 C
PM F 98.3 F
* Delay exceeds 120 seconds
LOWES CENTRAL 8~ SR 1100
LOWES 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
CENTRAL BUILD BUILD WITHOUT I-77 RECOMMENDED
& SR 1100 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F - F
PM F F F F
I
1

t
t
24

r

t
1
1

Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
Since the operation of this intersection is dependant on the other shopping center
entrances, additional analysis is recommended to determine the most efficient
method of providing traffic service along this section. Access management
techniques are recommended to mitigate the poor LOS conditions.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
LEFT THR U RIGH T LEFT THR U RIGHT
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM * F * F F F * F 18.6 C
PM F F 61.2 F * F * F 92.2 F
"Delay exceeds 120 seconds
LOWES EAST 8 SR 1100
LOWES 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
EAST 8~ SR BUILD BUILD WITHOUT 1-77 RECOMMENDED
1100 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for the future scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
Since the operation of this intersection is dependant on the other shopping center
entrances, additional analysis is recommended to determine the most efficient
method of providing traffic service along this section. Access management
techniques are recommended to mitigate the poor LOS conditions.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F 47.3 E
PM F 24.0 C
"Delay exceeds 120 seconds
25

a
OAK FORK & SR 1100
OAK FORK 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
8~ SR 1100 BUILD BUILD ~ WITH I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F E D
PM C F F E
i
1
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for future scenarios. An ,
acceptable LOS for the AM peak, and an improved LOS in the PM can be
obtained by providing separate southbound left and right turn lanes with at least
50' of storage.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows: i
SOUTH BOUND
LEFT RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 48.1 E 14.7 B
PM 71.1 F 20.6 C
ROLLING HILLS & SR 1100
ROLLING 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
HILLS ~ SR BUILD BUILD WITH 1-77 RECOMMENDED
1100 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTH BOUND
LEF T RIGH T
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM ~ ~ F 21.7 C
PM F F
"Delay exceeds 120 seconds
•
•
26

r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1

SR11168SR1100
2.030 BUILD WITH
SR 1116 & 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITH I-77 RECOMMENDED
SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Analysis of this intersection shows failing conditions for all scenarios. No
combination of geometric improvements will raise the intersection LOS to D.
Further analysis is recommended to determine if signalization is appropriate.
The resulting LOS for. each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
LEFT THR U RIGH T LEFT THRU RIGHT
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM F F 10.7 B F 105 F 137 F
PM F F 12.2 B F F F
* Delay exceeds 120 seconds.
WINGHAVEN 8~ SR 1100
2030 BUILD WITH
WINGHAVEN 2003 NO- 2030 NO- WITH I-77 RECOMMENDED
8~ SR 1100 BUILD BUILD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F D D
PM C E C C
Analysis of this unsignalized intersection shows acceptable LOS in both the
current and design year. Therefore, no additional recommendations are made to
accommodate traffic at this location.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
SOUTHBOUND
SHARED
DELAY S LOS
AM 31.9 -• D .
PM 18.5 C
27

SECRETARIAT 8 SR 1100
SECRETARIAT 2003 NO- 2030 NO- 2030 BUILD WITH
~ SR 1100 BUILD BUILD WITH I-77 RECOMMENDED
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
AM C F E E
PM C F D ~ D
While no geometric improvements can improve this intersection to LOS D, it
should be noted that the poor LOS is due to southbound left-turns attempting to
find acceptable gaps in the SR 1100 traffic flow. Although delay is high, the
actual number of vehicles making the movement in any peak hour is 20 or less.
Therefore, further analysis would be required to determine if improvements are
needed based on safety issues.
The resulting LOS for each individual movement based on the recommended
improvements are as follows:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
SHAR ED LEFT THR U RIGHT
DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS DELAY
S LOS
AM 21.1 C 48.7 E 34.7 D 14.2 B
PM 29.5 D 29.2 D 33.3 D 11.5 B
3.2 Signalized Intersection Analysis
Signalized intersection analysis was performed using Synchro to determine a
combination of intersection geometry and signal timing that would produce an
acceptable LOS. The following section describes the improvements needed at
each signalized intersection and the resulting LOS.
The analyses assume that each intersection operates without the benefit of
signal coordination. Also, that movements currently allowed will be allowed in
the future. Should the decision be made to limit, remove, or combine access
points, additional analysis is recommended. Also, once the final design has been
chosen, additional analysis is recommended to determine signal coordination
potential. Signal coordination could be used in areas with signals in close
proximity, such as near the SR 1100 and SR 1109 intersection, to increase the
efficiency of the system.
1

f
•
28

r

1

•

SUMMARY OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES
2030 BUILD 2030 BUILD
2003 2030 2030 BUILD WITH I-77 WITH I-77
INTERSECTION NO- NO- WITHOUT I-77 INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE
_gUILD -BUILD INTERCHANGE (DIAMOND) (SPUI)*
AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM
SR 1179 & SR` F/F F/F D/C D/C DIC
1100
MORRISON
PLANTATION & F/F F/F DID D/D D/D
SR 1100
LOWES WEST F/F F/F DIE DIE DIE
8~ SR 1100
SR 1109 & SR F/F F/F DID DID DID
1100
I-77 RAMPS
(WEST) 8~ SR NIA N!A N/A C/C C/D
1100
I-77 RAMPS
(EAST) & SR N/A NIA N/A C/C N/A*
1100
US 21 & SR g/B F/F DID D/D D/D
1100
* SPUI option replaces ramps on east and west side with a central intersection
3.2.1 Build with I-77 Interchange
SR 1179&SR1100
In order to achieve an acceptable level of service at this intersection, geometric
improvements will be necessary on both the mainline and side streets. The
eastbound approach of SR 1100 should consist of exclusive left and right turn
lanes and two thru lanes with 100' of storage for each. The westbound approach
should have dual left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane in addition to two
thru lanes. Improvements to the side street should consist of an exclusive left
turn lane, single thru lane, and dual right turn lanes on the northbound approach
as well as dual left turn lanes and a shared thru-right lane on the southbound
approach. This geometric configuration results in an LOS D for both the AM and
LOS C for the PM peak hour.
29

TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 100' 100' 300' ~ 150' 150' 350' 300' n/a
SID** S S D S S D D n/a
*Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual turn lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
** Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
MORRISON PLANTATION & SR 1100
The intersection of SR 1100 and Morrison Plantation is a three-leg intersection.
The eastbound approach should consist of dual left turn lanes and two thru
lanes. The westbound approach should provide an exclusive right turn lane and
two thru lanes. Southbound, dual left and dual right turn lanes would combine
with the other approaches to provide a LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hour.
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR- NBL ~ NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 350' n/a n/a 150' n/a n/a 550' 250'
SID** D n/a n/a S n/a n/a S D
*Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where. dual turn lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage. needed.
** Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
LOWES WEST & SR 1100
This intersection is a four-leg intersection with a school entrance as the
southbound approach and the Lowe's shopping center on the northbound
approach. The eastbound approach should provide a protected left turn lane,
two thru lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. The westbound approach will
consist of exclusive left and right turn lanes, as well as two thru lanes. For the
northbound approach dual left turn lanes, a single thru lane, and an exclusive
right lane should be provided. The southbound approach should consist of an
exclusive left and right turn lane with a single through lane. This geometry
should result in a LOS D in the AM peak hour and an LOS E in the PM peak
hour. It should be noted that LOS D is generally considered the minimum
acceptable LOS. In this instance, the improvements needed to reach LOS D
(converting the exclusive right turn lanes in the eastern and western direction to
shared thru-right lanes through the project area) created an undesirable impact
to the area. For this reason, the laneage described was chosen as the preferred
configuration.

1

f
T
30

r
1

•

1

TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 500' 300' 350' ~ 100' 500' 300' 350' 550'
SID** S S S S D S S S
*Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual turn lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
** Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
SR 1109&SR1100
This intersection has a very heavy eastbound right turn movement. In order to
facilitate this movement, the signal timing needs to provide additional green time
to the eastbound approach. This results in a deficit of green time to all the other
movements. This intersection was analyzed with triple exclusive right turn lanes,
a free-flow right turn lane, and dual right turn lanes. All geometric combinations
were unable to produce an acceptable level of service.
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 350' 200' 350' 300' 250' 200' 300' 650'
SID** D S S S D S D S
*Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual turn lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
** Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
US218~SR1100
This is a four-leg intersection. to order to achieve an acceptable level of service,
the eastbound approach should consist of dual left tum lanes, one thru lane, and
a shared thru-right lane. This would require improvements along US 21 to
receive the dual turn lanes. The westbound approach should consist of an
exclusive left turn lane, a single thru lane, and a shared thru-right lane. The
northbound approach would consist of dual left turn lanes, a single thru lane, and
an exclusive right turn lane. The southbound approach should consist of dual left
turn lanes, a single thru lane, and an exclusive right turn lane. With this
geometry, this intersection should function at LOS D in the AM peak and PM
peak periods.
31

TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 250' n/a 300' ~ n/a 300' 200' 200' 200'
SID** D n/a S n/a D S D S
*Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual turn lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
** Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
3.2.2 Interchange Configuration Alternatives -Build
The Build alternative contains two possible interchange configurations. A
standard diamond interchange was analyzed in addition to the Single Point
Urban Interchange (SPUI) configuration. The following tables detail the storage
needed for each configuration. The Synchro output is included in Appendix - T
and Appendix U.
Diamond Configuration -Western (Ramp BC) Signal
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* n/a 500' 150' n/a n/a n/a 350' 500'
S/D** n/a S S n/a n/a n/a S D
Diamond Configuration -Eastern (Rama ADl Signal
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL ~tBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 250 n/a n/a 600' 600' 250' n/a n/a
S/D** S n/a n/a S D S n/a n/a
SPlll Cnnfinuratinn
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 350 n/a 300' n/a 450' n/a 300' n/a
S/D** D n/a S n/a d n/a D n/a
"Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual tum lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
** Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
3.2.3 Build Without Interchange
SR 1179&SR1100
In order to achieve an acceptable level of service at this intersection, geometric
improvements will be necessary on both the mainline and side streets. The
i
1

f
•
32

r

eastbound approach of SR 1100 should consist of exclusive left and right turn
lanes and two thru lanes with 100' of storage for each. The westbound approach
should have dual left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane in addition to two
thru lanes. Improvements to the side street should consist of an exclusive left
turn lane, single thru lane, and dual right turn lanes on the northbound approach
as well as dual left turn lanes and a shared thru-right lane on the southbound
approach. This geometric configuration results in an LOS D for both the AM and
LOS C for the PM peak hour.
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 100' 100' 650' 150' 150' 350' 300' n/a
S/D** S S D S S D D n/a.
'`Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual turn lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
*'' Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
MORRISON PLANTATION 8~ SR 1100
The intersection of SR 1100 and Morrison Plantation is a three-leg intersection.
The eastbound approach should consist of dual left turn lanes and two thru
lanes. The westbound approach should provide an exclusive right turn lane and
two thru lanes. Southbound, an exclusive left and dual right tum lanes would
combine with the other approaches to provide a LOS D in both the AM and PM
peak hour.
TOTAL EBL EBR. WBL .WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 350' n/a n/a 150' n/a n/a 550' 250'
S/D** D n/a n/a S n/a n/a S D
*Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual tum lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
' linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
"* Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration

LOWES WEST & SR 1100
' This intersection is a four-leg intersection with a school entrance as the
southbound approach and the Lowe's shopping center on the northbound
approach. T#~e~ eastbound approach. should . provide a protected left turn lane,
two thru lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. The westbound approach will
consist of exclusive left and right turn lanes, as well as two thru lanes. For the
' 33

northbound approach dual left turn lanes, a single thru lane, and an exclusive
right lane should be provided. The southbound approach should consist of an
exclusive left and right turn lane with a single through lane. This geometry
should result in a LOS D in the AM peak hour and an LOS E in the PM peak
hour. It should be noted that LOS D is generally considered the minimum
acceptable LOS. In this instance, the improvements needed to reach LOS D
(converting the exclusive right turn lanes in the eastern and western direction to
shared thru-right lanes through the project area) created an undesirable impact
to the area. For this reason, the laneage described was chosen as the preferred
configuration.
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 500' 300' 350' 100' 500' 300' 350' 550'
S/D*" S S S S D S S S
'`Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual turn lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
** Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
SR11098~SR1100
In order to achieve an acceptable level of service at this intersection, geometric
improvements will be necessary on both the mainline and side streets. The
eastbound approach of SR 1100 should consist of two exclusive left turn lanes,
dual exclusive right tum lanes, and two thru lanes. The westbound approach
should have an exclusive left turn lane and an exclusive right turn lane in addition
to two thru lanes. Improvements to the side street should consist of two
exclusive left tum lanes, two thru lanes, and an exclusive right tum lane on the
northbound approach as well as an exclusive left turn lanes, two thru lanes, and
an exclusive right tum lane on the southbound approach. .This geometric
configuration results in a LOS D for the AM and PM peak hour.
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
QUEUE* 400' 450' 400' 200' 650' 200' 300' 700'
S/D** D D S S D S S S
*Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual tum lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
'`* Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
I
1

I

1
f
1
34

US 21 &SR1100
This intersection is a four-leg intersection. In order to achieve an acceptable
level of service, the eastbound approach should consist of dual left turn lanes,
two thru lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane. This would require
' improvements along US 21 to receive the dual turn lanes. The westbound
approach should consist of an exclusive left turn lane, a single thru lane, and a
shared thru-right lane. The northbound approach would consist of dual left turn
' lanes, a single thru lane, and an exclusive right turn lane. The southbound
approach should consist of an exclusive left turn lane, a single thru lane, and an
exclusive right turn lane. With this geometry, this intersection should function. at
' a LOS D in the AM peak and PM peak.
TOTAL EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR
' QUEUE* 200' 250' 550' n/a 300' 350' 500' 200'
SID** D S S n/a D S S S

' *Note: Total queue represents full storage necessary, taper distances are to be
added. Where dual turn lanes are recommended, total queue represents the
' linear distance of each length of full storage needed.
** Denotes single (S) or dual (D) turn lane configuration
3.3 Mainline Analysis
' 3.3.1 Multilane Segment Analysis
The purpose of this section is to determine the operational LOS for SR 1100
' based on the chosen cross section. Segments were chosen such that volumes
were similar throughout the segment. Each segment analysis is based on the
highest average daily traffic (ADT) in the segment. Analysis was based on HCS
Two-lane and HCS Multi-lane modules. As stated in the Highway Capacity
Manual, any multilane highway with a median (including TWLTL) should be
considered as divided. Therefore, for the purpose of capacity calculations, a
' four-lane section and a five-lane section will be assumed to serve traffic
identically.

1

' 35

SR 1100 HCS MULTILANE SEGMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS
2030 BUILD 2030 BUILD WITH (-
SEGMENT WITHOUT 1-77 77 INTERCHANGE
INTERCHANGE
SR-1177 to SR 1113 B B
SR 1113 to SR 1179 C C
SR 1179 to Morrison E E
Plantation
Morrison Plantation to E E
SR 1109
SR 1109 to I-77 B D
I-77 to US 21 B C
The segment of SR 1100 between 1179 and 1109 experiences high volumes,
and subsequently poor LOS even with the construction of a four-lane divided or
five-lane section. This situation can be improved by adding exclusive turn-lanes
at major intersections, utilizing access management techniques such as shared
access, and by signal coordination. Further details on improvements are
provided in the intersection analysis section.
3.3.2 Synchro Arterial Analysis
SR 1100 ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SERVICE
Cross SR 2003 No-
Build ~ 2030 No-
Build 2030 Build 2030 Build With
Recommendations
Street 1100 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
- EB B A D D A A A A
SR 1179 WB F F F F A A A A
Morrison EB F A F F C A C A
Plantation WB E F F F F F F F
EB F F F F F F F F
Lowes #1 WB E F F F E F E E
EB D D D C E E E F
SR 1109 WB A A A A D E D D
Rolling EB N/A N/A N/A N/A B B B B
Hills WB N/A N/A N/A N/A C B C B
EB N/A N/A N/A N/A B B B B
SPUI WB N/A N/A N/A N/A E E E E
EB N/A N/A N/A N/A C C C C
SR 1116 WB N/A N/A N/A N/A C B C B
EB A A A A E B E B
US 21 WB C C B E F E F E
i
1
1

f
•
36

4.0 CONCLUSION
' The SR 1100 corridor is currently experiencing failing LOS conditions. Additional
development continues along the corridor, further degrading the mainline LOS.
As a result of high traffic volumes along SR 1100, many intersecting streets
' ~ experience substantial delays at their intersection with SR 1100. This is
especially evident in the signalized intersection analysis, as dual left turn lanes
need to be added for a relatively low number of turning vehicles, simply due to
the large amount of green time that must be provided to SR 1100.
While this analysis shows one potential solution for processing traffic, many
' others are possible. The following section details recommendations that could
reduce the number of turn lanes, as well as thru lanes, along the section of SR
1100 from SR 1179 to SR 1109.
' The anal sis shows the need for a third travel lane in both the east- and
Y
westbound directions from the western Lowe's shopping center entrance to SR
' 1109. Alternatively, the same LOS can be achieved by incorporating two thru
lanes, and one shared thru-right turn lane across this section. While the shared
lane will increase the potential for rear-end collisions, the recommendation
' reduces the overall cross section from eight lanes to only six. Additionally, the
. prohibition of left turns along this section at non-signalized intersections should
be considered.
Many intersections required dual turn lanes to achieve an acceptable LOS. This
was due, in most cases, to high east-west traffic movements, not turns from the
minor streets. Therefore, if the east-west volumes could be reduced, the need
for dual turn lanes from and to minor approaches could be reduced. Travel
demand management techniques could be employed to help make such a
' reduction. Land use planning should be employed to limit the development along
the corridor. Large tracts of open land still exist on the peninsula, and the
demand for more housing in the area will continue. Future development could be
' guided in such a way to limit trips either by limiting the size and amount of
development, or, more realistically, reducing the need for travelers to access the
system. Mixed-use developments containing residential units, along with retail,
' service, and employment opportunities will reduce the demand on the system.
White these will not remove the need for the project, they may help to reduce the
' need for dual turning lanes at many intersections.
If the SR 1100/i-77 interchange is not constructed, the number of westbound
right turns in the AM peak, and returning northbound left turns in the PM cause
' large problems at the SR 1100 intersection with SR 1109. System improvements
such as an additional connection between these two roads south of the Lowe's
shopping center should be investigated.
37

Finally, the option of building a "less than full-movement" interchange of SR 1100
and I-77 could be considered. The primary movement along this section is from
Mooresville and the Brawley Peninsula south to Charlotte, and returning. '
Constructing an interchange that allows only the eastbound-southbound and
westbound-southbound movements will serve the major movement, without _
encouraging the use of the interchange for local circulation. The removal of the '
northern quadrant ramps would also mitigate the conflict of placing this
interchange in such close proximity to Exit 36 (NC 150) to the north.

f

38

r

~ For the Traffic Forecast diagrams,
please see Figure 7 in the Figures
~ section of the Brawley School Road
TIP R-3833 Environmental
Assessment document
1

Due to the excessive size of the technical appendices, they have been
intentionally omitted from this copy of the report. If you need additional
information. contact:
Mark Freeman, PE, AICP
~).%~i~t...c .. .,. .. .. .
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
(919) 851-GBGG
[e-mail] .

r
1

•

}
1
Appendix F
Citizens' Informational Workshop ~lotice and
Handout

' ~~¢„t, 13111 Gilmore, P.E.
3 ''~, Transportation Bldg.
~b
•~...s
' -STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. -HUNT 1R. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR October ~ 7, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary David McCoy
FROM: Carl B. Goode, Jr., P. E. ~ ~l,~L
' Manager
Citizens Participation Unit
Solb~
DAVID MCCOY
SEC'RECARY
' RE: Notice of A Citizens Informational Workshop for SR 1100 (Brawley School
Road) from SR 1177 to US 21 with an Interchange at 1-77
' The following Notice is furnished for your information:
R-3833 This project proposes to widen SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) to a multi-
' lane facility from SR l 177 to US 21 with a proposed interchange at I-77.
CBGjr:dnh
Attachment
cc: Mr. Jack Palmer, Jr., Board of Transportation Member
Mr. David King
Ms. Janet D'Ignazio
Mr. Len Sanderson, P. E.
_ Mr. J. D. Goins. P. E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
M r. R. L. H i I I, P. E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. David L, Smith, P. E.
Mr. C. W. Brown, P. E., RLS
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P. E.
Ms. Deborah M. Barbour, P. E.
' Mr. John E. Alford, P. E.
~Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P. E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P. E.
' Mr. C. H. Casey, P. E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers, P. E.
' Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Blake Norwood, P. E.
.. Mr. Steve..Whisnant, RightQf Way, Agent.
FHWA
M '• .

' ~.
' PHONE (919; 250092 F.4X [phone]

1
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) FROM SR 1177 TO US 21
WITH AN INTERCHANGE AT I-77
Project 8.1823301 R-3833 Iredell County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
Citizens Informational Workshop on November 15, 2000 between the hours of
4 PM and 7 PM in the Burlington Room at the Mooresville Community Center,
215 North Main Street, Mooresville.
Interested individuals may attend this informal workshop at their
convenience during the above stated hours. Department of Transportation
representatives will be present to answer questions and receive comments
relative to the proposed project.
The purpose of this workshop is to present information, answer questions,
and receive comments regarding the project. The proposed project consists of
widening SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) to a multi-lane facility from SR 1177 to
US 21 with a proposed interchange at I-77.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Kristina Solberg,
P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611, phone [phone] ext. 245.
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. Solberg at the above address or
phone number or fax [phone] as early as possible so that arrangements
can be made.
i
1

•

} ~~• ~~ Me~nw .
~~
A' • '.
i.
F
YY~dcaiog ai S8 flop IBrawlel~ School Boat ham S81111 b 6S Y1
Nfitli a wrapose6 ialcrche~E ri all
~E~~1~61~~PN1,~3833
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 2761 }-5201
1

Brawley School Road
Improvements to Brawley
School Road .Studied. by
NCDOT
Early Planning Stages in Pngress
The North Carolina Departrnent of Transportation is
studying proposed multi-lane widening improvantents
to a section of Brawley School Road (SR 1100): The
study area extends from Chuckwood Road (SR 1177)
to US.21, with a proposed. interchange.at I-77 (please
refer to project map on-page 3 of this issue): •:-
Purpose. of the Project
The purpose of the project is to alleviate congestion
from the current and antiapated development in the
area and improve safety along this section of Brawley
School. Road. Currently, this route caries
approximately 19,700 vehides per day. In 2025 it is
expected to grry as much as 37,600 vehides per day.
Many citizens choose to use SR 1109 and NC 150 to
access I-77. Improving Brawley School Road and
building an interchange would provide another
alternative for accessing I-77 •
Continued on page 2
INSIDE. THLS ISSUE
~ Brawley Scholl Road Project
~ Citizens Informational Workshop
2 Existing Conditions
Z Proposed Improvements
2 Project History
Z Five Lane Undivided Typical Section
3 Probed Location and Four lane Divided Typic~ Section
Ci#izens Informational
Workshop
1
~1
Informal tilYorkshop to Camras Local Opinion
Local Officials and citizens will get a chance to view the
proposed improvements to Brawley School Road at an
informal Citizens Informational Workshop. The
workshop will take place on November 15, 2000 from
4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. in the Citizens Community
Center on the comer of Moore Avenue and Main Street
in Mooresville.
NCDOT personnel will be on hand at this workshop to
answer questions concerning this project Citizens will
have the opportunity to make comments, offer
suggestions, and voice their concerns about the. project.
For additional information concerning this workshop,
please contact Kristine Sdberg NCDOT at (919) 733-
7844 ext. 245 or by e-mail at ksolhcrl*.n'dntsfatC.nGUS •:•
OF t10RTy C/4
~~ ~o~
~~ ti
y ~
o ~
~~~A ~Q
_7~~ Q~~
r o~ SANS
1

1

Continued on page 2 i
f8rswl~y Sehool Rosd ~

Existing Conditions:
1
I
1
I

The study area is composed of residential
neighborhoods with commercial development
concentrated at strategic intersections. The currenf
right-of way width is 60 feet. From SR.1177 to SR
1109 the road is a 20-foot, two-lane, grass shoulder
section. From SR 1109 to US 21 the road is an 1'&
foot, two-lane grass shoulder section that.ttansitions
into a 36-foot, three lane section at US 21. The major
road faalities bringing traffic to the project are NC
150, SR 1109 and US.21. The existing utilities along
the road include water and sewer, telephone; and
cable. i•
Proposed Improvements
NCDOT proposes to widen Brawiey School Road to a
multilane facilityy in order to increase the capacity and
the safety along this road. Two alternatives are being
studied at this time. The first is a five-lane, undivided
section with curb and gutter. This alternative will
require 100 feet of right of way. The second is a.four
- lane divided section with a median and grass
shoulders which.will require 150 feet of~rigtrt of way.
The proposed widening is expected to be a
combination of symmetrical and asymmehicat
widening, addressing safety issues where needed.
Sidewalks, bike lanes and/or amulti-use path are
being.considered.forthis.project. • .
~~
~~
Five-Lane Undivided Section with Curb and Gutter
Bnwlay School Road 2

Project History
Continued horn page 1
A feasibility study was completed by NCDOT in
August 1997. This study called for Brawfey School .
Road to be widened to a five-lane, undivided
raadway with curb and .gutter.
The proposed improvements are funded in the
2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The schedule currently caHs•for the ptojed to
be constructed in three phases. The first phase,
between SR 1177 and SR 1.109, wiil begin right of
way acquisition in September 2005 and
construction in October 2006. The~second phase,
from SR 1109 to I-77, will begin right of way
acquisition in October 2006 and construction in
October 2007. The third~phase, from I-77 to US 21,
will begin right of way in October 2007 and
construction after 2008.
An initial sloping meeting within NCDOTwas held
on May 24, 2000 to define the limits~of study for the
project and to determine the feasible alternatives.
NCDOT personnel will begin their field
investigations by the end of the year to gather
information on the impacts to both the human and
naturat environment. i'r
10(1' Right of tVa~•
i
I
!..-~~y 1 ,, 11 ,, II
i2'-p" 12'-0" 14'-0" j
' ~ 14 -0 12 -0"
I i
~' SIdC~\ alk
S' SIdC\\'All:
Continued on page 3

continued Iron page2
150' Right of Way
Variable
I
10
00' 240' Median width
'
. 240
~-- -

_ 5' Sidewalk
I ~

_ 4' Paved

Shoulder
/ Shoulder'-.
__ 4' Grass Shoulders

i r
' / \~'~, I I
. ~~ i,_ ~
2'. Paved-~
Shoulder
~ 4' Paved
' ~ Shoulder ~ 1 ~'~~'
L

5' Side alk
I 1
Four-Lane Divided Section with Curb and. Gutter.
y.~ NC ISO - -
.. ~ -
- _ ``~ ~ Intcrchan~c
Begin ~~` = ~- - ;;,~- =
• - - ,ter -
Brawley School ~ ~ ~ ~
- Road Project ~: - - _~ ' Mooresville
/~ ~~1,c r 1 j. ~_ _
== ~.: :.` = ~`~:;- End
~_
c:huc6~.~oal - - - ~ ~' _ ~ - Brawley School
xoad sx t ~ 7~ ~ . ~~~-= Road Project
' _ ~ To Charlotte
~ 2 4
Project Location Map
for
Brawley School.Road
Widening Project,
TIP Project R-3833
N
W E
S
Brawlay.Sehoo~l Rwd 3

r

CITIZENS' INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
Iredell County
Widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road)
To US 21 with a proposed interchange at I-77
T.I.P. Project No. R-3833
November 15, 2000
1
NAME:
' ADDRESS:

1
1

1

1

COMMENT SHEET
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS MAYBE
MAILED TO: MR. BILL GILMORE, P. E., MANAGER, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, POST OFFICE BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
t

,.swc. ,
S3afi
3 ~ '
'l• y `~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMEN'T' OF TRANSPORTATION ,
JJ~MES B. HUrrr JR. DAViD McCoy _
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 27, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: File ,
From: Kristina Solberg, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject: SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177 ,
(Chuckwood Road) to US 21 widening project with a
proposed interchange at I-77
A Citizen's Informational Workshop for the subject project was held on
November 15, 2000 in the Mooresville Citizen's Center. Several NCDOT representatives t
and Town of Mooresville local officials were present to answer questions and receive
comments on the proposed project. Two stations with 1"=100' aerials, having a 220 foot
study corridor marked off (110' on each side of the center line) were available for the
public to view. The following is a summary of comments gathered from written and oral
responses to the proposed project. .
Timeframe of proiect
The majority of the public voiced overwhelming support'for this project. Most citizens
requested that the project be accelerated if possible.and say that it is "desperately
needed". Many citizens stated that it was "irresponsible" for the project to begin
construction no sooner than 2006, and it is felt that this project should have been '
completed years ago, along with the construction of the Pointe and other developments.
5-lane vs. 4-lane typical section '
Overall there was support fora 4-lane divided roadway. The citizens felt this option to
not only be more aesthetically pleasing and safer, but also be friendlier for the entire '
community.
The Mooresville Planning Director feels that from Chuckwood Road (SR 1177) to
BlumelStutts Road a 4-lane divided section would be best. A 5-lane section from Oak '
Tree Road to Williamson Road (SR 1109) was suggested.
Bonanza Enterprises requested that a 5-lane section be considered for the section between
SR 1109 (Williamson Road) to the Oak Tree Road/Canvasback Road intersection. There
are numerous businesses along this portion, with multiple entrances.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SER~9CE CENTER 1 SOUTH V1hLMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699.1548 WEBSITE: WWM!OOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC

There was a suggestion to consider keeping Brawley School Road atwo-lane road and
adding a center turn lane.
Another citizen asked that the section between I-77 and US 21 be widened to 3 lanes with
' a center turn lane and an additional signal at Talbert Road.
Proposed interchange at I-77
There was strong public support for constructing an interchange at I-77.
Round-a-bouts at I-77 proposed interchan~
' The Town of Mooresville is in support of a round-a-bout interchange.
Some citizens support it and some do not. One citizen stated that round-a-bouts work
very efficiently. One citizen does not believe that a roundabout can handle the volume of
traffic travelling to and from Charlotte.
One citizen suggested a diamond interchange with tight cloverleaves.
' The Mooresville Planning Director as well as several citizens felt that there is no need for
anything other than a half diamond interchange allowing access to Chazlotte and a north
bound exit ramp to allow traffic coming from Chazlotte to gain access to Brawley School
Road.
Sidewalk and Bike lanes/ Bike path
The Town of Mooresville Planning Director is in support of sidewalk and bike lanes on
both sides of the road.
Bike path and sidewalk suggested for the full length of road.

t
1

1

Public comments ranged from "Definitely needed" to "Would be fantastic, but not
necessary" to a few that said "Not needed".
Public transportation
The public voiced a growing need for public transportation.
The Mooresville Planning Director, Erskine Smith, requested that we look into
incorporating transit stops into the design.
Signals
A. request was made to make the signal at Oak Tree Lane more efficient
Try to avoid "loading" the project up with signals.
Repaving_proiect
Why didn't: the. recent repaving. prof ect include. a right. turn lane at Oak Tree going,
towards the Pointe?
t

i
EmerQencv vehicles
Several citizens voiced concern about the amount of time that it could take emergency
vehicles to travel during peak hours. '
'
Aesthetics
SRl 100 should be made as impressive as possible to coincide with the lifestyle of new
owners moving in each day, both business and personnel. ,
Project limits/Impacts ~

Improve access to exits 33 & 36 via Williamson Road and NC 150 and end the project at ,
Williamson Road (SR 1109).
Wid
i
SR ,
en
ng
1100 beyond SR 1109 would doom Talbert Road and that azea of Brawley .
School Road to be zoned for business. To extend it beyond SR 1109 and with an
interchange at-I-77 beyond SR 1109 would create another congestion problem, especially i
at Talbert Road. Rezoning and increased traffic would decrease property value of the
current residents. New homes would surely be taken in the Reed Creek azea along
Brawley School Road. '
Reed Creek residents feel that this project would only be advantageous to the residents at
the west end of the project and do nothing but add noise, traffic congestion, and decrease
property values in the Reed Creek area.
Don't construct the project unless there is an interchange at I-77 and widening goes all
the way to US 21.
One written comment asked NCDOT to consider movin the stud corridor if neces
g Y ~Y
to avoid impacting homes and businesses and asked that the minimum right-of--way be
acquired for the project.
Dangerous curves
Beach Tree curve needs to be redesigned to a safer radius.
The property owner of the horse pastures and riding ring between Canvasback Road and
Stuffs Road is very concerned about the curve being straightened out and the effect it will
have on his property. He would like additional alternatives considered to taking his land.
Short term improvements
There was a request for immediate improvements at the intersections of Stuffs Road and
Oak Tree Road.
.Please look at making improvements similaz to the improvement made at the Canvasback
road intersection. By adding turn lanes congestion was dramatically reduced and tie
effect has been lasting. Please. consider taking a similaz approach to the intersections of
Isle of Pines, Stuffs, Rolling Hills and Talbert. Charleston and Farmstead Roads are also
congestion points.

r
i
1
1
1
1

1

1

1

For short-term improvements add a center turn lane along the SR 1100.
Realienment of Oak Tree and Canvasback Roads
This was very helpful in helping to relieve some of the congestion in the area.

SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) IMPROVEMENTS
FROM SR 1177 (CHUCKWOOD ROAD) TO US 21
WITH A PROPOSED SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AT I-77
Mooresville, Iredell County
WBS Element 34554.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-150(11)
State Project No. 8.1823301
TIP PROJECT R-3833
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFIGANT 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:
to ~ ~r ~jregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
I`1'roject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
4 ~~o S l.~C.~/C.lil'~.~c~ 1' ~ ' ~ ) .
~a
Date ohn F. Sullivan III, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

. Mooresville
Widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21
with a proposed interchange at I-77
Iredell County
WBS Element 34554.1.1
Federal Aid Project Number STP-150(11)
State Project Number 8.1823301
TIP Project R-3833
Finding of No Significant Impact
Apri12005
•
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
By:
. C~ccw:~r~P ~~ I ~-l ~s
Stephanie L. Caudil ,
Project Development Engineer
. -K~~ CAROC~N•.
~N~N~
r r ~' ~-~~QEESSIpNgq
€ ~ SE Al l i
19791
Eric Midkiff PE
Project Development.Unit Head ~~NCIN'~`~
~,~ ER C ~~pQ-~ ~•
• ~~~~uunrna'.

•
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Mooresville
Widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21
with a proposed interchange at I-77
Iredell County
WBS Element 34554.1.1
Federal Aid Project Number STP-l 50(] 1)
State Project Number 8.1823301
TIP Project R-3833
Environmental commitments for the proposed action include the following:
•
•
Roadway Design Unit
The final design will avoid impacts to the Brawley Middle School recreation field
located on the north side of SR 1100, just west of the SR 1100/ SR 1109 intersection.
Specific Measures to avoid impacts to the recreation field will be determined during the
final design process.
Geotechnical Unit
Any underground storage tanks discovered during construction will be reported to
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
Hydraulics Unit
The final designs will be coordinated with appropriate state and local officials and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assure compliance with FEMA,
state, and local floodway regulations. Stream channel modifications will be coordinated
with appropriate review agencies.
Naturalized stream channels will be constructed where practicable.
Hydraulics Unit
A portion of this project is within Lake Norman's critical watershed. Hazardous
spill catch basins are required by the NC Division of Water Quality, and will be installed
where required.
TIP Project R-3833
Page 1 of 3
Environmental Commitments, for FONSI
December 2004

•
Program Development
Brawley School Road will be classified. The proposed functional classification
.for Brawley School road (SR 1100) from Long Camp road to Williamson Road (SR
1109) is a Rural major collector, and from Williamson Road to the Iredell County line is
an Urban Collector.
Roadside En~~ronmental Unit, Division 12 Construction Engineer
The NCDOT "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will
be implemented where practicable to control highway runoff and minimize wetland
impacts.
Location & Survev Unit '
Geodetic survey control monurrtents will be located during design, and the U. S.
Coastal and Geodetic Survey and North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be notified of
their location.
Roadway Design, Roadside Environmental Unit
The Mayhew House is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
H.T. Mayhew House is located on the west side of SR 1100, 0.2 mile north of the
junction with SR 1115. Widening will occur on the opposite side of Brawley School
Road from the Mayhew House. Additional landscaping will be added in the median in
front of the property. '
NOTE: This was an agreement between NCDOT and the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO).
Right of VVay Branch
The NCDOT Right of Way Branch will coordinate with the property owner in
order to relocate a stone monument existing on SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) between
Island Forest Lane and Pine Meadow Lane prior to beginning construction activities.
Roadside Environmental Unit
During design, consideration will be given to planting trees as landscaping within
the right-of--way, particularly the interchange. .
TIP Project R-3833 Page 2 of 3
Environmental Commitments, for FONSI
December ?004

•
As part of the agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office, appropriate
vegetation will be planted in the median in front of the Mayhew house to mitigate for the
visual impacts of the road-widening project. The Mayhew house is located on the west
side of SR 1100, 0.2 mile north of the junction with SR 1115.
NOTE: The landscaping plan rill be developed during or following construction.
Division 12 Construction Engineer
The proposed 16-foot outside lane will be striped fora 12-foot wide travel lane
and a four foot wide bike lane with bike lane symbol, pavement marking and signing
according to MUTCD guidelines. For the full recommendations from the NCDOT
Bicycle and Pedestrian Division please see Appendix A of the EA.
Funds Administration Section
A cost-sharing agreement for the construction of sidewalks along both sides of
Brawley School Road will be finalized prior to construction. This agreement will involve
NCDOT, the Town of Mooresville, -and Iredell County.
Roadway Design, Right of Way Branch, and Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
The Right of Way Cost Estimate and Relocation Report will be updated and
included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document.
This commitment has been~completed.
Roadway Design Unit and Hydraulics Unit
The Hydraulic recommendation report will be updated to include the Gibbs Road
relocation and will be included in the Finding of No Signif cant Impact (FONSI)
document. '
NCDOT proposes to construct a bridge over the tributary at the Gibbs Road
relocation. This commitment has been completed.
•
Roadway Design Unit, Congestion Management, and Signals & Geometries Unit
NCDOT has not finalized the design but will continue to do so. The
recommendations made in the December 2003 Capacity Analysis Report (Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc., Appendix E of the Environmental Assessment) .will continue to
be-analyzed and improvements will be made prior to and included in.the.final design. .. .
TIP Project R-3833
Page 3 of 3
Environmental Commitments, for FONSI
December 2004

•
t
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION .................................................................................................... 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................ 1
III. SUMMARS' OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE EN~'IRONn'IEN'TAL
IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................... 2
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ................................................................... 3
A. CIRCULATIO\ OF THE ENVIRONMENT,4I. ASSESSMENT ............................................... ~
B. CO~I~IENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRON\IF.\T,4L .ASSESSMENT ................................. 4
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AN'D FOLLO\\'ING THE PUBLIC HEARING ................. 22
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................. 26
A. MEDIAN BREAhS ..................................................................................................... 26
B. ROW COST. RELOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION COST UPDATES ............................ 26
C. WILLIA~ISON~S CHAPEL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH/ SR 1100 REALIGNMENT...2fi
D. LOS ANALYSIS FOR INTERSECTIONS ALONG BR.4\\~LEY SCHOOL ROAD ............... 27
E. BRIDGE CROSSING AT GIBBS ROAD .......................................................................... 29
F. PROJECT I-3819 ......:.....................:....................:..................................................... 29
Cr. NOISE ANALYSIS RESULTS ...........................................................................:............ 29
H. INTERCHANGE JUSTIFICATION .....................................................::............................ 30
I. PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL AND TRAFFIC SIGN.AL ............................................ ~4
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................. 34
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
APPENDIX. .
Appendix A -Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Appendix B -Public Hearing Notice and Handout
Appendix C -Relocation and Right of Way Cost Updates

SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) IMPROVEMENTS .
FROM SR l 177 (CHUCKWOOD ROAD) TO US 21
WITH A PROPOSED SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AT I-77
Mooresville, lredell County
WBS Element 3454.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-10(11)
State Project No. 8.182 X301
TIP PROJECT R-3833
FINllING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared h~ the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Hi=hwavs
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
the Federal Hich~~av .Administration
I. 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 widen SR
1100 (Brawley School Road) to a multi-lane facility from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to
US 21 with a proposed interchange at I-77 in Iredell County (see Figure 1). Additionally,
the intersection of SR 1196 (Gibbs Road) and Brawley School Road will be relocated to
the west of its current location and tie in to Brawley School Road directly across from
Rolling Hills Road (Figure 3, Sheet 3 in the Environmental Assessment). The total project
length is 5.9 miles.
This project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition to begin in federal fiscal year 2005 and construction to begin in federal fiscal
year 2007.
The total cost of the improvements recommended for this project is $80,676,000
which includes $37,800,000 for construction and $42,876,000 for right of way acquisition.
Due to a shift in alignment to the south between the entrance to Mooresville Plantation and
SR 1109, 4 additional businesses may be relocated. The Right of Way Cost Estimate and

• Relocation Report included in the EA document does not reflect the additional relocatees.
The updated Right of Way cost estimate and relocation report is included in Appendix C of
this document. The 2004-2010 TIP includes a total funding for this project of $45,860,000
' which includes $22.000.000 for construction and $17,600,000 for right of way acquisition
with an additional $4,500,000 for post year (after 2010) construction and $1,760,000 for
post year right of way.
III. SliMV1AR1' OF BENEFICIAL :1ND ADVERSE EN~'IRUNMENTAL
IMPACTS
The proposed improvements will allo~~ more efficient vehicle operation and
reduced travel times. This will result in road user cost savins. Automobile traffic safety
will be enhanced. Access to homes. businesses. and public facilities will be improved.
The project will also improve access to Charlotte for commuter traffic via I-77.
' "fhc needs for the proposed project arc dui u~ safety, route connectivity, and system
performance. "[ ire primary purpose of the pr~~posed project is to imprm~e access, reduce
congestion from current and anticipated gro~~lh. and increase safet~• for travelers along this
section of F3ra~a]~~ School Road. 'I~hc propos~il ~~idenin~~ of I3rawlev School Road with
the addition of an . interchange at 1-7 7 will address the needs stated above. 1'he
improvement of access will be established ~~itL an interchange at I-77. Currently the only
access to I-77 from the Brawley School Peninsula is via I3rawley School Road and SR
l 109 (V4'illiamson Road). The reliance 'on only SR 1109 to access 1-77 is straining the
ability for SR l 1 U9 to accommodate the demand. Providing a new interchange at Brawley
Schvol Road and ~I-77 will provide motorists with an alternate route to access I-77, thus
relieving congestion along SR l 109 and decreasing travel times. V1'idening of Brawls}'
School Road will increase the roadway capacit~• needed to serve current and furiu-e demand
in this area. As a secondary benefit to the area, these improvements will increase the LOS
on the part of SR l 109 that is currently opcratin~~ under capacity, making this section
operate more efficiently by removing traff c from 5R 1109 in the year 2030. The widening
project will also address the poor horizontal alignment, which contributes to capacity
reduction. Travel safety will be increased by upgrading lane widths to proper standards.
with the use of a four lane divided section, and by increasing the sight distance along the
route. This widening project is listed in the 1993 lredell Counh' Thoroughfare Plan as a
first priority for the years 3000-2010.
Due to the project's location on a ridge there are no wetland areas, therefore
impacts to wetlands are not anticipated from project construction. However, three stream
crossings exist within the project limits. Additionally, part of the project is within a
critical watershed, and as a result hazardous spill basins will be installed where required.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be
required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material in to the "Waters of the
United States". Due to surface water impacts less than 300 linear feet per stream, a
nationwide Section 404 Permit will likely be necessary for this project.
This project will require a 401 Water Certification from the DWQ prior to
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue
or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activitiy that may result
in a discharge to Waters of the United States.

Approximately 120 feet of additional right of way will be required for T.I.P. .
Project R-3833, along with temporary easements, resulting in an estimated thirty (30)
residential relocations and fourteen (14) business relocations.
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 hi~~h~~a~~ after the Date of Public Kno~~ ledge. The Date of Public Knowledge is
the approval date of the FONSI or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For
development occtn•rin~ after this public kno~cled`~e date, local governin~_ bodies are
responsible for insuring that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed
facilit~~. `
Summary of Impacts - R-3833
Resource Im acts
Wetlands 0 acres
Streams < 300 linear ft/stream (3 streams)
Buffers 0
Relocations 30 residences, 14 businesses
Haz-mat Sites DUST Sites
Noise Receptors >; residences, 4 business, 1 school, 8
substantial noise level im acts
Prime Agricultural Lands 0
Terrestrial Forests 63.9 acres
Endangered S ecies 0
Section 106 Pro erties 31- Ma hew House- No Effect
Section 4( Pro erties 1-Brawle School field- No Im act
Churches /Schools 5-None Im acted
EJ Communities No
Air Quali No
Critical Water Su lies Yes
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Division of Highways and
the FHWA on December 31, 2003. 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.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission* '
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources*

•

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality*
Division of Environmental Health*
City of Mooresville
Iredell Countti~
B. Comments Received on the Em~ironmental Assessment
U.S. Arm~~ Corns of En,ineers
Comment: ...'~a bridged crossin, on the Gibbs road relocation may be appropriate".
Response: NCDOT has evaluated the potential for a bridge in this location and agrees
that a bridge would be appropriate. See Revisions to the EA. Section V.E.
for a full description of this amendment.
Comment: `'Low flow sills may be appropriate on any new box culverts or box culvert
extensions to enhance fish passage...and any perched or hanging culverts
should be corrected".
Response: NCDOT will investigate the use of low flow sills, and any corrections to
hanging culverts during final design.
• United States Environmental Protection A~ency
Comment: "This project is a nor-Merger Team project. However, this project would
have been a viable candidate for inclusion in the Merger process because
of several factors, including the potential impact to unnamed tributaries
(UT's) to the critical water supplies at Lake Norman, construction of a
new interchange within one mile of an existing interchange, and the
construction of a two-lane, 3,000-foot new location segment for residential
traffic."
Response: This project was not considered for the merger process, as stream impacts
throughout the project, including the Gibbs road relocation site, would be
limited to 300 linear feet or less and therefore would not require an
Individual Permit. Please see Section III of this document, "Summary of
Environmental Impacts " for a table depicting impacts due to the proposed
improvements.
Comment: "There is no summary table of anticipated impacts to the human and
natural environment and other sections are lacking specific analysis and
impact details. These sections are identified below."
Response: Please see section III of this document, "Summary of Environmental
Impacts " for a table depicting impacts due to the proposed improvements.
Comment: "While safety is always a concern, statistical information provided in
Table 5 on page 10 indicates that Brawley School Road is well below the
State-wide averages for all major categories of accident types. Other traffic

system management (TSM) measures could help to alleviate some of the
more problematic intersections or other areas of conflict. For example,
conflicts with school buses (estimated at SO school buses making two trips
per day) could be addressed through providing separate turn and "queuing"
lanes near Williamson Road and Oaktree Road. Existing horizontal and
~~ertical curvatures for Brawley School Road do not appear to be critical or
outside of typical design standards. The rationale for constructing curb and
~~uttei• throughout the project as discussed on page 1 l of tl~e EA does not
appear to be supported b~~ accident studies. EPA would suggest that curb
and butters do little or nothin~~ in the way of "running of the road" or
"hitting a fixed object''. Rear-end/stop type accidents mentioned in the EA
~•ould be unaffected by the addition of curbs and gutters.''
Response: The accident analysis prepared for this document indicates that accidents
along Brawley school road ha. e risen sharply in the last few years, from
17 total accidents in 1999 to 60 in 2002. As discussed on page 10 of the
EA, "All types of accident rates were below the state average for this type
of facility during the study period. However, these numbers are somewhat
deceiving... the project is ~.9 miles long with a high number of accidents
concentrated at certain locations along the project". This section of the
EA further noted that "the majority of accidents were rear-end collisions...
indicative of a two-lane facility operating above its design limits". The •
next highest accident type was left turning traffic collisions. These types of
collisions could be avoided by providing a four lane median-divided
section. Two additional lanes would help to reduce accidents due to rear-
end collisions, and combined with a median divided facility, these
improvements would restrict left turning movements from intersecting
roadways, thereby reducing conflicting movements and improving safety
along Brawley School Road..
TSM methods were considered during the development of this project, and
will continue to be considered during final design. TSM alternatives include.
those types of limited construction activities designed to maximize the
utilization and energy efficiency of an existing roadway. Additionally,
analysis of intersections ~~~here traffic signals may be merited is included in
Section V. D. of this document. Possible TSM improvement options include
traffic signal optimization or improvements to existing roadways in the
vicinity of the proposed project. While TSM measures will aid in reducing
congestion and improving safety,-those measures alone v~-ill not adequately
accommodate the projected traffic volumes on Brawley School Road. Based
on the traffic forecast, the LOS along Brawley School Road in the current
year ranges from E to F; without improvements to the existing road, the
LOS facility in the 2030 design year v~~ll operate at a LOS F. Individual
intersection improvements were reevaluated in Section V. D. of this
document; however, intersection improvements alone would not influence
the mainline LOS, because there are not enough existing,through lanes to
adequately accommodate the traffic.

• Comment: '`The EA does not address the lost travel time in accessiT~g Interstate 77 or
other major roadways. Thus. it is not possible to determine if improved
access is really a major need. The existing interchange at NC 1 ~0 is
approximately 1 mile from the new proposed interchange. There is no
detailed analysis in the EA which addresses why improvements to the NC
1 SO interchange could not provide improved connectivity. The NC 150
interchange should have been considered to be within thr project study
area and included in the alternatives analysis."
Response: Ciu-rently, Brawley School Read serves as the only access to portions of
the Brawley Peninsula. Lar~~e amounts of residential deg rlopment over
the past several years have caused Brawley School Road to experience
volumes well exceeding its practical capacity. Additionally. the area
serves as a bedroom community for Charlotte. NC. There is a large
movement from the peninsula area to southbound I-77. and a return trip
from northbound I-77 to the peninsula. The addition of the interchange
with I-77 will better facilitate the large movement of traffic to and from
the Charlotte area.
Access to and from I-77 for the Brawley School Peninsula area occurs at 2
interchanges, NC 150 to the north of the project area and SR ] 109 to the
south of the project area. Both of these access points require traffic in -the
Peninsula area to use Brawley School Road then Williamson Road (SR
• 1109) to the north or south. Williamson Road is characterized by
numerous businesses, traffic signals and driveway cuts. The sole reliance
on Williamson Road to access I-77 from the Peninsula area is putting a
strain on the ability of Williamson Road to handle this large traffic
movement.
Obviously, a new interchange constructed at Brawley Road and I-77 will
offer the most direct access to and from I-77 for the Peninsula area. A
Brawley Road/I-77 interchange would eliminate the need to use
Williamson Road from the Peninsula area in order to access I-77, resulting
in travel time savings for motorists in the Peninsula area.
A major benefit in terms of level of service and travel time savings
resulting from the construction of the new interchange at Brawley School
Road and I-77 will be realized along Williamson Road. Without a new
interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77, Williamson Road would
experience 31,800 vehicles per day in the year 2030 resulting in level of
service F, requiring the need to widen that facility to accommodate the
traffic in the future. Widening Williamson Road is not preferred by
NCDOT because that facility crosses Lake Norman and construction could
result in adverse impacts to the Lake Norman critical areas. Constructing
a new interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77 would significantly
reduce traffic along Williamson Road to 18,600 vehicles per day in the
year 2030, preventing the need for environmentally costly road
improvements along Williamson Road.
. Additionally, the construction of a new interchange at Brawley School
Road and I-77 significantly reduces the traffic demand at the existing SR
1109/I-77 interchange; thereby spreading out the traffic usage between the
6

two interchanges and reducing the potential for collision conflict and
congestion at the existing overloaded Interchange. The construction of a
Brawley School/I-77 interchange will reduce traffic at the SR 1109
interchange by 14,300 vehicles per day resulting in improved level of
service and safety in this interchange area.
Therefore, it is the opinion of NCDOT that the construction of a new
interchange at Brawley School Road and 1-77 would result in travel time
sayin~~s and improved level of service with regards to the existing facilities
in the project area currently used to access 1-77.
Improyin~ the NC 150 interchan~~e is not a viable alternative for the
proposed project. The purpose of the project is to improve access, reduce
congestion. and increase safety alone Brawley School Road. The existing
NC 1 ~0 interchange is not impairing access, level of service or safety in
the project area. Improving that interchange does not address the strain on
the existing roadway network required to provide access to NC 150 from
the project area.
Comment: "Current and forecasted traffic volumes do appear to be a substantial
concern (i.e., between 7,800 and 24,800 vehicles per day in base year 2003
and 9,200 and 44,700 vehicles per da}~ in year 2030). Ho~~ever, traffic
forecasting may not be accurate if it is based upon the current pace of
uncontrolled development and a lack of integration with appropriate land •
use planning controls. Furthermore, EPA is very concerned with the
compliance with the local land use plan: "the land development effects
that would be created in response to a new interchange with I-77 at
Brawley School Road would be inconsistent with Mooresville's existing
zoning and future land use..." (from page 35 of the EA). This statement
acknowledges a lack of coordination and general land use planning with
transportation planning involving the interchange for this project."
Response: Traffic volumes were forecast using data provided from Mooresville and
Iredell county, including growth rates and land use plans. .
As stated on page 9 of the EA, "the widening of Brawley School Road
from SR 1109 to US 21 with an interchange at I-77 is listed as the second
priority on the list of recommendations for the Mooresville planning area.
Mooresville is in the Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization (RPO)
and is not required to adopt a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)."
Furthermore, as stated on page 35 of the EA, "Mooresville's existing
zoning and future land use for the immediate area surrounding the
proposed interchange...is currently being reevaluated".
There was no lack of coordination on this project between NCDOT and
the planning staffs of the local governments. The project was coordinated
extensively with Mooresville and Iredell County throughout its
development including traffic forecasts, local officials meetings, and the
development of the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis. The •
project was requested by Mooresville and Iredell County and has been a

high priority transportation need. Officials from those governments are in
support of the project as proposed.
Comment: '`Table 3, Level of Service for un-signalized intersection analysis on page
8 of the EA provides information which demonstrates no viable rationale
for constructing a new .interchange at Interstate 77. LOS for most of the
intersections is either the same or worse with the interchange than without
it. Twenty (20) intersections will operate at the same LOSwithout the
interchange and three (3) ~~~ill function at a lower LOS. The only tangible
improvement in LOS at these intersections is with the roadway
improvements to 4/~ lanes without the interchange. These improvements
are not substantial. Out of?3 intersections. almost half or eleven (11) will
have a LOS of F in the ?030 design year with the NCDOT proposed
roadway improvements.'' -
Response: 'll~c intersection level of service data displayed in Kahle ~ of the
l•:~~vironmcntal .Assessment ~~a, inaccurate. "[•hc lc;vcl service analysis used
in the l~m~ironmental :~sses~nlent incorrectly assumed that left tui7,s would
be permitted at al] roads intersecting Brawley School Road. 1-lowever, the
project as proposed would include a median separating opposing travel
lanes which ~~~ould eliminate ie(i turns at most of the intersections on this
project. Since left turns arc the driving force behind poor levels of service
at unsignalized intersections. elirninatina those traffic movements vreath~
increases the intersection's level of service. So the data presented in Table
3 oi~ the EA was correct for a five-lane facility but tivas incorrect for a =1-lane,
• divided section that is proposed. After analyzing the intersections
considering a median divided facility. all of the unsignalizcd intersections
~~,~ill operate at the same level of sen--ice ~~~ith or v~rithout the new interchange
in place except for Secretariat'Citation Drive. A worse level of service
~a~ould be expected at this intersection due to its close proximity to the
proposed interchange at Brawley Road and i-77. However all intersections
wil l operate at an acceptable le~~e] of service in the year ?030 with the
proposed improvements in place. Table 3 from the Environmental
• Assessment has now been revised to reflect the accurate levels of service at
• each intersection. The ne~y table (table 2) is presented in Section V.D. of
this document.
However, the benefit in terms of level of service and travel time savings
resulting from the construction of the new interchange at Brawley Road
and I-77 will be-realized along Williamson Road as stated above.
Without a new interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77, Williamson
Road would experience 31,800 vehicles per day in the year 2030 resulting
in level of service F, requiring the need to widen that facility to
accommodate the traffic in the future. Widening Williamson Road is not
preferred by NCDOT because that facility crosses Lake Norman and
construction could result in adverse impacts to the Lake Norman critical
areas. Constructing a new interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77
would substantially reduce traffic along Williamson Road to 18,600
vehicles per day in the year 2030, which could be accommodated with the
' existing ypical section along, Williamson Road.
Additionally. the construction of a new interchange at Brawley School Road
'and I-77 substantially reduces the traffic demand at the existing SR 1109/1-
77 interchange; thereby spreading out the traffic usage between the two

interchanges and reducing the potential for collision conflict and congestion
at the existing overloaded interchange. -I-he construction of-a 13rawlev
School/1-77 interchange ~~•ill reduce traffic at the SR 1 109 intcrchanve by
14, ~U0 vehicles per day resulting in reduced congestion and improved safety-
in this interchange area.
Comment: '`Table 2. LOS for mainline segments of the project on page 7 of the EA
also indicates worse conditions with the interchange than without it. Of
the 6 segments analyzed. four (4) se~iments will remain unchanged with
the interchan~~e and~two (2) segments will experience poorer LOS with the
interchan~e.~y
Response: The level of service (LOS) mainline analysis indicated that two mainline
sections of Brawley School Road would operate worse with the
interchange in place than without. That information was correctly
presented~in Table 2 of the Environmental Assessment. This result is to be
expected because the 2 locations that ~~-ould experience this decline in
level of service are adjacent to the proposed new interchan~~e. Obviously,
~yithout the interchange in place, those sections of Brawley Road near the
potential interchange location would not experience the amount of traffic
expected if the interchange were built. However, NCDOT feels that the
resulting levels of service at these two locations with the interchange in
place are acceptable (LOS D and C) given the other capacity benefits
resulting from the construction of the new interchange.
See responses above concerning the level of service benefits afforded by .
the construction of a new interchange at Brawley Road and I-77.
Comment: "Overall, the need for the proposed project has not been adequately
justified. Excessive traffic volumes for atwo- lane facility could be
addressed through TSM measures and other less costly improvements.
NCDOT's assertion that the proposed interchange will decrease travel
times and intersection congestion )Page vii, Summary) is not supported by
the facts contained in the EA. EPA does not concur with the
improvements proposed based upon safety or route connectivity. EPA
does agree that there is some rationale for improvements based upon
system performance (congestion). However, these improvements should
be cost effective with respect to the benefits to be derived from the project.
Based upon safety, LOS and other traffic data, the interchange and the
scope of the proposed project should be re-evaluated by NCDOT."
Response: Please see above responses for each of the stated categories:
safety/accident analysis, LOS analysis, TSM measures relating to the
proposed four lane, median divided facility and interchange justification.
In summary, TSM measures alone will not accommodate the traffic
expected along Brawley Road in 2030, the design year. There are simply
not enough lanes along that facility to accommodate the design year
traffic. Improving safety is always a concern of the NCDOT. While the
crash rate averages of similar statewide facilities may be higher than the
crash rates for Brawley Road;" close 'review of the' crash data reveals safety
problems. As stated in the Environmental Assessment, NCDOT considers
3 intersections along the project (SR 1109, SR 1112, and SR 1179) as
"high accident intersections" due to the large number of accidents

. occurring at these intersections. High concentrations of accidents are not
accurately represented through crash rates, because the accidents are
divided by the length of a project. Additionally, the majority of the
accidents were rear end collisions which is indicative of a two lane facility
which is operating above its design limits. NCDOT feels that the
conditions along Brawley Road warrant safety improvements.
NCDOT feels that the need of the project has been adequately documented
in the Environmental Assessment and in this subsequent documentation.
Additionally the project as proposed addresses those needs. To
summarize, the purpose of the proposed project is to improve access.
reduce congestion, and improve safety for travelers along Brawley School
Road. The need is evidenced h~
-The reliance of one facility (V~ illiamson Road) to access I-77 from the
Peninsula area
-A lar~~e traffic movement from tl~e Peninsula area to Charlotte
-High traffic counts in tl~e year ?030 (over 40,000 vehicles per day) which
cannot be accommodated by the current lane configuration
-A large number of rear end collision type accidents as well as high
accident occurrence at intersections.
The proposed improvements will address these needs by providing an
improved access to I-77 from the Peninsula area by constructing a new
interchange at Brawley Road and I-77; widening Brawley Road to a
multilane facility to address the capacity deficiencies; and improving poor
horizontal alignment, inadequate lane widths, and site distance to address
safety deficiencies.
The following statement found on page 2 of the Environmental '
Assessment "The proposed interchange will decrease travel times and
intersection congestion" should have read. "The proposed improvements
will decrease travel times and intersection congestion". The proposed new
interchange will reduce travel times by providing a more direct route to
access I-77 from the Peninsula area. However, intersection congestion
will be improved by upgrading Brawley Road to acceptable geometric
standards.
Comment: `The EA addresses the No-build, Alternative Modes of Transportation and
the 2 construction alternatives. Also, NCDOT evaluated typical roadway
section alternatives (4-lane median divided curb and gutter and 5-lane curb
and gutter undivided section). However, the EA does not include a
detailed analysis of other potential alternatives, including intersection
traffic improvements, designated parking facilities for Charlotte commuter
traffic, bus, van and carpool options, or other typical roadway sections
(e.g. 3-lane with center turning-lane) for certain sections. Without
providing origin/destination study information, the EA states that bus, van,
or carpool services would not substantially or economically serve to
alleviate congestion and improve safety along Brawley School Road.
NCDOT does conclude that the proposed interchange would serve to
io

improve connectivity for Charlotte commuters and reduce congestion at .
intersections. EPA does not concur with this contradictory finding based
upon the information contained in the EA. The project's proposed
interchange is not located in an urban area and it was EPA's understanding
of the FHWA and NCDOT policy not to place interstate interchanges
~~ithin a mile of one another. The proposed interchange appears to be
approximately 1 mile from the interchange at NC 150.•'
Response: NCDOT and FHWA feel that the Em~ironmental Assessment for this
project includes an acceptable range of alternatives as required b}~ NEPA.
The alternatives su~~ested above would not serve to adequately alleviate
con~~estion, improve access, or improve safety along Bra~rle}~ School
Road. The `'Alternate Modes of Transportation" alternative addressed in
the Environmental Assessment concludes that bus. van. or car pooling
services are not offered by the Town of Moresville and that the automobile
is the dominant mode of transportation in the area. NCDOT coordinated
with the Town and Iredell County with regards to traffic forecasts. The
local governments supplied NCDOT with land use data as well as
infornation concerning future rail access to the Moresville area. The
traffic forecasts displayed in the Environmental Assessment took into
consideration rail/mass transit ridership. Those traffic forecasts indicate
the need for highway capacity improvements in the design year 2030.
Additionally any alternate mode of transportation will have no effect on
improving access in the project area.
Reduced typical section alternatives (i.e. 3-lane typical sections) and
intersection alternatives would not effectively reduce congestion in the
project azea. Additional through lanes are needed to accommodate the
anticipated traffic in 2030. One through lane in each direction will not
adequately serve 43,400 vehicles per day. Therefore intersection
improvements alone or reduced typical sections will not support the
purpose and need of the project.
The need for the proposed new interchange at Brawley Road and I-77 as
well as the benefits of the interchange aze documented in the above
responses. With respect to the interchange spacing,policy, AASHTO's "A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" suggests a
minimum interchange spacing of 1 mile (distance between intersecting
streets with ramps). The distance between the proposed new interchange
at Brawley School Road and I-77 and the NC 150/I-77 interchange, which
is the immediate interchange to the north, is just over 1 mile (5300 feet) in
urban areas. The distance between the proposed new interchange and the
US 21/I-77 interchange, the immediate interchange to the south, is 1.8
miles (9700 feet). While this interchange spacing meets the AASHTO
guidelines, the real indication of whether a new interchange's proximity to
existing upstream or downstream interchanges, is determined through
analysis of the traffic data.
The interchange analysis indicates little effect of the proposed interchange
on adjacent ramp levels of service. The only area experiencing a reduction
in LOS in 20=0 is Ramp D at the NC I50 interchange (AM peak LOS
degrades from r ~n the No-Build scenario to D in the Build scenario). The •
decrease in LOS at this ramp is most likely due to local traffic utilizing the
interstate to travel between the Brawley School Road corridor and the

• employment and retail centers along the NC 150 corridor. In addition,
there is no LOS change on 1-77 north or south of the proposed interchange
location. The signal analysis shows that the project does reduce queuing at
both signalized intersections at the US 21/SR 1109 interchange and the SR
1 l09/I-77 interchange.
Comment: "NCDOT proposes to construct 16-foot outside lanes along the entire ~.9
mile route to accommodate bicycle traffic. While EPA ;_~enerally supports
this proposal, EPA is concerned that the NCDOT project development
office does not propose to provide striping for these outside lanes as was
recommended in a November >. 20(1 ~ memorandum from the NCDOT~s
Director for the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. This
memorandum points out a si~~nificant safety concern shared by EPA if
these lanes are left unmarked.~~
Response: Please refer to the project commitments on page iv of the EA. NCDOT
states: "The proposed 16 foot outside lanes will be striped according to the
recommendations of the NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division." In
Appendix A, page A-5 of the EA. the recommendation from the Bicycle
and Pedestrian division states: "the 16 foot outside lane should be striped
fora 12- foot wide travel lane and' four foot wide bike lane with bike lane
symbol, pavement marking and signage according to MUTCD guidelines."
NCDOT has commited to bicycle lane striping as suggested by the bicycle
and Pedestrian Division.
Comment: "Regarding the use of curb and gutters and sidewalks for the entire length
of the project, EPA does not believe that necessary storm water
management controls can be obtained for the roadway improvements and
all of the additional impervious surfaces without potential and substantial
impacts to the tributaries to a critical water supply at Lake Norman.
NCDOT has left the issue of sidewalks beyond the limits of the town of
Mooresville unresolved. Because this issue can substantially effect the
amount of impervious surfaces, storm water management requirements
. and the ultimate right of way costs and potential impacts to water quality,
NCDOT should resolve this issue prior to the issuance of a Finding of No
Significant Lnpact (FONSI) or in an EA re-evaluation."
Response: Sidewalks are proposed throughout the length of the project. To minimize
impacts to surface waters, NCDOT will adhere to the rules outlined in the
Department of Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality North
Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter 02, regarding surface
water and wetland standards as they relate to Critical Water Supply
Watershed Areas. NCDOT will also implement Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. During the development of
the project, NCDOT will follow the "Guidelines for the Location and
Design of Hazardous Spill Basins" (located in Appendix O of the NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit -Guideline for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic Design).
• Comment: "Potential impacts to the human and natural environment from the
relocation of utilities (e.g. water and sewer lines) have not been estimated
~~

in the EA. The EA acknowledges that there are utilities present
throughout the 5.9 mile project, but it does not Indicate what estimate may
need to relocated as a result of selecting the preferred alternative."
Response: The original project study corridor was of adequate width to accommodate
any potential utility relocations. The impacts to environmental resources
in the project area, as documented in the Environmental Assessment, were
calculated based on the width of the project study con-idor. Usually, actual
impacts due to the project's construction will result in less impacts than
originally estimated in the EA. Impacts to surface waters. as calculated in
the~EA, were based on the project's construction limits and not the larger
study corridor. If utility relocations result in impacts to surface waters,
those impacts will be documented as required during the permitting
process.
Comment: "Page 11 of the EA lists other Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
projects in the area but it does not include the I-3819 project. The scoping
notice for I-3819 was issued by NCDOT less than a month after signing
the EA for this project and includes the same Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Manager (i.e Kristina Solberg, P.E.). An EA re-
evaluation or FONSI should include a full description of the major
interchange improvements being considered by NCDOT for the I-77
corridor in Iredell County."
Response:- Project I-3819 includes modification of an interchange at I-40 and I-77
near Statesville. Right of.Way acquisition and Construction for part of the
project is scheduled to begin in 2005 and 2007 respectively. For a full
description of other projects in the area, please refer to page 11 of the EA.
Comment: "Overall; the alternatives analysis provided in the EA is not
comprehensive primarily because it did not consider improvements tb the.
NC 150 interchange. Also, the EA does not provide an environmental
impact comparison between the two build alternatives nor for the typical
section alternatives. The EA only provides a total and cost breakdown for
the preferred alternative ($45,860,000 total)."
Response: The NC 150 interchange was considered during the planning process for
this project especially as it relates to the traffic operation with respect to
the potential new interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77. As stated
in the above response, the inclusion of the proposed new interchange at
Brawley School Road will have little effect on the traffic operations at the
NC 150 interchange. Additionally, improvements to the NC 150
interchange would not address the strain on the existing roadway network
required to provide access to this interchange from the project area.
The five lane alternative, while mentioned in the document, was not
brought forward for detailed study, as five lane sections are no longer
favored as alternatives to a four lane divided section for numerous safety
reasons. However, ROW limits for the five lane typical section would be
roughly equivalent to ROW limit`s for the four Iane divided typical section,
resulting to similar impacts. Additionally, the cost estimates fora 5 lane •
section would be similar to the proposed 4-lane divided section and would
not have a baring on the alternative selection.

s
Comment: The proposed project is not expected to have any impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands. However, there are hydric soils present in the project azea (Page
44 of the EA) and the location of hazardous spill catch basins and
stormwater management devices has yet to be determined."
Response: As stated in an earlier response, impacts to environmental resources were
most likely over-estimated, because those impacts were based on the
project corridor study and not construction limits. In the event that the
inclusion of stormwater devices causes impacts to waters of the United
States, those impacts will be documented in the permitting process. The
NCDOT will adhere to all applicable rules and regulations associated with
this project. Hazazdous spill basins will be implemented where required.
A portion of this project is within Lake Norman's critical drinking
watershed (see project commitment in the list of Project Commitments of
this document).
"Comment: "The EA indicates that approximately 3.94 acres of impact to
. Pine/Hazdwood forest, 0.13 acres of impact to White Pine forest and .23
acres of impact to Riparian forest. EPA questions if this Riparian forest
impact is not potentially jurisdictional wetlands."
Response: There aze no jurisdictional wetlands located in the project azea, therefore
• no wetlands impacts will result from the construction of this project.
Please refer to page 55 of the EA for a full description of wetlands and
surface waters.
Comment: "The body of the EA contains no analysis of potential noise impacts
resulting from the project. Appendix D contains tables which indicates
101 businesses or residents which will experience some noise level
increases from 1 to 14 dBA and 38 impacted noise receptors per FHWA
criteria with 13 of these receptors .exceeding substantial noise level
criteria. One of the 38 impacted noise receptors is a school. There is no
explanation provided in the body of the EA which defines what this
information means. Furthermore, the body of the EA does not specifically
refer the reviewer to the December 22, 2003, memorandum contained in
Appendix D which helps to explain the noise increase of 9 dBA from
ambient conditions. From the noise analysis and the tables, it can not be
determined by EPA which school would be impacted and why noise
abatement measures were neither cost-effective nor appropriate for this
Category E receptor."
Response: Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, there aze 33 residential receptors, 4 business
receptors and 1 school receptor predicted to be impacted by highway
traffic noise during the design yeaz 2030. 8 receptors aze predicted to
experience a substantial increase in exterior noise levels for the proposed
. alignment. Full control of access is not proposed, allowing driveway and
at=grade intersections to occur, reducing the effect of noise abatement
• measures. The effect of any noise barriers would be severely reduced due
to the need to provide openings for driveway and road connections.
Traffic noise impacts aze an unavoidable consequence of transportation
14

projects especially in areas where there are not traffic noise sources.
Therefore, based on these prel-minary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. Please
refer to the Traffic Noise Analysis contained in appendix D of the
Environmental Assessment. Also. the results of the noise analysis is
repeated again in Section V.G. of the FONSI.
Comment: "EPA acknowledges the cumulative impact assessment pro~~ided in the EA
h.' NCDOT. However. EP.A does not concur with some of the conclusions
NCDOT has developed re~~ardin<~ the effect of increased road~~~a~~ capacity
and the induction of dail}'trips. Furthermore, this analysis does not
incorporate future mass transportation opportunities bet~~~een Mooresville
and Charlotte long the 1-77 corridor. Based upon NCDOT•s LOS analysis,
little congestion improvement will be provided at a majority of the
intersections even with the proposed improvements in year 2030. Much of
the project is outside of the municipal limits of Mooresville. As evidenced
b~ the statistical growth rate facts contained in the EA, residential and
commercial development has not been significantly limited by water
supply watershed regulations or the current lack of water andrsewer in
outlying areas. EPA believes that the increased roadway capacity in this
rural/suburban project settin~~ will exacerbate development sprawl and
place further burden on local government to irriplement sound land use
planning controls."
Response: The Indirect/Cumulative Impacts discussion in the EA is consistent with
NEPA requirements. More detailed indirect/cumulative impacts may be •
provided later if required by permitting agency regulations. The traffic
forecast for the project took into account the potential mass transit
opportunities in the area.
Please see Section V.D. of this document for a revised description of the
LOS associated with the intersections shown in Table 3, page 8 of the EA.
To minimize impacts to surface waters, NCDOT will adhere to the rules
outlined in the Department of Natural Resource -Division of Water
Quality North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter 02,
regarding surface water and wetland standards as they ielate to Critical
Water Supply Watershed Areas. NCDOT will also implement Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. During the
development of the project, NCDOT will follow the "Guidelines for the
Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins" (located in Appendix O
of the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit -Guideline for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Desi~ri).
Comment: "There is no detailed analysis contained in the EA which examines the
issue of induced demand resulting from the proposed widening and new
interchange. It is unclear from the model analysis if the model fully
captured trip distribution changes in response to the proposed increase in
roadway capacity." ~ .
~~

Response: Traffic Forecasts were created for this project for the 200 No-Build, 200
Build, 2030 No-Build, and 2030 Build scenarios. Year 2030 volumes were
extrapolated from the forecast using a straight line growth computation.
Individual movements were then multiplied by the directional distribution
and design hour factors to obtain AM and PM peak directional volumes.
Since the forecast is based on the demand on the facility. it is~assumed that
there would be no significant difference in demand bet~~een a two. four, or
five lane facility. Therefore. analyses for the No- Build and Build- without
I-77 interchange were based on the NO-Build traffic forecast. The
addition of an interchange with I-77 significantly changca the demand as
~~•ell as the travel patterns in the area. For this reason. a forecast scenario
developed specifically for the construction of afull-movement interchange
was used to analyze the Build- with the interchange (for both diamond and
Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI} configurations).
' No differentiation vas made between four-lane and five-lane alternatives
in the individual intersection analyses. The assumption was made that
either option would provide designated left-turn lanes v,~here applicable,
and therefore function identically.
The traffic forecasts for all of these scenarios are displayed in the
Environmental Assessment. As evidenced by the traffic counts, traffic
demand along Brawley School Road increases with the addition of an
• interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77. Consequently, traffic
. demand decreases along Williamson Road with the addition of the new
interchange.
Comment: "The NCDOT analyzed the increased traffic volume with and without a
new interchange. Based upon year 2030 projections it appears that the
alternative without the interchange serves the system performance criteria
better. Specifically, the areas of most concern are the SR 1109 to I-77 and
the I-77 to US 21 segments."
Response: As stated in~an earlier response, the level of service (LOS) mainline
analysis indicated that two mainline sections of Brawley School Road
would operate worse with the interchange in place than without. Those
sections of Brawley School Road are from SR 1109 to I-77 and from I-77
to US 21. That information was correctly presented in Table 2 of the
Environmental Assessment. This result is to be expected because the 2
locations that would experience this decline in level of service are adjacent
to the proposed new interchange. Obviously, without the interchange in
place, those sections of Brawley Road near the potential interchange
location would not experience the amount of traffic expected if the
interchange were built. However, NCDOT feels that the resulting levels
of service at these two locations with the interchange in place are
acceptable (LOS D and C) given the other capacity benefits resulting from
the construction of the new interchange. Those capacity benefits have
been documented in earlier responses to EPA comments.
~~

Comment: "The indirect and cumulative impact analysis contained in the EA does not
explain why the proposed project would not further accelerate growth,
induced travel and traffic congestion in an area where land use controls as
supposed to be controlling development."
Response: The Indirect/Cumulative Impacts discussion in the EA is consistent with
NEPA requirements. More detailed indirect/cumulative impacts may be
provided later if required b}' permitting agency regulations. •
Comment: '`The air quality analvsis contained in the EA does not specifically address
the major concern for this area: ozone. This area of Iredell Count}' is in
the 8-hour non-attainment area for ozone. The project area is between two
major non-attainment areas (between Charlotte and Greensboro-High
. Point) and the additional traffic from induced travel will have a further
impact on air quality. This impact needs to be analyzed with the rest of the
region and how air conformity will be met with this additional project.
The EA did not provide a detailed analysis of the impacts to the I-77
corridor resulting from the new interchange. The NCDOT should provide
additional analysis and information on potential air quality impacts and
conformity requirements.'•
Response: The following information comes from a conversation with Edward
Dancausse, Air Quality Coordinator for the FHWA NC Division,
regarding air qualit}~ analysis in this area. "A portion of Iredell County
was designated for the 8=hour ozone standard on 4/15/04. Iredell county is
part of the Metrolina non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard •
and a conformity determination (on the areas LRTPs and. TIPS) are due on
6/15/05. Between now and 6/15/05 the areas that were designated (on
4/15/04) are under a grace period and these newly designated areas do not
have to demonstrate conformit}~ until 6/15/05. The FONSI portion of the
document will be completed within the "grace period" .
Comment: "EPA acknowledges the other impacts resulting from the proposed project,
including relocations (17 residences, 9 businesses), a historic property
(Mayhew House) and construction related impacts; It is unclear from the
EA if the 4 additional business relocations identified on page 16 as a result
of an alignment shift are included in the above figure. EPA does not
recommend burning of vegetative matter generated during clearing and
grubbing operations (page 60 of the EA). Burning is EPA's least preferred
options, especially in non-attainment or maintenance areas. NCDOT
should consider more environmentally-friendly options, such as shredding
and mulching and making these recycled materials available to the public.
Response: An updated relocation report was obtained for inclusion in the FONSI.
Updated cost estimate and estimated number of relocatees are given in
seciton V. B. of this document. Please see Appendix C for this updated
Relocation report. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable
laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality, in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. The contractor will also
have the option to dispose of material by other methods such as shredding,
mulching, or recycling.

Comment: EPA notes that prime farmland impacts have been generally addressed on
pages 24-25 of the EA. However, there. is insufficient detail to ascertain if
there are any current properties along the corridor which are currently
under agricultural use and if these potential properties would be impacted
by the project."
ResQonse: Based on soil mapping provided by the Natural Resource Conservation
Service District Office. pa~~e 2> of the EA states that "no irrevocable
impacts to existing farmin~~ operations are expected to occur' as a result of
the project. Furthermore. since the "portion of the widening associated
with R-3833 will occur ~~ithin existing right of way" and within the town
of Mooresville limits, impacts to any soil types used for agriculture are
expected to be minimal.
Comment: "EPA is concerned that the E.~1 does not provide for a full analysis of the
human and environmental impacts from the proposed project. EPA is
concerned that adequate purpose and need has not been demonstrated
based upon safety and connectivity issues, and that a proposed new
interchange will not improve future traffic conditions along the Brawley
School Road corridor. Furthermore. EPA is concerned with a project
which more than doubles roadway capacity (including l 6-foot outside,
unmarked bicycle lanes) within a critical water supply watershed without a
detailed stormwater management plan. EPA is also concerned about
stream impacts, noise receptor impacts, air quality impacts, residential and
business relocations, secondary impacts from utility relocations; and
potential indirect and cumulative impacts. Because of the number of
concerns of the proposed project and since other alternatives were not
provided more detailed analysis or serious consideration, EPA requests
that NCDOT re-evaluate the project scope."
Response: Based on the responses given to the above items, NCDOT feels that the
proposed improvements adequately address the scope of the project.
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Comment: "The Levels of Service (Table 2) indicate that 2030 mainline LOS will be
higher at two intersections with a 4/5 lane facility without the interchange;
the other intersections show the same LOS with or without the
interchange. Table 3 indicates the LOS will be worse at three intersections,
with no improvement in LOS at the others."
Response: The level of service (LOS) mainline analysis indicated that two mainline
sections of Brawley School Road would operate worse with the
interchange in place than without. That information was correctly
presented in Table 2 of the Environmental Assessment. This result is to be
. expected because the 2 locations that would experience this decline in
. level of service are adjacent to the proposed new interchange. Obviously,
without the interchange in place, those sections of Brawley Road hear the
• potential interchange location would not experience the amount of traffic
expected if the interchange were built. However, NCDOT feels that the
~s

resulting levels of service at these two locations with the interchange in
place are acceptable (LOS D and C) given the other capacity benefits
resulting from the construction of the new interchange.
Currently, Brawley School Road serves as the only access to portions of
the Brawley Peninsula. Large amounts of residential development over
the past several years have caused Brawley School Road to experience
volumes well exceeding its practical capacity. .Additionally, the area
serves as a bedroom community for Charlotte, NC. There is a large
movement from the peninsula area to southbound I-77. and a return trip
from northbound 1-77 to the peninsula. The widening of Brawley School
Road will help alleviate the congestion currently experienced on the
facility. Further. the addition of the interchange with I-77 will better
facilitate the large movement of traffic to and from the Charlotte area.
'i here fore. the major hcnclit in terms of level of s~r~ ice ~yith the
construction of•the new interchange will he rcalired along SR ] 109
(V~'illiamson Road) ~~~hich is cun-ently the main access from the Brawley
Peninsula area~to I-77.. ~~'ithout a ne~y interchange at Brawley School Road
and I-77, ~~- illiatnson Road. would experience 31,500 vehicles per day.
requiring the need to ~~~iden that facility to accommodate the traffic in the
future. Widening Williamson Road is not preferred by NCDDT, due to the
adverse impacts the construction could have on Lake Norman.
Constructing a new interchatge at Bra~yley School Road and I-77 would
significantly reduce traffic along Williamson Road to l 8,600 vehicles per
day in the year 2030. preventing the need for environmentally costly road
improvements along ~~'illiamson Road. Additionally. the construction of a
new interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77 significantly reduces the
traffic demand at the existing Williamson Roadr`1-77 itlterchange; thereby
spreading out the.traffic usage between the hvo interchanges and reducing
the potential for collision conflict and congestion at the existing
interchanse.
Concerning the tIvee intersections which operate worse with the interchange
in place than without, that irrforntation was inaccurately presented ul Table
3 of the Envirotunental Assessment. The level service analysis used in the
Environmental Assessment incorrect]}' assumed that left turns would be
permitted at all roads intersecting Brawley School Road. However. the
project as proposed would include a median separating opposing travel .
lanes which would eliminate left turns at most of the intersections on this
project. Since left turns are the driving force behind poor levels of ser<••ice
at unsignalized intersections, eliminating those traffic movements greatly
increases the intersection's level of~ service. The result is that the tlu•ee
intersections in question referred to in Table 3 of the Environmental
Assessment will operate at the same level of service ~yith or without the new
interchange in place. All 3 intersections will also operate at acceptable
levels of service with the proposed improvements in place: Table 3 from
the Envirotunental Assessment has no«~ been revised to reflect the accurate-
levels of service at each intersection. The ne~y table is presented in Section •
V.D. of this docwnent.
Comment:
19

~:
NC DOT has developed two alternatives: afour- lane median divided
typical section and afive- lane typical section. DWQ concurs with
NCDOT's choice of preferred alternative (Alternative l )- the four lane
median divided section- even though it requires a larger footprint, because
of the safety benefits. Howe~~er. the 16 foot outside lane should be striped
as recommended bti~ NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division.
The EA did not include data for Alternative 2 such as construction costs.
relocatees, and stream impacts. This is necessary for evaluating the human
and natural impacts of a iedcrally-funded action.'
Response: The five lane alternative. while mentioned in the document, was not
brought forward for detailed study, as five lane sections are no longer
favored as alternatives to a four lane divided section for numerous safety
reasons. However. ROW limits for the five lane typical section would be
roughly equivalent to ROVE' limits for the four lane divided typical section.
resulting in similar impacts. Additionally, the cost estimates fora 5 lane
section would be similar to the proposed 4-lane divided section and would
not have a bearing on the alternative selection.
NCDOT prefers a 4-lane divided typical section in most cases because of
the safety and traffic floe benefits of this type of facility. Amedian-divided
facility reduces the number of conflict areas by limiting left turns onto and
from the facility, thus reducing collision potential and encouraging steady
traffic flow. A five lane undivided facility is less efficient, allowing
unrestricted traffic movements, increased collision potential, and reduced
capacity. Overwhelming support for the four lane divided section, as
opposed to a five lane section, was. demonstrated at the Citizens
Informational Workshop held November 15th 2000. Moreover, a four lane
divided facility supports the purpose and need for the project in the areas of
safety, system performance and accessibility. NCDOT proposes no change
in the typical section recommendation of a four lane, median divided
facility.
Please refer to the project commitments on page iv of the EA. NCDOT
states: "The proposed 16 foot outside lanes will be striped according to the
recommendations of the NCDOT bicycle and Pedestrian Division." In
Appendix A, page A-5 of the EA, the recommendation from the Bicycle
and Pedestrian division states: "the 16 foot outside lane should be striped
fora 12- foot wide travel lane and four foot wide bike lane with bike lane
symbol, pavement marking and signage according to MUTCD guidelines."
Comment: "The EA performed a preliminary assessment of the indirect and
cumulative effects for this project. The project lies within an area of rapid
growth. DWQ may require further information analysis prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification in order to assess the project's affect
on downstream water quality."
Response:. Comment noted. Further Indirect and Cumulative Analysis will be
provided prior~to beginning construction activities if needed.
•
~t~

N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: '`The document forecast the Level of Service (LOS) of project road
segments and intersections for the year 2030 under two scenarios-with and
without building the I-77 interchange. The mainline road segments east
and west of I-77 and several nearb}' intersections had worse projected LOS
with the interchange than ~~-ithout. The data presented does not justify the
interchange."
ResRonse: Please see this section (Q) <<S Environmental Protection Agency
"Response".
Comment: "A detailed study of secondary,and cumulative impacts in the area and
commitments to minimize these impacts are recomme~lded.... [Wildlife
Resources Commission (V~'RC)] strongly encoura~~es NCDOT and local
authorities to use low impact development techniques to manage
stormwater quantity and quality. Alternatives to traditional curb and gutter
should be developed to provide better treatment of stormwater. [WRC]
encourages the use of non-impervious materials to construct sidewalks,
parking lots. and other facilities. particularly in developed watersheds with
a high percentage of impervious surfaces."
Response: The Indirect/Cumulative Impacts discussion in the EA is consistent with
NEPA requirements. More detailed indirect/cumulative impacts may be •
provided later if required by permitting agency regulations.
To minimize impacts to surface waters, NCDOT will adhere to the rules
outlined in the Depattment of Natural Resource -Division of Water
Quality North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter 02,.
regarding surface water and wetland standards as they relate to Critical
Water Supply Watershed Areas. NCDOT will also implement Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. During the
development of the project, NCDOT will follow the "Guidelines for the
Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins" (located in Appendix O
of the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit -Guideline for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design).
The proposed curb and gutter typical section is conducive to the project .
area located in an urban atmosphere characterized by numerous businesses
and pedestrian activity. The curb and gutter reduces property impacts and
allows for inclusion of sidewalks.
Comment: "A detailed assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts to water
quality was not conducted, however, it was forecast that induced
household growth from 2000 to 2020 would be 607 and induced. growth.
would increase average daily trips by 12.5%. The document indicated that •
household growth may be slightly underestimated. Water supply
watershed regulations limit the density of both residential and commercial
development, however, no details were given about the regulations and to
,~

what extent growth will be limited and water quality will be protected. No
estimation of impervious surface coverage currently existing or expected
at build-out was provided, nor when build-out is likely to occur."
Response: The Indirect/Cumulative Impacts discussion in the EA (page 41-42) is
consistent with NEPA requirements. More detailed indirect/cumulative
impacts may be provided later if required by permitting agency
regulations.
C. Comments Received Durin~~ and Follov~inc the Public Hearin~i
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment. an open forum public
hearing was held at the Charles Mack Citizens Center in Mooresville on .1uly 13, 2004.
Copies of the public hearing notice and a copy of the handout presented at the public
hearing are included in Appendix B of this report. Approximately 2,0 people attended the
public hearing. Substantive comments received during the public hearing are addressed
below:
Comment: A number of property owners preferred a 5-lane, undivided typical section
over a 4-lane, median-divided section which is recommended for the
project. Two petitions with a total of 400 names were submitted in
opposition to a four lane median- divided section.
Response: NCDOT prefers a 4-lane divided typical section in most cases because of
the safety and traffic flow benefits of this type of facility. Amedian-divided
facility reduces the number of conflict areas by limiting left turns onto and
from the facility, thus reducing collision potential and encouraging steady
traffic flow. A five lane undivided facility is less efficient, allowing
unrestricted traffic movements, increased collision potential, and reduced
capacity. Overwhelming support for the four lane divided section, as
opposed to a five lane section, was demonstrated at the Citizens
. ~ Informational Workshop held November 1 Sth 2000. Moreover, a four lane
divided facility supports the purpose and need for the project in the areas of
safety, system performance and accessibility. NCDOT proposes no change
in the typical section recommendation of a four-lane, median divided
facility.
Comment: Some Public Hearing attendees and the Iredell County Board of
Commissioners are in favor of the median divided typical section.
Other comments included support for sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as
accelerating construction of sections A and C.
Response: Four lane divided section is recommended. Sidewalks will be constivcted
along the project. Striped bike lakes w711 be included iii the project.
Comment:
Some Public Hearing attendees and the Iredell County School
Superintendent are opposed to a°median divided section mainly because of
a perceived lack of access, anticipated long queues at U-turns, and
additional costs for right of way and maintenance.

Response: NCD0~1~. supports and recommends a median diy~ided section for this
project. NCDC)'h research studies reveal that accidents occur ? to 6 times
more than on ~ lane roadw°ays than nn divided facilities. The median will
reduce rear-end. head-on, and left-turn accidents. It ~~~i11 reduce driver
confusion by concentrating movements to an intersection where the
movements arc better controlled using traffic control devices. As traffic
increases the traffic carrying etficienc~' ~j~ill be greater nn a divided facility
than on a five lane section. 1-hc left turn lanes at intc--sections ~yill provide
enough storage for l -turn traffic. l_~-turns will he desi~~ned to accomnu~datc
erncrgenc~ vehicles.
Comment. Tonle Public ] [carin~~ att~•n~ecs has concerns ~~iti~ tl~~ hrc~pos~d R%~?~' ~~idth~.
and sug~~ested reducing the median. deleting tine sicic~~alk and%or deletin~_
the bicycle lanes. `
Response: ~ '1~hc proposed ri~.*ht ut• ~~ a~ ~~ idths and easements sh~,~~ n on the hearing map
are to Borne e~ctent ~~ idcr than ~~~hat will be required. All right of w•ay and
casements will he minimized durin~~ final design. IZctaining walls may he
required and will be studied during f nal design to reduce impacts to
buildings andior parkin; lots. The "I•own of Mooresville has requested that
sidewalks be included as part ofthis project. The project will be designed
. ~yith a l U~ grass berm behind the curb and gutter that will allow for these
sidewalks. Removing the proposed sidewalks will have no effect on the
proposed right of wa}~ needed for the project. According to the Iredell
Counfi• Plarming~ staff, no greemvays are planned t ithin the area: However,
theti• have requested l 6' outside lanes to accommodate bicycles.
Comment: Some Public I Tearing attendees support the inclusion of bicycle lanes and
sidewalks.
Response: Striped bicycle lanes and sidewalks will be included in the project.
Comment: Some Public Hearing attendees requested special intersection control at
Various locations.
Response: Signal requirements and intersection control ti111 be evaluated for these and
other intersections during the final design of the project.
Comment: Some Public Hearing attendees requested a crossover at Farmstead Lane.
All emergency traffic entering this development from the east will have to
make a U-turn at Canvasback Road, with the proposed improvements in
place.
Response: NCDOT median guidelines indicate crossovers shall not be placed closer
than 1200 feet apart on divided highways with a posted speed of =1~mph or
less. Farn~stead Road is located approximately 8~0' from the Oak-tree Road
intersection since a median crossover at farmstead Road would not meet
NCDOT's spacing requirements. During finaTdesign NCDOT will ensure
emergency vehicles can adequately make U-turns at all full movement •
intersections.
~;

•
•
Comment: The :Iredell County Board of Commissioners requests a mediv~ crossover
and signal be placed at a new road (Forest Lake I31vd.) being constructed for
an elementary school. a middle school and a large residential development.
This ne~y road is locatecl just east of SR 111 ~ (lsle of Pines Road).
Response: According to a sketch presented by the Iredell County Board oI~
Commissioners, there i~ approximately 1?0O' het~~ccn forest lake L31yd.
and Isle of Pines Ri~ad and approximately I20U• bct«~cen Forest L.a[;e I31~ d.
and Beechtree Road. I he plans and traffic county for Forest l..ake I31vd. ~~ill
need to be reyie~yed an~i ~tudicd to determine if a crc~ cover and si«nal arc
wan-anted durin= final ;l~~i~~n.
Comment: The Iredell County Board of Commissioners requested a median break and
an emergency traffic light in front of the new Volunteer Fire Department.
EMS station and Morrows Chapel Methodist Church located Southfork
Road and Chuckwood Road.
Response: A median break will be provided in front of the EMS station, and
firestation. An actuated si~~nal will be installed in this location. There will
not be a median break provided in front of Morrows Chapel Methodist
Church per NCDOT's median policy.
Comment: Some Public I-Iearin~ attendees questioned the need for an interchange at
I-77 and Brawley School Road.
Response: Currently, Brawley School Road serves as the only access to portions of
the Brawley Peninsula. Large amounts of residential development over
the past several years have caused Brawley School Road to experience
volumes well exceeding its practical capacity. Additionally, the azea
serves as a bedroom community for Chazlotte, NC. There is a lazge
movement from the peninsula azea to southbound I-77, and a return trip
from northbound I-77 to the peninsula. The addition of the interchange
with I-77 will better facilitate the large movement of traffic to and from.
the Chazlotte area.
Access to and from I-77 for the Brawley School Peninsula azea occurs at 2
interchanges, NC 150 to the north of the project area and SR 1109 to the
south of the project area. Both of these access points require traffic in the
Peninsula azea to use Brawley Road then Williamson Road (SR 1109) to
the north or south. Williamson Road is chazacterized by numerous
businesses, traffic signals and driveway cuts. The sole reliance on
Williamson Road to access I-77 from the Peninsula azea is putting a strain
on the ability of Williamson Road to handle this large traffic movement.
•
Obviously, a new interchange constructed at Brawley Road and I-77 will
offer the most direct access to and from I-77 for the Peninsula azea. A
Brawley Road/I-77 interchange would eliminate the need to use
Williamson Road from the Peninsula area in order to access I-77, resulting...
in travel time savings for motorists in the Peninsula area.
,:~

A major benefit in terms of level of service and travel time savings
resulting from the construction of the new interchange at Brawley School
Road and I-77 will be realized along Williamson Road. Without a new
interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77, Williamson Road would
experience 31,800 vehicles per day in the year 2030 resulting in level of
service F, requiring the need to widen that facility to accommodate the
traffic in the future. V1'idening Williamson Roadr is not preferred by
NCDOT because that facility crosses Lake Norman and construction could
result in adverse impacts to the Lake Norman critical areas. Constructing
a new interchange at Brawley School Road and 1-77 would significantly
reduce traffic alone ~'~%illiamson Road to 18.600 ~ ehicles per day in the year
2030, preventin~~ the need for environmentally costly road improvements
along Williamson Road.
Additionally, the construction of a new interchan~_e at Brawley School
Road and I-77 significantly reduces the traffic demand at the existing SR
1109/1-77 interchan~~e: thereby spreading out the traffic usage between the
two interchanges and reducing the potential for collision conflict and
congestion at the existing overloaded interchan~~e. The construction of a
Brawle}~ School/1-77 interchange will reduce traffic at the SR 1109
interchange b~~ 14.300 vehicles per day resulting in improved level of
service and safety in the US 21 interchange area.
Therefore. it is the opinion of NCDOT that the construction of a new
interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77 would result in travel time
savings and improved level of service with regards to the existing facilities
in the project area currently used to access I-77.
Comment: Some Public Hearinc attendees were concerned that the proposed project
would reduce access in the vicinity of the northeast quadrant of the 1-
77%Brawley interchange area.
Response: NCDOZ~ will investigate an access road in the northeast quadrant of the 1-77
Brawley School Road interchange area.
Comment: Some hearing attendees were concerned that the proposed project would
reduce access in the northwest quadrant of the I-77 interchange
Response: NCDOT will investigate access roads for the northwest quadrant of the new
interchange as well as in the southeast and southwest quadrants.
Comment: The Iredell County Board of Commissioners requested that the offset
intersection formed b}~ Blume Road and the old section of Brawley School
Road be realigned.
Response: T7~i regii~st w•iil be investigated during•final design; however, the ...,
realignment of the old section of Brawley School Road may require a •
building acquisition the James Bro~~m property.
,~

1
•
Comment: Residents South of the Gibbs Road Realignment requested
the Gibbs Road rcali~~nment tie into existing Gibbs Road .just south of the
Duke Po~~•cr 1 roes.
Response: NCDO"I- ~~'i1l rc-alien t~~~ (~ihhs Road connecter t~~ tie into existing Gihh~
Road as shown in i~i~~cin:.~ ul~the E:a.
Comment: The ~\ illiamson's ('hapel tnitcd ~~1ethodist t'llu.'ch is huilding a nc~~
sanctuary at the cr~rner ol- ~~ illiamson Road anti 13ra~~~le~ School Road. -1 he
church has coordin:acu with the Down and ~~ith tlfc I)i~~ision 1'2 Uffice.
I Iowcver. the hearin~~ nrtp does not shoe this proposed construction. The
~~~idening ~f 13ra~~ lei ~choc~l Road appears to he in conflict ~~ ith the ne~a
sanctuar<•.
Response: "I-hc 1-li~~hwav I)csi~,n 13ral:rh has obtained a cope of the. building plan and
the ~~'idening is in conflict «'ith the building. "I-his intersection design will
be revised during final design to avoid the building:,.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Median Breaks
EMS, Volunteer Fire Department Median Break
The Iredell County Board of Commissioners and members of the
Volunteer Fire Department, requested a median break, as well as an
actuated signal, in front of the new EMS station along Brawley school
Road in order to provide for left turns out of the EMS facility at this
location. After reviewing the request, NCDOT determined that• a median
break will occur in front of the EMS station and firestation and an actuated
signal will be installed in this location as well.
B. ROW cost Relocations and Construction Cost updates
NCDOT did not provide updated ROW cost, Relocations, or
Construction Costs in the Environmental Assessment. This information is
included in Appendix C of this document and as follows: thirty residential
relocations and fourteen business relocations including an estimated
$42,876,000 for right of way acquisitions.
C. Williamson's Chapel United Methodist Church &
t
Williamson's Chapel United Methodist Church is building a new sanctuary
on the corner of Williamson Road and Brawley School Road, which has
,~

been coordinated with the Town of Mooresville and the Division 12 office.
However, the hearing map did not show this proposed construction. The
widening of Brawley School Road appears to be in conflict with the new
sanctuary. The NCDOT Design Branch has obtained a copy of the building
plan for the Church, and the widening is in conflict with the building. This
intersection will be revised during final design to avoid the building. This
request is still being coordinated.
D. LOS Analysis for Intersections aloe<~ Bra~~~ler School Road
The intersection level of service data displayed in Table 3 of the
Environmental Assessment was inaccurate. The level service analysis
used in the Environmental Assessment incorrectly assumed that left turns
would be permitted at all roads intersecting Brawley School Road.
However, the project as proposed would include a median separating
opposing travel lanes which would eliminate left •turns at most of the
intersections on this project. Since left turns are the driving force behind
poor levels of service at unsignalized intersections, eliminating those
traffic movements greatly increases the intersection's level of service. So
the data presented in Table 3 of the EA was correct for a fve-lane facility
but was incorrect fora 4-lane, divided section that is proposed. After
analyzing the intersections considering a median divided facility, all of the
unsignalized intersections will operate at the same level of service .with or
without the new interchange in place except for Secretariat/Citation Drive. •
A worse level of service would be expected at this intersection due to its
close proximity to the proposed interchange at Brawley Road and I-77.
However all unsignalized intersections will operate at an LOS C or better
in the year 2030 with the proposed improvements in place with the
exception of 3 intersections; SR 1113, SR 2930, and Secretariat/Citation
Drive. Table 3 from the Environmental Assessment has now been revised
to reflect the accurate levels of service at each intersection and is given
here as Table 2 At the 3 intersections where the level of service will fall
below C, those intersections are described.below.

,~

1
•
Tahle 2

'
SECTION OF SR 1100
(BRAWLEY SCHOOLROAD) ~ WITHOITr PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
(NoBuild) WITH PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS -
4/S iane WTTHOUi' '
Interchange WITHPROPOSED ll11PROVE11iENTS
4I5 lane WITH Interchange AND
Recommended Improvements
1003 LOS 2030 LOS 2030 LOS 2030 LOS
SR 1177 S; SR 1100 A~1/ Pal C C D/ C C/B C/B
SR I'_2'_ S: SIi 1 IGU Aa1/ Pal B B C.' C B / B B/ B I,
sli i~ u s sit 1 loo :gal/Pal C, C F! F C' C C/ C 'i
i s1i~~~s~~sRlluoAal/Pai i C'C F/F C.~C CIC ~
SR~~rr,ssitltooAal/Pal CC F/F C!C ~ C/C
~ 1sL:~~D FOREST s SR lloo Aai / rai ~ C' C F ! F C / B C / B ~
sRiil3asR11ooAni/Pnl ~ C B F;'F D/C D/C
~ sRn7x~:sRliooAnl/Pal I F'E FiF C+!C+ C+/C+
' SR111'_SSR110(IAaI/Pal F/D F/F C+/C+ C+/C+
nR:~1:E s sR lloo .ant /Pal E : E F ! F C+ ! C~ C+ / C+
stl:~uoa~~l;ROOI:e s sRl loo AavPai F F F / F C+ / C- C+ / C+
SR 2930 S: SR 1100Aa1/PM Ei D Fi F E/D E/D
SR29a3SS(;IIOOAaI/PI11 F'F F/F C+/C+ C+/C+
sli ~~~~~~ ~: SR 1 too Anl /Pal F ' F F / F C+ / C+ C+ / C+
URIESSR1100 Aal/Pal F/F F/F C+/C+ C+/C+
PL:~Z:\&SR1100Aa1/Pal F%F F/F C+/C+ C+/C+
LOa~'E'S CENTRAL ~ sRl loo Aavral .. F / F F / F C+ / C+ C+ / C±
LOW E'S EAST S SR 1100 AM1I/ Pal F / F F / F C+ / C+ C+ / C+
0.41: FORK S SR 1100 Aa1 /Pal C/ C F / F C+ / C+ C+ / C+
ROLLING HILLS RD & SRI100 AM1I/Pal F / F F / F C+ / C+ C+ / C+
SR 1116S'SR1100A111/PM F/F F/F C+/C+ C+/C+
a1'INGH.4a'EINSSR1100AM/P~l C/C F/E C+/C+ C+/C+
SECRETARIAT & SR 1100 Ali / Pal C/ C F / F C / C E / D
Frinn Suintec Capacity Analysia Report prcpan:~l (ur \ChOT, Au~,wt 20Qi.
C+ indicates the intersection ~~•ill operate at LOS C or better.
SR 1113
In 2030 the northbound approach is expected to operate at LOS D in the
AM Peak with a 9th percentile queue of 5 vehicles. With the provision of
an exclusive right-turn lane with room to store 3 vehicles (100 feet), the
approach LOS will improve to LOS C with a 95th percentile queue of 3
vehicles. Due to the large number, almost 200, right-turns, NCDOT feels
this is a worthwhile improvement.
SR 2930
In 2030, the northbound approach is expected to operate at LOS E in the
AM peak with a 95`h percentile queue of only 2 vehicles. There are 18
left-turns and 18 right-turns projected for the design year northbound
approach. The provision of a right-turn flare able to accommodate one
vehicle will improve the 95th percentile queue to one vehicle but the LOS
will remain E:
•
,g

Secretariat/Citation Drive
In 2030, the southbound approach is expected to operate at LOS E with a
9th percentile queue of three vehicles.in the AM Peak. In the PM Peak,
the northbound approach is expected to operate at LOS D with a 9th
percentile queue of one vehicle. The provision of a southbound right-turn
flare capable of handling one vehicle will reduce the queue to 2.15
vehicles which essentially is three vehicles and the level of service will
remain LOS E.
As seen above. the queues for these maneuvers are minor. three vehicles or
less except for SR 1113 for which an exclusive northbound right-turn lane
would be beneficial. It is important to note that these queues are for the
2030 design year and the intersections will operate better upon project
opening. If alterations to these intersectio~ls are required by the desi~~n
year, they can be evaluated when needed. They will also be reevaluated
along with the entire project upon receipt of updated traffic forecasts. In
summary. it is not uncommon to experience delays on unsignalized side
streets when trvi~i`~ to turn left and the resulting queues from these
movements are minor. Also, vehicles wishing to turn left on Brawley
School Road will have the ability to turn right and make a U-turn at
downstream median breaks.
E. Bridge Crossing at Gibbs Road
Page 13 of the EA states that the relocated Gibbs Road will cross an
unnamed tributary (UT) and will be bridged,, piped or culverted to the
south of Brawley School Road at this riew road crossing. A bridge is now
recommended at this location. Please see Figure 3, sheet 3 of the EA for a
map of the project. with the proposed improvements.
F. Project I-3819
Project I-3819. includes modification of an interchange at I-40 and I-77
neaz Statesville. Right of Way acquisition and Construction for part of the
project is scheduled to begin in 2005 and 2007 respectively. For a full
description of other projects in the azea, please refer to page 11 of the EA.
G. Noise Analysis Results
Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, there aze 33 residential receptors, 4 business
receptors and 1 school receptor predicted to be impacted by highway
traffic noise during the design year 2030. 8 receptors are predicted to
experience a substantial increase in exterior noise levels for the proposed
alignment. Full control of access is not proposed, allowing driveway and
at-grade intersections to occur, reducing the effect of noise abatement
measures. The effect of any noise bamers would be severely reduced due
to the need to provide openings for driveway and road connections.
Traffic noise impacts aze an unavoidable consequence of transportation
projects especially.in areas where there are not traffic noise sources.
Therefore, based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not recommended, and no noise abatement measures aze proposed. Please •
refer to the Traffic Noise Analysis contained in appendix D of the
Environmental Assessment.
,~

•
H. Interchange Justification
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the
Environmental Assessment for the project and through their comments
(included in Appendix B) questioned the need for a new interchange at
Brawley School Road and I-77 based on the data presented in the
Environmental Assessment. Amore detailed justification, detailin`_= the
need for the ne~~ interchange, is presented here.
The Federal Hi~~hway Administration requires the evaluation of 8
policy points. when reviewing the need to add an interchange to an
Interstate facility. such as I-77. Each of these points were fully evaluated
and that information was provided to the FHV~'A for consideration. The
following is a summary of each policy point. The entire "Interchange
Justification'' is on file at the North Carolina Department of Transportio-1.
Policy Point l : Thc~ existing interchanges and /or local roads and streets
in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor he improved
to satisfactorily accomrraodate the design year traffrc demands while at the
same time providing the access intended by the proposal.
Currently, Brawley School Road serves as the only access to portions of
• the Brawley Peninsula. Large amounts of residential development over
the fast several years have caused Brawley School Road to experience
volumes well exceeding its practical capacity. Additionally, the area
serves as a bedroom community for Charlotte, NC. There is a large
movement from the peninsula area to southbound I-77, and a return trip
from northbound I-77 to the peninsula. The addition of the interchange
with I-77 will bettei facilitate the large movement of traffic to and from
the Charlotte area. .
Access to and from I-77 for the Brawley School Peninsula area occurs at 2
interchanges, NC 150 to the north of the project area and SR 1109/SR
1109 to the south of the project area. Both of these access points require
traffic in the Peninsula area to use Brawley School Road then Williamson
Road (SR 1109) to the north or south. Williamson. Road is characterized
by numerous businesses, traffic signals and driveway cuts. The sole
reliance on Williamson Road to access I-77 from the Peninsula area is
putting a strain on the ability of Williamson Road to handle this large
traffic movement.
Obviously, a new interchange constructed at Brawley Road and I-77 will
offer the most direct access to and from I-77 for the Peninsula area. A
Brawley School Road /I-77 interchange would eliminate the need to use
Williamson Road from the Peninsula area in order to access I-77, resulting
in travel tune savings for motorists in: the Peninsula area:
. However, the deficiencies of the existing transportation network to
accommodate the traffic demand is evidenced along Williamson Road.
:n

Without a new interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77, Williamson .
Road would experience 31,800 vehicles per day in the year 2030 resulting
in level of service F, requiring the need to widen that facility to
accommodate the traffic in the future. Widening Williamson Road is not
preferred by NCDOT because that facility crosses Lake Norman and
construction could result in adverse impacts to the Lake Norman critical
areas. Constructing a new interchange at Brawley School Road and I-77
would signiGcaiitly reduce traffic along Williamson Road to1~8,600
vehicles per day in the ~~ear 2030, preventing the need for em~ironmentall~~
costly road improvements along Williamson Road.
Additionally, the construction of a new interchange at Brawley School
Road and I-77 significantly reduces the traffic demand at the existing SR
1 l09/I-77 interchange: thereby spreading out the traffic usage between the
two interchanges and reducing the potential for collision conflict and
congestion at the existin~~ overloaded interchange. The construction of a
Brawley School/I-77 interchange will reduce traffic at the US 21
interchange by 14.300 vehicles per day resulting in improved level of
service and safety in the US 21 interchange area.
Policy Point 2: All recr.conable alternatives for design options, location
and transportation system management type improvements have been
assessed and provided, for if currently justified, or provisions are included
for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identifted.
The Environmental Assessment detailed reasonable alternatives for •
the proposed action. and the rationale for alternative selection. A few
alternatives mentioned by the EPA as warranting additional investigation
are discussed as follows:
Alternate Modes of Transportation: This alternative was discussed in
the Environmental Assessment, but supplemental information is included
here:
The "Alternate Modes of Transportation" alternative addressed in the
Environmental Assessment concludes that bus, van, or caz pooling
services are not offered by the Town of Mooresville and that the
automobile is the dominant mode of transportation in the azea. NCDOT
coordinated with the Town and Iredell County with regazds to traffic
forecasts. The local governments supplied NCDOT with land use data as
well as information concerning future rail access to the Mooresville area.
The traffic forecasts displayed in the Environmental Assessment took. into
consideration rail/mass transit ridership. Those traffic forecasts indicate
the need for highway capacity improvements in the design yeaz 2030.
Additionally any alternate mode of transportation will have no effect on
improving access in the project azea.
Reduced Typical Section or Intersection Improvements: Reduced
typical section alternatives (i.e. 3-lane typical sections) and. intersection
improvement alternatives would not effectively reduce congestion in the
project area. Additional through lanes are needed to accommodate the
anticipated traffic in 2030. One through lane in each direction will not .
adequately serve 43,400 vehicles per day. Therefore intersection

' improvements alone or reduced typical sections will not support the
purpose and need of the project.
Improvements to the NC 150 Interchange: Improving the NC 150
interchange is not a viable alternative for the proposed project. The
purpose of the project is to improve access, reduce congestion, and
increase safety along Brawley School Road. The existing NC 150
interchange is not impairing access, level of service or safety in the project
area. Improving that interchange does not address the strain on the
existing roadway network required to provide access to NC 150 from the
project area.
Traffic System Mana~_ement (TSM) measures were considered during the
development of this project, and will continue to be considered during
final design. TSM alternatives include those types of limited construction
activities designed to maximize the utilization and energy efficiency of an
existing roadway. Additionally, analysis of intersections where traffic
. signals may be merited is included in Section V. D. of this document.
Possible TSM improvement options include traffic signal .optimization or
improvements to existing roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project.
V~~hile TSM measures will aid in reducing congestion and improving
safety, those measures alone will not adequately accommodate the
. projected traffic volumes on Brawley School Road. Based on the traffic
forecast, the level of service along Brawley School Road in the current
year ranges from E to F; without improvements to the existing road, the
LOS facility in the 2030 design year will operate at a LOS F. Individual
.intersection improvements were reevaluated in Section V. D. of this
document; however, intersection improvements alone would not influence
the mainline LOS, because there are not enough existing through lanes to
adequately accommodate the traffic.
Policy Point 3: The proposed access point does not have a significant
adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based
on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for
existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include analysis
of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing
or proposed interchange on either side. Crossroads and other roads and
streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure
their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange
with new or revised access points.
The interchange analysis indicates little effect of the proposed interchange
on adjacent ramp levels of service. The only area experiencing a reduction
in LOS in 2030 is Ramp D at the NC 150 interchange (AM peak LOS
degrades from C in the No-Build scenario to D in the Build scenario). The
decrease in LOS at this.ramp is most .1i.kely due to local traff c utilizing the
interstate to travel between the Brawley School Road corridor and the
. employment and retail development along the NC 150 comdor. In
addition, there is no LOS change on I-77 north or south of the proposed

interchange location- due to the interchange addition. The signal analysis
shows that the project does reduce queuing at both signalized intersections
at the US 21/SR 1109 interchange and the SR ] 109/I-77 interchange. The
proposed interchange does not cause freeway LOS to decrease on any
segment of I-77 through the project area.
Policy Point 4: The prr,hosed access connects to n public road only and
r~~ill provide for crll traffic movements. Less than "fi.rll interchanges "
for
_
special purpose acce.c.~• for• transit vehicles, for H(~1 "s', or into park and
ride lots may fie corzcidc~red on cr case-by-case bcr.ci,c. The proposed ucces.c
ti,~ill be desi`~~raated to meet or exceed current slcmclnrds' ror Federal-aid
projects on the Inter.ctute S~•.ctem.
The proposed justification meets all the provisions of Policy Point 4.
Policy Point ~: The prnpr~sal considers and is consistent 1i~ith local and
regional land use and trans~~ortation plans. PY101' tc~ frnal approval, all
requests for ne-r or revised access must be consistent i~~itlz the
metropolitan and/or statei,~ide transportation plan. as appropriate, the
applicable provisions of?3 CFR part 450, and the n•ansportation
conformity reguirement.c of ~0 CFR parts ~1 and 93.
The forecast utilized updated socioeconomic data in order to be consistent
with local land use plans. The proposed interchange is consistent with
local transportation plans. Local participation and public involvement was
maintained during the project. •
Policy Point 6: In areas tivhere the potential exists for future multiple
interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are
supported by a comprehensive Interstate network study with
recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the
context of a long-term plan.
The traffic analysis is based on a forecast developed using the Mooresville
Travel Demand Model. The model includes all existing interchanges
within the analysis corridor along with the proposed interchange of I-77
and SR 1102.
Policy Point 7: The request for a new or revised access generated by new
or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between
the development and related or otherwise required transportation system
improvements.
The need for the project is based on overall growth throughout the
Brawley Peninsula. No single development necessitated these
improvements.
Policy Point 8: The request for new or revised access contains information
relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental
processing of the proposal.
All environmental issues associated with the project have been addressed •
through the environmental document, prepared by the NC Department of
Transportation's Project Development and Environmental Analysis
;;

Branch. Additionally, the proposed interchange is included in the current
Mooresville Thoroughfare plan. The proposed interchange is also
included in the description of R-3833.
I. Proposed New Schoo] and Traffic Signal
A K-~ school, Woodland Heights Elementary School. as well as a traffic
signal ~~~ill be located approximately X00 feet ~~est of SR 1178 and just
north of SR l 100 alone Bra~~~ley School Road. It is not anticipated that
the proposed widenin~~ of Brawley School Road will impact this school.
VI. BASIS FOR F1NllING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental
Assessment and upon comments received from federal, state and local agencies and the
public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration 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; ecological, cultural, or
scenic resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and
will riot disrupt any communities. In view of the above evaluation, it has been
determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore,
• neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis will be
required.
SLC\

3~

•
Figures
•
1

1' .. . , 1
y " ~.. ~ _
., _
Y _ , ,~.} ,~ ~ -
r r '
1 ~ ~ ..
- .i ~n 1_
-., ;~~ i '~ -".~~ , '~'~ <Mooresville .:4
r t -
I c •- •'r ~• ~ ~ .r ~ Sr. ~ 1 - ~ ., ref '? . ~ 1' ',~ _
1
I Y r' ~- ~I
~7+k ~-'~"` ~-'" sip -. 5~ ~ -
,. ~ . -,
~ ~ Cam ~ ~ ~.` +.r.,c .1 `' _
~ L ~
~ ~ r:. -..~ .x. 1. ^ ~=, ti
~ r _ r
~ _ ~ 4~~ ~'~; •`~ ~ ~~,' ~ ~r . ( ~ ~'~ yep ..,~ '- ~ ~'~ ~ \ ~ ~'' fJ~~
,.. ~ ~-. ~ - r~
.!'~ tifx~yu _ ~ r -;.~ -r• u ~ i .~`S X11 ~1 - , _ ,~ '~: +,. j.. I. ~~a~~~. ~"'f__ ~Y ...~
~~ '~1 ^.6~Fc ,4 ,'S v itl r ?r~,r jti Iwz. ~. _ !t- ..I~i ~~t.re -~
'r ~ .; ~` ~ ~ -,M r =.' L T ~fw'% ~ ; -~.~,i - '-i~-,~ _ :~4 '.I . I, ~-- per,,,. t•''
1 1 r = ..- ..r µ ^~~J~i 1 i~aJ~ - i ' ~ „ -;,mac. •e! +~.
Y. ,~ ~ ~ ° f 7.i
uaomer
19
L' ALEX/
1 Tolm we
(I unw Rrvnr '
1
( 171 MN~nA1N
/ ~.
~"~ North Carolina
Department of Transportation
~:
R-3833
SR.•110Q ~6rawley School Road)
SR 1177 to US 21
FIGURE 1
Project Location -Map

•
Appendix A
•
•

tE: R-3833 EA distnbutton
Subject: RE: R-3833 EA distribution
~te: Wed, 14 Ju12004 13:50:16 -0500
m: "Lund, Steven W SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: 'Stephanie Ledbetter Caudill' <[e-mail]>
Stephanie; I did receive a copy and in response to your inquiry I scanned the natural resources section of the document. It appears that ONE
did not identify any wetlands in the project azea and just two Jurisdictional tributaries to Lake Norman. Utl to the west of I-77 would be
impacted by replacing an existing bridge with adouble-barrel box culvert at SR 1100 and by installation of a new culvert or bridge at the
relocated Gibbs Road location. Ut2 to the east of I-77 would be impacted by extending the existing culvert on SR 1100. The two impact sites
on Utl would have to considered cumulatively since they aze on the same channel. But considering the 120-foot wide right-of--way, I would
concur with the statement in the document that impacts at each stream should be less than 300 feet and therefore Nationwide or General
Permits should apply. Stream channel mitigation would be required for impacts over 150 feet. Of course, we would recommend that impacts
to the channels and associated floodplains be minimized and in this regard, a bridged crossing on the Gibbs Road relocation may be
appropriate. Low flow sills may be appropriate on any new box culverts or box culvert extensions to enhance fish passage. And any perched
or hanging culverts should be corrected. The Mayhew Property is well outside of our permit area so this would not be a concern in 404
permitting. Thanks for the reminder.
-----Original Message----
From: Stephanie Ledbetter Caudill [mailtos]caudill(a~dotstate.nc.us]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 9:26 AM
To: [e-mail]:ny.mil
Subject: R-3833 EA distribution
Hi Steve,
I was wondering if you have received a copy of the Brawley School
Road (R-3833) EA that was completed in December of last year? I
inherited this project, and just wanted to make sure that you
w given an opportunity to review and comment.
know if you would like another copy sent to your office,
~ you,
Stephanie Caudill
919-733-7844
•
11 '~='0-3 1~:~6 P~1

Ja~tED ST,~r~S
A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
~~ YW REGION 4
o ~`~~ ~ ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
Z;F~1~/~02 61 FORSYTH STREET '
~l'~< pgot~~'` ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
May 6, 2004
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699~~1548
~v v
MAY 11 2004
%. ~NIO_ MHM~ _~~
SUBJ: EPA Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment for SR 1100 (Brawley
School Road) Improvements from SR 1177 to US 21 with an urban
interchange at I-77, Mooresville, Iredell County; Federal Aid Project No.
STP-150(11), State Project No. 8.1823301, T.I.P. Project No. R-3833'
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Pursuant to. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed the referenced North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) for SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) Improvements
from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21 with a proposed single point urban interchange at I-
77, Mooresville, Iredell County.
The EA addresses the No-build alternative, alternative modes of transportation and two
widening construction alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2). Alternative 1 is NCDOT's
recommended alternative which includes a "best-fit" 4-lame widening with a grassed median and
16-foot outside bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Alternative 2 includes a 5-lane undivided section
with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Both alternatives include asingle-point urban interchange at I-
77. Residential traffic would be re-routed to a 3,000 foot new location 2-lane facility with paved
shoulders and grass berms. The length of the proposed widening alternatives is approximately 5.9
miles. EPA offers the following comments on the EA.
This project is anon-Merger Team project. However, this project would have been a
viable candidate for inclusion in the Merger process because of several factors, including the
potential impact to unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the critical water supplies at Lake Norman,
construction of a new interchange within one mile of an existing interchange, and the
construction of a 2-lane, 3,000-foot new location segment for residential traffic.
EPA acknowledges that NCDOT has streamlined some of the sections of the EA.
However, not all of the streamlining efforts facilitated EPA's review of the EA. There is no
summary table of anticipated impacts to.the human and natural environment and other sections
are lacking specific analysis and impact details. These sections are identified below.
•

Internet Address (UAL) • http~//www.epa.gov

•
-2-
- PURPOSE AND NEED
The EA states that the project needs are to improve safety, route connectivity and system
performance. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to improve access, reduce
congestion and increase safety. Most of the justification for the proposed project is based upon
sprawling residential and commercial development in the project study area, including
Mooresville, the Brawley School peninsula and the Lake Norman area.
While safety is always a concern, statistical information provided in Table 5 on page 10
indicates that SR 1100 is well below the State-wide averages for all major categories of accident
types. Other traffic system management (TSM) measures could help to alleviate some of the
more problematic intersections or other areas of conflict. For example, conflicts with school
buses (estimated at 50 school buses making 2 trips per day) could be addressed through
providing separate turn and `queuing' lanes near Williamson Road and Oaktree Road. Existing
horizontal and vertical curvatures for SR 1100 do not appear to be critical or outside of typical
design standards. The rationale for constructing curb and gutter throughout the project as
discussed on page 11 of the EA does not appear to be supported by accident studies. EPA would
suggest that curb and gutters do little or nothing in the way of "running off the road" or "hitting a
fixed object". Rear-end/stop type accidents mentioned in the EA would be unaffected by the
S addition of curbs and gutters.
The EA does not address the lost travel time in accessing Interstate 77 or other major
roadways. Thus, it is not possible to determine if improved access is really a major need. The
existing interchange at NC 1S0 is approximately 1 mile from the new proposed interchange.
There is no detailed analysis in the EA which addresses why improvements to the NC 150
interchange could not provide improved connectivity. The NC 150 interchange should have been
considered to be within the project study area and included in the alternatives analysis.
Current and forecasted traffic volumes do appear to be a substantial concern (i.e.,
between 7,800 and 24,800 vehicles per day in base year 2003 and 9,200 and 44,700 vehicles per
day in year 2030). However, traffic forecasting may not be accurate if it is based upon the
current pace of uncontrolled development and a lack of integration with appropriate land use
planning controls. Furthermore, EPA is very concerned with the compliance with-the local land
use plan: "...the land development effects that would be created in response to a new interchange
with I-77 at Brawley School Road would be inconsistent with Mooresville's existing zoning and
future land use...."(from page 35 of the EA). This statement acknowledges a lack of coordination
and integration of local land use planning with transportation planning involving the interchange
for this project.
Table 3, Level of Service:.(LO.S) for un-signalized ilxtersection analysis on page 8 of the
EA provides information which demonstrates no viable rationale for constructing a new
interchange at Interstate 77. LOS for most of the intersections is either the same or worse with

•
the interchange than without it. Twenty (20) intersections will operate at the same LOS without
the interchange and three (3) will function at a lower LOS. The only tangible improvement in
LOS at these intersections is with the roadway improvements to 4/5 lanes without the
interchange. These improvements are not substantial. Out of 23 intersections, almost half or
eleven (11) will have a LOS of F in the 2030 design year with the NCDOT proposed roadway
improvements.
Table 2, LOS for mainline segments of the project on page 7 of the EA also indicates
worse conditions with the interchange than. without it. Of the 6 segments analyzed, four (4)
segments will remain unchanged with the interchange and two (2) segments will experience
poorer LOS with the interchange.
Overall, the need for the proposed project has not been adequately justified. Excessive
traffic volumes for a two lane facility could be addressed through TSM measures and other less
costly improvements. NCDOT's assertion that the proposed interchange will decrease travel
times and intersection congestion (Page vii, Summary) is not supported by the facts contained in
the EA. EPA does not concur with the improvements proposed based upon safety or route
connectivity. EPA does agree that there is some rationale for improvements based upon system
performance (congestion). However, these improvements should be cost effective with respect
to the benefits to be derived from the project. Based upon safety, LOS and other traffic data, the ,
interchange and the scope of the proposed project should be re-evaluated by NCDOT.
- ALTERNATIVES
The EA addresses the No-build, Alternative Modes of Transportation and the 2
construction alternatives. Also, NCDOT evaluated typical roadway section alternatives (41ane
median divided curb and gutter and 5-lane curb and gutter undivided section). However, the EA
does not include a detailed analysis of other potential alternatives, including intersection traffic
improvements, designated parking facilities for Charlotte commuter traffic, bus, van & carpool
options, or other typical roadway sections (e.g. 3-lane with center turning lane) for certain
sections. Without providing origin/destination study information, the EA states that bus, van or
carpool services would not substantially or economically serve to alleviate congestion and'
improve safety along SR 1100. NCDOT does conclude that the proposed interchange would
serve to improve connectivity for Charlotte commuters and reduce congestion at intersections.
EPA does not concur with this contradictory finding based upon the information contained in the
EA. The project's proposed interchange is not located in an urban area and it was EPA's
understanding of the FHWA and NCDOT policy not to place interstate interchanges within a
mile of one another. The proposed interchange appears to be approximately 1 mile from the
interchange at NC 150.
NCDOT proposes to construct 16-foot outside lanes along the entire 5.9 mile route to

• -0
accommodate bicycle traffic. While EPA generally supports this proposal, EPA is concerned
that the NCDOT project development office does not propose to provide stripping for these
outside lanes as was recommended in a November 5, 2003, memorandum from the NCDOT's
Director for the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. This memorandum points
out a significant safety concern shared by EPA if these lanes are left unmarked.
Regarding the use of curb and gutters and sidewalks for the entire length of the project,
EPA does not believe that necessary stormwater management controls can be obtained for the
roadway improvements and all of the additional impervious services without potential and
substantial impacts to the tributaries to a critical water supply at Lake Norman. NCDOT has left
the issue of sidewalks beyond the limits of the town of Mooresville unresolved. Because this
issue can substantially effect the amount of impervious surfaces, stormwater management
requirements and the ultimate right of way costs and potential impacts to water quality, NCDOT
should resolve this issue prior to the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) or in
an EA re-evaluation.
Potential impacts to the human and natural environment from the relocation of utilities
(e.g. water and sewer lines) have not been estimated in the EA. The EA acknowledges that there
• are utilities present throughout the 5.9 mile project, but it does not indicate what estimate may
need to be relocated as a result of selecting the preferred alternative.
Page 11 of the EA lists other Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects in the
area but it does not include the I-3819 project. The scoping notice for I-3819 was issued by
NCDOT less than a month after signing the EA for this project and includes the same Project
Development and Environmental Analysis (PDEA) project manager (i.e. Kristina Solberg, P.E.).
An EA re-evaluation or FNSI should include a full description of the major interchange
improvements being considered by NCDOT for the I-77 corridor in Iredell County.
Overall, the alternatives analysis provided in the EA is not comprehensive primarily
because it did not consider improvements to the NC 150 interchange. Also, the EA does not
provide an environmental impact comparison between the two build alternatives that were
considered. Further, there is no comparison of the costs for the two build alternatives nor for the
typical section alternatives. The EA only provides a total and cost breakdown for the preferred
alternative ($45,860,000 total).
- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
* Wetlands Impacts -The proposed project is not expected to have any impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands. However, there are hydric soils present in xhe,project area (Page 44 of the EA) and the
location of hazardous spill catch basins and stormwater management devices has yet to be
determined.

* Stream Impacts -The recommended alternative will potentially impact up to 6001inear feet of
UTs to Lake Norman. The actual estimated impact in linear feet is shown as < 3001inear feet per
stream crossing. However, the relocation of utilities from the proposed project is not estimated
and thus, the actual impact is yet undetermined by NCDOT.
* Terrestrial Forest Resources -The EA indicates that approximately 3.94 acres of impact to
Pine/Hardwood forest, 0.13 acres of impact to White Pine forest and 0.23 acres of impact to
Riparian forest (?). EPA questions if this riparian forest impact is not potentially jurisdictional
wetlands.
* Noise Receptors -The body of the EA contains no analysis of potential noise impacts resulting
from the project. Appendix D contains tables which indicates 101 businesses or residents which
will experience some noise level increases from 1 to 14 dBA and 38 impacted noise receptors per
FHWA criteria with 13 of these receptors exceeding substantial noise level criteria. One of the
38 impacted noise receptors is a school. There is no explanation provided in the body of the EA
which defines what this information means. Furthermore, the body of the EA does not
specifically refer the reviewer to the December 22, 2003, memorandum contained in Appendix D
which helps to explain the noise analysis.. According to table N4, there is also a church which
will experience a traffic noise increase of 9 dBA from ambient conditions. From the noise •
analysis and the tables, it can not be determined by EPA which school would be impacted and
why noise abatement measures were neither cost-effective nor appropriate for this Category E
receptor.
* Indirect and Cumulative Impacts -EPA acknowledges the cumulative impact assessment
provided in the EA by NCDOT. However, EPA does not concur with some of the conclusions
NCDOT has developed regarding the effect of increased roadway capacity and the induction of
daily trips. Furthermore, this analysis does not incorporate future mass transportation
opportunities between Mooresville and Charlotte along the I-77 corridor. Based upon NCDOT's
LOS analysis, little congestion improvement will be provided at a majority of the intersections
even with the proposed improvements in year 2030. Much of the project is outside of the
municipal limits of Mooresville. As evidenced by the statistical growth rate facts contained in
the EA, residential and commercial development has not been significantly limited by water
supply watershed regulations or the current lack of water and sewer in outlying areas. EPA
believes that the increased roadway capacity in this ruraUsuburban project setting will exacerbate .
development sprawl and place further burden on local government to implement sound land use
planning controls.
* Air uali -Please see the Attachment to this letter regarding air quality issues.
* Other impacts -EPA acknowledges. the other impacts resulting from the proposed project,
including relocations (17 residences, 9 businesses), a historic property (Mayhew House) and
construction related impacts. It is unclear from the EA if the 4 additional business relocations

• d
identified on page 16 as a result of an alignment shift are included in the above figure. EPA
does not recommend burning of vegetative matter generated during clearing and grubbing
operations (Page 60 of the EA). Burning is EPA's least preferred option, especially in non-
attainment or maintenance areas. NCDOT should consider more environmentally-friendly
options, such as shredding and mulching and making these recycled materials available to the
public.
EPA notes that prime farmland impacts have been generally addressed on pages 24-25 of
the EA. However, there is insufficient detail to ascertain if there are any current properties along
the corridor which aze currently under agricultural use and if these potential properties would be
impacted by the project.
- SUNIlVIARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
EPA is concerned that the EA does not provide for a full analysis of the human and
environmental impacts from the proposed project. EPA is concerned that adequate purpose and
need has not been demonstrated based upon safety and connectivity issues, and that a proposed
new interchange will not improve future traffic conditions along the SR 1100 corridor.
Furthermore, EPA is concerned with a project which more than doubles roadway capacity
(including 16-foot outside, unmarked bicycle lanes) within a critical water supply watershed
without a detailed stormwater management plan. EPA is also concerned about stream impacts,
noise receptor impacts, air quality impacts, residential and business relocations, secondary
impacts from utility relocations, and potential indirect and cumulative impacts. Because of the
number of concerns of the proposed project and since other alternatives were not provided more
detailed analysis or serious consideration, EPA requests that NCDOT re-evaluate the project
scope.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this EA. Should you have questions
regazding these comments, please contact Christopher Militscher of my staff at 919-856-4206.
Sincerely,
I~
I' ~~
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management
Enciosnre
cc w/Enclosure: Steve Lund, USACE Raleigh

ATTACHMENT
General Air Quality Issues:
There is no detailed analysis contained in the EA which examines the issue of induced
demand resulting from the proposed widening and new interchange. It is unclear from the model
analysis if the model fully captured trip distribution changes in response to the proposed increase
in roadway capacity.
The NCDOT analyzed the increased traffic volume with and without a new interchange.
Based upon year 2030 projections it appears that the alternative without the interchange serves
the system performance criteria better. Specifically, the areas of most concern are the SR1109 to
I-77 and the I-77 to US 21 segments.
The indirect and cumulative impact analysis contained in the EA does not explain why
the proposed project would not further accelerate growth, induced travel and traffic congestion in
an area where land use controls as supposed to be controlling development.
Air Conformity Issues:
•
The air quality analysis contained in the EA does not specifically address the major
concern for this area: ozone. This .area of Iredell County is in the 8-hour non-attainment area for
ozone. The project area is between two major non-attainment areas (between Charlotte and
Greensboro-High Point) and the additional traffic from induced travel will have a further impact
on air quality. This impact needs to be analyzed with the rest of the region and how air
conformity will be met with this additional project. The EA did not provide a detailed analysis
of the impacts to the I-77 corridor resulting from the new interchange. The NCDOT should
provide additional analysis and information on potential air quality impacts and conformity
requirements.
•

•
.^~ c o
3 ~'
~ ~-
.~~~,,.
North Carolina
~' L'0'1 r.-, ~ ~. L i~r~ I
4.: '
J`' ~ MAY - ~ 2004 ~.
Project Management _
Department of Administrati
Michael F. Easley, Governor
May 3, 2004
Mr. Omar Sultan
NCDOT
Program Development Section
1534 MSC
Raleigh, NC
Dear Mr. Sultan:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
_.
PRO.lF~-' ~lLF
t) GE1~lF~AI r;.t~~ESPnNDENCF
(i PUi?LiC ~±~ANlt~i;
() FILE ~NiTH cSTIlJIATES
_ _.
Re: SCH File # 04-E-4220-0270; Environmental Assessment; Proposed project for widen SR 1100
(Brawley School Rd) from SR 1177 (Chickwood Rd) to US 21 with a proposed single point
urban interchange. @ I-77, Mooresville. (R-3833)
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
• state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
It should be noted that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has recommended that this
document be revised to address the attached concerns prior to their concurrence with a Finding of No
Significant Impact. Should any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, it
should be forwarded to this office for further intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
i~ ~
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region F
Melba McGee, DENR
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Arlrlras:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax (919j733-9571 116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Caroluta
e-mail Chrys.Baggett(a~ncmail.net
An Enr~nl Opponc~nrN.~A~nnative Action Employer

e~~
~~-
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
MEMORANDUM
T0:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee Y"
Environmental Review Coordinator
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
04-0270 EA for Improvements to Brawley School Road, Iredell County
April 28, 2004
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. Before concurring with a Finding of No Significant Impact,
there are several points that need further clarification.
The proposed project lies within the Lake Norman Water Supply Watershed.
This raises the issue with the project's effect on water quality. The Department
of Transportation recognizes the potential for growth. This raises the issue
with secondary and cumulative impacts and whether these impacts have the
potential to be elevated to a level of significance. According to the attached
comments there are no wetland impacts and only one stream crossing within the
critical area of the water supply watershed. At this point, the department is
concerned with sediment and stormwater runoff due to the possible increase in
impervious surface. The Department of Transportation's ability to address
secondary and cumulative impacts and go beyond standard measures that would
avoid and minimize impacts will be key in determining whether this project can
stand as an EA/FONSI.
The Department of Transportation is encouraged to work with our commenting
agencies, so concerns can be resolved prior to permit application.. It is also
recommended that this information be provided as part of a revised Environmental
Assessment. Concurrence with the Finding of No Significant Impact will be
conditional upon division comments being satisfactorily addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments ~°
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.uslENR
•
•
•

•
~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator 7Yj~,,,~
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: Apri122, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of the Environmental Assessment for improvements to SR 1100 (Brawley
School Road) from SR 1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21 with a proposed single
point urban interchange at I-77, Mooresville; Iredell County, North Carolina. TIP
No.R-3833.
North Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has submitted for review an
Environmental Assessment document for the subject project. Staff biologists with the North
Cazolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the information provided.
These comments aze provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to improve SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177
(Chuckwood Road) to US 21 with a proposed single point urban interchange at I-77. The
proposed project would widen the existing two-lane road to a multi-lane facility for a total
project length of 5.9 miles. A four-lane divided curb and gutter roadway with 16-foot outside
lanes to accommodate bicycles and sidewallcs planned for both sides of the road is presented as
the recommended alternative. In addition, as a result of the proposed interchange, the
intersection of Brawley School Road and SR 1196 (Gibbs Road) and approximately 3,000 feet of
Gibbs Road would be relocated to the west. No control of access is proposed. All types of
accident rates were below the state average for this type of facility, however Brawley School
Road is currently heavily congested and expected to be over capacity by the yeaz 2015.
The praject,is located on tlie,$,rawley School Peninsula of Lake Norman, which is
considered a lakeside living environment. This peninsula has become a Chazlotte bedroom
. community as well as a resort area due to its proximity to~Lake Norman. The entire project lies
-~ -- - ~ r., - -

Brawley School Rd. & new I-77 interchange 2 Apri122, 2004
UT's to Lake Norman, Iredell County
within the boundaries of the Lake Norman Water Supply Watershed critical area and protected
area. Brawley School Road lies on a ridge and has only two stream crossings in the project area;
one of those streams would be crossed again by the Gibbs Road relocation. Both tributaries,
classified as WS-IV & B CA, and the entire project azea drain to Lake Norman. No wetlands are
to be impacted. Lake Norman, the lazgest man-made lake in North Carolina, is heavily used for
swimming, boating and fishing. Considerable development exists along the shoreline.
Secondary and cumulative impacts are the major concern for this project. The Town of
Mooresville is the sixth fastest growing municipality in North Carolina. While Iredell County's
growth rate of 31.0% exceeded that of the state, 21.4%, the project demographic azea in southern
Iredell County grew by an overwhelming 146.3% from 1990 to 2000, indicative of its residential
attractiveness. Residential growth is driving the economy of this azea, creating more
employment, commercial services and public facilities. Also, public policy in southern Iredell
County is pro-growth, with local government providing incentives for businesses to locate in the
area. As the document indicated, with the rapid growth that is taking place, there is probably less
than a 20-year supply of land available along the project corridor. The project is expected to
accelerate growth and development of the peninsula because of the location attractiveness and
the improved access and mobility it will bring to the azea.
Fueled by recent transportation infrastructure investments and increased residential
development, the I-77 corridor has become a magnet for commercial development over the past
decade in both Mecklenburg and Iredell Counties. Anew interchange at Brawley School Road
and I-77 should generate additional interstate-related office, light industrial and retail facilities.
Current access to I-77 from the project azea is at the NC 150 interchange (accessed via SR 1109,
Williamson Road) just one mile north of the proposed interchange or at the Williamson Road/US
21 interchange approximately two miles south of the proposed interchange.
The document forecast the Level of Service (LOS) of project road segments and
intersections for the year 2030 under two scenarios -with and without building tht I-77
interchange. The mainline road segments east and.west of I-77 and several nearby intersections
had worse projected LOS with the interchange than without. The data presented does not justify
the inclusion of the interchange. Perhaps an analysis of LOS forecast for the roads currently
being used to access I-77 under the two scenarios will provide better justification. Many of the
intersections will continue to experience failing LOS conditions, regazdless of whether the
interchange is built or not. This issue needs to be addressed. We recommend that a partial
control of access alternative be included in future analysis to determine if it can improve LOS
and/or reduce growth rates and secondary and cumulative impacts.
A detailed assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts to water quality was not
conducted, however it was forecast that induced household growth from 2000 to 2020 would be
607 and induced growth would increase average daily trips by 12.5%. The document indicated
that household growth may be slightly underestimated. Water supply watershed regulations limit
the density of both residential and commercial development, however no details were given
about the regulations and. to what extent growth will be limited and water quality will be
protected. No estimation of impervious surface coverage currently existing or expected at build-
out was provided, nor when build-out is likely to occur. Numerous studies have shown that •

Brawley School Rd. & new I-77 interchange 3 Apri122, 2004
UT's to Lake Norman, Iredell County
' when 10-15% of a watershed is converted to impervious surfaces, there is a serious decline in
the health of receiving waters (Schueler 1994) and the quality offish habitat and wetlands are
negatively impacted (Booth 1991, Taylor 1993). It is likely that additional regulations or
ordinances will be necessary to adequately protect water quality. Preservation of wildlife habitat
and open space is also important to the health of the area and enhances the quality of life for
residents. Efforts to properly manage growth are needed to meet existing land use plan goals of
maintaining residential character and low-density residential development, which is proposed for
much of the project vicinity.
A detailed study of secondary and cumulative impacts in the area and commitments to
measures to mininize these impacts are recommended. We strongly encourage local authorities
to adopt regulations and measures that would provide significant protection to the natural
resources in their care. Measures to mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts can be found in
the Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to
Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality (NCWRC 2002). Also, we
strongly encourage NCDOT and local authorities to use low impact development techniques to
manage stormwater quantity and quality (see www.lowimpactdevelopment.org for information).
Alternatives to traditional curb and gutter should be developed to provide better treatment of
stormwater. We encourage the use ofnon-impervious materials to construct sidewalks, parking
lots, and other facilities, particularly in developed watersheds with a high percentage of
impervious surfaces.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If-you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone]:
Literature Cited:
Booth, D. 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage .system-impacts, solutions, and
prognoses. Northwest Environmental Journal 7(1):93-118.
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2002. Guidance Memorandum to
. Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial
Wildlife Resources and Water Quality. NCWRC, Raleigh. Available:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07 WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7c3_impacts.pdf. (February
2003).
Schueler, Tom 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques.
1:3 (pp100-111).
Taylor, B.L. 1993. The influences of wetland and watershed morphological characteristics and
relationships to wetland vegetation communities. Masters thesis. Dept. of Civil
Engineering. University of Washington. Seattle, WA.
cc: Marella Buncick; USFWS
. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ

o~oF w A rFR pG Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina DeparVnent of Environment and Natural Resources
~ ~ Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
r
>_ y Division of Water Quality
p ~' Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
April 14, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental A''f~~fai~~r~~s
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, Environmental Engineer ~'~w
NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Review of Environmental Assessment for proposed SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
Improvements from SR 1177 to US 21, Mooresville, Iredell County, F.A. Project STP-
150(11), State Project No. 8.1823301, TIP Project R-3833, State Clearinghouse Project
04-0270.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has submitted an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the subject project. The primary purpose of this project is to improve access, reduce congestion,
and increase safety for travelers.
The NC Division of Water Quality has reviewed the document and is commenting in accordance with the
• provisions of § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
The Levels of Service (Table 2) indicate that 2030 mainline LOS will be higher at two intersections with
a 4/5-lane facility without the interchange; the other intersections show the same LOS with or without the
interchange. Table 3 indicates that LOS will be worse in at three intersections, with no improvement in
LOS at the others.
'Build Alternatives
NCDOT has developed two alternatives: a 4-lane median divided typical section and a 5-lane typical
section. DWQ concurs with NCDOT's choice of preferred alternative (Alternative l~tlte 4-lane median
divided section-even though it requires a larger footprint, because of the safety benefits. However, the
16-foot outside lane should be striped as recommended by NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division (see
page AS).
The EA did not include data for Alternative 2 such as construction costs, relocatees, and. stream impacts.
This is necessary for evaluating the human and natural impacts of afederally-funded action.
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
The EA performed a preliminary assessment of the indirect and cumulative effects for this project. The
project lies within an area of rapid growth. DWQ may require further information analysis prior to
issuance of a §401 Water Quality Certification in order to assess the project's affect on downstream water
quality.
•
NGDEivf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Cert'rfication Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
~~ ~ „~ 'a~ ~chene) 9' - , 33-So93 !faxl ht'e' 'h2o.enr.s;ate_nc us~rca~etlands'

Comments on tsrawiey 5cnooi rsoaa tH
Iredell County
April 14, 2004
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. NCDWQ requests that the above issues and concerns be
fully addressed by NCDOT prior to issuance of a FONSI. The NCDOT is reminded that issuance of a
401 Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. ff you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919.733.5694.
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella, L'SFWS Asheville Field Office
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
•
•
2

~ PERMITS I SPECIAL APPLICATICIN PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
Permit to drill explorator oil or as well
Y 9 Fle surety bond of 55,000 with DENR running to State of N
C
conditi
l
h (Statutory Time Umr
.
.
ona
t
at any
well opened by drill operator shalt, upon abandonment, be plugged according
to DENR rules and re
ulati
10 days
g
ons. (N/q)
Geophysical Exploration Permit
Appliption filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application ~
by letter. No standard application form. 10 days

State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descri
i (N/A)
pt
ons
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
15 - 20 days

401 water pualiry Certification (N/A)
N/A 55 days

(~ CAMA Permit for MAOR development (130 days)
5250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days

I~ CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accom an a lication
p y pp (130 days)
22 days

Several geodetic monumenu are located in or nearthe project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notiry:
N.C Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611 (25 days)
I~ Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance withTitle 15A.Subchapter2C0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if'orphan' underground storage tanks (U5T5) are discovered during any ex~vation operation
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal 5tormwater Rules) is required. a
45 days
(N/A) -'
~` Other commenu lattach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)

~rt~J - tno ~nvtn-~ - ~'~(, y l1rfa~/ ~ ~ "~ J
y_

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
D Asheville Regional Office ~ Mooresville Regional Office ^ Wilmington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Ptace 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone] ~ [phone]
D Fayetteville Regional Office ^ Raleigh Regional Office ^ Winston-Salem Regional Off ce
225 Green Street, Suite 714 .,.ti - 3800 Ban'ett~Drive; P.O. Box 27687 °~ S85 W3fJghtown'Street
• rayettevilf,e, N.C28301 Raleigh, N.C27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
• . [phone] [phone]
(336} 771-4600
^ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
lh'ashington, N.C. 27889

~~~ State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:_L I ~Q
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: ~-,,.Q„~~Due Date: ~~
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this pro)r~c
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All appfiotions, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURE or REQUIREMEM'S Normal Process Time
(St
atutory Time Umit)
Permit to construtt & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems Application 40 days before begin construction or award of construction

not discharging into state surface waters contracu. On-srte inspeRion. Post-application technipl conference usual. 30 days i
. (90 days)
(~ NPDS-permit to di
h
sc
arge into surface water and/or
i Application 180 days before begin aRiviry, On-site inspection
r
li

perm
t to operate and construct wastewater facilities
dscharaing into state surface waters p
eapp
ption
conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
96-120 days
. facility-granted after NPDES. Repiy time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
(N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
W
U
ater
se PertnR Preappliotion technical conference usually necessary
30 days
' (N/A)
I Well C
~ onstruRion Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
• installation of a well. 7 days
(15 days)
Dred
e and RII P
g
ermit Appliation copy must be served on each adjacent riparian propeRy owner.
On-site inspection. Preappliotion conference usual. Filling may require Easement 55 days
• to Fill from N.C Department of Administration and Federal Dredge antl Fill Permit (90 days)
Permit to Construct &
ope2te Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 75 A NCAC

QQ.0100, 20.0300, 2H.0600) N/A
60 days
(] Any open burning associated with sub
l
jeR proposa
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.7900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 {a) (1) which requires notifiotion WA 60 days
and removal priorto demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group 919-T3-0620.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
Th
di
S
e
e
mentation Pollution Control AR of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be di
days before beginning activity
A fee of 540 for the f
t sturbed. Plan filed with• proper Regional Office (Land pualiry Section) at least 30 20 days
.
irs
a cre or any part of an age. (3U days)
f] The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced local Ordinance
30 days
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greaterthan 30 days
one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the pernrt an be issued.
(-~ North Carolina Burning permit Orr-site inspeRion by N.C Division of Forest Resources if pem-it exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties Orrsite inspection by N.CDivision of Forest Resources required'if more than five
in coastal N.C_with organic soils. acres of ground clearing attivfties arc involved InspeRions should be
requested 1 day

at kart ten days before actual bum is planned.- (N/A)
Oil Refining Facilities ~

N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit If permit required,applitation 60 days before begin cortmuaion. Appliont
must hire N.C.qualified engineerto: prepare plans,inspect construction,txrtl(y
conmuRion is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito conttol prooram,and a 404 permftfrom Corps of Engineers. 30 days
• An inspeRion of site a necessary to verify Hazard Gassifionon. A minimum (60 days)
fee of 5200.00 must accompanythe application. An addaional processing fee

r based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
- NATURAL RESOURCES o~-t - 02~~
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
• ~(lfil JF~ v v
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name `J~~''"~~F 1 ~`~~~ '"~~2~J Type of Project ~~
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
^ This project will be classified as anon-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section,- [phone].
^ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
• ^ The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information conceming appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
^ The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas.. Fqr information concerning.rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at.
[phone].
^ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone]. • : •. ,
U
- 4: .._.
^ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department r~parding the''-,
sanitary facilities required for this project. ~ ~ Fa ~
~C,?' ~ .
~/ ii -"}
~J If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for Yhe,waterBne -_~~
/~ relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, ''P.tipJjc'1Nater
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North:: -
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone]. -
^ For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
~,~, s~TZ<~ Piss o
Reviewer Section/Brartch Date

~~~' i i I ~2 f ~,r
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES oyr_ o~~p
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
• ..~re~e
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
S~/Q~/ice) IQ /'auJ~ey~,eo(~°d -gym rs/~~~
Project Name Typ~of Project
fro.r, S~4'//!9 C vc%,,u~c~ ~~ ~ ~~'a~
Comments provided by: ~~;~rt,:
f, _ - -aa ~
^ Regional Program Person ~~~~•
^ Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section
^ Central Office program person
Name: ~ ~ t% SE,-z ~
.~-PR p 6 204
~ publtcW~rSvp'P~
Date:
Telephone number: ~° `{ ~ L 3 / ~ ~
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
^ Public Water Supply
^ Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
^ No objection to project as proposed
^ No comment
^ Insufficient information to complete review
^ Comments attached
See comments below ~o,/ 3,at [GJ
h1°2~~~9 ~~~ ~ •
~~ ~~
~c~,~o ~
o ~'~ ,~
l ~~° .
Retum to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
•
•

f- ~., .. ~ ~i.:~
~-
•
•
' DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES ©,~- 0,~~0
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
`~r'Pde /
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
.~1Qt~/i m-P~J ~' ra ~l¢~ ~~i ~o(~d .~r„ r e /e.~ a~
Project Name
~
T
y
p
of
P
roject
~~
,
/
,
/
free-, Sk//77 C vc/~,,u,~t~~~ TO N o~o~
l
,
Comments provided by: ,~ _,..--. ~--~

~i~!y
^ Regional Program Person .. .,~, -,t~t~~
rY^""
^ Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section ~PR ~ '' Z~fl~
^ Central Office program person ,. _.
Name: 1~- ~ ~ s~ %Z ~-~
~
Date: a
Telephone number: ~ ~° `'t' ~ ~o G 3 / (v ~ ~'
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
^ Public Water Supply
^ Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
^ No objeciicn to project as proposed
^ No comment
^ Insufficient information to complete review
^ Comments attached
See comments below (~~ 3,v.clGJ
•
,~o~; tg 2S `0 ~' ~
~~ ~ ~~
~~ APR 2 p44 v~
d ~J
-,
o~l~ ~`~
9/ S,~ 6l ~l Z~~`
Retum to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health

•
Appendix B
•
•

NOTICE OF APRE-HEARING OPEN HOUSE
AND A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING
OF SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD)
FROM SR 1177 (CHUCKWOOD ROAD) TO US 21
' WITH A PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT I-77
WBS No. 34554.1.1 R-3833 Iredell County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the above Pre-Hearing
Open House on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the Charles Mack Citizens
Center located at 215 North Main Street, Mooresville. Interested individuals may attend the open
house at their convenience between the above stated hours to become familiar with the proposed
design. A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PROJECT WILL BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE
SAME LOCATION.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed location and design, right of way
requirements and procedures, and relocation advisory assistance. The hearing will be open to
those present for statements, questions, comments, and/or submittal of material pertaining to the
proposed project. Additional material may be submitted for a period of 30 days from the date of the
hearing to: Ed Lewis, Public Involvement Unit, 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583.
NCDOT proposes to widen a 6.1 mile section of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR
1177 (Chuckwood Road) to US 21 with a proposed interchange at I-77. In the vicinity of the
proposed interchange at I-77, the SR 1196 (Gibbs Road) intersection with Brawley School Road will
be relocated to the west requiring the construction of a connector road between Gibbs Road and
Brawley School Road on new location to the south and west of Gibbs Road. Several roads that
intersect with Brawley School Road will require additional work as well.
Additional right of way and.the.re/ocation of homes and businesses will be required
for this project.
A map showing the proposed location and design of, the project and a copy of the
environmental document -Environmental Assessment -are available for public review at the
following location:
Mooresville Engineering.Department
Mooresville Executive Center Suite 619-A
201 North Church Street
Mooresville, North Carolina
Anyone desiring additional information concerning the Pre-Hearing Open House or the
Public Hearing may contact Mr. Lewis at the above address; by telephone at
[phone]; by FAX at [phone]; or by email at [e-mail].
NCDOT - in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act -will provide auxiliary aids
and services for disabled citizens who wish to participate in the hearing. To receive special
services, please call Mr. Lewis at the above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
hearing.

•
~,
O =I
',T O:
~F,y~ OF TR~~'QO
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED WIDENING OF
BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD (SR 1100)
FROM CHUCKWOOD ROAD (SR 1177)
TO US 21 WITH A PROPOSED
INTERCHANGE AT I-77
State Project Number 8.2313201
Federal Project STP-150(11)
TIP PROJECT R-3833
Iredell County
Public Hearing
Charles Mack Citizens Center
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
7:00 PM to Close
,Of NORTH C
PF' ~O~
y v
'O ~.
9qn fi'
Y `',
July 13, 2004

PURPOSE OF PROJECT
he project calls for widening existing Brawley School Road (SR 1100) from Chuckwood Road
(SR 1177) to US 21 with a proposed interchange at Interstate 77. The purpose of the proposed
Brawley School Road widening and associated transportation improvements is to improve access
and route connectivity, reduce traffic congestion from current and anticipated growth, and improve
safety for travelers along this section of Brawley School Road.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is one step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning process. The NCDOT is soliciting your
views on the design of the proposed widening of Brawley School Road and proposed interchange at
Interstate 77 in Iredell County.
The NCDOT's planning and environmental studies on the above project are presented in the
environmental document -Environmental Assessment. Copies of this report and today's hearing
map are available for public review at the Mooresville Engineering Department at the Mooresville
Executive Center at 201 North Church Street, Mooresville. The map showing the proposed widening
of Brawley School Road and the proposed interchange at Interstate 77 (TIP Project R-3833) and the
Environmental Assessment are also available for review at today's hearing.

YOUR PARTICIPATION
Several representatives of the NCDOT are present at this meeting. They are available to talk with
you, explain the design to you and answer your questions. Now that the opportunity ~is here, you are
encouraged to participate by voicing your comments and asking questions of the NCDOT
representatives at this meeting. You may also use the comment sheet (attached.} to comment or ask
questions and leave it with one of the NCDOT representatives tonight, or by mailing the comment
sheet to us during the 30 days following the Public Hearing. You can also participate by having your
comments recorded during the formal part of the Public Hearing tonight.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. Ed Lewis, Senior Public Hearing Officer
Public Involvement Unit/ Office of Human Environment
NCDOT
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important, however, that THE
PINt0i1VS' OF ALL' INDIVIDUALS BE"RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY
Y BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such, are out of place at public hearings.
so, the public hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the alignment
by a majority vote of those present.

WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?

A post-hearing meeting will be conducted after the comment period has ended. NCDOT staff
representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Division, Right of Way, Public Involvement & Community
Studies and others who play a role in the development of a project will attend this meeting. When
appropriate, representatives from local government also attend. All spoken and written issues are
discussed at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post hearing meeting. The NCDOT
considers safety, costs, traffic service, social impacts and public comments in making decisions.
Complex issues may require additional study and may be reviewed by higher management, Board of
Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of Transportation. Minutes of the post-hearing
meeting are prepared and this summary is available to the public. You may request this document on
the attached comment sheet. The project will also be reviewed with federal agencies such the
Federal Highway Administration and the Corps of Engineers as well as state agencies such as the
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
Brawley School Road is considered a local road under the 1993 Rural Road System of
Thoroughfares, which consists of those roads outside the Urban Thoroughfare Planning Boundaries.
Brawley School Road is also classified as a Rural Local Road in the North Carolina Functional
Classification System, and it is in the Rural State Secondary Road System. Brawley School Road is
also listed as a' Major Thoroughfare in the Mooresville Thoroughfare. Plan adopted in 1998. Brawley
School Road is the only road accessing the Brawley School peninsula from Williamson Road (SR
1109) westward. The peninsula has become a Charlotte bedroom community as well as a resort •
area due to its proximity to Lake Norman, and it is experiencing rapid residential growth. In addition,
there are several schools in the area, and Brawley School Road is used by a high number of school
buses.
Traffic on this section of Brawley School Road will continue to increase. Cun-ently, average daily
traffic flow ranges from 7,800 to 24,800 vehicles. By the year 2030, traffic volumes are forecasted to
range from 9,200 to 44,700 vehicles per day. Traffic congestion will. continue to get worse and
overall travel time will increase if no improvements are made. The construction of additional travel
lanes will increase transportation capacity and reduce traffic congestion.
Crash data along this section of Brawley School Road indicates the total crash rate for the section of
Brawley School Road is less than the statewide average for all similar routes, with most crashes
resulting from slowed or stopped traffic. Brawley School Road, with its 18 to 20-foot pavement width
and narrow shoulders, does not meet the secondary road standard fortwo-lane roads (two 12-foot
lanes with 3-foot shoulders). Multi-laving Brawley School Road with provisions for left turn lanes and
the improved sight distance should reduce the number of these types of crashes. In addition, there
are three intersections along Brawley School Road (Williamson Road, Stuffs Road, and Oak Tree
Road) that have experienced crashes at a rate to be sited as high crash locations. The proposed
improvements should improve safety at these locations also.
The amount of commercial development along Brawley School Road has increased substantially as
a result of the large residential population west of Interstate 77. The traffic that is destined for
Charlotte and Statesville cannot access Interstate 77 from Brawley School Road. Instead, this trafi, _
is using local roads such as Williamson Road (SR 1109) and NC 150 which contributes to traffic
congestion on these roads. The construction of an interchange at Interstate 77 will help reduce
congestion along the local roads and provide direct access to Interstate 77.

The purpose of the proposed Brawley School Road widening and Interstate 77 interchange project is
o improve access and route continuity, reduce traffic congestion, and improve safety for travelers
long this section of Brawley School Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NCDOT proposes to widen a 6.1 mile section of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road) from SR 1177
(Chuckwood Road) to US 21 with a proposed interchange at Interstate 77. Several sharp curves
along Brawley School Road will be improved. Brawley School Road will be widened to a four-lane,
median-divided road with curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides. The travel lanes next to the
proposed median will be 12 feet in width, and the travel lanes next to the proposed curb and gutter
will be 16 feet in width to allow motor vehicle/bicycle shared use (see Figure 2). The bridge carrying
Brawley School Road over Interstate 77 will be replaced as part of the proposed interchange
construction. In the vicinity of the proposed interchange at I-77, the SR 1196 (Gibbs Road)
intersection with Brawley School Road will be relocated to the west requiring the construction of a
connector road between Gibbs Road and Brawley School Road.on new location to the south and
west of Gibbs Road. Several roads that intersect with Brawley School Road will require additional
work as well
The proposed median for Brawley School Road will prohibit left turns into and out of individual
properties along the project. In addition, motorists will be prohibited from making left turns into and
ut of some of the intersecting roads with Brawley School Road. Motorists will be required to turn
~ght onto Brawley School Road and proceed to the next intersection where they will be permitted to
make a left turn.
Although the posted speed limit has not been finalized at this time, it is projected to be within the 45
miles per hour range through the entire project.
The project is divided into three sections, A, 6, and C. Section A is from Chuckwood Road to
Williamson Road, Section B is from Williamson Road to Talbert Road, and Section C is from Talbert
Road to US 21. Right of way acquisition and construction schedules for each section are shown
below:
Pro osed Ri ht of Wa and Construction Sc hedule
Section A B C
Right of Way September-05 July-05 Post Year"
Construction September-07 July-07 Post Year*
Post Year indicates scheduled sometime after 2010. Please note
that schedules are subject to change.

STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the Statue
Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal funds and 20% State
Funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of projects on
the Federal Aid System, their location, design, and maintenance cost after construction. The Federal
Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal-Aid Project is designed, constructed, and maintained to
Federal-Aid Standards.
PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: 6.1 miles
Typical Sections: Four-lane median divided (see attached Figure 2)
Right of Way: 60 to 90 feet existing, 120 feet proposed
Relocatees: Residences: 23
Businesses: 12
Total:. ~ 35
Estimated Cost: Roadway Cost: $ 36,700,000
Right of Way Cost: $ 14.563,600
Total: $ 51,263,600
FIGURE 1
Project Location
s
P
P
M
.. r 0
17
A
„ P „ H* ~N
N ~ N
N ..
rr i
~C - A ~
K ~ ~ ~
M M
nn
No _.~~

\ ts~IN PR~JE~ . .
R-~833A
N
R~8338
•
~~
~~
'.' MH
. ~..
H
~..y N
~:c'
P
h
~ ~
Ii
R~833C --1
P ^~ H ~ ~~~
N
N N~

•
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right of way limits will
be staked in the ground. Affected owners of property will be contacted by a Right of
Way Agent and a meeting will be arranged. The agent will explain the plans and the
property owner will be advised as to how the project will affect him. The agent will
inform you of your rights as a property owner If permanent right of way is required,
professionals who are familiar with real estate values will evaluate or appraise your
property. The evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and
accuracy and then a written offer wilt be made to you by the Right of Way Agent. The
current market value of the property at its highest and best use when it is appraised will
be offered as compensation. The Department of Transportation must:
1. 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 ASSISTANCE
ff 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. You will also be provided with assis - nce on locations of comparable
housing and/or commercial establishments, m~ ~ Ong 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.
The Right of Way Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail.
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING R/GNT OF WAYAND RELOCATION
PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE MODERATOR'S TABLE.
•

120'
'~
N EXhI
cD
fl.
O ~~
~ C
fl. ~
~ N
.a
t~
(15' W GR!
7
0~
~5' SIDE~YALK

4'
RIGHT OF WAY
~z ~ it it
9 9
1
~~
~~~~~
GRADE TO THIS UNE
GRADE TO THIS UNE
4'
81KE 10'
LANE (15' W/GRl
' ' 02
'S' SIDEWAlX

EXISTING
• • •

COMMENT SHEET
Proposed Brawley School Road Widening from Chuckwood Road to US 21
Public Hearing -July 13, 2004
TIP Project No. R-3833 Iredell County Project 34554.1.1
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
~_
Comments may be mailed within 30 days of the July 13th public hearing to:
Ed Lewis, Senior Public Involvement Officer
Public Involvement, Office of Human Environment
N. C. Department Of Transportation
1583 i~1ail Service Center
aleigh, NC 276.99-1583
~'elephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]

•
Appendix C
•
•

•
•
REQUEST FOR R/W COST ESTIMATE
DATE RECEIVED: 10-04-04 DISTRIBUTED: 10-04-04 REVISION:
I.D. NUMBER: R-3833
PROJECT NUMBER: 34554.1.1
COUNTY: IREDELL
ENGINEER: STEPHAI~TIE CAUDILL / PDEA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD): FROM SR 1177 (CHUCKWOOD ROADI TO US
21 WITH A PROPOSED SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AT I-77 IN
MORRISEVILLE ~ ,
TYPE OF PLANS FURNISHED FOR ESTIMATE: PRELIMINARY
DATE DUE: 12-03-04
PRIOR ESTIMATES OF LAND AND DAMAGES (WITH DATES):
N/A
IF INCREASES OR DECREASES ARE SIGNIFICANT,.PLEASE EXPLAIN:
N/A
AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN ADDDED TO LAND AND DAMAGE TO COVER
CONDEMNATION AND ADMIlJISTRATIVE INCREASES: $ AND/OR 30%
ESTIMATED BY: BARBARA MORTON COMPLETED DATE: 12-03-04
UTILITY COMPLETED DATE: 12-14-04
ALTERNATES
1
ESTIMATED NO.OF PARCELS: 272
RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS: 38 / 456 000
BUSINESS RELOCATIONS: 28 / 420 000
LAND AND DAMAGE: 37 400 000
UTILITIES: 3 000 000
AC UISTION: 1600 000
TOTAL ESTIMATED R/W COST: 42 876 000
•

X^ E.I.S. ^ CORRIDOR ^ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
_ ~: 34554.1.1 couNTY IREDEL;L Altemate
I.D. NO.: R-3833 F.A. PROJECT STP-150 11
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: WIDENING OF BRAWLEY SCHOOL RD.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 29 1 30 0 2 28
Businesses 12 2 14 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-2oM S 0-150 0-2oM 0 S 0-150
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 0 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 4o-70M 250.400 1 40-70M 0 250-400 5
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M ~ 400-600 70-100M 10 400-600 5
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 10o uP 2Y 600 uP 10o uP $5 600 uP 10
displacement?
X 3. Will business services still be available
after project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
X 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X ~ 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
~ X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source). •
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 118 MONTHS
TOTAL 291 I 11 I 451 I 201
~ REMARKS (Respond by Number) I
4.
A. HARBORSIDE PEDIATRICS, 5 EMPLOYEES, NO
MINORTTES
B. COLDWELL BANKER, UNITED REALTY, 5 EMPLOYEES
NO MINORITES
C. LANCE ARMSTRONG COLDWELL BANKER, 7
EMPLOYEES, NO MINORITIES
D. POMPEII DENTISTRY, 4 EMPLOYEES , NO MINORITIES
E.CAROLINA SPRINGS AUTO SPA, 10 EMPLOYEES ,2
MINORITIES
F. MEDICAP PHARMACY, 4 EMPLOYEES, NO MINORITIES
G. THE SUNSET GRILL, 5 EMPLOYEES, NO MINORITIES
H. SURFACE SOLUTION, 3 EMPLOYEES, NO MINORITIES
I. DRY CLEANING BY CHERYL LYNN , 8 EMPLOYEES ; NO
MINORITIES
J. N.J. PENNA ORTHODONIST , 4 EMPLOYEES, NO
MINORITIES
K. LAKE NORMAN TIMES, 4 EMPLOYEES , NO MINORITIES
L. MATERIAL DEPOT , 6 EMPLOYEES; NO MINORITIES
M. PT. HARBOR MARINE, 4 EMPLOYEES, NO MINORITIES
N. TOM ENTERPRISES, 4 EMPLOYEES, NO MINORITIES
6. IREDELL CO. , MLS. ,LOCAL PAPER
8. LAST RESORT HOUSING WILL BE ADMINISTERED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
11. PUBLIC HOUSING AND SECTION 8 HOUSING WILL BE
UTILIZED WHEN NECESSARY.
12. BASED ON CURRENT HOUSING TRENDS IN THE AREA,
COMPARABLE HOUSING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE.
14. REFER TO NUMBER 6
JY' "'~ hij ~ir , ~ ~t,- l 2 - ~ -D
1 of 1 Alternate
'~ - ~? ~ i~ 12!304 I ~ 12-06-04

•
APPENDIX E
COORDINATION LETTERS AND
RESPONSES
• ution list
1. Project scoping letter and distnb
2. Environmental Assessment distribution letters (see Appendix D)
3. Other agency comments (see Appendix D)
4. Permits/certifications (to be included in final FERC permit application)
s. Agreements (to be included in final FERC permit application)
Contact Person: Kristina L. Solberg, P.E.
NCDOT PDEA Branch
[phone] extension 259

February 2008

•
May 1, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: «NAME»
«DEPT»
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for widening of SR 1100 (Brawley School Road)
from SR 1177 to US 21 to multi-lanes with a diamond interchange
at I-77, Iredell County, Federal Aid Project No STP-150(11), State
Project No. 8.1823301, TIP No. R-3833
A Scoping meeting for the Subject project is scheduled for May 24, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in
the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed widening of SR 1100 and to establish the
scope and schedule for this project. Attached are Scoping sheets for your use. 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, please call Kristina Solberg, E.I.T., Project Development Engineer,
at 733-7844, Ext. 243.
WDG/plr
Attachment

ief; East. Div. of Project Review
dvisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, #809
Washington, D. C. 20004
Environmental Review Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Chief of Planning & Environmental Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Director
eral Emergency Management Adm.
03 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30341-4148
Mr. Brian Cole, Field Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
•
N. C. State Publications Clearinghouse
Documents Branch
Div. of State Library
4643 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4643
Mr. Chris Militscher
EPA - C/O Federal Highway Administration
T. Sanford Federal Courthouse
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Mr. Steve Lund
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Regional Director
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Atlanta Regional Office
3125 Presidential Parkway -Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30340

,. Robert Collier
Yost Office Box 346
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Mr. Ron Smith
Iredell County Planner
Post Office Box 788
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Mooresville Engineering Department
Post Office Box 878
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
•
•
Mr. Joel R. Mashburn
Iredell County Manager
Post Office Box 788
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Mr. Erskine Smith
Mooresville Town Manager
Post Office Box 878
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Mooresville Planning Department
Post Office Box 878
Mooresville, North Carolina 281 I5

. Steve Lund
. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Field Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
•

•
•
•
NAME AGENCY AGENCY2
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director State Clearin house Dept. of Administration
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow Division of Archives and History Dept. of Cultural Resources
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief School Planning Dept. of Public Instruction
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P. E. Hydraulics Unit
Mr. W. D. Johnson Roadside Environmental Unit
Mr. W. L. Moore, III. P.G., P. E. Geotechnical Unit Head
Mr. Charles W. Brown, P. E., PLS Location and Surveys Unit Head
Mr. John B. Williamson, Jr. Ri t of Way Branch Manager
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P. E. Traffic Engineering Branch
Mr. Curtis Yates Office of Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation
Mr. William H. Williams, Jr. Director of Aviation Division
Mr. J. D. Goins, P. E. Chief Engineer -Operations
Mr. lames B. Harris, P. E. Engineering Manager, Rail
Division
Mr. David Hinnant, State Railroad
Agent Utilities Section Right of Way Branch
Mr. John Hennessy Division of Water
Quality/Wetlands 1621 Mail Service Center
Mr. David Cox N. C. Wildlife Resources Comm.
Mr. M. L. Holder Division Engineer, Division 12

•
APPENDIX F
PHOTOGRAPHS OF CONVEYANCE
PROJECT AREA
•

February 2008

FERC Conveyance Application Photographs NCDOT TIP R-3833 Brawley School Road
•
•

Appendix F, Page 1
racing ivortb. Proposed Gibbs itoad (Y4-line) relocation. Station 22+86 near FERC boundary.

FERC Conveyance Application Photographs NCDOT TIP R-3833 Brawley School Road
•
•
•
Appendix F, Page 2
Facing EAST. Proposed Gibbs Road relocation centerline, middle section of FERC boundary.

FERC Conveyance Application Photographs NCDOT TIP R-3833 Brawley School Road
s
•
•
Appendix F, Page 3
Facing NORTHEAST. FERC boundary.

FERC Conveyance Application Photographs NCDOT TIP R-3833 Brawley School Road
•
•
•
Appendix F, Page 4

FERC Conveyance Application Photographs NCDOT TIP R-3833 Brawley School Road
•
•

:h - -
a _~ ~ r ,~
~ ~qq ~ R
~i ~ ~ - °~
Appendix F, Page 5
racing Northeast. Brawley School Koad L-line. Southwest quadrant
Facing NORTH. Brawley School Road. UT (Unnamed tributary) under bridge.

FERC Conveyance Application Photographs NCDOT TIP R-3833 Brawley School Road
•
•
Appendix F, Page 6
racing r,A~ r. u r under Brawley School Road bridge.
racing ~A51. u'1' under Brawley School Road bridge.

•
APPENDIX G
PROFILE OF NEW BRIDGE and CULVERT

Contact Person: W. Kevin Fischer, P.E.
NCDOT Structure Design Unit
[phone]
•
February. 2008

~:
~,
z
u~ ~
~,°
~~~
~ ~~
~ ~~
w~'~
~~~
~~a
w~»Z
r~~
~~~
~ rAU
~»w~
~~~
wow
~~w
~~~
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets
~" e / vlC~y.
~7 ( ~' I
1 !~ i lul
~;~~
BEGIN ~ ,
1`wl
~ I
- /
I ~I~J
~~
r L n ~ ~i
~~~
Li
. ~ `,.
;- soh.
AnrF~ ; ~/i,~.~l
~ \ ~~/ R LL
_~,/~\~ / op 20,096 t
-° ~`~ ~,
„ ~~ ~ I
/ "
~~ ~
:, ~ ~ \ ~ D L
I ,
Lake
VICINITY MAP

a
'~' l0
r,~
a
~~,('~~~ll~(lle ~1Jill' i~~ud ~~j ll jll~ll 'li f]l ~Q©~~~5~1
IREDELL COUNTY
rtAn eAn IAwrr ulnuNa w. a¢~r rmA
mini
N•~• R-3 833B 1
RA'10. NIOI.Im I.ANId.Np NL1VIfM1
34554.1.1 STP-15011 P.E.
34554.2.3 STP-1100 20 WW UTL

LOCATION: SR 1100 (BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD) FROM EAST OF
SR 1109 (WILLIAMSON ROAD) TO EAST OF WINGHA[~EN COURT
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE,PAVING,SIGNING,SIGNALS,
AND STRUCTURES
-YB-
!0 SR 1116 (TALB£RT ROADI
N` END BRIDGE 278+68. -Y9-
\\ WINGHAVEN COURT
~~~~, BEGIN BRIDGE 271+09,56
~~,
~~` i u
-YIO-
RRNATE ROAD
4F
~~~r~
1
l
1
.r.
1
1
~1
-Y72- ,
DRNE
X12
STA. 129+50.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT R-3833A
STA.229+50.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT R-3833B
\ -YI-
ROLUNG HILLS ROAD
/~I;- 1
I ~~ ~
~~
~~ ~.
-Y4-
GlBBS ROAD ~R~ ~Z
RECONNECT BEGIN 8R1DGE STA 23+36.00
END BRIDGE STA 2
/ ,~ \
+~ \
® `~ \
1 \
~'
~~~
c ~~
~,d s
STA. 30I +02.08 ~ END TIP PROJECT R-38338
1 13
~' ~~,
~ta ,
Via. i ~ 1
~';~ 16 I ~
`~ `.e. ) o
\ .yam ~ ,.
\ li
~ I\
/ ~` \ .
~ ~ ~~ I ,~ \
;' ~
;, , \
,- '`.;
,~;
~ -n-
SR 2906 (SUNE/SH ORNE1
-Y3-
I SR 1196 GBBS ROAD
SERVICE ROAD
-Y6-
~~, 1-77
;e
~~
;~~,
~ ~ ~~ THIS I5 A PARTIAL CONTROLLED-ACCESS
`~,~~;~ N PROIECT WITH THE ACCESS BEING LIMITED
"G4"~ , TO POINTS SHOWN ON PLANS
\,"
-Yf3- ~'" PRELIMINARY PLANS
C '^C M GO NOT W8 Po0. CON97RUCI'ION
ORNf
~~
~ ~
~'~
~~
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT ~~l
SHALL BE PREFORMED TO THE ~
LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III `~I
~~ ~~
~~~~~'
NCDOT CONTACT.• B. DOUG TAYLOR, P.E.

•

~, IACIEQ A¢EtEN~ No. s"ERT No.
v
n
m
sa~aw~r aEac" xmEwua
AREA #1 SECTION ~' E~"°~
EhJGi"EEA 6JCINEEI
PROP GRADE
STA 265-fO8 -L-
EL=774.0
~ '~
~~
~ Ci1LVERT ~~'
~~
-~__------- ~ EXIST -~rJ//
`''~_~_ I __~ STRC ~ `_
EXIST ~ `\°~~~'~-~-___ ~~ -_~~'
~~
EL=769.88 ~ ~
I EXIST
~ EL=769.79
~ ~
2'slu
TYP.
EXIST
312'x8' RCBC EL=759.48
INV EL=758.40
Z
0
YI
AREA #2 SECTION
END BRIDGE
PROP GRADE
BEG BRIDGE PROP GRADE STA 25+45 -Y4-
PROP GRADE STA 24+4050 -Y4- EL=76897
STA 23f36 -Y4- EL=76751
EL=766.05
' i
i
~~~ EX15T ( ~-EXIST e
EL=760T0 i
c "'~
0
EXIST _/~~N_
EL=757.51 ~ EXIST
p ~ EL=757.62
~ I .
r
i `~
STREAM
Q
E
a
m~
$'
r
_`s"•
INCOMPLE E PLANS
ro rror vB roe • ncomemm+
PRELIbfIN Y PLANS

APPENDIX H
CONVEYANCE USER AGREEMENT LETTER
Contact Person: Kristina L. Solberg, P.E.
NCDOT PDEA Branch
[phone] extension 259
•
•

~~
e r-~
„~.
•~ a~.w ~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTT~ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Duke Energy
c/o Lake Management - X~~XX
PO Box 1600
Ch to 82 -10
RE: Wi ening o Brawley cool oad (SR 1100) from Chuckwood
Road (SR 1177) to US 21 in Mooresville, Iredell County, North
Carolina. TIP Project R-3833.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) hereby agrees to comply with all
requirements and conditions set forth by Duke Energy's Lake Management office, or any federal,
state or local agencies pertaining to our application to widen Brawley School Road. In addition,
1/we have read and agree to comply with Duke Energy's Shoreline Management Guideline's
(SMG) and understand that written authorization must be obtained from Duke's Lake
Management office prior to beginning any activity/ construction within the project boundary.
The construction will be completed as described in the approved application and within eighteen
(18) months from the date of approval by Lake Management. Failure to complete construction
within the build-out or extension period will require the, applicant to file a new application within
the then-current guidelines. The filing will include any applicable fees and security deposits.
I/we attest to be the owner or lease holder of the tract of lands immediately adjoining the project
boundary.
I/we agree to be fully responsible for the permitted reservoir use including maintaining structures
in good repair. "If the facility is deemed unsafe by a Lake Management Representative, I/we
agree to repair or remove the facility at my/our own expense and within the specified timeframe.
This responsibility is considered to transfer automatically along with ownership and leases of the
adjoining tract.
I/we understand that I/we must execute this user's agreement letter and enter into a conveyance
agreement for the area within the project boundary. Duke Energy will provide the proposed
Instrument of Conveyance (Permit) for the project land.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILNNNGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

I/we understand that the proposed facilities will be used only for the purpose described in the
information submitted for approval by Lake Management and other appropriate governing bodies
as applicable.
I/we understand that the information provided in the application and reviewed by the agencies
includes all activities within the reservoir boundary that support this project. Subsequent
additional activities will not be submitted for incorporation in the original proposal without filing
a new application, and incurring additional filing fees and deposits.
If during construction and extension period is needed, I/we must file a written request with Lake
Management explaining why the additional time is needed. If the extension is granted, the new
construction maybe required to comply with any additional guidelines that are imposed due to
regulatory and/or business requirements.
I/we understand that this lake is open for use by the general public and that maintaining safe and
lawful public use is one of the primary lake management objectives of Duke Energy.
I/we understand that the use for which we are applying must not interfere with the general
public's safe and lawful use of the lake.
1/we understand that there will be no change in hydro project operations as a result of
construction and/or utilization of the proposed facilities.
I/we agree to notify Lake Management when construction is initiated and completed. During the
construction period, the weatherproof of "Duke Energy Approved Lake Use Activit}~' sign (to be
provided by Duke Energy) must be posted at the job site, visible from the water's edge.
I/we agree to provide and maintain appropriate signage and/or warning devises necessary for the
safe construction and operation of proposed facilities.
I/we recognize that it is my/our responsibility to cleazly locate in the field and labels on my/our
work aze drawings any azeas that require specific protection or.avoidance during this excavation
work. Examples of these protection/avoidance azeas include any environmental azeas or natural
areas as identified by Duke, jurisdictional wetlands, historic properties, raze or threatened species
and buried gas, water, sewer or electric lines.
I/we understand that every reasonable effort must be made to minimize any adverse impact on
fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.
I/we understand that Duke Energy maintains the right to require payment for the loss of
hydroelectric energy and capacity resulting from withdrawal of water from the hydroelectric
reservoir.
I/we agree that reasonable water conservation measures will be implemented during drought
conditions.
1/we understand that interbasin transfers do impact the project and that such transfers should be
kept to the lowest practical levels.

I/we understand that trees and vegetation growing below the project boundary play an important
role in the overall environmental condition of the lake. The ecological impact the vegetation has
on the fish and wildlife habitat is necessary to ensure a sound and healthy lake environment. I/we
also understand that unauthorized removal of shoreline vegetation (i.e. button bushes, willows,
cattails, etc.) and/or disturbance of the shoreline buffer may result in suspension of denial of lake
use permitting requests and reestablishment of vegetation, if the disturbance is found to be in
violation of the state or county watershed buffer regulations.
I/we agree to notify Lake Management if the property is sold and provide the name and address
of the new owner. I/we have included a check for any applicable fees and/or security deposits.
I/we understand that the security deposit will be refunded when construction is completed in
accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
1/we understand that Lake Management representatives may issue Stop Work Directives for any
violations of the SMG and that other consequences may result from such violations, including
but not limited to suspension or cancellation of approved applications, increase. in fees,
modification or removal ofnon-complying structures and restoration of disturbed areas at the
owner's expense of loss of any consideration for future reservoir use applications.
Sincerely,
•
Applicants Signature
Gregory J Thorpe, Ph.D.
Applicant's Name
•